What is a Primary Election?

From Wikipedia

A primary election (nominating primary), also referred to simply as a primary, in the United States, is an election in which voters in a jurisdiction select candidates for a subsequent election. Primary elections are one means by which a political party nominates candidates for the following general election. Primaries are common in the United States, where their origins are traced to the progressive movement. There, primary elections are conducted by government on behalf of the parties.

Besides primaries, other ways that parties may select candidates include caucuses, conventions, and nomination meetings.

Types
Closed. People may vote in a party's primary only if they are registered members of that party. Independents cannot participate. Note that because some political parties name themselves independent, the term "non-partisan" often replaces "independent" when referring to those who are not affiliated with a political party.

Semi-closed. As in closed primaries, registered party members can vote only in their own party's primary. Semi-closed systems, however, allow unaffiliated voters to participate as well. Depending on the state, independents either make their choice of party primary privately, inside the voting booth, or publicly, by registering with any party on Election Day.

Open. A registered voter may vote in any party primary regardless of his own party affiliation. When voters do not register with a party before the primary, it is called a pick-a-party primary because the voter can select which party's primary he or she wishes to vote in on election day. Because of the open nature of this system, a practice known as raiding may occur. Raiding consists of voters of one party crossing over and voting in the primary of another party, effectively allowing a party to help choose its opposition's candidate. The theory is that opposing party members vote for the weakest candidate of the opposite party in order to give their own party the advantage in the general election. An example of this can be seen in the 1998 Vermont senatorial primary with the election of Fred Tuttle for the Republican candidate.

Semi-open. A registered voter need not publicly declare which political party's primary that they will vote in before entering the voting booth. When voters identify themselves to the election officials, they must request a party's specific ballot. Only one ballot is cast by each voter. In many states with semi-open primaries, election officials or poll workers from their respective parties record each voter's choice of party and provide access to this information. The primary difference between a semi-open and open primary system is the use of a party-specific ballot. In a semi-open primary, a public declaration in front of the election judges is made and a party-specific ballot given to the voter to cast. Certain states that use the open-primary format may print a single ballot and the voter must choose on the ballot itself which political party's candidates they will select for a contested office.

Run-off. A primary in which the ballot is not restricted to one party and the top two candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. (A run-off differs from a primary in that a second round is only needed if no candidate attains a majority in the first round.)

There are also mixed systems in use. In West Virginia, Republican primaries are open to independents, while Democratic primaries were closed. However, as of April 1, 2007, West Virginia's Democratic Party opened its voting to allow "individuals who are not affiliated with any existing recognized party to participate in the election process".

Presidential
In the United States, Iowa and New Hampshire have drawn attention every four years because they hold the first caucus and primary election, respectively, and often give a candidate the momentum to win the nomination.

A criticism of the current presidential primary election schedule is that it gives undue weight to the few states with early primaries, as those states often build momentum for leading candidates and rule out trailing candidates long before the rest of the country has even had a chance to weigh in, leaving the last states with virtually no actual input on the process. The counterargument to this criticism, however, is that, by subjecting candidates to the scrutiny of a few early states, the parties can weed out candidates who are unfit for office.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) proposed a new schedule and a new rule set for the 2008 Presidential primary elections. Among the changes: the primary election cycle would start nearly a year earlier than in previous cycles, states from the West and the South would be included in the earlier part of the schedule, and candidates who run in primary elections not held in accordance with the DNC's proposed schedule (as the DNC does not have any direct control over each state's official election schedules) would be penalized by being stripped of delegates won in offending states. The New York Times called the move, "the biggest shift in the way Democrats have nominated their presidential candidates in 30 years."

Of note regarding the DNC's 2008 Presidential primary election schedule was that it contrasted with the Republican National Committee's (RNC) rules regarding Presidential primary elections. "No presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting may be held for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or selecting delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention, prior to the first Tuesday of February in the year in which the national convention is held."

