Thomas Sowell: Defending Rick Perry

OK, so Rick Perry can't speak well, like another Texas Governor that comes to mind:

But that does not mean he's wrong. Thomas Sowell outlines the defense:

The current outbreak of "gotcha" attacks on Texas Governor Rick Perry show one of the other pitfalls for those who are trying to pick a national leader. The three big sound-bite issues used against him during the TV "debates" have involved Social Security, immigration and a vaccine against cervical cancer.

Where these three issues have been discussed at length, whether in a few media accounts or in Governor Perry's own more extended discussions in an interview on Sean Hannity's program, his position was far more reasonable than it appeared to be in either his opponents' sound bites or even in his own abbreviated accounts during the limited time available in the TV "debate" format.

On Social Security, Governor Perry was not only right to call it a "Ponzi scheme," but was also right to point out that this did not mean welshing on the government's obligation to continue paying retirees what they had been promised.

Even those of us who still disagree with particular decisions made by Governor Perry can see some of those decisions as simply the errors of a decent man who realized that he was faced not with a theory but with a situation.

For example, the ability to save young people from cervical cancer with a stroke of a pen was a temptation that any decent and humane individual would find hard to resist, even if Governor Perry himself now admits to second thoughts about how it was done.

Many of us can agree with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's contention that it should have been done differently. But it reflects no credit on her to have tried to scare people with claims about the dangers of vaccination. Such scares have already cost the lives of children who have died on both sides of the Atlantic from diseases that vaccination would have prevented.

The biggest mischaracterization of Governor Perry's position has been on immigration. The fact that he has more confidence in putting "boots on the ground" along the border, instead of relying on a fence that can be climbed over or tunneled under where there is no one around, is a logistical judgment, not a question of being against border control.

Sorry Tom, but a fence is utterly obviously needed, as it would help the boots on the ground. And in turn, boots on the ground help prevent destruction of, climbing over, or tunneling under the fence. The two *go together*, and it is not an either/or issue. Here, Rick Perry did an epic fail.

In fairness, Governor Perry DID order the National Guard (to the extent he can, he doesn't have absolute control) to the border, along with the Texas Rangers and the Texas Guard (Texas's own militia, basically). Further, he championed the Sanctuary Cities bill which would have denied state funds to any city declaring itself a sanctuary city. He also championed and signed Texas's shiny new Voter ID law, which helps minimize the potential for political chicanery. What good is it to Illegal Alien Hispander when the illegal aliens will be prevented from voting?

But Thomas Sowell is right about this:

Those of us who disagree with Governor Perry's decision to allow the children of illegal immigrants to attend the state colleges and universities, under the same terms as Texas citizens, need at least to understand what his options were. These were children who were here only because of their parents' decisions and who had graduated from a Texas high school.

Governor Perry saw the issue as whether these children should now be allowed to continue their education, and become self-supporting taxpayers, or whether Texas would be better off with a higher risk of those young people becoming dependents or worse. I still see Governor Perry's decision as an error, but the kind of error that a decent and humane individual would be tempted to make.

I have far more questions about those who would blow this error up into something that it is not. Error-free leaders don't exist -- and we don't want to end up settling for a warm body.

Ultimately, this is not about Governor Perry. It is about a process that can destroy any potential leader, even when the country needs a new leader with a character that the "gotcha" attackers demonstrate they do not have.

And Meg Whitman makes it worse....

Now Meg Whitman won't debate Steve Poizner.

As if one dumb move justifies another.

Do you two *want* the Jerry Moonbeam Brown and the Commiecrats to win?

Have a spirited campaign and keep it positive. It's all you two have to do. Really. Please.

Steve Poizner: Crybaby or Paranoid?

You decide.

Steve Poziner seems to me to be a crybaby putz here. All the Whitman campaign was saying in the memo was "Let's bury the hatchet rather than have Poizner and Whitman tear each other apart, and keep the focus on preventing Former Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown from becoming Governor again (shudder)...."

