Mark Steyn's "Morning After" Reflections:I think John O'Sullivan is right. There was an explicit anti-Romney vote in the South. A mere month ago, in the wake of Iowa and New Hampshire, I received a ton of e-mails from southern readers saying these pansy northern states weren't the "real" conservative heartland, and things would look different once the contest moved to the South. Well, the heartland spoke last night and about the only message it sent was that, no matter what the talk radio guys say, they're not voting for a Mormon; no way, no how. The rationale for Romney continuing his campaign is that he's the conservative alternative to McCain. The message from Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee is that he will never be accepted as such by the conservatives' electoral base. With the loss of California, it's hard to see the point of Mitt pushing on. On the other hand, given the ongoing vote-softness of the "frontrunner," it's mind-boggling to think the GOP can't produce a viable alternative.
As to Huck for Veep, I assume, whatever anti-Mitt coordination there is between the two campaigns, McCain is planning to toss Huckabee overboard as soon as he's served his purpose.
The real story of the night, when you look at their rallies and their turn-out numbers, is that the Dems have two strong candidates either of whom could lead a united party to victory. Forget the gaseous platitudes: in Dem terms, their choice on Super Duper Tuesday was deciding which candidate was Super Duper and which was merely Super. Over on the GOP side, it was a choice between Weak & Divisive or Weaker & Unacceptable. Doesn't bode well for November.
