sisu

Present at the re-creation

Twitter buddy Pete602 caught old-style pols Rep. Adam Schiff and Sen. Diane Feinstein in the social-media headlights of a newly empowered electorate this morning:

If Schiff and Feinstein want to see "Russian bots" they can look out the window.
We are their "bots" and we have torches and pitchforks.#tcot #pjnet #p2 pic.twitter.com/sixFOhgNBh

— pete602 (@petefrt) January 24, 2018

Like Peter Finch's Howard Beale, we are "mad as hell," but unlike Beale's passive television audience who "do whatever the tube tells you," we deplorables can see behind the curtain and don't have to let fake-news pols get away with their tendentious false narratives any more. Case in point, the power of the twitter hashtag to spread the word. Jim Hoft at GatewayPundit explains:

BOOM! Twitter DESTROYS Adam Schiff and Sen. Feinstein: Internal Analysis Finds NO RUSSIAN BOTS Behind #ReleaseTheMemo.

Last week, the House Intelligence Committee quietly voted to make available to fellow House members “a memo documenting abuse of the FISA program,” reports Fox News’s Chad Pergram.

As TGP’s Cristina Laila reported previously — News of the FISA memo spread like wildfire on social media. Trump supporters pushed a #ReleaseTheMemo campaign after GOP Reps came forward demanding the document be released to the American public.

We were part of that Reynoldsian grassroots Army of Davids that tweeted early and often in the last few days using the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag and inundated Schiff’s office with phone calls confirming we are not Russian bots.

Desperate Democrats like Adam Schiff (above) trotted out their shopworn Russia, Russia, Russia narrative to try to hold back the cascade of truth spilling out over the damn of official lies.

Then came the Democrats' lame attempt to stem the tide:

On Tuesday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) urged Twitter and Facebook to conduct a thorough forensic examination into the #ReleaseTheMemo campaign as ‘potentially an ongoing attack by Kremlin-linked social media actors’ also referred to as “Russian bots.”  

But we weren't buying, and neither was Twitter itself: 

Even The Leftist Daily Beasty Boys Concede: "Twitter’s internal analysis has thus far found that authentic American accounts, and not Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo" https://t.co/d1HDWsAQD4

— Andrew Bostom (@andrewbostom) January 24, 2018

Thanks to the power of social media, You CAN fight City Hall.

Update: Too delicious not to note:

Russian bots might be behind controversial #ReleaseTheMemo campaign, Democrats say https://t.co/soqCdt1gyN pic.twitter.com/oSR7jSnKX4

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) January 24, 2018

“Just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f***ing idea what’s going on”*

"In some profound way, the election made clear, the national media just doesn’t get the nation it purportedly covers," writes a somewhat bemused Jack Shafer at Politico in "The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think."

The “media bubble” trope might feel overused. But it's real. And it's more extreme than you might realize https://t.co/ucAus0IM4Z pic.twitter.com/9qqxpe3z2E

— POLITICO (@politico) April 25, 2017

Shafer should have asked us. We've been on the media navel-gazing case for decades. He attributes his "surprising" discovery to "the data on where journalists work and how fast it's changing":

The results read like a revelation. The national media really does work in a bubble, something that wasn’t true as recently as 2008. Concentrated heavily along the coasts, the bubble is both geographic and political.

"Wasn't true as recently as 2008"? You're off by decades, sir. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air explains:

This might shock everyone who lives inside that bubble, but not anyone on the outside. Conservatives have long accused the media of living in a bubble, and Jack Shafer writes today at Politico that they were right — even if the bubble might not be exactly what they thought. In fact, there may be more than one bubble, one ideological and the other geographic, and the impact of both together may make it worse than people — even conservatives — imagine. However, Shafer’s analysis has its own limitations, and misses a key point…

He’s correct in that limited sense, but he’s got the root cause wrong, or at best incomplete. The trend toward cultural narrowness and ideological blinkering started long before the Internet shook up the news business, and in some ways the Internet’s impact was a reaction to bias in newsrooms. At least they agree on one core outcome: America’s media exists in a series of self-reinforcing bubbles, and it’s getting worse.

