Listening to Alan Jones this morning it became clear to me how utterly inconsistent his positions are across a range of issues. For instance, AJ opposes subsidies for the auto industry and rails against JGill for driving up the cost of energy – fair enough – but is okay with sweet heart deals for ethanol producers in NSW, where Barry O’Fail is abolishing regular unleaded to be replaced with the less energy efficient E10 fuel. A fuel that is more expensive to use and will force tens of thousands of non-E10 compliant vehicles onto more expensive higher non-ethanol fuels. Governments have an incredibly bad record of mucking of energy prices in Australia, and Barry O’Fail’s latest eco venture into nanny state knows best should have sounded warning bells to AJ. Instead, AJ let his vested rural interests get the better of him and consumers bear the hard financial consequences.

Also today, AJ ventured into US politics with Paul Sheehan, and to put it mildly it was embarrassing. Apparently AJ sees no problem with Bill Clinton having had 12 separate affairs and so sees no moral conundrum with Newt Gingrich’s sordid martial history and the implications it has for his character, such as when he sat in judgement of Clinton yet was carrying on an affair of his own. No mention of Newt’s ethics violations, a polite way of saying he was corrupt, and that he got kicked out of the House of Representatives. No mention either of Newt’s lobbying efforts in his post-political career and his attempts to miss-represent what he was doing promoting socialist mortgage financing with Freddie Mac. No mention either of Newt’s pro-global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi and his past attempts to promote Co2 regulation and pricing. Like Andrew Bolt on MTR, AJ presented a mostly fact free analysis and you wonder if he bothers to brush up on the details prior to his show. And then there is AJ’s unholy alliance with the Greens to take down exploratory gas and oil interests.

If AJ is an indication of where the centre-right media are at the moment it is going to be even harder for the Coalition to regain office. Analysis should be considered and based on facts.

Previous coverage of Bolt’s yes/no conservative credentials can be found here.

On MTR today the following conversation took place between Steve Price and Bolt, around the 24 minute mark:

Bolt: Obama will win the election.

Price: Yes, I’ve written that down as well.

Bolt: Bugger.

Price: The republicans in that whole country of 350 million people can’t find a decent candidate.

Bolt: Yep, yep, amazing. That’s astonishing. How could that be?

Price: A whole bunch of loonies and religious freaks and nut cases…

Bolt: …and people as absurd as the Mormons….

Apart from the fact that this conversation sounds a good deal like one might find at the ABC, a few issues come out of this puerile exchange.

The Australian media seem to know virtually nothing about US politics. It is as if the internet does not exist and the media can’t be bothered looking. As an example of this, the GOP front runner Mitt Romney consistently out polls Obama or is within the margin of error.

No mention of this in the discussion, not even a mention of any of the candidates by name. I doubt Price and Bolt know them. If listeners were tuning into MTR to be informed then they would have been disappointed.

For Price to say and for Bolt to agree that the GOP field are “…a whole bunch of loonies and religious freaks and nut cases…” is probably a reflection of their own ignorance and Bolt’s disingenuous attempt to be a conservative on issues Australians care about, but on more obscure issues default back to his leftists tendencies as he has done previously (see first link). For instance, Jack Welch said recently on CNN that Romney is the most qualified Presidential candidate in 50 years. Does Bolt even know who Romney is? Or that Newt Gingrich has written 13 New York Times best sellers. And we could go on, but don’t expect to get any facts from Bolt on MTR.

I admit that some of the GOP candidates are not my cup of tea, but I would not come close to characterising them as Bolt and Price have. If Price and Bolt had watched every GOP debate so far as I have, it would have become obvious to them that the GOP field are full of people of substance who care deeply about their country. They are not ‘nut cases’, while people’s religious persuasion should not be considered relevant. There is no religious test for office. Can you imagine Bolt saying: “…and people as absurd as the homosexuals…”.

I have pretty much given up on Bolt. I urge readers to study the details found in the link at the top of this post and make up their own minds. What I have documented so far is really only the tip of the iceberg. A more intense and comprehensive study of all that Bolt has written and said would likely reveal more conservative ‘game breakers’. Get real – Bolt is not a conservative.

MORE
From today’s GOP debate. Gingrich is not my first choice, but how can Bolt agree with the statement that the GOP candidates are ‘…a whole bunch of loonies, religious freaks and nut cases…’ after watching this video. Bolt is either extremely ill-informed, intellectually lazy or is not a conservative.

Why did Murdoch open a Twitter account and tweet days before the Iowa primary that Rick Santorum was the best Republican candidate? I can offer one explanation. Murdoch was afraid that Romney would win Iowa and thereby close out the Republican primary process. Murdoch saw Santorum on the rise and so thought to give him a push along to make Iowa and therefore the primary process a contest. I don’t see Murdoch being naturally attracted to Santorum’s brand of social catholic conservatism. So Murdoch’s endorsement was certainly not motivated by ideology.

The Republican primary process is Fox News’ ratings bread and butter. Conservatives are not exactly going to turn on to MSNBC or any other cable network to see what is happening in the process. A Romney victory would kill ratings for months to come and so Murdoch tried to spice things up. Santorum is also a paid up Fox News contributor – which I have no problem with, it merely constitutes circumstantial evidence to support my claim.

Obviously it was a tight contest with Romney winning by only 8 votes. I’m not suggesting that Murdoch is the reason Santorum did so well however, merely speculating on Murdoch’s motivations.

Watching Fox News’ coverage of the primary you’d think that Romney lost even though he won. Part of the commentary bordered on product placement for anyone other than Romney, instead of considered factual based analysis. Apparently Romney needed to win by a bigger margin than 2008 for Iowa to be considered a success, even though the field in 2012 is far more competitive than in 2008. Karl Rove was the main exception to this flawed thinking. Romney won in a state he was not expected to win and at various stages fended of challenges from Pawlenty, Bachmann (won the Iowa straw poll, Romney did not even contest it), Trump, Perry, Cain and Gingrich, with last minute challenges from Paul and Santorum. Only 1 month ago Romney was polling as low as third place in Iowa. It was a great victory by Romney so much so that Perry and others are even thinking of skipping Romney’s strong hold of New Hampshire and going straight to South Carolina. Despite their best efforts I think Romney will win the nomination. If Romney can win in Iowa he can win in most places prior to Super Tuesday, which this year is not so super. This again falls to Romney’s organisation and funding strength for a long campaign, if need be. By Super Tuesday though it will be clear that the nomination is a fait accompli. Disappointing for ratings and political junkies – which includes me – good for Romney.