| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dems disenfranchise Florida |
| 2007-09-04 |
| Adam C. Smith, St. Petersburg Times All of the major Democratic candidates for president abruptly agreed Saturday to boycott Florida's primary because it is scheduled on Jan. 29, too early according to national party rules. Top-tier candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama on Saturday joined a boycott that began Friday among the lesser-known candidates, who probably couldn't have afforded to campaign in the Sunshine State anyway. . . . The candidates will continue to raise money in Florida, and they will attend next week's Univision debate in Miami. But the bottom line is Florida stands to be irrelevant in the presidential primary. Florida Democrats already were being pressed by the DNC not to count the votes from Jan. 29 and instead award the state's delegates to candidates later, based upon some still-undecided method such as party caucuses around the state. . . . The pledge bars the candidates from campaigning for votes in Florida, but not trolling for campaign dollars. Florida has a deep pool of Democratic donors, and the campaigns are not sacrificing there. It's unclear how the fundraising will work now. Some of the candidates, particularly Obama and Edwards, have made a hallmark of hosting fundraisers that charge as little as $15 per person, making them more like campaign rallies than true fundraisers. It also is an open question just how receptive donors will be given the boycott. One top Democratic fundraiser, trial lawyer Wayne Hogan of Jacksonville, already was so angry about Florida losing its delegates that he called Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean last week to cancel a DNC fundraiser. "Any candidate that boycotts Florida and thinks that they will raise money here will be sadly disappointed," said state Senate Democratic leader Steve Geller. "And it is my prediction that any candidate who boycotts Florida and thinks Florida will welcome them later will be sorely disappointed." . . . |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #9 I'm with TW: if we're going to elevate relatively obscure people into contention for the presidency, let's have enough time to vet them properly. As to the Florida primary, I really don't care what the Dhimmis do. It's their convention, their primaries and their party. The parties have a right to set their rules so long as they don't violate the Constitution (e.g., can't exclude minorities from the primaries as the Democrats used to do). Whether they have primaries, caucuses or just pick a name from a hat in a smoke-filled room, it's their choice. They then have to sell that choice to me on Election Day. Heh. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-09-04 15:23 |
| #8 I'm not keen on long campaigns either, but it does allow for accusations to be made and either rebutted or proved true. Had the campaign season been under six months, the honourable Senator John Kerry never could have been Swiftboated, the true tale of his CIA cap never would have come out, and quite possibly he'd be sitting in the White House right now. And truly, had the campaign season been shorter than the current 3 1/2 years, the honourable first term-Senator Barack Obama's beautiful teeth would not have been revealed as his strongest quality. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-09-04 14:49 |
| #7 Simple party rule BOTH major parties should put in place: Delegates selected prior to a date exactly 6 months prior to the national convention will neither be seated nor recognized nor allowed to participate at the national nominating convention. This would cut into the nonsense. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-09-04 13:40 |
| #6 May I point out that this is fundamentally something that has been around from the original debates about the Constitution. That is big states versus little states. New Hampshire and Iowa positioned themselves in a manner to have an influence far greater than their population or electoral power would normally justify. The bigger states with far greater number of popular and electoral votes have basically had enough of having 'fringe' elements in each area decide who they're going to get vote on 4 or 6 months later. Notice how many of the players who've called for the Electoral College to move into history and replaced with a popular vote after 2000, are now undermining the fundamental purpose of a popular vote by granting little states big influence. Instead of working that key issue out, both parties by default are allowing the states to exert their own power. The original players are holding tight to their position for no better reason than 'seniority' because it means power and money. Instead of addressing the fundamental issue, watch the pols crap it up even more with positioning and posturing. We'll see if this is chemotherapy or a lethal injection. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-09-04 10:28 |
| #5 Gary, most of their major candidates have been campaigning for a year (or maybe more) before the date of the first primary. I don't like the stretched out season but the DNC itself and the candidates (and the media) have done a lot more to stretch out the season than Florida has. Florida's primary is still five months away and the candidates have been flooding the airways for months before today. It's time to blame someone else for that. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2007-09-04 09:01 |
| #4 You know, I actually agree with The Party. I think the election campaigns have gotten waaaaaay to long and drawn-out. In My dreams, I'd like to see primaries start in, say, May, and be over with in July, then the convention in August. And no campaigning or debates in the previous year, please. Second, there's no rule that a political party has to choose its candidate taking into account evey state, or that it has to be done through open elections. I think 1956 was the first time in which a candidate tried to get nominated through the primaries. |
| Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds 2007-09-04 08:55 |
| #3 So we know where the Donks stand on the United STATES of America. A myth employed for the acquisition and implementation of power, at any cost. Yes, there is inefficiency and complications in a compact composed of a group. It trade off is a better guarantee's one of liberty as a free citizen and not a mere subject of the state. Just a reminder to the DNC, it is the state's authority to appoint or select the slate of their state's Electoral College members. You know, the group from each state that meets after the general election to cast the constitutional votes for the office of the President. It would have been really interesting if you pulled this power crap in 2000 with Florida in the balance. He who does not learn from history.... |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-09-04 08:42 |
| #2 How can this be? It's the democratic party, it says so right in the name! Accept no oligarchic substitutes! |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2007-09-04 08:16 |
| #1 **Chuckle** |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2007-09-04 06:53 |