Rath always picks losing candidates and then boasts about his supposed influence in New Hampshire. Please stop fawning over these self-important, self-absorbed, egomaniacal party hacks - starting with Tom Rath - who like to fool people into thinking that they are still relevant. Rath's "influence" is an illusion created by a lazy news media that doesn't have the energy to talk to new sources instead of the same old foolish people.

Way up above, The Eyewitness Muse tries to compare Bush to Ptolemy. For the record, it was Ptolemy's geocentric system that made sense in terms of ordinary observation--as indeed it does still if you just want to watch the stars; it was Copernicus's heliocentricity that was weird and far-fetched.

And, of course, the Greeks did not believe in a flat earth (again, see Eyewitness blog). They knew it was round, as did the medievals (e.g. Dante) and the critics of Columbus.

Moral: if you're not sure of the facts, don't risk analogies.

Yes, the pesky Constitution.

I grouped them that way to give some regional contrast so that no one region seemed to get more attention. The case could be made that switching between the Midwest and Great Lakes or Western and West Coast gave the larger general regions of the country too much attention back to back.

Adding another month would push up against the Convention planning.

The fact that Lodge won as a write-in shows the power of the retail aspect of the NH primary. I was also going to make a comment about how NH is representative of the GOP but I'll hold off (or I guess I didn't really).

RMill's polling post on Republicans:

It is interesting that the Republicans at least now seem to be behind McCain while the Democrats seem to be largely undecided -

This tells me that the Dems are still searching for a messenger and message -

The Iowa caucus and NH primaries give relevance to the smaller states - although I tend to vote left - do we really want NY and California setting the direction of the primaries?

I think the best reform would be Super Tuesdays back to back over 5-6 weeks and then be done with it -

For the record I tend to not speak to the issue of unrelated postings by others because it is too easy to use such a tactic to try and silence discussion that some of us do not find relevant -

Sometimes unwanted speach is necessary in order to guarantee general seach

Bobby WC

I think the Rath interview was very interesting. And if Henry Cabot Lodge could win the state as a write-in candidate in 1964, it was more an example of voters giving Lodge credit for helping to win the state for Eisenhower in 1952, also as a write-in candidate. With the 2008 so wide open, I think a group of N Hampshire voters will be writing in the name of Condi Rice to win some delegates for her at the convention. That will follow a hopeful win for her in the Iowa Caucus, January 2008. New Hampshire gives people a chance to speak for who they think will represent them on issues, it was never to get a quota of votes from ethic groups or gender. Geez, only the Dems seem to complain about how N Hamp is not being representative of the entire nation.

RMill,

I like the concept of the regionalization schedule except I see a couple of probs. The first is the legality. The Fed Govt has 0 control over the primary process. That is a power left exclusively to the states.

Assuming you can get by that little constitutional issue, why do you tend to group teh east coast with teh west coast? Why not add another month and separate them?

Sorry everyone, I didn't know it would scroll out like that.

But that is the case now. A regional schedule would allow candidates to focus resources in regions instead of bouncing all over the country (which is expensive)and one state in close proximity could share resources with another.

2004 Primary Schedule
Jan. 14 District of Columbia²
(primary)
Jan. 19 Iowa³
(caucus)
Jan. 27 New Hampshire
(primary)
Feb. 3 (Mini Tuesday)
Arizona
(primary)
Delaware
(primary)
Missouri
(primary)
New Mexico
(caucus)
North Dakota
(caucus)
Oklahoma
(primary)
South Carolina
(primary)
Feb. 7 Michigan
(caucus)
Washington
(caucus)
Feb. 8 Maine
(caucus)
Feb. 10 Tennessee
(primary)
Virginia
(primary)
Feb. 14 District of Columbia²
(caucus)
Nevada
(caucus)
Feb. 17 Wisconsin
(primary)
Feb. 24 Hawaii
(caucus)
Idaho³
(caucus)
Utah
(primary)
Mar. 2 (Super Tuesday)
California
(primary)
Connecticut
(primary)
Georgia
(primary)
Maryland
(primary)
Massachusetts
(primary)
Minnesota
(caucus)
New York
(primary)
Ohio
(primary)
Rhode Island
(primary)
Vermont
(primary)
Mar. 9 American Samoa
(caucus)
Florida
(primary)
Louisiana
(primary)
Mississippi
(primary)
Texas
(primary)
Mar. 13 Kansas
(caucus)
Mar. 16 Illinois
(primary)
Mar. 20 Alaska
(caucus)
Wyoming
(caucus)
Mar. 27 Expatriates5
(caucus)
Apr. 13 Colorado
(caucus)
Apr. 17 North Carolina
(caucus)
Virgin Islands
(caucus)
Apr. 24 Guam
(caucus)
Apr. 27 Pennsylvania
(primary)
4-May Indiana
(primary)
11-May Nebraska
(primary)
West Virginia
(primary)
18-May Arkansas
(primary)
Kentucky
(primary)
Oregon
(primary)
Jun. 1 Alabama
(primary)
South Dakota
(primary)
Jun. 6 Puerto Rico
(caucus)
Jun. 8 Montana
(primary)
New Jersey
(primary)

