As the Iowa voters prepare to go to the polls and their places of caucus, the individuals and organizations conservatives respect are raising endorsement flags above their heads, declaring their allegiances. It is time for me to follow suit. And there is no question in my mind that there is one candidate in this cycle who truly stands above the others in several significant areas.

That candidate is Mitt Romney.

I share so many opinions with my colleague Thomas, but on this one I must break from him. All of the candidates in this nomination battle have important and significant qualifications that cannot be underestimated. Yes, they have their flaws—but surely we could trust Rudy Giuliani, the man who fixed the unfixable city, to be an effective Commander in Chief; surely we could trust John McCain, patriot, war hero, old man who shakes fist at clouds, to be a just if irritable POTUS; surely we could trust Fred Thompson, irascible conservative hewn from old growth timber and stained with single malt, to slug the hippies and cut the size of government; surely we could trust Mike Huckabee to use his silver tongue to make NARAL and the ACLU’s collective heads explode on a daily basis; surely we could trust Ron Paul (albeit in an alternate parallel universe where human nature does not exist and there is no need for interstate highways) to rule his idyllic Randian paradise with a soft yet perfectionist touch, fanned with palm fronds by volunteer Oompah Loompahs who sing glorious songs about the gold standard that would make your heart break.

These are good, committed men. There is much in them to appreciate. Yet these candidates all pale when compared to THE Man, Mitt Romney.

Some may point out that Mitt Romney has the least political experience of any candidate in this field. This is of course a bigoted lie. The least politically experienced candidate in this field is, after all, Alan Keyes. And Mitt Romney’s achievements in his lone electoral victory in Massachusetts cannot be underestimated in any respect. As everyone who knows anything knows, Massachusetts residents speak of the Romney years with a mournful fondness unmatched in human history, except perhaps of Adam and Eve speaking in their old age of the lost Garden of Eden. Most cannot speak of it without breaking into a fountain of regretful tears, crying on street corners, wearing sackcloth and ashes as they beg for the return of their lost executive. In the waning days of the Romney rule, one fellow I know actually took to standing outside of the governor’s mansion holding a boombox above his head playing “In Your Eyes,” begging the governor to stay, wailing as if pining for a lost lover.

But Massachusetts’ loss will be America’s gain, as our golden hero brings his unique amalgam of talent in such a critical time in our nation’s history. He has run the best statewide healthcare insurance plan in the country, the best investment capital group in the global economy, and the best Olympics pageant in the history of mankind. Imagine what such a man can do with the United Nations! I know I, for one, am very excited.

Some may say that Romney is merely Steve Forbes circa 2000, a wealthy man attempting to buy a nomination, with few principles but a better face. This is a shallow, bigoted lie. Mitt Romney’s other physical features are also far more attractive than Mr. Forbes’, as anyone could tell you. Mr. Forbes also showed himself to be an inflexible and non-representative politician what with his loyalty to the so-called Flat Tax and his dedicated work on behalf of fiscal conservatism. To be charitable, perhaps it is true that in one area, and one area only, Mitt Romney lags behind Mr. Forbes—Mr. Forbes has an obvious and ironic sense of humor and wit, as displayed with verve on Saturday Night Live, while Governor Romney’s laugh has been called “robot-like,” “less human than Al Gore,” and “like a horse coughing on a large fly” by some. But no worries, he is cognizant of this minor personal flaw—we are continuing to work with the focus group on this and will have the Romney laugh resolved into a smooth, hearty guffaw in time for the general election.

Some may say that Romney’s endorsement by the National Review was a dark moment in the history of that fine journal. This is yet another bigoted lie. The truth is that the New York offices of the National Review have been very even handed throughout this entire process. They have weighed each candidate equally, and found the rest wanting. They do have high standards—the National Review famously declined to endorse Dwight D. Eisenhower, after all—but in each and every way that was meaningful, Mitt Romney represents their views.

This brings us to an important point. Some may say that Romney is not a candidate who can be trusted. This is another bigoted lie. On the contrary: we can absolutely trust him! We can trust him to follow the path that our country charts for him. Are we not interested in representative government? Of course we are! And Mitt Romney is perhaps the most representative of all the candidates to ever seek the presidency of any nation, ever, even the imaginary ones with the aforementioned Oompah Loompahs—there is nothing untrustworthy about this man, not even his hair. When the electorate wants him to believe something, he believes it! When they want him to oppose something, he opposes it! When they are divided, he waffles! This is man is not just the one to lead our nation—he symbolizes it in all its indecisive, fickle greatness, just as Ronald Reagan did when he stopped being pro-choice!

Some may say that comparing Romney to Reagan is like comparing 98 Degrees to The Beatles. But they are by that very argument revealing themselves as nothing more than shallow bigots who have allowed their bigoted minds to overwhelm their slightly less-bigoted hearts to create a bigoted bigot-fest of bigotry.