As we tweeted Ed:

@EdMorrissey Terrific analysis, Ed. Blogged about it myself for years & "snail blogged" before that: Soylent green https://t.co/0jssGvrZIt pic.twitter.com/qyPLtu8nEK

— Sissy Willis (@SissyWillis) April 25, 2017

 We were delighted with his reply: "Excellent. Just added it as an update":

Sissy Willis has further thoughts on the timeline … or rather had further thoughts. In 2004. And used a 1990 critique from Insight magazine to make the point.

*NOTE: Author of the quote in our title is the fiery presidential strategist and former executive chair of Breitbart News, Steve Bannon, quoted by Shafer in his Politico piece:

“The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what’s wrong with this country. It’s just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f***ing idea what’s going on.”

Haven't we been saying that forever? Self-awareness is not their strong suit. As we quoted William Staneski in our 2010 post "Marc Ambinder and the epistemic echoes of his mind":

This is the way cultural Marxism is taking over our world in its inexorable Gramscian march.

Chuck Todd "didn't like having Mozart associated with the Nazis"

"Let me, let me free-ee-eeze again to death." 17th-century British composer Henry Purcell's rending-of-garments "The Cold Scene" from "King Arthur" energizes dancers' evocative kinetics (above) expressing the storming of the beaches of Normandy during controversial D-Day70 commemoration presentation yesterday at Sword Beach, Normandy.

"I knew it was Mozart. Didn't like having Mozart associated with the Nazis," MSNBC anchor Chuck Todd protested to us this morning on Twitter in response to our critique of his reportage of the much-panned "interpretive dance" presented at Friday's D-Day70 observation at Sword Beach, Normandy. Counter to the narrative spin of every commenter we've seen out here, we were alone in finding something profound and revelatory in the live multi-media creation that interwove horrific historical film images of Nazi Germany and WWII with minimalist dancing and profoundly moving passages of Mozart, Beethoven ("Eroica" & "Ode to Joy"), Purcell and others to express the war between good and evil that is the human condition. More on our take in a moment, but first our twitter tussle with Todd: 

.@ChuckTodd bloodless blurb #DDay70 dance: “Some German music 2 sort of talk about rise of Germany.” What I heard: Transcendant MOZART et al

— Sissy Willis (@SissyWillis) June 7, 2014

Thx 4 reply @chucktodd! I think artistic pt was contrast betw Nazi inhumanity vs Mozart humanity. Also, German vs Austrian controversial :)

— Sissy Willis (@SissyWillis) June 7, 2014

We happened to watch the "interpretive dance" live yesterday on C-Span 2, unfiltered, unlike almost everybody else, whose opinions seemed to echo Chuck Todd's. The estimable Rick Moran's assessment was typical:

It is the weirdest, most incongruous, most disrespectful performance one can imagine.

Old blogfriend Fausta, who learned about it later in the day, compared the interpretive dance devastatingly to Mel Brooks's masterful "Springtime for Hitler," and the widely linked Mediaite put it this way in "D-Day Interpretive Dance Caps Off Month of Disrespect for Vets":

We commemorated the sacrifice of tens of thousands with a belittling dance.

Had anyone actually WATCHED the thing? Or had most taken the assessment of thought leaders like Chuck Todd and run with it? May we suggest that what we have here might be an instance of Schopenhauer's informational cascades?

Todd, who appeared to be reading his comments about the "German music to sort of talk about the rise of Germany," admitted he hadn't even seen the performance, which ran along in split screen as he and others offered commentary. Why bother to watch a performance when you can rely upon the narrative of someone else who hasn't seen it?

His major coup "was getting women to smoke"

"With no phone to call for help, I used my bobsled push training to break out," quipped Olympian Johnny Quinn this morning, adding his voice to the latest Twitter trending topic, #SochiProblems. We love Quinn's All-American, can-do (pun intended) solution to post-Soviet lavatory logistical problems being encoutered by athletes and visitors alike at the winter Olympics sponsored by former KGB officer Vladimir Putin's Russia.

We're no fan of moral-equivalency guru Noam Chomsky's. But what he had to say a few years back about public relations as propaganda in fancy dress rings true and sheds light on the recent controversy over that Coca-Cola Super Bowl ad with its dreamy cinematography of doe-eyed children singing "America the Beautiful" in seven languages. All sugary innocence. Why did it make us feel as though the good folks at Coke were rubbing our noses in it? Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart explains:

The ad instantly provoked a deeply polarized response on social media, with conservatives ripping the ad for promoting multiculturalism with a deeply patriotic anthem. 

