[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: New Hampshire: Protector of Enshrined History, or State of Bored, Crusty Shut-Ins? New Hampshire recently announced it will hold its primary on January 8, the earliest date ever in presidential politics. The new date shatters New Hampshire's previous record of January 27, and continues the state's streak of holding the first primary in every election since 1920. True, the Iowa caucus comes earlier, but former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu once explained why it doesn't count. "In Iowa they pick corn," he said, "but in New Hampshire we pick presidents." Apart from painting a disturbing picture of New Hampshire voters pulling presidential candidates from tall vegetable stalks, or sucking them into giant combines for storage in vast silos, Sununu's words sent a message: Schedule an earlier presidential contest and you'll be labeled a rabble of yahoo farmers ignorant of your trivial role in presidential politics. In the New Hampshire "We Get to Be First or We Take Our Ball and Go Home" tradition, Secretary of State Bill Gardner said he would even move the primary to December, if necessary, to stay ahead of other states. All of which raises a question: Do New Hampshirites have anything to live for, or is this "We Have the First Primary" thing really it? I mean, why all the fuss? Is a living room visit from Joseph Biden really that important? Luckily, in a profile in the Manchester Union Leader, Secretary of State Gardner explained that New Hampshire is entitled to hold the first primary because: In [New Hampshire in] 1831, future president Franklin Pierce called Democrats (then called "Republicans," but unrelated to the present GOP) together to stop the hand-picked "king's caucus" of the time from choosing nominees. So, there you have it. Unless New Hampshire keeps the first primary, this vital piece of American history will be lost. Now I understand. Actually, New Hampshire prides itself on being first in a number of things. The town of Portsmouth was the starting point of Paul Revere's ride, New Hampshire was the first colony to declare independence from King George, and well, um, OK it's really only those two things. Personally, I think New Hampshire should give up the fight. New Hampshire, I'm sorry, but you don't deserve an outsize role in selecting the president. You're only 0.4% of the population.* You have the "Live Free or Die" license plates. That should be enough. Plus, you have The Old Man of the Mountain natural rock form. . . oh New Hampshire I'm sorry. I am so, so sorry. But if New Hampshire insists on keeping the first primary, I have some suggestions to help them win the battle, or at least maintain some self-respect: 1. Instead of scheduling an actual primary, just wait until another state goes first and then say, "Oh, the primary? We held ours last week." In the future candidates will visit New Hampshire earlier, and more often, because they won't know when the state will hold its phantom primary. 2. Kill two birds with one stone and hold the 2012 primary this January. 2012 hopefuls will rush up to the state, nearly doubling the number of visiting candidates this winter. The living rooms of New Hampshire voters will be packed! 3. Get jobs, make a few new friends, fall in love, and occasionally read a good novel or make something with your hands. My good friends in the Granite State, if you do these things, soon you won't really care whether your state holds the first primary. You may even find yourself fondly recalling the primary skirmishes of the past and thinking, "Gosh, I can't believe that ever mattered to me!"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: kiki, *Humor-Weird News* (#0)
ouch thats going to leave a mark
Fox News Channel is the television version of Free Republic
Who is Sean Carman, and why should anyone care what he thinks or writes? He comes off as a dull, self-impressed, ersatz-cleverness purveyor. Yawn. New Hampshire is a very nice place to live. The only states I like better are Wyoming, Alaska, Nevada, Idaho, and Arizona, in about that order.
You tell your king that William Wallace will not be ruled. And nor will any Scot while I live.
New Hampshire's two major drawbacks are high property taxes and heating expenses. Those are the only two reasons I left.
An idiot with a wordprocessor.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||