Ben Smith and First Read note Mitt Romney is catching some heat from conservatives on his carefully crafted opposition to the tax cut deal. Ben:
"Thus did Mitt cover his ass ahead of the 2011 primaries, where support for the new porkier tax cuts compromise will no doubt be a litmus test for grassroots righties," writes Allahpundit, who notes that Gingrich and Huckabee support the deal. John Podhoretz mocks away.
The Weekly Standard is also getting in on the Romney criticism, arguing that Romney's opposition is rooted in the faulty assumption that Republicans could get a better deal next year and publishing a reader comment suggesting that in 2012, President Obama can accuse Romney of supporting higher taxes.
And last, but not least, Jonah Goldberg at National Review doesn't understand why Romney dared used the word "costs" in his op-ed on against the tax cut deal.
To be fair to Romney, Goldberg doesn't know how to read. Goldberg claimed Romney said "extending the current tax rates 'costs' a lot of money." What Romney actually said was that because the deal is temporary, it will result in less growth than a permanent extension and therefore result in a bigger deficit. Romney also complained that the UI spending wasn't offset. (He thinks workers should pay for their own unemployment.) Of course, Romney is every bit as full of it as Goldberg, so it's kind of a fun squabble to watch unfold.