A National Journal Insiders Poll shows respondents favoring Mitt Romney for president in 2012 if John McCain doesn't win this year, with 55 percent of the vote.

However, when they polled conservative bloggers the results were much closer:

A survey of right-of-center bloggers was more divided; Romney won, but with a plurality of less than one-third, barely ahead of Palin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. The mood toward Romney was summed up by one respondent: "Alas." A blogger who picked Jindal said, "I think the field would be quite wide-open in 2012, but the base will demand a 'fresh face,' someone with a record of accomplishment, and someone who's not identified as an old Washington hand."

With rumors circulating that a McCain vice presidential pick could come as early as this week, The Ethics Guy, aka Bruce Weinstein, outlines some of the ethical considerations of picking a VP. Weinstein argues that the pick should go beyond simple electoral vote calculations:

With so many critical issues before us, including a flagging economy, rising food and energy prices, a housing crisis, almost 50 million citizens without health-care insurance, and the ever-present danger of terrorism, it's reasonable to think that the next President may continue in the tradition of having a Vice-President who plays a significant role in determining the direction of our country.

I still think Novak's story was a distraction from the McCain campaign to put a dent in Obama's overwhelming, and overwhelmingly positive, blanket news coverage from overseas this week. But if the news is accurate, this would be a foolish decision on team McCain's part.

Unless, of course, you buy into my theory that McCain has already resigned himself to losing the election and is going to select Mitt Romney as his running mate because his dislikes Romney so much that he wants to critically damage his chances of being the 2012 nominee by putting him on a losing ticket this year. Zing.

Get all the latest on VP chatter by checking out CQ Politics' VP Watch.

Conservative bloggers are beginning to digest the breaking news that Mitt Romney will endorse John McCain during a 3:30pm EST event today:

They said Romney wants the 286 delegates he won to go to McCain, who now has 827 delegates, and is the Republican front-runner. To clinch the Republican nomination 1,191 are needed.

That would leave McCain just 78 delegates short of the nomination. Probably not enough to give Romney a real shot at VP since it doesn't push McCain across the finish line. Romney supporters can point to the unexpected Reagan/Bush alliance in 1980, but it will depend on whether Romney's endorsement carries weight. The initial reaction doesn't look so good.

Michelle Malkin, asking if Romney would need "nose plugs" sharing the stage with McCain today:

Now, that’s a Valentine’s Day gift.

And NRO has only mentioned the endorsement without commentary, but Kathryn Jean Lopez has a Valentine's Day campaign fairwell piece on Romney today.

Sam Stein at the Huffington Post discusses a new John McCain "robo-call" phone campaign attacking Mitt Romney for his alleged flip-flopping record on gay rights. From the ad:

"Mitt Romney thinks he can fool us. He supported abortion on demand, even allowed a law mandating taxpayer-funding for abortion. He says he changed his mind, but he still hasn't changed the law. He told gay organizers in Massachusetts he would be a stronger advocate for special rights than even Ted Kennedy. Now, it's something different."

The McCain campaign announced they pulled the attack ad yesterday.

But James Joyner doesn't think the ad rises to the level of slandering gays:

Does this amount to “gay baiting”? That seems a bit much, since the target of the attack is Romney, an open heterosexual. The main thrust of the message is that Romney is a dishonest flip-flopper who’ll tell you what you want to hear. But, certainly, the choice of abortion and gay rights among the dozens of issues on which Romney has changed positions to highlight would appear to be aimed at social conservatives.

During last night's debate, Mitt Romney was asked if he would emulate Ronald Reagan's 1983 Social Security reforms. As the question was being asked, viewers could hear an unidentified voice whispering, "raise taxes." Was it a MSNBC producer accidentally speaking over the air? A Romney surrogate tipping the candidate toward his answer? Seems a bit paranoid, but that hasn't stopped bloggers from discussing. Maybe it was the box on President Bush's back from the 2004 debate? Listen and watch for yourself:

With Fred Thompson out of the race, Mitt Romney has segued into the favored candidate of conservative bloggers. So, why do so many of Romney’s fellow Republicans running for president personally dislike him? Is it because of the large personal fortune he’s used to help make himself a viable contender? Is it opposition to his Mormon faith? Or, is it his willingness to make major pivots on issues for electoral convenience?

