If you saw the post on the situation in New Hampshire, disregard the information. According to the New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair, Ray Buckley, the news was not true about the gay marriage vote and the Granite state's primary.
EDIT: I should probably add -- in the interest of not totally confusing everyone who didn't catch the original post -- that the issue in question was the DNC strong-arming hesitant Democratic state legislators into voting to pass the gay marriage bill wending its way through the General Court by threatening New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status.
Recent Posts:
Are Clinton and Obama Still Fighting? The Texas Primary-Caucus is Back
Democracy for the People
More Party Switchers?
5 comments:
I'm sure if the party chair said it was so, it must be so! It is what it is. Of course, the Republicans would never try to spread such a rumor for unsuspecting bloggers to pick up, either.
Rob, welcome back. Those were my thoughts exactly. It's probably almost impossible to say who's telling the truth here. DCW is probably more likely to believe the Democrats on such an issue. I'll say this: it's a more interesting story if it's true.
Besides, doesn't the secretary of state have more impact on the primary date than the state Democratic chair? Unless Buckley could go to the DNC and tell them to impose sanctions on NH for going early - something I don't think they'd do.
...unsuspecting bloggers who are already predisposed to picking up on this particular bit of minutiae, Rob.
Yes Jack, Bill Gardner has more of a say in this than Buckley does, but the DNC can remove the exemption from New Hampshire. Under the 2008 rules, the candidates could not campaign (or weren't supposed to) in a non-exempt state without losing their delegates in the process. Technically the DNC could do it, but I think the candidates would be more likely to eschew the sanctions if New Hampshire was the state they couldn't visit.
And yeah, the story is WAY more fun if its true. I'm not smarting so much from the he said/she said of it all. What bothers me is that was good post. The irony of New Hampshire getting a dose of its own medicine after all these years was too good.
Oh well.
Sounds like somebody's jealous because North Carolina has usually had a late primary.
Over on DCW, I posted that we still don't know who is telling the truth. I see no particular reason to believe Buckley versus Hynes.
I'm a bit surprised that Buckley took the time to respond my comment over there. Since I strongly support the bill he is championing, I'm not going to waste more of his time and energy by continuing a colloquy.
But if you want to see what he said (and what I said to prompt it), it's here.
Post a Comment