Poizner could have replied that he still wanted a healthy competition and reaffirm that he would not go negative (which Whitman has not done as of yet). Indeed, if Whitman goes negative, my sympathies would be with Poizner.

There is a good argument for Poizner politely disregarding the Whitman campaign offer:

I, for one, don't want Poizner to drop out. With the occasional exceptions, contested primaries are good for the candidates. It warms them up for the general election, helps them vet their strengths and weaknesses, and those of their campaign organizations. They can learn from bonehead moves like complaining to state and federal law enforcement because an opposing campaign asked you to drop out, and avoid similar mistakes in the general election.

Republicans cleared the field for Attorney General Dan Lungren in 1998, on the theory he'd enter the general election at the head of a united GOP against the nominee of a Democratic primary splintered by a bitter primary. Gray Davis pulled a win out of that firefight, and went on to wallop Lungren by twenty points.

So better for campaigns to get poorly-conceived tactics like this one out of their systems early on when few voters are paying attention, and learn from the mistakes.

But Poizner is still being a putz here. And to go to the now Attorney General and future rival Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown to cry about it--wow, that's just political genius at work!!!!

You know, initially I favored Steve Poizner, the seasoned politico, over Meg Whitman, the wealthy dilettante. But not anymore. I wasn't sure which of the two was the more Real Republican and which was more of a RINO. But as of now, I'm choosing Meg.

McCain has the GOP Nomination....

....and we are so screwed.

Republicans are so shell-shocked and demoralized by the success of the Bush Derangement Syndrome, they think they can fool the voters by nominating an open-borders, anti-tax cut, anti-free speech, global-warming hysteric, pro-human experimentation "Republican." Which is to say, a Democrat.

But our demoralization isn't because of Bush Derangement Syndrome! It was because of GOP "strategists" like this:

Ken Duberstein was Ronald Reagan's chief of staff from 1988 to 1989 and deputy
undersecretary of labor for Gerald Ford.

Duberstein is very well-connected within the Republican Party.

"McCain is already starting to pull the Republican Party together, with the exception of the radio talk-show wing," Duberstein said.

"And sometimes that wing uses controversy to build listenership. The fact is that John McCain is uniting the Republican Party."

What a DuberDumbass.

Duberstein went on: "People seem to be looking for candidates who can govern. We
are through with simply appealing to the base.

Yes, because amnesty for illegals, pork barrel "stimulus" spending, and the "No Child Left Behind" fiasco were just *so* appealing to the base. I hate to see what DuberDumbass thinks *not* appealing to the base is like.

McCain is trying to reach out to independents, weak Republicans, weak Democrats and conservative Democrats to put together a new governing coalition that is less confrontational."

Duberstein believes McCain's success thus far is a good sign for Republican chances in November.

"People are saying that Washington doesn't work, we have to fix it somehow, and they are looking for people to get the job done," Duberstein said.

"McCain has shown the ability to reach across the aisle and get things done."

What a tool. And sadly, too much of that thinking permeates the GOP hierarchy.

A strange GOP Nomination indeed

Tony Blankley observes:

Assuming John McCain gets the GOP nomination, it will show how whimsical history can be. It would be the first time in living memory that a Republican presidential nomination went to a candidate who was not merely opposed by a majority of the party but was actively despised by about half its rank-and-file voters across the country -- and by many, if not most, of its congressional officeholders. After all, the McCain electoral surge was barely able to deliver a plurality of one-third of the Republican vote in a three-, four- or five-way split field. He has won fair and square, but he has driven the nomination process askew.
(...)
But what was left after the two strongest candidates couldn't run was one venerable candidate (McCain), one suspiciously newly minted conservative (Romney), one not-quite-plausible factional figure (Huckabee), one social liberal (Giuliani), a quixotic anti-war candidate (Paul) and an older Southern gent with a smashing younger wife for whom he seemed to be saving most of the energy he should have used in what was risibly called his "run" for president (Thompson).