The Moderate Voice suggests it’s the latter:

The difficulty of dealing with a candidate like Mitt Romney, who reminds me less of his laudable father, the late Michigan governor George Romney and more of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, is that he can baldly misrepresent the facts about himself and others, something he’s done repeatedly in this election cycle, and affect wounded rectitude when he gets called to the carpet for it.

While conservative Hot Air suggests that Romney let his establishment Republican friends boost his candidacy rather than going on the attack.

Meanwhile, some liberal bloggers like Matthew Yglesias have given Romney something of a pass, while others, like Daily Kos, asked Democrats to vote for him in the Michigan primary because they think he’s the least electable Republican, as many polls have indicated.

The liberal AMERICAblog ponders:

It's easy for us to dislike Mitt Romney. He's loathsome. But, what's interesting is how those who know him best -- his fellow Republican -- really can't stand the guy

Patrick Ruffini is running a poll over at Hugh Hewitt’s website attempting to measure which candidate Fred Thompson’s supporters (FredHeads) would back assuming Thompson drops out of the race.

With about 4,000 votes, the overwhelming choice so far is Mitt Romney, with 74 percent. And in a second poll, 88 percent of respondents say a Thompson endorsement of John McCain would make “no impact” in their decision of whether or not to support McCain.

There are so many problems with this poll it would be a greater challenge to find something right about it than to outline the number of things wrong with it. First, the poll is being hosted on a website operated by Hugh Hewitt, an ardent Romney supporter. Second, McCain’s web presence has always been quite weak, so it’s unlikely a surge of online Thompson supporters would migrate to someone they’ve never been fond of. Third, not only is it a pro-Romney website, but many people forget that before Ron Paul’s “Ronulans,” or “Paultards,” began their great spamming adventure, it was Romney’s “Rombots” who were infamous for stacking online polls and surveys.

Then there’s the question of how much a Thompson endorsement would actually matter outside of the blogosphere. If he can’t get actual voters to support his campaign, what are the odds he could sway a significant portion of the electorate to vote for someone else?

How often do you see bloggers correctly telling the traditional media to get ahold of themselves?

But Ezra Klein does just that, and calls the mainstream press to task for its “white-hot hatred” of Mitt Romney:

Romney's jobs rhetoric is stupid. But it's a common campaign lie, and one the press never, ever rebels against. They hate Romney, though, and so he's getting an uncommon level of scrutiny.

Specifically, Klein is referencing this video showing AP reporter Glen Johnson hounding Romney on whether the lobbyists “run” his campaign.

You won't often find this blog defending the semantic parsings of a candidate for elective office, but in this case, Romney’s balancing act of having lobbyists involved in his campaign is a fair distinction from Johnson’s emotionally charged accusation of said lobbyists “running” Romney’s effort.

After this story broke yesterday, I was speaking with someone who works for the McCain campaign. This individual, much like their boss, has little but contempt for Romney, but stood up for him in this case, noting Johnson was known for being similarly confrontational and bordering on unprofessional during the 2004 campaign.

I’m not out on the campaign trail, so I can’t speak directly to the quality of work being done by the press corps. But maybe if they called out false statements on an individual basis instead of waiting for explosive outbursts like Johnson’s, the public would be better served. After all, isn’t a single “lie” one lie too many?

Daily Kos has started an unusual campaign, urging Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney in next week’s Michigan primary. Saying the GOP “deserves the very worst,” Kos writes:

Romney is spending a lot of money on ads trashing his fellow Republicans. We want more of that money spent trashing his fellow Republicans. We want an unsettled field with Republicans fragmented and fighting.

Because Michigan moved its primary ahead of February 5th, Democrats stripped the state of its delegates to the National Convention and most major candidates dropped off the ballot. Hillary Clinton is the only top-tier candidate staying on the ballot, going up against the likes of Dennis Kucinich and “Uncommitted.”

