Gingrich Drops? Shirtless Mitt; Santorum Complains; MSM Hates Mitt; Illinois & Louisiana! (Applebee’s CEO Touts GMR’s Many Strengths — Video)

THANK YOU to all Puerto Rico voters for your overwhelming support of Governor Romney today! — CONGRATULATIONS to you and to Governor Romney!

##############################################################

There has been one article after another talking about how Gingrich needs to get out of the race to benefit Santorum and to make this a two-man, face-to-face run for the nomination. Often, the implication is that the vast majority of Gingrich voters will swing to Santorum. Even the TV pundits seem to be touting some inherent weakness in Romney that only allows him to garner “one third of all the votes in any given primary” etc.

If you were to believe the MSM (and most passive voters do), you would conclude that Romney is failing miserably and that the perpetual Gingrich ego trip only helps Romney to keep the “anti-Romney” vote splintered — nevermind that Romney is winning in every category! It is simply wishful thinking and has no basis in fact (see Michael Medved’s reasoning as to why the “Major Mainstream Media” hate Mitt Romney at the end of this post).

Let’s look at what happens if Mr. Newt were to walk away from the limelight — behavior that would belie his self-interest. Dante Chinni wrote an outstanding article Friday in The Wall Street Journal, titled, “Politics Counts: Who Benefits If Gingrich Drops Out?”

The most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found the dynamics of the national race would not change dramatically if it were a simple Romney-Santorum showdown. With the four current candidates in the field Mr. Romney leads Mr. Santorum 38% to 32%. If it is just the two of them in the running Mr. Romney still leads 45% to 40%.
[…]
The vast majority of Illinois voters live in the big city Industrial Metropolis of Cook County, home of Chicago, and the wealthy Monied Burb counties that surround it. So the net Newt impact would probably be pretty small. The same would probably true in upcoming primaries in Wisconsin, New York and Connecticut.

Louisiana, which votes Saturday March 24, is a very different story. In Louisiana, 70% of the population lives in Minority Central counties and 18% live in the Boom Towns. In other words, if form follows, the Gingrich vote there could play a very big role in who ultimately wins the state. The same might also be true in states like North Carolina and Kentucky that are still ahead.

[emphasis added]

Also Friday, Gallup published an article that included the latest results of one of its surveys to show categorically who “Gingrich voters” would likely support if he were to exit the race. Do you think we will hear much about this in the MSM? It is highly unlikely! Why? See Michael Medved’s article at the end of this post.

FROM THE GALLUP STUDY:

Republican voters who prefer Newt Gingrich for the party’s 2012 presidential nomination are as likely to name Mitt Romney as their second choice as they are to name Rick Santorum, suggesting the race would not tilt in Santorum’s favor if Gingrich dropped out.
[…]
Some conservative Republicans have called for Gingrich to drop out of the race on the assumption that conservative primary voters would then unite behind Santorum as the conservative alternative to the more moderate Romney. But Gallup data indicate that Gingrich voters would not be likely to coalesce behind Santorum, suggesting that factors other than candidate ideology may be attracting voters to Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney.

Gallup can simulate Republican preferences without Gingrich in the race by removing Gingrich votes and reassigning them to his voters’ second-choice candidate. The results of this procedure suggest that national GOP preferences would change little if Gingrich dropped out. The reconfigured preferences show Romney getting 40% of the vote and Santorum getting 33%. That seven-percentage-point Romney lead is essentially the same as the six-point (34% to 28%) Romney lead in March 8-15 interviewing with Gingrich support included.
[…]
Thus, Santorum may not benefit much from Gingrich dropping out because the most conservative voters already support Santorum to a large degree, and Gingrich’s appeal to this group is not substantially greater than Romney’s.

