August 25, 2007

DNC Attacks Florida Democrats?

For once, Howard Dean is right, and he's likely to pay a large price for it. Dean warned Florida Democrats that he would refuse to certify their delegates at the Democratic National Convention in 2008 for their participation in fouling up the primary schedule, which has Florida Democrats irate:

Florida lawmakers angrily assailed the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Howard Dean, saying he is threatening to "disenfranchise" the state's voters by considering a plan to invalidate the state's presidential primary.

The DNC's rules committee is to vote today whether to sanction Florida for violating party rules by moving its primary up to Jan. 29 and violating a party rule against holding a primary before Feb. 5. The action would deny Florida its delegates at the party's national convention next year and prohibit Democratic presidential candidates from campaigning in the state before the primary.

In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said the DNC "is poised to assault the basic right of a person to vote at its meeting tomorrow." He threatened to sue the national party to prevent the sanctions from being imposed.

The ban would extend to the candidates themselves. If the DNC followed through on this threat, the presidential candidates would be barred from campaigning in Florida during the primaries. That would set off another dispute, as it would likely give the state to the Republicans in the general election -- and Florida has one of the largest Electoral College delegations in the nation.

Dean's right to insist on enforcing the rules, even if Dean has gone into hiding while his Rules Committee makes the point for him. The Florida delegation voted for the DNC rules, which stipulated that a primary there before February 5th would trigger a loss of half of their delegation. The DNC now warns them that they have the option of invalidating the entire delegation if they persist in their obstinacy, a rather extreme position that would essentially render every Democratic vote in Florida's primary a waste of time. That's why Nelson argues that the Democrats want to disenfranchize Florida, a rather ironic position given all the screeching Democrats did over the 2000 election.

However, the national parties have to take control over the irrational one-upmanship of the state organizations over primary schedules. Right now, the only way to do that is to enforce the national-committee rules over scheduling, and the only way to do that is to invalidate state delegations where those rules have been violated. Nothing else would be meaningful enough to put a stop to the shenanigans.

If they can't stop it, it invites federal intervention in Congress, and the cure may be worse than the disease in the long run. A loss of state control over primary races will almost certainly result in a tremendous loss of influence in smaller states, and a corresponding increase to the largest states, in any primary process designed in the House. From a federalist point of view, this federal control of the selection of state delegates would violate the spirit of the Constitution, if not the letter.

We'd like to see the states quit engaging in childish contests of double-dare-ya and start acting responsibly in scheduling primaries. Otherwise, the states and the parties risk losing any control over the process -- because the voters will not stand for much more childishness.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/12099

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DNC Attacks Florida Democrats?:

» DNC Strips Florida of Delegates from Outside The Beltway | OTB
The Democratic National Committee sought to seize control of its unraveling nominating process yesterday, rejecting pleas from state party leaders and cracking down on Florida for scheduling a Jan. 29 presidential primary. The DNC’s rules and byl... [Read More]

» Drop Dead or much to do about nothing? from The Florida Masochist
Will the DNC's decision anger Florida voters or make little difference? I'm saying the later. [Read More]

Comments (53)

Posted by Bithead | August 25, 2007 9:50 AM

Leave it to the Democrats to find a new way to shoot themselves in the foot. Does anybody think that enforcement of this particular rule is going to help democrats get elected to office?

Posted by Tully | August 25, 2007 9:54 AM

I've been tracking this one for a hair over a year now. Highly amusing. Trackbacked, Cap'n.

Posted by docweasel | August 25, 2007 10:08 AM

The bottom line is, this is the end of NH and Iowa's monopoly on "first in the nation". They are still vainly trying to hang on, but Iowa will have to move its caucus to 2 years before the election if they keep reacting to other states moving up.

Iowa and NH never should have had this much influence. Its a disgrace its gone on this far. We need a rotating regional plan where every 4 years a slate of states from each region has 3-4 weeks to schedule their caucuses (cauci?) and primaries. Its the only fair way and would end this one-up-manship that's going on now.

I think NH and Iowa's legislatures and governors are the ones being childish here, trying to preserve and unfair system that the rest of the country is finally fed up to the teeth with.

Good riddance to the Iowa rush and the NH winter shuffle. I've always detested those rituals anyway. They bring to mind the WORST there is in campaigning.

Posted by KHarn | August 25, 2007 10:13 AM

I'm a Southern Democrat decended from Southern Democrats, and I say if it pisses off the Liberal/Socialists who stole my political party, SO BE IT!

Posted by Tully | August 25, 2007 10:23 AM

It's worth noting that it was the DNC that stirred up this pot in the first place, by shifting Nevada up between Iowa and New Hampshire, then stacking South Carolina in right behind them and passing new rules to punish states that jumped the DNC line. Self-inflicted wound.

Their intent was to boost their sway with Hispanic and black voters in early primaries. Screwing over other states was just a side benefit. Seems that the other states don't appreciate the gesture much.

Posted by Rhymes With Right | August 25, 2007 10:30 AM

On the other hand, the state of Florida could have something to say on the matter, too.

I think legislation that denies ballot access to any candidate selected at a convention where Florida's representation was denied or diminished might change the minds of the DNC.