So, the mischievous gremlins and elves inside the wheel of history have served up John McCain to lead Ronald Reagan's party into November battle. McCain is both the finest war hero since Eisenhower to run for president and the one senior Republican who has gleefully put his thumb in the eyes of his fellow Republicans and conservatives for a decade and a half.

Meanwhile, Kathleen Parker asks "What if..."?

The Curmudgeon's Guide to the Cali Primary

OK, it's time for me to tell y'all how to vote, although in all honesty, my heart is less in it this time. I am too late for those who have voted absentee anyway. I begin to doubt if it matters much anymore. Last time around in 2006, when I said that if Tom McClintock didn't win, we could stick a fork in California and turn it over, I meant it. And what was worse, Ah-nold stabbed Tom in the back, along with the rest of the California Republican Party.

Frankly, it was a mistake to do the recall of 2003. The real problem with California wasn't Gray Davis. It was, and still is, a cabal of wretched State Senate and Assemblycritters, gerrymandered to stay in power no matter what, also protected by incumbency and by bogus "Campaign finance reform" laws that make it difficult for challengers. The mostly moderate Gray Davis actually used to restrain these radicals with vetoes, before his political instincts deserted him and he decided to sign off on drivers licenses for illegal aliens, which was what set the recall drive in motion.

Samples of these wretched radicals are Don Perata in Oakland, Fabian Nunez (and the rest of the "Reconquista" politicians) in LA, Marco Firebaugh in Fresno, and Sheila Kuehl in San Diego. I could include Mark Leno in San Francisco, but his district isn't gerrymandered; the problem there is San Francisco, plain and simple.

To fight all of this, too many California Republicans, myself included, thought that we could short-circuit the process of fighting district by district and initiative by initiative. All we needed, so we thought, was a charismatic Governor to face the State Senate Soviets and Assembly Apparatchiks down, and so we got one--one who has led us right over a cliff. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it....

Governor Ah-nold has championed an orgy of bond spending that probably cannot be paid for. The long-expected budget crisis has formed up in detail over the last few months. Gov. Ah-nold Schwarzenegger has tap-danced his way to the end of the fantasy budget road. He managed to sidestep a lot of potholes, but his luck ran out: the subprime mortgage meltdown punctured the housing bubble and revealed the disastrous extent of California's shaky finances and a history of irresponsible choices.

Meanwhile, here on the Left Coast, we have seen the Mexifornia future and it doesn't work. An economy built on the "cheap" labor of millions of illegal aliens, which isn't cheap once we factor in the billions of tax dollars in welfare and other public service costs, is not a viable system.

California's deepening budget hole from berserk spending, no thanks to the Governator, simply cannot be papered over any longer. The massive costs of supporting a massive unskilled and often illegal foreign population now threaten basic services.

But oh well, let's get on with the initiatives.

California Initiatives:

Proposition 91: Transportation Funds - Oh Hell YES

This measure flatly prohibits Sacramento from raiding the special revenue fund, of gasoline taxes specifically meant for road repairs and other transportation, in order to paper over their budget deficits. When a watered-down version of Prop. 91 was adopted by the legislature, its sponsors dropped this measure, even after it qualified. Now they are telling us to vote NO. But vote YES anyway. If you want to genuinely protect our transportation taxes from being raided, Prop 91 is the Real McCoy.

Proposition 92: Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees - NO, although backers DO have a point.

This can best be described as the extension of the Prop. 98 (back in 1988) Guaranteed Funding Law to community colleges. Proposition 98 of 1988 mandated a certain level of spending for K-12, for California's State Universities, and for the University of California system. It also mandated some spending for Junior Colleges. However, this spending was based upon K-12 enrollment, not upon community college enrollment. Proposition 92 replaces this single spending requirement with two spending requirements: one for K-12 education and one for community colleges. It also gives community colleges a larger share of the Proposition 98 "pie" so to speak.

Now part of me really hates this and that is why I had to vote NO. This proposed law mandates more spending, guaranteeing the Junior Colleges a growing level of funding from the state's tax revenues regardless of their performance or the state's fiscal condition and priorities. If you like fiscal straight-jackets, you'll love Prop. 92. Mandated spending levels from the General Fund are a bad idea.

