-
Sanford Resurrected in Carolina
April 3, 2013 | 140 comments
-
Bostic and Sanford Battle in Charleston
March 29, 2013 | 16 comments
-
South Carolina Showdown
March 26, 2013 | 39 comments
-
The Liberal Media Lie About CPAC
March 18, 2013 | 35 comments
-
The Hottest Ticket in Town
March 14, 2013 | 28 comments
Campaign Crawlers
Why Does Florida Hate America?
Sunshine State GOP threatens to wreck the 2012 schedule.
America is threatened by many crises, ranging from economic recession to international terrorism, but none of these threats are quite so immediate or so fundamentally hostile to our democratic form of government as the existential menace of Florida.
Perhaps this is a slight exaggeration, but not by too much, when you consider the multiple ramifications of Florida’s announced plan to hold its 2012 presidential primary on Jan. 31. This would completely wreck the primary schedule as other states move up their dates, and would also result in the Republican National Committee stripping Florida of half its delegates to next year’s convention, which will be held in Tampa. So Republicans in the host state of the GOP convention would be punished for a decision made by their own elected Republican leaders, who seem indifferent to the consequences.
“We know the risk we’re taking, but we’re talking about satisfying maybe 100 people versus 19 million people who could have a say in who the nominee is,” Florida state Senate president Mike Haridopolos told the Wall Street Journal, as if a Florida primary in March — where it should be, according to RNC rules — would be utterly irrelevant to the nomination process. This kind of pretzel-logic is inexplicable to sane people, but we’re talking about Florida Republicans, whose former state party chairman, Jim Greer, tried to rig the state’s 2010 Senate primary with an early endorsement for former Gov. Charlie Crist. That classic example of Florida GOP shenanigans sparked a grassroots uprising that elected Marco Rubio to the Senate and drove Crist out of the party completely, while Greer is currently awaiting trial on felony corruption charges..
But while Florida GOP leaders evidently either don’t know or don’t care what’s good for their own state party, the repercussions of their madness will be felt far beyond the Sunshine State. A Jan. 31 date for Florida’s primary would result in four other events on the presidential campaign calendar — the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, and the Nevada caucuses — also leap-frogging to January dates. And while some may shrug at this truncation of the schedule, it undermines the entire rationale of the primary system.
There are logical reasons why the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries, especially, have become sacrosanct as the first events of the quadrennial presidential campaign calendar. Both are states with small populations (Iowa about 3 million, New Hampshire about 1.3 million) where TV and radio advertising are relatively cheap. This permits little-known long-shots with small budgets to campaign on a fairly even playing field with better-known and better-funded candidates. Furthermore, Iowa and New Hampshire are states where retail politics — the old-fashioned business of shaking hands and meeting voters one-on-one or in small meetings — are a huge factor in the campaign. Barack Obama famously beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa four years ago because of Obama’s greater strength in grassroots organizing, and Jimmy Carter won New Hampshire in 1976 by bringing scores of Georgians (the “Peanut Brigades”) to go door-to-door for him in the Granite State. So unless we wish presidential campaigns to become all about money and what pollsters call “name ID,” having Iowa and New Hampshire go first looks like a good idea.
Yet we ought not confine ourselves to merely logical reasons for keeping Iowa and New Hampshire first. Aren’t Republicans conservatives, and don’t conservatives believe in the value of tradition? There is something wonderfully traditional — indeed, downright reactionary — about having presidential candidates go through the quaint custom of waiting for returns from tiny precinct caucuses in Iowa and shaking hands with voters in the snowy streets of small-town New Hampshire in February. Nor are these traditions merely sentimental. The pragmatic and utilitarian value of tradition is evident in that voters of Iowa and New Hampshire, long accustomed to their role in vetting presidential candidates of both parties, have become quite shrewd judges in these matters. A joke told by Tim Albrecht, spokesman for Iowa Gov. Terry Brandstad, is quite relevant here: An Iowa Republican is asked whether he supports a certain presidential candidate and answers, “I don’t know. I’ve only met him twice.” Early-state voters are not over-awed by “rock star” candidates and media hype, because they’ve seen it all so many times before. Such is the real value of tradition.
Floridians might argue that there is no reason Iowa and New Hampshire can’t still go first, just because the Sunshine State moves it’s primary up to Jan. 31, True enough, but the likely impact of that move would be to trample on other events in our American tradition, including Christmas and football. Until 1984, before the recent craze for “front-loading” the primary calendar, the New Hampshire primary was held the first Tuesday in March. (Iowa’s caucuses were more variable, with dates ranging from Jan. 19 in 1976 to Feb. 20 in 1984.) That schedule permitted at least a couple of weeks, and sometimes more than a month, for survivors of the Iowa ordeal to campaign in New Hampshire. For more than two decades, however, New Hampshire has been forced to fend off threats to its legislatively mandated first-in-the-nation primary by scheduling earlier and earlier, in turn forcing Iowa to do the same. Four years ago (largely because of Florida’s insistence on an early date), Iowa held its caucuses on Thursday, Jan. 3, and New Hampshire’s primary was Tuesday, Jan. 8.
With such a speeded-up schedule, not only are candidates effectively forced to choose between the two first states in making their final campaign thrusts — a candidate who emphasizes Iowa can scarcely avoid the appearance of snubbing New Hampshire, and vice-versa — but the business of campaigning intrudes on the Christmas holidays. And now that college football has instituted the Bowl Championship Series, the national champ isn’t crowned on New Year’s Day but rather (this year) in New Orleans on Jan. 9. Do Floridians really want to force people to choose politics over football and Christmas? Before the talk of a Jan. 31 Florida primary, Iowa had scheduled its caucuses for the reasonable date of Feb. 6 (the Monday after the Super Bowl) so that Americans could get a late-December holiday break from politics, and no football fan could complain.
Many people have tried to talk sense to Haridopolos and the other Florida Republicans who seem determined to inflict January insanity on the nation. Paul Senft, the state’s Republican National Committeeman, warned that moving up the primary “will alienate the remainder of the country.” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is said to be attempting to negotiate some way to avert this disaster, and yet the Floridians seem to think themselves entitled to dictate terms to the rest of the GOP. In an interview with the Hill, Florida Republican strategist Justin Sayfie said that if Priebus stripped the state party of half its delegates to the Tampa convention as punishment for breaking the rules, it would be a “slap in the face to the Republican leadership in the state of Florida.”
No “leadership” would ever have deserved a slap in the face more than if the madmen leading the Florida GOP wreck the 2012 schedule — and as collateral damage, ruin Christmas — for the rest of America.
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (97) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/30/why-does-florida-hate-america
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Timothy L. Pennell| 9.30.11 @ 6:44AM
Iowa and New Hampshire, may be "Sacrosanct" to you, but, to ME, it's STUPID to start there.
Iowa is a Corn State. So, right off the bat, promises of SUBSIDIES start flying around, like Money in a Game Show Wind Box. And it's not even a VOTE. It's a Caucus. You might as well have the Candidates DRAWING STRAWS. Or, Rock, Paper, Scissors. It's STUPID.
New Hampshire? At least they actually Vote.
I think that there should be a number of Primaries, at the same time. 4 or 5. One in each section of the Country
I don't believe that a buncha Corn farmers + a buncha Maple Syrup makers should be determining who stays in the race, and who drops out.
Ya might as well do it in the local Bowling Alley.
Kenny| 9.30.11 @ 6:53AM
I agree -- who died and left N.H. and Iowa boss?
As for tradition, conservative don't support it like mindless robots as Mr. McCain implies. Rather, we respect tradition and don't tinker with it willy-nilly but surely will move away from a tradition when it become obviously out moded, counter-productive, or when something better comes along.
Iowa and N.H. have had their day in the sun. It's time they sit down.
potkas7| 9.30.11 @ 8:09AM
New Hampshire has, what, 4 electoral votes? But the N.H. Primary has long given the rest of the nation a chance to judge the mettle of the candidates under combat stress before they have to make their own decision. Remember Ed Muskie weeping on the steps of the Manchester Union Leader newspaper after they slapped him in an editorial?
Consider what happens if everyone rushes in to select a Republican candidate by February only to find, having failed in their due diligence because they wanted to be first, that by June they are now suffering Buyer's Remorse.
To be perfectly honest, I think I'd rather see a return to the old system of Party Conventions rather than this American Idol method of choosing candidates. I don't see that primaries have resulted in better choices from either party.
Timothy L. Pennell| 9.30.11 @ 8:50AM
New Hampshire has only 4 Electoral Votes, but, it tests the mettle of the Candidates under Combat Stress?
COMBAT STRESS?
It's got 4 VOTES!
potkas7| 9.30.11 @ 9:13AM
Yes but it's also adjacent to a major media market (Boston) whose reporters flood the state badgering candidates from pillar to post.
Bob K.| 9.30.11 @ 7:43PM
A major LIBERAL media market whose LIBERAL reporters flood the state badgering REPUBLICAN candidates from pillar to post!!
And NH also gets FLOODED by DEMOCRATS who are allowed to vote in the Republican Primary.
nhrepublican| 10.2.11 @ 8:44PM
Those DEMOCRATS you mention are college students studying in NH who come from out of state. They are also out of state activists who use NH's same day registration system to vote here. When the Democrats controlled the Legislature they made it almost impossible to challenge fraudulent voters at the polling places. That is NH's dirty little secret they don't want the rest of the nation to find out about.
InLineFour| 10.3.11 @ 5:59PM
Think classic SNL Point-CounterPoint skit: Jane Curtain finishes her point and Dan Ackroyd turns to her and says, "Jane, you ignorant slut.", with Rbt Stacy McCain, the self-styled "other McCain".., paying the part of Jane Curtain.
Someone needs to play the part of Ackroyd and tell Curtain/R.S.McCain that the main reason FL wants to move up is because conservatives are sick-and-tired of being shut out of the primary process, having blue and purple states filled with squishy Republicans (and fraudulent voters referred to by Bob K and nhrepub above..) give them Democrat-Lite Country Club RINO candidates like John McLame and Bob Dull before conservatives ever have a chance to vote.
Robert Graves| 9.30.11 @ 9:42PM
I agree. Let the Conventions produce the nominees. Other than the MSM, consultants, pollsters, and political junkies, who needs the process we must suffer now? Maybe the smoke filled room wasn't such a bad thing.
emo| 10.2.11 @ 2:28PM
Allowing the party conventions to pick nominees would have meant GHW Bush 1981-??? No Kemp&Roth; Tax Cuts, No Defense build up. Possibly no Berlin Wall falling in 1989. Allowing the party bosses to pick the nominee means Romney in 2012.
The arguments for small states going first are sound and it seems many conservatives arent interested in seeing small insurgent candidates succeed. But yet, they dont want party establishment candidates to succeed either.
Alan Brooks| 9.30.11 @ 9:31AM
"when it become obviously out moded, counter-productive"
All our institutions have reached that stage.
John Sullivan | 9.30.11 @ 7:23AM
I just want just one Presidential Candidate to go to Iowa to tell famers how stupid it is to waste good corn on ethanol.
DaveS| 9.30.11 @ 2:04PM
Of course it's stupid to waste good corn on alcohol. But holding caucuses early is Iowa' s way of preserving a status quo. Same thing for New Hampshire. Unless all primaries are held on the same day, there are going to be timing winners and losers. Also, the lying and custom messaging go up when primaries are held at different times. We'd see fewer 'y'all' from Hillary, and jive from the President.
Bob K.| 9.30.11 @ 7:46PM
"Of course it's stupid to waste good corn on alcohol."
Unless, of course, you are making good corn whisky!
Alice Moore| 9.30.11 @ 9:35AM
I agree with you, Timothy. Why not have one national Primary Day and be done with it?
From what I've seen; the eventual non incumbent nominees get spent into the ground with this system. Then there are the laughable photos of a pol standing in a corn field or accosting a poor soul in 20 below weather. Enough!
Stormzeye| 9.30.11 @ 5:37PM
There's a good reason for Iowa and New Hampshire. Early in a campaign it's important that the candidates practice "retail" politics by ringing doorbells and going to diners to meet real people. In a large state like NY or CA television, radio and robo-calls are to only way to reach the electorate. Smaller states give everyone in the nation an opportunity to see these people interact with the voters face to face.
As a Floridian and Tea Partier, I'm very upset about what the Florida legislature is doing against the interests of the party and especially the country.
BackToBasics| 10.2.11 @ 10:02AM
Having the two early primaries in smaller, less expensive states early on gives a small, non-establishment candidate more ability to compete with establishment candidates.
One of the dangers of more early primaries is that non-establishemnt candidates will NOT have time to gain recognition and be heard.
Though the date moves happened to a lesser degree in 2008, I suspect that "being first" is only part of why this is happening. I think they want to rush the process to keep an outsider from gaining traction. This year it only happened AFTER Cain shocked the Repub establishment with such a large margin of victory.
The RNC does nothing about this leapfrogging and the many problems it creates other than wrist slaps because they do not want to. They want an establishment candidate, period.
Moreover, the long term danger is that if very early primaries become permanent and the primary process compressed in time, non-establishment candidates may never get the nomination again.
BackToBasics| 10.2.11 @ 10:03AM
Re Cain - in the Florida straw poll
John Sullivan | 9.30.11 @ 7:17AM
There are a number of issues perhaps not understood by the writer. First of all, most of we Republicans are wondering who put Mike Haridopolos in charge of anything. There would be a lot of pain and very little gain by going early, and all it would do it force State after State to leapfrog ahead of Florida and no doubt Primaries for 2016 will be held in 2013 because of short-sighted greed by SOME Republicans for lack of a better word. Other Republicans such as Pam Bondi, Ronda Storms, Marco Rubio, Adam Hasner are not joined in party unity (or sanity) by the types such as Paula Dockery, Gus Bilirakus, Adam Putnam, Charlie Crist, and other "RINOs" that are pushing this selfish move to basically make a claim to superiority over other States and the rules. It does not send a good message to our children to say that it is okay to cheat the system. It does not speak well of Florida or Floridians. But we are a diverse State, even within the Party, and so one can expect a lot of debate within the Florida Republicans today over this issue. After all, Jeb Bush threw his entire weight and credit behind a presidential candidate who just closed his Florida campaign office, and irony of ironies, the RNC picked Tampa, a city with a Democratic Congresswoman, a Democratic Mayor, a mostly Democratic City Council and County Commission to host the Presidential Commission, and as you might expect the Democrats have done very little sense but to try to shake Federal dollars off the D.C. Money Tree to enrich local appearances and law enforcement capabilities. So the point is, please don't paint all Republicans in Florida with a wide brush. We can't even agree even within our State Republican presence on anything but one thing: we can not afford four more years of President Obama. It would be nice to have a full delegation at our own Convention to say that, and in my humble opinion, moving up the Primaries does nothing but hurt us in the long run - which to politicians, means anything past the next election cycle.
John Sullivan | 9.30.11 @ 7:23AM
I do apologize for the typos. Darned auto-correct! :)
Bruce| 9.30.11 @ 7:18AM
Florida thinks they are taken for granted because they vote FOURTH? Come to a state where you might as well not have a primary because it is ABSOLUTELY meaningless. Run the primaries like the general election - everyone votes on the same day. This will force politicians to run a national campaign like they will have to do later on. It also gives all voters an equal shot at having their candidate selected.
JimP| 9.30.11 @ 7:19AM
I too am unconvinced by Mr. McCain's arguments about Iowa and NH. These two pipsqueek states (relatively) exercise inordinate influence to the point that results there overly influence the course of the rest of the primaries. Mr. McCain's arguments make numerous assumptions that are questionable, including the idea that retail politics is necessarily a good thing, and more importantly that all Repubs are conservatives. The later is most definitely NOT true. The Rockefeller/RINO wing are every bit the statists that the Dems are. Reagan was a conservative. If you don't agree with everything he thought or are to the right of him, then you aren't a conservative and you belong in the Dem Party. Sorry but that is the reality. The RINO establish IS trying to co-opt the term conservative, as some are now suggesting- just like the Dems co-opted the term liberal. Thomas Jefferson was a genuine liberal, Obama, Purdue et al are not, nor are they progressives- unless it is progress to return to feudalism or worse, socialism/communism/fascism. Maybe we should have all the primaries on one day around the beginning of July. Then no one gets to go first and we avoid the whole 'horse race' that only benefits the media.
Sean M| 10.1.11 @ 6:52AM
I agree with the article on the whole. For one thing Iowa and New Hampshire DO set the stage for the nomination but do you think these 2 pipsqueak (your word not mine) states are the ones funding these guys? Money flows to these canidadates from all over the nation much of it based on their performance there. I can imagine how it would be if it was as you suggested. Now that would be a horse race, they are quick and if a horse has a bad day its over they lose. Canidates would spend all their time in states with the most delegates to the convention, no matter if that state was unwinnable in the general election. Also Obama will have an estimated 1 billion for his re-election. How can anyone fighting up until July for the nomination ever come close with only 4-5 months? Not likley considering they would have had to just run a national election just for the nomination. I prefer the marathon because it weeds out the ones who can't hack it. And like McCain said gives those without a national name a chance to make one.
Did you mean LEFT of him (Reagan)?
I can't agree with that although I am a Reaganite. Remember Reagans' big tent? Do you believe he would have won 2 massive landslides with only conservative Rebublican votes? Although there is a lesson here for all those who would listen to "experts" in the media. Reagan was who the Carter people wanted to run against, they thought he was to extreme. The blue bloods were pushing George H.W. Bush for 1980. Outside the beltway people loved Reagan this included many Dems and the group that everyone says is the most important, independants. I say independants and middle class Dems including union members will repeat this if we have a Conservative nominee who can make people believe that tomorrow is a better day and America is not in decline.
JimP| 10.1.11 @ 11:06AM
First, thanks for the response, Sean. I am having genuine fun reading the comments posted here by advocates in favor of IA & NH maintaining their positions because you all are so sensitive about the subject. Claims of these defenders being Reaganites & Tea Partiers etc ring false with me. Also revealing, IMHO, is how these defenders are misreading my comments, reading things between the lines that aren't there, going on about Obama's cash as if that has any direct relevance to what I said, and being touchy about refering to IA & NH as pipsqueek states which they are in relative terms as I stated above. In sum, I think you defenders are phonies, RINO trolls to be specific, who are trying to defend the status quo because it works well for your agenda which is statist Republicanism. Iowa and New Hampshire ARE pipsqueeks compared to other larger more populated states and they DO have inordinate influence on the outcome of the primaries and both of these states tend to be Rockefeller Republican more than Reagan Republican. Those are facts. You don't like the facts, so you complain about my pointing them out. You disagree with me and that's fine, but be honest about it and not try to pretend that you are to the right of Reagan etc, but think two pipsqueek states populated by "moderate" Repubs should have more influence than say, all the Southern states which really are Reagan country. That's just nonsense, ....IMHO.
Sean M| 10.1.11 @ 8:35PM
Amazing that my differing opinion earns several insults including troll, statist and liar. I never even saw it in terms of political spectrum before so I guess you can just add stupid to your list of my faults.
JimP| 10.2.11 @ 5:10AM
Gee Sean, I'm so sorry. Where I come from insulting comments generate reprisal insults. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I take back my insults. I don't think you are stupid, I simply disagree for the reasons I stated.
martin j smith| 9.30.11 @ 7:34AM
Who are these Republicans who want to change things around ? Who do they represent ? What is their motive ?
Just a few questions.
aldona_beall@yahoo.com| 9.30.11 @ 7:44AM
At first I thought this was one of those "tongue in cheek" sort of articles! My question is..."why shouldn't Florida pick it's own date for this?" The last time we ended up with McCain....we had no choice in the selection of the Republican candidate.
And why should Iowa or New Hampshire have first digs?? Certainly there are more important things this McCain should worry about.
grant1863| 9.30.11 @ 8:01AM
As a Floridian I also remember having only McCain left when it came time for our primary. What a sad choice that was. The 2 examples about small states face time of Obama and Jimmy Carter do not make one want to continue that tradition. besides Iowa isn't even a primary. Looking forward to Jan 31
2Anglico| 9.30.11 @ 9:07AM
Same here, McCain had it locked up because of "establishment" rules.
I say any state that allows DEMOCRATS to vote in the REPUBLICAN primary should have their delegates 100% disqualified!!!
John Navratil| 9.30.11 @ 10:12AM
2Anglico,
That cuts both ways. With McCain having the nomination sewed up, I was free to vote in the Democrat(ic) Party primary.
States are free to have closed primaries if they wish, but as long as each party has more than one credible candidate the party faithful will stay with their own.
Solution: More qualified candidates.
nhrepublican| 10.2.11 @ 8:35PM
I agree.
John Navratil| 9.30.11 @ 8:05AM
This is a chicken and egg problem. No name, no money. No money, no name.
If it is a good thing to give the long-shots a chance (I agree it is), couldn't this be done in a more direct way? The caucuses are a bit of a joke - non-binding popularity contests and generally funded by those cash-strapped campaigns buying the tickets. Perhaps the party could adopt something along the lines of Fox News "Special Report" focusing on each candidate and buying some air time.
I, myself, would much prefer to send some cash to the party specifically for such an action over giving it to John Cornyn to choose my "choice" of senate candidate.
Front-loading the small states has the advantage of "battle testing" the candidates without locking them in but, at some point in the current system, further primaries are moot. This is not a good thing and is exacerbated by actions such as Florida is proposing. During the last cycle, Texas essentially had no choice but McCain.
The principal disadvantage to front-loading is that it encourages donors to seek the "sure thing" rather than the principled candidate. Momentum becomes the message.
I would like to see us move toward a single primary day. In this day of instant communications and with some promotion of each candidate by the party there is no reason not to. In addition, I would like to see at least some of the states experiment with rated or preferential voting systems. Perhaps not for President at the outset, but at least for state representatives and governors.
Mike Rogers | 9.30.11 @ 8:29AM
Come and sample retail politicking, and you will see that the candidates do not get an easy ride.
Campaigning in NH and IA requires less money, but lots of effort - Buddy Roemer and Rick Santorum have practically moved to NH, Huntsman is moving his HQ to NH, Bachmann has moved to IA for the season.....
You simply can't reach every primary voter in FL that way.
JimP| 9.30.11 @ 9:10AM
"Campaigning in NH and IA requires less money, but lots of effort - Buddy Roemer and Rick Santorum have practically moved to NH, Huntsman is moving his HQ to NH, Bachmann has moved to IA for the season....."
But you fail to explain why these things are necessarily better than non retail campaigning. As has already been pointed out- to paraphrase- why is lying to people's faces, and regarding special interests, necessarily better than lying via television camapaign commercials. "Working hard" doesn't mean Romney et al will be Reagan in office.
I'll check back later to read your explanation.
Thanks in advance.
Stormzeye| 9.30.11 @ 5:42PM
Jim, If you don't see the difference between speaking to live audiences and ordinary people with reporters catching every slip-up and retraction, as opposed to slick media presentations broadcast over and over, then you don't understand the need for primaries and would probably rather have the polls determine the nominees.
JimP| 9.30.11 @ 11:19PM
LOL. Hey, there's a sarcastic putdown if I ever read one. Very convincing. Way to go getting me warmed up to your argument. Insult me. Now I'm real ready to agree with you.
So, reporters are objective about the slipups they report as well as retractions and they cover ALL of these things on ALL of the candidates ALL of the time and they cover ALL the candidates equally and never have a bias or an agenda of their own, and of course the candidates never give slick answers in person or dodge, evade or spin when it's face to face with a live audience. No that has never happened, and reporters are there hanging on every word of ALL of this when it's retail politics. And because IA and NH have this only the best and most vetted candidates emerge as the winners in these caucuses/primaries. We have never gotten a John McCain or a Dole or Ford or a Clinton etc etc. Yeah sure Stormy. I see the light now. Politicians will never lie if they face me with a reporter nearby. Sure. How much is that bridge you have for sale in Brooklyn?
John Navratil| 10.1.11 @ 10:24AM
JimP,
I'll take your point that a lying politician (redundant?) will lie in person and in print. You seem to dismiss the notion that it is more difficult to do it when challenged either in a debate or in a townhall setting.
If it were just as easy we wouldn't see the recent spate of citizens being ejected for videographing. The claimed justification is that these videos can be taken out of context. That is Mike's and Stormzeye' point. The politician cannot manage the message as well in a live setting.
JimP| 10.1.11 @ 11:29AM
Hi John,
Actually I don't dismiss the point entirely, but for arguments sake I did because Stormeyez was being sarcastic when I was genuinely asking for Mike to explain, because retail politcs does not NECESSARILY mean better etc. That was my point, so I wanted him to justify his position. To be frank, but not hostile to you, a case can be made for no retail politics at all. Proponents of retail politics wouldn't buy it, but it wouldn't be any less valid or provable than is their case that retail is necessarily better, or that IA & NH should have inordinate influence. How about this scenario, lets have Alabama and South Carolina go first. Both are very conservative GOP party states and have the outcomes there have inordinate influence on the ultimate nominee. Now, would Romney lie his @$$ off retailing his way through these two states? [Actually Romney has been lying on tv and in the debates and everyone knows it but the Rockefeller types still support him over the much moreconservative candidates] How about Huckaphony? Would he emphasize his erstwhile Southern Baptist minster bona fides to play to the citizens there and spin his big government, pro amnesty, tax hiking record or deny it all together? Would going face to face with SB's and evangelicals smoke Huck out or would he get away with his flim flam routine like he did in IA in 2008? And, how would folks in IA and NH feel if the Rockefeller types they prefer kept getting short shrift by the media based on the results of AL & SC primaries that repeatedly chose very conservative candidates? See what I'm getting at? Anyway, this is getting too long so I'll wrap it up. I stand by my belief that IA & NH are relative pipsqueeks and have inordinate influence and that should be altered. Therefore, if FL wants to move up I think that is justifiable. They've shaken thinks up because they too think the present system needs adjustment. That seems fair to me and I'm not concerned about it. The people who are adamant defending IA & NH going first seem disingenuous to me. That's my opinion on this matter.
Best regrads,
JimP
John Navratil| 10.2.11 @ 9:25AM
JimP,
Actually, I see your point, but in some ways you make the point of "retail" politicking. Different people have different interests. The corn farmer has different concerns than does the entrepreneur or the work-a-day Joe. It would take hours to explain all aspects of a candidates positions on everything - it's what the position papers are for. It took me hours to wade through Obama's platform two years ago (save your time, it was just as we have come to expect) and most people won't do it.
As to Florida shaking things up... as a Texan, I will see no difference. It will be settled before it gets to me. The reductio ad absurdum is to begin campaigning on November 7. If this results in some serious thinking about how to schedule primaries and how to get the most electable candidate, it will have been of value. Otherwise it's just playing king-of-the-hill.
Shamus| 9.30.11 @ 1:38PM
The simple fact is that this system has picked wretched nominees. When a system is so clearly failing, it's time to replace it. Maybe people in Iowa and New Hampshire will miss out, but the whole country shouldn't be forced to suffer with poor nominees just to please a few farmers in some desolate place.
Tina Trent | 9.30.11 @ 8:34AM
Cheat the system? Despoil tradition? Oh, come on. We're talking party primary politics. And no matter how much lipstick you smear on that pig, she's still not convincing when she whispers in your ear about abstract principles.
Caucuses and the pre-big state media circuses serve the pundit class more than the electorate. And making the case on the backs of Carter's creepy peanut squeezers and Obama's bussed-in fake "grassroots" activists in Iowa is, well, this is a joke, right?
Von Mises Jr.| 9.30.11 @ 8:57AM
Perhaps the Florida Republicans, and possibly the GOP would rather have Obama as President than Herman Cain. Mr. Cain won the straw poll, and the last thing any RINO wants is a TEA Party conservative as POTUS.
If the GOP establishment Republicans want to declare war on the TEA Parties, we should declare war on them. Simply tell the RNC that all donations will go to vetted TEA party primary challengers. My congressman's office responded to this promise, and McConnell changed positions on the Senate floor on "earmarks" while we waited in his office.
Cris Worth| 9.30.11 @ 9:21AM
This entire episode has the finger prints of Mitt Romney all over it. An earlier Florida primary disrupts the entire process...inhibiting new candidates, taking the spotlight off him and putting him in a better position to win Iowa. Romney stands for nothing, says nothing and by legerdemain slip into the nomination virtually unscathed. With Perry blown out of the water, Romney is again the frontrunner. It all fits.
Thomas| 9.30.11 @ 9:25AM
I have never understood the Republican love affair with Iowa and New Hampshire. These two states have examples of the worst "primary" systems in the country. IN the case of New Hampshire's open primary, members of the Democratic Party get to vote for the Republican candidate. That is like allowing the Boston Red Sox to help decide the starting line-up for the New York Yankees in the NLC final game. It is simply stupid. And Iowa is simply a marvel. There you have a series of caucuses that produce delegates to the next level of caucuses who are not bound to vote of any given nominee. Absolutely incredible. And, both of these states ate political back waters. After the primary season, no candidate says we have to win in Iowa or we don't stand a chance of winning the general election.
Then you have Florida. Not only does it have a closed primary, but it is an influential state in terms of the general election ( it is tied for 3rd with New York in the number of members of the electoral college - 29; three times as many as Iowa and New Hampshire combined). So, the Florida GOP decided that, based upon their importance in the general election, their Primary should be moved up. The national GOP only hurts itself by shoving a thumb into the eye of Florida Republicans. Just another example of the cluelessness of the national leadership of the GOP.
DaveS| 9.30.11 @ 2:08PM
Go, Florida!
hardcard| 9.30.11 @ 9:39AM
remember John McCain ? how about Bob Dole ?
they were establisment. They played by the rules of the political establishment. Who got screwed ?
Gazinya| 9.30.11 @ 9:45AM
I have an idea. Make the first primary 'vote' in the state of New Mexico. This state has less than two million population. There is no subsidies to be handed out unless ethonol switches from corn to chili peppers. 70% of the population is within the Albuquerque metro and we could use the event to remind people that New Mexico is a part of the U.S and next year is our Centennial anniversary. It just doesn't get better. We have only three congressional districts and we are now in the process of throwing out the Lucifarians. Our Governor is a conservative and a good one. She is the first woman gov. of NM and the first Hispanic. Susanna Martinez would be quite welcoming as would the rest of NM. The mayor of our largest city is a conservative and a good one. We have real 'stuff' to do here and it isn't just 'flat corn fields or uppity New Englaners. Well we do have Santa Fe and Taos but that's diversity. Come on down to the Land of Enchantment and be the first to vote.
The previous blog is not a paid political advertisement.
USSAlabama| 9.30.11 @ 10:48AM
Gazinya -- Well stated - those are good points you make and I hardly know why they don't do that.
What are lucifarians?
Shamus| 9.30.11 @ 1:41PM
I believe Lucifarians are a sect of Gimmiecrats.
Gazinya| 9.30.11 @ 2:47PM
Thanks. Lucifarian has at its root, Lucifer. And Shamus is mostly correct but there are those whom believe in a 'power greater than political party'.
PolishKnight| 9.30.11 @ 9:47AM
It's a pleasure to see that greater minds than mine have debunked the sentiments of the article, but I hopefully can make a contribution.
Let's hit the unpleasant early primary AND retail politics claims head on: If the objective is to make things more "cozy", why not hold it in January when only the most committed primary voters are likely to show up? These will be the voters the most likely to watch the debates and do research and take time off of work as compared to some spoiled and over-stimulated NH primary voter whose going to vote for McCain because "he's the moderate guy who can get along with Democrats and can win!" How did THAT work out?
I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the Maverick candidate.
Florida has a point. I'm sick of getting NH's leftovers and having to act grateful that they're "smarter" than us.
nhrepublican| 10.2.11 @ 7:50PM
We had over stimulated primary voters vote for McCain in 2008 when we had 3 ft of snow on the ground. It was a record turnout for a Presidential primary.
POST American| 9.30.11 @ 9:56AM
-------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------
Whoever you are, wherever you've been
programmed to think you stand, one and
ALL shoud be paying close attention to this,
perhaps FINAL, Presidential election.
AFTER checking out ALAN WATT's audio
archive, and AFTER checking out Jay Weidner's
deadly on target 6 minute video 'Jay Weidner
Exlains His Theory' ----to say nothing of
David Rockefeller's recent calls for MASSIVE
and RAPID world genocide -er, we meant
DEPOP----and after thoroughly taking
in the scale and genesis of the, we've no doubt, HAARP 'enhanced' FUKISHIMA world nuclear disaster ---and GMO ----and weaponized meds and injections and water and air ------
----Forget your bennies, and your rectum
worship, and even the 'good ol' days' of whatever
action your life might ever have seen.
Take heed, we are facing the greatest war
humanity has EVER seen.
A hundred years, third world war.
"Understand, everywhere, on every level,
the Globalists are at war with the REAL
cultures, the REAL economies. This is
the third and FINAL war. The 'War Against
the World'."
-ALAN WATT
--------------------UNDERSTAND----------------------
------------------DO UNDERSTAND--------------------
Dan Mathewson| 10.1.11 @ 5:53PM
zzzzzzzz...SNORT!
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 9.30.11 @ 10:28AM
Boy I sure wish some eastern seaboard RINO's could decide the republican candidate like in 2008. We need another RINO like McCain who will be too much of a poo-see to go at Obama bc he's scared of someone pulling the race card on him. Screw that. Can we add Georgia to that list? I would much rather true red state republicans decide that country club, maine-types.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 9.30.11 @ 10:29AM
*than country club
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 9.30.11 @ 10:31AM
How about a national primary? If any moron out there is voting based on TV ads, they should be lobotomized and neutered. People should be watching the debates and reading up on candidates. I'm tired of casual voters..
PolishKnight| 9.30.11 @ 1:46PM
Hmm, Phil, that's an idea and a perfect way to settle the "campaign funding" problem: How about outlaw ALL advertising altogether (Yeah, I know that burns the 1st amendment but then again, McCain already did it for us) Hear me out:
Imagine... if all registered voters received a simple packet in the mail (or email optionally recorded) from the party with a 10 page summary of each candidates' positions. You read their position, you go to vote on primary day. We have a "runoff" (main) election. Done.
The challenge is qualifying candidates but that has always been the case.
Bob K.| 9.30.11 @ 7:52PM
Let it all be run by The League of Women Voters!
(I am tempted to sign off with this statement and sit back and watch the electronic howling about this comment but I am being facetious.)
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 9.30.11 @ 10:36AM
Here's a thought. Primaries could also be ordered by what % of the state voted republican in the most previous governor's election.
KML| 9.30.11 @ 11:18AM
I read your article, and I am having trouble identifying a truly valid reasons for your, or the rest of the GOP establishments, objection to Florida moving up their primary. Tradition is important in some cases, but tradition in itself is not reason to keep this process as is. You say it will ruin Christmas and New Year - I do not know what you are talking about. Perhaps it will ruin it for the candidates, but I do not see how Florida running their primary in January or December will have any effect on my celebrating the birth of Christ. Or watching college football if I so choose.
Personally, I would like to move around when the states run their primaries because I get tired of New Hamphshire having so much say in the GOP nominee. Too often, the RINO ends up being the favorite son for that state, and then it is almost as if, from the media, you hear, "so-and-so won New Hamphshire or Iowa, it's over for everyone else." I would love to see true red states have the first say in the GOP nomination process. By the time it comes around for primary voting in Texas, it seems like the opinions of the voters in the Lone Star State do not matter - it's all over. I do not blame the state of Florida, and I do not see why the calendar can not be changed. Unless moving New Hamphshire in the clendar somehow violates the US Constitution, I have no problem with letting another state have a go at being number one.
Bob K.| 9.30.11 @ 8:03PM
I agree.
It is like Generals preparing to fight a new war with the tactics that won the last war. And in this case it is worse than that because the Republicans lost the last war. Losers make a tradition of stupidity!
I don't think that Mr. Robert Stacey McCain has thought this out fully.
W| 9.30.11 @ 11:52AM
You cite the victories of Obama and Carter in Iowa and New Hampshire to support keeping these two states first.
This is a better argument to IGNORE the results of Iowa and New Hampshire.
DaveS| 9.30.11 @ 2:10PM
Except that Hillary won NH.
no name| 9.30.11 @ 12:27PM
Hell with all the squawk about the west coast hearing the polls results on the east coast b-4 the west coast polls by 3 hours, I can understand Floridas pissed. Letting some corn pone and piss ant state set up the inclination of other states voters to follow suit, after all who would vote for a loser vs a winner? Something better change!People are extremely angry and with damm good reason.
Dai Alanye | 9.30.11 @ 12:28PM
In an ideal setup the states would hold primaries in order of population, the smallest going first. That would be what---Wyoming followed by Vermont? New Hampshire would be around twelfth, and Iowa somewhere near twentieth. California would desevedly be last.
The candidates would get a more thorough examination and have the time to develop their presentations, and we the voters would have a far better idea whom we were voting for by the time the electoral numbers began to mean something.
This method is logical and utilitarian, and will, therefore, be ignored or denounced by most readers.
Beau Blotz| 9.30.11 @ 3:15PM
Whose ideal??? Your idea is not very well thought out.
John Navratil| 9.30.11 @ 3:45PM
Dai Alanye,
And the party bosses would have an easier time controlling the outcome. I can live with a few "starter" races, but this extended horse race has voters at the start and voters at the end voting for different people. It's like "early voting", but with none of the convenience.
Beau Blotz| 9.30.11 @ 3:14PM
Primaries should occur within a short time frame such as late March through June or something like that. Unlike IA and NH all voters should be registered voters in that state and vote in the primary of the party they are registered (no open primaries like NH or SC).If you are not registered with a party, TS. You made that choice.
In '08 by the time the PA primary came, it was over. We had a choice of CApt McQueeg, Huckaphoney and Rube Paul, that is, no choice at all. I left the top of the ticket blank and voted the rest of the slate and so did thousands of others. The primary system as it is is a free for all that needs some reasonable organization.
John Navratil| 9.30.11 @ 3:43PM
Beau Blotz,
I don't understand the fascination with closed primaries. I'm conservative, reliably vote Republican, often with a clothes-pin on my nose. I used to be a party member until George I reneged on his "no new taxes" pledge.
What you are suggesting is that "good" party men are the soul of the party. How is that RINO bit workin' out for ya'?
In the 60's when the Republicans didn't have a party to speak of in the South, no sane person registered as a Republican. The Republicans fielded a single candidate and the first important choice was made in the Democrat(ic) primary. That's what a closed primary did - it stifled the growth of the Republican party. It would stifle the growth of any new party, as well.
Is that what we want?
TrueBlue| 9.30.11 @ 7:46PM
Just my opinion, but maybe the entire order for the primaries need to be changed each year, using a system that randomly picks the order in Nov/Dec of the previous year.
That or go by which state has been solid Repub the longest and then going from there to least likely to vote Repub, since these are the REPUBLICAN primaries we're talking about, and campaigning in a state that will NEVER side with our candidate is pointless. They can go to the "battleground" states when it's the actual Presidential run.
Anommynous| 9.30.11 @ 8:28PM
Florida literally disenfranchised me during the Iowa Caucus four years ago, since they forced Iowa to move their primary back to January 3rd. I live in Iowa alone and the rest of my family lives in another state, and I visit them during the Christmas holidays. My return flight was on January 3rd, but due to delays, I didn't arrive back early enough to participate in the Caucus. It angers me to this day. Am I supposed to give up some of my cherished time with my family during the holidays (the only time of the year I see them) so that I can rush back to Iowa for the Caucus? You really suck, Florida. Please don't do this to me again.
Sean| 9.30.11 @ 11:20PM
You should be pissed at Iowa. No one forced it to do it on Jan. 3rd.
no hussein 2012| 9.30.11 @ 9:37PM
Cubans.
J. Pulley| 9.30.11 @ 10:52PM
That the activists of any state routinely hold outsized influence over the choice of a nominee is repugnant. The resultant jostling for position is equally disgusting. I suggest:
1) that there be three primary voting days, separated by one calendar month,
2) that on the first and second such voting day, the registered party members in one quarter of the congressional districts of the nation vote,
3) that on the third and last such voting day, the registered party members in the remaining one half of the congressional districts of the nation vote, and
4) that the apportionment of congressional districts to voting days be done by the drawing of paper slips from a hat, no more than one week prior to the first voting day.
Enough of this nonsense. The activists of Florida and New Hampshire may go to hell.
nhrepublican| 10.2.11 @ 8:31PM
Thanks for those kind words.LOL
J. Pulley| 9.30.11 @ 10:57PM
Oh. Iowa too.
Thomas| 9.30.11 @ 11:26PM
I guess everyone has to hate someone. Of course, Florida is guilt free.
Pat Touchton| 10.1.11 @ 7:25AM
I'm a Floridian. I think it's assinine for Florida to lose the vote of 1/2 of its delegates in such an important election year.
nhrepublican| 10.2.11 @ 8:05PM
NH is going to lose half its delgates. We have 20, we will go to 10. The RNC applied the carve-out rule to the early states. If the early states go before February, they also lose half their delegates. NH is now a beauty contest. With Romney leading the pack partially because he is a local and partially because he appeals to swing voters. I expect more candidates to abandon the state.
john dubose| 10.1.11 @ 9:18AM
Face it, the process of picking major party nominees is chaotic unfair and disfunctional. We need to set several dates when states have their primaries or caucusses. Fill those dates by a random process and switch each election cycle. Since we have a constitution and lots of stubborn local interests, it probably will not happen. But it is the obvious right thing to do.
TrueBlue| 10.1.11 @ 10:11AM
Nothing in the Constitution that says we can't do it that way that I can remember, it's the party that decides how to go about their own primary voting.
POST American| 10.2.11 @ 12:28AM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
--Enjoy your bennies, your sports,
your porno and RED China wampum,
and your rectum worship as your
country is dismantled and we, one and
all, everywhere, enter their ordained,
century long 'War Against the World'.
-----------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012-------------
Dan Mathewson| 10.2.11 @ 5:41PM
Da Bears beat the panther 34-29. Yeeeeeee-haaaaaaw!
bluecollarbytes| 10.2.11 @ 9:49AM
I thought things needed to be shaken up? The Republican Party has still not taken up the clarion call of Nov 2010, although there are a few individual examples of that. I'm supposed to worry that the same group of early primary voters may not be able to dictate the early frontrunners?
and nothing personal whatsoever, but the 'Florida hates America' title sounds like something the huffblow would crank out, such as 'tea party hates America', or 'Republicans hate America'...
aj| 10.2.11 @ 1:54PM
I don' think the GOP primary schedule came down from Sinai. Assuming the 'monkey see/do' premise of the article what divine decree gives small monkeys in the frozen north precedence over the 'largest monkey' in the south and east? Party 'rules'? Please.
This particular McCain appears to suffer from the same logic afflictions as the senator.
Kingofthenet| 10.2.11 @ 3:37PM
As a Democrat I don't have a horse in this Primary situation THIS year, but I agree the system is broken, here are my thoughts:
1. NO ONE wants 'Party' Bosses picking candidates in secret meetings.
2. EVERYONE'S vote should REALLY count, and EVERYONE at least in a Primary should get to vote their Conscience and not have to COMPROMISE like one might have to in a General Election.
3. Staggered Primaries have advantages and disadvantages, it gives small states some real clout and weeds out weak candidates early, but it also disenfranchises those who go late, and these small states sometimes have priorities that are different than Big states.
So what to do? I like to see a 'two' stage system, first hold Primaries on the same day everywhere, but give ALL states equal weight in the 'rough' cut, now the problem with this is there is a likelihood with a large field, that this would not lead to a 'consensus', So have EVERY primary voter pick TWO candidates, an #1 and #2, that way you could pick BOTH the candidate you really want AND the one you most likely believe can win.Than you take the TOP two winners of the most states plus the top winner in the runner-up position, and enter the convention with those three, if no one has sown it up, if they are duplicates on both lists obviously the convention only has two choices than.Why not just pick the top three finishers and forget about the number 2 selection completely? In a 50 state contest I could for example see Rick Perry getting 45% of the States, Mitt getting 40% and Ron Paul most of the rest, basically in this situation the third candidate is a REAL outlier and not indicative of the mood of the electorate. Than go into the convention with the three winners and using the uncommitted delegate system(apportioned by population) pick the final winner.
John| 10.2.11 @ 7:11PM
Your premise is that FL moves their primary before NH or IA and that "forces" them to move their primaries? Who says NH has to be first? Why don't they sit on their date regardless of what other states do?
nhrepublican| 10.2.11 @ 8:26PM
NH state law directs the Secretary of State to move the primary to first.
p-squared| 10.2.11 @ 8:57PM
Why not just have one freaking day for primary elections for all the states, like the general election? If you give a damn enough to vote in a primary, you already know who you're going to vote for anyway. Close the primaries and make them all the same day.
Brian| 10.3.11 @ 12:18AM
The whole Florida thing is being orcastrated by the Repub esablishment to force Palins hand.
POST American| 10.3.11 @ 4:23AM
---Everyone taking in the latest set up
Wall Street protests?
Michael Moore and sundry 'Calm-you--nists'
and 'So--shall--ALL--ists' and 'Marks-ists'
--one and all funded, directed, provocateured
by Rock--ef--L--O/ ROT-child and CFR
world USURY and EUGENICS 'CAP--IT--ALL--ists'.
Really kiddies, as we sit under the CHEM-trailed,
---'er CALM-trailed autumn skies, time to
hurl your Oxford Fabian Globalist front op
FOX 'News'-----and Tell--A--vision itsef.
Then, get the Freemason fronts and infiltrators
OUT of your churches.
Then purge, repent ----and
get back to scripture, and the away from
the capstone devised, spiritual
'EYE--doll--IT--tree'.
------------( remember---we're the ITs! )-------------
gessius| 10.3.11 @ 1:34PM
You have to be morose. The present system gave us:
Nixon, GWH Bush, GW Bush, Dole, McCain and Ford!!!!!!!!!!
Sothe| 10.4.11 @ 3:45PM
How about this:
We THROW OUT the whole primary process that was conceived and implemented by the progressive movement as a way to hijack our Republic? How about that?
I'm sick of hearing about "clone candidates" and "split votes". Let the PEOPLE decide. The status quo has gotten us the mess we're in.
I'm sick of having my choices made for me in PA long before I get a chance to vote. By the time I have a say the "most electable" candidate has been forced down my throat, and I'm left, AGAIN, with choosing the lesser of two evils.
Repeal the 17th Amendment, and give the PEOPLE control of our government, as the Constitution meant it to be. REMOVE the scam of primaries, and give the PEOPLE control again.
shia| 10.18.11 @ 10:18AM
wow this is good so good to read i just wanna write here something to make everybody smile..maybe next time..
thank you so much.
mesothelioma lawyer