Unluckily for McCain, snowstorms in Michigan suppressed the turnout among
Democratic "Independents" who planned to screw up the Republican primary by voting
for our worst candidate. Democrats are notoriously unreliable voters in bad
weather. Instead of putting on galoshes and going to the polls, they sit on their
porches waiting for FEMA to rescue them.
In contrast to Michigan's foul weather, New Hampshire was balmy on primary day,
allowing McCain's base Democrats to come out and vote for him.
Assuming any actual Republicans are voting for McCain or for liberals' new
favorite candidate for us, Mike Huckabee this column is for you.
I've been casually taking swipes at Mitt Romney for the past year based on the
assumption that, in the end, Republicans would choose him as our nominee. My
thinking was that Romney would be our nominee because he is manifestly the best
I had no idea that Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire planned to do
absolutely zero research on the candidates and vote on the basis of random
Dear Republicans: Please do one-tenth as much research before casting a vote in a
presidential election as you do before buying a new car.
One clue that Romney is our strongest candidate is the fact that Democrats keep
viciously attacking him while expressing their deep respect for Mike Huckabee and
This point was already extensively covered in Chapter 1 of "How To Talk to a
Liberal (If You Must)": Never take advice from your political enemies.
Turn on any cable news show right now, and you will see Democratic pundits
attacking Romney, calling him a "flip-flopper," and heaping praise on McCain and
Huckleberry almost as if they were reading some sort of "talking points."
Doesn't that raise the tiniest suspicions in any of you? Are you too busy boning up
on Consumer Reports' reviews of microwave ovens to spend one day thinking about who
should be the next leader of the free world? Are you familiar with our "no
exchange/no return" policy on presidential candidates? Voting for McCain because he
was a POW a quarter-century ago or Huckabee because he was a Baptist preacher is
like buying a new car because you like the color.
The candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are
feverishly denouncing. That is Mitt Romney by a landslide.
New York Times columnist Frank Rich says Romney "is trying to sell himself as a
leader," but he "is actually a follower and a panderer, as confirmed by his
flip-flops on nearly every issue."
But Rich is in a swoon over Huckabee. I haven't seen Rich this excited since they
announced "Hairspray" was coming to Broadway.
Rich has continued to hyperventilate over "populist" charmer Huckabee even after it
came to light that Huckabee had called homosexuality an "abomination." Normally,
any aspersions on sodomy or any favorable mentions of Christianity would lead to at
least a dozen hysterical columns by Frank Rich.
Rich treated Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" as if it were a Leni
Riefenstahl Nazi propaganda film. (On a whim, I checked to see if Rich had actually
compared Gibson to Riefenstahl in one of his many "Passion" reviews and yes, of
course he had.)
Curiously, however, Huckabee's Christianity doesn't bother Rich. In column after
column, Rich hails Huckabee as the only legitimate leader of the Republican Party.
This is like a girl in high school who hates you telling you your hair looks
Liberals claim to be enraged at Romney for being a "flip-flopper." I've looked and
looked, and the only issue I can find that Romney has "flipped" on is abortion.
When running for office in Massachusetts or, for short, "the Soviet Union"
Romney said that Massachusetts was a pro-choice state and that he would not seek to
change laws on abortion.
Romney's first race was against Sen. Teddy Kennedy whom he came closer to
beating than any Republican ever had. If Romney needed to quote "The Communist
Manifesto" to take out that corpulent drunk, all men of good will would owe him a
debt of gratitude.
Even when Romney was claiming to support Roe v. Wade, he won the endorsement of
Massachusetts Citizens for Life a group I trust more than the editorial board of
The New York Times. Romney's Democratic opponents always won the endorsements of
the very same pro-choice groups now attacking him as a "flip-flopper."
After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: "(A)s
governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice
record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice."
Pro-abortion groups like the Republican Majority for Choice the evil
doppelganger to my own group, Democratic Majority for Life are now running
videos attacking Romney for "flip-flopping" on abortion.
Of all the Republican candidates for president, Romney and Rudy Giuliani are the
only ones who had to be elected in pro-choice districts. Romney governed as a
pro-lifer and has been viciously attacked by pro-abortion groups.
By contrast, Giuliani cleverly avoids the heinous "flip-flopper" label by
continuing to embrace baby-killing. (Rudy flip-flops only on trivial matters like
illegal immigration and his own marital vows.)
And, of course, Romney is a Mormon. Even a loser Mormon like Sen. Harry Reid claims
to be pro-life. So having a candidate with a wacky religion isn't all bad.
At worst, Romney will turn out to be a moderate Republican a high-IQ,
articulate, moral, wildly successful, moderate Republican. Of the top five
Republican candidates for president, Romney is the only one who hasn't dumped his
first wife (as well as the second, in the case of Giuliani) except Huckabee. And
unlike Huckabee, Romney doesn't have a son who hanged a dog at summer camp. So
there won't be any intern issues and there won't be any Billy Carter issues.
It's also possible that Romney will turn out to be a conservative Republican at
least more conservative than he was as governor of Massachusetts. Whatever problems
Romney's Mormonism gives voters, remember: Bill Clinton came in third in heavily
Mormon Utah in 1992.