As it was, Kerry was done on March 11, three months before the last primary.

The problems you describe would be completely exacerbated by holding a National Primary.

I should have added that there is no doubt that NH and Iowa revel in the attention. Iowa is a somewhat better predictor, as it turns out, than is NH in the eventual nominee.

2004 Kerry Bush
2000 Gore Bush
1996 Clinton Dole
1992 Harkin (Clinton) Bush Sr
1988 Gephardt (Dukakis) Dole (Bush Sr.)
1984 Mondale Reagan
1980 Carter Bush Sr. (Reagan)
1976 Carter Ford
1972 Muskie (McGovern) No Rep.

Your idea is interesting, RMill, but implementing it would require a different kind of campaigning and/or campaign financing than is now the case. Now, no one but, possibly the frontrunner could raise enough money to run in all those locations in a primary election.

This argument on primary relevance reminds me of the representation compromise discussed during the Constitutional Convention.

Is it better for large states to dominate? How do you give proper inclusion for smaller states?

What are the checks and balances?

To my mind, New Hampshire and Iowa, provide a kind of "check and balance" to the primary system. There are differing laws governing primaries in each state. What voters can participate in each, eligibility of candidates and so on.

When else or why else would we care about New Hampshire in national politics?

Reform is definately needed. Super Tuesday was one repsonse. I would allow NH and Iowa to remain as they are and then alternate regionals, like Super Tuesday, for the Midwest, Great Lakes, West Coast, Western states in groups during each cycle.

2008
MARCH Southern
APRIL- Great Lakes
MAY- Midwest
JUNE- Western, West Coast, New England/Mid Atlantic

2012
MARCH Western
APRIL West Coast
MAY New England/Mid Atlantic
JUNE- South, Great Lakes, Midwest

2016
MARCH Great Lakes
APRIL Midwest
MAY Southern
JUNE Western, West Coast, New England/Mid Atlantic

2020
MARCH West Coast
APRIL New England/Mid Atl
MAY Western
JUNE South, Great Lakes, Midwest

2024
MARCH Midwest
APRIL South
MAY Great Lakes
JUNE Western, West Coast, New England/Mid Atlantic

2028
MARCH New England/MidAtl
APRIL Western
MAY West Coast
JUNE South, Great Lakes, Midwest

That a previously obscure Congressman from the Colorado 6th is included in polling (Tancredo- although not polling very highly at this point)for the Republican nomination for President would lend some credence that immigration will play a part in the election.

Retail politics are all well and good, but can we also see this process for what it is--a desperate bid for attention from an oft-neglected state? New Hampshire's threat to move its primary earlier in order to always be first is insecure and a little embarrassing to any NH resident that isn't a Dartmouth student or professional politican. If California wanted to have a primary the day after the 2008 election, New Hampshire would probably spend election day voting in the 2012 primary.

Both Iowa and New Hampshire revel in "kingmaking", when both are primarily white, freezing cold states that are extremely unrepresentative of the country at large. The fact they have two senators each is already probably more than enough...

ARG New Hampshire Polling
Feb. 2-9, 2006
REPUBLICANS

McCain 41%
Romney 9%
Gingrich 8%
Patacki 5%
Frist 3%
Allen 1%
Tancredo less than .5%
Brownback,Hagel,Huckabee not included.

2000 (actuals)
Nov 5, 2000 (Franklin Pierce College Polling Institute)
McCain 30% (49%)
Bush 38%(30.2%)
Undecided 12%
Forbes 11%(12.6%)
Bauer 3%(0.7%)
Keyes 2%(6.4%)
Hatch 2% (dropped out)
Others 1% (1.1%)

More variation in comparing polls and actual results. McCain and Bush switch places, Forbes still third but Keyes beat Bauer.

Be honest relevance - you pulled a Sean Hannity - you did not like the comment so you attacked and moved it away from the issue -

Issues which could impact NH and how prospective candidates will campaign in NH.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com
------------------------------------
Hey Bobby, I think the first part of the 'relevance' post was appropriate. His then adding you to the attack was not. I

It was obvious you were coming on here and specifically relating to the topic in question.

However, the post by che, and similar such posts, are not fair. I am on the left myself and disagree with Mr. Cillizza on a wide range of issues. But for somebody to cut-and-paste a totally unrelated blog post is not fair. Especially one the size of a short story. It makes you scroll forever to get to the comments that are relevant to the blog. I feel the same when I see the 9/11 conspiracy theory posts (that always seem to have a vaguely anti-semitic slant).

There needs to be a better job done in overall blog management.

Thanks for the poll RMill - I guess the good news is, 31% are undecided

Bobby WC

ARG New Hampshire polling

2008
Feb. 2-9, 2006
Clinton 32%
Undecided 31%
Edwards 9%
Clark, Kerry 7%
Gore 5%
Biden, Feingold,Warner 2%
Bayh, Daschele, Richardson 1%

2004
Nov. 5, 2003 (actuals)
Dean 38% (26.4%)
Kerry 24% (38.4%)
Undecided 21%
Clark 4%(12.4%)
Edwards 4%(12.1%)
Leiberman 4% (8.6%)
Gephardt 3% (dropped out)
Kucinich 1% (1.4%)
Mosely-Braun 1% (less than 1%)

This poll was 18 months closer to the NH primary than our current polling information. Order was about the same except for Kerry and Dean.

In the 1992 NH Primary, I was outside a polling location in Nashua Ward 7.

Senator Bob Kerrey was shaking hands when a gentlemen walking his dog came to vote. They would not allow the dog inside the polling booth so Senator Kerrey held the leash while the guy went in to vote (for whom we never found out).

Illustrates the point that these candidates dothings they normally don't do to get elected Governor or Senator, but are compelled to do in NH running for president.

Relevance

How creative of your parents to give you such a name - I read the issue as the role NH plays in the primaries and the early stumping process -

According to polls out over the weekend immigration is a hot issue among Americans - how silly of me to think it might be an issue in NH.

In your post you did not add to the discussion - you simply attacked - how relevant is that?

If I understand your position - if someone makes a comment like "America is tired with all of the fighting and this will impact how the people in NH will vote," then it is highjacking the forum to reference an example of how Washington is playing us for fools.

Be honest relevance - you pulled a Sean Hannity - you did not like the comment so you attacked and moved it away from the issue -

Issues which could impact NH and how prospective candidates will campaign in NH.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Correct-
Howard Baker was a candidate in 1980 not 1984. He came in third behind Reagan and Bush.

http://www.politicallibrary.org/TallState/1980rep.html
http://www.politicallibrary.org/TallState/1984rep.html

No offense to Mr. Rath, but should he really be seen as such an expert on NH when he's backed so many losers? 2 of the 3 winners on his list were incumbent Presidents, and the third (Dole) lost the nomination. McCain's embarrassing and shameless pursuit of the President's increasingly useless coattails are increasingly looking like the reason HE'LL be the one who gets sucker-punched on NH primary night.

"Ridiculous that the fate of the free world can be decided by retail politics in a state so unrepresentative of the overall population."

While I understand that here is a certain inequity in placing so much emphasis in NH, there is really no other place where the retail aspect of politics can truly be accomplished. Small population and limited geography allows for candidates to get around and meet nearly everyone.

The trade-off is the humbling experience that a Presidential candidate must stop at a real persons home to meet their family and friends to try and get elected president.

NH is also not the end-all, beat-all deciding factor in who gets the nomination. Clinton did not win NH in 1992 (Tsongas), Bush did not win NH in 2000 (McCain).

Pat Buchanan won in 1996 (Bob Dole gets nomination). Gary Hart won in 1984 (Mondale won the nomination). Muskie won NH in 1972 (McGovern gets nomination). Henry Cabot Lodge won in 1964 (Goldwater gets nomination).

Having witnessed first hand, the process in New Hampshire, I believe the value it brings to the "democratic" process outweighs the less than representative population or impact on the eventual nominee.

For the LOVE OF GOD..can we screen out these irrelevant posts from internet whackos. Chris starts something and invites comment ON THE SUBJECT MATTER..and psychos from Lord knows were starts talking crap!! Yeah I'm talking to u "Che", "Greg Palast" or whoever you are..samething for some nutjob who keeps shouting about immigration (yeah you "Bob Cervantes")..or whatever your name is. Stick with the topic of discussion..if you want to talk about something else (and Immigration is about all you seem to care about)..then I suggest YOU GO SOMEWHERE ELSE OR GET YOUR OWN BLOG!!! STOP HOGGING ALL THE SPACE AND STOP POSTING UNRELATED CRAP!!!

NH in 2000 proved it can make or break a candidate - it nearly destroyed Bush by giving McCain a victory and then destroyed Gore by putting Bush over the top with those last three electorial votes - funny huh.

All of the polling shows American is tired of all the fighting at home and abroad -

If NH is America's center then I suspect old dogs like McCain are going no where with his wishy washy ways - or the wishy washy ways of Washington DC

Does he actually believe the people of NH want in bed with a man in bed with Pat Robertson?

Like I said America is tired - maybe the putch of Washington is coming - I am convinced most Americans know the immigration reform issue is merely an election year issue

The Republicans are desperate to hold on to a base which finds Americanism in deporing mothers who are forced to leave their babies behind with American Citizen fathers. This is not Americanism- and for the record it is not Christian -

The Immigration reform issue is merely a political game before a difficult election.

Americans are tired of this - he/she who understands this will win the hearts of NH

bobby wightman-cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

For the life of me I cannot fathom the strange discnnect on the part of the American people between the candidates they favor for the Presidency and the policies those candidates offer.

For example, both McCain an Juliani seem to be saying they would offer nothing more than a continuation of Bush policy--more tax cuts, more spending on Iraq and Bush Doctrine policies and a more or less status quo on domestic spending priorities--policies that are presently being rejected in poll after poll.

Yet, these two are the frontrunners? I don't get it.

The NH primary history may be a bit off here: I don't think Howard Baker ran in 1984 (that would make him a primary opponent of Ron Reagan, for whom he went to work as COS in the following term. It was in '80 that Baker really made a run for it.

If anyone other then McCain win's Iowa NH will follow like dominos.

"Rath praised the way McCain has handled himself since losing the nomination race in 2000 -- citing the senator's support for the president ("You couldn't have put a dime between him and the president on major issues")"

Only a loyal GOPer ("my party right or wrong") would view this as an advantage. My bet is that most Vermonters will think of this as a liability in '08.

I'm just asking, but after the Paula Jones experience, whether it's a good idea for candidates to invite folks to the hotel room?

But seriously, when was the last time New Hampshire was really in tune with the GOP. In my estimation, that state started the downswing of GHWB by giving a good showing to Pat Buchanan in '92. Then he won it in '96. In 2000, McCain whacked Bush.

Toss out 2004 as Bush was an incumbent.

Fun to watch and debate, but history shows its not all that. This time, Romney wins in a walk...you heard it here.

New on EWM, if you want to figure out the matter of Bush's credibility and everybody else's reality, look to the stars.

"Ptolemy Told Me" http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/diary.php?p=211

...As thinkers go, Dubya will never be confused with Copernicus. But when it comes to offering up a story that diverges entirely from that which can be observed and reasoned, Ptolemy has met his match...

www.gregpalast.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com

GANGSTER GOVERNMENT
A LEAKY PRESIDENT RUNS AFOUL OF 'LITTLE RICO'

Buzzflash
by Greg Palast
Sunday, April 9, 2006
E-Mail Article
Printer Friendly Version

It's a crime. No kidding. But the media has it all wrong. As usual.

'Scooter' Libby finally outed 'Mr. Big,' the perpetrator of the heinous disclosure of the name of secret agent Valerie Plame. It was the President of United States himself -- in conspiracy with his Vice-President. Now the pundits are arguing over whether our war-a-holic President had the legal right to leak this national security information. But, that's a fake debate meant to distract you.

Download the Podcast of this Blog

OK, let's accept the White House alibi that releasing Plame's identity was no crime. But if that's true, they've committed a bigger crime: Bush and Cheney knowingly withheld vital information from a grand jury investigation, a multimillion dollar inquiry the perps themselves authorized. That's akin to calling in a false fire alarm or calling the cops for a burglary that never happened -- but far, far worse. Let's not forget that in the hunt for the perpetrator of this non-crime, reporter Judith Miller went to jail.

Think about that. While Miller sat in a prison cell, Bush and Cheney were laughing their sick heads off, knowing the grand jury testimony, the special prosecutor's subpoenas and the FBI's terrorizing newsrooms were nothing but fake props in Bush's elaborate charade, Cheney's Big Con.

On February 10, 2004, our not-so-dumb-as-he-sounds President stated, "Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. ...And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it."

Notice Bush's cleverly crafted words. He says he can't name anyone who leaked this "classified" info -- knowing full well he'd de-classified it. Far from letting Bush off the hook, it worsens the crime. For years, I worked as a government investigator and, let me tell you, Bush and Cheney withholding material information from the grand jury is a felony. Several felonies, actually: abuse of legal process, fraud, racketeering and, that old standby, obstruction of justice.

If you or I had manipulated the legal system this way, we'd be breaking rocks on a chain gang. We wouldn't even get a trial -- most judges would consider this a "fraud upon the court" and send us to the slammer using the bench's power to administer instant punishment for contempt of the judicial system.

Why'd they do it? The White House junta did the deed for the most evil of motives: to hoodwink the public during the 2004 election campaign, to pretend that evil anti-Bush elements were undermining the Republic, when it was the Bush element itself at the center of the conspiracy. (Notably, elections trickery also motivated Richard Nixon's "plumbers" to break into the Watergate, then the Democratic Party campaign headquarters.)

Let me draft the indictment for you as I would have were I still a government gumshoe:

"Perpetrator Lewis Libby (alias, 'Scooter') contacted Miller while John Doe 1 contacted perpetrators' shill at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward, in furtherance of a scheme directed by George Bush (alias 'The POTUS') and Dick Cheney (alias, 'The Veep') to release intelligence information fraudulently proffered as 'classified,' and thereinafter, knowingly withheld material evidence from a grand jury empanelled to investigate said disclosure. Furthermore, perpetrator 'The POTUS' made material statements designed to deceive investigators and knowingly misrepresent his state of knowledge of the facts."

Statements aimed at misleading agrand jury investigation are hard-time offenses. It doesn't matter that Bush's too-clever little quip was made to the press and not under oath. I've cited press releases and comments in the New York Times in court as evidence of fraud. Bush, by not swearing to his disingenuous statement, gets off the perjury hook, but he committed a crime nonetheless, "deliberate concealment."

Here's how the law works (and hopefully, it will). The Bush gang's use of the telephone in this con game constituted wire fraud. Furthermore, while presidents may leak ("declassify") intelligence information, they may not obstruct justice; that is, send a grand jury on a wild goose chase. Under the 'RICO' statute (named after the Edward G. Robinson movie mobster, 'Little Rico'), the combination of these crimes makes the Bush executive branch a "racketeering enterprise."

So, book'm, Dan-o. Time to read The POTUS and The Veep their rights.

After setting their bail (following the impeachments and removals, of course), a judge will have a more intriguing matter to address. The RICO law requires the Feds to seize all "ill-gotten gains" of a racketeering enterprise, even before trial. Usually we're talking fast cars and diamond bling. But in this case, the conspirators' purloined booty includes a stolen election and a fraudulently obtained authorization for war. I see no reason why a judge could not impound the 82d Airborne as "fruits of the fraud " -- lock, stock and gun barrels -- and bring the boys home.

And if justice is to be done we will will also have to run yellow tape across the gates at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- "CRIME SCENE - DO NOT ENTER" -- and return the White House to its rightful owners, the American people, the victims of this gangster government.

**********

Former racketeering investigator Greg Palast is author of "ARMED MADHOUSE: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War," to be released in June. You can Pre-Order the book now. Subscribe to the new podcast of our columns.

Ridiculous that the fate of the free world can be decided by retail politics in a state so unrepresentative of the overall population.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com