Drum roll, please...

Martin Gardner from Lincoln, Nebraska

Doug Campbell from Wellman, Iowa

Jeff Christensen from Orem, Utah

Congratulations, gentlemen. (Though the results don't reveal it, some of our readers are, in fact, female.) Rest assured, though I enjoyed all of the photos of your darling kids, this was a totally random drawing. In fact, each of you were assigned a number and my children selected the numbers tonight at dinner.

Winners, watch for your books in the mail!

And for the rest of you, buy Gov. Romney's book to keep it on top of the New York Times Bestsellers List.

(Those of you who won, please drop me a note when you receive your books so I'll know you got them!)

The only thing that's keeping me from an actual pity party is that so many military men and women (and their families) sacrifice so much more than we ever will. So, I'll stop whining now, but I wanted two paragraphs to complain.

Breathe in.

Breathe out.

Okay. Much better.

Have you seen this Bob Newhart Youtube, by the way, when he plays a therapist?

Okay, so I've taken his advice about my whining and I've stopped it!

Anyway, I'm writing because of this:

Mitt Romney's new book, "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness," will debut on top of the New York Times bestseller list due out March 21, a source tells me.

Romney's book tour has, so far, attracted pretty large crowds, serving -- along with the book sales -- to reassure his supporters that, though he may not draw Sarah Palin style hordes, he's a figure of genuine popular interest. He reportedly attracted more than 1,000 people to a book signing in Naples, Fla. last night.

Do you already have a copy? If not (or if you'd like to send one to a Huckabee fan), then e-mail me for a chance to win a copy. Winners will be announced March 15th.

Now, some of you have been sending me photos of your adorable kids and grandkids, thinking that it'll tilt the odds in your favor. But it's RANDOM -- and I'm not kidding about that!

But -- wow -- some of you have cute kids.

Keep 'em coming.

Potential Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized President Barack Obama on Friday for his recent attacks on health insurance companies.

Obama has argued this week for congressional passage of a healthcare overhaul by pointing to rate increases by insurance companies that have made insurance unaffordable for many people.

Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius met several top health insurance executives on Thursday to complain about what Sebelius called "jaw-dropping" rate increases.

Obama read them a letter from an Ohio woman who said her insurance premiums had gone up 25 percent in 2009 and were about to go up another 40 percent this year, making insurance unaffordable for her.

"Insurance companies freely ration healthcare based on who's sick and who's healthy; who can pay and who can't," Obama said on Wednesday.

Romney, who is contemplating a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, said in remarks at the National Press Club that the problems within the U.S. healthcare system are more complicated than simply zeroing in on the insurance industry.

"Gosh, how disappointing it was to see the president take on the health insurance companies, as if the reason that healthcare is expensive in America is because of the insurance companies," Romney said.

"I'm sure there are some insurance companies that deserve blame and we can find them out and point them out," he said. "But this is an issue that is broader than trying to punish some scapegoat."

It is so dangerous to have a president who seems to want to vilify certain industries. Businesses don't grow (including hiring people) when they are fearful that a marauding federal government will come after them and take what they have worked so hard to build. The kind of talk we are hearing out of Washington these days is a great way to extend the recession. Gov. Romney rightly opposes it.

For background on a similar era in American history, let me recommend Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man.

How did Jake Pavelka — the shy, polite, rock-ribbed 31-year-old — end up on a show known mostly for its steamy hot-tub scenes?

In a way you’d never expect — his fellow Methodist church members nominated him. “They asked me, ‘If we sent a letter into casting, would you consider going on there?’”

Apparently, they were sick of all those bachelors going on the show, drinking too much, and making the most of the “overnight” dates. The commercial pilot was chosen after a brief foray as one of the potential suitors during last season’s The Bachelorette, during which he selflessly warned Jillian that some of the men were there for fame instead of love. Instantly, he became a favorite of fans, and he was invited to be the star of this season, called The Bachelor: On the Wings of Love. (Get it? He’s a pilot. And yes, they do play that song, which has a way of meandering through your head for the seven days between episodes.)

