'08 Nominees Chosen by Thanksgiving?

In a display that gives one reason to wonder if Party leaders in the various states have taken leave of their senses, the South Carolina Republican Party announced on Thursday that it will move up its GOP primary to Jan. 19.

This action will set into motion yet another chain of events that will result in the move by other states to schedule their primaries earlier.

New Hampshire will surely be the first to make the move. By state law their primary must be the first in the nation, meaning that the New Hampshire date will more than likely be set for Jan. 12.

Iowa, however, is bound and determined to protect its status for having the very first shot at voting by scheduling their time-honored tradition of holding caucuses before the New Hampshire primary, meaning that in all likelihood the Iowa caucuses will be scheduled in December.

We have already been through this before, resulting in a ridiculously early round of caucuses and primaries--the earliest in U.S. history. The question becomes, will the other primary states follow suit and move up their dates, thus prompting South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa to move up their dates even further?

If that happens, it is entirely possible that the nominees for both Parties could be chosen by Thanksgiving.

Far-fetched, you say? Well, who would have thought we be looking at having the Iowa caucuses in December?

In case you are wondering who is to blame for this blatant game of oneupmanship, look no further than the state of Florida. Defying Republican and Democratic National Committee rules that forbid state primaries before Feb. 5, Florida Republicans and Democrats decided to move their primary to Jan. 29.

The penalty for defying the rules is that the RNC and the DNC withhold half of the delegates of the offending states to the Party Conventions, meaning that those states' voting power at the Conventions is greatly diminished.

These states, however, believe that whoever is their Party's nominee will take over the national committees before the Party Conventions, which means that the rules will not be enforced.

Thus, yet another piece of the drama, credibility, and necessity of the Party Conventions is nullified.

And in the end the Parties lose, the candidates lose, and America loses.

To prevent the present undesirable state of affairs in which voters are already growing weary of the process, the national committees of the two Parties should immediately enforce the rules rather than wait until the Conventions. The penalties for moving up a primary to a ridiculously early date should be immediate and devastating.

And it should not be dependent on who is in control of the committee at any given moment in time.

Perhaps the DNC and the RNC should inform the various states that NONE of their delegates will be seated at the Conventions unless they adhere to the Feb. 5 requirement.

Then we could all watch at how quickly the various states decide to move their primaries to later rather than earlier dates.

Part of the allure of American politics is the drama inherent in the process. Through the years we have just about removed all of that drama, and the voters are yawning and going back to sleep.

Just what, exactly, are the candidates and the voters going to do if everything has been decided by Christmas? This will mean we will have to wait another eleven months for the general election. Such a situation will be ripe for even more trivializing of the political process by the tabloid-driven mainstream media.

It simply does not take eleven months to discuss and debate the issues related to a national election. Many have suggested that the present practice of having one or two debates by the candidates of the two major Parties is not enough, and that a series of debates will be much better.

But even that is a far cry from being forced to endure nearly a year of campaigning.

What do you talk about when you run out of things to talk about?

Nothing of any importance, that's for sure. And this is why I maintain that the stage is being set for tabloid journalism to have a field-day during the 2008 election cycle.

Show Me the Money--Campaign Funds Raised So Far

Washington, DC (TLS). The Liberty Sphere has reported many times that each candidate for President will need a campaign war-chest of at least 100 million dollars by January 1, 2008 in order to mount a competitive campaign.

Let's see who has the most money thus far, in order of their rank in total funds raised:

Over 20 Million, but under 30 Million
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
--Barack Hussein Obama
--Mitt Romney

Over 10 million, but under 20 million
--Rudy Giuliani
--John Edwards
--John McCain

Over 5 million, but under 10 million
--Bill Richardson

Under 5 million
--Chris Dodd
--Joe Biden
--Sam Brownback
--Tom Tancredo
--Ron Paul
--Mike Huckabee
--Duncan Hunter
--Dennis Kucinich
--Tommy Thompson
--Jim Gilmore
--Mike Gravel

As you can see by these official rankings, the three candidates who are well on their way to raising the necessary funds by Jan. 1 are Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, and Mitt Romney. Those who are lagging a bit behind but are still easily within reach are Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards, and John McCain.

It is our opinion that anyone who at this point has less than 10 million dollars on hand in campaign cash is going to have a very tough time raising the amount needed by that all-important deadline.

For example, in order for Bill Richardson to have 100 million by Jan. 1 he will have to raise at least 14 million bucks PER MONTH between now and Dec. 31, 2007. That is roughly twice as much per month as the TOTAL he has raised thus far.

By anyone's estimation that is an exceedingly tall order.

This is why with each passing day I am growing more and more pessimistic about the prospects of a viable candidacy out of anyone who has raised less than 5 million by now. This bodes ill for candidates such as Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee, I am sorry to say.

Yet this is not an entirely impossible scenario. If a dark horse candidate catches on with a large segment of the electorate, the campaign cash will come rolling in in fairly short order.

But the time is growing short. We can thank the almighty intellects at the helm of both Parties for this sorry state of affairs. Jan. 1 is way too early to start primaries. But the Parties all moved up their primary dates in the name of attempting to be 'the very first one.'

As much as I hate the scenario they have created with primaries taking place as early as January, this is the reality we must face. And reality dictates that in this election cycle a candidate is going to need 100 million by January 1 in order to be competitive in those early primaries.