Will New Hampshire Go the Way of Iowa?

A CALENDAR IN DISARRAY

Will New Hampshire Go the Way of Iowa?

Iowa Republicans have drawn a line in the sand by setting the date of their presidential caucuses for Jan. 3, 2008. Will New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner now step across and risk blowing up the entire nominating calendar?

The decision by the Iowa GOP guarantees the earliest start ever for the presidential primary-caucus season and very possibly the earliest-ever effective conclusion to the nominating process. By Feb. 6, the day after the biggest primary day in history, the identity of both nominees could be known.

That, in turn, guarantees the longest general election in the nation's history, a costly, negative nine-month marathon that will exhaust the candidates and try the patience of a public that has been paying extraordinarily close attention to this campaign for almost a year already.

Iowa Democrats have yet to decide whether to join their Republican friends and hold their caucuses on the same night. One Iowa Democrat was quoted in Wednesday's Des Moines Register as saying separate dates would give each party their own moment in the sun, and the party could decide to go on Jan. 5. South Carolina Republicans, meanwhile, will go on Jan. 19, but South Carolina Democrats may go on Jan. 26. States looking for their moment in the spotlight will instead experience the blur of a fast-moving train rolling through their boundaries.

The reality is that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have earned their privileged position by their seriousness and diligence in screening the candidates. But both states have become extraordinarily demanding in this cycle. They led the effort to force Democratic candidates to pledge not to campaign in Michigan and Florida -- two renegade states whose moves to schedule their primaries in January have helped trigger the current mess. Their expectations for candidate time and respect seem almost without limit.

The political world still awaits the decision by Gardner, who has sole power to set the date of the Granite State's primary. Determined to preserve the state's first-in-the-nation status and spooked by Michigan's aggressive moves to challenge that status, Gardner is believed to be considering breaking all tradition and moving the primary to Dec. 11.

Publicly, leaders of the New Hampshire political establishment have said they will support Gardner's decision. Privately, they are terrified about the consequences of a December primary -- less perhaps for this election than for future ones. Their fear is that a December primary could produce a backlash that would lead to a wholesale revision of the nominating process for 2012.

That may come no matter what Gardner does. When South Carolina Republicans in August announced their decision to move their primary up to Jan. 19, triggering speculation about whether Iowa and New Hampshire would be forced to move into December 2007, Iowa Gov. Chet Culver (D) moved to quash that talk. He said Iowa would maintain its first-in-the-nation caucuses but would not move into 2007. He rightfully established some important boundaries for everyone to follow.

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D), who has less ability to directly influence the timing of the primary than Culver has in Iowa, has been publicly silent in the face of talk of a Dec. 11 primary in his state. Perhaps he is using quiet suasion to make his views and the concerns of others there known to Gardner.

Assigning blame for all of this is beside the point. Every state that has contributed shares in the responsibility. If Americans think politics is broken, the calendar confusion is simply more evidence for that conclusion.