No GOP Anchor in Sight

So Mitt Romney was victorious in the Michigan primary.

The lib media are spinning that as the Republican Party in disarray.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Breakthrough puts another twist in jumbled GOP race"

Associated Press: "Scrambled GOP race" -- The Republican race heads south as a complete jumble.

The New York Times: "No G.O.P. Anchor in Sight" -- Can anyone bring the Republicans together again?

It's January.

Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Michigan have had their caucuses and primaries.

That's all.

There are 50 states participating, plus the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Why should there be a clear front-runner at this stage in the process?

What's with the lib media? Are they trying to disenfranchise voters outside of Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Michigan?

The task of choosing presidential nominees isn't the work of voters in only those four states.

The primaries are just beginning.

The fact that the Republicans don't have an "anchor" isn't alarming. It's not a problem.

The lib media don't seem to be fretting over the fact that the Dems haven't chosen an "anchor" yet.

The New York Times' analysis of the significance of Romney's Michigan win is particularly slanted. (There's a surprise.)

On the most tangible level, the vote on Tuesday was proof from the ballot box of what polls have shown: this is a party that is adrift, deeply divided and uninspired when it comes to its presidential candidates and unsure of how to counter an energized Democratic Party.

Even in victory, Mr. Romney stood as evidence of the trouble the party finds itself in. He won, but only after a major effort in a state he once expected to win in a walk. That was before he lost Iowa and New Hampshire, two other states where he had campaigned all out.

More than any candidate in the Republican field, Mr. Romney has made a conscious effort to reassemble the coalition of economic and social conservatives that came together with Ronald Reagan and that President Bush kept remarkably unified in his two campaigns and through much of his White House tenure.

Mr. Romney’s uneven performance has highlighted the strains in that coalition, and a central question about his candidacy is whether he will be able to rally its fractured components to his side. It was no coincidence that he invoked Reagan more than once in his victory speech on Tuesday, though it was perhaps equally telling that he also invoked the first President Bush, who like Mr. Romney struggled to convince Republicans that he was Reagan’s rightful heir.

“The problem for the Republicans is they all have part of it,” said Lou Cannon, the Reagan biographer, referring to the conservative movement. “Huckabee has the social conservative part of it. Reagan had a lot of draw among independents, and McCain has stepped into that. And you have the conservative Wall Street types who are with Romney.”

Mr. Cannon added, speaking of Mr. Romney, “I don’t know how you put Humpty Dumpty back together again, but certainly he has tried to do it.”

This is a bunch of doom and gloom crap.

Oh, the party's adrift.

Oh, the party's deeply divided.

Oh, the party's uninspired.

The Dems, on the other hand, are described as "energized."

Right. They're energized. They're so engerized that they've been ripping each other apart. Sure. No division there.

Tell me. Who is the Dems' anchor? Is it Obama? Is it Hillary? Is it Edwards?

Which candidate has the reins of the Democrat Party? Who is the leader?

After the race wars between Obama and Hillary, with various Dem factions taking their own shots, it's clear that the Democrats do not have an anchor. They are far from united.

Oprah may have dropped anchor, but that seems to have sown dissension in the Dem ranks.

I'm sick of the lib media painting the Republicans as floundering and confused and demoralized, while they portray the Dems as organized and acting as one.

The fact is the Dems have a rough road ahead. There will be blood on the tracks before they arrive at an agreement on a nominee.

Let Republicans vote and choose a nominee. That's what the primaries are about. Let them sort through the issues and settle on a candidate.

What happened to count every vote?

If you follow the lib media, you'd think that just the votes in Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Michigan should be counted, as if the others don't matter.

Lame. It's a weird game concocted by lib propagandists posing as journalists.

The truth is the reports of the GOP's death have being greatly exaggerated by these Leftists.

A reminder: The Republicans have no anchor yet and neither do the Democrats.

So?

I see Romney's victory as a good thing for conservatives, a very good thing.

It appears that conservatives aren't ready to settle for a lightweight anchor.