Democrats Set New Calendar/ Penalties For Those That Disobey
Democrats Set Primary Calendar and Penalties
CHICAGO, — The Democratic National Committee voted Saturday to penalize 2008 presidential candidates who defied a new nominating calendar devised to lessen the longtime influence of New Hampshire and Iowa, the two states that have traditionally kicked off the nominating process.
The sanctions will be directed at candidates who campaign in any state that refuses to follow a 2008 calendar of primaries and caucuses that was also approved Saturday. Any candidate who campaigns in a state that does not abide by the new calendar will be stripped at the party convention of delegates won in that state.
The party adopted a broad definition of campaigning, barring candidates from giving speeches, attending party events, mailing literature or running television advertisements.
Iowa will continue to start the voting process, with a caucus on Jan. 14. But under the new calendar, there will be a caucus in Nevada on the Saturday between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 22. South Carolina will hold a primary at least one week after New Hampshire.
The penalties were adopted in response to threats by New Hampshire officials, who said they might defy the new Democratic calendar and schedule their primary earlier in the year or in 2007 to retain their long-held influence over the nominating process. The New Hampshire secretary of state has the authority to move the primary earlier to make sure it complies with a state law requiring that no state hold any kind of nominating contest within seven days of the New Hampshire primary.
Kathy Sullivan, the leader of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire, warned that the calendar vote would create strife for the party and “rob presidential candidates from doing what they need to take back the White House.”
“Mark my words, in 2008 when our presidential candidates start to introduce themselves to the American public, the changes in the primary calendar will continue to take attention away from where it should be — on their visions for this country,” she said.
The calendar and penalties were adopted by what appeared to be an overwhelming margin in a voice vote. The decision, which embraces the recommendations of the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, is the biggest shift in the way Democrats have nominated their presidential candidates in 30 years.
Despite the vote, the fighting over the calendar may not be over. A number of potential 2008 contenders — including Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts; John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina; and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana — have expressed support for New Hampshire.
Several Democrats said candidates might make the calculation that it is worth losing delegates — assuming New Hampshire defies the party and the party penalizes candidates — to get the attention that might come from an early New Hampshire victory.
A spokesman for Mr. Bayh, Dan Pfeiffer, said that the senator had asked the Indiana Democratic delegation to oppose the rule change, and that he intended to campaign in New Hampshire.
“Senator Bayh, should he decide to run, intends to stand by his commitment to New Hampshire,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “At the end of the day, the D.N.C. and the various states will set the final calendar and all Senator Bayh can do is compete in the contests as they come — and that includes New Hampshire.”
Read Full Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well they still have no plan and now they are stumbling over each other to change the Democratic Calendar? And are willing to impose penalties for those that dont abide by this crazy idea! I do shagrin at the recipe for disaster the Democratic party creates for themselves. I wonder whose bright idea this was? Howie's? LOL
CHICAGO, — The Democratic National Committee voted Saturday to penalize 2008 presidential candidates who defied a new nominating calendar devised to lessen the longtime influence of New Hampshire and Iowa, the two states that have traditionally kicked off the nominating process.
The sanctions will be directed at candidates who campaign in any state that refuses to follow a 2008 calendar of primaries and caucuses that was also approved Saturday. Any candidate who campaigns in a state that does not abide by the new calendar will be stripped at the party convention of delegates won in that state.
The party adopted a broad definition of campaigning, barring candidates from giving speeches, attending party events, mailing literature or running television advertisements.
Iowa will continue to start the voting process, with a caucus on Jan. 14. But under the new calendar, there will be a caucus in Nevada on the Saturday between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 22. South Carolina will hold a primary at least one week after New Hampshire.
The penalties were adopted in response to threats by New Hampshire officials, who said they might defy the new Democratic calendar and schedule their primary earlier in the year or in 2007 to retain their long-held influence over the nominating process. The New Hampshire secretary of state has the authority to move the primary earlier to make sure it complies with a state law requiring that no state hold any kind of nominating contest within seven days of the New Hampshire primary.
Kathy Sullivan, the leader of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire, warned that the calendar vote would create strife for the party and “rob presidential candidates from doing what they need to take back the White House.”
“Mark my words, in 2008 when our presidential candidates start to introduce themselves to the American public, the changes in the primary calendar will continue to take attention away from where it should be — on their visions for this country,” she said.
The calendar and penalties were adopted by what appeared to be an overwhelming margin in a voice vote. The decision, which embraces the recommendations of the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, is the biggest shift in the way Democrats have nominated their presidential candidates in 30 years.
Despite the vote, the fighting over the calendar may not be over. A number of potential 2008 contenders — including Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts; John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina; and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana — have expressed support for New Hampshire.
Several Democrats said candidates might make the calculation that it is worth losing delegates — assuming New Hampshire defies the party and the party penalizes candidates — to get the attention that might come from an early New Hampshire victory.
A spokesman for Mr. Bayh, Dan Pfeiffer, said that the senator had asked the Indiana Democratic delegation to oppose the rule change, and that he intended to campaign in New Hampshire.
“Senator Bayh, should he decide to run, intends to stand by his commitment to New Hampshire,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “At the end of the day, the D.N.C. and the various states will set the final calendar and all Senator Bayh can do is compete in the contests as they come — and that includes New Hampshire.”
Read Full Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well they still have no plan and now they are stumbling over each other to change the Democratic Calendar? And are willing to impose penalties for those that dont abide by this crazy idea! I do shagrin at the recipe for disaster the Democratic party creates for themselves. I wonder whose bright idea this was? Howie's? LOL
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 11:21 AM
14 Comments:
It makes me sad Marie. My Father and Mother where both working class Democrats. I was brought up with honest and straight forward ideals. In that time of my upbringing it did not matter if you where an "R" or a "D". Things were done for the betterment of the United States.
Things have changed quite a bit since then and now the people that run the democrat party only have power in mind and will sacrifice any long respected ideal to attain that power. "Those that ride on the back of the tiger will soon find out that will be inside the tiger instead".
What we need now is a democrat party that will return to our long held ideals of truth, justice, and the American way instead of "power at all costs".
There are a few democrats that still believe in America but they are being drowned out by voices like code pink, Michael Moore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, move on.org,George Sorros and that type of extremist purveyors of "hate America first" rhetoric.
It's truly a shame because my parents were hard working Americans that believed in America but their party has abandoned their way of thinking for something different.
JG,
Your parents sound like they were great people.
But the Democratic party like you said have been sold out, taken over by the Lunatic Left.
They are now bought and paid for by George Soros, and have become beholden to him. I am thinking that by "Those that ride on the back of the tiger will soon find out that will be inside the tiger instead". you are talking about George Soros.
What we need now is a democrat party that will return to our long held ideals of truth, justice, and the American way instead of "power at all costs".
Dont hold your breath! The Democrats of "Old" are gone! And look at what's left, sad indeed.
There are a few democrats that still believe in America but they are being drowned out by voices like code pink, Michael Moore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, move on.org,George Sorros and that type of extremist purveyors of "hate America first" rhetoric.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
They are not only drowned out, they have joined them.
This is exactly why I do not belong to any political party.
PP said... This is exactly why I do not belong to any political party.
When you don't affliate with any party then you have very little voice at all. It is very important to vote in the primaries where the decision to send someone to the general election can make all the difference. Even if you don't like any party you should at least register with one in order for you to have more of a voice on who runs in the general election. It does not mean you have to agree with everything that is said or done it just gives another chance to vote for or against someone you like or dislike respectively. That's the best advice I have for those that are not affliated.
I never voted in primaries anyway. I feel primaries should be changed to select anyone from any party anyway, the way it is suppost to be.
I vote in everything!
Well except stupid crap on the Oklahoma ballot that creeps in there during the year.
However I do think there is one law in Oklahoma that needs to be changed, The law says: "The Walker" has to be 50 ft in front of a person's Horse and Buggy with his lantern.
I just think it needs to be brought down to 25 feet, but then again that's just my opinion!
PP said...I feel primaries should be changed to select anyone from any party anyway, the way it is suppost to be.
That's just not so. Primaries serve to select the candidates the parties choose to send to the general election. The dems and wishy-washies have no business voting in the Republican primary as Republicans and wishy-washies have no business voting in the democrat primary. If you want to vote in the primary and you are neither an R or a D then you need start your own party or do what you do now...nothing.
I'm not sorry for sounding so partisan because well, I'm a partisan. I'm not afraid to say I believe in something. Even as silly as Mrs Green sounds with her liberals ideals she believes in something and I respect that more than believing in nothing.
I do have my own political beliefs. Some are Liberal some are Conservative.
Here's an example
I am pro-choice.
I am pro 2nd amendment)and all other constitutional rights)
I feel the government needs to be more responsible spending.
I feel the welfare system needs to be greatly reformed.
However I do support increased medicaid/medicare coverage.
I do support better VA hospitals for our Veterans or possibly turning the VA into a medicaid/medicare type of program.
I feel that the Social Security fund SHOULD NOT be tapped into to fund any other government program but Social Security.
That only covered a few of my issues. Just to give you an idea what I stand for.
Penn,
With a couple of things there you almost sound Republican lol.
What you really are is Independant and you should still vote to make your vioce be known.
I'm pretty sure Lieberman just started the Third party!
Hey you can vote over in Connecticut can you? lol
No I know your from Penn.
Just checkin!
I am not voting for any incumbents. That is who I am voting for. The PA state legislators that voted themselves a raise are losing their seats. The #1 and #2 Republicans lost in the primaries(state legislators) because they voted for their raise. NO INCUMBENT will get my vote Local, State, or Federal.
Penn,
So then you have no clue who you are voting for? lol
Just not an incumbant, an unknown with no record of any accomplishments lol
Oh well it's your state!
I did research on all party candidates. It is time that the closet gets cleaned out and start new. On accomplishments, the current politicians that represent my county and state have done nothing but flip-flopped, gave themselves raises, or sold out Pennsylvanians, especially the senior citizens(which now we beat Florida in). Even if the competing candidate has no record of accomplishments, there is really no difference in the people who repreent us now.
This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security.
To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror — absolutely in favor of that war — they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war.
As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror."
This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.
Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets they haven't named yet.
Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.
They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!
Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson, resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.
Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "MySpace" page!)
Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.
Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.
The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. You remember — the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.
But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror.
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others were forced to listen to loud rap music — more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at "The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have "no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been given administrative hearings or released already.)
Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.
Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.
The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December, whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" — a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry — the man they wanted to be president — called the Patriot Act "an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into the twin towers of our Constitution.
They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.
They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game. Now that's a threat.
Post a Comment
<< Home