NOTE: Spending mandates are different from Special Revenue Funds, which in my view are quite good. If they want to tax our gasoline more specifically for the roads and transit, or if they want to have a lottery to benefit the schools, then dagnabbit, the proceeds from such taxes should be spent only on that purpose. But mandating a certain level of spending from the General Fund no matter what is a dangerous fiscal straight-jacket to put on the body politic of California.

Interestingly, the opponents of Proposition 92 are not just the usual anti-tax organizations like Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Organization, but also K-12 teachers unions, K-12 school administrators, and the bureaucrats of the California State University and University of California systems. Why? Because the Junior Colleges are demanding their share of the education pie and are tired of being treated like the Cinderella stepchildren.

And that's the part of me that makes me want to vote YES. Community colleges have a point--even if mandates are a bad idea, why shouldn't they take advantage of the Proposition 98 mandates too?

Dan Walters, one of the few good writers left at the Sacramento Bee (Ess), has a great article on the subject.

So I am torn. Funding mandates are a bad idea, but if they are to exist, why not account for the community colleges as well.

The community colleges are clearly being shafted, and I totally sympathize. In fact, if I could do it all over again, I would have gone to a community college for my lower division undergrad, and then transferred to Big Name University, saving myself and my folks a pile of money, worries about crime, political crap, and general trouble. I would have received a lot more personal attention as well. At Cal, professors were more often than not busy with grad students and undergrads were just nuisances they put up with.

Proposition 93: Changing the Term Limit rules on Legislators - Oh Hell NO

Tom McClintock says: "Current term limits are a maximum of 14 years in the legislature: six in the Assembly and eight in the Senate - which is why you see so much office-hopping. Prop. 93 reduces the maximum to 12 years in the legislature, but allows them to be served in the same house. Since I've only served eight years in the Senate, Prop. 93 would give me one final term; if it fails I must retire this year. Because I have a conflict of interest, I'm staying out if it." You have to admire that honesty.

What is so awful about this initiative is that it takes away incentive for legislators in the Assembly to behave themselves so they can then go on to the Senate when their Assembly term ends. If you are term limited to 12 years in either House, then why *not* stick your hand in the till and go hog wild?

The Ethically Challenged Twins, Fabian Nunez and Don Perata, thought they would have a free ride to extend their reign in the Capitol. The effort by the ethically challenged to be allowed to stay in office 4 to 6 more years has stalled and now fortunately looks like a loser. Nunez and Perata promised the people of California and the Governor they would have an honest redistricting measure on the same ballot. They don't, they lied--again. These are the same folks who promised the budget they passed in late August was balanced--that wasn't true either. How many times will Nunez and Perata lie to us? As long as we allow them to stay in office. Vote NO on 93 and tell the Ethically Challenged Twins we won't go for it anymore.

Remember that the First Law of Ecology is "everything is connected to everything else." That especially applies to election laws as well as the environment. Term limits came into being because of voters' frustration with gerrymandered districts. Unfortunately, some misguided people championed "Campaign finance reform" laws that only entrenched the incumbents further, because most of the time a challenger has to spend more than an incumbent. We cannot examine any election law or term limit or campaign spending law alone in isolation, we must look at it in the context of all other existing laws.

Proposition 94-97: Gaming Compacts - YES to all

The compacts will bring in large revenue to the state. If you are morally opposed to gambling, realize that a NO vote will not stop gambling and will probably produce worse compacts in the future that are not as favorable. Meanwhile, California needs the revenue--badly.

Frankly, I am not happy with the propaganda pushed back and forth on this issue. On the Pro side, there is the old fallacy that "The Big Nevada Casinos" are opposing this. In reality, the Big Nevada Casinos have done and continue to do well by Indian Gaming, because the Indians hire them to manage the Indian Gaming. The Big Nevada Casinos are the only ones who have the administrative skills, equipment, infrastructure and know-how that make the Indian casinos work. So who is really opposing these ballot initiatives? The Big Nevada Casino UNIONS, because Indian casinos are non-union. But I guess the backers think it's easier to demonize casinos rather than their unions.

