Month: January 2012

Reporting from Nashua, Steve Kornacki says Huntsman "may or may not be having a moment right now":

[M]ost — or all — of this late surge could just as easily be an illusion.

After all, the biggest knock on Huntsman’s New Hampshire strategy has always been that his natural base of support overlaps too much with Romney’s — and that Romney, by virtue of his virtual favorite son status and superior nomination prospects, is the obvious first choice for most of these voters. Thus, the best Huntsman has done in a New Hampshire poll this week has been 16 percent, while the worst showing for Romney has been 33. Maybe if Romney had fallen flat on his face in Iowa and was now in a free fall there would be more of an opening for Huntsman to eat into his support, but the best realistic hope for Hunstman now is that he somehow beats out Paul for second place with Romney claiming first by an underwhelming margin. 

But even if that happens, would it matter much? The very thing that’s helped Huntsman attract such disproportionate media coverage — his willingness to criticize his party’s far-right turn in the Obama era — makes the idea of him turning around and winning South Carolina and other future contests virtually unthinkable.

"The more this goes on, the more I think he's not going to beat Obama. And I can't believe that's the case," – a "well known" New Hampshire Republican.

Friedersdorf follows up on Santorum's assertion that the term "middle class" should not be part of the "Republican lexicon." He concludes: 

[M]ost Americans hear and use the term "middle class" without thinking that anyone is implying a formal class system, let alone trying to stoke "class warfare." So I'd put this in the category of obscure talking points that some movement conservatives adopt instead of taking the time to formulate more substantive and serious critiques of their political opponents.

Weigel explains.

Here is Romney's "I like being able to fire people" quote, in context:

I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep people healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I’m going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me.

Aaron Carroll takes issue with the point Romney intended:

The real issue, unfortunately, is that very, very few people have the luxury that Gov. Romney is endorsing. Let’s say that you are self-employed, and lucky enough to have found a company to provide you with health insurance. Then, let’s say you develop cancer. You suddenly find out that your insurance company stinks. So you fire them, right?

Of course not. You’re screwed.

Now you have a pre-existing condition. There’s not an insurance company out there that wants to cover you. So you don’t fire them. You scream, and curse, and cry, but you’re stuck. Only healthy people have the luxury of picking and choosing.

Fallows assesses the damage Romney did to himself. A reader adds:

The really astonishing thing to me is that no one has pointed out that what Romney actually was saying – that the Affordable Care Act will prevent people from firing their insurer – is patently false.  I even heard a spokesman say that under the Act, Americans will all get their care from the government.  Romney, of all people, knows this is a lie because the Act is basically his Massachusetts plan. And once again the media only reports on the "he said, she said" without correcting the record.

After a while, the Romney lies become background noise. But they are lies – easy, cheap lies – and at some point, like most lies, they will unravel.

The last Suffolk University poll shows his slide halted, and Huntsman's rise cemented. It now looks as if second place will be a struggle between Paul and Huntsman.

A rather brilliant analysis of why he feels about gays the way he does:

This is why we cannot argue with people who subscribe to this framework: there is simply too much at stake for them. They have wedded their fundamental sense of okay-ness to the truthfulness of a set of doctrines. Not only is sociology not at issue for Rick Santorum, Romans isn’t either. What is at stake is his very sense that the world is a good place, that things are basically okay, and that he himself is okay as a result. That may be expressed in a theological framework, but it is a psychological reality. If I marry my partner, therefore, Rick Santorum is not okay. The rest is window dressing.

The boring mechanics of primary voting made less boring:

Frum schadenfreuds over the unexpected departure of AEI's recent head.

John Dickerson scrutinizes the GOP candidates' senses of humor:

A joke well-told gives the audience something they can pass along later to their friends. It magnifies your message easily or at least makes voters feel good enough that they report back favorably about their experience at your rally. Harry Truman's 1948 campaign—and arguably his presidency—was defined in a joke. During a speech attacking Republicans during that campaign, a supporter yelled "Give 'em Hell, Harry!"  Truman replied, "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell." That quip became Truman's nickname.

The Dish recently ran some cringe-worthy jokes from the candidates here, here, here, here and here.