[Gallup continues below the fold + Medved + Chart + Photos]…

If two candidates for a presidential nomination compete in the same ideological space, it would make sense that if one dropped out that the other would benefit. But that does not appear to be the case for the 2012 Republican nomination. While Gingrich and Santorum are thought to be competing for the same conservative voters, it is more the case that Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney are competitive among conservatives. For many Gingrich supporters, Romney — not Santorum — would be their fallback option if Gingrich dropped out.
[…]
Thus, for Santorum to overtake Romney, it may not be as simple as picking up additional support from Gingrich voters should the former speaker of the House drop out, since Romney would likely benefit at least as much as Santorum. Rather, Santorum would also likely need to cut into Romney’s current base of support to gain ground on the frontrunner.

[emphasis added]

Santorum’s whining continued today on the Candy Crowley show. She challenged Mr. Santorum’s executive leadership skills and ability (not to mention being unprepared) by pointing out that he could not even get the “full slates” of delegates in Tennessee, Ohio, and Illinois and that he completely missed Virginia. She asked him this question, “What does that say about your ability to manage when you can’t even get these process things done.” [Santorum was smiling like a Cheshire cat the entire time] This is where the whining started. He complained about Romney’s resources (campaign funds), large organization (“huge staff”), his early start, etc. If he had more time, he would have listed, I’m certain, his endorsements, etc.

Let me see if I got this right. Crowley just got through ripping him for lack of executive ability, organization, and preparation. So, Mr. Santorum decides to answer by effectively saying that Gov. Romney was well prepared, had laid the groundwork to raise funds and hire a team, had gotten started early, and was extremely well prepared. Admitting it all in a whining tone. He even ended that exchange by touting how he was running his Iowa campaign out of a pick-up truck, “with Chuck” (he failed to mention his lobbying Democrats to vote for him in later states). In other words, he is basically saying to the world, “Look how well I have done on a shoestring!”

Oh, and by the way, all of the above strengths of Gov. Romney are rooted in votes! Gov. Romney received his campaign funds from — people who voted with their money. His organization is made up of tens of thousands of volunteers nationwide, in addition to professional staff he hired — people who voted with their time, energy, and feet to support him. Santorum laughs nervously at the enormous endorsement base supporting Gov. Romney — people in the know that voted for him by putting their reputations on the line for him — all across this nation.

To follow Mr. Santorum’s reasoning, we should nominate the candidate that is the least prepared overall, has the fewest resources, cannot organize large numbers of people across huge states like Illinois, Florida, and California, cannot attract national endorsements in any state, and that is running a campaign on a shoestring out of a pick-up truck with Chuck’s help. That is the person we should choose to go up against one of the most gifted campaigners of any incumbent President in modern history? — And who will be able to outspend Santorum by 50 to 1?

Obama would eat him alive.

What irks me the most about Santorum is how he is now regularly lying about Gov. Romney’s record everywhere he goes. He can’t blame surrogates for that. As he struggles to talk up his candidacy — while falling further behind in delegates and popular votes — his rhetoric is becoming more strident and we are starting to see that chip on the shoulder emerge again in Mr. Santorum.

THREE ARTICLES WITH GOOD INSIGHT INTO THE OTHER TENTS:

1) “A look at long-shot strategy by long-shot Santorum” (AP)

2) “Santorum Camp to Release ‘New Delegate Math’” (FOX News)

3) “Gingrich calls on Romney to Stop Negative Ads” (AP) — [Newt does not like truth-letting]

Candidly, when you have virtually the entire media world against him, it is actually incredible that Gov. Romney is doing as well as he is. Even those on the right, like Limbaugh and Levin, have been against Romney and it seems quite obvious to me and others that these “entertainers” benefit to a much greater degree when a Democrat is in office. If that is true, there may be a desire on their part to put forward a weaker Republican candidate to go up against Obama. I would love to see the numbers, but I am certain that Limbaugh’s revenue drops tremendously when a good, strong conservative is in the White House.

Earlier this week, Michael Medved wrote an article that was published in The Daily Beast, titled, “Why the Major Mainstream Media Hate Mitt Romney” — Those who are regular visitors to this website understand well what Medved states below.

At the same time that conservative critics deride Mitt Romney as a synthetic creature of an arrogant, out-of-touch establishment, leading voices of that same establishment (the prestige press, powerful pundits, cable and network news) have developed an obvious and undeniable hostility toward the former Massachusetts governor.