Meanwhile, these unions make the absurd claim that "there is no guarantee that the revenues raised will go to education". Well, DUH, because Indian Gaming Revenues go to the *General Fund*. (NOTE: The California Lottery, on the other hand, is a Special Revenue Fund, where proceeds are spent on education only). The fact is that the more revenues go into the General Fund, the easier it will be for ALL programs, educational or not.

President: Mitt Romney.

Why Mitt? A good editorial in the Sacramento Union outlines reasons.

But moreover, I add reasons of my own:

1. He is a former or current Governor. Senators and other legislators just don't make the Presidency, at least not directly. (Yes, being NYC mayor could count as being = governor of a small state, but Rudy has dropped out now).

2. He is someone from the Northeast or West Coast. Just as the Demunists are weak in the South (and it's no accident that ALL Demunist Presidents in recent history have come from the South), we need someone who doesn't write off the Northeast or the Left Coast.

3. He is someone with an impeccable scandal free clean cut personal background. Rudy was out of the running from the get-go here....

4. Because I don't like anti-Mormon prejudice.

I have heard some "I could never vote for a Mormon" remarks--coming from CATHOLICS. It wasn't that long ago that people doubted we could have a Catholic President. In fact, there are still one or two fundamentalist Protestant backwaters in the USA where Catholics are denounced as "spiritual vampires and cannibals". (The whole "body of Christ / blood of Christ" consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation thing, remember?).

Aren't we BEYOND this? Unless someone's private spiritual beliefs affect his public policies, they should not be held against him or her. Which is why Muslims are so taboo---it's NOT because they make pilgrimages to Mecca or don't eat pork or drink booze; it's because they want to *kill* the rest of us. Mormons who believe in baptisms for dead ancestors and other relatives? We can live with that. Mitt for Prez.

5. I have misgivings about John McCain, the likely primary winner if Mitt doesn't pull it out on this upcoming Super Tuesday. John McCain really reminds me of "The Manchurian Candidate".


Is that unfair? Perhaps. But some of his policy positions make me wonder if the communists did a "number ten" on him in the Hanoi Hilton.

The three most egregious ones:

A. McCain's support of the bogus "comprehensive immigration reform", amnesty scam: "OK, I'll build their damn border fence if they want it so bad..." Sadly, too many Republicans DO NOT GET IT when it comes to this issue.

--Partly it is cheap labor greedheadedness among some Republicans, who are out of touch about the law enforcement and societal costs and other externalities, which they do not pay for (or if they do, very very indirectly).

--Partly it is because some Republicans foolishly believe in the Karl Rovian delusion / myth of "Hispandering" to victory. Of course we should support that "talented third" of Latinos just like we support that "talented tenth" of African Americans. But too many Republicans actually sadly think they can win a welfare pandering contest.

--Partly it is immigration romanticism among some Republicans.

B. McCain's support of bogus "Campaign finance reform". Not only has this entrenched incumbents, this has also obscured campaign financing. And it really stopped big spenders, didn't it? Somewhere, George Soros, a modern-day Ernst Stavro Blofeld if there ever was one, laughs his head off.

C. McCain's support of the bogus "Global warming" hoax.

A funny song parody, sung by a McCain impersonator to the tune of Lou Reed's "Walk on the Wild Side", sums up the problems many of us have with John McCain.

As does this cartoon (see attached at bottom):

So they say that Romney has flip-flopped? Which is another way of saying that conservatives can bully Romney into being conservative but can't bully McCain. Advantage: Romney.

"Now say "border wall",' Romney. Say it. Nope, louder. I said, LOUDER. Good. Now tell me again that you're opposed to global warming regulations. Good, but this time without whimpering. Heh. You can go make me a sandwich now."