Similarly, the legislature could exercise its constitutional power to prohibit its electoral votes from going to any such candidate.

Posted by Tully | August 25, 2007 10:37 AM

Well, it certainly IS the perogative of the states to decide how they assign their electroal votes!

Posted by RBMN | August 25, 2007 10:39 AM

Naturally, I hope the dispute festers, ends up in court, goes back and forth in the lower courts for two months, and then ends up in the US Supreme Court. :-)

Posted by fool | August 25, 2007 11:12 AM

I disagree on grounds of first principles.


I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State.... Let me now ... warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.


This spirit ... exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....


It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion.

- Pres. George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Political parties may not be "unconstitutional" but they are certainly "extra-constitutional." This zeal toward protecting THEIR interests even against the interests of the people generally is one of the more insidious realities that has brought us to the political rack-and-ruin we are in today.

Posted by flyguy | August 25, 2007 11:13 AM

You wrote:

"Dean's right to insist on enforcing the rules,"

For the sake of readability, can you cut back on the contractions that you use?

Posted by fool | August 25, 2007 11:16 AM

I disagree, in company with President George Washington.


I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State.... Let me now ... warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.


This spirit ... exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....


It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion.

- Pres. George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Political parties may not be "unconstitutional" but they are certainly "extra-constitutional." This zeal toward protecting THEIR interests even against the interests of the people generally is one of the more insidious realities that has brought us to the political wrack-and-ruin we are in today.

Posted by essucht | August 25, 2007 11:30 AM

I've been thinking about the primary schedule, and I think that the following system, hopefully agreed to voluntarily by the states would be the best way to go;

1) Organize states into regions - the Northeast, Northwest, etc

2) Each region has its primaries on the same day.

3) Regions will randomly be alloted an order by some sort of lottery system for the first go that will then be followed for the future.

So, suppose the Northwest gets the first primary in 2008, the order would then be;

2008: 1st
2012: 2nd
2016: 3rd
etc.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 25, 2007 11:32 AM

While yall are watching the fireworks, the finale is about to kick off, and there's some real explosions in the making.

This
is
NUTHIN

It's a reflection of the divide the party is having right now. Why do all the states want to move up their primaries? It's not just "to be first." It's to have the most influence. If Iowa and NH have unfair influence, then so too would any state that is "the first." Yeah, technically there are rules, and the states have their rules, and there's law, etc., but it's about who gets to be first, and whoever is first gets to set the tone, determine the theme, etc.

The war in Iraq is going horribly for Democrats right now. Everyone knows they never had a New Direction plan. As soon as W sent more troops like Reid, Pelosi and other demanded (ie as soon as the President began his new direction) the party balked, went back on their pre-election pledge that the Dem new direction wouldn't be withdrawal, but would be success. Now, worst of all...there's some success in Iraq. Blue dogs who were never controlled by the base are bailing out and recognizing it counter to the party leaders and controllers. Democrats' Congress' approval is at 18%, approval of the Democrats' Congress' handling of Iraq war (the "mandate" that brought them to power) is at 3%. Success in Iraq means the war goes badly for Democrats. Now they're making power plays to grasp at straws for Iraq and Anybody But Bush just don't carry the day now. They need a wedge issue that the party can rally behind fast, or the infighting-the fireworks-are gonna explode all over.

Posted by Carl | August 25, 2007 11:57 AM

Personally speaking as an old-school conservative Democrat, if this will help cause the current Democrat Party to implode getting rid of Dean and the other uber-liberals then I welcome the chaos. The current batch of uber-liberals and outright socialists currently in charge of the DNC need to be weeded out and I hope this mess aids in that end result.

Posted by Tully | August 25, 2007 12:01 PM

"Dean's right to insist on enforcing the rules,"

Dean MADE these rules. Dean and cohorts set themselves up for this last year, and I noted it then. Been following it continuously--see the links in that post, going back to last August.

Why do all the states want to move up their primaries?

Dean and Cohorts set it off, by moving the Nevada and South Carolina primaries up ahead of the pack in an attempt to be able to manipulate black and Hispanic voters in the direction they preferred. The other states are simply responding to that Dean/DNC power play, that attempt to return to the smoke-filled back rooms of the pre-McGovern era. The Democrats set the schedule we've lived with for over thirty years back then--and now they've changed it in an attempt to control the primaries.

If in doing so they shoot themselves in the ass it is, as I said, an ENTIRELY self-inflicted wound.

Posted by daytrader | August 25, 2007 12:41 PM

What happens if Dean says no campaigns in FL and Hillary gives him the finger? What's he gonna do?

Good way to turn FL dems more blue dog in response and jack up a whole bunch of hispanic/cuban voters in the process.

Bring it on!

Posted by daytrader | August 25, 2007 12:45 PM

Keep the calendar jumping up and the snowbound states will have much lower turnout.

It also will raise the level of conflict between Kos and the DNC and even the DLC.

