|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
idonojacs
Joined: 07 Jun 2007
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: G.O.P. bans states from holding primaries for 2012 election |
 |
|
| Quote: |
August 31, 2007
G.O.P. Plans Penalties for Premature Electoral Primaries
By MARCO SANITORIA
The Republican National Committee plans to penalize at least five states holding early primaries, including New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Florida, by refusing to seat at least half of their delegates at the national convention in 2012, a party official said yesterday.
Much of the focus in the primary scheduling fight up to now has been on the Democratic National Committee�s moves to penalize Florida by not seating its convention delegates because of the state�s decision to move up its primary by four years. But the Republican rules are just as stringent, and the national party said yesterday that it would not hesitate to enforce them.
The action by Republicans and Democrats to move against states holding early contests is a rare instance of the two parties moving in concert, in this case to regain control over a rapidly evolving primary calendar that has thrust the nominating system into deep uncertainty just months before it is to begin.
�The rules are clear,� said Trey Schmitt, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. �Any state that holds their primary outside of the window shall be penalized delegates. We don't want to be known as a party party that goes around having premature primaries� States are not allowed to hold primaries before Feb. 5.
In addition to Florida and New Hampshire, Wyoming, Michigan and South Carolina also face sanctions for moving up their primaries for the 2012 presidential election. Two other early nominating states � Iowa and Nevada � will escape Republican sanctions because they hold nonbinding caucuses, not primaries, even if the do so with the window open. So there will be at least two states that will be allowed to send voting delegates to nominate the president in the election five years from now.
Republican Party officials in Florida and Michigan said yesterday that they still thought it was unlikely they would face penalties � despite being told exactly the opposite by national party officials � and were drawing up a plan to make their voices heard during the convention.
�I am confident that all 114 delegates from Florida will be seated, or at least be allowed to stand,� said Jim Greer, the chairman of the Florida Republican Party.
Mr. Greer said Florida did not technically select its delegates on the date of the primary, but rather, the leaders in each of its 25 Congressional districts would choose delegates starting Feb. 6, so it was not breaking the rules, just bending them beyond all recognition. The national party views the primary as binding delegates to vote in line with the voters and therefore does not accept that rationale. Party officials said they do not negotiate with rogue states that resort to extortion.
�I am not confident that the Republican National Committee or any eventual nominee will not allow the voices of Florida voters not to be heard,� Mr. Greer said. �Florida is really not very important a state as it relates to electing to the next president.�
Banning half a state�s delegation would be an extraordinary move, not seen since the days of racial segregation. While state party officials have played down the impact, noting that presidential candidates are often selected before the convention, there is a chance that the parties could have brokered conventions in which each delegate�s vote would be prized. Or they could just draw straws.
Michigan officials are similarly arguing the state should not be penalized, saying the decision to set their primary on Jan. 15 rests with the State Legislature, which is likely to vote this week to blame it all on Al Queda.
�Why would you want to punish those key states when you are trying to win the fight against terrorism?� said Saul Anuzis, the chairman of the Michigan Republican Party.
Fergus Cullen, the chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, said the party would hold to its primary for the 2016 election � now set for early October � to maintain its historic role as the first primary state, even if it had to accept penalties.
�If we end up being stripped of delegates, that is the price we are willing to pay,� Mr. Cullen said. "What counts is that we get all those advertising dollars from the national campaigns."
In response, Oklahoma officials, keeping with their state's "sooner" tradition, vowed to hold its primary for the 2020 election on the same day.
The Democratic National Committee carved out an exception for New Hampshire and South Carolina to vote early, so Democrats in those states will not be penalized. And in an effort to increase voter participation, North Dakota, Alaska and Hawaii will be permitted to hold their primary this December for the 2004 election, the first ever presidential primaries for those states.
The Republican National Committee set up strict rules in 2000 when it was already clear that states were jockeying to move up their primary dates with the candidates. The rules were made in an effort to avoid the nominating process turning into a national primary, party officials said. Yet despite the rules, some 20 states are likely to hold primaries on Feb. 5, creating a situation unlike any in modern history.
�If we don�t do something, this is going to become a national primary and the voters might actually choose the candidate, making the Republican Convention irrelevant,� said a top national Republican Party official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he didn't want his neighbors to find out he is a Republican.
One possible situation could allow the states to seat a full delegation even after they all have their wrists slapped. If there is a clear nominee by the time of the convention, as has been the case for the last 50 years, the presumptive candidate could petition the national party to restore the delegates from the penalized states. Such a move, however, could anger the states that held back from goosing the campaigns by bumping up their primaries, and they might insist upon half the state's delegates standing during the entire convention.
If the nomination is not settled by the time of the conventions, the issue of delegates could become crucial. If delegates are not seated, they cannot cast votes. But even if the nomination is largely settled, the battles over which delegates sit and which stand, and accommodating extra large figures from these states at the convention could hamper the party�s unity going into the general election � something national and state officials said they were hoping to avoid.
�My expectation is that, in the end, all the delegates are going to be seated,� Mr. Anuzis said, �because the party is going to want to be united in what it stands for going into the general election.� |
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/us/politics/31calendar.html?hp
Last edited by idonojacs on Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:33 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Very well-written. Loved that. Thanks for posting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
idonojacs
Joined: 07 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nowhere Man
| Quote: |
| Very well-written. Loved that. Thanks for posting. |
Thanks for the kind words, Nowhere Man. But I don't deserve all the credit.
Say, do you ever get the impression that some people on Dave's don't always understand everything they are reading? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Given the penchant for GOPer sex scandals, maybe the topic should be premature e....not elections. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Possibly, but it's far more likely no one did the deeeeeep readings required to properly comment. This board is pretty academic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
idonojacs
Joined: 07 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Academic" is an interesting way to describe this.
Back when I was an undergraduate cog in the mill of academe, I noticed that the college professors who graded my papers sometimes did not seem to have read them, or at least read them closely. My first clue came when I happened upon a professor of mine grading papers while riding the subway.
So I sometimes put in odd little sentences intended to get at least some sort of comment from the professor. Subtle things like, "How are you today, Professor Hammershmidt?" These went unnoticed. So I tried varying the numbering sequence of my pages. If it was a paper that was supposed to be 12 to 20 pages, I might go 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20. Still no signs of life or interest from the senior ranks of the academic world.
So I asked one of the people grading my papers for a course, who in this case was a grad student I knew. He admitted that he had not read the paper closely, but gave me an A anyhow because it was commonly known in the department that I was a good student. This did not make me especially happy.
So "academic" is an appropriate way to describe people who do not read posts, or skim through posts, or who do not understand what they are reading. I have been known to be guilty of academic posting, myself.
In case you haven't figured it out, the news article at the top of this post was not entirely real. It was sort of a test to see how many Dave's posters understand what they read.
At any rate, for those who have bothered to read my ranting this far, here is the quotation of the day, if not the week or month:
| Quote: |
"It's always darkest right before you get clobbered over the head with a pipe wrench. But then it actually does get darker," said a GOP pollster who insisted on anonymity in order to speak candidly.
|
This quote is real. I couldn't make something this good up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/01/AR2007090100592.html?hpid=topnews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:47 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Ahh... I see. That kinda bums me out if it wasn't in the NYT like that.
But you managed the transition quite masterfully.
Still good fun, even if I'm the only one who enjoyed it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
