Goodbye, primaries; and the Third Wife Question

From the insane grouping of 20 state primaries on “Super Duper” Tuesday, February 5, it was already clear that the presidential primary system as we’ve known it since the mid 20th century is dead. But it’s even more clear now, with the Michigan legislature’s vote to move that state’s primary to January 15, one day after the Iowa caucuses, and one week before the New Hampshire primary. The states are simply no longer willing to accept the first-in-line status long accorded Iowa and New Hampshire. They all want to be first. Which sets off a race to be first that no state can win and that will bunch more and more primaries earlier and earlier in the calendar, until we end up with Super Duper Tuesday in November. The massing of so many states so early in the process, even if it remains in early February, destroys the very purpose of a primary process, since the contest will be over almost as soon as it starts. When California used to come last, in June, that was not seen as irrelevant but as the climax. But liberalism cannot recognize the differentiation of organic structure such as exposition, development, and denouement; everything must be simply equal.

In any case, the refusal of states to accept sequential primaries means there’s no going back. As a result of the mess of the current presidential cycle, the 2012 presidential season will probably see a completely revamped delegate selection process, consisting of a series of regional super primaries, with the regions changing order every four years. How dreary. The old system, in which a challenger like Eugene McCarthy could come in a close second to the president of the United States in New Hampshire pushing the president to drop out of the race, or in which there would be a developing momentum and an extended contest, for example, Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy battling each other in a series of primaries from the Midwest to the West Coast, with McCarthy the underdog winning in Oregon, then Kennedy coming back a week later and winning California, or the similarly dramatic slug-fest between Ford and Reagan in 1976, all that’s over. Goodbye to a unique American tradition.

However, if I had my druthers, we would get rid of the popular primary system altogether (maybe leaving just a few primaries in place for a dash of direct democracy), and go back to a yet older American tradition—the smoke-filled room.

- end of initial entry -

M. Jose writes:

In response to Michigan’s decision, the Democratic and Republican parties ought to take their cues from the Democrats over Florida and strip Michigan of all of its delegates. This is the only way to bring these unruly states back into line. Better yet, give those delegates to the states with the latest primaries, so that they will have more say.

I think strict and sure punishment is the only solution.

Paul K. writes:

“However, if I had my druthers, we would get rid of the popular primary system altogether … and go back to a yet older American tradition-the smoke-filled room.”

I have the same instinct, only the GOP is so out of touch with its base we’d have ended up with McCain as the candidate.

As squishy as he may be, I think the best realistic hope is that Romney somehow pulls ahead. Much as I admire Tancredo, he’s getting no traction. I am convinced Romney would beat Hillary or Obama. Giuliani, I’m not so sure, and frankly I can’t see that it would make much difference.

David B. writes:

I have been thinking of the primaries recently. Suppose Romney, Thompson, and the others split the vote. Giuliani could win the nomination with only 25 to 30 percent of the vote in the bunched-together primaries. Giuliani is still holding up in the polls and has high name recognition. If none of the others catch on in major way, the country will be stuck with Giuliani as the alternative to Hillary Clinton.

LA replies:

It’s too grotesque, it can’t happen.

David B. writes:

Well, grotesque things have happened. This is the way George McGovern won the Democratic nomination in 1972. McGovern won a series of primaries against a crowded field, getting around 30% in the individual states. One on one, I think Romney (even Thompson) would beat Giuliani in the GOP primaries, but having many candidates helps Giuliani.

I also believe Tancredo would beat Giuliani one on one in an even contest.

LA replies:

I remember reading something along these lines a few months ago, that Giuliani’s ambition is to defeat conservative Republicans and lead the social-liberal takeover of the GOP. His electoral strategy fits with this larger ideological strategy: he divides the more conservative candidates and defeats them; and in doing so, he gains the power to drive conservatism out of the Republican party. Does anyone doubt that if he won the nomination and election he would proceed to attempt to do this? Does anyone imagine that Giuliani doesn’t resent the conservatives who have been taking him to task for his personal life, insulting his third Main Squeeze about whom he is so gaga? How can he NOT resent them deeply for their harsh judgment of him?

Just as homosexual activists can never relent in their aim to eliminate all traces of traditional morality, because as long as it exists, there will be someone in the universe judging them negatively, in the same way Giuliani can never relent in trying to eliminate traditional morality, because as long as it exists, he will be judged negatively. If he becomes president, both the need and the opportunity to eliminate it will be increased many-fold.

LA writes:

Speaking of the homosexual stance toward traditional morality, see this item about Ian McKellan, who says that when staying in hotel rooms he rips out the pages of the Bible that condemn homosexual acts. It’s not enough for homosexuals to have their homosexuality tolerated and accepted; they cannot rest until traditional morality is eliminated completely.

Anyone who sincerely believes that the demand for same-sex marriage will stop at “civil unions” is being foolish.

And again the same is true for sexual liberation as a whole. It will not stop until it has destroyed, marginalized, and criminalized traditional morality.

Larry G. writes:

“the smoke-filled room.”

That would certainly eliminate Bloomberg, wouldn’t it?

Paul K. writes:

You wrote, “Does anyone imagine that Giuliani doesn’t resent the conservatives who have been taking him to task for his personal life, insulting his third Main Squeeze about whom he is so gaga?”

Yes, and what’s more, he needs to destroy conservatism and start laying the groundwork for popular acceptance of Main Squeeze no. 4, and numbers 5, 6, and 7 whom he no doubt anticipates in the future. The man who makes a public show of professing his adoration for his woman is generally the type to drop her as soon as something better comes along. This is not just true of politicians—I learned this in high school.

LA replies:

Well this really comes out in Giuliani’s case and Newt Gingrich’s. In the 1990s when Gingrich was the effective leader of the House Repubicans and then House Speaker, so often when he was speaking to some group, he would say, “Marianne this,” and “Marianne that,” referring to his then (second) wife. Even at the time, I thought it was a bit excessive. Why was he telling us about his wife? And now, without any embarassment, he constantly mentions “Callista this,” and “Callista that,” referring to his present (third) wife with whom he began an adulterous relationship in 1999 leading to his divorce from his second wife the same year. When he makes his continual references to “Callista,” does he think that we’ve all forgotten the formerly constantly mentioned Marianne? Couldn’t he at least have the decency not to be mentioning his third wife to us all the time, thus implicitly requiring us to approve of his marital history? But people like Gingrich and Giuliani are without shame.

In former times, political leaders did not speak publicly about their families, or did so only rarely. That would have been considered an intrusion of the personal into the public. That’s the way it ought to be. But now politicians not only keep proudly telling us about their wives, they keep proudly telling us about their third wives, who caused their divorce from their second wives.

Jason F. writes:

Just so everyone can see a list of what makes Guliani the same as Hillary:

1. Pro abortion

2. Pro homosexual marriage

3. Pro gun control

4. Not strong on national security because he is an open borders person

5. Not strong on national security because he refuses to acknowledge who the enemy is, that being Islam and Islamism, and keeps referring to their tactics instead, that being the so called terrorist. As I have said before, one cannot have a war on a tactic no matter how evil it may be. Wars are fought against countries and people. Only Tancredo and Hunter realize this.

6. He is a Gaia worshipper, IE he believes in this hoax of so called Global Climate Change in that the United States is the cause.

7. Many do not realize as he cut some taxes in NYC he also raised fees, thus he is not a real economic conservative either.

8. His law firm is helping build the NAFTA super highway, which of course opened this week.

So he is different from Hillary how exactly, just say no to Rudy the RINO.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 31, 2007 07:02 PM | Send