Posted by Rovin | August 25, 2007 1:20 PM

Seperate Hollywood,Ca. from the rest of the country, let them go first, and the picture will become crystal clear how ridiculous the liberal left has become. Their national anthem should be "Desperado" by the Eagles and their nation bird, the chicken.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 25, 2007 1:23 PM

Okay, Nelson, so sue. The democrapic party is nothing more, now, than a bunch of lawyers who are looking for legal ways to overturn America's democratic process. Been in place, you guys, since 2000. (And, you've got nothing much to show for it! Except, of course, an enraged citizenry that's "bigger than your base.")

Having said that, I'd also like to add: THE WORLD OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

Because something is driving this election cycle to go way earlier about its business. Which came about, in my view, because the relgious-right "locked" the GOP into an agenda driven lunacy; not backed up by mainstream voters.

So that's how it shapes up.

While life, itself, has to play out. Where you have older men running. Some with cancers that at best can be called "in remission." But not cured.

And, who knows what can happen?

In other words, we may see both parties entering their conventions, with no one a "sure thing." Let alone, anyone picked by the primary voters; while the average American is told "to go and cool their heels."

My guess is that something happens, in the world of randomness, where one horse, expected to win, "plotzes."

Lots of gamblers know this! They put huge sums of money, betting the future. Lots go broke.

Religion didn't really enter politics until the Reagan election. Where the turd, Jimmuh Carter, had "defeat" written all over his White House behaviors.

And, so many people had finally tuned out the major parties' candidates,that Reagan got his boost from a segment of the population well identified as conservatives. And, not just "religious one's," either.

That was a BIG SHIFT in the way "political business" is done. But the process of electing presidents is supposed to sit on "shifting sands."

Made worse, of course, because the media plays on the liberal side. Which skews things even more.

Is it a rational process? HELL, NO! If there was a rational process in place, the GOP would not have put a good-looking EMPTY SUIT into the White House, (Warren Harding). Back in the 1920's. FDR would come in, and clean the GOP's clock.

Then, in a fantasy of indulgences, the GOP elected the LOSER, Tom Dewey, to run against Truman. 1948. Arrogance PERSONIFIED. But losses come with reality. Each. And, every time.

Reality sent the GOP into a fluster. And, they went outside their tent to pre-select Eisenhower. How managed to show the world what blowouts, when people vote, actually looks like.

As to the Bonkeys, from their entire array of candidates; (where Matt Drudge says "Hillary's money in the bank" to him.) YOu've got no one who can clean anyone's clock.

The GOP? Some candidates are counting on the primary voters to "throw" the election to a candidate with LESS appeal than a front-runner should have. And, the field, currently, is wide open.

UNTIL NATURE CALLS. Really. Don't eliminate the vagaries of nature.

Locking in early?

Oh, it will have it's drawbacks.

To say nothing of the teeter-totter effect; IF by the time the conventions roll around, the insiders, made up of politicians who need LARGE COATTAILS for their own wins; will come into play.

Tom DeLay made it into Congress BECAUSE of Ronald Reagan's coattails. Something to keep in mind as this plays out.

LIke Gone With the Wind. Whose gonna play Scarlett? Well? Selznick picked a winnah. Whose gonna be the "pick-a" ahead?

ANd, why it's possible "being early" won't make it the party it's intended to be? I never bet the future.

Posted by Mercutio | August 25, 2007 1:33 PM

Was it Lyndon Johnson who said the difference between cannibals and liberals is that cannibals only eat their enemies?

Posted by Rose | August 25, 2007 1:45 PM


Posted by Bithead | August 25, 2007 9:50 AM

Leave it to the Democrats to find a new way to shoot themselves in the foot. Does anybody think that enforcement of this particular rule is going to help democrats get elected to office?

****************

Let's just worry about keeping them from destroying the nation, entirely - ok?

They've been thinking for a long time that they don't have to obey the rules concerning voting and legitimate elections.

Let's hope this is a good wake-up call for them.

If it does, I'll think more of Howard Dean than I ever in my life thought possible to consider of a Liberal Dim.

Posted by Rose | August 25, 2007 1:48 PM


Posted by Bithead | August 25, 2007 9:50 AM

Leave it to the Democrats to find a new way to shoot themselves in the foot. Does anybody think that enforcement of this particular rule is going to help democrats get elected to office?

****************

Let's just worry about keeping them from destroying the nation, entirely - ok?

They've been thinking for a long time that they don't have to obey the rules concerning voting and legitimate elections.

Let's hope this is a good wake-up call for them.

If it does work, I'll think more of Howard Dean than I ever in my life thought possible to consider of a Liberal Dim.

Posted by Rose | August 25, 2007 2:02 PM

Posted by fool | August 25, 2007 11:12 AM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

A good refreshing of First Principles and First Loves is always healthy grounding.

Posted by agesilaus | August 25, 2007 2:14 PM

Well I think the feds ought to take over this broken system.

1) Lump the 8 smallest states together in pairs:
WY+DE, VT+MT, RI+SD, AK+ND. Draw lots to establish an order and let them run primarys spaced two weeks apart starting in February.
This will let candidates run cheap campaigns and get some geographical variety. Dark horses would get thier chance here.

2) Take the remaining 42 states, create blocks with roughly 45-50 million population and select an order by lot for the first time. Try not to create single region blocks. Run primarys every three weeks with these blocks of states. That would put you at the end of July for the last primary.

