I'm sure from reading the title everyone knows who I'm talking about----Sen. Larry Craig. For those of you who haven't heard, the Idaho Senator was caught soliciting sex in a men's restroom in an airport in Minneapolis. At the time, he pleaded guilty to the charges. When the story broke, however, he quickly said that he wasn't guilty but that he would resign from the Senate. Then he said he would try to withdraw his guilty plea. A few days later, Craig announced that, even though he said he was going to resign, he decided not to. And ever since the GOP leadership has been trying to get him out of Congress. Here's my take:
I don't personally harbor resentment towards Craig for the act. Everyone makes mistakes. I do, however, have a problem when a man preaches about being "moral" and he consistently votes against gay rights and then goes and does what Craig did. Craig can say he didn't do it, but, from listening to the police tape, its obvious Craig was guilty. And for Craig to deny the obvious just further infuriates me. If there is any reason why Craig should resign, it is because of his hypocrisy and his clear failure to live up to what he promised his constituents----"good, moral, family values."
The problem I have with the GOP is that they don't want Craig to leave because of the crime or even because he is a hypocrite. They want him to leave because he is gay. Republicans can deny it all they want, but if it really is because of "moral reasons", then Sen. David Vitter should be pressured to resign as well. The GOP doesn't find it necessary to speak out against hiring prostitutes(as Vitter did), but they do for Craig? My problem is, not that I'm defending Craig, that he was treated completely unfairly solely because he's gay(or should I say we all know he's gay even thought he won't officially confirm it).
The Republicans feel Craig, a gay man, tarnishes their "family values" appearance. News to the GOP: you lost that warm, family appearance when you voted not to give children healthcare, and when you called for an 8 year old to be hung, or when you refused to raise the minimum wage for years. "Compassionate Conservative"-----give me a break.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Are We Heading Towards a National Primary?
This just in: The Republicans have again moved up the their Iowa Caucus date to January 3; expect the Democrats to do similar. This means New Hampshire too will move up, which sets in effect a chain reaction: basically, all the primaries move up. So with this news, the question must be asked, are we headed towards a national primary for future elections and what would be the pros and cons of one?
In my opinion, we are headed towards a national primary. For God sakes, we could theoretically have caucuses starting in December this year if we continue this trend of states moving their caucuses/primaries earlier and earlier. Every state wants to be as close to Iowa and New Hampshire as possible so that they can exercise their influence on the nomination process. What this in turns leads to is an absolutely chaotic schedule which gets more chaotic each and every week as states decide that they want to go earlier and earlier. Regardless of what you think should be done, I think we can all agree that something needs to be done. More and more attention is being paid to what state is going when instead of the real issues at hand.
One option, I suppose, would be to set, in law, a schedule for the primaries every election year. That way, there is no confusion of who goes first when the election comes around. Another option is the one I mentioned earlier: a national primary. Basically, as the name implies, all the states would vote in their respective primary/caucus on the same day. Consider it a "Super" Super Tuesday. There are advantages and disadvantages however to a national primary that would have to be taken into account.
The positives are clear----it would end this needless, petty, and foolish competition between states to see who can go the earliest. It is a waste of time to be so concerned with the primary calendar and it serves as more of a distraction for the candidates and the voters than anything else. Not one state could claim to have more of a hand in the decision making process than another. The disadvantage can be seen when we look back in history. The perfect example is 2004. If it was a national primary, Howard Dean would have clearly won. However, because Iowa and New Hampshire was able to go first, and hence influence the proceeding primaries, John Kerry was able to win the nomination. The same can be seen in this election. If it was a national primary, Hillary and Rudy would be the two nominees without a doubt. But, because of the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have a very good shot at "stealing" the nomination from the national front-runners.
I suppose the question this country will have to answer is, "Do the pros of a national primary outweigh the cons?". I'm not sure if there is a clear answer, but I am sure of one thing----people better start asking themselves that question now, because I can truly see this country shifting towards a national primary in the near future.
In my opinion, we are headed towards a national primary. For God sakes, we could theoretically have caucuses starting in December this year if we continue this trend of states moving their caucuses/primaries earlier and earlier. Every state wants to be as close to Iowa and New Hampshire as possible so that they can exercise their influence on the nomination process. What this in turns leads to is an absolutely chaotic schedule which gets more chaotic each and every week as states decide that they want to go earlier and earlier. Regardless of what you think should be done, I think we can all agree that something needs to be done. More and more attention is being paid to what state is going when instead of the real issues at hand.
One option, I suppose, would be to set, in law, a schedule for the primaries every election year. That way, there is no confusion of who goes first when the election comes around. Another option is the one I mentioned earlier: a national primary. Basically, as the name implies, all the states would vote in their respective primary/caucus on the same day. Consider it a "Super" Super Tuesday. There are advantages and disadvantages however to a national primary that would have to be taken into account.
The positives are clear----it would end this needless, petty, and foolish competition between states to see who can go the earliest. It is a waste of time to be so concerned with the primary calendar and it serves as more of a distraction for the candidates and the voters than anything else. Not one state could claim to have more of a hand in the decision making process than another. The disadvantage can be seen when we look back in history. The perfect example is 2004. If it was a national primary, Howard Dean would have clearly won. However, because Iowa and New Hampshire was able to go first, and hence influence the proceeding primaries, John Kerry was able to win the nomination. The same can be seen in this election. If it was a national primary, Hillary and Rudy would be the two nominees without a doubt. But, because of the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have a very good shot at "stealing" the nomination from the national front-runners.
I suppose the question this country will have to answer is, "Do the pros of a national primary outweigh the cons?". I'm not sure if there is a clear answer, but I am sure of one thing----people better start asking themselves that question now, because I can truly see this country shifting towards a national primary in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)