Visual source: Newseum
WaPo:
Republicans are increasingly worried that their party’s efforts to win a competitive slice of the fast-growing Hispanic vote in important presidential battleground states are being undermined by Mitt Romney’s heated rhetoric on illegal immigration.
Several leading GOP strategists say Romney’s sharp-tongued attacks have gained wide attention in Hispanic media and are eroding the party’s already fragile standing in that community.
Nikki Haley endorsed Mitt Romney! Nikki Haley!! OMG!! Wowsers! This is... significant? From
Politico:
Nikki Haley’s attempt to boost Mitt Romney is threatening her own support here at home.
Oops. Guess she's the next Bobby Jindal... touted, then ridiculed, then ignored.
Meanwhile, from the NY Times:
Alone among the Republican field, Mr. Paul, a Texas congressman, has a built-in network from 2008 that gives him a decisive organizational edge. Iowa Republicans say that advantage is an important reason some polls show him within striking distance of a victory in the Jan. 3 caucuses, with a battle-tested ground game poised to take advantage of a lack of passion for the rest of the candidates, a stark contrast to 2008, when evangelicals rallied around Mike Huckabee.
“This isn’t a year-and-a-half campaign,” Craig Robinson, a former Iowa Republican Party political director during the caucuses four years ago, said of Mr. Paul’s organization. “This is a five-year campaign.”
If Paul does well in IA, he still won't be the nominee, but at least you won't be shocked.
Arizona Republic:
The day after federal officials accused the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office of a sweeping pattern of civil-rights violations, the sheriff remained defiant as two top elected officials said they would reserve judgment on the findings.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio said the Justice Department conclusions made public this week focused on "isolated incidents." He said he is willing to enter talks with federal officials but will not allow them to monitor his office.
Um, Joe, this isn't going to end well for you.
NY Times editorial on poor persecuted Sheriff Joe:
The Justice Department’s findings are horrible but not surprising. In a letter released Thursday, Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general of the civil rights division, said that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office engaged in “unconstitutional policing” at every level, from deputies to the sheriff himself, racially profiled Latinos and made unlawful stops, detentions and arrests of Latinos.
It backs up those charges with tens of thousands of pages of evidence and interviews with more than 400 people, including 75 current and former personnel in the sheriff’s office.
Gail Collins:
Right now you’re probably asking yourself: What’s up with reproductive rights this holiday season?
And the answer is: a lot! This is America, and we don’t restrict our battles over people’s sex lives to 11 months a year.
George Vecsey's last Sports of The Times column:
That gig is now over. I love being a lifer at The New York Times, but a few things have convinced me that it is time to step back (not using the R-word) and write for the paper occasionally.
I will always treasure the privilege of writing the Sports of The Times column. I appreciated Schreiber’s words but never confused athletes with nuns. But I did aim my columns at a female Times reader who might not be a hard-core fan but might discover me in the sports pages. Why not address universal values? Why cut myself off from part of our smart and complex readership?
He will be missed. See that paragraph for why.
Andrew J. Cherlin:
What we accept from our politicians in their personal lives is inconsistent with how our own personal lives work. The contradictions reflect our difficulty in coming to terms with the great changes in sex and marriage since our parents’ and grandparents’ generations. We value marriage, but we also value the right to pursue personal happiness.
To be consistent in what we are telling candidates, we would need to either return to the lifelong-monogamy standard and reject any candidate who has ever divorced, or suspend judgment on all aspects of a candidate’s personal life. The first is what we used to do in America; the second is what the French do today.
Neither alternative is attractive. A one-divorce-and-you’re-out rule seems too restrictive today. Yet turning a blind eye to personal life may prevent us from making fully informed judgments about a candidate’s integrity.
That's the key word. Integrity. It's what Newt and Mitt ain't got, and why they won't be president.