On the multiculti side, there were smug, self-congratulatory sermons scolding melting-pot types like ourselves for xenophobic/racist views we do not hold:

At this point, we shouldn’t be shocked by the intolerance of some towards immigrants and other cultures.  But who could’ve predicted the outrage we saw over the Coca-Cola commercial that aired during last night’s Super Bowl?!

Mosaicist vs assimilationist:

And to be honest, the notion of “E pluribus unum” is more relevant today than it was in 1782 because of our nation’s evolving demographics…

In the years to come, it will be a learning experience for all [of] us as our nation evolves into an even more beautiful mosaic.

Eye of the beholder, but even among allies there is dispute. When we learned this morning that Coke had belatedly added E pluribus unum to the opening frames of the commercial, we twittered our delight. But some on our side of the aisle were calling the whole thing a distraction, protesting that "making a fuss" over the Coke ad was distracting social-media voices from their primary task of holding Republican leaders' feet to the fire over Obama & Company's "comprehensive immigration" campaign:

I'm all for adding #EPluribusUnum to anything but I can't see making a fuss about a coke ad in the first place @SissyWillis @Drudge_Report

— Peter Ingemi (@DaTechGuyblog) February 8, 2014

Far more important to keep the pressure on @SpeakerBoehner than on coke in terms of the issue @mtranquilnight @SissyWillis @DRUDGE_REPORT

— Peter Ingemi (@DaTechGuyblog) February 8, 2014

Which brings us back to Chomsky and Edward Bernays and the title of this post. Chomsky writes of Bernays:

His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.

Similarly, those charming hyphenated-American children are trying to get LoFo (low information) Super Bowl viewers to absorb Coke's amnesty agenda:

The controversy surrounding Coca-Cola's Super Bowl ad has focused public attention on the company's pro-amnesty agenda. With the majority of its revenue coming from its international business, the company has long been known for its globalist rather than American world view.

As Andrew Breitbart famously tried to teach conservatives, culture is upstream of politics.

Update:

@mtranquilnight Me too. Tried to broach the subject among friends the other day, and no one was interested :)@DaTechGuyblog

— Sissy Willis (@SissyWillis) February 8, 2014

Yale law professor prefers not to be confused with the facts

"There are very few who can think, but every man wants to have an opinion; and what remains but to take it ready-made from others, instead of forming opinions for himself?" we quoted Schopenhaer a few years back on "the informational 'cascades' of sheeplike belief formation that cause flat-earthers to crowd the cultural ether in every era," noting that "Al Gore's lie-laced Inconvenient Truth comes to mind." Above, the early morning light works its magic on the salt piles across the street.

I don’t know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party,” Yale law professor Dan Kahan admits, bemused by the results of his own study on "the relationship between science literacy and political ideology":

Tea party members know more science than non-Tea Partiers.

How could that be? Aren't Tea Partiers flat-earthers?:

"I fully expected…a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension,” Kahan wrote.

That's what comes of relying on the Tea-Party-demonizing Democrat Media Complex for information outside one's area of expertise:

“All my impressions come from watching cable tv — & I don’t watch Fox News very often — and reading the ‘paper’ (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites like Huffington Post and POLITICO). I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly, I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.”

We're glad, too, although the professor's lack of intellectual curiosity about the Tea Party in light of his new data is troubling, as are his reflexive acceptance and promulgation of the now seriously outdated AGW narrative:

While Kahan cautioned against thinking the results can be used to explain deep ideological fights over climate change and other politically relevant science…he said the results wouldn’t change his negative views of the Tea Party.

Don't confuse him with the facts!

Con-Man-in-Chief: Barack Obama's "masterful marketing of emotions"

"Stephen Colbert sent me an email, and Stephen Colbert is the young person's Oprah," the sophomorically witty young Obama voter above right — signalling membership in the tribe of cool! — answered The Blaze reporter Benny Johnson's question "What issues brought you out to vote today?"

