LANSING, Mich., Nov. 21, 2007
Michigan's Jan. 15 Primary To Go Forward
State Supreme Court Rules To Let Early Primary Take Place, Opens Way For N.H. Decision
-
(CBS/AP)
-
News Tools Campaign Calendar The latest list of primary and caucus dates as states continue jockeying for position.
The court decision should make it easier for New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to schedule that state's primary, which New Hampshire law requires to be the nation's first. Gardner has been waiting to see what the Michigan courts would do.
The high court's decision should clear the way for the Republican and Democratic parties to take part in the Jan. 15 primary. Both have already filed letters with the secretary of state saying that's their plan.
However, by holding its primary so early - in violation of the national parties' rules - Michigan stands to lose half of its delegates to the Republican National Convention, reducing the number to 30, and all of its 156 delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
The national parties have imposed similar penalties on other states as party leaders have struggled to regain control of a chaotic nominating calendar.
If Michigan has its primary on Jan. 15, that would put it behind only Iowa's caucuses on Jan. 3, Wyoming's caucuses on Jan. 5 and - according to many expectations - New Hampshire's primary on Jan. 8.
Democrats in Michigan have kept open the possibility of picking their presidential favorite through a party caucus, even if the primary is held.
That could delay a decision on the New Hampshire date even further. Michigan Sen. Carl Levin has suggested holding the Michigan caucus the same day as the New Hampshire primary, so Gardner doesn't want to make a decision until that issue is settled. A message seeking comment was left with his office. His deputy, David Scanlan, could not say when Gardner might set the New Hampshire date.
Campaign Calendar
The latest information on the primary and caucus dates in 2008.
In its 4-3 decision Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned lower court rulings that said the law setting up the primary was unconstitutional because it would let the state political parties keep track of voters' names and whether they took Democratic or GOP primary ballots but withhold that information from the public.
Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis said he was pleased the primary would be held and said Republicans would participate even if Democrats switched to a caucus.
"This is good for Michigan, this is good for Republicans and it's good for the process," he said.
Anuzis would like to see state House Democrats next week pass a bill that would restore the names of four Democratic presidential candidates who have withdrawn from the ballot. Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson pulled their names because the state violated Democratic National Committee rules by moving up the election.
A state Senate-passed bill would require all candidates' names to be on the ballot, although it also would give them the chance to withdraw again.
East Lansing political consultant Mark Grebner, one of several people who brought the suit arguing it was wrong to let only the political parties have access to the primary voter information, said he didn't plan to take any additional action at this point.
He doesn't object to the primary being held, but said other people should have access to the records because the information was obtained through an election paid for with public dollars. The circuit and appeals courts had agreed with his reasoning.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Politics
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
Everytime I hear Democrats say "I hate the Republican Party. Look at what Bush has done.," I can''t help but think about all of Bush''s Democratic enablers in the Congress like Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, et. al. who made all of his dastardly deeds possible. They handed him every bit of legislation with which he has used to make himself the virtual dictator he now is on a silver platter. The Democrats in Congress don''t even seem to express any interest in investigating Bush for the crimes he and Cheney have surely committed against our country even though a vast majority of Americans think they should. What cowards! In fact, Obama and Clinton even voted in favor of legislation which actually allows Bush to pre-pardon himself and his administration for crimes dating all the way back to 9/11. What''s up with that? Look. Do yourself and your country a favor. Focus on the candidate, and the ideas and positions he or she represents, and then study the candidate''s track record of performance with respect to those positions. That''s all that really matters in the end. Elections are not a contest of two teams. Ultimately, It''s the politician who will either serve your interests or betray them while in office--not their party. Finally, Democrats, I ask you this: Would you have voted for Steven Douglas (a Democrat), who was ardently pro-slavery, against Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) simply because Douglas was a Democrat? I fear most of you would.
Ron Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. It''s ironic that other GOP candidates are scared to death of his message, because his positions are more conservative than theirs. Being anti-war; pro-life; pro civil liberties; pro Second Amendment; pro States rights; pro secure borders; and in favor of a sound economic policy IS TOTALLY CONSERVATIVE. The Republican party has "lost its way," Paul said during a recent GOP debate. Like the limited federal government principles espoused by Dwight D. Eisenhower, his school of Republicanism stands for a certain idea of The Constitution that much of the power asserted by modern Presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the States. Though Paul acknowledges flaws in both The Constitution (it included slavery) and The Bill of Rights (it doesn''t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn therefrom: against gun control; for the sovereignty of States; and against foreign-policy adventures like the ones currently being played-out in the Mid-East. After ten terms of service as a U.S. Congressman, Ron Paul has demonstrated a consistent track record of adherance to The Constitution unmatched by anyone in either party. Ron Paul does not represent your Father''s school of political thought. He represents your Founding Fathers.
Zogby''s Director of Communications Fritz Wenzel said on November 20 that Paul is the strongest of the GOP candidates to run against Clinton. "Among the larger universe of voters," which includes all parties, "yes, Paul would be a much stronger candidate than any of the other three [Romney, Giuliani, Thompson]," Wenzel said. Zogby recently announced that Paul was their winner in a nationwide blind-bio poll which included voters from all parties. "He is anti-war and the majority of Democrats are anti-war, he has some other ideas and policies and stances on issues more attractive to Democrats, particularly conservative Democrats," said Wenzel. "Even among Independents, he is far and away a more attractive candidate," he added. Paul is the only GOP candidate who is not threatening war with Iran, whereas Clinton vowed to keep that option "on the table." Paul also voted against the war in Iraq, which Clinton has supported. Because Democrats outnumber Republicans, none of the other GOP candidates can win against Clinton, because they simply won''t be able to reach across party lines and attract enough Democratic and Independent voters to beat Clinton. Only Paul can do that. "He''s right on schedule," Wenzel said. "He''s making all the right moves, going in the right direction...at a time when other candidates are not moving." Wenzel based his analysis on recent polls that show Paul could win in New Hampshire and that his support nationwide is intensifying.
The results of a nationwide telephone poll, announced by Zogby on November 19th, reveals that Americans want to vote for a candidate who protects liberty; who wants to shrink government; and who wants to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq - positions of Congressman Ron Paul. As part of a blind-bio, spread poll, likely voters (from all parties) were provided with descriptions of four different Republican candidates and asked to choose who they would vote for based on each one''s resume and political platform. 33% of pollees chose Ron Paul, 19% chose Rudy Giuliani, 15% chose Mitt Romney and 13% chose Fred Thompson. The results clearly illustrate that the country is crying out for Ron Paul, which is why mainstream media has launched a public relations offensive to marginalize his accomplishments and suppress the Congressman''s name recognition. In a seperate question, over 49% of pollees said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who would begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, Ron Paul won in every demographic of this poll including, but not limited to, religious voters, NASCAR fans, military families, African-Americans, etc..
Most people can see right through the prejudice CBS News obviously has towards Ron Paul. In the few times they''ve covered him at all, I''m suprised they didn''t have one of their graphics artists Photoshop some devil horns on top of his head in that worst ever photograph they always use of him. CBS obviously thinks that if they pretend Paul isn''t a top-tier GOP candidate, then their readers and viewers will eventually think so too. Whenever they are forced to do a story on Paul, because some other mainstream source is covering him for some reason, the fact that their editors work overtime to slant their stories in such a way as to either marginalize his accomplishment, or present Paul in the most negative light possible, is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "What about their polls?," you ask? As far as the CBS News poll is concerned, they don''t even include Paul on the list of GOP candidates which pollees can choose from, and then afterwards, report to you that Paul doesn''t even rank in their final tally. Ron Paul is getting major grass roots support nationwide. He has over 81,700 meetup group members in 1,218 Groups from 945 cities nationwide, with another 8,189 people more folks just waiting to hear when a new meetup group will start-up near them. He''s won ALL of the viewer phone-in polls in ALL of the GOP debates he''s been in, and has raised more money ($4.2 million) in one day than any other GOP candidate ever. Go Ron Go!
All of the trade deals and world government organizations, which all of the presidential candidates support (except Ron Paul), such as the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA, are all a major threat to our nation''s sovereignty. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a prescription to take herbs and vitamins. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws to meet their needs, and not our own. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. The NAFTA superhighway, being built by a Spanish company, is just one part of a plan to erase our borders and create the North American Union, a single nation State like the EU, out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new, unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under the NAU scheme. There won''t be any borders anymore, or a free America. Our limited, constitutional government will be gone forever. Let''s not forget the UN either. It wants to impose a direct Carbon Tax on us. Ron Paul successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to rule over us, we need someone in the White House who knows how to say "No." We must withdraw from any organizations or treaty that infringes upon our nation''s sovereignty.
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. Ron Paul has a plan: (1.) Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. (2.) Enforce Visa rules. Immigration officials must track Visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their Visa or otherwise violates U.S. Law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired Visas. (3.) No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That''s a lot of people to reward for breaking our Laws. (4.) No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules, but taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. (5.) End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. (6.) Pass true immigration reform. The current system, and those proposed by ALL other candidates, is incoherent and unfair, and would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country.
All of the other presidential candidates want to continue our illegal police action in Iraq indefinitely, and they do not rule out a preemptive (nuclear) first strike against Iran. Conversely, Ron Paul voted against our (undeclared) war in Iraq, which was sold to us with lies. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies--the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. The war in Iraq has cost more than 3,500 American lives and almost a trillion dollars. We need a leader in the White House who will ensure this never happens again. Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have 750 foreign bases and troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing our borders against illegal aliens who are invading us from the South. No war should ever be fought without a Declaration of War voted upon by the Congress, as required by The Constitution. Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. Too often, we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised.
