Better Candidates

[Texsox]

First off I'm not certain the candidates today are any better or worse then at any other point in our history. I think we now know more about them and their are much more efficient methods to build up and tear them down. But for the sake of discussion . . .

 

 

How can we improve out choices for elected office? From the local level to the White House. What needs to happen to attract better candidates to puiblic service?

[NorthSideSox72]

First off I'm not certain the candidates today are any better or worse then at any other point in our history. I think we now know more about them and their are much more efficient methods to build up and tear them down. But for the sake of discussion . . .

 

 

How can we improve out choices for elected office? From the local level to the White House. What needs to happen to attract better candidates to puiblic service?

Well first, I think the candidates we had in this election cycle (and still have) are higher quality then we've had since Reagan. Just my .02.

 

But to me, the single biggest factor in candidates being lousy is money. The amount it takes to win a campaign, the promises that get made in return, etc. Anything having to do with that is a good place to focus. For example, if we'd enact truth-in-legislation act, or even a line item veto, to get the add-on crud off of bills, that would be good. In the same vein, you could use a city council-like system for "pork" projects - the local stuff that may be valid, but should not be tacked on to unrelated bills.

 

Anything that can be done to expose the flow of money, and remove incentive for politicians to cater to it, is a good start.

 

[SoxFan562004]

I think the current media climate is a big part of keeping some people away. It's hard enough to open your whole life to scrutiny, but then you're asking your family members to do it as well.

[EvilMonkey]

Well first, I think the candidates we had in this election cycle (and still have) are higher quality then we've had since Reagan. Just my .02.

 

But to me, the single biggest factor in candidates being lousy is money. The amount it takes to win a campaign, the promises that get made in return, etc. Anything having to do with that is a good place to focus. For example, if we'd enact truth-in-legislation act, or even a line item veto, to get the add-on crud off of bills, that would be good. In the same vein, you could use a city council-like system for "pork" projects - the local stuff that may be valid, but should not be tacked on to unrelated bills.

 

Anything that can be done to expose the flow of money, and remove incentive for politicians to cater to it, is a good start.

I started a reply like this 4 times, and couldn't come up with the right way to say it. But yes, transparency in the money, make it next to impossible to add on things to bills that have nothing to do with it and find a way to make the campaigns shorter and cheaper. Eliminate the limits of donations, but make it so every penny has to be reported, publically. All these PACS and other groups have further poisoned the process, and will just go away if people can give freely to the person of their choice. If Soros wants to donate $20 million to Obama, fine, just make it so everyone knows he did that.

[lostfan]

It also doesn't really help that the 2-party system is so rigid, and every chance they get the Dems and GOP collaborate to make it even more difficult to be taken seriously as anything but a Democrat or a Republican.

[Balta1701]

I think the current media climate is a big part of keeping some people away. It's hard enough to open your whole life to scrutiny, but then you're asking your family members to do it as well.

I have less a problem with the media climate in terms of opening up your whole life and your whole family's life to scrutiny than I do with the way the media trivializes everything and ignores actual substantive discussion on anything other than the gas tax (that was actually remarkable, for a week or so, the entire political discussion focused on policy. I nearly crapped my pants).

 

There are actually fundamental differences between the candidates on many issues. Health care, the environment, the makeup of the judiciary, the war, and on and on. But we never hear about these. It's vastly more important whether or not you'd rather have a beer with a candidate, which for some reason has been treated as this wonderful standard of who to vote for.

[Texsox]

So media and money prevent even better candidates from running?

[Balta1701]

So media and money prevent even better candidates from running?

They may very well. The fact that you have to spend an inordinate amount of time raising funds has kept many a solid candidate away, because that's the dirty part of the job.

 

But the other side of the token is...the media and money can also help prevent better candidates from winning.

[Texsox]

They may very well. The fact that you have to spend an inordinate amount of time raising funds has kept many a solid candidate away, because that's the dirty part of the job.

 

But the other side of the token is...the media and money can also help prevent better candidates from winning.

 

Agreed. Managing money and media is a huge factor and winning today.

[Balta1701]

Agreed. Managing money and media is a huge factor and winning today.

And, just like the presidential election process has very little to do with your ability to actually do the job of running the country, managing the media and fundraising with party big-wigs has very little to do with your ability to be a sound representative/senator/governor/whatever. We've built up a system where the olympic team for the 100 meter dash is decided by the skills of the competitors at ice dancing.

[Texsox]

I don't think it is quite that bad.

 

What we have is a system where people can buy access and all it offers. The party people, for reasons both altruistic and for personal gain, want a member of their party in office. They have to be convinced that that candidate can win the election. This parallels what you are saying. Not that they would be a great leader in that position. Who among us can win? So the parties, if given a choice, would take someone who would be bad in that position, but who can win, over the better person for that job, but who may have a tougher time winning.

 

Like it or not, for many people high up in the Dem party it isn't "will Obama or Clinton be the better President" it is "who can beat McCain". And how often, before the GOP was finalized did we hear McCain and his supports claim he should be the nominee because he had the best chance to beat Clinton?

[mr_genius]

Well first, I think the candidates we had in this election cycle (and still have) are higher quality then we've had since Reagan. Just my .02.

 

G. Bush I was actually a pretty good candidate...but I suppose he didn't campaign well, so maybe not a good candidate. He was a good president as far as I'm concerned (way better than Bush II)

Edited May 8, 2008 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

G. Bush I was actually a pretty good candidate...but I suppose he didn't campaign well, so maybe not a good candidate. He was a good president as far as I'm concerned (way better than Bush II)

But...Fox News didn't exist when Bush 1 ran for office. The bad parts of the system were there (i.e. the Willie Horton ad, etc.) but they hadn't been blown out of proportion by the 24 hour networks like they have now. I doubt Bush 1 lost the election because he threw up on Japan's Prime Minister, but now whether or not you're good at bowling or whether or not you drink OJ or coffee with breakfast at a diner determines whether or not Americans will like you for some reason.

[Texsox]

G. Bush I was actually a pretty good candidate...but I suppose he didn't campaign well, so maybe not a good candidate. He was a good president as far as I'm concerned (way better than Bush II)

I think his biggest struggle in getting reelected was he was just too tired. He also signaled in various ways he did not want the job. That was offset against a young and charismatic opponent and he was toast.

[bmags]

for congressman/senators, I will never have a problem upping their salaries. It's a miniscule part of the budget, microscopic, and considering the hit they will take to privacy and such, at least pay them enough so you don't need situations like that frat house Dick Durbin lives in Washington.

 

Also, if people watched PBS more for election coverage, a lot of the unsubstantial garbage we are talking about would need not apply.

[Mplssoxfan]

Also, if people watched PBS more for election coverage, a lot of the unsubstantial garbage we are talking about would need not apply.

 

Elitist.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

G. Bush I was actually a pretty good candidate...but I suppose he didn't campaign well, so maybe not a good candidate. He was a good president as far as I'm concerned (way better than Bush II)

I would agree. I was speaking more of the pool as a whole, which is why I used the plural.

 

[mr_genius]

But...Fox News didn't exist when Bush 1 ran for office. The bad parts of the system were there (i.e. the Willie Horton ad, etc.) but they hadn't been blown out of proportion by the 24 hour networks like they have now. I doubt Bush 1 lost the election because he threw up on Japan's Prime Minister, but now whether or not you're good at bowling or whether or not you drink OJ or coffee with breakfast at a diner determines whether or not Americans will like you for some reason.

 

the MSM was brutal towards Bush I. They even dropped a 'scandal' on him 4 days before an election to help out Clinton. Also, the economic boom had began, as there were large economic gains beginning which the MSM ignored. But yea, I guess the media has an evening factor in the pro-GOP FOX news.

 

And, yes, the MSM totally played up him being sick in Japan. The NY Times and everyone else in the media were in a frenzy. They claimed it showed he shouldn't be president. Time magazine called him a wimp on their cover, which they now acknowledge was a poor journalistic move. So bs journalism has been around way before FOX news. Now there are right wing crappy journalists on tv, not just left wing crappy journalists.

 

 

Edit: This in no way is an attempt to defend FOX news and their 24-7 Rev Wright fest. They are just as bad as the left wing media they trash so much on air. Oh, and the far right wing started attacking Bush I because they didn't like how he worked on the budget with Democrats. A budget which many economists attribute to around 60% of the budget surplus under Clinton. Sometimes being a moderate, competent president, gets you no where.

Edited May 9, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

the MSM was brutal towards Bush I. They even dropped a 'scandal' on him 4 days before an election to help out Clinton. Also, the economic boom had began, as there were large economic gains beginning which the MSM ignored. But yea, I guess the media has an evening factor in the pro-GOP FOX news.

 

And, yes, the MSM totally played up him being sick in Japan. The NY Times and everyone else in the media were in a frenzy. They claimed it showed he shouldn't be president. Time magazine called him a wimp on their cover, which they now acknowledge was a poor journalistic move. So bs journalism has been around way before FOX news. Now there is just right wing crappy journalists on tv, not just left wing crappy journalists.

 

 

Edit: This in no way is an attempt to defend FOX news and their 24-7 Rev Wright fest. They are just as bad as the left wing media they trash so much on air. Oh, and the far right wing starting attacking Bush I because they didn't like how he worked on the budget with Democrats. A budget which many economists attribute to around 60% of the budget surplus under Clinton. Sometimes being a moderate, competent president, gets you no where.

Back then when Bush I was president there was really no such thing as conservative media and that didn't really start happening until about the mid 90s a little after the Republicans took over Congress, so yeah I wouldn't doubt they were harsh towards Bush. I don't really remember though since I was in grade school, but coincidentally I just did a little mini-paper on something like this. For all the people that complain about the liberal media now, it really was liberal then. So now with conservative talk radio and stuff like conservative blogs (and yeah, Fox News) I'd say these days it about evens out, with a slight tilt to the left b/c the newspapers are still pretty liberal. But their influence is fading and electronic media is gaining. But the one thing that's been constant through the years is the ridiculous sensationalism... and that's manifested itself more than anything in this dumb primary process.

 

On a side note I find people always say CNN is one of the worst culprits of being liberally biased but after watching all the major networks and a few international ones I just don't see it. I literally LOL when people tell me the Republican Noise Machine/GOP Mouthpiece Network isn't blatantly slanted right. Any network that gives extensive airtime to Sean Hannity Bill O'Reilly and frequently has guests like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh while attempting to pass off Alan Colmes as a "hard-hitting liberal" to give the appearance of balance is biased by default. Not that I necessarily have a problem with this considering freedom of the press and all but let's just be honest with ourselves, call a spade a spade and stop trying to tell people it's a heart. However.... as far as liberal media, I've been watching MSNBC lately... holy s*** they might as well be the Democratic Cheerleading Network. Keith Olbermann, lol. Maybe that's why I see CNN as moderate.

[Gregory Pratt]

It was a big deal in the 60s and 70s when Richard Nixon went bowling, because he genuinely loved it and some people related to him. To say that we've "trivialized" campaigns now is not true. We just think it's worse for some reason. From Peggy Eaton to Grover Cleveland's wife to Gennifer Flowers and the Swifties, politics have been full of "minor distractions" as some people call them, and they've always gotten good coverage. Voters have always been interested in these things.

[Texsox]

Up until today, and it is still to be seen, we do want out Presidential candidates white, Christian, male, and with some link to the common man. Perhaps that is why we enjoy that tossing out of the first pitch, bowling, fishing, horseback riding, etc. The candidates carefully control that image.

 

I believe that opening up the candidate pool, by opening up the gene pool, will be the #1 thing we will do to improve our candidates.

[bmags]

the MSM was brutal towards Bush I. They even dropped a 'scandal' on him 4 days before an election to help out Clinton. Also, the economic boom had began, as there were large economic gains beginning which the MSM ignored. But yea, I guess the media has an evening factor in the pro-GOP FOX news.

 

And, yes, the MSM totally played up him being sick in Japan. The NY Times and everyone else in the media were in a frenzy. They claimed it showed he shouldn't be president. Time magazine called him a wimp on their cover, which they now acknowledge was a poor journalistic move. So bs journalism has been around way before FOX news. Now there are right wing crappy journalists on tv, not just left wing crappy journalists.

 

this is no way defending media against what you are saying, but more explaining as I see it.

 

One of the reasons Reagan was so successful was the image he created, and one of the reasons that image continued was because of how controlling his administration was of the media. They were not very open to them. From my study of George H.W. Bush, he had problems with how they dealt with the media and when he became president he opened things up a lot more.

 

Unfortunately, as opposed to when FDR opened up the presidency to the media for the first real time in history with a modern mass media, they felt obliged to cover positively, and the presidency basically punished them for bad coverage by not letting them have the same priveledges anymore. So when Bush opened up the presidency, it worked against him as they press, cynical after 8 years of being so reactionary under Reagan, attacked.

 

As far as the economic gains, that can simply be explained as not many journalists understand the economy.