[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 28792-28793]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there is an irony today as we look at Iraq. 
As democracy is flourishing, the Democratic Party in the United States 
has tried to contract the democratic process by attempting to mute the 
New Hampshire primary.
  The New Hampshire primary is sort of the last best hope for the dream 
that anybody can become President in this country. It is the last 
opportunity in this country for a person who is underfunded and who has 
not been chosen by the Washington talking heads as a potential 
candidate of purpose to have

[[Page 28793]]

the opportunity to go somewhere and actually make an impact. 
Underfunded, nonrecognized candidates who have legitimacy can succeed 
in New Hampshire and, therefore, interject themselves into the 
opportunity to become President. And it has happened time and again.
  The argument that New Hampshire is not representative is belied by 
the facts. Again and again, New Hampshire has reflected an opportunity 
for people to come to New Hampshire, participate in the process, make a 
name for themselves, and move forward in the process.
  Henry Cabot Lodge upset Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater there. 
Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern upset the candidates who were 
perceived to be the sure-fire winners of their nomination, in fact, in 
one case, a sitting President. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton not only 
came to New Hampshire and made a name for themselves as people not 
recognized nationally but moved on to become President of the United 
States. Even Ronald Reagan, arguably, might not have become President 
of the United States had he not had the opportunity to come to New 
Hampshire and participate in the national debate where he said:

       I paid for this microphone, Mr. Green.

  More importantly, New Hampshire gives the people of this country the 
only opportunity they have to test candidates for President one on one. 
Without any script, without any prescreening, Presidential candidates 
have to come to New Hampshire and go into living rooms, they have to go 
into VFW halls, they have to go to Rotary clubs, and they have to go to 
union halls. They have to answer questions from everyday American 
citizens, and those questions are tough. Regrettably, time and again, 
candidates have not lived up to that test.
  So what we have today in the Democratic Party is an attempt by the 
kingmakers of that party to try to eliminate the threat of having the 
American people actually meet their candidates and be tested by those 
questions as they try to mute the New Hampshire primary process.
  This was said extraordinarily well in an article ironically written 
by a professor in England who is a specialist on the American political 
process. He looks at New Hampshire as the last best hope to maintain a 
populist approach to how we pick our Presidents in this country. Rather 
than having to have lots of money to pay for campaigns in big States or 
large groups of primary States or have a national name recognition that 
comes through having cozied up to the national press, a candidate can 
come to New Hampshire with very little money, without national name 
recognition, but with ideas, with purpose, with fire in their belly, 
and they can succeed in putting themselves and injecting themselves 
into the Presidential process.
  It would be a huge detriment to a fundamental element of the American 
dream, which is that if you have purpose, if you have substance, and if 
you have a track record of success and have been a producer in our 
Nation, you can continue that course and pursue the Presidency. It will 
undermine fundamentally the capacity of the American people to 
participate in the picking of a President if they don't have one place 
in this country where people who want to be President have to actually 
answer questions from everyday Americans.
  I certainly hope the Democratic Party will relent in its efforts to 
try to crush this one element of democracy which is so critical to our 
entire democratic process.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article written by Roddy Keenan, a 
professor of American studies in England, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Concord (NH) Monitor, Dec. 16, 2005]

      Even From Across the Pond, Primary's Beauty Is Plain To See

                           (By Roddy Keenan)

       Gary Hart had just won New Hampshire. The race for the 
     Democratic nomination had been turned on its head. And it was 
     all because of New Hampshire. To a 14-year-old watching the 
     news in Ireland, this was all unfamiliar to me. But on that 
     night in 1984, a fascination was born for a nation's politics 
     and for a picturesque snow-covered state in New England.
       Now, 21 years later, the New Hampshire primary is under 
     attack. Watching from afar, I believe that attempts by 
     Democratic powers-that-be to dilute the primary come with 
     little justification, minimal forethought and an absence of 
     logic.
       I can only imagine that those looking to create such 
     mischief have never witnessed the process or are fitted with 
     the blinkers of self-interest.
       For these reforming politicians and officials deeming 
     themselves to be redressing an absence of inclusiveness and 
     decrying the unrepresentative nature of the primary, there 
     can be no greater example of being divorced from reality.
       In a nation where voter turnout is a major issue, the New 
     Hampshire primary has no such problem. Those casting 
     aspersions on the democratic relevance of New Hampshire 
     should look at their own states' turnout before denigrating 
     others. Moreover, the state's primary provides for a greater 
     show of grassroots democracy than caucuses do.
       The proposals to add more early caucuses will only serve to 
     exacerbate the problem of front loading.
       But it is the nature of the primary that I believe will be 
     the greatest loss to the nation's political and democratic 
     culture. In a college here in the United Kingdom, I teach 
     U.S. politics to students who receive their view of the U.S. 
     political system from various media. Big money, stadium 
     rallies and nonstop tarmac campaigns comprise the portrayal 
     they are presented with.
       That's until I tell them of New Hampshire--of town hall 
     meetings, coffee klatches and earnest discussion, of living 
     rooms and factory gates in the snow, of genuine democracy in 
     action--the politics of people.
       It is deeply ironic that in the week that saw the passing 
     of Eugene McCarthy, the future of the New Hampshire primary 
     is being challenged. His insurgent campaign in 1968 was a key 
     factor in the democratization of the system of presidential 
     selection.
       It was only because of the unique character of New 
     Hampshire, its people's desire for serious political dialogue 
     and the democratic character of the state's primary that such 
     a challenge proved to be possible.
       Long may it continue. Looking forward to seeing you in '08, 
     '12 and '16.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Repeat the time, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.

                          ____________________