08

At first, I wasn't really sure about the relevance of moving the primaries up and down the calendar. In my opinion, the favor that is given to New Hampshire is unfair, and I really don't see why all the states can't just do this at same time. This leads me to my discussion for the week - it stemmed from an article in the Arizona Central Online Edition. The article is about a new state that will be hotly contested in the future. The paper words it like this: "A new power player is emerging in Republican presidential politics: Michigan." Michigan's primary is now set for January 15th, which is before New Hampshire! Republicans are holding special events there all week, in an effort to swing the state in their direction. There is a quote that I would like to discuss that comes from the article. A Republican Party Spokesman in the state said, "Just the talk of moving up the primary really put Makinac on the radar." Personally, I find it ridiculous that undue focus is being put on areas simply becasue of their influence on the primary. Idealistically, I think that all states should have equal and ample time with the candidates, instead of having them shift their "radars" with victory in mind. Politics is such a competition that important people who are seeking change will miss out on hearing what candidates have to say just because of the location that they happen to be in. A Detroit newspaper also reports that candidates are eager to run a "hard campaign" in Michigan. I am disappointed in this controversy...and technically, Michigan is going to have to move thier primary behind NH. Here is a blog that contains a schedule of primaries that is tentative at this time. I am sure that things will change again, and candidates will readjust, unless someone is brave enough to look past the petty locations and look forward to the future of the country.