It turns out not to be all that easy, largely because it's unclear where to start. We began by trying to pick a "theme" for the wedding, and after immediately rejecting such Bar-Mitzvah classics as "Spiderman" and "Computers," we decided to concentrate on colors. (Although how cool would it be to have t-shirts that said "I surfed the net at Dan and Jenny's Wedding!"? Answer: Not very.)

The just-think-about-colors strategy was also problematic. We started by naming colors we like, but it soon became clear that this would be about as effective as trying to name a child by writing down our favorite letters. Wedding colors have to go together in basically every single aspect of the wedding, and we just weren't playing at that level.

This strategy was also difficult partially because it's hard to translate colors in your head into what an actual wedding would look like. I remember a few months ago when we were picking paint for the wall, we found a lot of colors we liked, but kept wondering whether they would look good on a wall. A wall. Basically, we were unsure whether a tiny square of color would look good as a much bigger square of color. So imagine trying to figure out how a tiny square of color would look on dresses, tuxes, gowns, floral arrangements, tablecloths, cakes, party favors, and all other manner of wedding items, and you'll begin to understand the magnitude of our problem.

So we turned to our trusty friend, Google. (I have a feeling that by the end of this, I'm going to ask Google to be my Best Man.) Google helpfully turned up this web site, which actually has a number of decent color schemes. I particularly liked the ones involving "chocolate" and "ivory," along with some other color, possibly a bold red. (I am also somewhat open to pink and orange.) Jen seemed to like the greens and purples more, which I was not wild about, but felt that I could be persuaded to like, largely because I can be persuaded to like more or less anything that Jen likes. Overall, though, we again ran up against the "little squares" conundrum. This web site would have been great if our wedding consisted solely of two brightly-colored rectangles (which might actually be a good wedding theme, if I were the inventor of Pong), but we definitely need something more actual-wedding-oriented.

A couple of general observations here before delving into the case for Romney (relative, of course, to the GOP alternatives). One would be that "most conservative" is not the same as "worst" unless you just define conservative to mean "bad stuff." George W. Bush has, after all, actually departed from conservative tradition in a number of ways, they've just mostly been bad ways that involve him being corrupt and/or crazy (for example "By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world") rather than Bush being moderate. Another observation is that one thing a smart Republican apparatchik would want in a GOP president would be for that president to do a decent job and undue some of the damage Bush has done to the brand.

The affirmative case for Romney as the least-bad Republican involves stealing an insight from my colleague Josh Green: The constant throughout Romney's career is a cautious, paint-by-numbers approach. He's running as a conservative right now, and that means that if he wins he'll govern as a conservative -- no use hoping for him to morph back into the moderate he was in 1994 or 2002. But that said, it seems very unlikely that he'd roll the dice on some hair-brained scheme if elected. He might do major harm, but I think it's relatively unlikely.

Compare this to, say, John McCain. He's flighty as hell. For years, he's an orthodox conservative. Then he's an orthodox conservative who also supports this one ill-conceived campaign finance restriction. Then he's running for president. Now suddenly Pat Roberston and Jerry Falwell are forces of evil. Then Bush beats him with some sleazy campaign stunts. Now he wants to regulate carbon emissions! And import drugs from Canada! Bush sucks, he's evil and corrupt and incompetent and wrecking the country and oh he's up for re-election well of course I'll strongly support him etc., etc,. etc. Then the establishment warms up to him so he warms up to the establishment. So now he supports the Bush tax cuts and the Bush plan for Iraq and the Bush immigration plan. Oh wait voters don't like the Bush immigration plan? Well then I've learned my lesson and I was never for amnesty and by the way I'm now against carbon curbs. But you know what's great? The surge. And Joe Lieberman in his crazy uncle phase. And David Petraeus. Petraeus is so great that I think civilian control of the military is obsolete and I won't say whether or not I think tax cuts increase revenue but let's cut spending a lot, eh?

In other words, on eighty percent of issues McCain seems to me to be making it up as he goes along. At his best, he's cravenly flip-flopping according to the political headwinds. But other times, he just seems to be acting on whim or out of pique. Or he's coming to middle-ground positions that don't make sense, like "global warming is real and we should stop it, but only through measures that wouldn't actually stop it!" The rest of the time, he's just really, really, really committed to the military and to militarism. Worst of all, like all the other candidates for president, his personal level of experience with foreign policy issues is minimal, but unlike the other candidates he doesn't seem to realize this believing instead that his enthusiasm about the military and for soldiers and soldiering constitutes a close substitute for having real ideas about international relations. With McCain, it's possible that the chips will just all fall in the right place and he'll stumble upon some workable Teddy Roosevelt synthesis but we're just as likely to end up conscripting teenagers to build nuclear plants or bombing Iran or convincing ourselves that ranting and raving about the evils of earmarks is an adequate replacement for a grasp of fiscal policy.

About Giuliani, enough has already been said. Mike Huckabee is fun to talk about, but he kind of reminds me of Greg Stillson from The Dead Zone. We really don't want him in office. So that leaves Romney. Or, obviously, a Democrat.

Similarly, Obama is winning even though he's doing unusually poorly among self-identified Democrats. In particular, older white working class Democrats seem drawn to McCain in pretty large numbers. But you've got to consider that at this point almost ever older white working class Democrat in America has been the target of a lot of messaging from Hillary Clinton arguing that Obama is too inexperienced and too dovish. They haven't, meanwhile, heard any messaging from anyone about how John McCain wants to privatize Social Security and cut Medicare benefits. Obama, in other words, is currently winning despite weakness with this demographic, and is also almost certain to look less weak among this demographic in November than he does today.

Meanwhile, in more good news for Democrats, in a Clinton-McCain matchup, Clinton wins too with a somewhat different pattern of support. Basically, even though 95 percent of Americans have never heard McCain criticized from the left, he's still behind against either candidate. I think it's a pretty bad position for him.