3) Hold the meaningless conventions in late August.

4) Rotate the order for the next election.

Only the first three or four primaries in the big blocks of states would be significant unless you had a real race which we haven't seen in many years. But the early runs in the small states would give the campaigns a chance to raise money for the bigger primaries later. Every state would get it chances with the rotations.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 25, 2007 2:21 PM

Docweasel said

"The bottom line is, this is the end of NH and Iowa's monopoly on "first in the nation". "

Not really-state law here in New Hampshire has for many years specifically mandated that our primary be the first in the nation, and that will continue. New Hampshire's primary started in 1916 and has been of major importance since 1952. We're not going away any time soon.

The only ones who have ever complained about New Hampshire being first have always pulled out the race card in their attempts to challenge our law, claiming that NH is "too white". Hint: those people are Democrats. They also claim we're "too conservative", yet Kerry carried our state in 2004.

Posted by msr | August 25, 2007 2:24 PM

agesilaus,
I was about to suggest something similar.

Three primary days, each separated by a month. Day one would be the ten smallest population states. Day two, the next twenty states. Day three, the largest twenty states.

Sure, the temptation is still to ignore ND and WY or wherever and concentrate on CA and FL, but that temptation has always been there. The NH/IA setup has always been about making a good first impression and building momentum. This way, you ignore the small states at your peril.

Posted by Rose | August 25, 2007 2:25 PM

Posted by essucht | August 25, 2007 11:30 AM

****************

Regionalizing is what our Founding Fathers warned against. We cannot stop some of them from factioning themselves off, as they do, now - caring far too much more for themselves alone than they do for their role in the WHOLE, than they care about THE WHOLE - even though they KNOW they cannot survive, literally, without the rest of us - they count on being able to drag us against our wholeness' best interests, for their own selfish aims - towards their own selfish desires.

I wouldn't go where you suggest, if I were you.

It sounds neat to have a system. Everyone likes formulas.

But our elections are too important for this.
It would be better to limit all of them to no earlier than March, or even April, and make sure both Primaries and Generals have run-offs when #1 has only 50% or less of the votes. Also on Les Majoris Rules.

We also need some refresher classes on the Electoral College, and the history of political parties in the USA - I've heard some insane postulations on the Electoral College the last few elections, when one party perceived a disadvantage to it.

People need to remember - two or three large population centers should NOT have the right to select our President.

Posted by Tully | August 25, 2007 2:37 PM

The DNC rules committee went and did it. They have just disenfranchised the entire state of Florida in the Democratic primary, to "solve" a problem they created last year in their attempts to return to the old back-room manipulation of primaries.

The DNC, produly making every Florida vote NOT COUNT! Ummm, irony....

Posted by Ray | August 25, 2007 3:05 PM

The individual candidates do not have to abide by the DNC. They can, if they wish, disregard anything the DNC mandates. What can the DNC do, charge them with a crime? Refuse them funds? Loudly complain? Like that's going to matter much. After all, the DNC is not the democratic party itself and it doesn't control individual campaign funds so the DNC doesn't have much power over the candidates or the voters who support those candidates. After all, any candidate can run as an independent if they fail to win the primaries or the DNC tries to find ways to "punish" the malcontents. That's what Lieberman did, and he did quite well as an independent.

Having said all that, I think it's foolish for the states to keep changing the dates of their primaries, all in some lame attempt to gain an advantage in the over-all results of the national primary. State primaries take a lot of perpetration, like scheduling convention centers, coordinating delegate appearances, and other logistic requirements. Constantly changing the dates every year will have a negative effect on the part of the party officials as the citizens of each states will get tired of having to change their schedules at the whim of the respective parties in each state. That will cause a backlash against the party officials and may cost the party significant support.

Posted by Tully | August 25, 2007 3:11 PM

What can the DNC do, charge them with a crime? Refuse them funds? Loudly complain?

Strip them of their delegates. Essentially, those who would have won delegates in the Florida primary get nothing. Some will campaign there anyway, but that will just serve as a remidner to Florida Dems that their own party has already said their votes don't count.

Chocolate-glazed irony.....

Posted by eaglewings | August 25, 2007 3:44 PM

There is no disenfranchising of Florida's or any other violative state's voters. If the Rules Committee votes not to recognize delegates from renegade states' primaries, the States then can RETURN THEIR PRIMARY DATES to non-violative dates and thus be ASSURED that all their delegates will be counted and that candidates will be able to campaign in their states. Such simple reasoning is apparently beyond the capacity of those holding high office as demonrats in this country.
But this appears to be another symptom of the elite demonrats, there are no rules and those rules that appear to restrict what they want should be ignored and perverted.

Posted by Tully | August 25, 2007 4:28 PM

Let's look at how the politics of this might play out to the electorate.

The taxpayers of the states are the ones who pay for most primary elections, even though the parties set the dates. Under the McGovern-Fraser compromise, parties had their primaries on the same dates in each state. Then Dean and the DNC decided to move the Democratic primaries for Nevada and South Carolina forward....

