Well, I suppose that's it, then.

Fred managed to hit higher than Rudy, but lower than Ron.

The big surprise yesterday, for me, was the Mitt victory over John McCain. Let me tell you why I was certain McCain would win.

• In 2000, when McCain was running a primary campaign against George W. Bush, he won Michigan handily, thanks to folks like my democrat boss who really liked the guy. I assumed that would carry him.
• McCain's campaign actively sought independent and even Democrat voters in the Michigan primary (a move, by the way, which pisses me off to no end; MY party, not yours. I don't pretend to be a Democrat, you shouldn't pretend to be a Republican.)
• My precinct is around 10-1 in Democratic favor. Yesterday, at least from the pages I could see, at least 3 Republican ballots were passed out for every 1 Democrat ballot. Even if the Dems stayed home, that's just shenanigans.

Fortunately, my precinct wasn't especially representative of the state. Mitt, my #2 man trounced McCain handily, and is creeping closer to the magic number of 1,191..

Unless Fred can turn it around in SC, or Rudy in FL, it is looking like Romney will be the Republican candidate. There is a scenario in which McCain places 3rd in Florida and then makes a big bang on Super Tuesday, but even if that happens it is likely that the delegate count will be close come July. Same thing if Huck handily wins SC, and then begins to carry the rest of the South. Still, things are looking good for Mitt right now.

The Michigan Republican Primary, Conclusions

As promised, let's take a look at the remainder of the Republican field for tomorrow:

There are, of course, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. These guys are all right in terms of policy, but have run terrible campaigns, and are almost completely unelectable due to their lack of personality. Normally, a lack of personality wouldn't be enough to turn me off of a candidate, but add to this the fact that they have been ignored and shunned by both the media and the Republican establishment, and these boys don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

That leaves me with, of course, Fred Thompson. As you can see from the archive, I'm a Thompson supporter, and have been for a long time. Yeah, his campaign has been poorly run. Yes, he's been portrayed as not having enough "fire in the belly." But, in some ways, that's just what I want in a president: someone who had to be convinced to take the job, and for whom his personal success doesn't depend on him becoming president. I want a president who's not a career politician, who can go back home to Mount Vernon and make booze. On policy, he's almost dead on, and is the first viable candidate since Reagan to speak convincingly about federalism.

Is Thompson electable? Well, he was. I think he might still be. He won't win Michigan, partly because he hasn't had the resources to campaign here, but also because our Dems will all be voting for McCain once they figure out Hillary is the only one on their ballots. Still, if Thompson can beat out Huck in South Carolina, he may have a shot at capturing much of the rest of the South. Granted, it's a very slim scenario, and I certainly wouldn't take bets that it will happen. But in 1980 Reagan lost Iowa, swept the south, and lost 5 more primaries on the way to the convention. If there was indeed a Reagan political miracle, isn't it all right to hope for one for Thompson?

So, whether you are from Michigan or not, get out there and show Fred some love!

The Michigan Republican Primary, Part 3

With just one day left until the Michigan primaries, it's time for me to finish out my analysis of the Republican field. I'll hit two of the candidates this morning, and the remaining candidates, including my choice, this evening.

Mitt Romney. Mitt is an interesting candidate. As a Michigander who is too young to remember his father as governor, I can't speak intelligently about his political heritage. His religious heritage worries me, however. I know I'm not supposed to care that Romney is a Mormon any more than I care that Bush is a Methodist, or that Rudy is a Roman Catholic. Still, Mormonism is a relatively new player in the grand scheme of things, and several of its core tenants go against the most ancient of Christian tenants, including the doctrine of the Trinity. Does that disqualify Mitt to be president? No. But it does speak to his judgement.

The Mormon thing would probably be all right if Mitt hadn't been Governor of the same state that keeps electing Teddy Kennedy and John F. "I served in Vietnam" Kerry. Fact is, he had to do an awful lot of cow-towing to the left in Massachusetts, and while he says he's changed his ways, I'm skeptical, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Still, given all of this, Romney's stated positions make him my #2 choice. I'd have no problem getting behind a Mitt presidential campaign, even if I don't prefer him in the primaries.

