On the Michigan Primaries

With the Michigan Primaries coming up, Michigan Democrats will have some interesting choices. The DNC stripped the state of all its delegates and the only Democratic candidate on the ballot is Hillary, although, she isn't actively campaigning (Michigan broke some Democratic Party rules and got bitch slapped, as it were). However, the other candidates are telling their supporters to vote "uncommitted," as these delegates (assuming the DNC gives them their power back) will not be committed to any candidate and can thus vote for Obama, Edwards, or whomever. Plus, wouldn't it be a smack in the face for Hillary to lose to "uncommitted?"

Kos, in his mischievous way, has another plan. He wants Democrats to vote for Romney.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

Not to mention that if Mitt somehow continues on to win the nomination, this will benefit Democrats. National polls have shown that Mitt is one of the weakest candidates that the Republicans have. If he gets the nod, I have complete confidence that the Democrats will win. Now, if McCain gets the nod, I would bet on the Republicans winning. But I'm not a betting man.

I'm not sure Kos' logic makes all that much sense, though. First off, there are no indications that the Democratic nomination will be settled any time soon. On This Week this morning, George Stephanopoulos said that there's a theory going around that the Democratic nomination won't be settled until April 22 -- Pennsylvania's primary (here's hoping). So, if the Democrats are still duking it out, there won't be much of a difference. Granted, I guess he would argue that both parties being in disarray is better than the Democrats being in disarray while the Republicans are settled. But, I'm not so sure of that logic, either.

For once, I think I actually agree with Newt Gingrich. On This Week, he noted how easily Americans get bored. If the Democrats are settled on a candidate after February 5 (which I doubt), people will get bored with the candidate. I don't think inter-party (or is it intra-party?) conflict is a bad thing. Having a lot of choices can be exciting. And it's good for the political process.

So, I'm not so sure I agree with Kos' strategy. Although, I have to admit, it would be rather funny to see the pundits discussing how Romney's victory came at the hands of Democrats. I wonder how Mitt would handle that hot potato...

How We Choose Our President

Newt Gingrich has some choice words about the way we Americans choose our president (hat tip to NRO's John Hood):

"We have shrunk our political process to this pathetic dance in which people spend an entire year raising money in order to offer nonanswers, so they can memorize what their consultants and focus groups said would work."
...
"This idea of demeaning the presidency by reducing it to being a game show contest ... is wrong for America, and I would never participate in it."

As much as I love covering the presidential election, I find it is easy at times to get frustrated with the horse-race nature of the process. It's not just the "game-show"-like nature of the debates. It seems that the nominations and the election are decided by more by factors like good looks, likability, and the ability to convincingly spit out thirty-second sound-bites than by qualities like knowledge, competence, and the ability to actually grasp a complicated idea. Are the factors that we use to choose a president distinctly unrelated to the factors that would actually make someone a good president? Or are they the same? I am reminded of a post by Ross Douthat on presidential hopeful Tommy Thompson:

When the Fred Thompson boomlet started up, I batted around an idea for a piece called "The Wrong Thompson," or something like that, all about how Tommy and not Fred ought to be the dark horse candidate for the GOP nomination. After watching the former Wisconsin Governor in two debates, though, it's clear that making the case for Tommy Thompson is rather like making the case that the town meeting and direct democracy ought to take over all the federal government's functions because you get better governance that way; it's an idea that has merit in the abstract, but not in the world we actually inhabit. In an era without television, Tommy Thompson might have been a fine Presidential candidate and as effective a Chief Executive as he was a governor in Wisconsin. But in a world in which a national politician's effectiveness - his ability to rally support for his agenda, in particular - depends on his ability to communicate through mass media, a Thompson Presidency would be an epic disaster.

Have you noticed that almost all female music stars these days are extremely attractive? If you want to be a star, it certainly helps to be a good singer, but that's not a requirement. Being hot is. Looks are more important than talent. In presidential elections, it certainly helps to be qualified, but that's not a requirement. Being likable is. Charisma is more important than talent.

I'd write more, but I've got to go. It's time to put on some Christina Aguilera and read another article about John Edwards' hair cut.