It’s a sign of things to come in the 5th, I suspect.
Chris Murphy gets tagged by state and national Republicans for accepting campaign contributions from the now-under investigation Haven Healthcare, with one slight problem: it isn’t true.
But even if it was true, so what? Honestly, I don’t even know what the implication here is supposed to be. Chris Murphy hates little old ladies, because he took money from a company way back before this whole scandal even thought about breaking? …Right. Makes perfect sense.
Republicans are also insinuating that Murphy shouldn’t be taking money from health care companies at all, in part because that might be a conflict of interest. Murphy criticized Nancy Johnson for taking money from health care companies–except that she did it in a HUGE way, and was largely responsible for Medicare Part D. It’s also worth noting that according to FollowTheMoney.org two CPAs for Haven donated money to Gov. Rell’s re-election campaign, and that a vice president of the company contributed to Susan Bysiewicz’s campaign. I’m sure that proves something… right?
Look, if the idea here is to keep candidates from taking contributions from interests that might conflict with their legislative work, then I have a solution for those criticizing Murphy: public financing of campaigns. That way, the only contributions are coming from a group that the candidates better damn well pay attention to: us.
I imagine that the entire point was to put the words “Chris Murphy” and “Haven Healthcare” into the same sentence. It backfired on them. But I think that this tells us what a nasty race the 5th is going to be–again–in 2008, if the mud is already starting to fly.
115 responses so far ↓
1 Don Pesci // Nov 23, 2007 at 7:41 am ·
--1
The problem with public financing is this: It’s a challenger’s option. Once the challenger — Murphy — gets in, the sluice gates open, and the money starts pouring in. Result: Former challengers hot on public financing are loathe to give up their advantage. Why don’t you ask Murphy whether, now that he is the incumbent, he is willing in his next campaign to accept public financing? Is there any doubt how he will answer?
2 Don Pesci // Nov 23, 2007 at 7:45 am ·
+0
As for Haven Health Care, just another opposum on the road run over by Attorney General Caligula. One more small step for man on the journey to state health care.
3 Don Pesci // Nov 23, 2007 at 7:47 am ·
+0
Indian casinoes are next.
4 Don Pesci // Nov 23, 2007 at 7:50 am ·
+0
And, speaking of strikes there’s this: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-makes-chris-dodd-run.html
5 MikeCT // Nov 23, 2007 at 8:27 am ·
+0
There is only one member of the Connecticut Congressional delegation who has received a contribution from Haven Healthcare in the last couple decades — Nancy Johnson got $1,000 from Barry O’Doherty, VP of Haven Healthcare, on 12/13/2005. No calls from the GOP for a criminal investigation yet.
Don,
Um, as you’re undoubtedly aware, he has already strongly endorsed and voted for public financing as an incumbent state senator, and then there’s, uh, this…
6 ACR // Nov 23, 2007 at 8:28 am ·
+0
From the Russian newspaper, The Moscow News
The totalitarian can never accept that his are only one of many different legitimate values and that others should be allowed to disagree with them. Rather than accept this competition of ideas as a vital aspect of life, he prefers finding a final solution to every problem. While a liberal would try to find a compromise that would take into consideration the wants and needs of everybody - smokers and non-smokers - the fundamentalist cannot even fathom that a compromise is possible.
Fundamentalists ignore - deliberately - that restaurants and bars are private businesses. Going to a restaurant is not a necessity, it’s a luxury. Non-smokers are not forced to enter restaurants that allow smoking; they can either go to non-smoking places or stay home. Non-smokers are not being discriminated against if they can’t find a non-smoking restaurant to their liking. And if a restaurant does not allow smoking, it’s not discriminating against smokers, either. It’s the choice of the operator to decide whether or not he caters to smokers, non-smokers, or both. Smokers and non-smokers alike can vote with their rubles/euros/dollars/tugrik for whichever business they prefer. That’s the essence of a free market economy.
7 pharg // Nov 23, 2007 at 9:00 am ·
+0
I took the day off from work and I am going out to rake leaves. When I come in for lunch I look forward to reading the posts from republican leaning bloggers
ridiculing the NRCC and state party for the attempted hit piece on Chris Murphy.
