GOP leaders shorten presidential nominating season

Plan was approved by a 153-9 vote
Associated Press
Jan 25, 2014


Republican leaders overwhelmingly voted Friday to shorten their presidential selection process in an attempt to minimize damage from GOP candidates attacking each other.

"This is a historic day for our party," RNC chairman Reince Preibus declared.

He said the changes would not allow Republicans to "slice and dice" each other for six months or participate in "a circus of debates." Republican candidates participated in 27 debates for the 2012 nomination.

Iowa and New Hampshire will retain their coveted spots atop the presidential primary calendar, and South Carolina and Nevada also secured top spots, as they have in the past, as part of a larger plan that could significantly reshape the 2016 presidential election.

The vote came as the Republican National Committee works to create an easier path to the White House for its next nominee roughly a year before campaigning begins in earnest for the next presidential contest. While President Barack Obama's second term began just one year ago, prospective Republican candidates already have begun visiting states like Iowa and New Hampshire that hold outsize influence because of their early positions on the primary calendar.

New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada are scheduled to host the first four contests in February 2016 under the new schedule, while the remainder of the nation's 46 states and territories would vote between early March and mid-May. The party's national convention is expected in late June or early July, roughly two months sooner than has become the norm.

Officials from early voting states praised the plan, which establishes strict penalties for states that jump out of order, as Florida did in 2012.

Republican national committeeman Steve Duprey of New Hampshire described the changes as an "effective death penalty for any state that tries to jump the calendar."

"This will be the best protection that New Hampshire has ever had for its primary," he said.

The shift comes during the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee, a collection of party leaders and activists from every state that controls the GOP's national infrastructure. The group expects to finalize additional changes, including setting a new date for its 2016 national convention, later in the year. Among other changes, the RNC intends to dramatically reduce the number of presidential debates and have more control over the moderators.

"Big reforms are coming to our presidential nominating process — reforms that put Republican voters, not the liberal media, in the driver's seat," Priebus said.

GOP leaders also complained that the party's 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, was forced to suffer through a lengthy and expensive primary process that ultimately hurt his ability to compete against Obama. An earlier convention date, for example, would allow the party's next nominee to access millions of dollars of general election cash months earlier.

Not everyone was pleased with the changes, which were approved by a 153-to-9 vote.

"I think we're going too far in shortening this process," Republican committeeman Morton Blackwell of Virginia said. "We need an adequate amount of time in order for presidential candidates to be tested."

Committee members gathered in Washington this week also began considering the location of its 2016 national convention.

Representatives from four contending cities — Las Vegas, Denver, Kansas City, Mo., and Columbus, Ohio — offered gifts and parties to help secure an early advantage. Las Vegas' bid, fueled in part by Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson, gave GOP officials complimentary wireless Internet access and goodie bags with fleece jackets and leather binders.

The RNC is expected to select its next convention location no earlier than this summer.



Darn it, they've just cut the most amusing mini-series down to full-length comedy film size. Oh well, with a cast of Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Michele Bachmann, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Nikki Haley and a possible cameo by Donald Trump, it's bound to be the same wacky, zany, laugh-a-minute fun-fest that we got in 2012!


Re: "Darn it, (snip)"

You mean as opposed to the politically ideological lockstep socialist comedy concert series?

"Queenie" ain't been crowned yet. Plenty of time for pretenders to the throne to come forward.

2016 (or 2015) is a lifetime away in politics. ANYTHING can (and will) happen.

Darwin's choice

And yet, still not as pathetic as the joke in office now....!


Didja read one of his most recent 'jokes'?

"Middle-class kids don't get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,"

- Pres. Obama

Got any stats on that?

FYI: The vast majority who are locked up are not there for simple possession, but are in jail for more serious crimes.

The bleating Obamabot sheeple will believe ANY lower class vicitimization nonsense that the Comedian-in-Chief spews out.

Truth or Dare

All hail the political ruling classes! Give me a break, it's all about RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL ideology. They really have no shame do they? On either side of the fence! It's become crystal clear in order to be successful within the political realm, the first order of business is to sell your soul and lose your conscience! Now they've voted to suppress their own party folk! Only room for extreme-right HARDLINERS!

