It's difficult to know where to turn for accurate information about the Republican presidential nomination race. Certainly the last place to look is the national news media.
The Washington Post and The Boston Globe tipped their hands about three weeks ago by running a story whose headline indicated that the race was over--Reagan was privately conceding defeat. Buried in the 1lt paragraph of the story was the essence of this "scoop;" Reagan had, according to an unidentified aide in his camp, referred to the campaign in the past tense--"I think we raised some important issues in this campaign."
The story naturally caused a good deal of consternation at Reagan headquarters, prompting John Sears, campaign manager and Peter Lorre-figure, to announce that Reagan had 1140 delegates. An obviously bogus count, but one that the Post and Globe were forced to play prominently on their front page in penance for having blown the "concession" story. The ever-sage New York Times played it safe, burying both stories on page 39.
The press also appears to have missed the boat on Reagan's selection of Schweiker as his running-mate. Analysts were quick to label it a disaster, and the Times keeps on inserting this idiotic quip into all its stories about how Reagan attempts to show himself as less conservative than he is portrayed when in front of the Pennsylvania delegation and Schweiker tries to convince Mississippi delegates that he's less liberal than they think.
In fact, Reagan's choice makes a good deal of political sense. The Republicans must concede the South and probably most of the border states to Carter--his natural appeal there is too strong to be overcome by a bone like Howard Baker. Reagan has a natural political base in the West and for the rest of his electoral votes, he would have to count on huge majorities in ethnic centers in the industrial North--states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio. And on the important "social" issues which might appeal to that constituency--amnesty, abortion, busing, prayer in the schools, etc.--Schweiker's views are in perfect accordance with Reagan's. In such a campaign--which would bear an eerie resemblance to Nixon's 1972 "acid, amnesty and abortion" strategy--Schweiker could be a big help.
It probably wouldn't actually work in November--the country's not as right-wing as it was four years ago--but it may be the Republicans' best hope. the Schweiker choice has already had some beneficial effects for Reagan's candidacy; as Sears promised, the delegate count has been thrown into utter confusion, and Ford's momentum has been stalled. More importantly perhaps, the president has been pressured into a clumsy vice presidential selection process, a pale imitation of Carter's smooth, professional operation of a month ago. Reagan emerges from the affair as the confident man of action who could mount an aggressive campaign against the Democrats--no small consideration when you're 35 points behind in the polls. The columnists who have been declaring Reagan dead since New Hampshire may be in for a surprise next week in Kansas City.