When Jake was chosen, however, some fans worried about how his virtue would effect the show. Entertainment Weekly wondered if “Jake’s crushingly boring style of courtship” would even be worth watching.

Was he able to withstand the temptation? Read the rest here.

If you had any doubt who he is, you're seeing it now. Watching Mitt Romney on the No Apology tour thus far, he's talking about what he wants to, what moves him. What moves him is being a Mr. Fix It businessman — on the economy, diplomacy, or health care. He wants to do this because he believes America is great and should and can continue to be. He appreciates — in a firsthand and in a practical, sociological way — that families are the building block of a great country, and he sees how good policies help them. And that's what he wants to talk about.

And if a social issue hits his desk — based on his Massachusetts record — he's going to do what he can to preserve families and life. (And that, by the way, makes a huge difference. We don't, for instance, in the White House right now. And it can have a chilling effect: in executive orders, in the courts, on staffing, in health care ... ) But it may not be what gets him up in the morning — the opportunity to talk about D.C. gay marriage, for instance.

Speaking of his Massachusetts record: It seems clear that he is not going to apologize for trying to tackle the health-care problem there. Their final plan was clearly imperfect, but it's more right than what Washington is doing now. He'll be stubborn in defense of it because governors tackling health-care reform — and, oh, by the way, with the input of the likes of the Heritage Foundation — is to be encouraged.

And so on Letterman last night, you didn't see pizazz or stand-up. You heard dorky jokes — the rapper on the plane broke my hair — and a serious guy. That's who he is. His CPAC speech this year and his book reflect that. He's uncomfortable changing his emphases to fit Iowa or anywhere else and he doesn't pull it off convincingly when he tries it. And if he runs again, don't expect him to.

That, I believe, is the No Apology big picture. This is Mitt Romney.

If anyone finds the Youtube, send it to me!

UPDATE:

Lydia sent this to me:

It was Joy who called Gov. Romney "hunky". In fact she said it twice. Right at the end she said it again. She may not be so brilliant when it comes to her polotics, but she certainly knows a handsome man when she is sitting next to one. Frankly, I thought they were all a little disarmed by his looks. That's why they were un-characteristically nice. (Compared to how they have behaved with other conservatives).

Romney's book as a whole, however, may best be remembered not for the contrasts it offers with the incumbent president but for the contrasts it presents with "Going Rogue," the best-selling memoir of Sarah Palin, a potential Romney rival for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Where Palin's book is a mix of score settling and juicy anecdotes, Romney's book consists of a 64-point plan for strengthening the United States and countless references to what he has been reading. Palin's book titillated audiences with her take on her husband without his shirt on ("Dang, I thought. Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd?").

And later:

The overarching concept which animates Romney's book is the idea the United States must remain strong for the world to remain free.

Did you know we are giving away copies of this book to randomly selected EFM readers? To enter the contest, please send me your name and mailing address between now and March 15th. On that, we'll randomly select the winners.

E-mail me here with the subject line: BOOK CONTEST, and make sure you include your mailing address in case you win!

I like Andrew Cline's commentary on this:

With the jobs bill -- his first major vote -- Brown established his Washington identity. He proclaimed himself an independent-minded Republican who will oppose party leaders and work with Democrats. In Massachusetts, that is the only way he survives politically.

He also kept two important campaign promises: 1) that he will be independent of his party, and 2) that he would vote for legislation to create jobs. Now, policy wonks know that this jobs bill is ill-suited to job creation and better alternatives exist. But listen to Brown's explanation: "I supported this measure because it does contain some tax relief that will help Massachusetts businesses put people back to work."

Brown has signaled to his constituents that he voted for tax cuts, just as he promised in the campaign. He is from Massachusetts. That's huge.

