In one of the most idiotic articles I've read in recent months, Dick Morris says Mitt is in a tough position with attacks from Huck on the "right" and Rudy on the left. First off, as mentioned in the post below, Mitt is solidly more conservative than Huck. Secondly, neither of these guys can beat Mitt. Here's my rebuttal to Morris' asinine article:
In your article "Trouble on the Romney Trail", you miss a couple of shockingly obvious points:
1. Giuliani is dead. How can you not see this? Scandal after scandal (along with leftist positions on moral issues and immigration) will cause Rudy's numbers to plummet nationally to the low levels he's experiencing in the early states. (In the latest Iowa poll Rudy is at 9%, and in the latest NH poll he is at 15%). Take my word, a conservative will win the Republican nomination - Rudy is not even a threat to Romney.
2. Huckabee is a flash in the pan. He's peaking way too early. His numbers will top out in the next 2 weeks and then his horrible record of fiscal irresponsibility (both personally and as Governor) and his McCain-like liberal immigration position will cause his numbers to fall just as quickly as they rose. At best he'll come in second in Iowa, but he'll get crushed in NH.
Also, for you to equate voting for a Mormon with voting for a Democrat is ridiculous and irresponsible. Evangelical conservatives' and Mormons' political views are in PERFECT harmony. Please don't feed anti-Mormon sentiment by making such irrational and unwarranted statements.
Finally, where do you get off calling Romney's abortion story a "flip flop flip"? This is a completely misinformed and misleading statement. Being the freakshow that I am, I have probably put 10 times as much time and energy into researching Romney's abortion story as you have, and can promise you that you are wrong on this one.
There are a variety of personal moral views that a candidate may choose NOT to espouse in his/her political platform. (Is a teetotaler like Romney obligated to run on a prohibitionist platform?) It's certainly okay for Democrats and Libertarians to be personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. I can easily understand Mitt's reluctance to impose his moral views on others. Romney's single "flip" (more accurately termed "evolution") on this issue occurred when he was forced to make a life/death decision on an embryo-farming issue. His careful, well-deliberated, and heartfelt conclusion was that he would have to veto the measure - thus protecting life. I find it very believable that, when theory met reality, he allowed his moral view to have greater influence on his political platform.
Please give Romney a fair shake next time.