It seems that a lot of Republicans and talk show hosts are now angry about the latest scandal involving Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) who wants to withdraw a guilty plea he made following an arrest for allegedly soliciting sex from an undercover police officer in a bathroom stall at the Minneapolis airport.
Many (though not all) Republicans in Washington are calling on Craig to resign from the Senate (though behind it seems to be a barely voiced but frequently alluded to fear that they may lose a Senate seat, even in Idaho, if Craig remains and runs for re-election next year) but then they always ask why the media (I guess meaning the corporate media) go 'softer' on Democrats accused of sex scandals.
I'd like to respond that that on several levels.
First, it hasn't been true. Start with the most obvious Democrat accused in sex scandals: Bill Clinton. The press reported until most people were nauseated on Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. During 1998, the Lewinsky scandal made headlines pretty much from January through the conclusion of the impeachment trial the following January. The problem for the GOP is that they took what could have been a minor 'gotcha' story and turned it into a story which in the end benefitted Clinton and Democrats by carrying it way too far and trying to impeach the President. And yeah, I know-- there are stories about Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick and probably some more, but I suspect the reason the media hasn't reported much about those is because most people have gotten the idea by now that Bill Clinton is a wandering husband with a zipper problem, and yet another story about it, especially after the impeachment trial would be like watching re-runs of a syndicated black and white TV show for the ninth time. (Yawwwwn.)
Beyond Clinton, it hasn't been true that the press brushes over Democratic sex scandals. Ask Gary Hart and Gary Condit about that. It's just recently, the guys involved in sex scandals have mostly been Republicans. The talk show hosts like to cite former Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA), who in 1983 was censured for having sex with a male page. OK, fair enough. But did you know that on the very same day (July 20, 1983) that the house censured Studds, they also censured a Republican congressman for exactly the same thing (except that, as Indy Voter points out in the comments, the page was female)? Do you know his name? Probably not, if you listen to right wing talk radio. It was Daniel Crane, Republican of Illinois. But somehow the fact that this 1983 scandal is no longer making headlines (at least in terms of Studds, who incidentally left Congress a decade ago and died last year) is supposed to show media bias in terms of the current story involving Sen. Craig.
They also like to compare Studds to former congressman Mark Foley, who resigned last year after having sent sexually suggestive emails to male pages. But the fact is, Foley resigned the same day the story broke so we don't even know what if any action Dennis Hastert's Congress would have taken.
They also like to cite current Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Barney Frank, who was reprimanded by the house for his relationship with an adult male prostitute. This was in fact reported on in 1990. So I'm not sure what their beef is. They like to point out that the prostitute, Steve Gobie, ran a gay escort ring for awhile out of Frank's apartment. But Frank himself reported that to the House Ethics Committee when he found out about it and the Ethics Committee concluded that Frank had no knowledge of it until he reported it. And, if they think that having a gay escort service running out of Franks' apartment was such a serious crime that didn't get enough press, all I have to say to that are two words: JEFF GANNON.
But beyond all of this, there is the issue of hypocrisy. Neither Bill Clinton nor Gerry Studds nor Barney Frank ever tried to lecture anyone else about how they should run their sex lives. But the whole 'family values' platform is practically mandatory for a Republican running for office anymore. So they spout it. And when one of them is caught, well it is more interesting to see what happens to people who live in glass houses when they throw stones. There are many sinners in the world, and when a sinner is caught sinning it is less of a story than when the modern-day Pharisee, who claims to be the defender and upholder of high moral values, is caught sinning. That is human nature-- to want to hold the hypocrite up to the highest level of public ridicule and scorn.
Today right wing jock Sean Hannity tried to address the hypocrisy issue by saying, that 'Democrats SHOULD preach family values.' Hmmmm. Personally, I think I have 'family values,' but the problem is his emphasis on 'preach.' I'm perfectly willing to share my faith and my lifestyle with anyone who is interested, and I've always been up front about them, but I don't 'preach' to people about how they should live, judge them for their lifestyles (it was ironic that Craig's bizarre news conference seemed to be more focused on denying that he was gay than on denying that he was soliciting sex,) or frankly care what their sex life is. But apparently Hannity thinks (apparently because the hypocrisy angle almost exclusively cuts against Republicans) that therefore Democrats should become more like Republicans. Hint: If we thought that we had to 'preach' (and more to the point, legislate) moral values, well then we'd be Republicans.
