Once the state helps defray the costs than the state can impose conditions.

I actually agree that the parties should pay for these things; Lord knows they have the cash.

The Supreme Court ruled against the California mixed open primary a couple years back, though, so the law's a bit murky.

I usually agree with you but there is a major exception keeping the primaries closed: the financing. If the parties are willing to conduct their primaries with their own funding and infrastructure than I have no problem keeping them closed. Once the state helps defray the costs than the state can impose conditions.

Ron Beasley cries Foul, arguing that Democrats would lose the moral high ground they now hold

The moral high ground they share with Ted Rall, Killer Kennedy, Norman Hsu, Alcee Hastings, Sandy Burglar, Will Jefferson, The Clintons ... I could go on and on but I'd never get to the end until I got to Osama.

Yes there will be those who come out to vote just to do mischief in the GOP. Whatever your moral stance on that, its within the rules as written. I think the left's justification that two wrongs make a write is humorous, but lets be realistic, they are looking for a fig leaf to justify their actions. I especially love the racism involved in denigrating votes for Jackson. I guess the heart of racism in the democratic party that voted against the 1964 civil rights act is alive and well.

Second, as the comments here show, those wanting to do mischief are likely to spread their votes around. Mitt, Ron, Huckabe will all get a point or two, but it isn't like the nutroots are going to deliver 33% of MI voters.

Third, I suspect that the democrats will have at least as many who go to vote for who they really prefer to who would be worse for the GOP. This will in effect cancel out the mischief voters to leave the independents.

The independents made up 45% of the democratic primary and 37% of the republican primary in NH. The have no reason to vote in the democratic primary in MI (thanks to the DNC) so I suspect that they will vote in the republican primary (of those who would have voted anyway). If they are truly independent they will not be seeing who they can vote for to hurt the GOP, but rather who they think will be best for the country. In NH, according to the CNN exit poll so grab your salt shaker, McCain got 40% of the independent vote, to 27% for Mitt, 13% for Paul, 9% for Huckabee, 6% for Rudy. I suspect we will see similar distribution for MI. McCain got 34% of republican party ID to Mitt's 35% so it was a wash there.

Certainly MI is different from NH, but I suspect that the independents are likely to be somewhat the same. Of course, this will all be known soon.

As to open vs closed primary, I can see both sides to this. So I would leave it up to the parties to decide which they prefer. The problem really only comes up when one party has a boring primary (usually the party in the White House) or the special case of this year the DNC making the MI contest meaningless. Now if you showed that the DNC made the MI contest meaningless in order to push democrats to vote in the republican primary for the "worst" republican candidate, then I would want to revisit the issue. But you would have to be the sort to assume Clinton stole the NH election through diebold to start believing that level of conspiracy theory.

I don't follow, if you get no say in who becomes POTUS unless you register with one of the two parties, wouldn't that encourage continued party affiliation instead of discouraging it?

You are probably right. I was assuming people who weren't in either party probably had a good reason, but in reflection a lot probably aren't because they just don't bother.

Is Soros Kosolitos telling us that voting for Jesse Jackson in a primary election is "the worst of racial politics"? And does he then believe the Clinton fairy tale that "Dr. King's dream (only) began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act"?

In my view everybody, regardless of party, should vote their hearts. I think strategic voting is self-deluding.

I would actually prefer that primaries be limited to those who are registered for the party, but if primaries are open, I like the way NH allows independants to participate-while independants can choose to vote in either primary, registered democrats can only vote in the democratic primary, and registered republicans in the GOP primary.

I think those who would be most enamored of causing mischief more than likely are going to be affiliated with a party.