My letter to the most important man in American politics

In which I implore Bill Gardner to save the New Hampshire primary.

Topics: 2008 Elections, Howard Dean

My letter to the most important man in American politics

Bill Gardner, the doggedly nonpartisan New Hampshire secretary of state, is the keeper of the flame of the first-in-the-nation primary, a modern-day Horatio at the Bridge holding off the uninformed hordes who fail to appreciate this small New England state’s unique status in the political firmament. Unlike anyone else in the galaxy, Gardner boasts the superpower to schedule his state’s presidential primary by personal fiat without consulting the governor, the state Legislature or either political party. Gardner is guided by a single North Star — the wording of the New Hampshire statute that decrees that the secretary of state shall set a day for the primary “which is 7 days or more preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election.”

Never before in his three-decade career as the Man Who Sets the Date has Gardner faced a more daunting challenge than in the 2008 presidential season. The primaries are starting earlier than ever, with roughly half the nation slated to vote in a single day, Feb. 5. Despite the opposition of both national parties, particularly the Democrats, Michigan has horned in on the early action by slating its outlaw primary for Jan. 15. Trapped by the inexorable 31-days-hath-January calendar math, Gardner does not have much room to maneuver.

His decision, likely to be announced with a puff of white smoke early next month, affects more than the holiday plans of political reporters and the first-quarter earnings of the New Hampshire hotel-motel industry. Seemingly small matters — such as the interval of time between the opening-gun Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary — can play an oversize role in choosing the presidential nominees.

Also, the entire tradition of starting the presidential campaigns in small states like Iowa and New Hampshire is already in jeopardy. A maladroit move by Gardner could permanently destroy the Norman Rockwell tradition of the candidates’ being grilled by crusty New Englanders in high-school gyms and (still occasionally) living rooms. In the future, candidates may well run for president from TV studios and campaign jets, never venturing more than five miles from a major airport and using voters as little more than visual props for see-the-leader-amid-the-people commercials.



These daunting pressures of the present and dire visions of the future prompt the following open letter to the Most Important Public Official in Politics:

To: William Gardner

Secretary of State of New Hampshire and the Protector of the Primary

From: Walter Shapiro

Subject: The Fateful Date (What Else?)

As a reporter who covered his first New Hampshire primary in 1980 and who reveres its democratic values and traditions, I feel compelled to offer some scheduling advice from the sidelines.

You remain as inscrutable as Alan Greenspan before his memoirs, but I note that the Washington Post has divined from a recent interview that you are tempted to move the primary to December. (After our 90-minute phone conversation in July, about all I divined was that the New Hampshire primary would indeed take place sometime in 2007 or 2008.)

A word of warning: If you try to preserve the primacy of the primary by primly picking a Tuesday in December, you risk New Hampshire’s being ridiculed by the late-night comics for voting on 2008 presidential candidates in 2007. As you know all too well, New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status is hanging by a thread. And holding the primary while the Christmas decorations are still up in Concord will seem to most Americans as absurd as beginning leaf-peeping season in February.

New Hampshire did not cause the front-loading of the system (your primary has been at the head of the class since 1920), but your state will be blamed for it. And in 2012, New Hampshire and Iowa would probably be shoved offstage to be replaced by a national primary, open only to candidates with household names who can raise $150 million before a single vote is cast.

Because of your concerned public comments about Michigan voting on Jan. 15, it is widely assumed that you will opt for Tuesday, Jan. 8. But that seemingly safe choice would mean that New Hampshire would be reduced to a way station between the Iowa caucuses and the Michigan (only Republicans will be competing) and South Carolina primaries. In short, Jan. 8 is a date that would squeeze New Hampshire to near irrelevance.

At the moment, the most likely choices for the evening Iowa caucuses are Thursday, Jan. 3 (currently favored by the state Republican Party) or Saturday, Jan. 5. Since Iowans have to caucus in person, male turnout may be depressed by conflicts with football, whether it is the Orange Bowl (Jan. 3) or the NFL and AFL wild-card playoffs (Jan. 5). Friday night, Jan. 4, is out of the question because of the religion built around high-school basketball games, though the Jewish Sabbath provides a far more public-spirited excuse.