"Was this election truly a rebuke of conservatism and its principles?  Or was it a function of the masterful marketing of emotions, niche issues and even revenge?" ponders The Blaze reporter Benny Johnson, who asked young voters waiting in line at a polling place in Boston's South End Tuesday "some simple questions concerning why they showed up today to perform their civic duty." While Karl Rove implodes and pundits examine the entrails of changing demographics vs white people who didn't show up at the polls vs the cold technical brilliance of President Obama's ground game to explain Mitt Romney's epic loss, Johnson goes directly to the source, where unself-aware cult members regurgitate the party line: 

The answers usually began with a declaration of unwavering support for the president. So what were the issues that animated them in the campaign? Their answers were largely couched in generalities, warm pockets of feel-good social "rights" issues, that sounded line-and-verse like Obama campaign talking points …

To any conservative wondering where they went astray this cycle, observe the religious-like conviction of the voters here when rattling off their liberal talking points. However, beyond the rhetoric, how much do these eager voters know about our American government?

Their answers are sobering. "I mean, I think we have to keep going in the direction we're going, forward," said one pretty young thing who had swallowed the Kool Aid. More anecdotal findings from Conservatives4Palin's Mel Maguire:

One of my teenage relatives has been telling me what her classmates are saying, and none of them has so much as a marginal grasp of the issues. Many of them supported Obama because he’s black, and others were convinced that Romney was going to make abortion and contraceptives illegal.  Many even said they wanted their parents to be able to keep collecting food stamps, and they believed Romney was going to end the program because he didn’t care about the poor. None of these things are true, but we now have Bill Maher comparing us all to Nazis.

Unlike the anti-statist Tea Party surge of the 2010 midterms, this time the Gramscian march through the institutions is the big winner. Like the Constitutionally-challenged voters cited by Johnson and Maguire above, the bright young leaders — and followers — of tomorrow, immersed in the politically correct, identity-politics matrix of academia, popular culture and the lamestream media, seem unaware of their having succumbed to the mind-numbing brainwashing perpetrated upon them by the Con-Man-in-Chief and his fellow travelers.

Update: Arnold Ahlert at Jewish World Review is on the same page:

If it can't be reduced to 140 characters for Twitter's sake, it no longer matters.

We must protest, however, that a well-written tweet can be a work of art in the "Less is more" sense.

Crossposted at Riehl World View.

"I am big. It's the media that got small." Andrea Mitchell channels Norma Desmond

"A horse got me out of bed ... and living life," Ann Romney told the Ocala Star-Banner recently, referring to how horseback riding, and specifically the art of dressage, has helped her overcome some of the debilitating symptoms of MS. “Horses are great teachers. Horses are great companions. They bring us great joy," she enthused, but you'd have no idea of the depth and richness of her involvment were your primary "news" source MSNBC and Sarah Palin's "lamestream" media. Yes YOU, Lawrence O'Donnell. (CNN photo)

"All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up," quips Lisa B on Twitter, locating the perfect fictional equivalent of old-media delusions of grandeur in Gloria Swanson's "Sunset Boulevard" portrayal of faded silent-movie star Norma Desmond, descending from denial into madness:

I am big. It's the pictures that got small.

Or, as faded lamestream-media stars like Andrea Mitchell — who was caught by new-media star Sooper Mexican the other day smearing Mitt Romney by twisting his words into the JournoList narrative of choice — might put it:

I am big. It's the media that got small.

She's right. It's those annoying gadflies Juan Williams calls "just bloggers" and our fellow soldiers in Glenn Reynolds's Army of Davids, wielding our rhetorical weapons of choice through social media old and new, who are as mad as hell and are not going to take this any more!

Who is big? The Anchoress twitters the answer in response to a snotty New Yorker whine about Ann Romney's horse sense, "Do we have to cheer for Ann Romney at the Olympics":

What a small question.

Update: Almost forgot. Ms. Mitchell has been honing her journalistic "objectivity" skills for decades: This from "The Tribal Filter on Green News," Insight July 23, 1990:

There was applause from the pressies in conclave assembled, after which Andrea Mitchell, an NBC correspondent, said that "clearly the networks have made the decision now, where you'd have to call it advocacy."

 Update II: Teresa nails it in the comments:

When I saw the story pop up yesterday all I could think was... people still watch MSNBC? Really? Or are a few people listening in so they can grab twitter fodder?

