Oh Goody

Rick Renzi indicted. The Congressman from the AZ01 has been ethically challenged for a while - but now it's all out there. Thinking off the top of my head, he'll probably pull out and be replaced on the ballot by a state senator or other local worthy. The seat's not especially safe, only an R+2 (Bush won with 54% in 04 and 51% in 00). Although Renzi won easily in 2004, in 2006, with the ethical questions and the overall Democratic environment, he won with just 52% of the vote. We'll see...

UPDATE: Oops - I'd forgotten that Renzi announced last August that he wouldn't seek reelection. Still, a Republican in the district will have to run tainted by the association.

Ron Paul's Troubled Home Front

So he's technically still running for president, but if Ron Paul keeps on pressing his absurd presidential bid, he may find himself wandering off the political stage altogether. According to Power Line, Paul's gotten himself a pretty serious primary challenge in Chris Peden. His website is here - feel free to take a look, especially his self-comparisons with Paul.

Thompson's Pain, McCain's Gain?

According to Politico's Jonathan Martin, if Fred Thompson doesn't place a "strong third" in Iowa, he may drop out and endorse John McCain.

A Thompson endorsement would give McCain some cover on his right flank, especially on issues like immigration; in a perfect storm of events, it might give McCain a critical boost in New Hampshire...

The War Over John McCain

As I noted the other day, I should now be considered a McCain supporter, though I'm also an ex-Giuliani and -Thompson supporter. As such, back-to-back editorials by Hugh Hewitt and Bob Novak piqued my interest, and in the first case sort of got my blood boiling. Hewitt is an unabashed Romney partisan, and the author of the interesting insider book A Mormon in the White House, so his assault on McCain is to be expected. But it's all a rehash of old stuff, and if McCain's crawling back into contention, wouldn't that suggest that bygones are becoming bygones?

It's the criticisms of McCain where I'm not "just" another Republican - sure I differ from the Senator on issues like McCain-Feingold and an enhanced interrogation - but I've never understood the lingering bitterness over the Gang of 14 deal. Partly this stems from the fact that some of the nominees are too conservative for my taste, but partly it's grounded in what I believe is an honest assessment of politics. Changing the rules as Frist threatened to do with the "nuclear option" wouldn't have just changed them to our benefit - they would also have benefited Democrats if they take the White House in less than eleven months. I'm willing to accept fewer nominated judges at present if that means fewer Democratic-nominated judges shoved down our throat. The counter argument is of course that allowing these seats to go unfilled gives Democrats more opportunities to do just that, to which I don't have a great reply. Accusing him of grandstanding is also baseless - he's one of the best-loved Republican Senators and had more of his peers been willing to meet him half-way on any number of things, "grandstanding" would have become "supporting." There's more to be said about this but, unfortunately, I don't feel like discussing it at this moment.

I'm more in agreement with the Prince of Darkness. He too understands that McCain isn't likely to win any superlatives at the GOP prom, but doesn't resort to Hewitt's bitter assaults while recognizing what Hewitt refuses to: that McCain is better poised to win a general election than Romney. If Romney can't open up a real lead in either Iowa or New Hampshire in spite of his massive infusions of cash, while Huckabee and McCain are both making surprising runs, doesn't that suggest that Mitt isn't the strong candidate in the general election?

Discombobulated thoughts, I apologize.

Dispatch from the Huckabus

Yes, Mike Huckabee calls his vehicle the Huckabus. And the Weekly Standard's Terry Eastland is aboard, discussing Huckabee's increasingly strident populism in an insightful article that's well worth reading.

Though neither would ever admit it, I see a lot in common (at least politically) between John Edwards and Huckabee. Both are smooth-talking Southerners, though while Huckabee was trying to convert the masses, Edwards was focused merely on a jury; both have to some degree repudiated the Bush administration's foreign policy, and espoused one of their own that is fundamentally naive. Both are playing to their party's core constituencies, though Huckabee is doing so with far more success than his Democratic counterpart. And most notably, both are espousing populist politics in increasingly aggressive tones. Both the parallels here are interesting - Edwards' conversion to Marxist rhetoric has been a matter of desperation; this wasn't so obviously his schtick in 2004. Huckabee, however, has embraced this air of "grievance" as he's risen in the polls - for him its opportunism. As Eastland points out, he's positioning himself against Romney both socially and economically, and doing both succesfully. Eastland goes so far as to suggest that the Huckabee campaign is attempting to realign the Republican Party (perhaps much the same way that Tancredo's one-trick pony campaign did with immigration).

