Here's the headline by the Associated Press after Obama's "jobs bill" was defeated in the Senate: "Senate Republicans Vote to Kill Obama's Jobs Bill". There are only 48 Republicans in the Senate; there is no way in the world they could "kill Obama's jobs bill" if all the Democrats stuck together and voted for it. But the AP blames the Republicans, which is exactly what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did after the vote. There's no liberal bias in the mainstream media, however. Everybody knows that.
**********
The Republican "establishment" desperately wants Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination for President. The Republican people, apparently, want any Republican but Romney. A poll came out today showing that Herman Cain now leads the race. A few weeks ago, after Rick Perry first declared for the nomination, he immediately jumped ahead of Romney. Perry faded and Cain has risen. Mr. Cain has very eloquently articulated strong conservative views, and that plays well with the Republican base. However, the Republican establishment is not in tune with the majority of the party's supporters.
For those who need a little explanation, the Republican "establishment" is the Washington-based party "leaders". They are largely moderates, they get along well with the media and Democrats, they have very cushy social and political positions in Washington, and they don't want that disturbed by conservative outsiders. They claim that they don't believe a strong conservative can win the national election (they made the same claim in 1980 when Ronald Reagan won). They want a John McCain type, wimpy Republican, and Romney, who said in the most recent debate, "I can work with Democrats," fits the bill to a T. (Folks, Democrats are not to be "worked with," they are to be defeated, because their policies are wrong.) Romney, though more conservative than Obama, of course, is not as firmly to the right as the rest of the Republican field and so he doesn't give the "establishment" the willies. They are going to throw as much money and support behind Romney as they can, and the good money is on him eventually winning the nomination.
Of course, the media doesn't want a strong conservative Republican candidate, either, for fear that he (or she) might win the general election. Thus, so far, there has been no real "vetting" of Romney (there never has been any of Obama and there never will be); Bachmann and Perry have been lobotamized, and it's starting to happen to Cain and will only increase if he continues to show any possibility at all of actually winning the nomination. At present, the media is trying to present the whole thing as a fait accompli, i.e., that Romney already has the nomination sewed up. If/when he does clinch the nomination, they'll go after him then and do everything they can to destroy him to try to ensure Obama's re-election.
Romney might be the best chance Obama's got. The Republican "base," which is basically Tea Party conservatives, are no more inspired by Mitt Romney than they were by John McCain. If he does get the nomination, Romney is going to have to do what McCain did and select a strong conservative as his Vice-Presidential running mate. That would energize the Tea Party people some. The fear is that, with Romney as the nominee, a lot of Republicans would just stay at home and not vote, though I suspect most will get out and vote against Obama if not for Romney. Any support I, personally, would give Romney would be almost as much anti-Obama as it would be pro-Romney. His business experience is a plus; his having been elected governor of the People's Republic of Massachusetts doesn't inspire much faith in any conservative credentials he might attempt to espouse. Incidentally, his being a Mormon is a total non-issue with me. I'd rather have a decent Mormon as President than whatever comes out of that buffoon Jeremiah Wright's America-hating "church."
Still, I would prefer nearly any of the other candidates to Romney. The media--again, trying to sway public thinking--is saying that many Republicans are disgruntled with the current field, and I suppose that's true, at least among some of the "establishment" types who see "Romneycare" as Obamacare Lite (hence, the push to get Chris Christie to run). But I'm very satisfied with the current field, and I think nearly any of them would make fine Presidents, certainly better than Obama. Keep in mind that the whole media/Republican "establishment" mindset is to convince you that a conservative Republican cannot win the general election. Hence, Romney needs to be the nominee. At present, things do lean strongly in his direction, but the primaries are still a few months off. Nothing is set in concrete yet.
A few more words about Herman Cain. He is an extremely intelligent man, probably the second most intelligent man in the Republican field, and so far, that intelligence hasn't gone to his head. His biggest problem, of course (at least at face value), is that he has never served in any political position. That may not be a bad thing; politicians got the United States into this current horrible mess and maybe it will take some non-politicians to lead the country out of it. But, those of us (myself included) who have shouted loud and long about the "inexperience" of Barak Obama before he became President have left ourselves open to the same criticism of Herman Cain, if we support him. He obviously has less political experience that Obama has/had. But Cain does have "executive" experience, he has at least run something (in fact, has succeeded in many areas), and that is a positive on his resume'. He has no foreign affairs experience, of course; he's a businessman, and a very good one. It's going to be hard for him to get the nomination and, if he does, to convince the American people he's more qualified than Barak Obama. Running Godfather's Pizza and running the most powerful country in the world are not exactly the same thing.
But I would argue that running Godfather's is a better qualification for the Presidency than running one's mouth as a "community organizer."