The Hotline’s Conn Carroll has a rundown of Mitt on the blogs of late.  Some good, some bad, some just plain foolish.  You be the judge.
 
RCP’s Jay Cost takes his best shot at the “Mormon Issue”.  He thinks Mitt took the wrong tack when he made a point of posing a hypothetical question to a hypothetical Senator (Jack) Kennedy about his Catholic beliefs during an interview with Mark Davis.  Bear in mind, Mark Davis had just asked him a question about Mormonism that had nothing to do what-so-ever with politics.  Said Mitt: 

‘Senator Kennedy, do you really believe that that wafer turns into the body of Christ, do you really believe that? Has there been chemical analysis in the stomachs of people after they’ve taken communion?’ These are not questions you ask someone who’s running for President. 

To which Cost blasts: 

Oh no. No, Governor Romney. No! No! No! A thousand times no! 

This is absolutely the wrong way to respond to questions about seemingly unbelievable beliefs.  

Mmo to Jay Cost:  Welcome to our world.  This is exactly the kind of question posed to Mitt by “unbiased” journalists on a daily basis.  You might consider his hypothetical question to be absurd.  I won’t argue with you.  It is an absurd question that has nothing to do with a presidential election.  Mitt was illustrating absurdity by being absurd.  It is a great way to show an interviewer just how stupid their question is.  Why, Mr. Cost, is it acceptable to insult millions of Mormons and not millions of Catholics?  The only acceptable answer to that question is “because there are millions more Catholics than there are Mormons” and that is the textbook definition of religious bigotry.  The only person looking like an intolerant fool here is yourself – and quite possibly Mssrs. Mickleson and Davis.  Congratulations.  Here’s your sign.  End Memo.
 
CBN’s David Brody chimes in on the recent abortion kerfluffle.  Dave, where have you been?
 
The Deseret Morning News’ Lisa Roche reports on Mitt’s small donations from Utah.  Money is money.
 
The Boston Globe Editorial Board doesn’t like Mitt, much less his healthcare plan.  No surprise there.
 
The AP’s Brendan Riley has a stunning revelation.  Mitt won’t attend a screening for September Dawn.  Wow.  There’s a surprise.  This film isn’t a film about Mormon history – it’s a work of fiction and little more.  Its release has been delayed so many times its almost as old as the events it purports to portray.  The producers know if they wait till Labor Day weekend to release it, it’ll be swallowed up by films people actually want to see.  Even the Mojo doesn’t look good.  My guess – it’ll be out of the 850 theaters within a week.  Maybe two.
 
The Article VI Boys have some good analysis of the latest poll numbers.
 
ETalkingHead’s Terry Mitchell pens an interesting post on Mitt’s “Carter” strategy.  All similarities between Mitt and Carter end at the door to the Oval.
 

Oh, and guys? This is what being implicitly ignored looks like .

I wasn’t planning on writing a Round-up today for one simple reason.  I’m tired.  Add to that the fact there wasn’t much of anything worth commenting on at post time and I was well prepared to let today go and catch up later.
 
Then ABCNews saw fit to publish the obviously badly researched piece written by Teddy Davis.  I’m not sure what to make of Mr. Davis.  He is either lazy, biased, or a bit of both.  He wrote a hit piece on Mitt on (what else) abortion – taking aim at Mitts pro-choice stance by claiming Mitt has flipped (again) on the issue.
 
Davis claims to have a new angle on the issue because Mitt favors the overturning of Roe v. Wade as well as a Human Life Amendment which would protect unborn children under the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution.  Mr. Davis sees daylight between the two positions when, in fact, there is none.
 
Overturning Roe v. Wade would return the abortion issue to each individual state where it could be regulated as the state saw fit.  Some states would outlaw the procedure entirely, others would regulate it differently.  Either way, the legal status of abortion would change. 
 
Mitt also favors going the federal route with something similar to the Human Life Amendment.  Different angle, same result.  Roe v. Wade – the holy grail of liberal politics – would no longer be the Law of the Land.  Mr. Davis considers this a flip, or a flop, or both.  Mr. Davis is, at best, misguided.  At worst he’s a bad student of Mitt’s position.  Mitt has reiterated his abortion stance in several different forums over the past year or so.  The only thing muddled here is Mr. Davis’ attention to detail
 
Moving on to the Blogosphere, I caught RedState’s Mark Kilmer.  He spent $5 plus shipping for a copy of Lou Cannon’s Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power and used this new found knowledge to also assail Mitt’s abortion stance.
 
