The Curse of "Inevitability"

As I've indicated before, the mainstream media have clearly already picked their man in the race for president – on the Republican side, that is... the Democrat side being trivial. That man, of course, is Rockjaw Goodhair, aka Mitt Romney... and the reason he's the people's choice (the people who work in the media, that is, who are all that count) is that he's the least threatening to their agenda, and he doesn't cause a one of them the slightest pang of conscience. And ironically, even though he belongs to what some consider a “cult”, he appears the least religiously-motivated of any of the top-tier candidates... compared to whom the likes of Perry and Bachmann are Bible-thumping, perspiration-streaming, tent-meeting rabble-rousers.

But as I've also pointed out recently, the MSM will only make a choice of this sort predicated on who is likely to win, because Job One is to protect their candidate – namely Obama. So the dynamic of this is as follows: If Obama were in real trouble, which he is not, then they would be supporting one of the more conservative, “extreme”, marginal, “radical” Republicans, i.e. one of the less-electable ones. But since Obama is not in real trouble, and can still beat the pants (or pantyhose) off anyone in the Republican lineup, they can afford to be... scratch that... to _appear_ moderate, centrist, and reasonable in their support of someone like Mr. Goodhair.

Now, please bear in mind that by “support” I don't mean anything like actually coming out and declaring for a given candidate; nothing that proactive. No, what I mean by “support” is engaging in non-stop slander, dirt-digging, and character assassination of everyone else except the preferred candidate. In other words, attach all kinds of “negatives” to everyone else, so the one they want will be the only one left standing without a thick coating of fecal matter oozing down their bodies.

But... why should the MSM ever be “reasonable”, you ask? Aren't they already known for being wildly biased in favor of liberal/Democratic candidates? True, and they will never couch their hypocrisy in anything but terms like “We vastly prefer the Democratic candidate, but must reluctantly observe that the least amount of catastrophic damange will be done to the United States if the following non-Democratic candidate should be elected.” Talk about faint praise! If, on the other hand, they feel like emulating Rush Limbaugh's “Operation Chaos” and advocating someone showing a sharper contrast with the Democratic candidate... well, wouldn't their hypocrisy show through, bright as the Sun? It might – but we forget how subtle they can be. They can always find “a good reason” for hard-core Republicans to vote for any given candidate, no matter how unelectable he or she might be. How much, for example, maneuvering by the MSM did it take to get Bob Dole nominated for president in 1996? He won out over more credible (OK, photogenic) (OK, more lifelike) candidates who might have been able to beat Clinton, who was in a bit of trouble. And! Not to forget, Ross Perot wound up with 8.4% of the vote – and did the media do anything to stop him from running? Not a bit of it. Perot's total plus Dole's could have put Dole closer to Clinton than Bush was to Gore in 2000 – and Bush won!

I think the only Democratic candidate the MSM have ever totally given up on during the campaign was Jimmy Carter in 1980 – they knew he had fouled his own nest so many times that he was a lost cause, even against a “right-wing radical conservative” like Reagan. Plus – in their sly way, I think they were hoping Reagan would make such a mess of things and turn so many people against him, and against conservativism in general, and against the Republican Party, that the Democrats could come back in 1984 and establish a dynasty that would last 1000 years. And just to show you how badly that strategy turned out, the Democrats ran Walter Mondale in 1984 – an act of despair comparable to the running of Bob Dole in 1996.

Admittedly, this is a far-from-complete analysis... and the situation is often way more complicated than implied. But I just want to point out that the MSM have a very large spoon which they're more than willing to dip into any pot – Republican ones included – in order to influence elections in favor of their agena. And the spoon this time around seems to be coming up with a thin, flavorless broth with Rockjaw Goodhair's name on it – hence the plaint, “Waiter, there's a Goodhair in my soup!”

OK, that was a cheapie, but who could resist? But! The point of this whole meditation is that if anyone, including the MSM, declares a candidate to be “inevitable” too early in the game – and let's all agree that over a year to the elections is way too early – it can place an undue burden on that candidate and offer breathing room to all the others. From here on out, Romney is going to have to be perfect... flawless... totally in command... unflappable. His image has already been built for him by, ironically, his enemies – and they are expert at setting the bar impossibly high. They have arranged things so that he seems inevitable (if not invincible), but have included some delayed-action fuses... some land mines... in the mix, as they always do – to be set off at just the right time down the road.

And, after all, how much of a guarantee is inevitability anyway? Let us recall, for example, that, a mere four years ago, there were two inevitable candidates aspiring to succeed George W. Bush – Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Oh sure, they had rivals, but they were each riding, or so it seemed, white steeds to victory. But then things started to unravel a bit – because, as I said, they had time to unravel. Giuliani had a conniption during a debate over something Ron Paul had said – for which we should be eternally grateful to Dr. Paul, by the way – and then decided to base his entire campaign on the votes of expatriate New Yorkers living on the East Coast of Florida. Fail! Hillary, on the other hand, discovered that people were starting to notice the decaying corpse of her husband – or of his administration – hanging around her neck. Too late for a divorce! Darn! And then she had to confront the Black Messiah – the man who walked the hills and valleys of America promising to heal all wounds, fill all bellies, and make the rough places plain. Compared to which, John Kerry promising to raise Christopher Reeve out of his wheelchair was a cheap parlor trick.

So, by declaring a candidate “inevitable” the media effectively set him up as a target – and they, and anyone else, have 12 whole months to take aim and fire. Not that they will take the lead, mind – he's been chosen for a reason, as detailed above. And I'm sure they have someone else in mind just in case: “Regrettable that no truly moderate Republican candidates are in the running now that Gov. Romney has retired from the field”, etc. It's kind of... well, it's kind of like walking into a rug store. Which rug are you going to be interested in buying, one that is lying neat and unsoiled on the stack, or the one in the middle of the floor that people are tromping on with their muddy shoes day in and day out? You get the idea.

Anyway... it's all part of the fun, and it is instructive how the media have a way of hedging their bets on these things... not unlike the way the biggest Wall Street firms donate generously to both major parties. It's more important not to make enemies than to be seen as anything but a manipulative, scheming, calculating hypocrite.