On Wednesday’s post about Dave Nagle’s op-ed in the Register and how the NH Dems might react, I mentioned that I wasn’t really sure how much of a betrayal they may have felt because they weren’t letting people know. And I also wasn’t sure how much plotting they were doing.
Evidently I don’t read the New Hampshire Union Leader enough because it sure seems like they’re working on plotting something (from Wednesday’s UL):
“STRATEGY SESSION: Gov. John Lynch convened a hush-hush meeting of more than 20 state Democratic leaders at the Bridges House on Tuesday afternoon.
The topic was where to go from here to save the first-in-the-nation primary from fading into obscurity at the hands of the Democratic National Committee.
Democratic state senators, top House members, state DNC members and present and former party officials heard from Lynch, state party chair Kathy Sullivan and others. They agreed to support Secretary of State William Gardner if he finds it necessary to move the date of the primary ahead of contests that may be scheduled between New Hampshire and the leadoff Iowa caucuses in 2008.”
Well, it looks like there is a good chance that if the calendar change is adopted by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee that NH will take some drastic steps to try and protect their status.
Is this kind of party conflict good for Democrats? I doubt it. Your thoughts?
Its probably not good for organized politics / the parties generally. I think NH Dems would only be able to move the primary up if they could make a case that the GOP was doing it as well, and visa versa. Therefore, any fights about primary dates will drag down the processes of both parties. Because candidates generally insulate themselves from these things (with the exception of Howard Dean’s unfortunate soundbites on the nature of the Iowa caucuses in 04), it will have little effect on their national viability, though would take up party resources otherwise used to increase turnout.
By and large, I think NH’s relevance is unchanged by whether it is before or after the new primary(ies). Candidates will still make it part of an “early vote” strategy along with South Carolina and the new primary to come out ahead in the “first round”, if you will.
Given Gardner’s decision in 1996 and the fact that Iowa is not considered a similar contest, a lot may hinge on how wacky the caucuses are that fall before and immediately after New Hampshire. Michigan, which has a “caucus,” allows online voting in that process - certainly a far cry from the freezing borathon of the multi-hour Iowa Democratic caucuses.
If the DNC allows an actual primary within seven days after NH then you can bet they will move their calendar. If it ends up bookended by two caucuses that have sufficiently nonsensical procedure as to depress turnout to Iowa-like levels, then I don’t think you’ll see any action.
Since we are looking at Presidential and not local politics, I think a big internal dust-up within the party is overdue. We’ve got to remember that we have Ross Perot to thank (in part) for Clinton’s Presidency. It has been an incredibly long time since we’ve won a majority in a true two-party race (again, at the Presidential level…local is a lot more healthy, at least in Central Iowa.)
I feel like there has been some erosion within the national party, and it feels less and less like the traditional coalition that it once was. We need to have a big fight over the caucuses, yes, but more importantly, we have to get into over direction and principles, too.
Look at the Republicans: they have changed. They cut taxes, but spend like fiends. They create more government. They are weak on illegal immigration. In short, they’ve taken some of the Dems worst tendencies (I’ll get to our good ones in a minute) and turned them into standing policy!
However, when we truck out ancient slogans from Johnson’s “War on Poverty” years, we are missing a great opportunity, not to redefine ourselves, but to clarify the definition of who we really are. In fact, we sound like we want to continue the crap that the GOP pumps out, even though we use different words.
We need to fight this out internally, from the caucuses to policy, because we are hiding our strengths from the national electorate! What are our strengths, traditionally? Listening, Protection, and Stability! Why did WE implement Social Security? - Protection of our least fortunate, stability for our people. Why did WE drop atomic bombs on a foreign country? - Because we listened to the choices, and weighed the options, and elected to protect our people. Why did WE advocate civil rights and desegregate the military? Why did WE stand down the Russians over Cuba? Why did WE defend South Vietnam? Why did WE reform welfare? Why did WE enter Kosovo? Why did WE unanimously (in the Senate) vote in favor for the end of Saddam Husseins regime in 1998?
These are all character checks in the Democratic Presidential history, and we passed them, with flying colors. It is only recently that we have lost our direction, offering up few good ideas and piling onto insignificant, smearing charges that later prove to be, at worst, a tempest in a teapot.
ONLY RECENTLY. But now, we must clarify who we are. Are we still the party of Truman, of Kennedy, of Clinton? Do we still have a vision, not of who we don’t want to be (the GOP) but of who we really are?
Do we have a plan that comprehensively protects our most vulnerable (new, legal immigrants, the disabled, residents of crime-riddled areas.)? Do we have a plan for today that will truly reduce the fiscal threats we shrieked about not 5 years ago (social security, medicare, tax cuts without greater spending cuts)? Aside from the vocal, staunch anti-war bloc within our party, do we have a roadmap for foreign policy?
We’ve got to be the party, in the future, that stops bragging about our “listening tours” and what great listeners we are, and get down to the much more difficult business of…listening. And once we know where the party members stand on primaries, on policies, on visions, we can really hash it out.
Right now, it feels like there is a lot of uncleared air within the party. The ex-Deaniacs hate the “centrists,” the hawks hate the doves, internal religious differences are popping up, and there are real problems with the unions…but none of us have come out and really tried to come to a summit.