Posted by Cockney Robin |
With The Crux away and Damozel caught in the toils of an office move, there's nobody but me to comment on this article in The Washington Post, which either one of the two would do so much better than I can. While I follow American politics with interest, I've never really understood the whole primary thing. We don't have primaries in England. In fact, general election campaigns in England generally take about three weeks; and whichever geezer is the leader of the party that wins becomes the Prime Minister. While there are drawbacks, there is one advantage: we are not bombarded for months with the faces, talking points, and gaffes of people competing to be PM. There is no paid political advertising on British TV. Just rationed free broadcast time in ten-minute slots, one a week per party during the campaign, called Party Political Broadcasts, which is usually when the nation gets up out of its armchair and goes to make itself a cup of tea.
If I were an American candidate, I would wait till the eleventh hour to enter the campaign, confident that by that time the public would be well and truly sick of the other contenders. Which evidently is Fred Thompson's strategy. I mean to say, isn't it really rather tedious, all this campaigning months and months before the decisive date? And how in the world do the candidates who have actual and current governing responsibilities manage it? This business of state governors and federal senators spending all their time for a year and a half trying for the ultimate seat still seems a bit dodgy to me. Don't their constituencies mind?
According to WaPo, state Democratic parties are now rebelliously competing to be first in the field in holding their primaries; and Florida has just received a sharp rebuke from the Democratic National Party for trying to hold its primaries earlier than scheduled. Evidently the national party (the DNC) has set up its own structure for the primary season and now the states are playing silly buggers with it (The Washington Post). And its rules committee has punished Florida for scheduling a January 29 primary by provisionally stripping the state of its 2008 delegates (The Washington Post). The penalty takes effect in 30 days if the Florida party doesn't back down.
Naturally, my first question was why Florida would want to muck about with the DNC's schedule. Also naturally, I turned to Wikipedia (shut up) for my answer.
A criticism of the current Presidential primary election schedule is that it gives undue weight to the few states with early primaries, as those states often build momentum for leading candidates and rule out trailing candidates long before the rest of the country has had a chance to weigh in, leaving the last states with virtually no actual input on the process.
The same source informs me that the DNC has recently revised its schedule for primary season and also considered how to punish the noncompliant.
The...DNC proposed a new schedule and a new rule set for the 2008 Presidential primary elections. Among the changes: the primary election cycle would start nearly a year earlier than in previous cycles, states from the West and the South would be included in the earlier part of the schedule, and candidates who run in primary elections not held in accordance with the DNC's proposed schedule (as the DNC does not have any direct control over each state's official election schedules) would be penalized by being stripped of delegates won in offending states. The New York Times called the move, "the biggest shift in the way Democrats have nominated their presidential candidates in 30 years."
Since Florida is one of the most populous states and "has played a pivotal role in the past two presidential elections," the threatened punishment presents the Democratic candidates with a bit of a poser about when---or whether---to campaign there (Washington Post). They're all hoping for a peaceful reconciliation, but judging by this photo, Florida's Democratic party chair, Karen Thurman, isn't thinking of backing down.
The former congresswoman said she will consult with state Democrats but added that she expects all the presidential candidates to ignore the national party's edict and campaign vigorously in advance of the Sunshine State's primary.
"Whether you get a delegate or don't get a delegate, a vote is a vote," a defiant Thurman said. "That is what Floridians are going to say is important." (Washington Post)
When I asked Damozel what she thought about this, she seemed to think she might also like a delegate. But as she said, she isn't heavily involved in state party politics. It will be interesting to see if some of our colleagues here at BN-Politics---some of whom are involved in state party politics--- have a different view of the matter.
Donna Brazile, a member of the rules committee who argued for a "swift and harsh" punishment for Florida said that she understands the desire of states to be "more relevant" in the nominating process. "I understand how states crave to be first." (Washington Post) But Thurman and company say that the date was controlled by the state's Republican legislature and that they spent "countless hours" arguing for a different date. And, in fact, "[o]nly Florida's legislature can set the state's primary election date." (USA Today). Though it does seem that Florida's Democrats also favour the January 29 date, since it's also the scheduled date for a referendum on a property tax they hope to defeat (Washington Post) .
In any case, the DNC doesn't seem to be inclined to show the state any mercy on that account.
Nelson and other Florida Democrats yesterday laid the blame for the standoff squarely at [DNC Chairman Howard] Dean's feet. They noted Democrats are following the lead of a Republican legislature and governor who moved the state's primary to Jan. 29 by law, but vowed to stand up for their state's right to have a say in the nominating process.
"There is no elected official that is going to allow their voters to become irrelevant," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).
But national party officials shot back, accusing Florida Democrats of standing by idly while the state's Republican legislature acted. Stacie Paxton, a spokeswoman for Dean, said Florida Democratic leaders are to blame for their own bleak situation.
"They could have done something. They have made this decision for their voters," Paxton said. "Did these leaders do anything to prevent passage of legislation they knew was in violation of the rules?" (Washington Post)
According to USA Today, "[t]o abide by the DNC's rules, the state would have to turn the Jan. 29 primary into a non-binding straw poll and hold a caucus or some other delegate selection process later." It would turn the process into a "beauty contest." (Washington Post)
And it would presumably piss off a hell of a lot of Florida Democrats, which is the part I don't understand. Florida lawmakers have "angrily assailed" the DNC and its chairman, Howard Dean, for this invalidation of Florida's primary (Washington Post). Senator Bill Nelson has evidently suggested a lawsuit against the national party (Washington Post). A couple of days ago, Nelson said that the DNC was "poised to assault the basic right of a person to vote at its meeting tomorrow...I hope that cooler heads are going to prevail tomorrow....If they don't, and if the full DNC were to then take that position, then certainly we will have to assert what we think are important rights." (Washington Post)
He says that stripping the state of its delegates will "disenfranchise" Florida voters. (Washington Post)
And this move does seem to be a risk for the DNC, given the number of voters in Florida, yes?
As I said, I don't really know enough about the process to give an informed opinion, and of course in Britain the Prime Minister decides on the date of general elections. Local branches of the various political parties don't get a look-in. I'll be interested to see how this plays out and on what my colleagues have to say about this move. It does seem harsh and actually unfair to deprive voters across the whole state of the right to participate in the selection process because their Republican-controlled legislature picked a date the DNC doesn't want to live with and the Democrats didn't fight back because of their own ulterior motives. Isn't it in the national party's interest to let Floridians have some input into the process? It isn't as if Florida hasn't proved crucial in any past elections....
LINKS!
- DNC Strips Florida Of 2008 Delegates (Washington Post)
- DNC May Deny Florida Slots at '08 Convention (Washington Post)
- Democrats strip Florida of primary delegates (USA Today)
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTS
- Fred, You Naughty Boy, You
- FEC Complaint Filed Against Fred Thompson
- Giuliani: America's Mayor and Leading Baseball Fan! (update)
- Giuliani Jabs Romney over Indicted Donor
- The End of the Trail for Tommy Thompson...
- Romney's Iowa Victory and What It Means
- Giuliani: Why Other Heroes of 911 Beg to Differ
- Joe Biden Takes on Giuliani
- Cleavagegate Part 2
- Cleavagegate
- For Giuliani, Does Corporate Friendliness Begin at Home?
- Putting My Mind at Ease About Fred Thompson
- "She Thicks [Wo]men's Blood with Cold" (Hillary Clinton, part 2)
- Salon Casts a Cold Eye on Bill Richardson: "The Democratic Don Quixote"
- "She Thicks Men's Blood with Cold." Hillary, Dominating
- The Southern Lady''s Favourite Republican Candidate
- Heartbroken Republican Voters Break up with McCain
- McCain Harshes on the Varmint Hunter
- Run Away, Al!
- The Giuliani Campaign Has a New York Moment
- Ferrets v. Giuliani
Comments