Which has resulted in other state Democratic parties moving theirs forward, in defiance of the DNC. And as a natural result, state Republican parties will move theirs up to match, and they will say (with some considerable justice) that they're just trying to keep from stiffing the taxpayers with double elections, and it's all the DNC's fault.

Posted by docweasel | August 25, 2007 5:17 PM

Del Dolemonte:

I'm not pulling any race card. I'm flat out saying its unfair for any ONE state to have that much influence. The fact that this crap has been going on since '16 makes it all the more perfidious. What gives you guys the RIGHT to always be first? Who the hell is NH to stake out that privilege?

The good news is, I truly believe this is the beginning of the end. Candidates can afford to skip or dis NH, they can't afford to skip Florida. The voters of Florida will certainly remember if Obama or Romney skips the primary and Hilary! or Guiliani takes part in it, when the general election comes, the nominee who didn't take part is going to get hurt by it.

I am truly sick of hearing about NH and Iowa come presidential campaign time every four years, and how the candidates have to suck up to these self-entitled effete snobs who think its their god-given right to tell the rest of the nation who the front runner is or is not. Its a bad system and its got to go, and I'm proud of my state for bucking that bad system. I wish they'd move it up to Jan 2nd and really upset the apple cart. Word is New York and Michigan may move up as well, and those states also cannot be ignored by the candidates, while NH and Iowa certainly are expendable.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 25, 2007 5:20 PM

I can assure, you, Tully, that the congress-critters are held in such low respect; there's nothing much they can do about it at this point.

And, "early primaries" still leave the problems inherent that by the time the conventions roll around, the moods of people will have changed. And, some may get less than enthused about an apparent "front runner."

Let alone, if a front-runner succumbs to illness.

Oh, and at the primaries, DELEGATES get elected. To carry out the voters "wishes." These people, too, are subject to nature's whims. How would those who kick the bucket, get replaced?

And, how would you dampen the enthusiams for a 3rd party candidate; if both parties fail to elect someone "beyond favorite son" status?

I'm just asking.

Because EARLY has more problems in it, than LATE. Where at least your tapping into the "flow" of people's feelings. Before there's the usual "buyer's remorse?"

In other words? It's one thing to be a front runner, going into a convention. And, a whole other ball game, trying to stay on top, when factions will do all they can to undermine ya.

Now, we've got 50 States. In the past, two of them, New Hampshire and Iowa, who have very few electoral college votes; PEE'd first.

Then, came along Super Tuesday.

And, then came along the June primaries that made the people living in California furious! Because their favorite choices were kicked in the groins, at places "down South."

Shows ya. There was a problem.

Politicians have now gone and made it worse.

Typical.

Posted by docweasel | August 25, 2007 5:23 PM

Del Dolemonte:

I'm not pulling any race card. I'm flat out saying its unfair for any ONE state to have that much influence. The fact that this crap has been going on since '16 makes it all the more perfidious. What gives you guys the RIGHT to always be first? Who the hell is NH to stake out that privilege?

The good news is, I truly believe this is the beginning of the end. Candidates can afford to skip or dis NH, they can't afford to skip Florida. The voters of Florida will certainly remember if Obama or Romney skips the primary and Hilary! or Guiliani takes part in it, when the general election comes, the nominee who didn't take part is going to get hurt by it.

I am truly sick of hearing about NH and Iowa come presidential campaign time every four years, and how the candidates have to suck up to these self-entitled effete snobs who think its their god-given right to tell the rest of the nation who the front runner is or is not. Its a bad system and its got to go, and I'm proud of my state for bucking that bad system. I wish they'd move it up to Jan 2nd and really upset the apple cart. Word is New York and Michigan may move up as well, and those states also cannot be ignored by the candidates, while NH and Iowa certainly are expendable.

Posted by docweasel | August 25, 2007 5:29 PM

Carol:
There's also much more time for someone to make a major gaffe, or for world events to change in such a way to change the facts on the ground and make a candidate unelectable: for example, say the Dems nominate Obama or Edwards (as unlikely as it seems now) on the grounds of hope and change and the belief that his new ideas and youthful enthusiasm and vigor will make up for his lack of experience: then say, in August, Iran bombs Israel and we are in the middle of a huge war, a face off with Russia and China perhaps.

All that bubbly feel-good stuff isn't going to matter a hill of beans when we need an experienced executive type with leadership and management and experience delegating authority and running a bureaucracy.

I think something WILL happen, perhaps not that dramatic, and it will be to the Republican's advantage: the Dems aren't running anyone in the top tier with executive experience (unless you count Hilary!)- in fact, I think Hilary! is counting on that and that's why she remains hawkish and big on national defense in the face of Obama and Edwards leftish pacifist direction lately.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 25, 2007 5:55 PM

Yes, doc-weasel; though oddly enough I wouldn't pick on Obama. It's hardly likely he'd be someone who could garner enough support to win. (And, the Bonkeys now have lots of experience now with their "Dukaka" ways of thinking.)

As to the claim that Iowa and New Hampshire garnered more powers than they are worth, politically speaking, is obvious.

