If you aren’t reading Marc Ambinder’s posts, you’d better start. Here’s a couple interesting things from Marc’s post today:

John McCain returns to the state today, and there’s a good chance he finishes in third or fourth place. I do think that polls may overstate his caucus support in that his organization here just isn’t that robust and the multiplier effect that organizations tend to have will be limited. Still there’s a good possibility he finishes third. That would be an amazing accomplishment, and he might be one of the three or so stories the press has the attention span to cover out of Iowa.

I’ve been a little skeptical about McCain’s strength in Iowa. He’s concentrated little time and attention there, which is why I’m finding it difficult to believe he’ll finish in the top 3.

Conversely, Fred Thompson’s support may be understated in the polls…his organization seems to be larger than McCain’s.

That makes sense to me. Steve King has a substantial organization. Ditto with Bill Salier and Gary Worthan. That’s why I’m expecting Fred to finish stronger than the media is predicting.

UPDATE: Hugh’s cheapshotting all the candidates not named Mitt:

The GOP voter who wants the best shot looks at McCain and Thompson and thinks “Bob Dole.” They look at Huck and think “We’d lose 45 states, maybe more.”

They wonder where Rudy went and if he’ll be back.

In Iowa and New Hampshire, the Al Davis Republicans will be voting for Romney.

Bob Dole??? Hugh went off the deep edge quite awhile ago but comparing moderate Bob Dole to Fred Thompson should be playing on the theater of the absurd. It doesn’t have anything to do with reality.

Notice Hugh’s total avoidance of anything substantive. Hugh doesn’t say anything about how Romney will appeal to Christian conservatives after his multiple flip-flops on the life issue. Hugh doesn’t say anything about how Mitt thought the McCain-Kennedy immigration sounded reasonable:

Romney bases his criticism on the bill’s inclusion of a so-called “Z” visa that, once obtained, would have allowed illegals to remain indefinitely if they did not pursue citizenship. Among the bill’s backers was his party leader, President Bush. Yet in March 2006, Romney sounded sympathetic to the idea of integrating illegals into U.S. society.

“I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country,” Romney told The Sun of Lowell, Mass. “(T)hose that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.”

Mitt didn’t initially support the Bush tax cuts:

In 2003, Romney stunned a roomful of Bay State congressmen by telling them that he would not publicly support Bush’s tax cuts, which at the time formed the centerpiece of the president’s domestic agenda. He even said he was open to a federal gas tax hike.

It’s a shame that Hugh’s resorted to the types of tactics that he once decried about the Agenda Media. He’s a pathetic shadow of his former self.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Leave a Reply