If you're a good republican, your first clue that you shouldn't vote for McCain or Huckabee should come from the mainstream media. They love those guys. The New York Times just looooves Huckabee, comparing his populist message to Reagan's. They also know that a Huckabee nomination would mean the end of the GOP. He's a weak candidate with a poor record and a penchant for crusading. And McCain? Why, he's a decorated war hero! What they don't mention is their knowledge of the fact that an old haggard like McCain has absolutely NO chance against a young Obama or Girl Power.
While I don't have any particular love for outspoken political columnist Ann Coulter, she sums the situation up very well with this statement (which, by the way, is pro-Romney, like me):
"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 candidate.I would suggest reading the FULL ARTICLE. But the point is that we should not be taking the advice of our sworn political enemies (NYTimes, MSNBC, Wolf Blitzer, etc.) when it comes to choosing a candidate. If the media is ever pleasant towards a Baptist Minister (Huckabee) or a pro-war Republican (McCain), you can be pretty sure there is a hidden agenda, because it never happens otherwise. In this case, the agenda is to give the weakest candidates the most press.
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 impulses.
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 John McCain."
Why did Huckabee suddenly surge in Iowa? He would say it was his message, and that would be baloney. Huck's been on the same message for a year (more Jesus in government, legislation, etc.). So, it wasn't his message. He surged because of the fact that he got hundreds of hours of favorable media coverage for free, by CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS while the former front-runner in that state, Romney, had to pay millions for it. The media played the evangelical electorate in Iowa like an angel's harp, and they bought it like a televangelist healin'.
Romney is the the DNC's worst fear. He's intelligent, was popular in a liberal state, is conservative, articulate, a proven strong manager and leader, decent, and yes, good looking. He is the ONLY person who can beat Hillary or Obama in November. What about Giuliani? He's got a fair shot. But have you ever noticed that Giuliani's strongest moments come when he's discussing 9/11? On other subjects, he falls apart. His 9/11 leadership mystique will not carry him into the White House. Only someone who can hammer liberals can claim that prize. And that man, right now, is Mitt Romney.
If the press gives Romney half as much coverage they gave Huckabee (outside of the Mormon issue), you will see his numbers surge faster than the lines in Wal-Mart on the 1st of the month. He's good. Yes, that good.