But Mr. Santorum was unable to raise large amounts of money, like Mr. Perry, or command the attention of the national news media, like Mrs. Bachmann. Instead, he chose to campaign relentlessly on the stump, travelling from town to town, not in a campaign bus, but in a Dodge Ram pickup.
By his count, the event Wednesday night in Cedar Rapids was his 357th town hall meeting in Iowa this year. Thursday’s made 358.
At that 358th event, the news media was out in force to cover the campaign. He appeared on the “Today” show on NBC and practically had to fight his way through a crush of cameras as he was leaving the Coralville event.
Should Santorum “win” Iowa, whatever that means (third place?), what becomes of this “theory” (which we’ve written about) of a “national” campaign this cycle?
Ron Paul gets only the attacks as soon as he starts into the lead, and not all the puffing up of the media surge. Where is Santorums vetting for calling himself conservative while voting for no child left behind, voting to raise the debt ceilng 5 times, voting for every major government expansion under the Bush administration? The media clearly has its story lines it does AND does NOT want to push.
#1 Posted by KJ, CJR on Sat 31 Dec 2011 at 11:01 AM
NCLB was a George and Laura Bush creation. It is not the barometer for whether someone is conservative or not. Not the same yardstick as Pro-life, as Santorum decidedly is.
#2 Posted by NYFM, CJR on Sat 31 Dec 2011 at 11:52 AM
@NYFM - Yeah, Santorum is so decidedly pro-life he endorsed a pro-choice liberal Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey back in 2004. That's the principle reason why he lost his re-election in 2006 to a pro-life democrat Bob Casey Jr.
Santorum was Bush's and Rove's lap dog in the senate, and campaigned for pro-choice moderates at their behest. He's like one of those pro-choice people who says "I'm pro-life for myself, but not for anyone else", unless he's running for office in a pro-life electorate that is.
#3 Posted by Jonathan, CJR on Sat 31 Dec 2011 at 01:14 PM
I don't see how any of these people can survive the primaries, but I suppose one of them must. How is it that in a year where the incumbent is limping to the starting gate, Republicans manage to field the most bizarre, incompetent field of wannabes ever? The real disconnect in the press coverage of the Santorum surge is that he's taken at all seriously by anyone; he's not even going to clear a decent book deal out of this sorry escapade in his sorry, batsh*t crazy man-on-dog political life.
#4 Posted by Weldon Berger, CJR on Sat 31 Dec 2011 at 01:26 PM
I'm surprised most reporters seem to have missed the reason for Santorum's surge--the leaders of the fundamentalists in Iowa came out for Santorum, and the surge, such as it is, followed.
#5 Posted by Larry , CJR on Sat 31 Dec 2011 at 03:12 PM
Larry
The focus of Ms Fry's article and analysis is that the media can't be relied upon to do its own analysis of an event, whether it be news worthy or not. That's our current media, ideologically committed to whom ever it sees as a front runner and trying as hard as it can to create a front runner when none appears to be gaining real momentum.
#6 Posted by Jack, CJR on Sat 31 Dec 2011 at 04:57 PM
The best way to cover a Santorum surge is with some wet wipes. Gotta catch that stuff before it gets on the bed sheets.
#7 Posted by lol, CJR on Sun 1 Jan 2012 at 03:42 PM
About half the crowd was media.
surpris====http://youtu.be/zXKV78VERio
#8 Posted by jack, CJR on Sun 1 Jan 2012 at 04:25 PM
What is scary is the depth to which most of the seven will stoop to retain the support of the teabaggers, even renouncing relatively sane positions they have taken in the past. At some point, someone with the courage of a Joseph Welch is going to have to say to the frontrunner, "At long last ... have you no sense of decency?"
#9 Posted by C.W., CJR on Mon 2 Jan 2012 at 09:35 AM