Tonight we'll see who pulls off the Michigan victory. But, regardless of who wins, you can bet the media will minimize the voice of all those Americans who voted for Mitt Romney. You'll see reports that he "survived" Michigan or that Romney won based on democrat spoilers, appeals to nostalgia over his father, geographic ties, or whatever else, but many will avoid at all costs acknowledging that the most thinking, feeling Repub voters of Michigan CHOSE Romney as the best person to lead this country.
Back in Iowa Romney's widespread support was dismissed as having been "bought" since his campaign was the best funded (never mind that most of that campaign cash came from voters, not Romney himself). I don't know how many times I heard the line, but I wondered why all those Iowan Romney supporters (more than a few!) weren't rising up in indignantion at the suggestion that they made their decision based on who had the best barbeque at the straw poll. After a second place finish, Romney was pegged the loser while those with fewer votes just "finished" in a particular place. But even "loser" needed a few more derogatory superlatives: disappointing loss, bitter loss, etc.
Wyoming, when it wasn't glossed over altogether, was dismissed as unimportant by some because of the "high" Mormon population (not that high). Somehow these folks simultaneously lauded Huckabee's Iowa win, solely possible through the disproportionate support of evangelicals, while dismissing Romney's Wyoming win as indicative of nothing at all. Even if Mormons do support Romney more (I never heard any real numbers), don't their votes count too?
Then, New Hampshire rolled around and Romney's campaign was flailing, sinking, crashing, etc. Reeling from his disappointing LOSS in Iowa after outspending all the other candidates, blah blah blah, Romney again pulled off a very respectable second place despite all the talk of his campaign being "mortally wounded". Pundits fell all over themselves saying Romney's strategy to take the early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire had failed and that he should quickly bow out, apparently lacking the imagination to consider that a strategy can actually change as the race changes (such a radical thought).
And, now, of course the rhetoric continues. Despite that Romney leads the candidates in delegates, leads the candidates in the popular vote, leads the candidates in endorsements, leads the candidates in funds raised... we're told it's his "last stand" in Michigan. It's a "must win." We're to take as undeniable the notion that nobody will pay any attention to the best candidate after Michigan if he happens to finish the night down by a tiny fraction, that he's finished. Despite that he'll STILL be ahead of McCain in delegates and possibly the popular vote, despite that the election today had independents and democrats voting for the repub choice, Romney will be widely dismissed as now irrelevant. Detractors think that by saying it loudly and frequently they'll make it so. McCain's advisor Steve Schmidt said, "It's an enormous deal for Mitt Romney. The stakes are very, very high for him," while bluffing unawareness that a loss for McCain might remind Republicans that they hate the man as he moves to actual Republican contests in the future.
Regardless, a win is likely, and it will likely be very helpful to Romney's campaign. I'm looking forward to hearing about those Michiganders voicing their choice of Romney as their preferred candidate. Perhaps (perhaps!) he'll finally get a smidge of the credit he deserves!
No comments:
Post a Comment