But the mistakes come what ended up ON the tickets, both sides. As choices. And, of course, that McCain got trounced in 1988! IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. By the stuff Rove did so well. What's it called? Push-polling? Late in the day telephone calls, that schmeared rumors around? In today's world of the Net, the rest of us have caught up.

The other "UN-NATURAL ACT" that I'm noticing; is that the Bonkeys, for sure, have taken "choice" out of the equation. It's Hillary. Or BUST. And, Hillary's got her negatives. So what gets her into the slot is strictly "unfair advantages" through politics.

Well? When has this not been true?

We've got turkey candidates going back in time, now. Because some people, like some hollywood stars, are willing to have sex with beasts, if it lands them "the" role.

Nixon? Did you know he had to go into Nelson Rockefeller's bedroom, and slobber all over him, before he got the nod to run in 1968?

I kid you not.

The road to fame is often'times full of jerks doing unmentionable deals, in order to get elected.

Now, going back to 1860, the one thing Lincoln forbid ALL his operatives to do; was to guarantee seating in his administration. He wasn't allowing those trades. As dark as it got to look, sometimes, in Decatur.

Lincoln was probably the first candidate that understood the nature of politicking on a national stage. That's why there were gimmicks, then. "THE RAIL SPLITTER." And, the WIDE AWAKES. People who ran around with torches, lit, at 2:00 AM. While the conventioneers were meeting. It must have made the difference. Because going it at #4, and coming out on top of the Republican ticket, wasn't slam dunk.

I also don't know how people, in general, have been feeling about the candidates we've been gettig.

Bill Clinton? Got the edge to win from Ross Perot.

Can an Independent candidate fly out, let's say in the Spring or Summer of 2008? Why not? (If I'm not mistaken, Ross Perot began in August or September of 1992. And, lots of people volunteered to get his name up on their ballots. Across the board. All 50 States.)

Could we be seeing a contest in 2008 that will have a late-comer Independent entering the race, and sweeping?

Again, depends on the random toss of the dice.

No sure thing, ahead, yet, for anyone.

While it's only us, the addicts to politics, who are even aware of some of this stuff. You think the average American considers Obama a horse that comes in, later, in first place? Most people just shrug.

Wouldn't it be funny if Bill Gates becomes the "independent" to sail into the White House? Well, of course. Laugh. But it's gonna be a strange contest ahead, IF the Bonkeys and/or the GOPster's ignore what the People want, and run, instead, with one of their "own." Hardly likely for people to break out in applause.

Certainly, the biggest costs to the Bonkeys will come when they figure out the PRICE of Algore being a sore loser.

Here's what I mean. Before 2000 when the race for president was over, the loser went home.

Algore, instead, went on the circuit and claimed he got elected. And, the Bonkeys? Refuse to work with Bush. PERIOD. That the war gets so trounced by the lefties? It's just an outcome to "sore-loser-hood."

And, if you want to break the trend, that's where you'd need to go in and send in the repair guys. Ain't gonna happen.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 25, 2007 6:37 PM

Drudge is headlining (center/top), Howie Dean's slap down of the Florida democraps. But I gotta tell ya, the DNC is allowing 4 states to go "first" before the February 5th date, chosen by the donks for an "early primary" date "with destiny." (Or is it gonna be "disentary?")

Well, it seems the "knock down" is financial. Since it won't PAY candidates to run in Florida; if you won't know how the delegates get seated. With some feeling "for unity's sake" Dean's "dilemma" will get tossed out the windah, and everybody's vote will evenutally "get counted."

Dean's move is to forestall other states from going "ahead" of Iowa. Which I think still holds "first place." While New Hampshire holds "seconds." And, New Mexico and some other state is given 3rd. And, 4th.

In a game that may be playing out way too early.

But the real deal? It's the Florida LEGISLATURE and GOVERNOR who just signed this turkey into law. And, they are REPUBLICANS!

The Bonkeys could declare they'll stick with the "5th." But that would screw the state. Because primaries are expensive. And, then? Floriduh would have to hold one for the republicans, in January 2008. And, open again for the Bonkeys, on February 5th.

While what's at stake IS ALL THAT MONEY! When candidates come to campaign.

Well, it's an interesting cat fight. WIth moves. And, counter-moves. And, with no great intelligence. Because when you celebrate way too early you can run out of food when the party-goers actually show up.

Still think this gives the edge to an Independent; not forced to be one of these clowns at this circus.

Too bad Howie Dean just didn't open the contest to so many people, the primary vote would fragment.

Then?

You'd go back to the "smoke filled backstage room," where politicians DEAL.

Limiting voter input, fer shur. One way. Or the other.

To say nothing, if there's gonna be TWO primaries; one for the GOP, going first. How in all get-out would you eliminate the problems inherent in DOUBLE VOTERS, voting how many times?

Posted by Jeanette | August 25, 2007 7:19 PM

It makes absolutely no sense for all the small states to go ahead of the larger states as that gives them the ability to pick the nominee of either party.

I suggest having one primary day just as we have one election day. Let's see which candidates come out on top without all the hype from two of our less populated states where the people get fawned over for two years.

Let them campaign as though it's the real election and see who can actually hold up to the stresses on time and body.

