Rick 'Man on Dog' Santorum

If Romney turns his well-financed character-assassination machine on Rick Santorum, or Santorum resorts to character assassination against either Romney or Gingrich, the Republicans may forfeit whatever chance they have of defeating Barack Obama in November.

— Thomas Sowell in his column yesterday

Is this a quiet admission on Sowell’s part that he genuinely thinks that Rick Santorum could defeat Barack Obama?

Could someone explain to me how that works exactly?

You mean to tell me that the economy is going to be so bad that the on-the-fence, barely-informed swing voter who decides presidential elections is going to reject the first black president in favor of a former Senator who lost his reelection race by 18 points, advocated for homosexuality to be illegal in the last decade, and tries to suggest he’s not “picking on” gay people because, “It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.”

I haven't seen Tom Hanks in Turner and Hooch. Is it any good? He kind of looks a little like Santorum in this picture doesn't he?

Conservatives had better get used to headlines like the one above — and this junior high locker room humor. Eight years ago when I was a college newspaper op/ed columnist on the other side of the spectrum I’d usually describe Santorum that way when first mentioning him in political conversation. And then thereafter I wouldn’t call him Santorum but instead just ‘Man on Dog.’

You can count on a memo going out from upper level MSNBC executives with that directive were Santorum to win the nomination. (Hmm, how do you suppose “tea-bagging” entered the lexicon so quickly?)

That’s, of course, just the language “progressive” Democrats use to talk amongst themselves. Every Republican has to be caricatured into some outlandish adolescent sex cartoon.

[Conservatives shouldn’t be too broken up about this treatment in the media, though. Ironically, they do worse things to their own gods. Look how they delight in transforming their great champion JFK into a manipulative drug abuser who snatches a 19-year-old woman’s virginity and then pressures her to “take care of” his friends while he “silently” watches. Kind of makes you glad that 50-cent pieces are so rare in circulation, doesn’t it?]

But this is the reality of our political-media complex today. It’s a hyper-partisan attack machine now employing the emotionally-charged props of pornographic imagery to distort people until they are so covered in mud that the human form cannot even be made out beneath. Andy Warhol was halfway there when he said in the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. Now we know that actually in the future the media will transform everyone into a porn star for 15 minutes.

And after they’re done stirring up those thoughts in people’s heads, then they throw your family into the mix.

Conservatives were rightfully horrified at the way so many media Democrats warped and ridiculed the story of the Santorum family’s grieving over the death of their newborn son Gabriel.

That’s a narrative that has been percolating in pro-choicers’ imagination for over a decade. Are Republicans really prepared to be able to counter the full force of all these progressive bigotries projected out through the full force of the Soros-MSNBC-New York Times media? That’s something we’re going to be able to counter?

Could someone explain to me how that works exactly?

***

David Swindle is the associate editor of PJ Media and writes a post each day on news and politics at PJ Tatler and culture and entertainment at PJ Lifestyle. He can be contacted with feedback and story tips at DaveSwindlePJM[@]gmail.com and on Twitter @DaveSwindle. He enforces commenting guidelines on his posts — rude, off topic and ad hominem comments will be deleted.