On Veteran''s Day, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul today addressed a crowd of over 5,000 enthusiastic veterans and supporters in Philadelphia. The Veteran''s Day weekend rally took place at Independence Mall. Thousands of veterans and their friends and families heard country music superstar Rockie Lynne open the event for the Texas congressman. John Holland, the founder of a leading advocacy organization for troops, veterans, and POW/MIAs, delivered an enthusiastic endorsement of Congressman Paul, before the congressman addressed the crowd. The rally coincided with the launch of the Veterans for Paul Coalition, which is composed of hundreds of war veterans. "Dr. Paul''s support among veterans is extremely high," said Paul campaign spokesman Joe Seehusen. "These great patriots who have fought for our country know that only Dr. Paul''s foreign policy of peace and secure borders can guarantee true national security, and they want him fighting for our country''s freedom." Congressman Paul was himself a Captain in the Air Force who served as a flight surgeon during the "totally unnecessary and illegal" Vietnam war. He receives more campaign contributions from former and active military and military affiliates than any of the other 2008 presidential candidates.
When I consider the prospect of a War with Iran, I wonder whether or not another major power might be inclined to side with Iran and oppose us. 10% of China''s exports go to Iran and 12% of Germany''s. Also, many countries, including China, are heavily dependent on the 2,836,000 barrels of oil Iran exports everyday. Not a problem. I''m sure those folks won''t mind riding bikes until the war is over. As far as the Iranians are concerned, I''m sure they''re just dying (no pun intended) to be invaded, er, I mean "liberated" by Americans, considering the horrid 70% approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the terrible $8,700 gross domestic product per capita there (8.6% better than China). I''m sure we''ll be welcomed in the streets after we "shock and awe" their all important looking buildings to Jahannum and back. When I compare U.S. military numbers with Iran''s, what I find is truly alarming. The U.S. has 2.37 million soldiers ready for combat. Let''s compare that with little ol'' Iran, which has more soldiers available for combat than any country in the entire world. Actually, Iran has more combat-ready soldiers (11.7 million) than China and Russia combined. Talk about hell! The bottom line is that America can''t even handle Iraq. At one point, we thought we could rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and bubble on back home in time to catch the next season of American Idol, but it didn''t quite work-out that way. Did it? With Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.
"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president''''s chief of staff and the president himself."
Mr. Bush''''s chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card.
ITS SO FUNNY, EVERYDAY WE HAVE MORE AND MORE OF THEM COMMING FORWORD TO SAY THE TRUTH..
AND OUR TRUSTED CONGRESS STILL DOES NOTHING TO GET THESE SCUM BAGS OUT..
WHAT WILL IT TAKE AMERICA, PLEASE SOMEONE TELL US AMERICANS..
Zogby''s Director of Communications Fritz Wenzel said on November 20 that Paul is the strongest of the GOP candidates to run against Clinton. "Among the larger universe of voters," which includes all parties, "yes, Paul would be a much stronger candidate than any of the other three [Romney, Giuliani, Thompson]," Wenzel said. Zogby recently announced that Paul was their winner in a nationwide blind-bio poll which included voters from all parties. "He is anti-war and the majority of Democrats are anti-war, he has some other ideas and policies and stances on issues more attractive to Democrats, particularly conservative Democrats," said Wenzel. "Even among Independents, he is far and away a more attractive candidate," he added. Paul is the only GOP candidate who is not threatening war with Iran, whereas Clinton vowed to keep that option "on the table." Paul also voted against the war in Iraq, which Clinton has supported. Because Democrats outnumber Republicans, none of the other GOP candidates can win against Clinton, because they simply won''t be able to reach across party lines and attract enough Democratic and Independent voters to beat Clinton. Only Paul can do that. "He''s right on schedule," Wenzel said. "He''s making all the right moves, going in the right direction...at a time when other candidates are not moving." Wenzel based his analysis on recent polls that show Paul could win in New Hampshire and that his support nationwide is intensifying.
The results of a nationwide telephone poll, announced by Zogby on November 19th, reveals that Americans want to vote for a candidate who protects liberty; who wants to shrink government; and who wants to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq - positions of Congressman Ron Paul. As part of a blind-bio, spread poll, likely voters (from all parties) were provided with descriptions of four different Republican candidates and asked to choose who they would vote for based on each one''s resume and political platform. 33% of pollees chose Ron Paul, 19% chose Rudy Giuliani, 15% chose Mitt Romney and 13% chose Fred Thompson. The results clearly illustrate that the country is crying out for Ron Paul, which is why mainstream media has launched a public relations offensive to marginalize his accomplishments and suppress the Congressman''s name recognition. In a seperate question, over 49% of pollees said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who would begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, Ron Paul won in every demographic of this poll including, but not limited to, religious voters, NASCAR fans, military families, African-Americans, etc..
Let no one forget that the Bush dictatorship is brought to you by Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain--his enablers. Bush would never have the power he has if not for the fact that these folks handed him those dictatorial powers on a silver plater. For the past twenty years, this country has lived under the thumb of either the thumb of a Clinton or a Bush. Isn''t it time for a real change? We are begining to look like a monarchy here. Ron Paul is the new way! The Doctor is in. He knows the ills of our nation and how to cure them.
- by bareemperor November 22, 2007 4:02 PM EST
- All candidates who ignore the Bu$h dictatorship are liars.
- Reply to this comment
See all 15 CommentsThe general public is now aware of the Republicon coup.
Let''s discuss it publicly, or is everyone already too afraid?