Then forget the conventions as they are just partis anyway and declare the winners based on who won which states and therefore the delegates or votes from those states.

This election season has shown how out of hand the whole process is when we started having people announce back in November or Dec. of '06. I'm already campaign weary.

Posted by George | August 25, 2007 7:35 PM

This is indeed the beginning of the end, if not the middle of the end, for Iowa and NH as important states in the nominating process. We're in a clear state of disequilibirum at the moment, and it will not be solved by going back to the unstable status quo ante.

And about time, too.

Posted by heldmyw | August 25, 2007 7:55 PM

Has anyone a good reason not to do the entire process on the same day?

To hell with 'momentum' and the rest of that rubbish. Just have everyone 'pay their money and make their cherce' and get it over with!

The newsies will have a big story to slobber over and we'll only have one day of this dog-and-donkey show.

Voila! Problem solved and November will be the playoff game between the two parties.

Like the SuperBowl...Only not super and probably not in a bowl.

Unless... how about 'trial by combat'? I'll take Shrillary over Silky Pony in two over Obama by a knockout. 3 to 1. Anyone?

Posted by km | August 25, 2007 9:28 PM

I am going to assume that some of you posting up above don't realize that many states have their primaries for all offices (federal, state and some local offices) on the same day. And in some states there are some offices actually elected on the day of the primary.

Setting up a rotating primary schedule would essentially force some states to hold the presidential primaries separately (and thus incur the additional expense of an additional election in the presidential election year.

Posted by mb | August 25, 2007 10:57 PM

I'm all for the one primary for all states, preferably in May. This process is interminably long now, to the point that I am already tired of both Repukes and Democraps. Is there a way to keep them from announcing until a certain date - say January of the election year? What a relief that would be.

Posted by Rose | August 26, 2007 12:58 AM

Posted by km | August 25, 2007 9:28 PM

Posted by mb | August 25, 2007 10:57 PM

YUP!

Posted by essucht | August 26, 2007 1:51 AM

"People need to remember - two or three large population centers should NOT have the right to select our President."

If we merely limit the earliest date as you suggest for a state, most states will try to move their primary date to the earliest allowed date. One would expect the majority of states to end up forming an ad hoc mega primary.

So candidates would indeed spend all their time before this mega-primary in a few big states.

And further such a chaotic system will lead to more brokered conventions as the field will not be narrowed ahead of time by earlier primaries. It would certainly be more exciting, but would likely give party bosses much more power in choosing nominees.

Regionalizing gives candidates a reason to hit many more states and smaller ones.

The system before this year got candidates to spend time in smaller states by putting them ahead of the larger states, though only two obviously, and problematically always the same two.

So why not use the best of that system, but without giving Iowa and New Hampshire so much power year in and out?

Posted by daveinboca | August 26, 2007 2:25 AM

he Democrats may be writing off Florida and the South, in their apparent quest to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, a feat they’ve accomplished in ‘68, ‘80, ‘00 and probably will continue to do as they drift into anarchic hysteria.

Aided by the leftermost hyperventilators like KKKos and Puffington Host, the Dems will get a Politburo/PoliticalCommissariat type political culture very soon now, unless adults take the wheel from the feverish hands of Dr. Howard Dean and his apparatchiki!

Will Rogers said it eighty years ago and it’s still true. “I belong to no organized political party……..”

Posted by Niccolo | August 26, 2007 3:30 AM

How about we go back to the old ways? You know, each state picks Electors from their own state, and others from another state, in proportion to their representation, and they form a body called The Electoral Congress?

And that learned body sets out to select a Chief Executive Officer for this Federation of Several States?

Like it says in the Constitution?

Is this so radical an idea, that we should do it like it says?

Please people, go back and read the actual prescribed process.

What have we given up because we abandoned what we had been given? The Presidency of an Andrew Carnegie, or of a Lee Iacocca? Pick your own preference: Jack Welch? Alexander Graham Bell? Thomas Edison?

Who did we we leave by the wayside because we abandoned/perverted the process, and got this muddle we live with now?

How we get back to the prescribed Constitutional process, I don't know. I tend to agree with my son who is wise beyond his years, and says: "We're doomed."

Posted by swabjockey05 | August 26, 2007 7:03 AM

Nic is right (hopefully his son is not).

The more the Feds "take control" of the process (as most of the posters are recommending), the more the process will be unlike what is prescribed in the Constitution. Many of you recommend moving away from the Constitutional form as a matter of "costs". It will "save money" to do it this way or to do it that way...

Are you really looking at the true costs? Wasn’t it George Will who pointed out that we, as Americans, spend more on bubble gum every four years than we do on electing our President?

The further we move away from our Constitution, the more we are playing into the Socialists' (elitists' / tyrants') hands...and why not? They are proving to be the only ones capable of Long Range Planning.

With each re-reading of the Constitution, the government I see in DC appears further and further removed from that very same document. Who really cares what I think though…the lefties say I’m an anachronistic Neanderthal (redundant?). Maybe, but an anachronistic Neanderthal who took an oath to “support and defend” the ideals spelled out in that same “redundant” parchment. What will future generations have left to take an oath to…?