Kos’ MI strategy also has a Facebook page, which at last count had 92 members.

The national media have anointed John McCain the new GOP frontrunner, but I just find it hard to picture him as the nominee. He has a great personal story and the perfect blend of conservative to moderate positions for a surprising Republican victory next November. It’s just really difficult to picture primary voters being so reasonable or pragmatic.

Mike Huckabee is also hated by many of those same so-called conservative elites. However, unlike McCain, he is a fresh face whose mixed partisan background as governor of Arkansas is still likely largely unknown to most voters. What those likely voters do know about Huck – his consistent background as a social conservative and his empathetic touch – are inherent advantages over any other Republican candidate.

Real Clear Politics’ John Ellis outlines the case for how Huckabee wins the Republican nomination:

A strong Huckabee showing in Michigan and a convincing win in South Carolina would set up a showdown with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in Florida, one that Huckabee could afford to lose. Indeed, he might even want to lose it, if only to fatten Giuliani up for his eventual slaughter on the altar of social conservatism. Again, the longer Huckabee faces two "not Huckabee" candidates, all of whom are alien or anathema to the GOP's core Sunbelt/Christian constituencies, the more likely it is he will eventually emerge victorious in the final showdown, wherever that might occur.

“Crunchy Con” Rod Dreher agrees, adding:

I'm thinking that if Huck can pound his Main Street populist message, and get lots of free media in Michigan, he could win over enough independents and Democrats to make a difference in a close three-way race.

Romney supporter Hugh Hewitt and McCain supporter Andrew Sullivan with more.

Rasmussen Reports has an early poll out of South Carolina showing Mike Huckabee with a solid lead at 28 percent, to John McCain's 21 percent.

Mitt Romney places third with 15 percent and Fred Thompson gets 11 percent. Rudy Giuliani is also in double-figures, with 10 percent of the vote.

Of course, these numbers are bound to change after tonight's results from New Hampshire. How much of a boost will John McCain get? How far will Mitt Romney's numbers fall? And will Mike Huckabee's numbers be affected at all?

Now that the cable news networks are calling New Hampshire for John McCain, the driving question is how does his victory affect the McCain and Romney campaigns?

Romney has many built-in advantages in the upcoming Michigan primary, but so does McCain. Is this the end of the Romney campaign, or the second stage in a tortoise vs. hare(s) contest?

And even with the apparent resounding victory, McCain will soon face some of the very same questions the Huckabee campaign is facing, most prominently: How does your campaign continue beyond one friendly contest?

Follow all the real-time results with CQ's New Hampshire Primary page here.

John McCain began the 2008 presidential campaign in first place, and that's where most national polls have him after his strong win in New Hampshire on Tuesday. McCain seems to have everything in place for a Michigan victory next week, but that could all change on a dime if he does not perform well in tonight's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina debate, where immigration is listed as a top issue for voters. And remember, McCain is largely considered to have under-performed during the last two debates before NH. But he did still win...

Going into tonight's Fox News sponsored debate, two new polls show him with traction in Michigan (1/15), a state he won in 2000, and where Mitt Romney will make his "last stand."

A Rossman Group/MIRS/Denno-Noor survey shows Huckabee leading with 23 percent, followed by Romney at 22 and McCain at 18. No other candidate shows in double digits. However, this poll was conducted before McCain's win, so I suspect Romney and Giuliani, who is pulling in 8 percent of the vote here, could both experience drops.

Meanwhile, a Strategic Vision Poll, also taken before NH, shows McCain leading with 29 percent of the vote, to 20 percent for Romney. Huckabee receives 18 percent and Giuliani gets 13 percent.