Let me state for Kilmer’s benefit that there are few people who hold the Gipper in as high esteem as I do.  That said, Reagan was a man and made mistakes as California’s Governor and this nation’s President.  As governor he signed into law what was, at the time, one of the nation’s most liberal abortion laws.  Kilmer details the inside debate on the bill, but the bottom line is, Reagan signed it into law.  He shortly came to regret that decision, but it was his.
 
Therefore, and it gives me no pleasure in pointing this out, as a governor, Ronald Reagan was functionally Pro-Choice – even though such labels did not exist at the time.  Perhaps he did behave, as Cannon opined, as if he were “lost at sea” but when the time came, he put his name on the dotted line of a pro-choice bill.  Those are the facts.  Facts, as Reagan was fond of saying, are stubborn things.
 
There is no argument that Reagan was a convert to the Pro-Life view of the abortion issue.  Again, facts are facts.
Mitt is also a convert to that same viewpoint.  Yes, when he ran for Senate, and again for Governor, he ran as a Pro-Choice candidate even though he was personally Pro-Life.  That said, when the issue of life came before him as Governor, he came down on the side of life – every time.
 
So, Mr. Kilmer, the most you can get Mitt on is – perhaps – a bad choice of phraseology.  Perhaps he shouldn’t have used the word “adamantly” when referring to Reagan’s Pro-Choice actions.  I’ll give you that.
 
As for myself, and I’d suspect a good majority of American, I’m more concerned with action than I am with rhetorical word-play.  Mitt’s actions as Governor put him firmly in the Pro-Life camp – someplace he will find himself alongside people like Ronald Reagan.
 
To put it bluntly, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for a retraction or an apology – much less an explanation.  If you’re going to look for daylight between where Reagan stood and where Mitt stands, you’ll have to look elsewhere.
 
End Memo.  Good night.
 

The Club for Growth came out with a white paper on Mitt today.  The MSM will read it as a lukewarm endorsement, but the bottom line is the Club thinks Mitt is a good capitalist and would “generally advocate a pro-growth agenda.”  Contrast that with Hillary’s “we’re going to take things away from you for the common good” and its not hard to see which economy would be better to live in.
 
The Daily Illini’s Paul Schmitt declares Mitt the best solution for America’s ills.  A good piece overall, but I tip my hat to Mr. Schmitt for his description of Obama Fever symptoms.
 
Howlin Mad Howie Dean’s Head Mitt Hit Man Damien LaVera returns to the fray with an obviously limited grasp of things foreign to DNC operatives – facts.  Yes, Mitt won’t address the VFW convention in Kansas City.  LaVera obviously overlooked Mitt’s recent work to support Armed Forces members as well as veterans.  I guess Damien didn’t get the Surge of Support memo.  Then again, Damien doesn’t get a lot of things.
 
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder has details on Mitt’s advertising spending.
 
The Providence Journal’s Froma Harrop chimes in on the issue of the Romney 5’s lack of military service.  She’s so far off base on so many issues I hesitate to name all of them, but let’s start here.  Memo to Froma:  I first take issue with your statement 

Let’s pin down the real problem. We know that the armed forces are all-volunteer (”the good news,” Mitt said) and that few children of the rich have much to do with it. 

If we “all” know this, than it shouldn’t be too hard for you to come up with the facts supporting your argument.  Show me the numbers.  Show me the hard data that shows the majority of the Armed Forces are poor people who couldn’t get other jobs.  Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it, but you are after all a journalist and your profession’s word isn’t worth much.  Moving on to your next (but not only) absurd assertion: 

So while the “chickenhawk” label could stick to most of the candidates, there’s something especially jarring about the Romney family portrait: six hunky males, all untouched by military service. (During the Vietnam War, Mitt obtained a draft deferment to do missionary work in France.) 

What, exactly, is “especially jarring” with that family portrait, Froma?  For your information, my family portrait looks much the same as Mitt’s – minus about $250 million.  Are you going to trot out the ‘chickenhawk’ label for me too?  And, by the way, you neglected to mention that Mitt did in fact sign up for the draft – unlike a very recent former occupant of the Oval.  I guess you think he manipulated his way to a high draft number as well.  Of course, you saved your final cheap shot for last: 

As part of his answer to the “rude” question, Romney called for a “surge of support” for the troops. A more politically astute response would have been to propose a national program requiring everyone’s children, including his own, to serve their country in some fashion. 