The affront on a woman's right to CHOOSE, and that's just the steps taken to prevent access to birth control to avoid any possibility of abortions, is just another sure fire way to guarantee a NO vote for anything Republican, including Ohio. An example of other ways; The woman in Texas who due to a blood clot and embolism was brain-dead, whose family was fighting to take her off life-support but the hospital wouldn't. Why? A new law passed in Texas, one preventing it because she was pregnant. Tests showed the now 22 wk. child had "water on the brain and other severe deformity". Her husband, along with her parents were fighting for their rights against a state-sanctioned "science experiment". One made possible by this party and laws enacted by the minority! The family finally won, but it took a 6 wk. battle. Husband and parents aside, where was the mercy for the woman on life-support, and the child?

As a voter who loaths bi-partisan politics, the thought process that has enough power to enact laws that effect everyone in such a way, such a thing should disgust and scare the bejeebers out of everyone! I guess we're all just one big experiment, eh?!


Hi Truth,
Good post, but did you mean to say that you loath bipartisan politics? I think you meant to say that you loath partisan politics.


Re: "The woman in Texas,"

Any other hatred fermenting on the lefty Daily Kos that you'd care to share?

So what are your thoughts on infanticide? Should ‘defective’ infants be euthanized?


What are you talking about, Contango? Hatred on the lefty Daily Kos? I imagine that the Daily Kos is a website but it's one that I've never been on - the brain-dead pregnant woman in Texas story has been in the news everywhere from ABC News to USA Today. Oh wait, ALL news organizations other than Fox News and the websites that spew right-wing conspiracy theories are lefty hatred fermenting organizations, right?

And what does this have to do with infanticide? A 22-week-old fetus is not an infant. A 22-week-old fetus doesn't even have the tools in place to think, let alone be considered an infant.

If you have a brain dead child that is pregnant and you want to keep her on life support until the baby is born, then that's your decision. This particular case should have been this lady's family decision.


Re: "A 22-week-old fetus doesn't even have the tools in place to think,"

So you're OK with killing any and all 22 wk. old fetuses if the parent(s) so desires? Yes or no?

The infanticide question was for 'extra credit.'

So should 'defective' infants be euthanized if the parent(s) desire it?

So at what point in life do the natural rights of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" begin? Only outside the womb?


C'mon pooh, quit trippin'! The article is not about all 22 week old fetuses or abortion. Whatever is living inside of her can't sustain life outside of the womb and is already abnormal. It is the families' decision and it should be respected. Are you volunteering to raise this abnormal thing and pay to keep her on life support? No brainer here!

JudgeMeNot's picture

You are a fool IslandDweller.

You said "A 22-week-old fetus is not an infant. A 22-week-old fetus doesn't even have the tools in place to think, let alone be considered an infant".

Stella Miloseski was born at 22 weeks and 5 days. Stella was an infant.


This one was one day short of 21 weeks.

I have no clue when "life" begins, nor do I think most people have any idea. Parents and doctors will keep moving that line. People and politicians will continue to change their views till babies can be made outside the womb and raised outside the womb. To me the line for murder is where they can possibly live outside the womb. The line for your conscious is up to you, your religion, if any, your God, if any, and the law... In whatever order you wish to put them.

Truth or Dare

IslandDweller: Yep, made a mistake, and thank you for the correction.

Contango; Not a lefty, and I've noticed here when surveys are answered, the majority are men, let alone those controlling the laws that effect all! Of course I don't support infanticide, or that defective infants be euthanized. Evidently the Republicans are willing to force their beliefs upon a family whose invitro-child wouldn't survive outside the womb! What I support is one's right to choose. In this case, the husband and parent's right to bury their wife/daughter and child, too mourn their loss, rather than allow it to continue to be a sad and sick science experiment! One might understand better should they and their family be so unfortunate to find themselves in such a position. You been there? Now the hospital will be reassessing their next step. Wondering what that might that be, possible charges from the state against this family?!


Re: "Of course I don't support infanticide, or that defective infants be euthanized."

Why not? Do you not support abortion on demand?

What's the difference?


Please let them put forth someone with an ounce of sense. I hate not voting "for" a candidate. It seem that all I can do is vote against their opponent. that's why obama got reelected, too many could not vote for rommney. If we survive 3 more yrs of berry-0 we need someone that can straighten his mess out with out tearing the rest of us apart. And I firmly believe that's not Hillary.


What about you? You seem to know it all.


1rst poster is right. Maybe Ted Nugent can run; unless he still likes Courtney Love.

thinkagain's picture

The crowning achievement of the Democrat party, is when a baby gets it's limbs ripped off and it's skull crushed in.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Blaming the primary process for Romney's loss? Ugh...

As for this coming election? NO BUSH. NO CLINTON. There actually exist other people and families in this country that are capable of running things regardless of party fealty. Maybe either can put someone up that people vote FOR instead of against the other guy as buzzard said above. Maybe candidates can espouse things like what liberty means to them or how America and its population can flourish without a government program (which includes tax manipulation by Republicans). Until then...

[Primarily 2:41-8:00 caution there's a f-bomb but it is something I hope people actually absorb, not just hear or watch out of the corner of an eye while multi-tasking.]

Truth or Dare

Contango; Why not? Because I don't, as well don't support abortion on demand, nor do I appreciate my taxes being used for it. Then again, we're not given much of a choice, now are we? I know it may be difficult for you to wrap your head around. I see you never attempt to answer questions asked of you, such as have you ever been in such a position, as this woman, her husband, her surviving child and her parents!

Know this, as far as news sources I try to soak up as much as possible by reading from many different sources and from both sides. I watch local channels for local news, and to know what's going on in government, I choose Public Television/Cspan. That way I get it from the mouths of those making decisions and enacting laws that effect all. As far as providing stats regarding anything, especially those at a disadvantage, U.S. History speaks for itself! That is fact!


Oh, this article is bad news. I really enjoyed the last campaign, in which the Clown Car of early GOP candidates stood in a circle taking potshots at each other. Mitt was pretty much in tatters by the end of the primaries.

I'm not sure it will matter. Republicans can always be counted on to say something appalling during a campaign, no matter how short. Who will be this year's Akin or Mourdock? What's that? appears that Mike Huckabee has opened the early bidding with his stunning anti-women comments yesterday.


"Republican leaders overwhelmingly voted Friday to shorten their presidential selection process in an attempt to minimize damage from GOP candidates attacking each other."

The powerful elite within the Republican party have already decided who the Republican sheeple will vote for. There were viable candidates in the past who would have made excellent Presidents. Dennis Kucinich, Gary Johnson, Ross Perot, Ron Paul and a few others.

The election system needs a complete overhaul. Political factions need to be banned and every candidate should be an independent.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone


"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty." - George Washington


I know that you are young and don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected POTUS but I like how you think. You posses a lot of common sense and high intelligence. I would nominate you to be the POTUS. But then again, I want no harm to come to you and your loved ones. Research Ross Perot. The online information about some people crashing Ross's daughter wedding is hogwash. Ross and his family were threatened by death. Mostly by the Republicans and some by the Democrats.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

It'd be fun to be a snowball that tries! Thank you for the thoughts, Centauri.

Though I am not 35 yet, so I guess I have some time to plot and scheme about how not to plot and scheme. Maybe start smaller locally or in the state? Hmmm! I do appreciate the thoughts, and not just the complimentary ones from you here.

Even when throwing my hat into the ring with someone who disagrees, it allows me an opportunity to learn, research, and continue to espouse the REASONS for my thoughts not just a spew of words for its own sake.

I'll research Ross Perot. As I was growing up all I ever really got was the wishy-washy stereotype who wouldn't commit to running. I could understand as humor from a kid's point of view, but from what I understand he seemed to be popular just not enough to get people to come off their comfortable candidates' letter suffix.

It takes work to get a message out and not just on the deliverer's behalf. The audience has to pay attention and absorb it, too. Depending on the subject matter that can be tough, especially when the financial backing to broadcast the message isn't there. So, you, I, and others do what we can here to discuss things and perhaps one day take these thoughts (or at least show them off) to a broader audience or a connected empathizer who is willing to act as a broadcast tower.


I don't much care one way or another. I don't expect repubes to survive, at least not set up the way they currently are much past '16. Nor do I expect the dims to last much longer, for the same reasons. The wingnuts in both "parties" are getting way too much influence. I look at it as a good thing. I hope their are 4 parties made from the (tr)ash heap. I would even take 3, but 4 would be better. That way nothing would pass unless it was actually good for the country. Not just good for the "party". There are already more people who self identify as independent rather than either major "party".

Dr. Information

Meanwhile Obama and his socialists followers have run this country into the ground. Just ignore that fact.

The Big Dog's back

To bad there are no facts in what you posted.