On one level, this is kind of worrying, because it means that Romney is being treated as a serious threat by at least some Democrats. On the other, it's just bad news for Romney because while a Democratic attack on a Republican in the pre-primary stage is usually a good thing, this website contains some pretty bad stuff. All the usual Mitt-Flips are on parade-- no news there. But there is a detailed file on tax and fee hiking efforts-- one of the aspects of Mitt that those of us who are fiscal conservatives don't like.

On a less troublesome note, there are details of Mitt's arrests (admittedly all for stuff that is so incredibly benign, I actually laughed when I read it-- but then I'm not someone who gets bothered by foul-mouthedness or trying to take unregistered boats out on the water). I seriously hope none of those bits and pieces shock anyone or singlehandedly put them off voting for the guy because while there are plenty of good reasons not to support the dude at the ballot box, they are not among them.

> Read more & share

If you haven't seen it already, Ryan Sager has a column up today at the NY Sun about how GOP candidates are snubbing social conservatives, namely the chappies running the ValueVoters.org debate. I recommend you read it.

Ryan accurately described the agenda of these social cons as "anti-abortion, anti-stem-cell-research, anti-judicial-independence, anti-immigration, and pro-censorship."

More to the point, he accurately notes that it is unlikely that any of the candidates are going to lose more than they gain by not showing up at this extravaganza of 1950's-longing, protectionist, religiously-infused, and yes, big government (on the censorship count alone) sentiment. While Ryan bases that contention on the premise that the vast majority of the country does not agree with the ValuesVoters.org people on issues like this (or that they are the most important of all), I think it's worth pointing out that the fact that the top four GOP candidates feel they can miss this debate with little harm shows that most likely, contrary to what Phyllis Schlafly implies in her comment to the Sun (cited by Ryan), social cons are not in fact the true or at least majority of the grassroots of the GOP-- obviously good news, from my perspective.

Oh-- and I love how Ryan calls Schlafly "Ms." She'll no doubt be screaming over that, with her anti-feminist reputation...

> Read more & share

Some debate thoughts:

1. McCain cleaned everyone's clock tonight. I was really impressed with him, particularly when he hammered Romney over his withdrawal-friendly stance on Iraq. I don't necessarily disagree with Romney's apparent premise that we need to be monitoring progress in Iraq closely and need to keep in mind whether it is appropriate to look at withdrawal, but I do sense a lot of clever political positioning on the issue (as with every other one, just about, where Mitt is concerned). McCain is back to his straight talking self, which is the perfect antidote to Romney's maneuvering.

2. Rudy didn't do so well tonight, but I did like his answer about the Americans for Tax Reform pledge. Some other bloggers didn't. Oh well.

3. "Fee-fee." Or, is that "Fifi?" Either way, that nickname making an appearance in relation to Romney tonight is no good thing for his camp (neither was his mention of wiretapping churches; neither was his smiling the whole way through hearing the question from the man in the diner about Romney saying his sons were serving by working to get him elected-- it made him look like a smug, superior know-it-all who didn't value what the man had to say).

4. No one seemed to be missing Fred Thompson tonight. I mean, honestly, you my readers: if you watched the debate, was there any single point at which you thought "I'd really like to hear what Fred Thompson has to say about that?" There sure wasn't for me.

5. It's about time for Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback to get off the stage. Ron Paul can stay because a) he gets people to really debate about foreign policy and show their teeth and b) he actually wants to seriously cut government-- and it's worthwhile having him onstage so that that debate is had, and we get a sense of what other candidates would do on that note.

> Read more & share