To be honest, I don't care one iota whether Larry Craig is gay or not. His family, especially his wife, might care but the Craig family sex life isn't my business. Playing footsie under the stall partition in a bathroom is a bit weird, but weirdness isn't a crime. Soliciting sex is a crime, and pleading guilty to a crime without even consulting a lawyer shows a profound lack of judgement that the voters of Idaho might want to consider. Ultimately though, that is up to the voters in Idaho, and I don't live in Idaho.
But yeah, he might want to resign. Because I don't think he will find much support from other Republicans, especially those (like current and former Congressmen Dan Burton and Newt Gingrich who criticized Clinton's affair even while having affairs of their own) who may be trying to overcompensate for their own little secrets by beating the morality drums louder than ever.
Showing posts with label scandals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scandals. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Renzi paid back taxes on old scandal
Today, it looks like Rick Renzi may be in trouble with the IRS. He paid back taxes last year for money that he received while violating election laws in 2002 (which he was subsequently sanctioned by the FEC for.) Gosh, since Al Capone got sent up for it, I though that crooks always paid their taxes.
Even when he is being crooked, he can't do it right:
According to the Hill
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) took out a $500,000 second mortgage on his Flagstaff home in January after paying more than $300,000 in tax arrears discovered by a Federal Election Commission (FEC) investigation.
The mortgage loan, revealed by Renzi in a document filed with Coconino County, Ariz., is worth the highest possible listed value of his house, and suggests the embattled lawmaker may have faced a substantial cash squeeze at the end of the last Congress.
It may also cast light on $200,000 that came to Renzi two years ago from a business partner. The money exchange has raised eyebrows and suggestions of impropriety.
Around the time Renzi accepted the payment, the FEC launched an investigation of his campaign finances, forcing the lawmaker and his wife to pay an extra $324,000 in federal and state taxes.
Let's see here-- he took a $200,000 bribe, and had to pay $324,000 in back taxes, penalies and interest. Plus $25,000 fine to the FEC to settle the ethics complaint on that old scandal.
In Rick Renzi's case, 'crime doesn't pay' may turn out to be true. Literally.
It also helps explain why he tried to shake down a mining company for money, which began the current round of scandals. He trie to shake them down because he needed the money. And just think-- until two weeks ago, Rick Renzi was on the Intelligence Committee, where he had access to all sorts of information that a lot of evil people would be willing to pay a great deal for.
Even when he is being crooked, he can't do it right:
According to the Hill
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) took out a $500,000 second mortgage on his Flagstaff home in January after paying more than $300,000 in tax arrears discovered by a Federal Election Commission (FEC) investigation.
The mortgage loan, revealed by Renzi in a document filed with Coconino County, Ariz., is worth the highest possible listed value of his house, and suggests the embattled lawmaker may have faced a substantial cash squeeze at the end of the last Congress.
It may also cast light on $200,000 that came to Renzi two years ago from a business partner. The money exchange has raised eyebrows and suggestions of impropriety.
Around the time Renzi accepted the payment, the FEC launched an investigation of his campaign finances, forcing the lawmaker and his wife to pay an extra $324,000 in federal and state taxes.
Let's see here-- he took a $200,000 bribe, and had to pay $324,000 in back taxes, penalies and interest. Plus $25,000 fine to the FEC to settle the ethics complaint on that old scandal.
In Rick Renzi's case, 'crime doesn't pay' may turn out to be true. Literally.
It also helps explain why he tried to shake down a mining company for money, which began the current round of scandals. He trie to shake them down because he needed the money. And just think-- until two weeks ago, Rick Renzi was on the Intelligence Committee, where he had access to all sorts of information that a lot of evil people would be willing to pay a great deal for.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Is Rick Renzi planning to resign?
