He who controls the present controls the past, he who controls the past controls the future.”

—George Orwell, 1984

h, the aftermath.

After succumbing to the Mittens Money Machine, Rick Santorum is beginning to get his mind right:

The Santorum campaign’s website has been wiped clean of all content directly critical of the now de-facto Republican nominee.

No more “Obamneycare.” No more, “Here is a guy who is the ultimate flip-flopper.” No more he-was-for-the-mandate-before-he-was-against-it. No more “Taxachusetts.” No more “Etch-A-Sketch candidate.” No more, “Do you really believe this country wants to elect a Wall Street financier as the president of the United States.”

In good Orwellian fashion, if you search Santorum’s site for the skinny on Mittens, now you get this:

But that’s not as strange—or funny depending on your perspective—as this:

Newt Gingrich rents donor list to raise cash

Desperate times in the Newt Gingrich camp have called for desperate measures.

Scrambling to dig himself out of a $4.5 million hole, the former House speaker has resorted to renting his presidential campaign’s most valuable asset – its donor list – for as much as $26,000-a-pop.

Let me see: Newt is still an active candidate, but he is pimping out his donors for dough? Is nothing sacred with this guy? If I were Callista, I’d sleep with one eye open.

But even that’s not as strange—or, again, funny depending on your perspective—as this

Gingrich Unloads on FOX News in Private Meeting

During a meeting with 18 Delaware Tea Party leaders here on Wednesday, Newt Gingrich lambasted FOX News Channel, accusing the cable network of having been in the tank for Mitt Romney from the beginning of the Republican presidential fight. An employee himself of the news outlet as recently as last year, he also cited former colleagues for attacking him out of what he characterized as personal jealousy.

“I think FOX has been for Romney all the way through,” Gingrich said during the private meeting — to which RealClearPolitics was granted access — at Wesley College. “In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than FOX this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of FOX, and we’re more likely to get distortion out of FOX. That’s just a fact.”

Now, first of all, what does all that say about CNN?  If Newt Gingrich finds the network a comfortable place to bed down and do the nasty, then everything I think about CNN slowly becoming Fox-lite appears to be true.

But secondly, Newt has had no problem with Fox being in the tank for Republicans generally; it is just when the network embraces particular non-Newt Republicans that it loses its credibility with him.

The story continues:

Gingrich did not pull his punches in accusing Rupert Murdoch — the chairman and CEO of News Corp., FOX News’ parent company — of pushing for Romney behind the scenes.

“I assume it’s because Murdoch at some point [who] said, ‘I want Romney,’ and so ‘fair and balanced’ became ‘Romney,’ ” Gingrich said. “And there’s no question that Fox had a lot to do with stopping my campaign because such a high percentage of our base watches FOX.”

You see? Fox “News” can bash Obama and the Democrats most of the broadcast day and it is “fair and balanced.” But when the network (allegedly) started playing grab-ass with Mittens, Newt felt compelled to sanitize the history books.

But Media Matters was watching Fox (that’s its job) during June 1 of last year and January 22 of this. Guess what? Ding! Ding! Ding! In terms of airtime, Newt was the winner:

As The Atlantic’s John Hudson pointed out in January, the Fox “News” prime-time lineup was on more than friendly terms with Gingrich, particularly Sean Hannity, who several times made goo-goo eyes at Newt on TV and gave him reach-arounds on the radio.

In any case, my favorite part of Newt’s rant was this:

The Republican Party is a managerial party that doesn’t like to fight, doesn’t like to read books. This is why the Tea Party was so horrifying. Tea Partiers were actually learning about the Declaration of Independence. They wanted to talk about the Federalist Papers. It was weird. They could be golfing.

The GOP doesn’t like to read books but the Tea Party does? Hmm.

Here’s a good definition of “doublethink“:

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.



  1. ansonburlingame

     /  April 13, 2012

    To all,

    And thus early predictions of Dems using information from a racuous GOP primary campaign, come true.

    Would it not be interesting to go back 4 years and replay all the “stuff” flung between Obama and Hllary in the racuous Dem primary campaign in 2008.

    But so what is my point. All of that is the past. What I want to know is how each man now, Obama and Romney, are going to pull the countriy’s fat out of the fire in the future. How much more debt will each incurr, how will they heal the increasing racial and class divide appearing in our news media on a daily basis, etc.

    I did see an interesting clip from about this time 4 years ago where Obama was lecturing the press NOT to allow his wife to become a part of the negative campaign evolving at the time. I do recall some “stuff” about an earlier term paper written by Michele that sounded like a Rev Wright rant. OFF BASE, cried Obama at that time.

