CORRECTION "HUFFICANS:"

ON ROMNEY AND THE "RELIGIOUS RIGHT:"

If you got a chance to read your Mittiot's last blog, then you may have gotten the sense that I had been rubbed the wrong way by something out there in the mighty blogosphere - well, you'd be correct in that assumption. I ran across a blog that had done a pretty convincing job in taking on a persona of a fellow GOPer and methodically explaining that the "religious right" had no intention of supporting Mitt (something to the tune of "Dated Mitt, Married Fred). It concerned your Mittiot more than the regular political angling and I really couldn't figure out why. . . until now, when it dawned on me: I'M THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND I'M SUPPORTING ROMNEY. . . and for someone - SOME HUFFICAN - to go into a detailed pronouncement that I was alone in my support of this great candidate. . . Well, I am the "religious right" (pro-traditional family, pro-life, pro-Christian ethic) and Mitt Romney is the best candidate running AND "not yet running" out there.

One of the little nuggets thrown out by the poser's wishful thinking is that Hugh Hewitt has ditched Romney all together as a "no go." Well, that's a "B. S." As witnessed by the article posted today by Hewitt: "Romney on the Rise."

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/490c7db9-9a55-4242-b1dd-f5822f65cbaa

So a correction, HUFFICAN, the Religious Right is not leaving the Romney Campaign.

ON THE MEDIA'S INCESSANT FLAW:

It goes something like this, "The Dems are happy with their presidential hopefuls, the Republicans, clearly are not. . . " Your Mittiot isn't so sure about that. I would suggest that of the top tier, the national polls reflect a "Nation or Republicans with questions that still need to be answered" rather than an unhappiness of our candidates. Being the wiser of the two parties, one might expect we might want a bit of information on positions prior to selecting a champion. . . but I digress. The fact that Giuliani is on top, Thompson comes in strong, and McCain (al beit losing steam. . . exactly because of his positions) rounds out third, adds credence to the notion that right now name recognition is driving the tacit choices of the GOP - NOT POSITIONS, NOR HISTORY.

So where is Romney in all this? He is, with little argument, the least known of the top-tier candidates - but when Republicans get to know Romney (as they have in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan) he comes out on top - as he should, since he is the best candidate (as stated ad nauseum).

Well, Mr. Mittiot, can you just make a statement like that without backing it up? Sure, I can blog anything (just ask the Hufficrats and Hufficans) but I'll add a little empirical some'tin some'tin so you might be able to pass on the information with conviction.

Let's take the recent Quinnipiac Poll for Florida and it's breakdown.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1079

The Poll has/had Giuliani at 27, Thompson at 21, McCain at 13, Romney at 6, and Gingrich at 7. Knee-jerk dictates that our man Mitt ain't doin' so well - especially since Florida is going early in the primaries. BUT, to the point above, even in sunny, smart, "thank you GOD for Florida," Florida, the poll reflects name recognition over qualifications and issues on position (one pundant went as far as to say "there are a lot of New Yorkers and Jews in Florida so Giuliani should do well. . ." Huh? That's just stupid) - take note of the following from the Poll:

When Floridians were asked whether they had a Favorable/Unfavorable opinion of Giuliani only 16% "Hadn't heard enough" to answer - for Mitt, 60% "Hadn't heard enough" to answer. Fred Thompson - "who (all together now, Lefty Media) isn't even in the race. . ." - had 54% who needed more info to answer, but is still out polling Mitt nearly 4 to 1. Giuliani on top, Thompson in second? If this isn't, clearly, an example of name recognition polling - then your Mittiot better give up his day job. The bottom line: IT IS TOO EARLY TO LOOK TO NATIONAL POLLS - OR MOST STATE POLLS FOR THAT MATTER - TO MAKE THE "FACTUAL" STATEMENT THAT "REPUBLICANS ARE CLEARLY UNHAPPY WITH THEIR FIELD OF CANDIDATES." It just isn't empirically true.

~ so sayeth the Mittiot

By the by, it was interesting to note, in FL only 4% hadn't heard enough to make an opinion of Hillary and the state is split 47/47 on whether they like her. . . 2008 is setting up to look like 200o all over again.