Think what this accelerated caucus schedule would do to diminish the New Hampshire primary, which in recent years has been eight days after Iowa. The candidates will live nearly full-time in Iowa from the week before Christmas until the caucuses. They will watch the ball come down on New Year’s Eve in Dubuque (Iowa) not Derry (New Hampshire). If the caucuses are Jan. 5, the candidates will arrive in New Hampshire just in time to spend Sunday morning, Jan. 6, making the rounds of the TV talk shows. They will then embark on a whirlwind 36-hour tour of the state, which would be a parody of New Hampshire-style personal campaigning. After 88 years of tradition, New Hampshire would become a drive-by state.

Thursday, Jan. 3, for Iowa would give New Hampshire only slightly more breathing room. Democratic media consultant Anita Dunn, who braved the Iowa-New Hampshire gantlet with the ill-fated 2000 Bill Bradley campaign, predicts that Jan. 4 would be dedicated to absorbing the results of the caucuses. Then Saturday, Jan. 5, would be dominated by the first post-Iowa snap polls. A network or two would probably sponsor debates in both parties on Sunday, Jan. 6. Then would come the candidates’ 36-hour no-questions-please-we’re-in-a-hurry dash to the primary. As Dunn put it, “By the time the Iowa analysis is over, New Hampshire will have happened.”

While we are in uncharted territory with the tightly sandwiched 2008 campaign schedule, the simple rule of thumb is that the Iowa caucus results tend to dissipate after five or six days. The internal tracking polls for Bradley in 2000 and Howard Dean in 2004 — two candidates who endured epic pratfalls in Iowa — charted a rebound as the New Hampshire primary neared. In short, the smaller the window between Iowa and New Hampshire — especially if it is just three days — the greater the likelihood that New Hampshire would simply ratify the results of the caucuses.

This schedule would also reward Michigan for breaking the rules of both parties by moving at the last minute to mid-January. (The logic for making major industrial states wait to hold their primaries until later in the cycle is to give underdogs a chance to break through with low-cost campaigning in Iowa or New Hampshire.) After spending as little time as possible in New Hampshire, the surviving GOP candidates would lavish a full week in Michigan, tromping through Traverse City and bowling in Benton Harbor. Meanwhile, the Democrats (who have pledged to boycott Michigan) would give the South Carolina primary and the Nevada caucuses (both of which may be held on Saturday, Jan. 19) the full attention that New Hampshire once took as its birthright.

There is an obvious solution to save the New Hampshire primary, though it would take a little maneuvering on your part, Mr. Gardner. Hold the New Hampshire primary on Saturday, Jan. 12. That would restore the traditional week-or-so separation between Iowa and New Hampshire. The Democratic candidates would spend that entire week in New Hampshire, while the Republicans would be skittish about campaigning in Michigan before Jan. 13 for fear of fatally antagonizing Granite State voters.

Yes, I know that the New Hampshire law says that the primary has to be at least “7 days” before “a similar election.” But it is the secretary of state who interprets what the phrase a “similar election” means. Many in New Hampshire, including state Democratic chairman Ray Buckley, have argued that the Michigan primary is not a similar event, since all the leading Democrats, aside from Hillary Clinton, have formally removed their names from the ballot. In your comments this week to the Manchester Union Leader, Mr. Gardner, you indicated that you would not accept this easy exit route from your current scheduling dilemma.

In an age where it seems like everyone is cutting corners, it is both praiseworthy and a tad foolhardy that the secretary of state of New Hampshire would not take advantage of such a legal loophole to uphold the primary.

So why not do things directly? Ask the governor and the legislative leaders to convene a special session to eliminate the “7-day” requirement from the primary law. As influential Democratic state Sen. Lou D’Allesandro said, “That’s not a major problem. If Bill Gardner asked for it, yes, it could happen.” Since New Hampshire is such a small state, I am told that it would not take more than a week to make the arrangement for a special session of the legislature.

Outsiders may think it is weird that a national reporter would devote so much energy to trying to urge you to move the New Hampshire primary just four days from the likely Jan. 8 to the infinitely preferable Jan. 12. But in the hyper-drive video-game world of the 2008 primary calendar, 96 more hours is a political lifetime. Time enough to uphold the relevance of New Hampshire’s proud political traditions. For to update Daniel Webster, “It is a small primary, and yet there are those who love it.”

Walter Shapiro is Salon's Washington bureau chief. A complete listing of his articles is here.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>