To me, this effort is another reason to hate Huckabee. For years now, Republicans have largely had Democrats on the defensive economically - sure they still advocated stupid policies, but they were at least in favor of tax cuts; they'd conceded much of the economic middle ground to the GOP. A realignment such as Huckabee apparently envisions would do exactly the opposite - if populism became the order of the day, Republicans would be at a serious disadvantage to Democrats, whose constituencies are more universally in support of this. In contrast, a Republican nominee spouting populist trash would have to wage an intra-party civil war
to do so. Bottom-line: Huckabee's populism isn't just stupid (and bad economic policy), it's damaging long-term; as always, fear the law of unintended consequences.

UPDATE: Politico's Jonathan Martin has an interesting piece this morning situating Huckabee as the latest in a long line of Republican incumbents, including Robertson, Buchanan, and McCain. I don't know if I agree with all of it, especially the McCain part, however the second page is worth reading for the fervent religiosity that pervades Huckabee campaign stops, "polling data come alive," in Martin's words.

UPDATE 2: An interesting evangelical critique of Huckabee, thus meriting a religion tag on this post.

Chris Cillizza's Stuck in History

I generally agree with, and always enjoy reading, Chris Cillizza's commentary at The Fix, but today I have to take issue. His long presidential Friday Line is generally uncharitable to Republicans, starting with the reasons the top five can't get the nomination, before conceding that Mitt Romney's best-situated to do so.

My biggest issue with the whole piece though, is his assessment of John McCain:

4. John McCain: The Arizona senator has had a good week. He won the endorsements of both the Boston Globe and the Des Moines Register and had a high-profile endorsement event in New Hampshire with Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.). McCain's campaign believes that his best chance to win New Hampshire is to follow his 2000 blueprint -- convince independents in large numbers to back his candidacy. Maybe. But won't that lead to a repeat of 2000 in South Carolina when Republicans refused to get behind McCain? (Previous ranking: 4)

What's my issue with that? The down-playing of the DMR and Manchester U-L endorsements (I'm still not certain of the value of Lieberman's contribution). But what really strikes me as myopic is his comment about McCain's performance in 2000 in New Hampshire and South Carolina. First off, it's not 2000. Then, his performance in New Hampshire may have hurt him in the Palmetto State but there was only candidate who could take advantage; if he's damaged in South Carolina, it's a tossup who will benefit. Further, given the nature of his insurgent candidacy in 2000, a single loss had the potential to be fatal - in 2008, that hardly seems to be the case. Further, between the two primaries, voters go to the polls in Michigan, where it's currently a two-man battle between McCain and Romney.

I also have to question his rankings. Romney at #1, I can see - he's the most viable candidate not named Huckabee in Iowa, and has leads in both New Hampshire and Michigan. He's also the best-funded. #3 Huckabee is leading in two states, Iowa and South Carolina. #2 Giuliani leads in Florida, which doesn't vote until the end of January - in the meantime, he could lose as many as four significant contests. And he's the #2? Really Chris, I know he's still got a lot of conventional wisdom behind him, but you can't "listlessness and sense of indecision within Giuliani's world," point out that he's not polling well in any of the four early states, and then still rank him #2. As much as I hate to say it, I think Huckabee's #2 in this horse race, and it's a tossup between Giuliani and McCain in third - where, to me, Giuliani's fundraising gives him the edge.

Interesting News from New Hampshire

The old news is that last Sunday, the Manchester Union-Leader endorsed John McCain. This Sunday, the Concord Monitor anti-endorsed (aka slammed) Mitt Romney. According to NYT's Adam Nagourney, the paper probably doesn't have much sway with Republican voters - but he makes no mention of independents, who can vote in either party's primary in New Hampshire. Still, it's an interesting hit piece; the media finally shows its true colors?