Whiskey.  Tango.  Foxtrot.  Over.  A national program requiring everyone’s children to serve their country?  What, Americorps isn’t good enough for you?  Just come out and say it, Froma.  You want Mitt’s boys to be drafted and sent off to the Land of Sand.  You’d be a lot easier to read if you just came out and said what you thought rather than couching it in some nebulous call for national “service”.  Of course, that would make your columns a lot shorter.  Now that would be a good service.  End Memo.
 
Via IMAO.US (I link because they’re friggin’ hilarious) I found Pereiraville.  She went to meet Mitt in Winter Park, Florida.  Great pictures – including the picture of all five Ron Paul supporters.  Who knew they all got together in one place!

Somehow I missed the latest Political Derby Rankings.  A thousand apologies.  Mitt is back on top.  Jason Wright nails the race at this point.  Ethan Boivie, not so much.  Listening to Ron Paul can do that.
 
Captain Ed comments on Mitt’s post-Ames poll bounce.
 
TPM’s Steve Benen shivers at the possibility that John Edwards might be taking a page from the Mitt health care playbook.  Considering that Edwards hasn’t had an original thought in well over a decade, Benen might be on to something.
 
Michelle Malkin interviewed Mitt.  I haven’t had time to watch it yet.  Let me know what you think.
 
AOL Stump Blogger Patrick Casey takes the MSM to school on the difference between an investment (a la John Edwards) and a blind trust (a la Mitt).  Casey does a fine job, but the MSM doesn’t see Edwards money in the same light as Mitt’s coffers.  There is a difference – Mitt actually earned his money as opposed to Edwards – who fleeced it from corporations by channeling dead children during closing arguments.
 
WOWK’s Chris Stirewalt gives us a very confusing geography lesson.  He says there are mountains in West Virginia, but in my book nothing under 8,000 feet qualifies as a mountain.  So, I’m still confused.  Isn’t West Virginia due to be re-named the Robert Byrd State?
 
The American Daily’s Warner Huston takes aim at Mitt’s abortion stance.  What Huston is really ticked about is Mitt’s invocation of the Gipper in his explanation.  Memo to Huston:  You’re splitting the hair rather fine.  Find a new angle.  End Memo.
 
BloggingStocks’ Zac Bissonnette wonders if another MBA president would be good for America.  While Bissonette mentions the obvious differences between Bush and Mitt, he ends with this question: 

But will his business background help him or hurt him in the general election, especially with all the controversy surrounding private equity? 

Memo to Bissonnette:  Controversy surrounding private equity?  Where did this come from?  Anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of the market knows private equity has its ups and downs.  The key is to maximize the ups and minimize the downs – which Mitt has done quite well.  Controversy is only made by those who end up on the downside.  Most people call that envy or jealousy.  End Memo.
 
McClatchy Newspapers’ Steven Thomma reports how Mitt is “distancing” himself from Bush.  Why is this news?  Mitt is a different man.  Of course he’ll have a different take on things.
 
The Detroit Free Press’ Todd Spangler compares and contrasts Mitt and his father, George Romney.  Sigh.  Like this drum hasn’t been beaten lately.
 
The Boston Globes’ Lisa Wangsness pokes fun at Mitt’s demeanor.  Must be hard for the MSM to follow Mitt around.  He never turns the air blue with profanity and there’s hardly a beer to be found at his campaign events.  This is what happens when the MSM gets bored and must fill column space with something.
 
The Cleveland Plain Dealer Editorial Board gets the point.
 
Whoever writes this stuff picked up by TransworldNews does not. .
 
And finally today, Mark Davis is at it again – making even less sense than he did the last time he wrote something about Mitt and Mormonism.  Davis begins his column by praising Mormons – in general – and stating that: 

On radio and in print, I have made clear that Romney’s membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a non-issue to me. 

But, without even pausing to draw breath, Davis adds 

But this does not mean it is a non-issue for him, or to America. 

Excuse me, Mark, but Mitt has gone to great lengths to show that his religion is not a political issue for him.  Unless you’ve been under a rock, you know this – so stop the charade.  If Mitt’s Mormonism wasn’t a big deal to you, you wouldn’t be writing about it. But I digress.
 