Nevertheless, in spite of any GOP infighting, I am remarkably chipper about the GOP candidate's prospects for November. Why? Because in spite of all infighting, there is a remarkable amount of pragmatism.

Two examples: Televangelist Pat Robertson and "Minuteman" immigration controller Jim Gilchrist.

Jim Gilchrist endorsed Mike Huckabee for the same reasons that Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani. Gilchrist wants a real border solution, but he thinks (realizes?) he has to get the Jesuslanders who have Christian guilt ("oh, we are so rich and the Mexicans are so poor, boo hoo hoo") on board if he wants a real border solution. Likewise, Pat Robertson thinks (realizes?) he has to get the somewhat sinful businesspeople (some of whom may have had abortions or their children did, and many of whom have had messy divorces) on board if he wants to get any social conservatism at all.

Which is funny, given that both Robertson and Gilchrist have been demonized by the liberal media as "extremists". But that's the liberal media for you.

In reality, there is much more pragmatism in the GOP than we realize, thank goodness.

The only exception to this seems to be the Wall Street Journal greedheads, who insist on border chaos no matter what, cheap gardeners and maids being paramount to them, screw the middle class.

And despite all my misgivings about John "The Manchurian Candidate" McCain, I will still prefer him by far over either Hillary "Nurse Ratchet / Mommie Dearest" Clinton or Barack Obama!

Their campaign platforms are friggin identical: socialism, sodomy, and surrender,the only differentiation between the 2 assclowns is color, gender, and choice of hair care products.

The "Delaware Plan" for primaries?

Yet another primary reorganization proposal from Michael Barone:

If (every state moving its primary forward) turns out to be the case, we will have moved toward a de facto early national primary, which not only devalues retail politics but forces voters to make a decision all at once without seeing how candidates stand up under the rigors of campaigning. Is there an alternative? My favorite is the Delaware Plan, which came close to being endorsed by the 2000 Republican National Convention. It has four rounds of primaries or caucuses, with the 13 smallest states voting in March, followed by the 13 next largest in April, the next 12 in May, and ending with the final 12 largest states voting in June. This would leave plenty of room for retail politics, with candidates able to pick the states where they might run best.

Voters in later states would be able to judge how candidates run the gauntlet. The nominations could not be clinched until June, since the 12 largest states have 60 percent of the nation's population. The parties could endorse this system at their national conventions. Or if there was bipartisan consensus, Congress could impose it as federal law. Iowa and New Hampshire have been disproportionately powerful for 30-plus years now. But maybe not forever.

Hillary Clinton fundraiser disrupted in Sacramento

...by the moonbat Left!

Inside a residence along the American River, some of Sacramento's most prominent Democrats rationed lamb chops and wine without their guest of honor Thursday. Outside stood anti-war protesters, a flag-draped coffin and more than 100 guests in dinner attire, all waiting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. . . . Mainstream Democrats mixed with liberal activists in the street outside the home of developer Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis. . . .

"Mainstream Democrats" brought this upon themselves....you can't have your moonbat cake and eat it too...

The Sacramento developer and Democratic fundraiser was . . . upset with anti-war activist Stephen Pearcy, partly because he had disrupted her reception and partly because she sees herself--and [Mrs.] Clinton--as opponents of the Iraq war.

"I don't understand why in the world he would disrupt something like our event because, frankly, it is simply appalling that he and his friends are not going after the people in this (Bush) administration who have caused this war," Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis said Monday. " . . . That man has got the wrong people, us and her, and he should be ashamed of himself. He should be absolutely ashamed." . . .

"I think a lot of people were somewhat irritated by these protesters," [guest Jim] Moose said. "On the other hand, I think people have the right to protest. I'm not outraged by these people expressing their free-speech rights, but I think these protesters are missing the boat. . . . They could have found someone more politically
conservative to protest than major Democratic candidates."

In other words, don't these moonbats understand that they're supposed to be political pawns who serve the Democrats? They have some nerve to protest them instead. Some people just don't know their place!