    Then consider his spokesperson recently criticizing Ann Romney for “never having worked a day in her life”!!!!

    Maybe an Etch-E-Sketch is not a bad idea on the part of both men, Obama and Romney. Both have been vetted, unmercifully. Why do we the people need to hear more of such stuff.

    It is what they propose to do come Jan 20, 2013 that should matter and therein should be the debate, in my view. Hillary ultimately supported the Obama campaign, just as Santorum and later Gingrich will support the Romney campaign. Ron Paul, I’m not sure about.

    So it would seem that Santorum is now the first candidate to use his own Etch -E-Sketch by wiping his web site clean. Do you blame him for doing so? As well I will bet that he will not become the next SecState if Romney wins the election!!



    • Then consider his spokesperson recently criticizing Ann Romney for “never having worked a day in her life”!!!!

      Hillary Rosen is a lobbyist. Is she “his spokesperson” in any official way? I don’t think so. But maybe that’s not important. What she said was unfortunate and she should have known better. But what she said was true. Ann Romney has never had to do the family laundry, or the ironing or cooking. She doesn’t do the cleaning in any of her houses. She’s never had to juggle her schedule to get home from work in time for PTA. She may have occasionally had to wonder whether she will get away from the Grand Prix in time get to the daughter’s piano recital, but she doesn’t have to take the children to their ballet lessons–the chauffeur (one of them) can do that. She has never experienced raising children in a household without maids, nannies, cooks, chauffeurs, yard crews, and many millions of dollars.


      • Hillary Rosen’s comments were inartful for sure. But she was trying to make a larger point, which, unfortunately, is now lost for the most part. That larger point is that the GOP is no place for working women, whether in the home or out of it, to place any amount of confidence.

        And I don’t know how many maids or house staff or nannies Ann Romney had to help her with the job of raising her sons and keeping house, but I do know this: Whatever her work situation at home, she did not have to worry about money. And that is the number one problem that so many stay-at-home moms have, as well as non-stay-at-home moms (which is why they are not staying at home). And while there is not a thing in the world wrong with having money (so long as you came by it fairly and honestly), folks with the kind of money the Romney’s had shouldn’t pretend that staying home and raising the kids is a trying for them as for less fortunate folks.

        By the way, I think President Obama was wrong when he suggested wives of candidates aren’t fair game. If they go out campaigning for their husbands, particularly if they are being used as props to get votes, then what they say–and I mean what they say not who they are–is fair game.



  2. “Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than FOX”

    Maybe Gingrich is paving his way for a job as a commentator at CNN


  3. Treeske

     /  April 13, 2012

    The main point missed is; again the Romneys want us to believe they’re like us and they aren’t. Ann doesn’t even realize that stay home moms is a luxury very few can enjoy anymore. The Romneys are so elite 1%ers, add to that devout Mormons, they’re definitely not in touch with common folks!


    • Treeske,

      Having $250 million qualifies them as most definitely not like us. And it is pure BS for someone with that much money to claim that they understand the average family’s anxiety over child-rearing. They don’t. They don’t understand all the anxiety because a lot of it comes from not having enough money to raise your kids in the modern world. The whole idea, in the end, of making the kind of money Romney has made, is to not be a commoner. How many common folks have multiple houses in diverse places? It is pure BS, and even though it was stated inartfully, Mrs. Romney’s raising her boys was not filled with any where near the same stress as the average mom.



  4. ansonburlingame

     /  April 13, 2012

    Obams ia not “us’ either. He it the President of the United States. “We” will never be “him” as well.

    The really simpe point made by Obama in 2008 is that is wife is not part of the campaign. So why I ask does anyone on the partisian Dem side try to make Ann Romney a target of Romney’s camparing. Is it not as simple as that to be simply igorned. BUT NO , Duane has to rasie it as an issues of class warfare.

    Dems would love to show Ann and Mitt as only part of the 1% with no concern or empathy for the other 99%. Just watch this blog and see that thrust.

    The REAL issue is does someoe from tHAT 1% have better ideas to improve the lot of ALL Americans. THAT is the basis of the now upon us campaign.

    Do you want a community orgainzer, a minority person in terms of race, someone borne and breed as a progressive as a President or someone that has been successful in business to improve or try hard to improve the lot of ALL Americans? Is that not the essential difference betweent the two men and their policuy appoach to resolving huige divide in American today?

    One is going to propose to give, give, give, that which is not ultimately “givabler” the wealth that we do not have. The other is going to propose to give that which if “givable” but let the rest come from individual incentive and hard work.

    Does that not boil down to the coming and current campaign?



%d bloggers like this: