Hand-picking nominees: a recipe for disaster

[welshTerrier2]

the "we know best" crowd is still up to their old tricks ... they still believe they know something the voters don't know ... they justify their actions by explaining that these are desperate times and we have to give our best possible candidates a headstart without having to battle through expensive, time-consuming primaries ... the first problem with this is that the voters are much better at picking winners than they are ... the second major problem is that it sends the wrong message to the grassroots ... instead of giving all a share of power and giving all candidates a fair and equal shot, it tells the grassroots that their efforts and their money are needed but not their input ... this is a recipe for disaster ... "insider politics" will never pass the "smell test" ...

today's (3/13/05) has a great editorial by former, highly respected, State Senator George Bachrach ... he really hits the nail on the head explaining exactly why we (in Massachusetts) keep losing the Governor's races ... the changes he calls for not only are needed in Massachusetts but are needed on the national level as well ...

source: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/03/13/reform_the_democrats_with_more_democracy/

<skip>The problem with proposal number two is that it concentrates more power in the hands of the institutional bosses of the Democratic Party who already dominate party conventions. Does anyone really think that American politics needs more party control by party leaders or interest groups?<skip>

The problem for the Democratic Party is not that primary campaigns are too short or that party leaders have too little control. The problem is that we pick the wrong nominees. We don't need longer campaigns and conventions controlled by powerful institutional interests supporting front-running Beacon Hill insiders.

We need just the opposite. We need open and spirited campaigns that support bold, independent candidates. We need Democratic nominees who offer a progressive vision and an alternative plan, not an echo of the Republican Party or a front for Beacon Hill power brokers and Democratic interest groups.<skip>

Democracy is a messy business. If we merely wanted order, benevolent dictatorships fill the bill. Or we could simply return to the good old days of Tammany Hall, when backroom ward bosses chose the candidate. That cannot be our future.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. What would be refreshing...

Would be a gut-bucket populist, up-by-the-bootstraps Democrat from the outer districts rise to contention. Or a southie brawler. ;-)

[bvar22]

2. Nominating

..".concentrates more power in the hands of the institutional bosses of the Democratic Party who already dominate party conventions."



What are the chances of "Democratic nominees who offer a progressive vision and an alternative plan" in the primaries when the "institutional bosses of the Democratic Party" are owned by Big Corporations?

We all witnessed the fate of those Democrats who "offer a progressive vision and an alternative plan" during the Democratic Primaries of 2004. The entrenched bosses of the Democratic Party used their Corporate (DLC) connections in the CorpoMedia to torpedo candidates who would rock the boat of the status quo.