Hat tip to The politico via Arizona Congress Watch
A week after FBI agents raided his family's business, Republican Rep. Rick Renzi of Arizona has asked to be dropped from his party's top campaign program to protect vulnerable incumbents, a clear sign that he is considering a resignation from Congress.
Renzi asked to be dropped from the Regain Our Majority Program, which raises money for the GOP's most vulnerable incumbents, an aide to Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) confirmed Tuesday.
The congressman's office did not immediately return a phone call for comment.
Last week, FBI agents raided the Arizona offices of a Renzi family business as part of a federal investigation into whether the congressman was paid for helping to arrange a land swap that would allow the two largest mining companies in the world to access to a major copper lode in Arizona, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.
Renzi swiftly resigned his seat on the House intelligence panel on Thursday night after telling Boehner that his family's business had been raided.
Renzi's decision, however voluntary, is a clear sign that members have heeded Boehner's call for Republicans to step aside if they are in the crosshairs of a federal investigation following two years of non-stop scandal in the 109th Congress that contributed to the GOP's demise.
Rick Renzi needs to go. Even during the DeLay era, he was consistently named as one of the most corrupt members of Congress. Though he has managed to win election three times because he has proven himself to be a master of negative advertising, Renzi has apparently used his tenure in Congress to enrich himself, his family and his associates from the Federal till. Even Republicans here acknowlege that he is dishonest and corrupt, but he's managed to still win only by smearing his opponents.
Last year Republicans took, as President Bush said, 'a thumping' at the polls, and election day polls showed that voters were punishing them for two main reasons-- 1. Iraq, and 2. GOP Congressional scandals.
Well, they seem to want a repeat of that in 2008, since the House Republicans for the most part are still backing the President on Iraq, and with accidents like Rick Renzi (and California Congressman John Doolittle) waiting to happen it looks like 2008 may turn into another scandal-plagued year for the GOP.
The best thing that Rick Renzi could do for his party, his constituents and the institution of Congress would be to resign, effective immediately.
UPDATE: Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion says he has information that Renzi may resign by Friday.
Also, in addition to Renzi, we see (credit to HB over at CH Truth) that the Carpet Bagger Report has provided us with a nice summary:
* FBI agents raided Rep. John Doolittle’s (R-Calif.) home, forcing him to step down from his seat on the House Appropriations Committee.
* FBI officials have been leaning on Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) for additional information about his connections with Jack Abramoff.
* Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is facing a Senate Ethics Committee inquiry, stemming from his efforts to push a federal prosecutor to bring a baseless charge against Democratic state officials in his home state.
* The FBI is investigating Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) for a series of land deals.
* A former aide to Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) has pleaded guilty to accepting illegal gifts from Abramoff.
* The Justice Department investigation into former Rep. (and current Nevada governor) Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.) has intensified.
A week after FBI agents raided his family's business, Republican Rep. Rick Renzi of Arizona has asked to be dropped from his party's top campaign program to protect vulnerable incumbents, a clear sign that he is considering a resignation from Congress.
Renzi asked to be dropped from the Regain Our Majority Program, which raises money for the GOP's most vulnerable incumbents, an aide to Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) confirmed Tuesday.
The congressman's office did not immediately return a phone call for comment.
Last week, FBI agents raided the Arizona offices of a Renzi family business as part of a federal investigation into whether the congressman was paid for helping to arrange a land swap that would allow the two largest mining companies in the world to access to a major copper lode in Arizona, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.
Renzi swiftly resigned his seat on the House intelligence panel on Thursday night after telling Boehner that his family's business had been raided.
Renzi's decision, however voluntary, is a clear sign that members have heeded Boehner's call for Republicans to step aside if they are in the crosshairs of a federal investigation following two years of non-stop scandal in the 109th Congress that contributed to the GOP's demise.