Update III: David Hogberg ponders the question "Which end of the horse is Lawrence O'Donnell":

Surely O’Donnell has assistants who can look this stuff up for him. Or was it just too tempting for him to score cheap political points to bother with the research showing the benefits of hippotherapy on multiple sclerosis?

Crossposted at Riehl World View.

President Obama: The conscience of the king

"Pure garbage," says Tuck, retilling the source of the exquisite, deep, dark soil he uses for planting, repotting and mulching our Chelsea Gardens (above). Fruit and vegetable scraps from the kitchen, grass clippings and dry autumn leaves from the yard. Compost 'em, mix 'em together and ted 'em periodically over three years. Turn it around, and you're looking at Pure Chelsea Gold. The plants eat it up!

"Well, you can lead a leftist to reality, BUT…" twitters Darleen Click this afternoon, and our reply:

…You can't make him think. 

Thank you, Mr. President. Like every freedom lover suddenly released from the Fear Society Lite shackles of Obamaspeak by Mr. Obama's own unwittingly self-revelatory words during a post-armageddon press conference this afternoon, we're giddy at the thought of the narrative gift he has bestowed upon us:

The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in. 

Mitt Romney's Rapid Response Team has our back:

For the president of the United States to stand up and say the private sector is doing fine is going to go down in history as an extraordinary miscalculation," Romney told the crowd.

Romney also addressed the president's argument that the federal government should help state and local jurisdictions hire more employees, citing the recent recall election in Wisconsin. Gov. Scott Walker was able to fend off a challenge there inspired by his move to block state workers from collectively bargaining.

It was too late, but "some in press working hard to explain and contextualize Obama's 'private sector' remark," twittered Byron York in the wake of the Leader of the Free World's unintended revelation of the gap between his statist vision and the world view of the average American, as expressed in Tuesday's Wisconsin anti-recall reelection of Scott Walker. The Washington Post's Ezra Klein was typical of the reflexive JournoList Talking Points:

I don’t, for the life of me, understand why people get so excited over things like this. Is there any evidence that either campaign is having trouble coming up with enough damaging quotes, out-of-context comments or grainy video clips to populate their attack ads?

"Things like this." That's the left's problem. They are forever conflating leftist fantasies with facts from the right. As we twittered Byron York:

It perfectly reveals the difference between big-govt statists like Obama and limited-govt state leaders like Governor Walker.

The last word goes to Doctor Zero aka John Hayward:

Romney says Obama is "detached, out of touch." Hell, he's hermetically sealed.

Update: Darleen Click of Protein Wisdom links!

Update II: Michelle Malkin Buzzworthy link!

Update III: Ed Driscoll links!

Update IV: Mama Grizzly Sarah Palin is on the same wavelength:

Sarah Palin slams Obama: 'Private sector doing fine' remark 'absolutely out of whack" and 'out of touch.'

Crossposted at Riehl World View.

Howard Kurtz and the media's "astonishing slowness" on Trayvon Martin

Once again the people sitting in their living rooms in their pajamas are way ahead of the lamestream media, who appear to prefer peddling their tired racist narratives to getting the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

"On Reliable at 11, Derek McGinty, Lauren Ashburn, Eric Deggans on media's astonishing slowness on Trayvon Martin killing & Sharpton's role," Howard Kurtz twittered the lineup for his Sunday show "Reliable Sources" this morning. We appreciate his candor but couldn't resist a little snark in our reply:

Astonishing? I saw it right away. It's why the bloggers and tweeters are leaving Palin's "lamestream" in the dust. :)

Breitbart's Ben Shapiro was on top of it from the start:

We will not stop vetting the media, including Al Sharpton! Persist we much!

Bill Hobbs cut through all the speculation and irresponsible "reportage" [rhymes with garbage] that had whipped up some of our more suggestible fellow Americans into a frenzy:

I have no idea what REALLY happened in Trayvon case, & neither do you. Nor does Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton.

As we've been twittering ourselves the last couple of days:

Sensed in my BONES, from the moment it entered my consciousness that Sharpton was involved, it was laced w lies.

SHARPTON'S INTEREST TOLD ME IT SMELLED: Zimmerman was on ground being punched when he shot Trayvon Martin.

So creepy watching lamestream media fall for the latest iteration of Sharpton & Co's tired old narrative.

