Tom Blumer apparently thinks his readers are brain-dead...

Tom Blumer (a.k.a. "BizzyBlog")'s groundbreaking reporting on Robin Weirauch is out and he's using one of his dumbest writing devices ever: his "dealbreakers."  For those not familiar with Tom's unique device, this is his method of declaring a certain candidate unelectable not because of their stands of the issues (oh, no, he isn't saying that you can't support Robin Weirauch because she's pro-choice, never mind that he takes up an entire post talking about how horrible that is), but because of how they've comported themselves on the campaign trail.

He tried to use it numerous times in the gubernatorial race last year.  Apparently, over 60% of Ohioans missed his "dealbreakers."

So what's the stinging indictment against Weirauch?

1. She has "hidden" her endorsement from EMILY's List (and Blumer's concerns are genuinely about the "hidden" endorsement and not how horrible he thinks EMILY's List is no matter that he writes paragraph after paragraph about how horrible EMILY's List is.

2.  Her campaign is issue-less.

And, no, I don't think the juxaposition helped Blumer realized how contradictory his criticism is.

His first is rather specious.  He claims that Weirauch is hiding the EMILY's List "endorsement" because on a portion of her website which lists local and state parties, unions, and elected officials who have endorsed her, she doesn't list this national PAC.

So if John Boehner doesn't list his coal industry PAC "endorsements," is that a dealbreaker?

Of course, it's hard to accuse Weirauch of "hiding" this "endorsement" when she issued a press release on it and features on her campaign website several newstories that mentions it.  (In fact, Blumer's own post features Weirauch's quote in the press release touting the "endorsement".) 

As much as Blumer wants to make this about an endorsement being hidden (even though he doesn't proclaims Latta's unmentioned endorsement of Ohio Right to Life a "dealbreaker"), his hypocracy shows that it really is nothing more than he opposes a pro-choice Democrat.

The second issue is that Weirauch doesn't support anything.  Apparently Blumer hasn't seen the NRCC ads.  Those guys apparently believe Weirauch believes in alot of things the GOP objects to like an expansion of SCHIP and opposition to free trade agreements which are killing this State's manufacturing jobs.  Blumer barely eeks out a slight criticism of Latta on these grounds but excuses it because Latta's website mentions his community involvement and makes general statements about issues (even though Weirauch does the same thing.)

And, of course, as the "hidden" yet-pointed-out-at-every-waking-moment by Latta, the Ohio GOP, Blumer, and the NRCC endorsement proves, we know that Weirauch is pro-choice.

You know, it's ironic to hear two social conservatives complain about the stealthiness of a Democratic candidate and yet ignore the codes that Bush hid behind like "compassionate conservativism" and judges who would have opposed "Dredd Scott" (for its judicial activism.)

But Bizzy and NixGuy aren't opposed because of Weirauch's views, oh heavens no.  They're just upset that she's not willing to make the race solely about divisive social issues like abortion.