This is a one-party state. The democrat primary is of little significance. Until they're in a position to bloody you a bit, it doesn't matter.

The distinction is between national and state primaries. I haven't heard anyone complaining about closed Republican presidential primaries. The issue is closed *state* primaries, and it is being pushed primarily by the right wing of the Republican party out of concern that Democrats and independents are supporting more moderate candidates.

2)Why let a wedding crasher in?

3) Who's afraid of the Democrat Wolf?

I'll HUFF and I'll PUFF and I'll BLOOOOOOOOOOW YOUR STRAW POLL DOWN!!!

It's not a closed process. Anyone can show up, attend, go....if someone wants to be 'counted' they do have to declare (at least for that time frame) that they are a Democrat.

Ironically, just a few months ago, the Democrats, left-wing blogs and the local press where going wild over a Republican plan to close the primaries.

Wasn't the difference that Ron Crane wanted it closed to those who were 'truly Republican' or at least to those who declared Republican for a greater length of time than the few hours or so of the caucus or primary? In other words, it would not remain an open process as it is now.

If you want to vote you have to be there and stay there, start to finish, as I understand. Tardies will not be served.

Is that what you mean by 'closed'?

You really ought grow a thicker hide, Mr. Labrador--you're in politics after all. Your first post was about how some people say mean things about you and your party and how unsettling that is for you. Now, you're complaining that the media is ganging up against you, too. Quit your whining already.

The reason why people are not objecting to the Democratic caucuses is because you're comparing apples and oranges. Note these important differences:
1) The Democratic presidential caucus is entirely paid for with private funds, not state money. Republicans are advocating that elections that are paid for with state (taxpayer) monies should be closed and exclusive.
2) We don't make our caucus information public. By proposing a closed primary and requiring party registration, one's party affiliation will then be a matter of public record. In Idaho's many small towns, making someone's political affiliation public could place in jeopardy one's livelihood, standing in the community, etc. Idahoans believe in personal privacy and independence--nothing about the Democratic caucus compromises either.

Hence, your comparison is not valid, which is why the media is not writing about it. I understand that you must be in a tizzy after seeing 15,000 people turning out for Obama--it must be tough to stomach that you're on the wrong side of local political and demographic trends. Your district will also go blue shortly, and no amount of hair splitting about the least important issues of the day (as you've done above) will change that.

(my best Robert DeNiro)

.... I have no idea why that happened.

Mr. Labrador,

Don't you argue apples and oranges? As I understand it, the Republicans want closed primaries and will have the taxpayers pay for them. The Democratic Party presidential caucus is paid by the private sector.

If the Republicans were to show private initiative and create legislation that allowed for closed primaries paid for by a political party (Lord knows the Republican Party in this state can afford it), then your argument might have some traction. But as it stands right now the Republican idea of a closed primary paid for by all Idaho taxpayers is just another form of welfare.

Cheers,

Bernard

If it were a depends it would fail Q.C.

It's leaking into the next block.

by ignorantly arguing that the Democratic caucus is the same thing as the Republican call to establish state monitored party affiliation and closed primaries. If you cannot tell the differences between the two, how did you pass the bar?

I fail to see the difference between a political party wanting only its members to choose its leaders, and any other social or religious organization wanting only their members to select their leaders. Babtists don't elect the pope, Boy Scouts don't elect ACLU leaders. Idaho voters don't choose the Mayor of New York City. The problem is that groups tend to choose as their leaders the most faithful. The most faithful may not have the interests of the larger group as a priority. You want a solution, you start arguing for "favorite voting" in most elections. Seven people running for the same office? Vote for one or more up to six. Voting for seven is pointless. Voting for six isn't. At least one of the candidates will get a majority. Most votes wins.

DA! VE COULD....