Also in other words, the "Mainstream Democrats", who know that we just can't pull out of Iraq and turn Baghdad 2007 into Saigon 1975, are fellow traveling opportunists. Nice....

George Will: Moving primaries forward backfires

Will is spot on.

Every campaign is shaped by two scarcities — the candidate's time and money. No candidate will have enough of either to campaign intensely, in person or even on television, in perhaps 24 states across the continent in the 22 days from Iowa (Jan. 14) to Feb. 5. As political analyst Charlie Cook says, this will raise the stakes — the free media attention and the momentum it imparts — that will accrue to the winner or winners of the first four states (South Carolina Democrats and Republicans vote on Jan. 29 and Feb. 2, respectively). Indeed, if one person wins three or all four of those, the Feb. 5 primaries might be mere ratifying echoes rather than deciding events.

See previous post about two better ideas for the primary system.

Two ideas for a better presidential primary system

Primaries, which used to gradually unfold across the nation, have become too front loaded, making the conventions into "coronation ceremonies".

To his credit, Stephen Frank discusses this problem.

The old and now nearly gone Southern Democrats created "Super Tuesday" in the hope of restoring some conservatism into their party (no such luck). Then California chose to move it’s primary from June to February, followed by other states moving their primaries forward as well. Now the whole process is ridiculously front loaded.

What to do? Two different ideas:

(1) A "national primary day". I would set such a day on the First Tuesday in June of the election year. The incumbent president’s party convention could follow in the month of July, the challenger’s party convention in the month of August, debates and campaigning all through September and October.

In such a system, the party conventions would start to REALLY matter, and not just be "coronation ceremonies" for the wanna-be king. Deals would have to be brokered, losing candidates offered Veep or Cabinet slots, etc. There might be real fights over the party platforms. It would at least be interesting.

(2) I also have an alternative "Modest Proposal", which would alas probably require a constitutional amendment to make it so, alas. My idea is that 2 states per week, over a 26 week process from January to June, would hold their primaries (or perhaps caucuses should the state choose that method instead; maybe this can be debated here). As in the first option, the incumbent president’s party convention could follow in the month of July, the challenger’s party convention in the month of August, debates and campaigning all through September and October.

How to determine which state holds its primary election when? Simple: By the order in which the states were admitted into the Union.

This method would make the whole process interesting, in terms of strategy and tactics. Would a candidate try to be in every state, or would he concentrate on only certain states and regions? As the field of candidates narrows, to whom would the failed candidates throw their support, and how much would it help? Now THAT is real excitement for the political junkies.

This method would make Pennsylvania the first important primary to watch, as it is a fairly sizeable state and second into the Union. This method would give the NH people hissy fits, but tough. We need some method to determine who goes first and who follows, and order of admission into the Union is the best concrete and constitutional method I can think of.

This method would mean a gradual unfolding from East to West more or less, alternating between northern and southern states at first, then going to the West Coast, then back to the Rockies and the Prairies. AK and HI last. Well, actually the PR, GU, VI, and Samoa territories would be last, (26th week) since non-state territories can vote for President, but you get the idea.

Other rules I would put in place:

— delegates would be won proportionately in the primary elections for each party, not "winner take all". This would give the race some ferment, and make the party conventions at the end have some real political horse trading and not just be coronation ceremonies.

— CLOSED PRIMARIES ONLY. "Open Primaries" are gateways to political chicanery, with sabotage voters from one party going to urinate in the other party’s voting pool. Anyone who knows the story of what happened in the Louisiana governor’s race a decade and a half ago, of the crooked Evan Edwards using David Duke to annilhate Buddy Roemer (sp?) will understand what I am talking about here. In large part, McCain’s campaign in 2000 relied on the "political urination" factor in SC and other open primary states, one reason why I lost respect for McCain.

— Should caucuses be allowed, or primaries be mandatory? I’m not sure, but I am inclined to go toward the latter. Caucuses are not who actually votes in a state so much as they are who busses in their political operatives.

Let me know what you think.