Davis is very frustrated that Mitt refuses to take the bait and enter into an ecclesiastical debate for which Davis is wholly overmatched. Memo to Mark Davis: Yes, Mark, Mitt is fully qualified to expound on Mormon Doctrine.  I’m sure he can answer every question you – or any of the hypothetical people you write of – could hurl at him.  The point, which you obviously aren’t willing to accept, is that this is a secular race for a secular office.  Your assertion that Mitt should be prepared to answer any and all religious and doctrinal questions about the LDS Church is – on its face – absurd.  Yes, Mark.  Absurd.
 
When you can show me one other presidential candidate – in the past 30 years – who has been put to the same test you’re asking Mitt to take, I’ll consider coming over to your side of the fence.  I’m pretty sure I can get comfortable where I’m at, because you can’t meet my standard for debate.   End Memo.

The Boston Globe’s James Pindell has a follow up to the Red Arrow waitress story.  Not much new there actually. 

The LA Times’ Andrew Malcom has some Golden State polling data.  Rudy leads but Mitt has some good trajectory. 

LifeSite’s Peter Smith takes yet another look at Mitt’s stance on abortion.  Sigh.  I’m not sure Smith’s shilling for Cheap Shot Sam could be any more obvious. 

Mitt won another straw poll, this time in Illinois.  The Chicago Tribune’s Pearson & Garcia don’t think much of it. 

The AP has a write up of Mitt’s commitment to education.  He refers to education as a “civil right”.  This will put him in conflict with the Teacher’s Unions, which are more concerned with protecting teachers than they are teaching students. 

The last time I checked, public opinion polls don’t decide who gets sent to war – much less a poll run on the left-winged, Bush-Derangement Syndrome infected fever swamp commonly known as Doonesbury.  That’s one of the last groups of people I’d ever take advice from. 

Here’s yet another shocker – Mitt has been known to vacation in [gasp] Canada!  

The Providence Journal’s Froma Harrop isn’t impressed with the Ames results.  Like it or not, Froma, Ames was the only contact candidates and actual voters will have until the Hawkeye Caucai.  Everything else is just talk. 

WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah sounds the alarm about Mitt.  Too bad for Farah, but most people know the World Net Daily isn’t worth the bandwidth it occupies on the net.  Memo to Farah:  Get some new talking points.  End Memo. 

Movin’ on up! 

Article VI’s John is right.  Yawn. 

And finally, in the name of irreverant religious humor, read the whole thing.

Time Magazine’s Joe Klein made some great points in his latest dispatch from the campaign trail – this one from the corn fields of Iowa.  Oracle Joe predicts: 

… if nominated, Romney will be formidable in the general election.
 
Listen to him speak. Listen to what he has to say about Iraq. Actually, he has practically nothing to say about Iraq—which leaves him plenty of room to maneuver in the autumn of 2008. He also doesn’t have much to say to Republicans about his signal achievement as Governor: the nation’s first universal-health-insurance plan. But if he’s running against Hillary Clinton, Romney will be able to say, “You couldn’t get your Big Government plan passed. I got my private-enterprise plan passed through a Democratic legislature.” He’ll also be able to say his last name is neither Clinton nor Bush—no small advantage after the past 20 years.
 
Unlike Clinton, Romney has shown a tendency to get flustered under pressure—a question about why his five handsome sons were not serving in the war he supports left him boggled. But he is smart and pleasant and tells the most risqué joke that I’ve ever heard from a presidential candidate: “I asked Ann, my wife, ‘Did you ever in your wildest dreams believe I would be running for President?’ She told me, ‘You weren’t in my wildest dreams.’” He’s not in his party’s wildest dreams either, but he may well be its future. 

Now I don’t agree with Joe’s assertion that Mitt gets flustered under pressure.  I’ll grant you that he was surprised by the question – a  question which is invalid on its face and has no place in the campaign.  You don’t get where Mitt is by getting flustered under pressure.  Other than that, great column Joe.
 
Forbes’ Shannon McCaffery reports on details from Mitt’s blind trust.  The MSM is sifting through the FEC report – some 50 pages in length – and are finding out that some of Mitt’s investments conflict with his policy statements.  I don’t know why this is surprising.  It actually proves the trust really is blind and Mitt has nothing to do with the day-to-day operation of it.  Its taking awhile to sort out because – well – Mitt has a lot of cash.
 
The AJC’s Jim Galloway reports on a recent Mitt trip to Hot-lanta.
 
The Street’s Brett Arends writes that Mitt has been hit by the recent stock market correction.  No revelations here.  Sometimes you win.  Sometimes you lose.  Sometimes it rains.  Seasoned investment types know this.
 