Dear Mike: I Hate You

Mike Huckabee was finally invited to play with the big boys (and girl), and authored a an article for the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. I didn't bother reading it because, to be brutally honest, reading Huckabee's "policy" arguments is torture to me; See-Dubya, however, has a higher pain tolerance than I, and glommed on to this gem: "Sun-tzu's ancient wisdom is relevant today: 'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.'" Problem is, as he points out, that wasn't the wise Sun-Tzu - it was Michael Corleone. Will he next attribute "a deal he couldn't refuse" to Attila, fitting as it may be. Did Cicero - or was it Cato? - lecture on the importance of being able for a bunch of men?

Sadly, I can't add an attribution to this point, but I recently read that Huckabee doesn't actually use speech-writers. Which begs the question whether another penned that ill-checked travesty for him, or whether (more ominously) he wrote it himself.

It's only a fact-check error, I admit, but it alludes to bigger issues: this is Foreign Affairs, not the Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. Is this campaign ready for prime time?
(h/t Powerline)

Thompson Grasping at Straws - And Getting A Big (?) Endorsement

Over the summer, I was briefly taken by a Fred Thompson candidacy - I liked his columns on Townhall, felt that he had an air of gravitas that was missing, and wondered whether he might be able to unite the Republican Party. I never entirely bought into the idea that he was Ronald Reagan reincarnate, but apparently his campaign still thinks he is. This time, their argument is that Thompson = Reagan because both can raise their hands. Or something. Anyways, that's what they have to say in a recent email:

Dear Friend of Fred, In the 1980 campaign, I worked for Ronald Reagan. I was proud to be part of his team. Now, I am just as proud to be part of Fred Thompson's team. That's why I am writing to seek your help today. In 1980, the defining moment for President Reagan was in a New Hampshire debate when he refused to kowtow to a belligerent moderator. Fred had a defining moment on Wednesday in the Iowa debate, when he refused the liberal moderator's demand to raise his hand to say yes or no to a complex question. The similarities were incredible. We have reached a critical juncture in the campaign--and we need you to step up once again. On Monday, Fred kicks off "The Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down!" Bus Tour in Iowa. The tour will take Fred to 50 cities and towns across Iowa in the most aggressive retail campaigning of the whole campaign. Just in time for the Iowa caucuses on January 3! In fact, Fred will be there virtually the entire time except Christmas until the vote. We call it "The Clear Conservative Choice" tour because Fred is the only clear, consistent conservative in the race. He was conservative in the past, he is today and he will be so in the future. You can count on him. We just added the "Hands Down" to commemorate his dominating performance in the Wednesday debate. I believe this tour can make the difference in the Iowa caucuses. It will bring Fred in contact with thousands of caucus goers--it will build off the momentum of Fred's performance. Fred is really energized...and he's already come out swinging. But that's where you come in. We need "air cover" in the form of media for our tour and our first rate ground game. As you can imagine, Fred is the best on TV and his bold proposals have been highly praised by conservative publications and commentators. But we need additional funding for our final media push. Can you help? Could you contribute $25, 50, $100 or more today? Your contribution will help us get a powerful new ad on the air just as the caucuses conclude. We want 2400 donors in 24 hours to show the liberal media that we are tired of of their games. No More Hand Shows! Then send an e-card to all your friends and family letting them know you have had enough of the liberal media's games. Your help is crucial--can you respond immediately? Go here to contribute. I know things are tight this time of year, just before Christmas...BUT NOW IS WHEN WE NEED YOU THE MOST! Please make your contribution today. Help Fred keep his bandwagon rolling--and the momentum increasing! Just think about Fred's defining moment--and make your contribution now. The time is right--the time is NOW. Thanks so much for your help. Sincerely, William B. Lacy, Campaign Manager P.S. We're only 20 days away from the Iowa Caucuses. Your gift of $25, $50, $100, $500, $1000, or $2300 is crucial to Fred's success. Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy

But is all lost for Thompson? Perhaps not - as Chris Cillizza reports, he's picked up the endorsement of Representative Steve King, one of the most conservative members of the House. Two things - first off, Cillizza's hyperlink refers to a King endorsement of Romney...? Second of all, does this dampen the buzz about Huckabee being the only conservative in the field? I hardly think it suggests that the Huckabuzz is overstated, unless King things Thompson's the more electable candidate. Basically, I think the Representative just squandered his influence. Oops.

