What do you think about First in the Nation?

[CornField]

Richard (Ed) Machacek, Iowa's male DNC member, was at the Linn County Central Committee meeting last night. (And, for those of you in Linn County... yup, that's his brother.) He gave a brief report about what's going on with the Rules committee and requested that those who wished to express their feelings to him should send an email. (i.e., Should another state be inserted between Iowa and NH?)

I have that email address if anyone is interested in sending your thoughts to him. I don't want to post it publically, but will send it to you if you send me a PM.

[Broke Dad]

1. If the DNC moves another caucus ahead of New Hampshire . . .

They will leapfrog over Iowa.

Too bad Vilsack and Pedersen are screwing (or not standing up to the DNC for screwing) with New Hampshire. It looks like it is going to come back and bite Iowa.

[Debi]

4. At least our summers and winters will be free every four years

:eyes: No more silly candidates bugging us for our opinions or wanting to know what Iowa's issues are. :eyes:

[CornField]

2. Oops -- can't edit

Forget that 'Ed' in the middle... shouldn't be there. :blush:

[Debi]

3. PM me

I had it when I was on the 1st District CC, but I guess I'm not anymore (that's what I get for not going to meetings!)

I'd love to hear what he is saying about Iowa's First status and what he plans on doing to support the Iowa/New Hampshire partnership.

[Counciltucky]

5. Keep us first.

I mean, really, what other nationwide notoriety do we have?

And I like being able to meet politicians and network and such.

[jf24]

6. Who is Jerry Crawford?

He was on the primary commission and voted against NH.

[Iowa Truth]

7. Voting for Iowa

Correct me if I am wrong - but Crawford was supposed to be voting FOR Iowa - which he did. Am I missing something?

[Debi]

11. He's supposed to ensure that Iowa AND New Hampshire remain first

It is only because of the strong partnership that the two First in the Nation states have had over the last 20-some years that has kept the other 48 states (and the DNC) from messing with us.

When Crawford voted AGAINST New Hampshire he voted to weaken Iowa's position as well.

Incidentally, Crawford has contributed $50,000 to Vilsack's 527 Heartland PAC.

http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/Print.action?formId=18629&formType=E72

(I'm sure that has no impact on how Crawford feels about Vilsack's presidential chances :eyes:)

[newyawker99]

18. Hi Iowa Truth!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Debi]

12. See down-thread

Crawford is a close friend of the Governor, has a whole bunch of money and (I think) received his position on the DNC calendar commission to take care of Tom Vilsack (not particularly Iowa).

[The Revolution]

8. I say keep things as they are

And that includes not abandoning New Hampshire just to save ourselves.

If anyone tries to change the schedule, Iowa and New Hampshire should both move up (together).

[jf24]

10. Senator Harkin agrees

Tom Harkin said today that the DNC should leave the calendar with Iowa and NH alone, and that if the DNC messes with it, the two states should move up together. Do you think that will make your Lt. Governor change her position on the DNC rules committee?

[Debi]

13. Harkin could do it

I think he's stronger than Vilsack (and I'm VERY happy that he has jumped into this).

[IADEMO2004]

9. I say the caucus is a tradition, eternal, and permanent.

Like the National Hot Air Balloon Championships in Indianol......

[LincolnMcGrath]

14. Thanks Cornfield Mr. Machacek was at our 1st District meeting last w/e.

It was interesting to hear who was after Iowa the hardest, and Michigan was apparently a state coming after Iowa with both guns blazing.

[Debi]

15. That was until Michigan found out it won't be the state between IA & NH

I wrote a long post about this and then (trying to find a link to the NH Union Leader's articles about Michigan) I lost the whole thing.

So I'll be brief.

In 2004 Michigan switched it's primary to a caucus and did a very poor job of running it (AND it wasn't really a caucus anyway as people walked into a booth, marked their preference on a ballot in private and left - so it was still a primary, just run by the Party instead of the State - and again, poorly). But they did it so that they could move up in 2008.

Jennifer Grandholm was given the coveted position of Chair of the Rules and By-Laws committee of the 2004 National Convention - a thank you from John Kerry. She (and Carl Levin) proposed and got passed the creation of the Calendar Commission (all you Kerry lovers out there....he could have nipped this in the bud so thank HIM for the current fiasco).

As the commission was formed and votes were taken Michigan did all it could to move ahead of NH and possibly Iowa - trying to completely wipe out the two states status. After the initial vote of the calendar commission (which resulted in the rough idea of caucuses or primaries between IA and NH) Michigan requested that it go first or at least between Iowa and NH. (prompting NH to cry fowl as MI stated on a regular basis that the vote wasn't about Michigan but rather just trying to be fair to all the other states).

Sometime between April (when Michigan requested of the DNC to go first) and the recent vote of the DNC's Rules and By-Laws committee 10 other states also asked to go after Iowa or directly after New Hampshire (Michigan can't go directly after New Hampshire anymore since they no longer have a primary).

When Michigan found that they probably would not be chosen to got after Iowa (since AZ/NM/NV are REALLY being eyed by the DNC)they changed their vote. They are now against the IA - some other caucus - NH - some other primary. (New Hampshire being the only other state to vote against the recommendation of the Rule and By-Laws committee - we all know that Iowa would have voted with the recommendation had Sally not been too busy touring her own state to attend the meeting or to even pick up the damn phone and vote by conference call).

So Mr. Machacek was correct up until about two weeks ago. Now Michigan is just royally pissed off at everyone. (But probably still holds some serious animosity toward IA/NH). :P


(Wasn't this supposed to be short?) Sorry! x(

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. I heard somewhere that

Mr. Tully saved the day.

Had you heard that?

[Debi]

17. I'd rather not comment on that

Mr. Tully and my I have differing views on who 'saved the day' for Iowa (especially when Mr. Tully served as Chair of the IDP).

What is important is that Iowa stays first. Whoever wants to claim credit in the end is welcome to. I would hate to be the person in charge the day Iowa's status is dissolved.

:7

[jf24]

19. McAuliffe, not Kerry and Your Governor

The nominating commission was the brainchild of former DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe, not Kerry or your governor. Senator Levin threw a temper tantrum after the full DNC voted down his proposal to have Michigan go first in 2004, and threatened to violate the DNC rules by having Michigan jump both states. In order to forestall a crisis, McAuliffe cut a deal with Levin to have this commission.

[LincolnMcGrath]

20. Thanks for your input.

That must have been the incident that I had heard about regarding Levin.

[Debi]

22. Levin's been after Iowa since Iowa started having the First Caucus

He was part of the last battle in 2000 and before that in 1984.

[Debi]

21. All that fits except the fact that Mcauliffe was on his way out the door

after the 2004 elections. Why would he care about future calendars? There were editorials about the placing of Grandholm in the position of Chair of the Rules Committee when it happened (knowing that the purported nominee has a say in who gets what spots for the convention)noting Levin's vitriol for IA/NH.

I still see the placement as a 'thank you' to Grandholm. If Kerry had become President the calendar would not have changed and the Commission would have died a slow quite death. Since Kerry lost it's a calendar free-for-all put in place by the Kerry supporters who helped win him the nomination.


I have to edit this post to admit that I am wrong :blush: (and that is very hard to admit). While looking for the pieces about Granholm to post I came across these links:


http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/dailynews/TheNote_Feb28.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/states/mi.htm

Although I still think the Chair position was a gift - it certainly helped get the Commission formed. It was Mcauliffe that put the idea of a commission into place. :thumbsup:

I have been corrected!!

[jf24]

23. Thank you!

Not everyone is willing to admit an error.
Kerry didn't have anything to do with this commission; McAuliffe made the deal with Levin well before the 2004 Iowa caucus, before anyone knew that Kerry would be the nominee.

[Debi]

24. I know I'm beating a dead horse

And I want you to know that I'm not trying to be argumentative (It really does come out that way though doesn't it?!)

Kerry (as the nominee) had the opportunity to KILL the formation of the commission at the National Convention (They way it was killed by Gore in 2000 that had Levin tied up in knots). The question of the commission could have been pushed aside by Kerry with a promise to keep IA/NH first. By placing Granholm in the position of Chair of Rules and By-Laws it was guaranteed that the commission would be formed. (Kerry could have also allowed the creation of the commission with the promise that IA/NH be left where they were and the commission look only beyond the 'window').

If you are bothered that I'm whining about John Kerry, don't be. I'm more pissed off at Howard Dean who made personal assurances that the IA/NH partnership would be held sacred. Not only did he make this promise during the primary but also during the race for the Chair's position. He pulled back from his word - something Kerry never even gave. :shrug:

[thjudd]

25. The truth of the matter is:

The game of date-leapfrogging during the primaries is in the best interest of each state to be in the lead.

States like California and texas do not mind going later in the cycle, because due to their sheer volume of electors, they will get attention. However, smaller states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland - these states should be fighting and have been fighting since the conception of our modern Presidency. (Post FDR) The reason is this:

1) There is an economic stimulus that happens to each state during the presidential election cycle the further up on the chain they are.

2) Smaller states that do not get the attention they would like to have finally garner more attention the further up on the scale it goes.


I wouldn't worry too much about the idea of Iowa losing it's seat. It isn't going to happen. We have a unique form of primary, as you all know, and the traditionalists across the US will not want to see that change.

The odds of Iowa and New Hampshire losing their slots are slim to nil - everything else is in a constant flux and has been since FDR.

-Tim

[Debi]

26. Welcome to DU Tim!

:hi:

But, before you slam-dunk Iowa and New Hampshire's positions in the nominating calendar you should know that NH has already lost it's seat to a player to be named in the next 4-5 months. When that happens NH will jump Iowa. This is something that has not happened in the past (the closest is when NH has moved to a date directly after Iowa making Iowa jump). This is a new ball game. BTW I liked the rest of your analysis! :thumbsup: d.