If I have to do one more piece on correcting Tommy Christopher’s silly bias, I’m going to start charging Mediaite for copy-editing.
Christopher recently wrote a post attacking Rush Limbaugh and later Ann Coulter for criticizing Romney at CPAC and then “praising” him; her remarks were used in a recent Democrat attack ad. He writes this of me:
Now, this is not a knock on Coulter so much. She’s certainly not the first conservative commentator to do a Linda Blair when it became convenient. Big Journalism Editor Dana Loesch praised Mitt Romney (and voted for him) in 2008, only to turn around and scrub the evidence four years later so she could claim she was against Romney in 2008, and still is. Rush Limbaugh went from calling Romney the “embodiment” of the conservative stool, in 2008, to saying “Mitt Romney is not a conservative” in 2011.
Quickly, because there are more important things to do: I didn’t “scrub” any “evidence.” In fact, I’ve never deleted a single post. It’s all still there. Christopher’s bias leads him to omit this discussion I had of the situation, wherein I discussed voting for Romney as a strategy to eliminate John McCain in the 2008 primaries. I felt at the time that McCain was more dangerous than Romney. McCain worked to regulate free speech with McCain-Feingold. That had a national impact. Romneycare was socialism at the state level. One had national implications, one did not. Perhaps I should write this post in pictures so that Christopher can understand the strategy. I say that with love and hugs.
[youtube sGMRJbXufoQ nolink]
I have several podcasts from 2008 where I also discussed this strategy. if McCain were running again, I’d still say he’s the more dangerous candidate, especially after this. But McCain isn’t running. That leaves Romney as the more dangerous to conservatism out of the primary candidates–not to say he’s the only one, just that he presents a bigger threat. It’s pretty easy to understand.