He also said that if the bill comes back from the House "full of pork, waste, fraud and abuse, I reserve the right to vote against it." That's also important. The House version of the bill is 10 times larger -- $154 billion vs. $15 billion -- than the Senate bill. With his post-vote statement, Brown positioned himself to vote against the final bill on the grounds that it is too large and wasteful. Outstanding.

With one vote, the holder of Ted Kennedy's old seat just established himself as a supporter of tax cuts and an opponent of wasteful, bloated federal spending. And he did that while opposing Republican leadership and defining himself as a political independent. That was not traitorous; that was brilliant.

Scott Brown is a Republican. From Massachusetts. If conservatives want him to be able to stay in Washington so he can vote against Obamacare and other boondoggles, then they shouldn't criticize him for voting like a Republican from Massachusetts. The movement for limited government is strengthened by Brown holding that seat. To keep it, he has to vote for some things conservatives find distasteful. As long as he's voting for small distasteful things so he can stick around to vote against the big ones, that's a win for the movement.

As I've pointed out many times before, I'm all for conservative alternatives in Senate races -- when they make sense. I've supported Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania since before it was cool (early 2004 if not late 2003), I was for Steve Laffey in Rhode Island in 2006, and I'm for Marco Rubio in Florida now. I'm also no great lover of Sen. McCain. Like David, I did vote for him in 2008, but only with my nose firmly held. It was a tough choice. I don't like many of his views, I can't stand his bedside manner, and I thought he ran a lousy campaign.

With all of that said, I think Gov. Romney made the right choice, for two reasons.

The first is that this will help him get the GOP nomination in 2012. Flat-out, it will. The GOP nomination always goes to a good soldier, and by campaigning for Sen. McCain in 2008 and especially now, Gov. Romney is proving that he is one of those. Even if you totally disagree with his choice in the Arizona senatorial primary, if you want him to be president, you should be encouraged that he's doing this.

The second is that process issues aside, I agree with his choice, even with my deep suspicion of Sen. McCain. Smart behavior in primaries does not simply involve picking the most conservative candidate. Rep. Hayworth is, as Jim Geraghty points out, marginally more conservative than Sen. McCain. But he also ran a lousy campaign in 2006, he's got corruption allegations swirling around him (also noted in Geraghty's post), and he has said some truly boneheaded stuff about the President's birth certificate. I know that last point is going to invite some hate mail, but too bad. Strutting around and clucking about "just raising questions" about whether the President was born in the U.S. is both transparent (clearly the real message is that you don't think he was, not that you're just asking) and ridiculous. Gov. Romney has rightly chosen to oppose a candidate who's done so.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney derided President Barack Obama for having "failed" to deliver on the promises of his administration and sought to paint Republican obstruction as a beneficial thing for the country in a speech today at a gathering of conservatives in Washington.

The definition of "RINO" is not "any politician who deviates in any material respect from conservative principles." A RINO is someone who deviates in virtually every material respect. In fact, when it comes to national security, most social issues, most economic issues, judges, and many other areas, McCain is one of us. I'm not sure that our goal as a conservative community is to simply support the most conservative candidate in any given primary. There's a lot more to effective leadership than ideology, and such a mindset encourages the rather unpleasant ideological puritans in our midst.

In 2008, I had trouble voting for John McCain because I thought he treated Mitt Romney abysmally, because I disagreed with him on multiple points, and because -- frankly -- I didn't realize that Barack Obama's domestic policies would be so very far left (silly me). But he picked Sarah Palin, and he's pro-life, and he takes seriously the jihadist threat, so I voted for him. As for J.D. Hayworth, I've heard good things about him, and I think he'd make a good senator -- perhaps better than John McCain -- but good, cohesive political movements depend not only on ideology but also on a bit of loyalty and honor as well. On balance, John McCain has been a good Republican, good enough to earn the party's nomination for president.

John McCain is no Dede Scozzafava, and he's arguably more conservative than Scott Brown (who everyone loves), so let's swallow a bit of our ideological pride, forget the wrongs of the past, show as much class as Governor Romney, and not be foolish enough to let the (allegedly) perfect be the enemy of the good.