Terminology: JournoList

Rush has been, and will continue to, reference JournoList for quite some time. In case you missed the story of what JournoList is:

From Wikipedia:

JournoList (sometimes referred to as the J-List) was a private Google Groups forum for discussing politics and the news media with 400 journalists, academics and others, all with political views ranging from centrist to center-left to leftist.

Ezra Klein, an American blogger for the Washington Post and a columnist for Newsweek, created the online forum in February 2007 and shut it down in June 2010. He controlled the forum's membership and limited it to "several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics". Posts within JournoList were intended only be made and read by its members. Klein defended the forum saying that it "[ensures] that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions".

Descriptions of the group by its members
According to JournoList member Jonathan Chait, "[T]he group as a whole did not jointly participate" in any particular discussion thread. "Almost every discussion was limited to a small percentage of the group that was interested in the topic. Most people ignored most of the topics".

Klein justified excluding conservatives from participation as "not about fostering ideology but preventing a collapse into flame war. The emphasis is on empiricism, not ideology".

JournoList member, and Time magazine columnist, Joe Klein said the off-the-record nature of the forum was necessary because “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private”.

Initial controversies
The existence of JournoList was first publicly revealed in a July 27, 2007 blog post by blogger Mickey Kaus. However, the forum did not attract serious attention until March 17, 2009 when an article was published on Politico that detailed the nature of the forum and the extent of its membership.

The Politico article set off debate within the Blogosphere over the ethics of participating in JournoList and raised questions about its overall purpose. The first public excerpt of a discussion within JournoList was posted by Mickey Kaus on his blog on March 26, 2009.

On June 25, 2010, The Daily Caller published private e-mails from Weigel denigrating conservatives, who he covered for the paper. That same day, Weigel resigned from the Post [as Rush revealed today, he now writes for Slate.com, which is owned by the Post], and Klein announced in his Washington Post blog that he would shortly terminate the JournoList group. On June 25, JournoList — the listserv that hosted Weigel's disparaging e-mails — was deleted by Klein. Weigel's resignation caused Klein to decide to terminate the discussion group.

On June 29, commentator and Web publisher Andrew Breitbart offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who could provide him with the "full 'JournoList' archive, source fully protected". Brietbart wrote, "Ezra Klein’s 'JournoList 400' is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism".

July 2010 controversies
On July 20, 2010, The Daily Caller (DC) published the dialog of the JournoList concerning Jeremiah Wright. The contributors discussed killing the Wright story, as it was reflecting negatively on Barack Obama.

In a separate discussion, about an ABC News-sponsored debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton, Michael Tomasky, a writer for The Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks – in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people".

James Taranto observed that one JournoList contributor, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, stated "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them – Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares –- and call them racists".

Ackerman was also quoted as saying, "find a right winger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously, I mean this rhetorically." In response, Daily Caller commentator Jim Treacher posted a photo of a building with multiple plate glass-windows destroyed with text over the building reading "Ackerman Wuz Hear" (a LOLCats reference).

The DC published a story by Jonathan Strong on July 21 about JournoList members wanting the federal government to shut down Fox News. According to Strong, Jonathan Zasloff, a UCLA law professor, wrote that the government should be able to pull the broadcasting license of the cable channel.

But Zasloff later said Strong did not correctly characterize his comment, which was "really more of a question than anything else, and nobody really picked up on it. That turns into my demand to shut down Fox News?" The article also reported that one member of the discussion group, Sarah Spitz, a producer for a public affairs radio program at a National Public Radio affiliate station, wrote that she would laugh if she saw conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh have a heart attack in front of her. "On JournoList," according to the DC article, "where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it [the comment] barely raised an eyebrow".

On the day Strong's story was published, Spitz apologized for the comment. The article also quoted Ryan Donmoyer, a reporter for Bloomberg News, comparing members of the Tea Party movement to Nazis. Strong wrote, "In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil".****

Tucker Carlson, who edited several of Strong's articles about Journolist, wrote in a July 22 article: "Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too. [...] I’ve been in journalism my entire adult life, and have often defended it against fellow conservatives who claim the news business is fundamentally corrupt. It’s harder to make that defense now. It will be easier when honest (and, yes, liberal) journalists denounce what happened on Journolist as wrong."

Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, discussed JournoList saying, "...hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism."

Defense of JournoList members
Kathleen Parker, writing in The Washington Post, argued that "perspective is needed here." She stated that comments had "been presented out of context and, besides, were offered as part of an ongoing argument among colleagues who believed they were acting in good faith that theirs was a private conversation." She also referred to JournoList writings as "the private comments of people who, for the most part, have no significant power" and had an expectation not to be 'outed'.

List member Joe Klein wrote at his Time blog, "The views I expressed on Journolist were the views I express here." He identified himself as moderate compared to most leftist members, who subjected his ideas to "onslaughts". He stated that allegations that list members colluded to produce talking points or plan activities with each other are simply false and the group debated with each with members valuing their individuality. He recounted that the only time list members could agree on "joint actions" was "meeting up at some bar".

Foster Kamer of The Village Voice, who was not a JournoList member, has remarked that, emphasis in original, "off-the-record means off-the-record, and [] an assault on a journalist's right to express him or herself in private is an assault on both the freedom of the fourth estate and free speech in general". Greg Sargent of The Washington Post, a list member, criticized Carlson for not posting JournoList threads in their entirety. He wrote that "publishing them would make it tougher to paint J-Listers as a secretive and omnipotent political cabal, rather than just a bunch of geeks and eggheads venting and arguing about politics".

Ezra Klein recounted Tucker Carlson's effort to become a member of JournoList, which he said he supported, and wrote:

"I want to be very clear about what I was suggesting: Adding someone to the list meant giving them access to the entirety of the archives. That didn't bother me very much. Sure, you could comb through tens of thousands of e-mails and pull intemperate moments and inartful wording out of context to embarrass people, but so long as you weren't there with an eye towards malice, you'd recognize it for what it was: A wonkish, fun, political yelling match. If it had been an international media conspiracy, I'd have never considered opening it up.

The idea was voted down. People worried about opening the archives to individuals who could help their careers by ripping e-mails out of context, misrepresenting the nature of the ongoing conversation, and bringing the world an exclusive look into The Great Journolist Conspiracy, as opposed to the daily life of Journolist, which even Carlson describes as 'actually pretty banal'".

After Klein shut down JournoList, a new group, calling itself "Cabalist" was fictitiously started by Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic, Michelle Goldberg and Steven Teles. The group, which had 173 members by late July, was made up mostly of former Journolist members. Its existence managed to stay secret for several weeks, until The Atlantic magazine correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg revealed its existence in a blog post on July 21. Goldberg reported that one recent discussion concerned whether or not members should ignore the articles on The Daily Caller website. "In other words, members of Journolist 2.0 were debating whether to collectively respond to a Daily Caller story alleging—inaccurately, in their minds—that members of Journolist 1.0 (the same people, of course) made collective decisions about what to write".

Frankly, there are some issues here. JournoList was basically a private club, so seems to me they did have some expectation of privacy, and what they posted among themselves was their own business.

Without seeing the full context of the threads, how are we to know if the people on the list acted in concert to kill certain stories, or just "suggested" they should do so, knowing full well it would never happen, much as people on other message boards vent.

***This is surely no different than Rush calling Liberals evil, that they lie, etc. It's interesting that many on each side sees the other one as totally wrong and totally evil. It all depends on your belief system..

The Page system

From Wikipedia:

A United States Senate Page (Senate Page or simply Page) is a non-partisan federal employee serving the United States Senate in Washington, DC. Despite the non-partisan affiliation, Pages are typically divided to serve the party that appointed them.

Selection
In order to become a US Senate Page, one must first be nominated by a Senator, generally from his or her State. A candidate must be a 16 or 17 year-old high school junior (11th grade), with at least a 3.0 GPA. Summer pages can be either incoming or outgoing juniors and still have a GPA requirement of a 3.0. Additional processes for selection vary from different sponsoring Senators' offices. Typically, a senators' office will require the applicant to submit a transcript, resume, and various essays. The process is similar to that of selecting an office employee, and may include interview of final applicants by a board of review.

