Posted on 08/01/2009 9:56:06 PM PDT by Steelfish
RNC reconsiders primary schedule
Health care, cap-and-trade plans opposed
By Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact) | Sunday, August 2, 2009
SAN DIEGO | Before wrapping up the four-day annual summer meeting of the Republican National Committee, members debated changing the 2012 GOP presidential primary schedule - something for the first time in their history they can actually do on their own, without approval of the more than 2,000 delegates who attend the quadrennial Republican National Convention.
"Any change we make will have to be approved by two-thirds of the RNC members, so there will have to be a solid consensus that satisfies big and small states," said former Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis, who is a member of the ad hoc "delegate selection committee" that will continue hashing over ways to head off the perceived slide toward a one-day national primary that would, in theory, benefit candidates with more money and greater name recognition.
Last year, members at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., voted to give the RNC power over the schedule.
A final proposal for the primary schedule is expected to be presented for approval at the annual winter RNC meeting of its 168 members in January in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Let’s see. In ‘96 I was disappointed that Bob Dole gamed the system because he wasn’t conservative enough. In 2000 I was disappointed that we didn’t choose someone more conservative. In 2008 it was FReeping obvious that the system is gamed against conservatives like Duncan Hunter.
Bottom line, the primary system worked because Bush and McCain were our best candidates and I dare you to name someone who was running who was better.
***Duhh. I was a Hunter fan and I felt McCain wasn’t conservative enough. The only bright spot on the ticket was Sarah Palin.
ANYONE was better than McCAin, but you rino’s managed to keep conservatives out of the running. Be proud!
***Dittos
In 2000, NY went red and Iowa went blue, both by less than 2 percent. In 2004, Iowa went red and NH went blue by less than 3 %.
Or in other words, you may not know what you are talking about.
I dare you to name the candidates that would have been better.
Well you have the company of several thousands of others. The only problem with that is McCain and Obama got the votes of tens of millions.
You are partly right. Iowa is a net recipient of federal funds because of farm subsidies. New Hampshire and Colorado are net contributors. Virginia and North Carolina are teat suckers and consume more than they contribute.
The current system is purposely designed that way. It has been policy since Wilson's administration to tax the high producing northern states and to shift the money to lower producing southern states. Income redistribution if you will. Since that time three southern states have become net producers, Texas, Florida and I think that now Georgia has tipped the balanced. The rest are teat suckers.
Understood. I had thought NC paid more in taxes than it received in Federal funds. Hurricane Floyd proved that point to me vividly, when the Federal Govt left us with over $6 billion in cleanup costs we had to pick up ourselves.
Where can I find this info. Let me know, thanks!
A chart for 2005 can be found here and a more extensive one here.
As usual there is more to the story on most states. Agricultural subsidies were designed to help farmers in trouble but have become a method to maintain a "cheap food" policy for the cities. Ag states get the money but the benefits are shared with the entire population. Large states with small populations (Wyoming) just don't have the people to match even modest federal outlays. Military bases were purposely located in the South to pump money into local economies but they had to be put somewhere. States like Arizona or Nevada with high growth rates will eat Federal dollars as infrastructure is built out but the turnaround should be fairly rapid.
The income tax was born of the populist movement and has become somewhat of a monster but in the first half of the last century many parts of the South were beginning to resemble a Latin American country, a few rich and a lot of poor. It became federal policy to prevent and reverse that.
Which is my I always laugh when folks say that the south was always "conservative." Southern and midwestern "populists" brought us the Socialist monstrosity known as the income tax.
When I was working on the Reagan campaign (I was a major strategist [Them: "Boy were need some more chairs in here." Me: "Yessir".]) the south were the anti-Reaganites. There was no region where Reagan did worse than in the South.
And you have the company of hundreds of RINOs here on FR to keep you comfortable, along with those fond memories of voting for Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.