I was just listening to Laura Ingraham's monologue. Right before she said "I gotta get to Starbucks" she was talking about Huckabee's wins in the South and about how he appeals to people because he speaks their language. His simple sentences like "Let's abolish the IRS" are worth millions of dollars in targeted ads. Then she "but-monkeyed" to point out that a lot of people didn't know about the negative ad that the Huckabee Campaign showed to the press in Iowa when he decided not to air it, thereby simultaneously showing it anyway to some people, getting credit for not showing it and saving a pile of money he doesn't have to spend on ads.
Here's my reaction to that. It was sneaky for sure, but it was Judo move entirely enabled by the opponent. This is why these guys are in politics. If Romney had never run a negative ad against Huckabee, would it have been news for Huck to go negative against him? But the fact is at that point Romney had spent big bucks running scads of "Governor Huckabee is a good guy BUT" ads in Iowa. Romney enabled the story and made what Huck did seem more defensive, less offensive.
It reminds me of something from earlier in the campaign. I remember anti-Giuliani people complaining about how Rudy was trying to "leverage 9/11" for his campaign because, as Mayor, he helped see his city through the horrendous crisis and aftermath. I kept hearing in my head the implied remark "...as if that's a big deal...." I think that's another instance of enablement, this time by the hesitancy of media outlets to show 9/11 images since they evoke undesirable reactions such as righteous anger, so-called "Islamophobia" and voting for Bush. The fact is that sensible Americans think 9/11 is a big deal, that it changed America and that it continues to be a reality worthy of discussion regardless of whether or not they like Rudy G's beliefs on other issues.
Remember Rush Limbaugh's famous "Hey, I am equal time"? Well, that can be applied within many different sectors of the marketplace of ideas. Rush was the Elvis of conservative talk -- he has enormous talent, but he showed up on the scene when there was nothing like him. Monoliths are easy to chop at. That's the danger of representing a narrow point of view. (Side note to Rush Limbaugh: I hate to tell you, Rush, but you succeeded because you were a maverick. Don't become a monolith.)
Where I'm going with this. Here's my beef: I think Mitt Romney would be an OK President. He's convinced me that he would be better than either Democrat. But how is he going to beat either of them? Neither one remotely resembles Shannon O'Brien (whoever that is) and both have bigger warchests than bargain basement Mike. He is an bumbling campaigner, and an inferior politician. Kudos to him for making piles of money, but it seems like needs to get the memo that it doesn't help to level the playing field when you can't play the game. He still doesn't like to mention the war, thank you Rich Lowry, completely omitting references to the war on Jihad in his first victory speech which sounded like it was being delivered by a Progressive Populist with a pinch of Reagan. His recent Santorum robo-calls were really just an anti-McCain sandwich with his name inserted at the top and bottom like two pieces of white bread. He still has not answered the question "Who is Mitt Romney?" Jennifer Rubin pointed out a few days back on her blog on Commentary Mag (which BTW is completely down currently or else I'd link it) that he recently sounded like Dole crying after George I smacked him in NH back in '88. The failure to be gracious in defeat marked the end of the Dole campaign.
I'll end with this WSJ piece which sums up my thoughts; here's their conclusion:
John McCain's difficulties in selling himself to GOP voters reflect his many liberal lurches over the years -- from taxes to free speech, prescription drugs and global warming cap and trade. Republicans have a pretty good sense of where he might betray them. Yet few doubt that on other issues -- national security, spending -- Mr. McCain will stick to his principles no matter the opinion polls. If Mr. Romney loses to Senator McCain, the cause will be his failure to persuade voters that he has any convictions at all.
UPDATE: The Commentary Magazine site is back up. Here's the Jennifer Rubin post I mentioned.