Students can apply for appointment to one of four terms: a five-month Fall semester (September-January), a five-month Spring semester (February-June), a three or four week June session, and a three or four week July session.

During the school year, there are 30 Pages. The majority appoints up to 16, while the minority appoints up to 14. In the summer, the number of Pages may be higher.

Uniform and appearance
Because US Senate Pages are required to wear uniforms while on the job, they are some of the most recognized employees of the Senate. The uniform consists of a navy blue suit, a white, long sleeve, traditional dress shirt, a name badge, Page insignia lapel pin, and a plain, navy tie (males only).

As expected of most Senate employees, Pages are especially required to maintain a neat, professional appearance. Boys must be clean-shaven with hair kept short and neat. Girls must also have their hair neat and kept out of their face. No extraneous jewelry is to be worn.

Residence and free time
US Senate Pages currently reside at the Daniel Webster Senate Page Residence. This facility was previously a funeral home and was reconfigured in order to provide Pages with a home away from home during their time in Washington. Administration and staff include the Page Program Director, Administrative Assistant, four resident Proctors, and one non-resident Proctor.

The living quarters cover two floors, one for male Pages, the other for female Pages. Each floor has a community day room for social activity. All Pages share furnished rooms with other Pages and each room is designed for four or six occupants. Each room has closet space, a bathroom, and a single telephone shared by the entire room. The Senate Page School, laundry facilities and a kitchen are located on the basement level.

The program provides the pages with two meals per day, seven days per week. Breakfast is provided at the residence. Lunch is provided on weekdays through a meal card at the Senate Cafeteria. On Saturdays, lunch or dinner is usually provided through a voucher for a meal at Union Station, or if the Pages are on a field trip, dinner will be provided on the trip. On Sundays, the program provides dinner at the residence, or goes out to a restaurant.

The United States Capitol Police maintains a 24-hour post at Webster Hall as well as outside foot and car patrols. Their responsibility is to provide security for the facility and its occupants and to monitor access to the building. Webster Hall is monitored by a security alarm system.

When not at school or at work, Pages are given no liberty with their free time. Pages are subject to a curfew (9:00 p.m. on school nights and 10:00 p.m. during the weekend) and are expected to maintain high standards. Regarding transit, while Pages are not permitted to bring personal vehicles with them to the District of Columbia, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has an underground rail system which they are welcome to use.

On occasional weekends, Pages are free from school or work obligations. Most spend their time working on school assignments, touring the many attractions in the DC area or simply relaxing from a long week's work. For holidays, Pages return home for Thanksgiving, winter and spring breaks; the residence is closed during these periods.

The Senate Sergeant at Arms is responsible for Webster Hall.

Before the move to Webster Hall, both the House and Senate Pages shared a living space in the former House Office Building Annex #1 (which has since been torn down).

School
US Senate Pages (who serve during either of the semester programs) attend school located in the lower level of Webster Hall. The US Senate Page School is accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. The Page School requires each student to enroll in four classes, which are various subjects of mathematics, science, English, and social studies. Foreign language tutoring is available for nearly every language. Usually the students receive 3 to 4 hours of homework each night. If they do not maintain at least a 75% average in each class, they are subject to dismissal.

Each week day, classes begin at precisely 6:15 a.m.. Class length varies from 30 to 50 minutes, depending upon the daily schedule of the Senate. Generally, school ends one hour and 15 minutes before the Senate convenes. If the Senate does not convene, or not before 11:00 a.m., school ends at 9:45. It is possible to have classes as short as 20 minutes, or no classes at all. This is affected by what time the Senate convenes or what time it adjourned the previous day.

The Page school supervises the Student Council and the preparation of a yearbook. It also administers Page class rings, which have the Senate emblem and session of the Congress in place of a typical high school's mascot.