Rick Renzi needs to go. Even during the DeLay era, he was consistently named as one of the most corrupt members of Congress. Though he has managed to win election three times because he has proven himself to be a master of negative advertising, Renzi has apparently used his tenure in Congress to enrich himself, his family and his associates from the Federal till. Even Republicans here acknowlege that he is dishonest and corrupt, but he's managed to still win only by smearing his opponents.
Last year Republicans took, as President Bush said, 'a thumping' at the polls, and election day polls showed that voters were punishing them for two main reasons-- 1. Iraq, and 2. GOP Congressional scandals.
Well, they seem to want a repeat of that in 2008, since the House Republicans for the most part are still backing the President on Iraq, and with accidents like Rick Renzi (and California Congressman John Doolittle) waiting to happen it looks like 2008 may turn into another scandal-plagued year for the GOP.
The best thing that Rick Renzi could do for his party, his constituents and the institution of Congress would be to resign, effective immediately.
UPDATE: Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion says he has information that Renzi may resign by Friday.
Also, in addition to Renzi, we see (credit to HB over at CH Truth) that the Carpet Bagger Report has provided us with a nice summary:
* FBI agents raided Rep. John Doolittle’s (R-Calif.) home, forcing him to step down from his seat on the House Appropriations Committee.
* FBI officials have been leaning on Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) for additional information about his connections with Jack Abramoff.
* Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is facing a Senate Ethics Committee inquiry, stemming from his efforts to push a federal prosecutor to bring a baseless charge against Democratic state officials in his home state.
* The FBI is investigating Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) for a series of land deals.
* A former aide to Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) has pleaded guilty to accepting illegal gifts from Abramoff.
* The Justice Department investigation into former Rep. (and current Nevada governor) Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.) has intensified.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Super-Duper Tuesday frought with peril
It's official. New York has moved its primary up to February 5 (the unofficial 'start date' of the open primary season, after Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina have held their caucuses and/or primaries.)
What this does is bring us closer to a 'national primary.' New York may be one of up to twenty-four states voting on that day, including the four largest (California, Texas, New York and Florida.) This means that more than half of the voters in the country will likely be voting on February 5. The day even already has a nickname. the old fashioned 'Super Tuesday' (when a half dozen or more states might vote together) wasn't good enough for this one, so it is being tagged, 'Super-Duper Tuesday') No apologies made to former Miami Dolphin's receiver Mark 'Super' Duper either.
A national primary day is not necessarily a bad idea, in that it gives voters from all different parts of the country an opportunity to be heard. On the other hand, that didn't work very well in 2004, in which Iowa and New Hampshire in essence picked John Kerry for the rest of us and with most states voting by March 2, no one else had much of a chance to stop his momentum (we can see how well that worked.) Of course it meant that he had from March to November to run against George Bush, but then that worked both ways-- while Kerry was skiiing in Idaho after wrapping up the nomination in March, the GOP was spending millions of dollars 'defining' him, as well as organizing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (which they officially rolled out just after the Democratic convention) so that by election day in November, 46% of the voters in the country absolutely refused to vote for John Kerry-- a very thin margin to work with, and one which he failed to overcome.
Traditionally, Iowa and New Hampshire have begun the process and picked candidates like a Jimmy Carter or a Ronald Reagan or a Gary Hart or a Paul Tsongas-- candidates that people may be surprised by, but who then undergo a thorough vetting by both the media and by the voters in the larger states, over a period of weeks or months so that if they are found wanting then there is time for a better candidate to emerge. This system worked well for many years (though the argument that New Hampshire and Iowa are two of the three 'purple states' in the middle-- states which switched parties between the 2000 and 2004 general elections is bogus; Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans are often very conservative and Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats are often very liberal-- if the states are 'purple' it is only because the conservatives and liberals exist in approximately equal numbers.)
A true national primary would be having everyone vote on the same day.
But what we have now is a situation that seems the worst of both worlds. Iowa and New Hampshire can get the momentum rolling for a candidate and it snowballs so fast with the front loaded primaries that it is over before anyone can really examine the candidate. That certainly happened in 2004.
