August 12, 2007

First! First! First!

As the year of eternal campaigning rolls ever onward, we were greeted this week with the shining, happy news that the first primary may come in December of 2007.

Seriously, I heard a promise of this yesterday on NPR in a preliminary story, and even today it isn't in the least the last word in this stupid, ignorant, desparate attempt by a number of states to push earlier and earlier toward dropping ballots in the month of December rather than waiting until at least late January.

This is absolutely nuts...freakin' crazy...stupid, dumb, and asinine.

Somebody has to be first. You can't all possibly be first, you morons.

And in a related issue, I am already tired of the aparently eternal campaigning for the primaries. The official announcements appeared this year nearly a year before the first primary (whenever the heck that turns out to be), and I'm bored.

On a related note, I've heard that the Evendale Fraternal Order of Waterbuffalo will be holding their GOP candidate debate (supposedly to be attended by seven of the eight front-runners for the GOP nomination) in two weeks. Get your tickets early, folks, as it'll be one of only 239,323 candidate debates this year.


achilles3 said...

Actually I've read several articles about the benefits that helped calm me down.

For instance the sooner it starts the sooner that part ends thus leaving more time for THE candidates to do 2 important things:
A. Be center stage and thus establish more cred throughout the country.
and more importantly
B. The extra time will give the candidate and the people/media (to look and suggest) more time to select better candidate's for the potential cabinent. As it stands these decisions are made in haste and without much public eye attention so I read.
I'll look for those articles.

Sphincter said...

Good old NH is right in the thick of this--trying to preserve its "Firts in the Nation Primary" status. I think I speak for the majority of New Hampshirites when I say "Who cares? Take our Primary, please...Just quit talking about it and get to the weather report already."

Sphincter said...

Um ,that's of course FIRST in the Nation...See? I didn't even care enough about it to spell check it.

PHSChemGuy said...

Lakes - I was watching George Stepanopodopolis (I miss Webster this morning, and the three commentators disagreed on whether early primaries would be better than late.

The arguments for early are that it gives us more time in the general election, more time for the whole nation to pick a president. Less time in the primaries - time in which some of the commentators thought were just pandering to the extreme members of the party.

The other commentators though we wanted more time in the primaries so that the parties wouldn't end up choosing somebody too hastily - what one of the guys referred to as "buyer's remorse".

It seems to me that the whole thing comes down to whether you want more time in the primary season or more in the general election.

I, honestly, haven't a clue which is better for us in choosing a pres-to-be, but I do know that this incessant demand from each state to not be left behind, to not be forgotten or to let any other state get attention is insane.

Florida won't let Iowa get any of their attention; Iowa and NH won't let anybody else steal theirs. Has this been a problem before this year? I can't remember any of it before, and this is just starting to rack me off.

Sphincter - NH gets a lot of attention (monetary and political) because of that "firts [sp] primary in the nation". Is that something that you're willing to give up?

achilles3 said...

I'll take more time in the general for 1000 please.

Sphincter said...

Yes! Take it all!