Monday, December 24, 2007

Heating Up

In another sign that John McCain is surging in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney has started to attack, much the same way he did when Mike Huckabee rose in Iowa. If you are going to attack your opponent, on a particular issue, it is pretty wise that you are on solid ground yourself. This basic logic seems to escape Romney, as he admonishes McCain over the Bush taxcuts, despite the fact his own stance is anything but clear:
"He voted against the Bush tax cuts — twice," Romney said. "That's failing Reagan 101. (Ronald) Reagan taught ... almost all of us in the Republican Party that lowering taxes would grow the economy and was good for our economy and good for individuals. And I believe that the Republicans are going to nominate a tax-cutter to become president of the United States."

The easy retorts from the McCain camp:
The McCain campaign's state vice chairman, Chuck Douglas, said Romney had a tendency to change political positions depending on the circumstance.

"From his claims of being a 'lifelong hunter' to receiving the NRA's endorsement to marching with Martin Luther King Jr., it's clear that Mitt Romney has trouble with the truth," Douglas said. "His latest attacks are yet another example of his complete inability to level with the voters of New Hampshire. The facts are clear: Romney refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts he now claims to champion, maybe because he was too busy raising taxes in Massachusetts by over $700 million per year."

....The McCain campaign fired back late in the day against Romney's latest criticism, offering a reminder of Romney's comments while running against Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts in 1994, when he declared: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush ... I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

"Welcome to Mitt Romney's bizarro world, in which everyone is guilty of his sins," said McCain spokesman Mark Salter. "He didn't support Ronald Reagan. He didn't support President Bush's tax cuts. He raised taxes in Massachusetts by $700 million. He knows John McCain is gaining on him so he does what any small varmint gun totin,' civil rights marching, NRA endorsed fantasy candidate would do: he questions someone else's credibility. New Hampshire is on to you, Mitt. Give it a rest. It's Christmas."

When you have a sketchy record on taxes while Governor, not to mention public distancing yourself from the Bush tax cuts, you should probably avoid criticizing others.


On the democratic side, the verbal sparring between Obama and Edwards has intensified, as the two duel to be the anti-Hillary in Iowa:
Obama slams Edwards over nonprofits' use:

Barack Obama charging that rival John Edwards committed campaign hypocrisy by deriding political organizations called 527s at the same time he allegedly will benefit from their spending.

Yet, the Illinois senator said, it was learned Saturday that even as Edwards was calling for a ban on spending by such outside groups, one was planning to spend $750,000 on television ads in Iowa in support of his campaign.

On Friday, at a campaign stop in Johnston, Edwards slammed these groups. He has often said they ought to be banned from influencing elections.

"You can't say yesterday you don't believe in them, and today you have three-quarters of a million dollars being spent for you," Obama said.

Saturday's exchange was the sharpest direct engagement of the campaign between Obama and Edwards.

After a packed stump speech at a Lisbon school, Edwards said Obama's sudden attention was prompted by Edwards' growing momentum in Iowa.

"You can see it in the energy and enthusiasm of the events, you can see it in the size of the crowds, and I see it when people come to me after the event, as they did 15 minutes ago, and said, 'I came here for Obama; [now] I'm for you, I'm committing right now,' " Edwards said. "I know that we're moving, and Sen. Obama's comments this morning and over the last few days would indicate he knows the same thing."

Watching these two men start to roll in the mud probably brings a smile to Clinton's face. If Obama does manage to pull out a victory in Iowa, he is well poised in New Hampshire (latest poll gives him a margin of error lead) and might be unstoppable.


Anonymous said...

Hillary should not be smiling now. She may become the victim of the "Ignatieff stall".

I have not witnessed an Edwards' bounce in Iowa in the polls at RealClear. He has been in Iowa the longest and it means getting the past caucus attendees to vote for him again. Beyond there, Edwards is going to be dependent on netroots to keep the campaign going.

The prospect of Hillary finishing third in Iowa is now possible. This is something she needs to build on as it is obvious that her campaign is in danger of being stuck due to the strong focus on personality and less on policy issues.

Anonymous said...

I think it is funny that Republicans are wrestling so hard to “make sure” they get the right guy.

The bottom line is Mitt Romney is the only candidate who stands a chance of winning against a Hillary Obama (pres/vp) ticket. Don’t waste your primary vote on someone who has no chance of winning.

what good will Huck do your faith when he is deciding what streets to re pave in Little Rock in 2009?

War heroes:
What good will McCain do for your legacy when he is making global warming documentaries in 2009?

People who watched 9/11 from a couch in Tulsa:
What good will Guiliani do for your rural security when he is teaching at NYU in 2009?

***IMPORTANT: A primary vote for Huckabee, Guiliani, or McCain is a November vote for Hillary and Obama. Period.

Republicans need to vote ROMNEY or suck it up until 2016.