So now we see that this kind of mistake could be repeated, but even worse, with the nominee selected a month earlier-- and nearly seven months before the convention and nine before the election. The real failure is one of leadership, on both sides. There are many reasons states move their primaries up. It may be that they are just sick of not having a voice. It may be that with the increasing exposure and ad dollars that Presidential campaigns bring in these days they want the shot for their economy. It could be that they want to help local favorites (certainly one motivation for the early New York primary is to help local favorites Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Rudy Giuliani for the Republicans.) Or this year especially, it might be just part of the 'stampede mentality'-- everyone else is doing it, so why not us?
I'd like to suggest a couple of possible scenarios that could bring the problems here into perspective. I would rate each at about a 5-10% probability (meaning that they probably won't happen, but certainly they are possible, and if this happens every four years then sooner or later one of them will).
Scenario #1: First, take it on the Democratic side: Obama wins Iowa, Clinton recovers and wins New Hampshire and Edwards takes South Carolina. In Nevada the frontrunners all disappoint while Richardson (who has now clearly moved to the front of the 'second tier'-- exactly where John Edwards was last time around) does surprisingly well. On 'Super-Duper Tuesday,' Feb. 5, the mixed verdict produces no clear winner at the polls== but all the candidates do well enough to make it clear that no one will have a majority heading into a brokered convention. The months between that day and the convention is filled with the candidates wasting time and money attacking each other in an increasingly acerbic battle to pick up the few remaining delegates and go into the convention in as strong a position as possible-- and no one still enters with a sure nomination. This could drag on for months, and end with a nasty convention fight. The one saving grace for the Democrats is that if there is a brokered convention and none of the candidates can gin up a majority, there is a consensus candidate they could draft from the floor who is respected across pretty much all sectors of the party-- namely Al Gore-- who could probably be nominated and run a strong campaign in the fall.
Same scenario GOP side: Suppose that Giuliani puts together a win in Iowa, but former Massachusetts neighbor Mitt Romney wins New Hampshire. Veteran John McCain (who this time around has the support of Pat Robertson) wins in veteran-heavy South Carolina, but Georgia neighbor Newt Gingrich does very well there. Super-Duper Tuesday again produces a mixed verdict, with everyone doing well enough to effectively deny the nomination to anyone else. The Republicans fare worse in such a scenario since if they don't have a nominee in place by the convention they don't have an Al Gore as a backup-- a single unifying candidate that likely they could get a majority of the delegates to agree on if none of the announced candidates can garner a majority.
Of course in any case such a scenario would really harm either party if it happened to them but the other party had a nominee by February. That nominee could then collect lots of cash to use in the general, unify his (or her) party and let the other side squabble amongst themselves, all at the relatively cheap price of absorbing an occasional potshot from the other side when they aren't too busy wasting their resources on each other.
Scenario #2: A party nominates a candidate over a couple of weeks from late January to February 5. The candidate has maybe been cruising in the shadow of the frontrunners (as was the case with John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004) who self-destruct in a negative ad war (exactly what happened in Iowa to Howard Dean, who had been the front runner, and Dick Gephardt who was just behind Dean in Iowa). The relatively unknown candidate wins Iowa, rides the momentum (and the negative momentum of the former front runners) to a win in New Hampshire and sweeps Super-Duper Tuesday. That candidate has the nomination all sewed up by early February. Then it happens. The media, which had been focusing on the front runners, maybe with an assist from the hawks on the other side of the political spectrum, finds a scandal. Not just any scandal. A 'the candidate is a child molester,' or a 'the candidate authorized the terrorizing of a person who knew something embarrassing about the candidate to keep them quiet,' or a 'the candidate while in the Senate leaked classified information to Iranian agents' level of scandal. While I am in no way suggesting that I have any reason to believe any of these charges about any candidates currently running in either party, I am suggesting it as a hypothetical-- the type of scandal that makes the candidate a pariah. Or, perhaps no scandal at all but comments that reveal the candidate to be unstable, bigoted or otherwise unsuited to be President. Unelectable, and with the BEST scenario possible being a brokered convention, if party leaders can convince the candidate to quit and release his or her delegates. The worst part about this is that it would drag on for nine months (especially if the candidate refuses to step aside), and not only cost the party the Presidency but likely seriously damage members of the candidate's party all up and down the ballot as they couldn't flee the top of their ticket fast enough.
