Alas, Rick Santorum ("Putting the 'No' in 'Nuance' since 1991") will be with us long after he's turned over the hole cards of his busted straight of a Presidential bid.
Look at the careers of Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Rob Reich, et cetera et cetera ad absurdum. Once a politician discovers some capacity to generate an audience, they go on raising money ($ for consultant buddies), selling books (royalties), speaking (speaker fees) . . . . No one expects these people to ever affect anything. But they can reliably, bankably, generate attention. Maybe they start out trying to influence opinion, but over time the audience retention imperative drives that to the background.
That's one reason why this sort is so reliably brain-dead. Saying something their audience doesn't expect to hear subjects said audience to the pain of unguided thought; do this too often and that audience withers, because they're tuning in for validation of opinion, not formation of new opinion.
A general campaign introduces Santorum to zero marginal conversative audience and takes up valuable time. If he won the nomination, his first move would be to demand a recount.
[EDIT: Yes, I meant Jon Stewart. I regard him and Limbaugh as a species of politician -- they make their living motivating political activity of a particular bent. They didn't build their audiences via electoral politics, but once built their audience relationship / maintenance dynamics are very similar to the others named.]
> Look at the careers of Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, John Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Rob Reich, et cetera et cetera ad absurdum. Once a politician [...]
Who is John Stewart? If you're referring to the comedian Jon Stewart, when was he ever a politician? I don't think it's fair to lump him in with people like Palin, Dean, etc. Stewart has never held public office and made a career of poking fun at politicians and the media who cover them.
But Limbaugh is a rather active activist (via his show) for the causes he champions. Jon Stewart doesn't give off a vibe of promoting a certain course of action among his audience.
I listen to Rush and watch Jon. They are equally prescriptive. Most of the time, they simply frame the conversation and subtly suggest a course of action. Only occasionally do either tell their audience to take direct action.
Look at the careers of Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Rob Reich, et cetera et cetera ad absurdum. Once a politician discovers some capacity to generate an audience, they go on raising money ($ for consultant buddies), selling books (royalties), speaking (speaker fees) . . . . No one expects these people to ever affect anything. But they can reliably, bankably, generate attention. Maybe they start out trying to influence opinion, but over time the audience retention imperative drives that to the background.
That's one reason why this sort is so reliably brain-dead. Saying something their audience doesn't expect to hear subjects said audience to the pain of unguided thought; do this too often and that audience withers, because they're tuning in for validation of opinion, not formation of new opinion.
A general campaign introduces Santorum to zero marginal conversative audience and takes up valuable time. If he won the nomination, his first move would be to demand a recount.
[EDIT: Yes, I meant Jon Stewart. I regard him and Limbaugh as a species of politician -- they make their living motivating political activity of a particular bent. They didn't build their audiences via electoral politics, but once built their audience relationship / maintenance dynamics are very similar to the others named.]