Mitt Romney Puts Michigan in Play in 2012

According to RealClearPolitics, Michigan is in play for the 2012 election- and it needs to be in play in order for a Republican to take back the White House. Back in 2008, John McCain was doing okay (according to the polling data) until he decided he could not win Michigan and pulled his operation out, and after that, it was a forgone conclusion that Barack Obama was going to win the Presidency. Michigan needs to be in play- a Republican doesn't have to win it, but resources, time, and energy must be spent here, and if Michigan isn't in play, then there is no chance that the Republican Party can beat Obama in 2012.

Remember, Michigan was once a reliable Republican vote, but for the past elections it has instead become a solid Democrat vote. It went Democrat in 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, and in 1992. It elected a liberal Democrat promising hope and change and increased regulations and taxes and welfare for all for Governor in 2002 and 2006. Both of Michigan's Senators are liberal Democrats- Levin wins his elections easily and even a very weak Stabenow won in 2000 and 2006. It is only through skillful gerrymandering in 2000 and 2010 that federal Representatives in Michigan stay Republican, but even in 2010 swing districts like Michigan's 9th still elected a liberal Democrat over a conservative Republican.

So the question needs to be asked- which Republican candidate has the best chance to win Michigan? Sarah Palin? John Huntsman? Tim Pawleny? Hermain Cain? Ron Paul? Newt Gengrich? Or Mitt Romney?

These candidates will not put Michigan in play- they are out of step with our state on social and economic issues and will be unable to combat the massive liberal and minority turnout that will be a powerful force for Obama in 2012. To be honest, there is only one candidate that the GOP could put up that would put Michigan in play, and it isn't so much because of his policies or personality.

It is clear that the answer to the question is Mitt Romney. Mitt can put Michigan in play in 2012. Even with all of his issues and even with all of the problems that Tea Party supporters and conservatives have with him- he is the one candidate that will best put a state like Michigan in play. He won Michigan's primary in 2008, his father was Governor here, and he has a real chance to win Michigan in the general election in 2012, especially after Michigan elected all Republicans in 2010 for most offices. And with him at the top of the ballot, that puts pressure also on Democratic Senator Debbie Stabmenow, who is also up for election.

Another candidate- Palin, Huntsman, Cain, Paul, or Newt especially- would not be able to put Michigan into play in the 2012 election, and if Michigan isn't in play, than the GOP does not win. Obama will not be forced to burn resources here, and like the canary in the cage that Michigan is, it will be a sign that Obama will have enough resources (money and corruption and media help) and a good enough strategy (pretend to be moderate, blame Bush, throw racism around, etc) to win.

Tea Party members and conservatives better spend a long time thinking about this question- what would be better for our nation, four years of a Romney presidency, or four years of a lame-duck Obama presidency? Romney might not be the best candidate for you, but if you don't back him and help him win, you might be looking at the worse of two evils.

Here is the map of the potential 2012 election, via RealClearPolitics:
Battle for White House

UPDATE: To reply to a comment below regarding the lesser of two evils still being evil- man is fallen, and our choices will never be perfect when picking leaders of our government. The question is would you rather have a perfect Republican candidate (whomever that is) lose to Obama in the general election, or would you rather have Romney have a chance (which I maintain is a slim one) in the general election? Romney, if elected, is going to have have to staff out his administration with solid conservatives and tea party people, and Romney is on record saying that he will get rid of Obamacare, so go back to the original point of my post- Romney puts Michigan in play better than any other state, and by doing so will put more pressure on Obama, and possibly, just possibly, overcome the massive advantages that Obama is going to have in his campaign.

UPDATE II: In reply to comments below, a vote for neither is an endorsement and vote for Barack Obama. Don't try to pretend you are moral with this decision- it is a two party system, Obama is an incumbent Democrat, he has to be beaten to be removed from office, and if you sit this one out because Romney isn't your 'perfect candidate', Obama wins, and it's on you.

Romney is more conservative than Obama, Romney would be more supportive of lower taxes, less regulation, stronger borders, smarter diplomacy, and balanced budgets, and that's why you don't vote 'neither' if he is on the ballot against Obama.

If you vote Republican in Congress (House/Senate), they'll be giving him bills he'll have to sign that will get rid of Obamacare, remove support for all of this global warming and green jobs corruption, and will put in place reforms to entitlements.

Unless you vote Obama or 'neither' or third party or independent, in which case, you personally will be helping to give Obama a second term, where he will have four years to do who knows what kind of damage to our nation, and someday you'll have to tell your children that you supported that agenda.