Giuliani is a bit of an enigma to me. While I get that Mayor of New York is kind of a big deal, I'm not sure his experience there is far-reaching enough to work as president. Experience in the senate helps Thompson and McCain in that it has given them a taste of national political life. Experience as governor helps Mitt and Huck, because it covers so much wider a geographic spectrum. But Rudy's entire political life has been New York politics, which is fine for New York, but worries me at the national level.

I'm confident that Rudy would be all right for defense. I'm worried about his approach to social issues, and to the supreme court. He's saying the right thing as far as the court and things like gun rights, but his track record is worse than Mitt's here. I'll vote for Rudy in a general election, but I'd do it a bit begrudgingly.

The Michigan Republican Primary, Continued

OK, so, moving on...

John McCain. What do I think about John McCain? Well, he'd probably do all right in the War on Terror. Border security is a wishy-washy issue for McCain, having supported the failed immigration bill. He calls himself, on his campaign web site, a "leader on the issue of global warming," which is, of course, not a good thing. He seems to be OK on taxes, but less so on government regulations. McCain-Feingold, of course, best exemplifies this. His work with Kennedy on education falls into that category, too. He's generally OK on social issues, but has the whole federal marriage legislation thing going on.

My big beef with McCain, however, has been this maverick-centrist image he's tried to create over the years. It pissed me off in 2000 why my boss at the time, a staunch democrat, decided to vote in the Republican primary for McCain. She liked what he had done, and what he had to say. Fact is, unless the Dems had run someone really off the wall, she'd have voted for the Dem in the general election anyways. I always felt like McCain enticed "independents" to interfere with the Republican primary process, which just isn't the way it ought to be. The Republicans ought to be able to pick their own guy. By targeting independents, McCain corrupted the process. He did it again in New Hampshire, and if he wins Michigan, it will be the independents that did it for him.

Those are plenty of reasons not to vote for McCain in the primary. Beyond that even, he just seems like a loose cannon that could go off at any moment. He feels like the Republican Howard Dean, in terms of personal stability. That all is perception and maybe even a result of media interpretation, and not the reason I am not voting for him, but I do have to admit it scares me.

The Michigan Republican Primary

Well, I have to say... seven months has been too long. But, I don't feel bad about it; the thing about being a conservative is that, for the most part, I'm not interested in what government is doing. In fact, the less it does, the better. I've got better things to do, like raise my kids, work for a living, and play Dungeons and Dragons every Saturday. I think that's probably why Libertarians do so bad at the polls; most of the folks that share their views believe that government should have less power, and folks are always more motivated to gain power than to give it up.

Anyways, the Michigan Primary is just days away, and I've got some thoughts I'd like to share. Each day over this weekend, I'm going to talk about the Republican candidates, and I will finish off on Monday with a discussion of my pick. Reading my previous blog entries you might be able to guess who it is, but I think it is still a worthy exercise.

Today, let me start with Huckabee. I want to like Mike, I do. Heck, if nothing else, I'm scared that if I don't vote Huck that Chuck will come and kick my ass. In addition, I like his conservative social message. I'm completely OK with a Baptist pastor as president. I greatly admire his weight loss story, as I'm working on my own right now. Here's what I don't like:

• The Arkansas tax record. Yeah, I know, even Reagan raised taxes in California as governor. Still, it makes me wary.
• Golden Rule foreign policy. The golden rule is a rule about individuals, not nations. It's appeasement foreign policy cloaked in biblical rhetoric.
• Immigration. He just doesn't seem to know where he's going with it.
• In a general election, the anti-Christian left would eat him alive.

While I'm at it, I may as well do Ron Paul. I like everything about Ron Paul, save one big issue: the war. Paul is short-sighted here; there is indeed a constitutional basis for what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Paul would come out in support of the war on terror, he'd be my candidate. I know its one issue, but its a big one for me. In addition, like most libertarians, Paul needs to recognize Friedman's ideas about transition, and that these unconstitutional programs need to be phased out rather than shut off. But, I could live with that if I had to; the foreign policy thing is too overshadowing.