June 18, 2009 6:27 PM

New Hampshire Primary To Be Jan. 8

(CBS/AP)  New Hampshire set its earliest-ever presidential primary on Wednesday, deciding on Jan. 8 and claiming its traditional spot as the nation's first in a nomination season pushed almost to New Year's Day of the election year. (see the whole primary and caucus calendar here)

New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner announced the date, ending months of speculation, including the possibility that the state might actually push its primary into December in order to keep its spot at the head of the line. Iowa, which chooses delegates with a caucus system, begins five days earlier on Jan. 3.

New Hampshire primaries often have shaped presidential contests - sometimes dramatically - for nearly a century. Next year's early date, less than seven weeks from now, resulted from states around the country scheduling their own early primaries and caucuses to attract candidates before the major party nominees are chosen. As a result, both the Democratic and Republican nominees are likely to be effectively known by Feb. 5, when 22 states vote, if not earlier.

Gardner set New Hampshire's date hours after Michigan's Supreme Court said that state's primary could go forward as scheduled on Jan. 15, ending a court battle. New Hampshire waited to make sure Michigan wouldn't schedule caucuses even earlier.

He learned of Michigan's decision earlier in the day while meeting a friend - former ambassador Terry Shumaker - for lunch. Shumaker had arranged the lunch date to show Gardner an old letter he'd recently been given - one written by the late Gov. Hugh Gregg, Gardner's old friend and fellow booster of the New Hampshire primary.

When they met for lunch, Shumaker told him about Michigan. "I told him, I said it's over," Shumaker said.

With that knowledge, Gardner said he felt confident picking a date.

"So here we are, the eve of Thanksgiving and we're able to at least end the quest for the date," he said at a news conference.

"I wasn't expecting to do this today," he added, gesturing at his outfit - an oatmeal sweater vest over a shirt and tie - relatively casual dress for the normally suited secretary of state.

Iowa's caucuses have led the schedule for several decades, but New Hampshire has had the initial primary for much longer.

"This tradition has served our nation well, as decades of candidates and presidents have said," Gardner said.

Gardner wouldn't commit to Jan. 8 in an interview earlier this week with CBSNews.com, but it appeared likely that would be date due to various problems with other possible dates.

"There's been so many twists and turns that it's impossible to think of all the possible scenarios," Gardner told CBSNews.com's David Miller (read more in Horserace).

New Hampshire's date, once picked, is not likely to be changed. Gardner said he does not consider Wyoming's GOP county caucuses to be similar to the primary, nor is he fazed by the 5-day window between Iowa and New Hampshire, which traditionally have been eight days apart.

"I am absolutely certain that there will be no similar event within seven days," he said.

Gardner said he didn't consult with officials from either party, Gov. John Lynch, or New Hampshire's congressional delegation before picking the date Wednesday.

"That's the way I've always moved along this path," he said.

Campaign Calendar
The latest information on the primary and caucus dates in 2008.
Candidates have been campaigning hard in New Hampshire under the assumption that the state would vote on the parties' nominees early in the primary season, as usual.

The Iowa caucuses will start the nominating process on Jan. 3. Wyoming GOP county caucuses follow on Jan. 5, followed by New Hampshire on Jan. 8 and Michigan on Jan. 15. South Carolina Republicans and Nevada will vote on Jan. 19, South Carolina Democrats likely will be on Jan. 26 and Florida on Jan. 29.

Both parties plan to penalize the states voting before Feb. 5 if their contests are binding.


© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 45 Comments
by truthprophet November 24, 2007 8:36 PM EST
IS RUDY GIULIANI AL QAEDA?
How much exactly would it cost to get Rudy Giuliani to holster his overdone 9/11 sanctimony? The government for the tiny Persian Gulf nation of Qatar might have a good idea. Following earlier reports that Giuliani was still getting paid by a consulting firm he created, Giuliani Partners LLC, Mary Jacoby of the Wall Street Journal sheds light on some potentially problematic sources of Giuliani''s private income. Chief among them is Qatar, the U.S. ally that paid Giuliani Partners for "security advice" regarding their petroleum facilities. The article uncovers a "potential political pitfall" for Giuliani''s candidacy and image given Qatar''s spotty record in fighting Al Qaeda, and addresses aspects of the business arrangement that could dog Giuliani during his quest for the presidency. Specifically, the ostensible chief consumer of Giuliani''s security advice in this case would be Qatar''s Internal Security Ministry, currently headed by a known Al Qaeda associate. As reported earlier this year, Qatar Interior Minister Abdullah bin Khalid Al-Thani has long had ties to top Al Qaeda operatives including Osama Bin Laden, and is believed by many U.S. officials to have personally arranged the narrow escape of Al Qaeda big-wig Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from U.S. agents in 1996, thereby ensuring his freedom to mastermind the 9/11 attacks. Giuliani has refused to release specifics of the case, and to-date remains on the firm''s payroll.
Reply to this comment
by greatprophet November 24, 2007 8:35 PM EST
ONLY RON PAUL CAN BEAT CLINTON
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.
Reply to this comment
by fairprophet November 24, 2007 8:35 PM EST
RON PAUL WINS BIG IN NATIONAL POLL
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..
Reply to this comment
by truthprophet November 24, 2007 8:35 PM EST
A FOREIGN POLICY OF FREEDOM
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.
Reply to this comment
by greatprophet November 24, 2007 8:34 PM EST
RON PAUL RESPECTS YOUR PRIVACY
Like Ron Paul, I believe the biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding a citizens'' personal matters. We must stop the move toward a national ID card system (e.g., The Real ID Act). Under this new Law, states are currently issuing new driver''s licenses embedded with standard identifier data (RFID chips). Although, many states are refusing to comply. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we''re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. Ron Paul was one of the few members of Congess who voted against the Real ID Act. Also, under current medical privacy protection rules, which Ron Paul also opposed, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information. Finally, there''s the so-called Patriot Act, which Congressman, Ron Paul also voted against. As originally proposed, it expanded the federal government''s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight; allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight; made it far easier for the government to monitor private Internet usage; authorized sneak and peek warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person''s home, office, or personal property without that person''s knowledge; and required libraries to turn over records of books read by patrons. Ron Paul sponsored a Bill to overturn the Patriot Act.
Reply to this comment
by fairprophet November 24, 2007 8:34 PM EST
RON PAUL IS THE TAXPAYER''S BEST FRIEND
If he is elected President, Ron Paul will work to abolish the Federal Reserve System as well as the IRS, returning our country to the Gold Standard. He believes, as I do, that our current Income Tax System is unconstitutional, because it is a direct tax that is not equally apportioned as The Constitution requires. Whenever taxes are raised by the federal government, it should be done as The Constitution does require--in an indirect way, which is equally apportioned. This system would benefit all of us, creating more individual wealth, and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. As President, Ron Paul will also work to abolish the Federal Reserve, a group of private banks, run by unelected officials, which loans our government unbacked money which they are allowed to essentially print out of thin air, making each dollar in your pocket worth less all the time, and increasing our national debt to these banks. Worse still. Most of our debt is owned by China (25%) and Saudi Arabia who finance our runaway military spending overseas. This is a threat to our nation. We need to bring our troops home from overseas, and use the trillions we would save thereby to reduce our debt, and to re-invigorate our currency. We can use this money to ensure that Social Security and other essential programs will still be solvent in the future. Vote for Ron Paul. He''s published three books on the topic of sound economics. ronpaullibrary.org
Reply to this comment
by truthprophet November 24, 2007 8:33 PM EST
RON PAUL WILL PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY
Our nation''s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits to pay for militarization. Today, the Social Security system is both broke and broken. Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible military spending. The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals. Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, Dr. Paul introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act, which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors'' income and raise their standard of living. Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and he introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is ONLY used for Social Security. Also, it is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act, which Ron Paul supported, ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor. In short, if we stop our runaway military spending overseas, there will be plenty of money available to keep Social Security solvent for decades to come.
Reply to this comment
by greatprophet November 24, 2007 8:33 PM EST
THEY DON''T CALL HIM "DOCTOR NO" FOR NO REASON
Congressman, Paul never votes for any Bill which he feels is not authorized by The Constitution, regardless of what it might be named. He feels most Laws should be made at the local or State level: the way our Founders intended. We are a Republic, and we have plenty of State lawmakers who are more than willing to make Laws which best serve their constituents. "Ron Paul is one of the easiest people in Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues," says Barney Frank, who has worked with Paul on efforts to ease the regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. "He is independent, but not ornery." Paul has made a habit of objecting to things that no one else objects to. In 2001, he was one of only three House Republicans to vote against the USA Patriot Act. He was the sole House member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act. In 1999, he was the only naysayer in a vote in favor of casting a medal to honor Rosa Parks. Nothing against Rosa Parks. Paul also voted against similar medals for Reagan and Pope John Paul II. He did, however, offer $100 of his own money to help pay for Reagan''s medal, and invited others in Congress to match his offer, but not one Member took him-up on it. Instead, Congress spent YOUR money. He not only routinely opposes resolutions that are unconstitutional, he votes against Bills which presume to advise foreign governments how to run their affairs.
Reply to this comment
by fairprophet November 24, 2007 8:33 PM EST
RON PAUL KNOWS HOW TO STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
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.
Reply to this comment
by truthprophet November 24, 2007 8:32 PM EST
RON PAUL WILL RESTORE U.S. SOVEREIGNTY
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.
Reply to this comment
See all 45 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook