When you're a partisan political pundit--a crowded field, to be sure--nearly every event can be construed as evidence for your party's virtues and the opposition's evils, thus reinforcing all of your beliefs and once again exposing the other side's folly and inevitable decline. But it's easy to get carried away with this game.

That's what appears to have happened with the National Review's Charlotte Hays, who has taken the unusual step of citing the weather as proof that conservatism is better and Democrats are doomed. She cites the recent blizzard that hit much of the U.S. Northeast this week as her proof.
The blizzard is definitely a force for conservatism, and not only because it has had the global-warming crowd scrambling for explanations. The blizzard reveals something basic:  Liberals in government want to tell us what to eat, counsel us about how and when to die, and in general attempt to engineer our lives. But when reality knocks, they can’t do the basic stuff such as clearing the streets.

... The unplowed city streets provide a metaphor for the nanny state: It can order us to do anything, but it can't take care of the basic obligations of government.
In other words, a more conservative administration would obviously be better at plowing snow, which is why Democrats are wrong about everything, and as extreme weather continues (but not because of climate change!) the GOP will ride to victory. If nothing else, give her points for stepping beyond the usual conservative claim that snow proves that climate change is a liberal myth.

The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf quips, "In reality, snow storms cut both ways: snow angels are very friendly to religious conservatives, while snow men fervently support efforts to stop global warming."