Pages are also required to participate in school field trips. Run by the Senate Page School, they are conducted approximately one Saturday a month to sites in or around Washington. These field trips are usually at historically oriented landmarks in the mid-Atlantic area (i.e. Liberty Bell, Philadelphia; DuPont Mills, Delaware; etc.)

Nancy Erickson, The Secretary of the Senate, is responsible for the United States Senate Page School.

Prior to the page residence being moved to Webster Hall, the US Senate Page School was housed in the attic of the Library of Congress.

Commuter Pages
During the summer sessions only, many pages live in either their homes or the homes of their relatives in the Washington, D.C. area. These pages fulfill the same duties as the residential summer pages, except that they arrive at 8:00AM and depart at 6:00PM regardless of the action of the Senate that day (residential pages are required to stay until after the Senate adjourns for the day). Commuter pages are allowed to participate in field trips with the other pages.

Work
The Page's work life revolves around the Capitol. A Page serves the party of his appointing Senator. The Pages are employed by the Sergeant at Arms and technically report to the Secretary for the Majority and the Secretary for the Minority. The supervision of the Pages has been delegated to the cloakrooms.

Senate Pages play an important role in the daily operation of the Senate. Page duties consist primarily of delivery of correspondence and legislative material within the Congressional Complex. Other duties include preparing the Chamber for Senate session, taking messages for Senators or calling them to the phone, and carrying bills and amendments to the presiding officer's desk. Pages also retrieve lecterns, easels, and water for Senators and clerks.

When the Senate is in session for important business, filibusters, and emergency situations, Pages are sometimes required to work into the early hours of the morning.

When the Senate is not in session, Pages work from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. Pages are compensated $25,978 per year, from which are deducted federal and local (based upon the individual page's permanent residence) taxes and a $750 per month residence fee.

Benefits
The job of page comes with many perks. These include, but are not limited to:

--Watching the political action up close.
--Access to most areas of the Capitol (such as the Senate Chamber, Marble Room, cloakrooms, and Senate lobby), a small but interesting perk that many other Senate employees don't have.
--Boarding on Capitol Hill with teenagers from all around the country.
--A chance to watch joint meetings of Congress, as well as the State of the Union Address.
--The opportunity to make use of the Library of Congress, United States Senate Library, and other facilities in the Capitol.
--A chance to tour and see much of what Washington, DC as well as surrounding areas and states have to offer.

What is a House Minority Whip?

From Wikipedia:

A whip in the United States House of Representatives manages his or her party's legislative program on the House floor. The Whip keeps track of all legislation and ensures that all party members are present when important measures are to be voted upon.

Historical origins
The role of the Whip can be traced back to the Parliament of the United Kingdom which adopted the term Whip from the fox-hunting position, ‘whipper-in,’ or the person who kept the fox hounds focused on their mission. In Congress, the Whip’s job is to count votes and ‘whip’ up support for legislation and keep members focused on the mission. While the formal House Whip positions were established in the late 19th century, the informal "vote counting" functions have been conducted since the earliest days of the United States House - an informal role first performed by James Madison.

The Republican Party created the position of Whip in 1897. It was created by Speaker Thomas B. Reed, who appointed James A. Tawney of Minnesota to keep track of the whereabouts of Republican Party Members. The Democrats set up their whip structure and types of whips around 1901.

Current role
The Majority Whip is an elected member of the majority party who assists the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader to coordinate ideas on, and garner support for, proposed legislation. This position, unlike Speaker of the House, is not mandated by the Constitution.

The Minority Whip is a member of the minority party who assists the Minority Leader in coordinating the party caucus in its responses to legislation and other matters. However, the United States House of Representatives does not use the term "Minority Whip," but rather uses the terms "Republican Whip" or "Democratic Whip" depending on the Minority Party.

Current whips
The House Majority Whip of the 111th United States Congress is Rep. James E. Clyburn (D., South Carolina)

The House Minority Whip of the 111th United States Congress is Rep. Eric I. Cantor (R., Virginia)