Caucus Cleanup
Here are the numbers (currently at the NY Times home page):
By the way, was it just my computer, or did the Iowa GOP have a meltdown putting the results up on its web site? I believe “meltdown” is the correct answer.
__________________________________________________
Hugh Hewitt explains why Mitt Romney shouldn’t win.
Of course, that’s not how HE framed it, but that’s the reality of this Townhall e-mail tease for his column today:
Okay, let’s see:
- Tax Cuts — Not while governing. Was against the Bush 2003 cuts before he was for them.
- Originalist judges — “Romney Appointed Liberal Judges in Massachusetts.” Read the detail.
- National defense, free trade, victory in war — He may say “yes,” but I submit that that his investments, and those of Bain Capital, say “maybe,” or even “no.” If what’s at the link doesn’t concern you, check to see if you still have a pulse.
- Secure borders — from Fred Thompson, at the CNN/YouTube debate, “First of all, of course, Governor Romney supported the Bush immigration plan until a short time ago. Now he’s taken another position, surprisingly. (Laughter)”
- Protection of the unborn — Falsely recast the legacies of Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde, both of whom were in reality always prolife, to make himself look similar, when Romney’s flip-flop is from near-radical support of abortion rights to ardent prolife convert.
- Protection of traditional marriage — Oh brother. His failures to do his constitutional duty in this area are why he is Objectively Unfit Mitt.
Restrained domestic spending — the Club for Growth says he was pretty good on spending. But RomneyCare could blow all of that up pretty easily.
The Manchester NH Union Leader isn’t buying what Objectively Unfit Mitt is selling. Hopefully, that state’s voters won’t either.
__________________________________________________
If Hillary Clinton plays the “experience” card after this, she will deserve to lose:
Then she tried to talk about our future by talking about her past.
Her “experience” was being first lady at the end of the last century, though the documentary proof of her active policy involvement remains locked in an Arkansas library. Then, the New York Times discloses….
she never got intelligence briefings during her White House years and had no security clearance. So how involved would that make her?
I’m guessing that she’s still going to go back to it. What other strategy remains she that she hasn’t already tried?
BizzyBlog has been a flurry of anti-Mitt activity lately – to the point where it almost seems overboard. Now the guy came up short in Iowa, and he’s on the rocks. Might it be time to begin to focus more positively on who can win in November? Is Huck really the business-friendly alternative?
Same issue, really, with Hillary. People on the Right seem to be getting their wish – she’s getting beaten, and arguably defeating herself. There will come a point where talk radio hosts and some bloggers are still fighting yesterday’s enemy, at the expense of smart thinking about the road ahead.
Comment by Brendan — January 4, 2008 @ 11:47 am
#1, Other people are doing the number on the Huckster.
This post of mine points to one of them, with a supplement from me:
Ann Coulter Takes Apart Mike Huckabee
The first item at this link IDs a Huck Dealbreaker:
Couldn’t Help But Notice (122407)
That’s enough for now.
Huck is not at the Objectively Unfit stage, as is Romney.
The other three have varying levels of acceptability.
Comment by TBlumer — January 4, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Every single Republican candidate fails some key test, either as a fiscal conservative, a religious one, or otherwise. I’m just having trouble understanding why this is productive – and I see a massive amount of finger pointing, name calling and blame taking place among conservatives.
Comment by Brendan — January 4, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
#3, I’m seeing that Rush has said, though I haven’t heard it myself, there’s only one conservative in the race. It’s not Mitt, McCain, Rudy, or Huck. Who’s left?
I held my fire on candidates until learning what Mitt had done to Massachusetts that could very well end up forcing a culture-war surrender. The more I have look, the more obviously beyond the pale it is.
Comment by TBlumer — January 4, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
Tom, Rush clearly thinks the only two conservatives in the race are Romney and Thompson.
Comment by Nasty, Brutish & Short — January 4, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
#5, then he must not have said what I have read elsewhere that he said.
If Rush thinks Romney is a conservative, he badly needs to get a grip.
Comment by TBlumer — January 4, 2008 @ 7:33 pm