This scenario could be avoided if the media and others began digging when a candidate jumped up and won a primary, but now we've arranged it so that they won't have time to do their job until the die has been cast.
We are playing with fire here. If one of these things does not happen next year, then it will in 2012, 2016 or some other election year. But sooner or later one party will get burned by such a scenario.
One other beef I have with this primary schedule. Bad enough to have it essentially over in a day, but if so then why a day in February? The Iowa and New Hampshire verdicts in January made sense when the Presidential primary season went on until June, but if we insist on compacting this so much, then why not at least move it closer to the conventions? February until September is much too long a time. I'd recommend that if there is to be a national primary, that it be no earlier than June.
What this does is bring us closer to a 'national primary.' New York may be one of up to twenty-four states voting on that day, including the four largest (California, Texas, New York and Florida.) This means that more than half of the voters in the country will likely be voting on February 5. The day even already has a nickname. the old fashioned 'Super Tuesday' (when a half dozen or more states might vote together) wasn't good enough for this one, so it is being tagged, 'Super-Duper Tuesday') No apologies made to former Miami Dolphin's receiver Mark 'Super' Duper either.
A national primary day is not necessarily a bad idea, in that it gives voters from all different parts of the country an opportunity to be heard. On the other hand, that didn't work very well in 2004, in which Iowa and New Hampshire in essence picked John Kerry for the rest of us and with most states voting by March 2, no one else had much of a chance to stop his momentum (we can see how well that worked.) Of course it meant that he had from March to November to run against George Bush, but then that worked both ways-- while Kerry was skiiing in Idaho after wrapping up the nomination in March, the GOP was spending millions of dollars 'defining' him, as well as organizing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (which they officially rolled out just after the Democratic convention) so that by election day in November, 46% of the voters in the country absolutely refused to vote for John Kerry-- a very thin margin to work with, and one which he failed to overcome.
Traditionally, Iowa and New Hampshire have begun the process and picked candidates like a Jimmy Carter or a Ronald Reagan or a Gary Hart or a Paul Tsongas-- candidates that people may be surprised by, but who then undergo a thorough vetting by both the media and by the voters in the larger states, over a period of weeks or months so that if they are found wanting then there is time for a better candidate to emerge. This system worked well for many years (though the argument that New Hampshire and Iowa are two of the three 'purple states' in the middle-- states which switched parties between the 2000 and 2004 general elections is bogus; Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans are often very conservative and Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats are often very liberal-- if the states are 'purple' it is only because the conservatives and liberals exist in approximately equal numbers.)
A true national primary would be having everyone vote on the same day.
But what we have now is a situation that seems the worst of both worlds. Iowa and New Hampshire can get the momentum rolling for a candidate and it snowballs so fast with the front loaded primaries that it is over before anyone can really examine the candidate. That certainly happened in 2004.
So now we see that this kind of mistake could be repeated, but even worse, with the nominee selected a month earlier-- and nearly seven months before the convention and nine before the election. The real failure is one of leadership, on both sides. There are many reasons states move their primaries up. It may be that they are just sick of not having a voice. It may be that with the increasing exposure and ad dollars that Presidential campaigns bring in these days they want the shot for their economy. It could be that they want to help local favorites (certainly one motivation for the early New York primary is to help local favorites Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Rudy Giuliani for the Republicans.) Or this year especially, it might be just part of the 'stampede mentality'-- everyone else is doing it, so why not us?
I'd like to suggest a couple of possible scenarios that could bring the problems here into perspective. I would rate each at about a 5-10% probability (meaning that they probably won't happen, but certainly they are possible, and if this happens every four years then sooner or later one of them will).
