Partisanship

No one else seems willing to say it matter-of-factly, so let me: Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination.  For a running mate, he will pick either Huckabee to guarantee the evangelical vote or Giuliani to marginalize the blue-state vote.

As those that know me can attest, I made this prediction several months ago, well before any of the early caucuses began.  I am only formalizing it now because I can no longer contain my disgust for the coverage and atmosphere that has been painted around Romney thus far.  The words are leaping from my fingers such that I cannot contain them.

Before last night's counting was even halfway through, the press began flicking Romney's victory out of the way like an annoying piece of lint on their shirt sleeve, saying that his win only demonstrated the "native son" factor of his campaign.  This contradicted everything they said previously.  Last week, Newsweek and Slate ran back-to-back articles on why Michigan "hated their native son", and the articles ran proudly on the lead image boards of their respective home pages.

Let's look at the numbers.  Before Michigan, the press said Romney had to win Iowa because he had spent so much money there trying to buy an image in the Midwest.  After he lost Iowa, he had to win New Hampshire because it was close to home.  After he lost New Hampshire, he had to win Michigan because it had been home.  Yet none of these states are winner-take-all.  Romney's close second in Iowa and close second in New Hampshire already had him leading the delegate war.  And his Wyoming win - completely unpublicized for reasons I cannot imagine - gave him more delegates (8) than McCain got in New Hampshire (7).  As of this writing, Romney officially has 42 delegates, 20 more than his nearest competitor.  42 is nothing compared to the hundreds that are needed to win the nomination, but the press refuses to paint Romney as anything other than a crumbling has-been, whose biggest question is how to fund his campaign with something other than his own bank account.  He has, by both delegates won and donations raised, outperformed his nearest competitor by 2 to 1.

So why the media war against Romney?  Why is the press hiding his success and projecting losses as often as they can?  Because they fear him.  They know he's bad for business, or at least the business they prefer.

Like every business, media companies want easy profit.  This means ensuring that their product - news and editorials - are well received (raising revenue) and easy to write (lowering cost).  Because no one can predict what the future holds, it is impossible for them to plan the news and editorials for months in advance.  Microsoft can set up expectations by manipulating the release of their products and services.  CNN cannot.  But what they can do is promote newsmakers who will keep their pens flying for years to come - a future President is a great example. 

Good press is about having friends in high places who will give your journalists lots of access.  This is why the press loves John McCain (and former President Bill Clinton even more so); also the reason why they dislike George W. Bush.  The press loves those who return the favor.

They also see McCain as one of their own.  In other words, he's a weary traveler who fights the regression and old-fashioned flapdoodle of the ignorant masses.  He is willing, at any moment, to compromise with everything left of the aisle; even leading with that.  They love that when it comes to the GOP, McCain is all about torture; he can't stop torturing his own constituents on immigration, judicial appointments, education, even global warming.  McCain will give the press all the access they need for years to come, so they promote his candidacy.

Good press is also about discovering events before the competition and being as shocking as possible without being offensive.  That happens best when you have extreme newsmakers.  And that is why the press loves Huckabee; he looks like Swiss cheese to them.  They see all the gaping holes of his sometimes-liberal, sometimes-conservative past, and they see his marriage to Evangelicals - an automatic association with nut-ville.  Susan Estrich called Huckabee "a Democrat's Dream".  She went on to say that if he is elected she'll "be dancing at the inaugural ball".  The press knows that Huckabee will never win the general election so their "progressive" friends will resume control.  And even if Huckabee somehow did manage to win the general election, they're pretty sure he would provide news and editorial fodder equal to Bush's war or Clinton's interns.

Re-enter Mitt Romney.  Romney's record demonstrates that he know how to "fix problems" (or "enact change" if you prefer) which is the current mantra that the froth is rallying around.  Thus he is electable.

His image is even better.  He has the veneer of Cary Grant with the delivery power of Matlock.  The press sees a man with a shiny, Hollywood exterior and Dick Cheney-style, all-business interior.  The labels of "empty suit" and "corporate facade" only go so far.  He proved for 30 years that his economic foresight works with both private industry and government.  Who would have ever thought that health care problems in Massachusetts would be rapidly declining because of the free market, conservative principles of a Republican governor?

There is no reason to think that the press will try any new games this time around, so we can analyze them early.

They will try to attack his youth like they did with Bush's "cocaine days".  But Romney was a missionary in France during his youth.  After that, he went to a religious college where he espoused disciplined views.

They will try to attack his personal failures like they did with Bush's string of failed businesses.  But Romney started with nothing and amassed hundred of millions in corporate wealth.  Then he resurrected the Utah Olympics and turned a profit.  Then he lowered taxes and unemployment in Massachusetts simultaneously.

Ducked the draft?  Maybe, but a bad sell since he was preaching on French street corners during Vietnam.

Doesn't care for the little man?  Quite the contrary.  He created thousands of jobs through companies he personally created or advised.

Family issues like the Giuliani's or Clinton's?  He's been married to the same woman forever, has 5 kids and 11 grand-kids.  Every one of them is active in his campaign with nothing but great things to say about Dad.

The usual toolbox won't work, so the press will to resort to the anti-business rhetoric that so many independents have come to despise.  In other words, they'll have to stick to fighting him on the issues, which they know they can't win.  It's a lot easier slinging mud about a politician's personal life than discussing why national health care or higher taxes are really better solutions in the long run.  Imagine, for a moment, a debate in the general election between Romney and Hillary (or Obama) on economics or national defense.  It would look like a debate between an adult and a toddler.

The press has foreseen this, and would rather get Romney out of the race as early as possible.  The problem for them is that it's too late.  Somewhere in the gut of every conservative, the realization of Romney's value refuses to go away.