Other states can pick a president too

With all due respect to the citizens of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, how is it fair that they get such disproportionate power over the rest of us every election cycle? Why should some states always be given greater influence to determine the presidential nominee, over and over again?

primaries_early.jpgI’m getting ready to vote, but my two favorite candidates have already dropped out, because these other privileged states have already determined them not to be viable. Same thing happened in 2004. Same states.

It’s time to shake up that unfair influence. The privilege of picking the “viable” nominees should be on a rotation, not just given to the same select voters every time.

Here’s the Tom Ryberg proposal:

Every four years, the major parties pick three different states to go first: one coastal, one midwestern, and one southern. All others vote on Super Tuesday, or thereafter.

Think I’m onto something? Tired of voting after it’s all but been predetermined for you already? Tell them about it (and while you’re at it, tell them too).

Advertisements

Why did Pat Robertson really endorse Rudy Giuliani?

Far right Christian extremist Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani, despite ideological differences such as Giuliani’s support for gay rights and abortion. Robertson certainly deserves credit for being willing to break rank from other prominent conservatives who threatened to form a 3rd party if a pro-choice Republican (read: Giuliani) gets the nod. But why Giuliani? Here’s what Robertson had to say:

Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today.

Maybe. However, Robertson gets it wrong so much of the time that I’m having a hard time swallowing this. (Also, it’s a little hilarious to hear Pat Freakin’ Robertson call for bipartisanship in Washington…) So I find myself questioning the motives of one who is so virulently anti-gay, anti-woman, and anti-democracy.

You see, Pat Robertson has already stated that he believes that only Christians and Jews are fit to govern America. Consider this in light of the fact that Robertson views Mormonism as an un-Christian cult, and maybe the simplest answer is also the best one: Robertson doesn’t believe that Romney, a Mormon, is as fit to govern as Giuliani, a Catholic.

What if Mitt Romney happened to be an evangelical Christian, remaining identical in every other respect of his life and political career? Who would Robertson support then? Does anybody actually believe that anti-gay and anti-abortion Pat F. Robertson would’ve endorsed Giuliani over Romney? Yeah…me neither.

I should hasten to add that as Republicans go, I’ve got no particular problem with Giuliani or Romney, in and of themselves. However, I do have a big problem with religious discrimination, especially in light of Galatians 3.28: There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. I hope Pat Robertson has had a legitimate change of heart and is simply supporting Giuliani for reasons of policy, despite all evidence to the contrary.