dagblog - Comments for "Give me that old time politician"

We definitely need a better

cmaukonen — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:38:33 +0000

In reply to Give me that old time politician

We definitely need a better way to pick our representatives as well as presidential nominations. I came across this piece politics daily. And though I don't agree with his example, he does bring up a good point.

In Romney's case, a different approach to the caucuses would be an attempt to keep history from repeating itself. In 2008, $10 million and 200 staffers resulted in a weak second-place finish to the penny-pinched, little-assisted Mike Huckabee, 34 percent to 25 percent. Romney learned the lesson that the state's caucus system invariably brings out a high percentage of the most committed party faithful, which can pose problems for candidates who are perceived as mainstream.

That the current system gives far too much power to those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. Something that the old boss system used to keep in check.

And as Genghis pointed out above, it also allows monied interests from out of state to influence state and local politics. If we want the money out of Washington, we need to first get it out of Ohio or Oregon. I am not sure the solution that the piece I sited above would do this but a much better filter is needed. A way to vet candidates and keep local politics local.

I need to make some arguments

cmaukonen — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:18:17 +0000

In reply to Looking at a list of

I need to make some arguments in favor of the old smoke filled room method that Emma alludes to.

For one thing candidates were pretty well vetted by this approach. You had to be pretty squeaky clean to be selected. No skeletons around.

You personal wealth generally did not enter into it too much especially if you did not hold to the party line (locally).

Most new candidates did not get a crack at congress right off, generally they would be initially selected for some local position. Then and only then if they won and served there the state and then congress. Yes this did inhibit new blood but it also kept a lot of whack jobs out as well. I can only remember one totally off the wall clown and that was McCarthy.

So it did have a lot of advantages.

If memory serves me

cmaukonen — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:43:09 +0000

In reply to Remember that interstate

If memory serves me correctly, everyone was searching for communists under rocks. Democrats as well as republicans. They just could not agree on which rocks or how to excavate them.

I've been thinking that for

cmaukonen — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:41:36 +0000

In reply to Looking at a list of

I've been thinking that for quite sometime. The Party Boss system was corrupt to say the least but I can't help thinking we threw the baby out with the bath water when we abandoned it. And as has been mentioned by more than a few, It was very responsive to local needs. That's how they got the votes for their candidates.

Instead we should have cleaned it up.

Remember that interstate

Orion — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:34:41 +0000

In reply to Give me that old time politician

Remember that interstate highway system that got built in the 1950s? It got built during a time of fairly bellicose politics, with representatives of both parties rallying to censor everything from comic books to Bettie Page and search for communists in every line of government. John Birch Society, Comics Code Authority, all of that was during the 1950s.

So crazy politics shouldn't necessarily be an excuse for things not happening. It's going to take alot to reinvigorate American infrastructure but it can be done and it's got to start where it's needed most - low income suburbs where people have to rely on cars they can barely afford to pay for, bridges over areas like the Colombia River that are adequate at best and in need of repairs, cities like Minneapolis where bridges have actually collapsed.

Looking at a list of

EmmaZahn — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 04:59:20 +0000

In reply to Give me that old time politician

Looking at a list of potential Republican candidates today, I thought it might be a good idea to abandon primariies and go back to the smoke-filled room selection of party candidates.

I think it may go back even

cmaukonen — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 03:38:56 +0000

In reply to An interesting thought about

I think it may go back even further to the 1968 election and a referendum on the Vietnam War and civil rights etc. But that maybe a stretch.

sigh...and the locals take it

cmaukonen — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 03:32:36 +0000

In reply to An interesting thought about

sigh...and the locals take it in the shorts.

It's not easy being blue.

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 03:17:00 +0000

In reply to Yay...I'm no longer blue. I

It's not easy being blue. There was a bug in the stylesheet. Fixed now.

And thanks for using Arial. Makes my life easier.

An interesting thought about

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 03:14:51 +0000

In reply to Give me that old time politician

An interesting thought about the unintended consequences of earmark reform.

Incidentally, the phenomenon you describe goes back a ways. Newt Gingrich deliberately nationalized legislative politics in1994, turning every House and Senate election into a referendum on Bill (and Hillary) Clinton. It worked.

Since then, this strategy has become the norm. Democratic legislative candidates ran against W. Republicans ran against Obama. Sharron Angle raised a ton of money out of state because she made her campaign a national crusade against Harry Reid rather than presenting herself as the best person to represant Nevada.

Tip O'Neill used to say that all politics is local, but it's just not true anymore.