On my radio show, we joke about the horrible affliction known as M.D.S. — “McCain Derangement Syndrome”– but as Tsunami Tuesday inexorably approaches it’s not so funny any more.

On my drive home from downtown Seattle tonight (Monday), I tuned in to my friend and colleague Hugh Hewitt to hear the most pathetically tortured argument I have ever heard for why Huckabee supporters should abandon their own candidate tomorrow and vote for (you guessed it) Mitt Romney.

According to this altogether astonishing line of reasoning, the only way to keep the campaign going – to prevent John McCain from winning big and locking down the nomination – was to enable Mitt to win key states like California, Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama. Hugh argued (seriously, I think) that if Huckabee voters switched sides and voted for Mitt, that their guy “could continue to get up on stage and play his bass guitar and give speeches and go all the way to the convention.” He also suggested that Huckabee backers stood a better chance to put Mike on the ticket with McCain, if McCain actually needed him to lock down the nomination in a brokered convention.

Hugh, honestly, I’m embarrassed for you here.

If you are seriously trying to tell people that the best way to help “their guy” is to vote for his opponent (and, in this case, the opponent Huckabee loathes most) then isn’t it obvious that you really believe that Huckabee supporters are knuckle-dragging, tobacco chewing, missing teeth, mud-spattered-pickup-driving losers, who might actually fall for your argument?

Let’s be honest, and respectful of the voters.

There’s good reason to vote for Mitt – if you want Mitt to win.

There’s also good reason to vote for Huck – if you want Huck to win.

But to make the case that you should vote for Mitt, because you want Huck to win….. isn’t that, Hugh, just a bit desperate?

Even worse than the insipid argument itself was the handling of a caller who sounded like what Rush would describe as a “seasoned citizen.” He called Hugh’s show and, with a pronounced drawl, said “I’m votin’ for Huckabee ‘cause I want to vote against the I.R.S.!”

At that point, Hugh went on a rampage, suggesting that a vote for Huckabee would actually be a vote FOR the I.R.S., because McCain is “Mr. I.R.S.” and “Mr. Tax Hikes,” so by voting for Huckabee and not Romney, the caller would be voting for tax hikes.

McCain, meanwhile, is the only member of Congress who, for 25 full years has NEVER voted for a tax increase. That’s been certified by Americans for Tax Reform and Grover Norquist. He’s also voted twice, already, to make the Bush tax cuts permanent – as Romney and Huckabee also promised to do.

The notion that a vote for McCain is “a vote for the I.R.S.” is ridiculous enough.

But the argument that a vote for Huckabee — the only candidate (aside from Ron Paul) who specifically calls for abolition of the income tax system – is really, secretly, somehow “a vote for the I.R.S.” is so sad and illogical and demented that serious people must pause and sigh.

In a rally in Macon, Georgia, Mike Huckabee himself addressed this sleazy attempt by Romniacs to persuade his backers to vote against their inclinations. As usual, Huckabee (hands down the best communicator among the candidates in either party) spoke with rare eloquence and lucidity:

“How presumptuous and arrogant must a man be to assume that if I did drop out of the race that the people who voted for me would vote for him?…

“I want to make real sure that he understands something. This old Arkansas boy is not for sale. He doesn’t have enough money to buy me. I’m not some troubled company that he can buy, sell off the assets and send us home. There’s a whole lot of people like me in this country who are tired of people waving their checkbooks at us and making us think they own us and they can buy us. Well you can’t buy us. You can’t even rent us. We’re not for sale. We’re going to the polls Tuesday and we’re going to show America this country is about ordinary people who believe in the extraordinary power of the American dream and we’re going to prove it at the ballot box Tuesday.”

So, Hugh, what’s the proper answer for this?

Some convoluted argument about why people who love Huckabee and don’t like Mitt should actually help Huck by voting for a candidate they despise?

How about, in the 24 hours left before polls close on the most significant primary day in U.S. history, you concentrate on why people should vote FOR your guy—instead of why they should vote AGAINST Huckabee and McCain.

I’m sorry to say that Hugh Hewitt, Mitt Romney’s most impassioned media advocate, is repeating the fateful failure of the candidate himself: going negative, and focusing on the failings and weaknesses of others, rather than emphasizing the successes and strengths of the man he favors.