Who Could Argue With That?

Editor's note. Please share your thoughts with me at daveandrusko@hotmail.com. 

Unlike a week ago, when I was able to watch the results from New Hampshire from beginning to end, by the time I got home last night former Gov. Mitt Romney had already been declared the winner in the Michigan Republican primary. When I went to my computer, there was an Instant Message from a friend waiting. It read, "This is going to make for a really interesting primary season."

Indeed, who could argue with that?

You don't have to love the game of politics to be intrigued by what is taking place within both parties as candidates jockey for their party's presidential nomination. Among Republicans, after last night,  Romney has prevailed in one major contest, former Gov. Mike Huckabee in another (Iowa), and Sen. John McCain in a third (New Hampshire).

If that weren't enough to whet your appetite, according to the Rasmussen Report NRLC-endorsed pro-life former Senator Fred Thompson has moved into a statistical tie for second place in the next primary, which takes place this Saturday in South Carolina.

Whether it's the Republicans or the Democrats, there is no shortage of explanations that are supposed to decipher why each candidate prevailed in the state he or she did. For example, clearly Mr. Romney's connections to the state in which he was born and of which his father was governor was a big help in defeating McCain and Huckabee, 39% to 30% to 16%, respectively. But, as I say, there are always "reasons" (after the fact) to "explain" why someone prevailed and someone else did not.

What can we say in such a complicated and fractured political environment?

First, traditionally the field has been thinned out by now. But all four major GOP candidates who have competed thus far--Thompson, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney--are still bustling in active campaigning. The fifth--pro-abortion former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani--will attempt to jumpstart his campaign January 29 when Florida holds its primary.

Second, the New York Times is conflating its wishes with its analysis when it says this morning that the Michigan results shows that the Republican Party is "adrift, deeply divided and uninspired when it comes to its presidential candidates and unsure of how to counter an energized Democratic Party."

The Times is free to give the back of its institutional hand to the Republican field, but are we really supposed to infer that the three pro-abortion Democrats represent oak-like presidential timber? Two have legislative resumes that are as thin as rice paper while the third would not be where she is if she was not the wife of a former president.

When we get to the general election, the Republicans--men with extensive executive and legislative records--will hold up quite well, thank you. That is the major reason there are as many candidates still in the fold as there are.

In addition, the Democrats' mediocre backgrounds aside, the public is supposed to pretend that what generates much of the great enthusiasm (having the first woman and the first African American with a real shot at winning a major party's presidential nomination) is all upside and no downside--no rivalries, no one-upsmanship, no backbiting, and no bitter allegations of racism or sexism. Are we adults or children?

For anyone who has watched the national press in operation for any length of time, you know the fundamental irony. Reporters act as if they can't wait for the two parties to winnow out the wannabes and choose their respective nominees.

In fact, if the decision had somehow been made two weeks ago, they would whine 24/7 since they'd have almost ten months to fill before the election.

Please: if you are not passing "Today's News & Views" along to family and friends and encouraging them to join on their own, please do! It is very important.

Talk to you tomorrow.