More Michigan Primary News And Election Thoughts

The Michigan primary is today, so there's a lot of news and analysis about it.  Here are a few of the latest rumblings regarding the GOP...

Hugh Hewitt predicts McCain will suffer greatly if he doesn't win the Michigan primary.  Riding high on the independents in New Hampshire, McCain is hoping to build some actual momentum by again relying on independents and Democrats in Michigan.  The problem for McCain is that he is not at all popular within the Republican party, which was reflected in the Iowa caucuses and in national polling of more red states.  This is because McCain held/holds many positions which are contrary to traditional Republican voters.  Excerpt:

Senator McCain has

--voted against the Bush tax cuts, one of only two Republican senators to do so;

--twice authored the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill with its Z Visas and path to citizenship;

--has done nothing to accelerate the construction of the border fence;

--stands behind McCain-Feingold even after the Supreme Court has struck down portions of it as unconstitutional;

--defends the Gang of 14 even though a long line of vacancies on the courts of appeal existed at the end of 2006 (and has only gotten longer in 2007);

--worked with Lindsey Graham to destroy the GOP's agenda in September of 2006 by grandstanding over the interrogation and treatment of terrorists bill;

--opposed drilling in ANWR;

--opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, twice;

--advocates a massive energy tax;

--performed poorly in three straight debates, displaying his off-putting temper on Saturday night last, and then wandering through the Sunday and Thursday debates, often losing the thread of his response and failing to answer the question, raising issues of his energy and age;

--has earned the enmity of grassroots conservative leaders across the country.  "I think that the problem that nearly destroyed his candidacy last summer is still there," Horserace blogger Jay Cost writes this morning, "and it could yet do him in. The problem? Conservative leaders do not care for his candidacy." 

If McCain can't carry Michigan, his nomination is likely doomed.

David Freddoso writes about some of the reasons the GOP nomination is likely to drag out:

Even a win in Michigan next Tuesday cannot guarantee McCain anything further. He will probably do poorly in Nevada next Saturday and South Carolina will at least be a challenge.

Although it appears unlikely, no one can yet rule out a Florida resurrection by Rudy Giuliani.

Mike Huckabee could win Michigan and South Carolina, and then dominate the South on February 5, but is likely to lose badly throughout the West and the Northeast.

Mitt Romney could still win in Nevada next Saturday — a state with more delegates than either Michigan or South Carolina. He could keep it close or even stay ahead in the delegate count with a "second-place-everywhere-until-Super-Tuesday" strategy, since most of the early states award delegates proportionally or by congressional district.

And while it seems doubtful, it's conceivable that Fred Thompson could win South Carolina after his debate performance.

Freddoso describes the next few weeks' schedules, who is favored to win each primary, and how that would affect the overall outcome of the GOP race.  His basic summary is that unless someone pulls away from the pack, it's likely to remain a juggling act and a multi-candidate race for quite some time.

At this point, I still haven't made up my mind on who I like best.  Actually, I think the better way to say it would be who I dislike the least.  All of the candidates have several important positives, but each also has a couple of important negatives, too.  I'm glad that this is shaping up to be a long-term horse race.  Well, let me clarify...I think it's ridiculous that we've been talking about the 2008 elections since the middle of 2007 (I mean, really, don't these people have jobs that they're supposed to be doing??), but the long-term exposure of multiple candidates allows us to get a much better grasp on who each candidate is and what they stand for.  Ultimately, that's a very good thing, because it allows the American public to make a much more educated selection.  And, it also helps even out the influence of the early states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and so on - it's pretty frustrating (not to mention unfair) for a candidate to be selected before 2/3 of American even gets to vote on the race!  It doesn't look like that will happen on the Republican side this year.

Regardless, I still say that whichever candidate can genuinely connect with the American people on the basis of strong, consistent, conservative principles (lower taxes, smaller government, national and border security, etc.) will run away with it.  We'll see which one (if any) gets it done.

My fear is that none will step up, which would lead to decreased Republican turnout in the general election.  Make no mistake - refusing to vote simply because you don't love any of the candidates is a vote for disaster!  I understand wanting to stand on principle, but we all have to live in reality, too.  The fact is that someone will be elected President.  Would you rather elect the person with whom you agree 80% of the time, or the person with whom you agree 5% of the time?  That is the choice we face.  By not voting for the Republican, you're essentially voting for the Democrat.  That's what happened in 2006, and all of those high-and-mighty Republicans who stayed home to 'teach the Republican party a lesson' doomed all of us to dealing with two grueling years of wartime partisanship and the worst Congress in the history of Congressional polling.

Let's not do that again, huh?  I, for one, will support the Republican nominee even if he is not my first choice.  Any of the Reps would be better than any of the Dems.

There's my two cents.