The Kansas City Star’s Rhonda Lokeman (published at Centre Daily) gets today’s cheap shot award.  Ms. Lokeman knows little about Mitt and less about Mormons.  She thinks since Mitt has served in LDS Church leadership he must be passionate about his religion.  This is probably true.  But then she goes a bridge or two too far by stating that “anyone who the step to ascend your church’s hierarchy” must also have “ambition”.
 
I won’t get into the rest of Lokeman’s waste of space, but I will say this:  Memo to Rhonda Lokeman:  I will grant you the benefit of the doubt as to your knowledge of LDS Church structure and leadership.  I’ll even give you a quick tutorial so you don’t make the mistake of slandering the good men and women who serve as LDS church leaders again.  Please take notes.
 
One does not “ascend” to leadership in the LDS Church.  Passion has little if anything to do with who sits in the big chair – ambition doesn’t figure into the equation at all.  Men like Mitt who serve as Bishops and Stake Presidents do so at great personal and familial sacrifice.  They don’t draw a check or receive compensation of any kind.  Church leaders are called from their congregations – they don’t campaign for the job.  The current President of the LDS Church (Gordon B. Hinckley) once stated that no man in his right mind would actually seek ecclesiastical office.  For the record, yet again, this is not a theological race.  The sooner you figure that out, the sooner people can actually focus on something that really matters.  End Memo.
 
The USAToday’s Memmott & Lawrence report on Mitt’s ideas about the “minimum wage”.  I don’t think he and “leading Dems” see eye to eye on the minimum wage.  If that issue were taken out of politics (where it belongs), Hillary, et. al. would have less to complain about.
 
WBAP’s Mark Davis says that Mitt is doing a good job building a bridge to the evangelical community.  Thanks for the props, Mark, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree about Mitt being required to answer Mormon doctrinal questions.  That’s what LDS.ORG is for.
 
The Chicago Sun Times’ Bill Zwecker reports that Mitt’s campaign is no fan of September Dawn.  This movie’s producers know that Mitt’s rising media coverage is the only hope they have of ever making back their production investment.  This movie has “flop” written all over it.  Don’t believe me?  Then ask them why they keep pushing the release date further back down the calendar.
 
As for Political Derby’s Ethan Boivie – there is such a thing as stretching a metaphor too far.  Any further and Ethan might get whiplash.
 
John Herbert writes for the obscure paper Hernando Today.  Never heard of it?  Me neither.  Herbert’s bigoted anti-Mormon rant doesn’t do much to raise Hernando’s stock.  So you were forced to see an English copy of the Book of Mormon while in Argentina.  Big deal, John.  Grow up.
 
And finally, the NRO’s Rich Lowry says its time for Cheap Shot Sam to fold the tent and go home.  Well said, Rich.
 
 

The Dallas Morning News’ Gromer Jeffers reports on Mitt’s visit to the Texas leg of Sean Hannity’s Freedom Concert tour.
 
Writing in the Washington Post, Alec MacGillis writes about Mitt’s plan to make it a federal crime for sexual predators use the internet as a vehicle to acquire victims.  Its commonly referred to as the “One Strike And You’re Ours” plan.  Some question the federalization of what has up to now been left to the states, but when a crime crosses state lines it becomes a federal matter.  It really is that simple.
 
The New York Times’ Michael Lou writes under the headline of “Question of Sons’ Choices Dogs Romney Campaign”.  The very basis of the question is ludicrous.  The Romney 5 have all grown up to become well adjusted, full time job holding members of society.  Not one (that I know of) has a criminal record or has a shady past.  No, they did not join the US Military but as far as I know we still have an all-volunteer force thus their lack of service isn’t a blemish on what they’ve done with their lives.
 
For the record, a father is generally not held responsible for the choices of his sons.  If the Romney 5 reflect anything of their father, Mitt did a bang up job of raising them.  Why does the MSM have a problem with an intact, well functioning nuclear family?
 
ABCNews’ McFadden, Morris, and Johnson have a profile of Ann which is, for the most part, flattering.  The Mormon issue is put where it should be – at the end and in the background.
 
CBSNews’ Bonnie Erbe makes a fatal journalistic mistake.  She believes what’s printed in the Salt Lake Tribune about Mitt and his Olympic turnaround.  Memo to Bonnie:  Not only does that story not have legs – it can’t even crawl.
 
Here’s a shocker.  Mitt owns stock in the Yankees.  Some people take sports rivalry just a bit too far.
 
