Writing in The Spectator, Florence King succumbs to what can only be described as Mainstreamitis when she knowingly omits a certain candidate from her article on the Republican nomination process (guess which one, go on guess!). The article is a decent attempt to frame the contest between the various lunatics vying for the job of head lunatic. If nothing else, it makes for a good entertainment piece. You get the idea that she is dissatisfied with all of the candidates, or at least isn’t backing any particular one. She’s at her best when she cautions readers on Santorum’s fear of the French Revolution occurring in America, or Romney’s propensity to widen his eyes when he talks which “invariably accompanies the prevaricators giveaway question ‘you believe me, don’t you?'”
I assume Ms. King has been to a debate, seen one on TV or at least had some visual confirmation that there are, in fact, four candidates vying for the GOP nomination. Alas, even her article title “Three men and a vote” lays bare her establishment credentials. She makes no reference to the fact that Ron Paul will probably earn more delegates than Gingrich and Santorum combined (and this in a rigged primary environment with little to no media coverage) and will, if nothing else, certainly make the convention interesting. She either doesn’t understand primaries (which seems unlikely) or comes from a strand of conservatism that so detests Ron Paul’s platform as to not even give it mention. This detestation stems from an inability (intellectually and morally) to deal with the questions Ron Paul has been asking of conservatism lately, of which the neocons, “traditionalist” or most other types of conservatives are loathe to answer.