Posted by clark smith | August 26, 2007 9:09 AM

When puny Iowa and New Hampshire demand to go first, it seems rather arbitrary for political parties to deny other states that same privilege.

When New Hampshire law requires the state to hold its primary fully a week before anyone else, the political parties should sanction New Hampshire above any other state, for therein lies the seeds of the ever-earlier primary scheduling.

Posted by Tully | August 26, 2007 9:36 AM

But the real deal? It's the Florida LEGISLATURE and GOVERNOR who just signed this turkey into law. And, they are REPUBLICANS!

Yep. But it's the DNC that set up the situation, breaking the four-decade-old agreement that came out of the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1968. That agreement was designed to move the selection process out of those smoke-filled back rooms and into the hands of the voters. Last year's abandonment of McGovern-Fraser was designed to reverse that, to put delegate selection back in the hands of the party insiders. And if you control the delegate selection, you control all that comes from it, including the party platform and the choice of the candidates.

That's the entire point of the exercise, and always has been. Namely, to shift control of the delegate selection from the Democratic primary voters of the state(s) in open and monitored election over to the party insiders in a MUCH less transparent and more easily manipulated venue. The return of the old smoke-filled back room. The very thing the McGovern-Fraser plan was designed to eliminate, and mostly did, for almost four decades.

At a guess, the next move from the DNC would be for the national party (or some "savior") to provide the funding for a Florida state caucus that complies with the new DNC rules. At which point it will become ENORMOUSLY easier for the DNC and state party insiders to predetermine the results of the caucus. Or the DNC can do nothing, simply enforce their rules, with nearly the same result--they either control the caucus results, or they ignore the state's voters entirely.

It's a freakin' Kabuki play, as scripted as they come, and the DNC carefully set up the situation last year. If the Florida Dem party goes to a compliance caucus, the insiders are in complete control of the process and what the Democratic primary voters of Florida think becomes irrelevant. If the Dem party does not come up with a compliance plan, then the DNC penalizes them by stripping their convention delegates and what the Democratic primary voters of Florida think becomes irrelevant.

Either way, what the DNC is doing is stripping the Democratic primary voters of Florida of their voice in the national convention, and handing that voice over to the party insiders. And either way, the DNC blames the GOP legislature, even though they most carefully orchestrated it themselves.

The McGovern-Fraser arrangement was designed provide a greater voice to minorities and other under-represented party factions. It was supposed to make the delegate selection process open and transparent, and mostly did. That's exactly what the DNC is trying to reverse.

So, how gullible are Florida's Democratic primary voters? Democratic voters in general? Because what the DNC is doing is their level best to strip the party's primary voters of their voice in the selection of the convention delegates, which in turn strips the voter's ability to influence the party platform and the choice of candidates.

Meet the new boss.

Posted by LenS | August 26, 2007 5:09 PM

While I agree with the parties regaining control over the ever earlier primary process, I find it stupid for the DNC to fight with Florida, our biggest swing state. They should have zapped New Hampshire and Iowa since they're the states causing the problems. Besides, the outcomes of the caucus/primary in those two states hasn't meant to much overall for a while now. At best, they weed out a Dean or give temporary life to a McCain.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 26, 2007 7:26 PM

docweasel: I didn't specifically accuse you of playing the race card, just your party.

As for our state being populated by "effete snobs", nothing could be further from the truth. We do have pockets of them radiating out from the colleges (remember, Dartmouth College is here) but on the whole we have a fairly reasonable populace, except in the big cities and academe. New Hampshire has regularly been ranked as one of the most livable states in the US, based on comparing crime and poverty rates to other states as well as levels of education and percentage of people employed.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921975.html

As I said, New Hampshire's primary has been in existence for almost a hundred years, and has had national prominence since 1952. It's interesting to note that in all those years, very few complaints about our primary were ever hurled at us. It's only been in the past few years that the Democrats have made an issue of it. That's because they are losing in the idea department.

clark smith said:

"When puny Iowa and New Hampshire demand to go first, it seems rather arbitrary for political parties to deny other states that same privilege.

When New Hampshire law requires the state to hold its primary fully a week before anyone else, the political parties should sanction New Hampshire above any other state, for therein lies the seeds of the ever-earlier primary scheduling."

All votes are equal, no matter which state they come from. So singling out two states just because they fail to meet a certain subjective criteria ("puny")is almost Orwell-esque.

As I noted above, not many people or groups had previously complained about New Hampshire and Iowa having early primaries, until fairly recently. It reflects a genuine fear on the part of the Democrat Party that their ideas are losing.

Which, of course, they are. If they were winning on their ideas, the Dems wouldn't have to try to change election laws, or try to change election laws after the election to get their guy elected (see "Florida Supreme Court Decision #2, 2000")


Posted by LenS | August 26, 2007 9:14 PM

While I agree with the parties regaining control over the ever earlier primary process, I find it stupid for the DNC to fight with Florida, our biggest swing state. They should have zapped New Hampshire and Iowa since they're the states causing the problems. Besides, the outcomes of the caucus/primary in those two states hasn't meant to much overall for a while now. At best, they weed out a Dean or give temporary life to a McCain.

Post a comment