The New York Sun’s Ryan Sager details the race for the Union Leader’s endorsement.  No offense, Ryan, but I’ve got a one word comment on the Union Leader.  Yawn.
 
Here’s another shocker.  Mitt holds stock in a company that does business in The Sudan.  People – it’s a blind trust – has been for years.  Get over yourselves.  Mitt has a lot of money.  He has so much money he has people who invest that money for him.  Sometimes stuff gets past them.  It really is that simple.
 
Here’s Mitt on Fox News Sunday.  And here he is on Hannity & Colmes.
 
I’ll leave it to the Article VI Boys to take apart Richard Cohen’s latest waste of space.
 
No News Roundup would be complete without an entry from Howlin’ Mad Howie Dean’s Head Mitt Hit Man Damien LaVera.  Let me sum up his press release:  Three paragraphs – including a lengthy quote from Damien himself – and not one word of sense in the whole thing.  Any political editor that quotes LaVera’s press garbage deserves the drop in readership they get as a result.
 
Everything you need to know about September Dawn you can learn from Michael Medved.
 
RightWingNutHouse’s Rick Moran has two pieces mentioning Mitt and Ames.  I don’t always agree with Rick, but he does shoot pretty straight.
 
 
 

Voice of America’s Jim Malone writes on the aftermath of Ames.  I commend Malone for focusing on the political issues of the campaign and not the religious angle.  Would that more reporters followed his example. 

The AP’s Jim Kuhnhenn reports on Mitt’s financial disclosure document to the FEC.   Bottom line – Mitt is loaded.  No news here. 

USNews’ Chris Wilson comments on Mitt’s blogosphere buzz.  Again, Ames has an effect – mainly causing people to pay attention. 

While the Republican YouTube Circus is “back on”, Mitt has yet to confirm participation in the November event and has serious questions about the format.  I’ve seen a good portion of the video questions and have yet to find any of them I could remotely call “serious”.  If the YouTube Circus has participation by the Tier I candidates – Fred and Rudy – then my guess is Mitt will go. 

Mitt headed to San Diego to see the Ground Zero of the border problem. 

Looks like Howlin Mad Howie Dean’s Head Mitt Hit Man Damien LaVera took the day off.  LaVera’s job is safe, however, because the quality of the DNC hit piece didn’t improve in his absence.  If I were the DNC, I’d be very careful about calling a competitor’s donors “dirty”.   Yes, Damien, we’ve got long memories.  We remember the filthy Clinton fundraising machine that turned the White House into a Motel6 for anyone with a few bags of untraceable $100 bills. 

The Hoover Institution’s Dinesh D’Souza has a rather unique piece on Mitt and the Mormon issue.  Worth the read but skip the comments. 

The Salt Lake Trib’s Paul Rolly writes a few hundred words which aren’t worth the bandwidth they’re stored on.  Facts, Paul.  Try a few.  Or just one. 

The Deseret Morning News’ Carrie Moore writes (yet another) column on Mitt and the Mormon issue.  She quotes Article VI’s Lowell, but otherwise the article recycles that which has be done over and over.  Sigh. 

The Trail’s Alec MacGillis writes a truly tasteless pre-Ames piece eluding to a “Mormon” conspiracy influencing the outcome.  Memo to Alec:  Get real.  Soon.  End Memo. 

I’d like to state for the record that the people running the Op-Ed page at Boston’s ABC affiliate WCBV are a bunch of bigoted cowards.  Yes.  You read me right.  Bigoted Cowards.  Only such people would write this type of editorial and leave it unsigned and unattributed.  Prove me wrong and come out and take credit for your work.  I’m not holding my breath. 

The Philadelphia Daily News’ John Baer makes sense.  He wins today’s “Read The Whole Thing” Award. 

A Brownback Blog tries – and fails in spectacular fashion – to put a bad spin on Mitt’s Mickelson takedown.  B4M readers know why I refer to the Senator from Kansas as “Cheap-Shot Sam”.  Looks like the blog doesn’t fall far from the candidate where cheap shots are concerned. 

Evangelicals for Mitt summarizes the debate between John Podhoretz and Blogfather Hugh regarding Mitt’s strategery.  Sorry, John, this round goes to the Blogfather. 

Mitt has a link with video from his Today Show appearance.  Josh and Tagg put in an appearance on the Early Show. 

The Mitt Mobile finally made it to all 99 counties in Iowa.  That’s a lot of real estate!