Now that our "mainstream" betters are starting to ask the questions they should have asked two weeks ago, how will they handle the poison and vitriol of the virtual lynch mob being fomented by members of the New Black Panther Party and other spawn of President Obama's old Harvard Law mentor Derrick Bell's Critical Race Theory?

#LynchMob: RT @dangainor: Terrorists: #NewBlackPanthers offer $10,000 bounty 4 capture of shooter Zimmerman http://bit.ly/GOZ0Gr #Trayvon

Our buddy Pete DaTechGuy isn't holding his breath:

Martin Killing #msm outrage; Black Panther bounty, Black youth killed in cities by other blacks #iseenothing

What's it going to be, Howard Kurtz?

Update: Soros-backed MoveOn is gloating:

The Department of Justice has announced that its Civil Rights Division, in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, will investigate Trayvon Martin's death. This is a positive step.

However, the Sanford Police Department has a history of failing to successfully prosecute crimes when the victim is African-American and the alleged assailant is not. Sign the petition to the Department of Justice telling them to launch an investigation of the Sanford Police Department.

Crossposted at Riehl World View.

Santorum: It's the authenticity, stupid!

"Unfortunately for [the MSM], Stacy McCain and I were there," writes Peter Ingemi of DaTechGuyblog, on the scene at a Rick Santorum Town Hall in Concord, NH yesterday in the run-up to Tuesday's primary. "I shot the entire exchange, and when you watch it, two things are clear: 1. Santorum is on the offensive, NOT the defensive. 2. The students are unable to cope with his arguments." (Jim Cole/AP)

"Is this any way to pick a president?" asks Charles Krauthammer rhetorically, answering his own question with a resounding "Yes!":

Absolutely. It works. It winnows. And it has produced, after just one contest, an admirably worthy conservative alternative to Romney.

We were thrilled to see the venerable Dr. K. had come to the same conclusion we had, as argued in yesterday's somewhat controversial (among our twitter friends) post, "Amazing Grace: Is Rick Santorum the new Sarah Palin?" The very adjectives we and Charles — May we call you Charles? — chose to describe the man of the hour are eerily similar:

Krauthammer: From the rubble emerges Rick Santorum. But he isn’t just the last man standing. He is the first challenger to be plausibly presidential: knowledgeable, articulate, experienced, of stable character and authentic ideology.

Willis: Now a larger audience is getting a taste of this authentic, thoughtful, knowledgeable, deliberative, experienced, articulate, principled, humorous and good-hearted man, very much a formidable opponent in any debate with the current Leader of the Free World. And this "flavor of the week" appears to be sticking to the ribs.

"But because he was such a long shot, his record did not receive much scrutiny," notes Krauthammer:

It will now. He is no austere limited-government constitutionalist. He participated in George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism, which largely made peace with big government. Santorum, for example, defends earmarks and supported No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. It’s a perfectly defensible philosophy — but now he’ll be called upon to actually defend it. (See Rush's defense, "Mantra: Santorum is a 'Big Government Conservative.'")

Enter, stage left, "The Meat Grinder." Brent Bozell:

Santorum, like the other authentic conservatives, are too “far right” to win. Ann Curry started the meat grinder. “So is he going to have to change his conservative message as he's looking into north, looking into New Hampshire, which is a much less conservative state?”

Fortunately, the media isn't going to get away with it this time:

1. Intrepid bloggers and reporters like our gumshoe buddies Pete Ingemi of DaTechGuyblog and Stacy McCain of The Other McCain and The American Spectator are on the ground in New Hampshire holding the lamestream media's feet to the fire (See picture caption above).

2. Santorum's not a man to change his message to suit his audience. As Stacy writes: "Santorum is unapologetically the same staunch conservative in the Granite State that he was in Iowa and — judging from the applause during the town hall forum sponsored by the Southern New Hampshire 9-12 Project — God is still more popular here than some Republicans may suspect."

It's the authenticity, stupid!

Update: We love our Granite-State buddy Tom Bowler's comments:

Will Sissy Willis do it again? Having pushed Scott Brown across the finish line in the Massachusetts race for "the Kennedy seat" can she pull off a repeat for Rick Santorum?

Sissy, you might just make a believer out of me.

Crossposted at Riehl World View.