Why would the most influential elements of the mainstream media nourish this special contempt for the one candidate of the GOP Final Four who, by virtue of his elite family history, Harvard education, and moderate political past, might most plausibly appeal to Manhattan mandarins and Beltway Brahmins?
[...]
Even the most cursory examination of primary coverage by The New York Times demonstrates that the Journal of Record despises the GOP frontrunner to an unprecedented extent and tirelessly attempts to discredit him.

On March 10, a typical headline proclaimed: “On Romney Song List, Guys Win, 18 to 1.” The shocking report by Jon Pareles revealed the scandalous news that the 19 song playlist released by the Romney campaign included only one title by a female (Carrie Underwood’s “All-American Girl”) and two contributions by African-American artists (vintage numbers by Nat King Cole and the Commodores). The clear implication seemed to be that the Mittster’s deeply conservative taste in pop music revealed his sexist and racist outlook, especially since the playlist also featured two songs (count ’em—two!) by the Las Vegas band the Killers, whose lead singer has become a national spokesman for (wait for it) … the Mormon Church.

As if this expose didn’t count as damaging enough, a front-page story on the same day highlighted Romney’s allegedly geeky, cold, and off-putting personality. Under the headline “Legislators Recall a Governor Who Didn’t Mingle,” Michael Barbaro noted [...] “Mr. Romney’s “awkward style and aloof manner” [...] The lengthy report rehearses a long list of petty slights from a legislature that was at the time more than 85 percent Democratic [...]
Meanwhile, the same report observes in passing that Romney vetoed 844 bills (an unsurpassable all-time record); failed in sweeping, radical efforts to transform the state’s judicial, university, and transit systems; and launched an ambitious (but unsuccessful) $3 million campaign to oust 131 Democratic legislators and replace them with loyal Republicans. What The New York Times never bothers to suggest is that this history gives substance to Mitt’s controversial claim that he was “a severely conservative governor.” Certainly, his willingness to confront the legislature, reshape key institutions, and launch a daring (if doomed) partisan pushback against lopsided Democratic majorities gives the lie to prevailing claims that his time as governor constituted the timid term of a “mushy Massachusetts moderate.” But the story inThe Times gives no hint of this possible perspective, because it might be construed as favorable to Romney’s cause.

Instead, the Journal of Record reported on Rick Santorum’s surging campaign in Kansas, where he “spoke with conviction, sometimes shouting, and he was enthusiastically cheered by a couple hundred supporters in a rally at an airplane hangar.” That same campaign wrap-up (from Trip Gabriel) simultaneously mocked Mr. Romney, “who embraced his inner Southerner” during a stop in Mississippi but then, “by the time he got to Alabama later in the day, the Southern act was gone.”

Finally, the most withering dismissal of Romney’s candidacy (all in the same day’s newspaper, remember) came on the editorial page, with comments from columnists Charles M. Blow and Gail Collins.
[...]
Meanwhile, Gail Collins predictably recalled the infamous “dog on the car roof” story, treating a Romney family vacation in 1983 as the central focus of her campaign coverage. Two days before (March 8th) she devoted her entire column to the tale (or tail), reviving the memory of the long-dead (and much lamented) Seamus the Irish setter who rode in a kennel on top of a station wagon when the Romneys and their five sons made a road trip to Canada 29 years ago. Like Cato the Elder who concluded every speech, on any subject, before the ancient Roman Senate with the ringing declaration “Carthago delenda est” (“Carthage must be destroyed”), Ms. Collins inserts some reference to Seamus in every column about the GOP campaign.

She acknowledges she has “brought this episode up like about 10 million times already” and says that she does so “because the Republican primary campaign has been an extremely long and depressing slog, and we need all the diversion we can get.” Meanwhile, she’s never acknowledged that the source of the original story was the Romney sons, who recalled the incident affectionately and admiringly about the father they idolize, nor has she taken note of the fact that Seamus not only survived the journey on the car roof without damage or complaint, but went on to an unusually long, productive Irish-setter life of some 15 years.

If the twisted obsession with the family dog isn’t enough proof of media hostility to Mitt Romney, there’s also the coverage of Super Tuesday, the biggest night of the primary season. If any other candidate (like Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich or, in an alternate universe, Rick Perry or Herman Cain) had won six of 10 primaries on that crucial day, including the hotly contested marquee prize of Ohio, and earned far more delegates than all his rivals combined, would TV reporters and print journalists have run stories about “Super Tuesday’s split decision” or the big winner’s “disappointing” inability to “close the deal”?

The media distaste for Gov. Romney has become so blatant that it counts as undeniable, even while reasonable people may disagree as to its sources.

The simplest explanation involves the natural reluctance of political journalists to see an early end to the GOP race. In this context, it makes sense to do everything in their power to retard Romney’s progress and to prolong the nomination battle and excitement (such as it is) so that they’re not reduced to stories about painstaking preparations for an autumnal Romney-Obama duel that won’t start in earnest for another four months.
[...]
There’s also the tightly organized, fiercely disciplined nature of the Romney campaign itself. Reporters loved the seat-of-the-pants, hang-loose quality of John McCain’s celebrated Straight Talk Express in the 2008 campaign, with the candidate riding the back of the bus with his pals in the press corps, deploying his inexhaustible energy in salty tirades and colorful anecdotes, frequently punctuated with the earthy language naturally associated with a battle-tested naval aviator.

Mitt Romney’s buttoned-down (or, more appropriately, buttoned-up) corporate style counts as far less appealing, as does his obvious preference (actually unusual among presidential contenders) to spend any free time with his wife rather than entertaining the perpetually bored members of the traveling press.

Finally, there’s the factor of ideological bias and the clear preference of the most influential media figures for President Obama to win reelection. In private, some reporters admit they’d enjoy covering the sheer adventure of a second Obama term (nothing about Romney strikes them as adventurous or thrilling), but they also align with the president’s policies far more closely than they do with any Republican’s.

With this in mind, Romney gets especially harsh treatment because political insiders and veteran journalists agree with the proposition that he’s the only surviving candidate in the GOP who could conceivably unseat the incumbent.

The prospect of a Santorum candidacy raises the delightful prospect of an extended battle over social issues (same-sex marriage, gays in the military, contraception, abortion, women in combat, the value of university education, separation of church and state, homeschooling, evolution versus intelligent design) in which the chip-on-his-shoulder conservative contender goes down in hellfire flames and puts a definitive end to the long-running culture wars. The fight over the economy promised by Gov. Romney not only counts as far less explosive and polarizing, but far more unpredictable—with the uncomfortable possibility of Obama’s defeat.

Most conservatives instinctively understand that any candidate singled out by mainstream media for mean-spirited attack can be identified as a leader the journalistic establishment sincerely fears. The relentless ridicule of Ronald Reagan before his presidency, of George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin, relates directly to the left’s underlying concern over their seemingly indestructible appeal and potential to influence the electorate.

As the campaign for the GOP nomination sputters to its inevitable conclusion (yes, a Romney coronation in Tampa), it’s time to apply that same timeless logic to 2012 and to see the contempt for the GOP frontrunner as inescapably connected to his poll-tested ability to challenge Obama.

Part of the hostility to Mitt most certainly reflects natural, visceral reactions by cynical and seasoned reporters to various aspects of his personality: his extreme wealth and good looks, his too-perfect family with the Ralph Lauren clothes and country homes, and his devout commitment to a uniquely puritanical and rigorously demanding faith.

But it’s not just the sincere personal loathing that leaves Romney unacceptable to much of the media; it’s the combination of fear and loathing that makes him a special and irresistible target.

[emphasis added]

Finally, this video clip came as a tip from by friend Steve Samuelian, a strong supporter of Gov. Romney. It is an interview of Zane Tankel (CEO of Apple-Metro, Inc.) in New York City on FOX Business — Zankel is a good friend of Steve’s. This interview reveals how important it is to business owners like Zankel that we elect the right person to ignite the business community to create real jobs.