Can’t wait for next week’s New Hampshire primary? National Review’s Jim Geraghty reminds us that Wyoming’s GOP caucus is tomorrow and could provide at least a small boost for Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson or Ron Paul. That’s because while most candidates have ignored the state, the Romney and Thompson campaigns have spent organization time and/or money there, while the Paul campaign has been taking out newspaper ads:

Who wins is anybody's guess, as no polls have been conducted or released. The Billings Gazette notes, "some Republican committee members say a couple of candidates - Romney and Thompson - may be rising to the top." Ron Paul has been buying newspaper ads in the state.

Mitt Romney’s new ad attacking Mike Huckabee’s record on immigration is being called the first attack ad of the Republican primary, if not the entire election.

Jonathan Martin says the ad is a sign of “ Mitt desperation” from Romney, which I think is pretty accurate analysis.

However, most bloggers across the spectrum are using the opportunity to attack Huckabee, not Romney. That too may be a sign of desperation: fear from conservative bloggers that Huckabee’s momentum is too strong to stop at this point, and from liberal bloggers who are having to deal with “Republican” and “momentum” being used in the same context for the first time in awhile.

Simon Rosenberg writes in his Daily Kos diary that Huckabee has put up a response ad, “consistent with his new nutty immigration 'plan,' showing how tough he is.”

Leading conservative blog Red State says Huckabee is a nice guy but would be a terrible president because of his policies on immigration, taxes and foreign policy:

Mike Huckabee is a great guy trying to the right thing but becoming President of the United States isn’t where he’s headed. We may not have the greatest choices this election but the more there are, the less of a chance we have of actually achieving a Republican victory.

While Powerline says: "Mike Huckabee’s wrong-headed foreign prescriptions threaten to outstrip our ability to report them."

Meanwhile, Firedoglake notes Huckabee has received the endorsement of “extremist xenophobic vigilante” Jim Gilchrist.

And the Street Prophets blog speculates that Huckabee’s meteoric rise in the polls may be largely thanks to support from GOPer Randy Brinson and his 71 million strong email list.

All this on a day when Matt Drudge is leading with an item claiming that Democrats are "holding fire" in their criticism of Huckabee. Just more evidence that while the blogs and traditional media often focus on the same subjects, they are rarely on the same page.

Finally, Soren Dayton’s round-up on Huckabee backlash can be found here:

The blogger reaction to Mitt Romney’s faith speech this morning has been decidedly mixed so far.

Swampland’s Joe Kline says: “Well, I suppose it wasn't a bad speech in political terms, although I doubt it will change the minds of those who believe Mormonism is a cult.”

Andrew Sullivan has been very critical of Romney, but has softened his tone in recent weeks. His current tone is disappointment that Romney has traded in his moderate, business sector Republicanism in favor of a campaign largely focused on religious themes:

“I think it's a tragedy that a man of Romney's obvious gifts should be reduced to this. But he asked for it; and the petard he has been hoist on is his own. If you want a religious politics, you’ll end up with one. That's why Huckabee is the natural heir to the Rove project. And why Romney is falling behind.”

Mary Katherine Ham again shows independence from many of her conservative colleagues by pointing out what Romney didn’t mention: “I liked it, but wondered that there was no mention whatsoever of those with no faith at all. They're not a huge voting block, but many of them are patriotic Americans who respect their religious neighbors (not you, Michael Newdow). It would have been nice to hear that they make up part of the symphony as well,"

Daily Kos diarist Kagro X notes: “He didn't say the word ‘Mormon’ once, I don't think. So to the extent that you bought the hype and tuned in because you had genuine questions about the LDS church, you came away empty-handed. And possibly with the nagging feeling that Romney's hiding something after all.”

And finally, Reason’s Dave Weigel describes the speech as “bland” and predicts:

“Is Romney's slow-motion three card monte going to convince religious voters that they can trust him over Huckabee? I don't think so. I know some of those people. They're not stupid.”

UPDATE: Romney did in fact mention Mormonism ... once. JFK mentioned Catholicism 20 times in his speech. From First Read: "In fact, Romney invoked other faiths by name in the speech more than his own. He said “Catholic” three times, “Jews” and “Muslims” both twice each. Romney, instead, substituted “my church,” "my religion," and "my faith," which he used three times each."