August 25, 2007

In other news

Out There

On the Home Front

3 comments:

texex said...

DNC Rules comment.

Before you break out the champagne and confetti over the Fla and Mich primaries, I'd suggest to give this a little more thought about the end results of this.

First of all, Fla Dems didn't ask for this. "They said they were bound by the vote of the Republican-controlled State Legislature, which set the primary for Jan. 29." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/politics/26calendar.html?ref=politics Thus, the Fla primary is set by state law - not the DNC Bylaws Committee.

Second, the DNC is going to disenfranchise so many Dems, Indies, and moderate Repubs that it will probably stay red - something the Dem Party can ill afford to do in a state that played such an important role in the pres race of 2000. Whacking Fla Dems because of existing state law controlling the primaries will come back to haunt Dems all over the country for decades to come.

This whole "me first" triathalon was set in motion by Hairless Reid trying to make Nevada somehow relevant in the national picture and has grown into nothing less than total chaos in the political process.

I'm pretty sure the DNC will do the absolute stupid, short-sighted, most idiotic thing and flex its muscle over some inane rule that Fla Dems have no control over whatsoever to accomplish nothing more than disenfranchising more voters in this key state.

Whatever the end result, Nevada will remain as irrelevant as before. If Hairless really wanted to do something for Nevada he could get some candidates and money going for CD2 and CD3 to help out in securing the House majority instead of mindlessly tinkering with the election process without knowing in advance the ripple effect of his foolishness.

cls said...

In theory, I agree with you regarding the Florida Dems having this one taken out of their hands. However, I don't really blame Harry for this mess either. I really think that we either need to go to a national primary day (but this really hurts minor candidates) or regional ones, as I've spoken for in the past. The fact that state law can trump party rules (and Florida isn't the only one) has been ruled unconstitutional, and I hope that the Florida Dems can come up with some way to challenge this changing of the primary date in court. And being as this is a federal election, maybe it's time for Congress to pass a law that says that no state may move it's primary date in the year before the general election in which a presidential election is held. That way, if they wanted to move them, they would have to do so in the even numbered year prior to the presidential. In this case, the states would have had until December 31, 2008 to readjust their primary, but after that, they cannot do so.

Since caucuses are run and paid for by parties, and primaries are run by the states, this would solve a lot of this.

But, please explain to me how not seating Democratic delegates will disenfranchise moderate Rs and Indies. This is a primary, not a general election.

And finally, can you cool it with the name-calling? I am willing to listen to you, and I appreciate your arguments, but chill on the name calling. Seriously. It takes away from the legitimate points you are making.

texex said...

Yep, there oughta be a law to bring sanity back to the election process. But there won't be. And the reason there won't be is that electioneering has become a mega-billion dollar industry which must be fed. And fed and fed.

And I'll try to explain disenfranchising from my own simplistic Joe Sixpack point of view. By not seating delegates at the national convention it gives the appearance of being dogmatically heavy handed at the national level and excluding one state's delegates over another's. This, in effect, skews the overall process and discriminates against a part of the legitimae electorate - something which completely undermines the whole democratic process which the convention system is an integral part of.

If we eliminate Fla, then Mich or Nevada or others can also be eliminated. And to what constructive purpose? Seems like I heard somewhere Dems are "inclusive" but how can that hold water when a large bloc of voters are excluded from the national convention simply because they were following the laws of their state?

So in a state like Fla where Indies could actually be the "decider" in the outcome of the national election, they will have little incentive to follow the Dem party if it is viewed as selecting against one candidate or another through excluding delegates to the national convention..

Clearly there must be some rules and order in the process but the process has devolved into power struggles within the party trying to elevate 'lil 'ol Nevada into some kind of a national political powerhouse - something that it has not been in the past nor will be in the future.

I bring this up because things worked pretty well until Reid started mindlessly tinkering with the caucus/primary dates setting in to motion this whole national mess we're having to deal with now that is resulting in talk of excluding delegates from the electoral process - something I find totally repugnant be it Fla, Mich, or whatever state.

You simply can't exclude legitimate electors from the process without corrupting the overall system.

Dirty Harry said it best: "A man has to know his limitations."