Romney's Gamble

For months now, the Chatterati have been discussing whether or not Mitt Romney would have the gumption to give "the speech" - an address on his Mormon faith akin to JFK's famous airing of his "Catholic problem." Well, he's finally decided to roll the dice as CBS and the Politico report.

Both articles suggest - and my thoughts were similar before I read their take - that Romney's attempting to win back social conservatives who have recently been lured away by Mike Huckabee, and that Romney has also been goaded by Huckabee's recent performance in the polls.

That being said, I don't know if it's a wise gamble. Social conservatives attracted to Huckabee by his strong social stances (he's a Baptist minister after all) are, I think, unlikely to return to Romney. Huckabee's also likely helped among social conservatives who are feeling economically pinched - I've long believed his Bible-thumping populism to be a potent formula If Romney bombs, he's in real danger; if it's a home run, it still may have little effect.

It Just Keeps Getting Crazier

The headline could refer to college football, where last night's upset of #1 Mizzou and #2 West Virginia mean that the national title game is a wide open affair (Ohio State and...well make your case here). It's also a clarion call for a playoff.

But what I'm really referring to today is the Republican race, where in the last few days not only has Mike Huckabee taken his first lead in a poll (actually two), up 29-24 over Mitt Romney in a D-M Register poll, and up 28-25 in a Rasmussen poll conducted at almost the same time. So Iowa's up for grabs.

There's also Rudy's little scandal this week - which I don't think is a scandal at all, but I'll talk more about that in the future.

Of course the big news this morning - and it had been rumbling for hours before hand - is that the Manchester Union-Leader has endorsed John McCain. The Arizona Senator is all over the map in polls - sometimes a distant third, sometimes tied with Giuliani for second, but never really challenging Romney's lead. However, McCain won here in 2000 and given that this is his do-or-die state, he'll likely be focusing most of his efforts there in the coming weeks. It just keeps getting crazier.

Iowa Fireworks

Oh goody - the Des Moines Register has decided that having one crazy candidate (Ron Paul) on stage during presidential debates isn't enough. No, they need two - so they've gone ahead and invited repeat presidential candidate (and desperate Illinois Senate contender) Alan Keyes. Ed Morrissey's take on the story is worth reading.

However there seems to be a certain symmetry to this - Ron Paul represents the libertarian/socially moderate crazy wing of the party; Alan Keyes represents the religious zealotry/socially conservative crazy wing of the party.

Giuliani hasn't yet committed to this debate - wouldn't it be great if the other credible candidates backed out and left the stage to these two clowns? That isn't to call Tancredo and Hunter credible, just slightly more so than Crazy Uncle Ron and Keyes.

Huckabee Moves Into Two Spot

I've blogged a lot on Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who's starting to shake things up in Iowa.

Of course he was beginning to shake things up before the latest ABC/WaPo poll, released today: Huckabee polled at 24% - only 4 points behind Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the long-time leader in Iowa. The Post's piece rightly points out that much of Huckabee's boost came from Christian conservatives (which may factor into Giuliani's slump in their poll), but it'll be interesting to see if he gets a financial boost as well. ABC's story is long (4 pages) but worth at least skimming.

Fred Slams Mitt

Or tries to at least in an email to supporters - Grandpa can't exactly throw punches. He's succeeded, though, in hitting the former Mass governor as both a big government liberal and a pro-choicer; for a campaign that's shown little sign of life, it's a step in the right direction (and builds on whatever momentum the endorsement earlier this week carried). I've copied the email below...

Mitt Romney says his government-mandated health care plan is one of his most important accomplishments as governor. But what does his plan really accomplish, and is this the kind of health care plan YOU would want to be forced to pay for?

Today, November 15^th, Massachusetts residents who fail to register with the government and show proof of health care coverage will be slapped with a tax penalty for this year!

For individuals, the amount will be on average $219 this year and they will receive a punitive fine as much as $2,000 over the next year.¹

Small business owner? It's even worse; you'll be fined $295 per employee who isn't enrolled in Romney's government-mandated health care plan!²

So what sort of services does Romney's health care pl an provide?

