Krauthammer on Mitt/Newt

[takoma]

CK has an op-ed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-vs-newt/2011/12/01/gIQAtSfOIO_story.html?hpid=z3) that ends

Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second [Obama] term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?

Given the rest of the article, that sounds like a Romney endorsement to me. What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Really? My immediate thought was the exact opposite -- Mitt's the unpredictable flip-flopper.

That said, neither of them can beat Obama.

[Anonymous]

Old man yells at cloud.

[Anonymous]

This is definitely an endorsement of Mitt. He has nothing good to say about Newt.

[Anonymous]

It's a sad endorsement though. "Least likely to screw up??"

[takoma]

I think the column was intended as an apology-in-advance for an upcoming endorsement. Or maybe it's his way of trying to nudge the right to come up with another anti-Mitt.

I'm still scratching my head over how people can look at that group and not jump onto a Huntsman bandwagon. But, being a liberal, I suppose I should realize that my reaction is prima facie evidence that he'll never go anywhere with the GOP primary electorate.

[Anonymous]

Totally agree with you, 18:20 -- it's like watching starving people walk past a nice steak dinner to gorge themselves on cotton candy and communion wafers.