ROMNEY TOPS IN IOWA

ON IOWA POLL/SUNDAY TALKERS A fine line, as your Mittiot contends, is the separation between moving too fast and not fast enough - to use a Triple Crown analogy, you need to have campaign-sense rather than "Street-Sense." Yes, I'm speaking of the 2nd place finisher of the Preakness. . . so close to the second jewel. But, I digress as I lament. To the matter at hand: Our candidate is dangerously close to being labeled a "non-starter." Never mind the "flip" issue - that doesn't stick cause everybody rethinks bad policy in a hindsight fashion (it's why the Mittiot now wheres his seat belt), but the threat of "why hasn't Mitt moved up in the polls?" question will, if Romney doesn't get the DESERVED credit for leading the litmus-test, EP, states. Luckily, conservative outlets speak of Romney in the same breath as talking "front-runners" and "top-tiers" - HOWEVER, the lefties refuse to mention Mitt and gleefully throw in Fred & Newt (Ref: NOTE TO FRED below) when talking GOP issues. Your Mittiot question of the day is a rhetorical, "why?" A: Mitt is the conservative threat the left fears most. At risk of stating the obvious, Giuliani & McCain are centrists (more compromise than conserve) so why not feather the nest? AHHH, You're reading the Michiganian Mittiot, here, we* gave John the boost in 2000, savvy? So here's the Left's strategy 101: Bash Mitt or ignore his success altogether and get a Rudy (preferably, if necessary, John) vs Hillary (or Edwards or Obama or Kusinich or Dodd or Biden or Clark or Gore or Huffington or Lenin. . .) race. AND, vwalla the Lefties win. . . either way. How is that a victory for the Left if Rudy or John win? Because compromising is not conserving. . . ~ so sayeth the Mittiot. *(I say "we" because I was on the McCain train - sorry GW - I guess you'll have to call me a "flipper," too. . . ).