8 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 9:51 am ·
+0
“Lives are stake, and it’s pretty disgusting the Republicans are playing games with this issue,” said Kristen Bossi, a spokeswoman for Murphy. “Even worse, they don’t even have their facts straight.”
9 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 9:52 am ·
+0
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-ctmurphyhealth1122.artnov22,0,1852578.story
10 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 9:56 am ·
+0
Jaekle said he was disappointed by the DPW response to an earlier audit, which found similar shortcomings.
Sixteen previous recommendations were renewed in the latest audit of the DPW, whose former commissioner, James T. Fleming, recently accepted a spot on the Public Utility Control Commission and was replaced by Raeanne V. Curtis in the $134,500-a-year post.
“This time there were a lot of repeat recommendations, which I don’t like seeing for agencies,” Jaekle said in an interview. “Most of our audit work is to help improve agency operations. In this case there were a lot of recommendations and a lot of repeat recommendations.”
——
Jaekle said that the audit findings aren’t outdated, since the DPW continuously works on projects and shortcomings and oversight problems are likely to continue unless they are corrected by management.
“It’s not like their mission has changed,” Jaekle said. “They’re still constructing projects. They’re still administering change orders and they’re basically still engaged in the same type of activities. If they say they’ve solved them all, that’s great, but if they say that was several years back, I don’t believe that.”
Let the word go out; the Rell administration is detached from reality.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_7528891
11 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 10:03 am ·
+0
The state Department of Social Services has delayed acting on several freedom-of-information requests in part because it sought to warn a state contractor that it planned to disclose documents the company had stamped confidential, according to an agency spokesman.
——
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19047757&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
Sen. Mary Ann Handley, D-Manchester, said a draft recommendation from a state task force recommending more than $600 million in new public aid for hospitals wasn’t a huge surprise, given the financial woes many hospitals have faced for several years now.
—
Rell’s “task force” was made up of industry insiders so you would expect them to ask for more state moiney to keep their gig going!!!!
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19047748&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
12 Tim White // Nov 23, 2007 at 10:04 am ·
+0
Incumbents tend to win… I think the biggest problem that Chris could face is something like Bush going to war with Iran and Murphy not voting to impeach… in which case Murphy gets primaried… and he could very well lose to a well-organized opponent…
come to think of it… if Bush does that, but does not get impeached… watch most of the Democratic congress face progressive grassroots primaries… with many incumbents losing the nomination.
13 SimsburySally // Nov 23, 2007 at 10:37 am ·
+0
Ghengis….
Wait….
You’re argument makes little sense….
So Chris Murphy didn’t have major influence over healthcare policy as chairman of the Health Committee when he took $2,500 from Haven executives?
No way can Murphy can’t have it both ways.
And the Hartford Courant wasn’t ENTIRELYwrong: Murphy did accept money from Haven.
And his statement didn’t deny that.
And he would have accepted their checks running as a Congressional Candidate. He was “Pledged” $12,000
14 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 11:12 am ·
+0
Hey Tim; what was the story with all the dentists around the state giving you money and trying to get you a state rep job?
15 Tim White // Nov 23, 2007 at 11:22 am ·
+0
toucan… could you be more specific?
16 sandy // Nov 23, 2007 at 11:23 am ·
+0
With Murphys GOP opponent accepting 15K in Galante bundled contributions they couldn’t possibly dig up enough dirt to make a difference. Cappiello is toast and just wait until the district sees a mailer with Cappy & Galante standing side by side with the caption…..
nah, you’re going to have to wait and see
17 Tim White // Nov 23, 2007 at 11:24 am ·
+0
I received a good deal of financial support from dentists last year, if that’s your point… that’s obvious from reading campaign finance filings.
18 Tim White // Nov 23, 2007 at 11:28 am ·
+0
for what it’s worth… i feel that fundraising has led to the perception that elected officials may not always be acting in the best interests of the voters… that’s why I was an outspoken advocate of CFR… before it passed.
19 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 11:29 am ·
+0
The denitists, for the most part were not form your District. Somehting was obviuolsy going on. People give money to get access. Just curious but you don’t have to answer.
