Comments on: On Democratic Closed Caucuses http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/on-democratic-closed-caucuses/ Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.-Ronald Reagan Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:00:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Adam Graham http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/on-democratic-closed-caucuses/comment-page-1/#comment-3198 Adam Graham Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:37:26 +0000 http://adamsweb.us/blog/on-democratic-closed-caucuses/#comment-3198 Because what we have now is an absurdity. We'd like to have a political party of our ow, not share 1 with our opponents. Because what we have now is an absurdity. We’d like to have a political party of our ow, not share 1 with our opponents.

]]> By: W. Lane Startin http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/on-democratic-closed-caucuses/comment-page-1/#comment-3183 W. Lane Startin Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:24:07 +0000 http://adamsweb.us/blog/on-democratic-closed-caucuses/#comment-3183 I'd submit (1) this sort of thing wouldn't happen if the typical Idaho Democratic primary had more electricity than an Amish rave (our fault) and (2) the track record for such things is, well, pretty terrible from my standpoint. Frankly I think the current setup helps conservative Republicans overall. All this further leads me to wonder why y'all couldn't leave well enough alone. I’d submit (1) this sort of thing wouldn’t happen if the typical Idaho Democratic primary had more electricity than an Amish rave (our fault) and (2) the track record for such things is, well, pretty terrible from my standpoint. Frankly I think the current setup helps conservative Republicans overall.

All this further leads me to wonder why y’all couldn’t leave well enough alone.

]]> By: Adam Graham http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/on-democratic-closed-caucuses/comment-page-1/#comment-3133 Adam Graham Thu, 12 Jul 2007 03:43:47 +0000 http://adamsweb.us/blog/on-democratic-closed-caucuses/#comment-3133 It's an issue now that Democrats are trying to bludgeon Republicans over the head with allegations of violating privacy. As for tampering, I'd point you to <a href="http://209.210.60.104/Exhibit%20C%20to%20Affidavit%20of%20Rod%20Beck.pdf" rel="nofollow">this column</a> by Bill Cope, this <a href="http://idablue.blogspot.com/2006/04/dems-vote-vasquez-for-congress.html" rel="nofollow">post</a> by Alan at Idablue. Then Marv Hagadorn posts two letters to the editor urging tampering, <a href="http://www.marvhagedorn.com/images/Tomfoolery1.jpg" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.marvhagedorn.com/images/Tomfoolery2.jpg" rel="nofollow">here</a>. This corrupts our process and does need to stop. It’s an issue now that Democrats are trying to bludgeon Republicans over the head with allegations of violating privacy.

As for tampering, I’d point you to this column by Bill Cope, this post by Alan at Idablue. Then Marv Hagadorn posts two letters to the editor urging tampering, here and here. This corrupts our process and does need to stop.

]]> By: W. Lane Startin http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/on-democratic-closed-caucuses/comment-page-1/#comment-3131 W. Lane Startin Thu, 12 Jul 2007 03:07:31 +0000 http://adamsweb.us/blog/on-democratic-closed-caucuses/#comment-3131 Idaho Democrats have held presidential caucuses for decades, and now suddenly that's an issue? The "loyalty card" thing may be a bit cheesy, but it's certainly not binding (or particularly threatening). If a Republican wanted to attend a caucus under the radar, as it were, he or she could do so and we wouldn't know a thing about it until we started making calls weeks after the fact. Further, there would be exactly bupkis we could do about it. As for "tampering," the only time I remember hearing in any regularity about that was back in '94, when it was said some Democrats voted for the perceived weakest candidate for then-Rep. Larry LaRocco to run against ... a certain Helen Chenoweth. Oops. So it may very well be that registration by party is in Idaho's near future. Regardless of how you feel about that, just don't forget that Pandora's Box was opened at a meeting of Idaho Republicans in Burley, no one else. Idaho Democrats have held presidential caucuses for decades, and now suddenly that’s an issue? The “loyalty card” thing may be a bit cheesy, but it’s certainly not binding (or particularly threatening). If a Republican wanted to attend a caucus under the radar, as it were, he or she could do so and we wouldn’t know a thing about it until we started making calls weeks after the fact. Further, there would be exactly bupkis we could do about it.

As for “tampering,” the only time I remember hearing in any regularity about that was back in ‘94, when it was said some Democrats voted for the perceived weakest candidate for then-Rep. Larry LaRocco to run against … a certain Helen Chenoweth. Oops.

So it may very well be that registration by party is in Idaho’s near future. Regardless of how you feel about that, just don’t forget that Pandora’s Box was opened at a meeting of Idaho Republicans in Burley, no one else.

]]>