EPA Administrator: Controversy Over CO2 regulation, Calif. waivers

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not necessarily need to regulate carbon dioxide to control global warming, according to the agency chief, offering his own interpretation of the April ruling by the Supreme Court that found CO2 to be a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/epa-administrator-controversy-over-co2.html

Scott Nance - it is both obnoxious and unprofessional to post irrelevant material on someone else's blog in order to drive traffic to your own. Mr. Nance, since you are apparently unable to follow the commonly accepted etiquette of blogging, or just lack the reading comprehension skills to realize how totally irrelevant your post is to the subject of the article you've responded to, perhaps you stop pretending to be a "professional" journalist and go get a real job!

And now, for something more to the point ...

Regional primaries and the like are akin to the old saw about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The real source of the problem is the existence of the obsolete Electoral College, in which stategists of both parties, but no one in their right mind, have a vested interest. State-by-state primaries would become an irrelevancy if we didn't have a state-by-state Presidential election.

(A related question: why should state taxpayers have to finance an election that only members of a specific club are eligible to vote in?)

Short-term, the best solution has already been proposed by a prominent pol - sorry I can't remember whom - who called upon the parties to refuse to seat anyone at the convention who was not elected as a delegate in an open primary less than 60 or 90 days before the convention. Either party implementing this would presumably shame the other into following suit: problem solved.

Judgito, I am not sure I understand how your proposal addresses the problem, as I see it.
I live in Pennsylvania, which means that I will not ever have an opportunity to have a meaningful voice in choosing the candidate to represent my party for President. The reason for that is the late date of the Pennsylvania primary essentially gaurantees that the candidates will be decided before then.
One would think that moving up my state's primary might solve this, but, alas, many other states are moving up their own primaries and that may very well negate any positive change to the citizens of my state.
I don't understand, judgito, how your proposal sloves the problem I've just described.
I am afraid that without some sort of Federal intervention the States will continue to move the primaries into earlier and earlier dates - and I don't see that as having a positive effect on the electoral proccess.

Patrick, the entire point is to prod ALL the states (including NH, SC, IA) into moving the primaries back to at least May, if not June or July. Any earlier primary would be meaningless as far as convention delegates are concerned, and states would not likely opt to hold TWO primaries just to retain bragging rights. A "losing" candidate in an earlier primary would still be tied for first in actual delegate votes - with zero - until at least late spring, giving voters a better chance to vet them all.

But your point about Federal intervention is well-taken. The problem, however, is that parties are essentially private organizations, and nothing's to keep them from conducting their candidate searches in any way they choose. As long as the vast majority of voters are geared to vote only for Democrats or Republicans, elections (including the ultimate winners) are in the hands of an unelected miniscule minority of party movers and shakers, most of whose names are virtually unknown. Thus, my wistful (parenthetical) comment about not financing what are essentially private elections; now, that might be a real start, but could only be brought about by governors and legislators in the states, who, with few exceptions, are Republicans and Democrats - and so the circle goes.

Ultimately, as Franklin reputedly said, it's a republic only if we (voters) "can keep it." (Note: I'm a Pennsylvanian, too, so I feel your pain.)

I agree with judgito that the Electoral College has to go, but I've long believed in a rotating regional primary system, too. 2008's frontloaded clusterf%#k should implode the current "ever-evolving system" leading to the kind of reform Senators Alexander and Lieberman are advocating. But who didn't think the Electoral College disaster of 2000 would lead to some reform? I guess that was part of that "pre-9/11 thinking."

judgito: State-by-state primaries would become an irrelevancy if we didn't have a state-by-state Presidential election.

This isn't obvious to me. Abolishing the Electoral College wouldn't create a national primary, unless the Constitutional amendment explicitly said so. There would still be nominating conventions, presumably made of up delegations from each state. So, I see the Electoral College and the primary schedule as separate problems.

An interesting alternative to the Lieberman plan is the American Plan being promoted by FairVote and others.