Per the state website:

$50 co-pay for abortions³

While court mandate requires Massachusetts to cover "medically necessary" abortions in state-subsidized health plans⁴, Mitt Romney's plan covers ALL abortions - no restrictions.⁵

After it passed, Romney vetoed dental care for Medicaid recipients from his health plan, but did nothing to prevent coverage of abortion on demand for a mere $50.⁶

Romney has tried to distance himself from his Hillarycare-type plan,⁷ but you can watch the video where he takes full credit. There's nothing conservative about Mitt Romney's health care plan. It's a government subsidized health care plan that requires citizens to register with the state, slaps working people with tax penalties, and provides $50 abortions on demand.

Contrast this with Fred:

• 100% pro-life voting record.
• Has said repeatedly that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
• Opposes embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.

Tuesday, The National Right to Life Committee endorsed Fred. NRLC is the nation's largest pro-life organization representing over 3,000 local chapters in all 50 states.

Help support the true conservative.

https://www.fred08.com/Contribute.aspx

Thanks for your support,

Todd Harris
Communications Director
Friends of Fred Thompson

Yowza

When Sam Brownback dropped out of the race a few weeks ago, there was some chatter that perhaps he'd endorse Rudy Giuliani, thus giving him some badly-needed credibility among social conservatives. Well, Brownback will endorse McCain this afternoon.

Rudy, for his part, has gone one better: he'll be endorsed by religious leader Pat Robertson. For a candidate whose always been criticized for being too liberal on the social issues, this is a huge leg up, and comes in the wake of Romney's endorsement by Paul Weyrich, one of the major players in the founding days of the Religious Right. Romney, I think, has gotten more major endorsements from the leading social conservatives than either Giuliani or McCain, but I also think Giuliani's got the momentum overall.

I do think, however, that Fred Thompson has been left standing at the door by the Religious Right. I for one think that it's too late for him; he should close up shop and go back to Law & Order.

Also hurt by these endorsements is Mike Huckabee; he was the natural for the support of men like Robertson and Brownback, and their shunning him basically dooms him to the second tier.

Who's Conservative and What That Means

About ten days ago, David Brooks wrote a column in the Times about former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. That piece precipitated a veritable deluge (just to provide a small sample: 1, 2, 3, and the best-titled of the pack, William Jennings Huckabee) of Huckabee pieces, first just taking notice and then moving to criticisms and defenses and arguably culminating in a column by the candidate himself (and likely literally himself as he's been known to eschew speech-writers).

The arc of the debate basically went like this: who the hell is Mike Huckabee? He's a social conservative, claimed many of the earliest writers. Then came John Fund's piece (I believe the third of those above), with its devastating quote from the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly: "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

The criticisms are of two varities: Huckabee as a false social conservative (I don't buy it) and Huckabee as simply not a fiscal conservative. The latter concern has become sufficiently grave in some circles that there's a story on Politico today in which fiscal conservatives are concerned about the prospect of him becoming the vice presidential nominee. Concern about his fiscal conservatism are based not only on pieces like William Jennings Huckabee (mentioned above) but also in his campaign rhetoric. The Politico piece suggests that the opposition is motivated by Huckabee's being "anti-greed" (so he's not Gordon Gecko I suppose), but it speaks to a larger issue: Huckabee is an economic populist.

I'm no fan of populism (in fact it invariably brings to mind a fantastic quote from the first season of HBO's Rome, uttered by Cicero "What a dreadful noise plebes make when they are happy"), especially from a Republican presidential candidate. But in a VP nominee, it's not entirely illogical - in fact it might help counteract the populism that Hillary will invariably spout. Whether or not Grover Norquist et al. can derail Huckabee's bid for the spot remains to be seen. Either way, it's interesting to see this debate, and interesting to see Huckabee's conservative credentials criticized.

On the other side of the equation is an op-ed in today's WaPo by David Greenberg slamming Giuliani (from the left) for being a conservative. He rightly argues that the perception of Giuliani as a liberal is based on his stances on guns, gays, and abortion (though he erroneously argues that Giuliani only moderately strays from Republican orthodoxy on those three). His argument for Giuliani-as-conservative is summed up in the following two passages:

On issues such as free speech and religion, secrecy and due process, civil rights and civil liberties, pornography and democracy, this moralist and self-styled lawman has exhibited all the key hallmarks of Bush-era conservatism.
...
As any New Yorker can tell you, the last word anyone in the 1990s would have attached to the brash, furniture- breaking mayor was "liberal" -- and the second-to-last was "moderate." With his take-many-prisoners approach to crime and his unerring pro-police instincts, the prosecutor-turned-proconsul made his mark on the city not by embracing its social liberalism but by trying to crush it.
...
They include state support of religion; the legitimacy of dissenting speech; the president's right to keep information secret; the place of fair procedures in dispensing justice.

First off, since when is being pro-law enforcement a conservative trait? Is that to say, Professor Greenberg, that Democrats are pro-anarchy? Not that I'd disagree with that claim...
But what are his claims for Giuliani trying to crush liberalism? His attack on the Brooklyn Museum of Art, with its exhibition featuring the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung as an assault on free speech; all Giuliani really did was try and withhold funds from the museum, a move that only in New York (and San Francisco) could be criticized. It also brings up the larger argument about whether or not the state should be subsidizing art or whether that should be left to the private sector.

I'm not disputing many of his positions as conservative (in fact I embrace them), but Greenberg's being a typically liberal melodramatic about these; I'm glad, though, that he's disputing the conventional wisdom of Giuliani's liberalism and making him more palatable to the Republican party.

But it speaks to the state of the Republican race when a conservative can be attacked as liberal and a "liberal" as conservative. It's still a long road to Minneapolis next summer.

A Thought on Last Night's Debate

I'll preface this post by saying that I didn't watch last night's debate. Why? Because a) they're pointless and b) I wasn't near a TV. Even so, a>b in terms of why.

The storyline going in was the anticipation surround Fred's debate debut. The storyline coming out was Romney and Giuliani going at it over taxes and spending.

Now I doubt that there was any collusion between the two campaigns, but I suspect that going in, advisers on both sides strongly suggested that the candidates go after the other. There'd been some low-level sparring on these issues previously, and there were three big benefits to taking it public:

1) Voters care.
2) It's something other than Iraq
3) It minimizes the Fred Thompson angle.

It worked, though it's not clear who came out on top.

Oh and while we're on the topic, one of the coverage gems I've found thus far comes from Chris Cilizza:

Fred Thompson KNOWS Andy Griffith

Fred Thompson is making sure voters know he is from the South.

After Huckabee unloosed one of his classic lines -- how America needs to approach energy security with the speech of a NASCAR pit crew rather than like the old family station wagon serviced by "Goober and Gomer" -- Thompson jumped in to say that he probably needed to explain to his friends on the stage who Goober and Gomer were.

See? Thompson knows "The Andy Griffith Show." Thompson is from the South. Thompson -- unlike Mike Huckabee -- can win the general election.

Case closed?

More on the "Third Party"

As I've already noted, some social conservatives floated a third party candidate trial balloon, then quickly hauled it in when it proved to be leaden. Via Instapundit, Slublog sounds off and is worth reading - he clearly understands the consequences of an imbecilic third party bid. Hey Dobson, you listening?

Third Party? Maybe Not...

The threatened third-party candidate backed by disenchanted Religious Right leaders (one reader suggested Alan Keyes?) is suddenly looking less likely, according to Marc Ambinder.

More on Ron Paul's Fundraising

The Journal's Washington Wire puts Ron Paul's surprising fundraising success ($3 million in Q3) in perspective. He's done better than Mike Huckabee, yet the former Arkansas governor - but Huckabee at least placed well at the Ames straw poll.

What this piece doesn't mention is the contrast with John McCain, who apparently has some $2 million in debts - as well as enough raised this quarter to repay them if he chooses (no links now - also worth noting that he'll likely keep those on the books rather than throw away so much of his hard-won cash).

Marc Ambinder reviews the whole Republican field's fundraising successes (or lack thereof), though he makes no mention of Texas's craziest son. Giuliani's campaign still isn't releasing numbers, but given that Rudy's chief fundraiser was pink-slipped last week, they're below expectations. If the former mayor can't raise some serious cash by year's end, Romney and others will be able to attack his claims of electability on the money front...though truth be told, Romney can already do that.