20 Ichabod Crane // Nov 23, 2007 at 11:46 am ·
+0
sandy said:
8yawn* Maybe if you actually contributed to this site other than the same pre-recorded message, people would actually take you seriously.
Now get back to work sandy, I’m sure there are some constituent projects that need your attention.
21 Tim White // Nov 23, 2007 at 11:55 am ·
+0
From the outset and througout the ‘06 campaign, I spoke of my concerns… taxes & the cost of living in CT, poor energy/land use policy… and a few other topics… I spent virtually no time addressing dental policy, even when speaking with anyone from the dental community… so please don’t suggest that I was selling access. I would never do that. I try very hard to represent the interests of the voters, and only the voters, who have elected me… that’s the reason I knock on doors in March/April/May every year… not just in Sept/Oct every other year.
Besides… why did you even mention this? Is it related to my earlier comment in some way? Personally, I think this Haven fundraiser thing is a non-issue.
22 pharg // Nov 23, 2007 at 11:56 am ·
+0
The leaves are done, for today, and that I am happy about. But how disappointing! Not a single item from the republicans (Party Operative’s) critisizing the failed bothched poorly researched hit piece. Rememeber, within days after Medicare Prescription passed, Nancy recieved hundreds of thousands from the medical industry. Now that is the appearance of conflict of interest!
23 sandy // Nov 23, 2007 at 12:18 pm ·
+0
Ichabod Crane said:
Ichabod, I think I understand you. People you agree with contribute to this site and people you don’t agree with are not taken seriously. I think you need to take that W sticker off your bumper.
24 Ichabod Crane // Nov 23, 2007 at 1:15 pm ·
+0
sandy said:
LOL - that’s why you see my busily quoting and going after everyone else on this site that blindly attacks Cappiello…. get over yourself. And stop wasting my tax dollars on this blog. Back to work.
25 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 3:08 pm ·
+0
Like I said Tim; you don’t have to answer the question - and you didn’t.
26 QTransSus // Nov 23, 2007 at 3:15 pm ·
+0
Most people, and especially the Courant, have some very funny political filters. Hats off to the Courant though, for making our Dept. of Public Health do their job and giving “Our Dick” AG a whole fresh bunch of cameras to chase.
I think that the further from Danbury that the Galante bundles landed, the more they stink. A lot of those $$’s fell into Billy Ciotto’s lap and I have accused him of putting the larceny into Larson’s office. I’m starting to wonder who has been corrupting who in the relationship between Larson and Ciotto.
Who turned “Grandpa Billy” into the thug he is today? Is his job in Larson’s office just a payback for services rendered? One might suspect that one would find a whole lot of “policies” Johnny wrote in his private business smelt like overripe Limburger Cheese. Did Johnny ever write any insurance for the Galante family? Did he ever write any insurance policies for Roncalli or Haven?
Did Billy Ciotto act as John Larson’s cut-out to people like Galante? Is he still doing that inside his office today?
27 conncon // Nov 23, 2007 at 3:16 pm ·
+0
Speaking of Rep. Murphy, did anyone see this?
http://www.registercitizen.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19044409&BRD=1652&PAG=461&dept_id=572348&rfi=6
28 sandy // Nov 23, 2007 at 3:25 pm ·
+0
Ichabod Crane said:
Yes Icky. Anybody who attacks Cappiello has to be doing it “blindly”. I guess it is not at all relevant that Cappiello is now the biggest recipient of mob money in the state Senate. I am sorry and to prove it, next time I see Cappiello and Galante together I will buy them a bottle of wine. Would you please ask David what wine they drink?
29 Ichabod Crane // Nov 23, 2007 at 3:39 pm ·
+0
sandy said:
All I did was make a suggestion, and I get all this attitude back.
If you want to be taken seriously around here, you need to build a reputation. You need to chime in and make some thoughtful comments on a variety of subjects. You can’t just make a name and be a talking point troll every time you get a Google News Alert for David Cappiello in your inbox.
30 Tim White // Nov 23, 2007 at 3:42 pm ·
+0
Toucan… I’ve offered some thoughts on a very vague question. If you would offer me a specific question, I’d be glad to answer the best I can.
31 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 3:47 pm ·
+0
?
That seems like a pretty specific question to me. BTW, I got the answer on my own from my own souces. Your incumbent opponent pissed them off and they wanted her out of office.
32 Don Pesci // Nov 23, 2007 at 3:54 pm ·
+0
Mike
From the Urban piece you cited: “Murphy also told participants in the conversation that he favors public financing of House campaigns.”
Umm, frankly, Scarlett, I don’t give a hoot what he favors. The question is: Will he take a pledge, right now, to forgo any campaign contributions that are not publicly funded. Get back to me on it, okay?
33 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 4:07 pm ·
+0
BTW, Haven Healthcare is hardly a non-issue. Itmay not be an issue with campaign contributions to Murph but it’s an issue for the taxpayers.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today is filing a motion in federal bankruptcy court seeking to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee to take over Haven Eldercare, LLC and its 44 entities, including 15 Connecticut nursing homes after the financially failed corporation filed for bankruptcy today.
http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=399758&A=2788
34 Tim White // Nov 23, 2007 at 4:11 pm ·
+0
“non-issue” related to Murphy’s campaign… I haven’t seen any polls, but if the election were held today, I’m guessing Murphy would be reelected
35 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 4:13 pm ·
+0
The lawmakers objected in letters to the Department of Public Utility Control, which is expected to rule this morning on whether to issue a grant totaling more than $6 million to Rand Whitney, as part of a 2005 state program that was intended to encourage large electric users to generate some of their own power, thereby lessening the strain on the state’s electric grid. The grants come directly from individual electric customers — they are raised by a surcharge on monthly bills.
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=7ac43d25-f7b1-42a3-b231-5d109e6644b7
36 sandy // Nov 23, 2007 at 4:24 pm ·
+0
QTransSus said:
Qtrans: Those are some mighty strong statements you have made. This is the first time I have heard anyone attempt to link Don Galante to John Larson or Billy Ciotto. What do you mean by “a lot of those $$ fell into Billys lap “and what source are you quoting?
37 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 4:25 pm ·
+0
The documents said Mr. Malcynsky was paid $112,500, based on an investment the Treasurer’s office made last year, and is to receive additional payments for the next two years. Mr. Malcynsky, a lawyer, said he was paid for his legal advice to the investment partnership that received the investment.
Malcynsky also wieghs heavily in the above DPUC decision. There’s lots of money to be made in CT state government if you are well connected.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07EFDB1039F932A15753C1A96F958260
38 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 4:29 pm ·
+0
Mr. Weicker’s campaign manager, Jay F. Malcynsky
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1DD163AF93BA15753C1A96E948260
39 toucan // Nov 23, 2007 at 4:31 pm ·
+0
They are all descendants of Adam and Eve!!!!!!!!
40 matt w // Nov 23, 2007 at 4:36 pm ·
+0
Aaaaaaaannd Don Pesci jumps the shark!
On a totally unrelated note, why say “what a nasty race the 5th is going to be” when 2006 saw a case of GOP overreach in the 5th, and 2008 looks like it will be a repeat of the same wholly unreasonable Republican caterwauling. Maybe rather than saying that “the race” will be nasty, we should call the problem what it is — the CT Republicans are simply a bunch of nasty, unreasonable extremists, at the very least when it comes to Chris Murphy.
41 Quod Felix // Nov 23, 2007 at 5:13 pm ·
+0
Murphy won over Johnson to some extent because he did not take the bait and go nasty in the campaign against Nancy Johnson despite the advice that the national Democratic campaign headquarters was giving him. So if the CT Republicans go nasty, maybe Murphy will win by an even bigger margin!!!
42 Gabe // Nov 23, 2007 at 5:19 pm ·
+1
Do you mean in the alternate universe where the financing that you are suggesting he take actually exists, or in the world we live in where it doesn’t?
To simplify my question, WTF are you talking about?
43 MikeCT // Nov 23, 2007 at 5:26 pm ·
+0
Don,
Um, you know, it’s not such a good idea to follow the GOP’s foolish charges that can’t be backed up with your own foolish charges that can’t be backed up. Instead of apologizing for your own silliness, you continue with a yet more idiotic line of questioning and diversion. It’s really best to stop while you’re behind.
Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? In truly publicly financed elections, including the law the Murphy vocally supported, there is no public financing, aside from qualifying contributions. He can’t accept public funds for his campaign, because, um, there are none at the federal level. Given his long and public history of support for public financing, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he would choose to opt out of such a system. But that’s what you and Chris Healy are all about - throw out as much evidence-free sh-t as possible and see what can stick.
44 Quod Felix // Nov 23, 2007 at 5:54 pm ·
+0
What about a system whereby there were no campaign contribution restrictions, but donor’s identity would be shielded from the candidate? Contributions would be handled by some hopefully neutral clearinghouse (maybe the government). Of course, individuals or corporations could claim giving money, but no one would really know.
45 pharg // Nov 23, 2007 at 6:05 pm ·
+0
Quod Felix,
I personally think Murphy won when in general because he didn’t go nengative
but in particular when he ran the ad, “She’n not bad person, she’s just part of the
problem”. The firtst time I saw it I turned to my wife and said he just won.
46 Don Pesci // Nov 23, 2007 at 7:36 pm ·
+0
OK, Mike, we’ll go through it carefully. Public financing is financing through tax dollars, as opped to accepting campaign contributions from people that you as a congressperson regulated — you know, like Chris Dodd does., not that he is alone in this. And here’s what I want to know: Will Murphy, who you have quoted as saying that he favors public financing, take a pledge, this moment — right now — to eschew funds from people he may be regulating? This is not rocket science here. Please get back to me with a yes or no answer.
47 Don Pesci // Nov 23, 2007 at 7:41 pm ·
+0
The point I was making is that everyoene succums to this sort of thing as soon as they win office and inherit the kingdom from their predecessor. Murphy will be no exception. Doesn’t mean Murphy is dirty, just the run of the mill politician.
48 gerardw // Nov 23, 2007 at 7:43 pm ·
+0
Time to eliminate “special interests.” Only potential constituents should be allowed to contribute. Ok.
The following fable is fictional. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is quite intentional.
The moral of the story is one person’s informed constituency is another’s special interest group. And restricting contributions is restricting free speech and not in the spirit of the First Amendment.
49 ACR // Nov 23, 2007 at 7:43 pm ·
+0
>>What about a system whereby there were no campaign contribution restrictions, but donor’s identity would be shielded from the candidate?
How about no restrictions - but it has to be online within 48 hours or so?
Complete full disclosure.
50 Don Pesci // Nov 23, 2007 at 7:48 pm ·
+0
I kind of like Quod Felix’s idea. If it were possible to mask contributions, they could be distributed to the parties by some upright and lucky guy, who also would be anonymous; then the parties could distribute the funds to individual politicians. In a system of this kind, no individual politician would be aware of the source of his funds, leaving him free to do the public business without money attachments.
51 Al // Nov 23, 2007 at 8:01 pm ·
+0
pharg, You said:
“I personally think Murphy won when in general because he didn’t go nengative”
And so do I !!!!! (well at least he himself didn’t need to) I am happy to see we can agree without ourselves, having go negative.
Johnson ran a campaign that has to be must reading for anyone who never hopes to ever win any election. She took the MoveOn. bate, hook, line, and sinker……I mean really sinker!!!!!!
If she had 10MM to spend on adds, she would have lost by 30,000 votes!!!!!!!!!!!
I too raked my leaves this afternoon, and looked back in here to see what words of wisdom from either side might be posted. I am happy to see that aside from Sandy, who’s posts I just disregard, I didn’t see any to get worked up over. Hopefully the Cappiello camp has learned from Johnson’s huge mistake, and will try to keep this election focused on the issues, and on the high road.
And clean and clear discussion of the issues this time around would be very well welcome.
52 MikeCT // Nov 23, 2007 at 8:10 pm ·
+0
Don,
Not that anyone can take you or the GOP seriously today, but just for fun, you’ve now asked three questions, none of which make any sense.
What public financing of elections has to do with accepting private funds from “people he may be regulating,” which would include the entire U.S. population, is beyond me. I give up.
53 sandy // Nov 23, 2007 at 8:20 pm ·
+0
Al said:
Al, although you can disregard my post, I am happy to be able to enjoy and absorb your words of wisdom. Thank You for sharing your vast knowledge with us.
54 Don Pesci // Nov 23, 2007 at 9:48 pm ·
+0
Mike,Mike,Mike,
You know as well as I do that public financing of campaigns represent a firewall that supposedly prevents public officials from doing favors for those special interests that contribute to their campaigns. You can’t want me to take you for a dope, because you aren’t one. If there were no such conflicts of interests between politicians who are in a mood to do favors for special interests that contribute to their campaigns, there would be no need for restrictive campaign finance laws. Elsewhere, I’ve argued that public financing of campaigns protects incumbents because it locks in their advantages. I know you’ve been keeping up with all this. You know, you know. So, stop throwing up your hands in disbelief. The posture is ridiculous for a savvy guy like you. Everything I’ve said here is stone cold truth. Murphy, as an incumbent, is no better or worse than anyone else, and that includes Chris Dodd, who you damned well know sits on the banking committee in the US Congress and accept huge campaign contributions from the financial sector for which he writes rules and regulations. All I’m saying is this: Give Murphy a few years and he’ll turn out to be just like Dodd — or, better still, Mr. Earmark King himself, John (Want A Submarine) Murtha, whose life and times I’ve explored here: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2006/11/murthas-augean-stables.html
Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.
55 Gabe // Nov 23, 2007 at 10:06 pm ·
+0
Well, except for the question, repeated three times, of whether Murphy will agree to avail himself of a system of public finance that does not exist.
I, for one, won’t trust him until he comes out for or against the Phoenix.
56 Don Pesci // Nov 23, 2007 at 10:43 pm ·
+0
Gabe,
I don’t care what Murphy “comes out for,” verbally. If he wanted to refuse tainted campaign money, he could do it whether there is a law prohibiting it or not. I don’t have to wait for a law prohibiting the cannibalism I deplore before I take a pledge not boil people and eat them. That, at least, would be a sign one could respect that he he is willing to apply to himself what he stands for. No? You tell me.
57 Gabe // Nov 23, 2007 at 11:27 pm ·
+0
Don,
Here’s what I’ll tell you, what you just wrote is incompatible with this:
If,
, then why do you keep asking him to make pledges?
But how could he (quoting you now) be “willing in his next campaign to accept public financing” and ” forgo any campaign contributions that are not publicly funded,” if public financing doesn’t exist in his race?
No, I guess not, but, to extend your appalling metaphor, you do have to wait for caramels to be invented before you eat them.
Please don’t expect the rest of us to have a clue what you are talking about, when you can’t seem to be bothered to…
58 matt w // Nov 24, 2007 at 12:30 am ·
+0
Wherein Gabe valiantly attempts to hold a good-faith argument with a bad-faith political actor…
59 Tim White // Nov 24, 2007 at 12:32 am ·
+0
this is a serious question and is not intended to jump into the middle of this discussion…
Anyone know why there’s public financing for POTUS, but not for Congress? I know I’ve never heard of public financing for congress… but the candidates for POTUS always seem to consider it.
And while we’re at it… with the Presidential primary in Feb… does that mean congressional primaries are the same day? (For example, could Cappiello/Himes be the official nominees in Feb? Or do Congressional primaries happen in Aug, same as Lamont/Lieberman?)
60 Gabe // Nov 24, 2007 at 12:47 am ·
+0
I’m not sure about the reasons for the first, but to the second, no, the primary dates for all other offices are the first Tuesday in August.
61 Tim White // Nov 24, 2007 at 1:07 am ·
+0
Gabe… thanks… about the second point… seems kinda stupid to me… like unnecessary spending that could be streamlined.
I realize it gets complicated, but maybe that’s a strategy that could be used in trying to get states to restrain themselves from pushing the primary season up further… pass a federal law that requires all fed-related primaries to happen on the same day… some states may then see a benefit in restraining themselves… although I don’t understand this stuff well… after all, don’t we have our gubernatorial (and congressional) conventions before the primary? As opposed to the Presidential primary preceding the convention?
That seems really strange to me, but then… a lot of party rules oftentimes seem odd and even devoid of logic.
62 pharg // Nov 24, 2007 at 8:05 am ·