Blogfather Hugh comments on the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne’s piece about Mitt gaining traction in Iowa.  I can’t argue with Dionne’s logic.  Mitt has the Big Mo in the Hawkeye State and its becoming more and more apparent to friend and foe alike that Mitt is and will be a force to be reckoned with.
 
Also from the Washington Post, William Arkin wishes George Stephanopolous would have followed up on Mitt’s “Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week” zinger.   I disagree with Arkin’s premise that Mitt is “walking away from Iraq”.  All evidence is to the contrary.  Arkin is miffed that Mitt got off a memorable soundbyte at Obama’s expense.
 
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder parses out Mitt’s statements on abortion as they relate to federalism.  If you’re in need of intellectual stimulation, feel free to delve into the details.  Mitt has stated repeatedly (and in more detail than any other candidate) that he is vigorously pro-life.  That’s good enough for me, and I think it’ll be good enough for most voters – with the obvious exception of Cheap-Shot Sam.  He’s smarting from the shellacking he took on Sunday and Marc has his response video.  In summary – too little, too cheap, and much too late.
 
The Orlando Sentinel’s Rachael Jackson chronicles Mitt’s visit to Daytona Beach.
 
I don’t know if CBN’s David Brody reads this blog.  His readers, like me, took issue with his take on the Mickelson ambush interview.  Memo to David:  I deny all knowledge of any letters written with cut-out words.
 
Some days Howlin’ Mad Howie Dean’s Head Mitt Hit Man Damien LaVera just makes me laugh.  With no thought to the fact of his boss’ legendary temper nor the fact that the Dean Scream has hung over the Iowa landscape for over four years now, LaVera has the audacity to say that Mitt’s “temper flared during a recent interview” thus showing his “thin skin”.  Its been at least a week since LaVera managed to cobble together enough critical MSM hit pieces into a DNC press release.  LaVera obviously has a thin grasp of temper tantrums.  To the best of my knowledge, Mitt has never hurled a lamp at anyone.
 
ABCNews’ Dan Harris journeys to Manti, Utah to report on the Mormon angle to Mitt’s candidacy.  Harris’ choice for people to ask about their feelings regarding Mitt’s candidacy is rather unique.  I’ve been to both the Manti and Palmyra pageants and have dealt with the anti-Mormon protesters in both venues.  They represent the far extreme of the evangelical spectrum and spend most of their time shouting into megaphones at the crowds of assembled Mormons.  One can’t even describe them as informative, unless you consider someone yelling “Anyone who believes in Joe Smith is going to hell” to be useful information. 
 
The most informative paragraphs of Harris’ column come (no surprise) at the end where he states:

But even if they embrace Romney, don’t expect evangelicals to embrace Mormonism.

Commenting on Romney to the National Review in December 2006, evangelical leader Chuck Colson said, “As an evangelical, I’m not troubled that he’s a Mormon. I would have theological concerns about his soul, but not about his competence.”

This campaign isn’t about Mormon theology – there’s no place on the ballot for that.  Embrace Mitt all you want – no conversion is required.
 
The Point’s Anne Morse is concerned that a Mitt presidency might increase the number of convert baptisms.  It would be easy enough for her to say that, but then this wouldn’t have caught my attention: