Glenn Beck came down on Florida last night for moving our primary ahead. I know I sound like a broken record, but the only reason the Democratic National Committee is thumping us in the head over our primary date is plain old politics. Is the DNC terrified Sen. Hillary Clinton might end up the nominee? As I reported earlier, states have moved their primaries ahead before: California in 1993, a block of Southern states before that, New York in 1996.
I agree with some positions Beck holds, but not this one. The DNC had ample time to work something out with Florida, but chose instead to be an intra-partisan bully.
Why are New Hampshire and Iowa's positions as frontrunners in primary season so sacred? What makes those states so special? Even more than that, why should any political party tell any state in this country when to select their candidate as long as it's done before the convention?
For too long, two states have held overwhelming influence in the primary process. The New York Times reported on Howard Dean's war of words with Dick Gephardt in 2003. All because of Iowa and two candidates' desperate attempts to win the state. DNC Chairman Howard Dean likes to remind people about the rules. In this case, who made up the rules that annointed two states for the rest of the country?
Finally, I imagine the Republican Party will be happy to see those millions of Democratic voters ripped off by the DNC. Talk about a public relations dream scenario. The GOP will be all over that one. It's a bona fide dream theme!
Question for you: Why isn't mainstream media researching other states who have moved primaries, and reporting that to you? Why isn't the media after the hysterics of the 2000 election in hysterics now?
Sphere: Related Content
2 comments:
Kay, you rocked the house with this comment. As a Democrat (and a Hillary supporter - how could a Demo female with my background be anything else?) - I have watched the DNC make mistake after mistake over this. This is so typical for the Dems; they will shoot themselves in the foot if no one does it for them.
You are so right that the mainstream media is taking the DNC at their word on this, as they question so little.
Check out this piece in today's NY Times on the failure of conventional wisdom:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09leibovich.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=weekinreview
Ellen, I think it's a Howard Dean thing. Sooner or later MSM will realize Florida isn't the first state to advance its primary. MSM takes about 10 days beyond what they read on blogs to actually look into doing a story. Every political reporter should have looked for what's important: precedent. Why is Howard Dean (other than the fact he's HD) so goat-headed about Florida's votes?
Our primary isn't the same as Michigan, where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot.
This is a definite truth about Sen. Clinton in the NYT piece:
“She was better than her campaign,” one longtime adviser, Harold Ickes, told Adam Nagourney of The New York Times.
If a state legislature sets a primary date (Florida House vote on this was unanimous, although MSM is still saying it was pushed through by the Repub legislature), a political party should have the sense to respect the decision.
Americans have reliquished the ability to control who we nominate for president, in a way. Both parties dominate this process far too heavily, in my opinion.
best, KBD
Post a Comment