There is any number of reasons for disparate Republicans to scratch Mitt Romney off their scorecard of presidential candidates.

He’s the former governor of Massachusetts, which raises the question as to whether or not he can unite Southern and Western members of his party in a general election. Mr. Romney also is clearly wobbly on the topic of abortion — the primary litmus test for many primary voters. His increasing demagoguery when speaking about illegal immigrants, aping the rhetoric of Pat Buchanan a decade ago and, more recently, Newt Gingrich, is so repellent that he’s turned off millions of pro-business, and those with a sense of history, Republicans.

Despite these difficulties with his candidacy and the fact that he’s currently polling well in Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s possible that the centrist/left mainstream press is helping Mr. Romney with its emerging pack characterization of the wealthy entrepreneur/politician as a throwback to the 1950s. He’s commonly referred to as the “Ozzie and Harriet” or “Leave it to Beaver” candidate, evoking those popular sitcoms of half a century ago when America was allegedly a uniform study in conformity and placidity. Mr. Romney has frequently expressed his admiration for President Eisenhower, as well as President Reagan, leading partisan Democrats to conclude that he’d govern in a similar manner.

This simple-minded lampooning could cause a backlash in Mr. Romney’s favor. Mr. Romney often employs phrases such as “holy moly,” “pleased as punch,” “whoop-de-do,” and “gosh” as opposed to other public servants like Vice President Cheney and Bill Clinton who sometimes inadvertently utter expletives in public or private conversations.

I find it very strange to criticize a candidate because he or she doesn’t swear and instead uses euphemisms to express displeasure. Moreover, I find it wholly irrelevant. Mr. Romney is not everyone’s ideal candidate, but the notion that he lives in a “throwback world” is, well, goofy. He is an accomplished businessman, is well traveled, is conversant enough in present-day issues to have won a gubernatorial contest in Massachusetts as a Republican, and successfully organized the Olympics in Salt Lake City.

On the other hand, John Edwards is depicted these days by Left-wing journalists as the latest Horatio Alger story, a man who grew up in humble surroundings, fought for “ordinary” people as a trial lawyer, and has overcome personal tragedy to emerge as the one true populist who can lead the nation out of its current moral and economic wreckage.

It’s true that much of the press has ridiculed Mr. Edwards, the champion of the “Other America” — the poor one to which he decidedly doesn’t belong — for his $400 haircuts, brief employment with a hedge fund, and 28,880 square foot home in North Carolina. But devotees, such as Charles Pierce, dismiss all that as evidence of a press that’s predominantly conservative.

Mr. Pierce, a rabid Bush-basher, goes way over the top when slagging the current group of Republican candidates by seething in Esquire magazine: ” … John Edwards shows more steel just getting out of bed in the morning than most of them did on the bravest day they ever lived.”

Mr. Edwards has endured the unimaginable loss of a child, as did the first President Bush, and his wife’s cancer remission is sad, but I’m not certain that separates him from millions of Americans, rich or poor. And for all his faults as a candidate, it’s inconceivable that Mr. Romney, a “soulless android,” according to Bruce Reed, the former Bill Clinton adviser, hasn’t had his own share of personal misfortune. But discovering such information just wouldn’t jibe with Mr. Pierce’s story arc.

Mr. Smith writes a column for the New York Press.