The example, however, provides some interesting comparisons. It is true that America loves all things processed and manufactured—one need only note the aisles of meats, cheeses, music, television, and grande lite vanilla soy frappucinos. But it is also true that for every giddy, screaming fan of such sparkling pre-packaged talent as Ashley Simpson, Jamie Lynn Spears, or Hannah Montana, there are also “player-haters” who denounce these nipped, tucked, remastered and vacuum-sealed productions as “sickeningly sweet” or “almost repulsive” or “no-talent assclowns.”

Yet as the Republican brand faces an identity crisis, shouldn’t we take a cue from reality television and the boy band mafia? The American people LIKE things that are processed, predictable, and fluctuate as needed. Don’t we believe, as free market conservatives, that the market should get what it wants? This is an on-demand culture, and it’s time we met the demand with the man who understands how to adapt the best, and the fastest, to suit the needs of the moment.

Don’t you see? When the bigoted liars attack Mitt Romney for saying things like “let me check my notes” on an issue as important as the tactical surge in Iraq, they are merely confusing a negative with a positive. Aren’t you tired of the tone-deaf administration we’ve got right now? Under a Mitt Romney administration, our president will understand America enough to know that he needs to check the polls up to the very minute of the State of the Union address to determine what he ought to say about our Global Warming policy. Want to make it illegal to drive cars? Want to make it illegal NOT to drive a Hummer? America, now you too can decide! Just dial the number and press 1 or 2 respectively to make your voice heard.

Some may say, such as Redstate’s own Dan McLaughlin in his well-written but clearly wrong-headed series on the Unbearable Lightness of Mitt, that Romney is a liability for the Republican Party—that he has the highest negatives of any potential nominee, rivaling Hillary Clinton’s. Some may say that Mitt Romney’s path to the nomination would be a victory for the lowest common denominator. And some may say that given the power of the Executive Branch, Mitt Romney’s cadre of loyal supporters will be like Clintonites on speed, leaving a path of vindictive destruction as they target bigoted liars to be investigated, audited, and personally embarrassed.

These are all bigoted lies, and if you believe them, please register your complaint below while including your email, permanent address, and SSN for our files. We will contact you after the election.

I have chosen not to listen to such fools. Fie upon them. It is the dawn of the age of the pre-packaged candidate. Look on Mitt Romney’s works, ye mighty bigots, and despair.

crossposted at redstate

>> Over at Redstate, I wrote something about the tragic tale of Jamie Leigh Jones. This young woman deserves far better, and those on the right who wish to dismiss her story should be ashamed. I have no idea if the corporations here did anything wrong - the courts of law will prove that, one way or the other - but I have no reason to doubt her story, and urge those on the internet to exercise restraint. Not everything in life is about your personal politics.

“Come now,” I asked a Louisiana friend a few months ago, who used to work for Gov. Mike Huckabee, “Mike Huckabee’s a nice guy, but you can’t think he’s actually presidential material? I’m not sure even Mike Huckabee thinks Mike Huckabee is presidential material.”

“You might be surprised,” my friend said. “He’s a strange cat.”

“Maybe he’s just trolling for Veep? He could be a good Veep for some of these guys.”

“Here’s the thing you’ve gotta know about Mike,” my friend said. “He’s a prisoner who’s trying to break out. A prisoner of his birth, of being from Hope, of being a Southern Baptist preacher, of being from Arkansas and succeeding only in Arkansas…everything he’s done in life is about wanting to be bigger and better and have an impact beyond where started.”

“Forget President. Mike Huckabee wants to be an International Man of Mystery.”

We moved on to other topics, and I forgot about it at the time. It was way back when, 60 days ago, when Mike Huckabee was hovering below the 10% mark or less nationally, and had about as good of a shot at being the Republican nominee as Stephen Colbert. He was supposed to be another also-ran, a dancing bear from the early heydays of the three ring primary circus, with its cacophony of sound, kitsch, Fair Taxes, and sculpted butter princesses. This is what junior grade political campaigns do for fun before things get serious, before the kids leave the table so the adults can talk.

But somewhere along the way, something odd happened: the Mike Huckabee campaign turned out to be real.

Very real indeed, in fact: If the latest polling is to be believed, Mike Huckabee could realistically finish first in Iowa, third in New Hampshire, first in South Carolina, and second in Florida. This would be an incredible surge of momentum in January, all leading up to the 2/5 multi-state showdown that not even Carnac the Magnificent can decipher.

The rise is due to a multitude of factors: Huckabee has a solid base to grow on, with excellent ability to reach out to evangelical social conservatives – many of whom felt particularly left out of this cycle, disappointed in Thompson and Romney as candidates. Add to that the more mainstream Republicans who had hoped Giuliani would turn out to have fewer flaws than he has, and it’s clear Huckabee has tapped into a wide range of GOP voters who were still looking for an answer to the question: Who’s going to lead us against Hillary, make us proud, and actually win?

As the debates have gotten more and more viewership among Republican voters, Huckabee’s natural political abilities have shined, and many Republicans believe they’ve found their answer. Huckabee’s no policy wonk; he’s a communicator, naturally suited for the pulpit and the podium. There’s a bit of the snake oil salesman about him at times, and one suspects he could’ve sold bushels of it off a stump back in the day, but he does it naturally, without apparent malice or Romney’s nervous rehearsal tics. After years of wishing for a president who had the ability to bob, weave, and think on his feet when confronted with difficulty, Republican primary voters love this quality in Huckabee.

And there’s something more: if in this strength Huckabee does not resemble President Bush, in a great many others, he greatly resembles the W. we met in 2000. Huckabee is a southern social conservative who speaks the language of compassion and reaches out to minority voters, like Bush; he is accused of lacking the experience needed to lead the country in a difficult time, like Bush was; and he has a foreign policy resume that is quite thin when matched up against, say, John McCain…again, we see the similarities.

Perhaps this is just a sign that, as Peter Beinart and other less sophisticated sources have suggested, the country is in many ways returning to a pre-9/11 political mindset. As the news from Iraq turns more positive and people are convinced American troops will return home in the near future, they are evaluating candidates as they did before that trying event: based on personality and having a winning smile, not strategic capability or anti-terror rhetoric. So Rudy fades, Huckabee rises, and the country changes again, back toward the way it was.

There are differences too, of course – revealing ones. Unlike Bush, Huckabee has no money, no organization, no institutional support, no Karl Rove, and started with very little name ID. He is perhaps better known as “that governor who used to be fat” than the favored son in a political dynasty. Yale and Harvard aren’t on his resume; Huckabee started from scratch, and had to build his success by using his natural gifts to the fullest. Where Bush gave clumsy answers about his faith, and was mocked (though it turned out to benefit him) for referencing Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher, Huckabee has given excellent responses to challenging questions about evolution, homosexuality in the military and in marriage, abortion, social justice and the death penalty. This is his wheelhouse, and Huckabee hasn’t missed a pitch.

And there’s another area where Huckabee is unlike Bush: W never faced this kind of revulsion by a portion of the base of his own party. We’ve witnessed a good deal of this on RedState of late. Much of this is deserved; there is little in Huckabee’s political resume to suggest that he is or will govern as a fiscal conservative, and there is a real concern that his brand of politics will leave many socially libertarian, fiscally conservative or security minded voters cold.

That said, we should be surprised by how hateful some of these responses are to a candidate who is, whether you like him or not, clearly conservative to moderate across the board. Republicans nationally were quite satisfied with Huckabee’s rise in Arkansas, his political tenure hardly had the kind of question-raising incidents of GOP disloyalty that Mayor Giuliani’s did, and I’m sure we’d all be supporting Huckabee if he were running for Senate instead. He certainly didn’t pass a statewide universal health care plan, or anything like that – but is that supposed to be a negative?

In any case, he’s the hottest property now, so Politics 101 says attack, attack, attack. Over the past three days, I’ve received emails from opposing campaigns comparing Huckabee to Democrats from Bill Clinton to Jimmy Carter, History’s Greatest Monster. They seem to be particular fans of using this Wayne Dumond case against Huckabee, despite the candidate’s own clearly agonized experience on an issue which has absolutely no relevance to his experience as president (unless one thinks Huckabee is going to roll back the death penalty as commander in chief, a ludicrous thought when one considers that he executed more criminals than any prior Arkansas Governor, and obviously than anyone else in this race). Or they get after him for loving swag as governor, as if he’s the only state executive to get gifts from folks (and heck, people, Arkansas ain’t that different from Louisiana – it’s not like he got a bunch of cattle futures).

The point is, this is getting ridiculous, folks. An email today went out from a campaign that shall remain off the record, except to say that they were based in large part on the reporting of Murray Waas. Hear me on this: If Murray Waas were to pen any article against any candidate’s campaign, it would be dismissed as the writings of a seriously unbalanced person with a penchant for wild accusation. But now that he’s a source against Mike Huckabee, we should treat this raving leftist as a valid journalistic source? I thought we were better than that, people. Take me off your list, because the next time you send me something, anything, based on the writings of Murray Waas, it goes on the front page of this site for all to see.

Mike Huckabee has numerous reasons that we should question his fiscal conservatism, his ability to govern the country in time of war, and his political staying power in a race against Hillary. But these are all valid questions we should debate and discuss – Huckabee released an immigration plan today that marks a much stronger statement than his earlier comments on the issue in my mind (did Chuck Norris write this?).

To me, I see one flawed candidate among many, one who has the ability to out-communicate and perhaps outwit the Left. It’s an attractive quality, and I can understand why people like it. It’s not enough for me – my chief concern is that, as with W on No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, conceding to the language of the left to make a political case for conservative solutions ultimately turned into passing the language of the left into law. But let’s wait and see what the would-be International Man of Mystery does over the coming month, and then decide how he stacks up against Rudy, McCain, Romney and the rest.

The circus is about to close, and the real race is about to start. It’s time for the adults to talk.

crossposted at redstate.com