Will it take a loon to win the GOP primary?

Conservative keening aside, most journalists I know aren't particularly liberal, and nearly all of them regardless of politics work hard to keep their opinions out of their stories.
Objectivity is a regular topic of newsroom meetings and a constant consideration in editing, to the extent that the finished stories sometimes misrepresent reality. Concepts like "mainstreaming" and "diversity" are worthwhile when they insure that every facet of society and every angle to an argument is presented, but even a good idea can be carried too far. Hang around reporters, and eventually you'll hear someone say sarcastically, "I've got the City Council bribe story wrapped up, but it can't run until I find a 300-pound Samoan lesbian to comment" (no complaints from offended 300-pounders, please: I'm just making the point that no segment of the fringe is considered irrelevant).
A classic example, one I witnessed personally: A team of reporters worked for days on a story about sexual abuse of children. They did a good job on it, found solid sources and were ready to go.
An editor congratulated them, then said, "But for balance, we need something from the point of view of a molester. Can you get that by Friday?"
A lame joke, to be sure--but they took him seriously. The doctrine of impartiality was so ingrained that they went muttering off to lunch wondering where they'd find a baby-raper who'd go on the record.
Hold that thought while you consider this:
Has the Bush administration so contorted the meaning of "Republican" that none but the loony has a chance to win the GOP primary?
What that has to do with objectivity is that I'm trying to be objective: I look at that line-up, and I see . . . weird people. I mean truly weird, far-from-the-mainstream-but-trying-to-pass hardcore ambition-crazed no-foundation cheeseballs. With nice suits, but still.
As Jon Carroll said last week in the San Francisco Chronicle, "the sanest one . . . is a former POW, and he thinks the Iraq war is a great idea. And you think Hillary Clinton is going to have trouble running against one of these guys? Please."
Carroll writes in San Francisco, of course, and he's a known lefty. He's exposed to California Thinking.
I'm a lefty, too, but I write in Reno and I'm exposed to Reno thinking. That's why I believe Hillary Clinton is going to have trouble running against those guys: There's a level of inchoate distrust and fear about her out there that Carroll probably doesn't see in his mail.
I've suspected this for years, but it didn't really come out until she began to run seriously for president. Since then, I've heard everyone from physicians and CEOs to busboys express their disdain and general fed-uppedness with George Bush, but follow it with something like, "but I could never vote for Hillary--she scares me?"
"What scares you about her?" I'll ask.
Well, they don't know. Remember how she argued for universal health care in 1993 (good thing the Repubs fought that off, or our health care system might be a real mess now)? There was that, and she's ambitious (while the rest of the candidates just sort of shambled into the race by accident?). She's too, you know, Hillaryesque.
I'm not, in fact, a big Hillary fan. I liked Bill a lot at first, but he turned into such a Republican in his last couple of years I lost faith in the whole family, at least until Chelsea's ready (not to digress here, but haven't the people who criticized the Clintons for the way their daughter was raised been quieter than church mice about the Bimbo Twins?).
Carroll nailed Mitt Romney, too. I hate to plagiarize (more accurately, I hate to be seen plagiarizing), but no one's described the Mittster better than this: "(He) looks like the typical high school suck-up, the kid whom everyone hated . . . He also had Daddy's money, and he looked as if he had Daddy's money."
Giuliani has nothing but 9/11, unless you think the GOP base is going to get behind a serial bridegroom. Ron Paul is a member of the most dangerous and delusional subculture in politics, those who believe government is inherently evil and taxes are inherently bad. Mike Huckabee is too religious; the only reason Romney's getting raked for that and he isn't is that many voters don't understand Romney's Mormon faith and are suspicious of it. Huckabee's at least from one of the normal religions (just so we're clear: I have no problem at all with any religion, but I do have problems with followers of all religions when their dogma shapes their decisions. Plus there's that annoying holier-than-thou thing, the leading characteristic of neo-conservo-Christianity, plus based on the debates, Huckabee's grasp of international affairs seems to equal Winnie the Pooh's).
I'm not saying, exactly, "Vote Democratic." What I'm saying is, "Maybe give your vote some thought this time."