Thanks for the help, guys...but no thanks...

In case you're wondering what "advice" to the media came out of the White House campaign machine this past week...it's obvious if you look closely. In a period of two days, the Washington Post and the New York Times started their efforts to select the Republican presidential candidate for 2012. You will recall that the liberal slanted media (in general) handed us McCain, knowing full well that he was a lame duck from the onset.

Who's the weakling they're pushing this time?

Set a group of plugged-in conservatives to talking presidential politics, and you’ll get the same complaints about the 2012 field.

Mitt Romney? He couldn’t make the voters like him last time ... Sarah Palin? She’d lose 47 states ... Mike Huckabee? Better as a talk-show host ... Tim Pawlenty, Jim DeMint, Bobby Jindal, David Petraeus? Too blah, too extreme, too green, and stop dreaming ...

But murmur the name Mitch Daniels, and everyone perks up a bit. Would he win? Maybe not. But he’d be the best president of any of them ...

Well, the NY Times has selected Mitch Daniels for us. Uh...no thanks.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the nominal GOP front-runner, named Matt Rhoades, who served as communications director for his 2008 presidential campaign, as the head of his Free and Strong America PAC -- a move greeted with approving nods by many in the Republican chattering class. Romney, in his own address at CPAC, sounded every bit the party leader, denouncing the Obama administration as a "failure" while offering a -- somewhat surprising -- defense of the policies put in place by President George W. Bush, policies that Romney criticized during his presidential bid.

The Washington Post has selected Mitt Romney for the great unwashed extremist Republicans. Then, they decided to push him again in the event that we missed their first directive.

Not a mention of Mike Pence in the whole she-bang. And, the usual lambasting of Palin in all articles. Personally, I think the media is going to be disappointed that they don't have the juice to influence the Republican candidate for 2012. In fact, they should probably resort to reverse psychology and push the people they don't want challenging Obama. It might have a more influencial impact.

UPDATE: Reuters pushing Romney, too.

BOSTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama may have three years to go before the next presidential election, but Mitt Romney has regrouped after his failed 2008 White House run and is already setting himself up for the 2012 Republican nomination.

UPDATE #2: USA Today pushing Daniels.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, asked about a possible presidential bid in 2012, replies: "I don't plan to do it; I don't expect to do it; I don't want to do it."

But he just might do it.

Do you guys see a trend? Two candidates selected...both not really conservative at all. If they choose one pseudo-conservative the people can discard the possibility outright. But, by pushing two pseudo-conservatives, they can create a horse-race scenario and create a winner...which in turn creates momentum.

UPDATE #3: ABC News pushes Romney while taking a jab at Palin.

Where Palin's book is a mix of score settling and juicy anecdotes, Romney's book consists of a 64-point plan for strengthening the United States and countless references to what he has been reading. Palin's book titillated audiences with her take on her husband without his shirt on ("Dang, I thought. Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd?").