Scenario #1: First, take it on the Democratic side: Obama wins Iowa, Clinton recovers and wins New Hampshire and Edwards takes South Carolina. In Nevada the frontrunners all disappoint while Richardson (who has now clearly moved to the front of the 'second tier'-- exactly where John Edwards was last time around) does surprisingly well. On 'Super-Duper Tuesday,' Feb. 5, the mixed verdict produces no clear winner at the polls== but all the candidates do well enough to make it clear that no one will have a majority heading into a brokered convention. The months between that day and the convention is filled with the candidates wasting time and money attacking each other in an increasingly acerbic battle to pick up the few remaining delegates and go into the convention in as strong a position as possible-- and no one still enters with a sure nomination. This could drag on for months, and end with a nasty convention fight. The one saving grace for the Democrats is that if there is a brokered convention and none of the candidates can gin up a majority, there is a consensus candidate they could draft from the floor who is respected across pretty much all sectors of the party-- namely Al Gore-- who could probably be nominated and run a strong campaign in the fall.
Same scenario GOP side: Suppose that Giuliani puts together a win in Iowa, but former Massachusetts neighbor Mitt Romney wins New Hampshire. Veteran John McCain (who this time around has the support of Pat Robertson) wins in veteran-heavy South Carolina, but Georgia neighbor Newt Gingrich does very well there. Super-Duper Tuesday again produces a mixed verdict, with everyone doing well enough to effectively deny the nomination to anyone else. The Republicans fare worse in such a scenario since if they don't have a nominee in place by the convention they don't have an Al Gore as a backup-- a single unifying candidate that likely they could get a majority of the delegates to agree on if none of the announced candidates can garner a majority.
Of course in any case such a scenario would really harm either party if it happened to them but the other party had a nominee by February. That nominee could then collect lots of cash to use in the general, unify his (or her) party and let the other side squabble amongst themselves, all at the relatively cheap price of absorbing an occasional potshot from the other side when they aren't too busy wasting their resources on each other.
Scenario #2: A party nominates a candidate over a couple of weeks from late January to February 5. The candidate has maybe been cruising in the shadow of the frontrunners (as was the case with John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004) who self-destruct in a negative ad war (exactly what happened in Iowa to Howard Dean, who had been the front runner, and Dick Gephardt who was just behind Dean in Iowa). The relatively unknown candidate wins Iowa, rides the momentum (and the negative momentum of the former front runners) to a win in New Hampshire and sweeps Super-Duper Tuesday. That candidate has the nomination all sewed up by early February. Then it happens. The media, which had been focusing on the front runners, maybe with an assist from the hawks on the other side of the political spectrum, finds a scandal. Not just any scandal. A 'the candidate is a child molester,' or a 'the candidate authorized the terrorizing of a person who knew something embarrassing about the candidate to keep them quiet,' or a 'the candidate while in the Senate leaked classified information to Iranian agents' level of scandal. While I am in no way suggesting that I have any reason to believe any of these charges about any candidates currently running in either party, I am suggesting it as a hypothetical-- the type of scandal that makes the candidate a pariah. Or, perhaps no scandal at all but comments that reveal the candidate to be unstable, bigoted or otherwise unsuited to be President. Unelectable, and with the BEST scenario possible being a brokered convention, if party leaders can convince the candidate to quit and release his or her delegates. The worst part about this is that it would drag on for nine months (especially if the candidate refuses to step aside), and not only cost the party the Presidency but likely seriously damage members of the candidate's party all up and down the ballot as they couldn't flee the top of their ticket fast enough.
This scenario could be avoided if the media and others began digging when a candidate jumped up and won a primary, but now we've arranged it so that they won't have time to do their job until the die has been cast.
We are playing with fire here. If one of these things does not happen next year, then it will in 2012, 2016 or some other election year. But sooner or later one party will get burned by such a scenario.
One other beef I have with this primary schedule. Bad enough to have it essentially over in a day, but if so then why a day in February? The Iowa and New Hampshire verdicts in January made sense when the Presidential primary season went on until June, but if we insist on compacting this so much, then why not at least move it closer to the conventions? February until September is much too long a time. I'd recommend that if there is to be a national primary, that it be no earlier than June.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
