commentaries

A long election is good for the following: the TV stations, which get all that ad revenue; the media, which get to tease the public with trivia instead of looking at the issues; the consultants, who have longer contracts.

I learned a lot about political campaigns while volunteering on one in 2004, and the main fact I learned is that the Big Money Crowd actually picks the nominees, while the rest of the contenders are either ignored or ridiculed. I volunteered for a candidate who was consistently ignored by the media despite drawing larger crowds each time he visited the Twin Cities. We volunteers had to BEG to get any coverage, while the "approved" candidates could get half-page articles just for talking to small groups of wealthy donors.

Recall that there were six people vying for the Democratic nomination as of 2007, but even at that early date, long before the Iowa caucuses, the mass media were acting as if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were the only contenders. Furthermore, the media weren't spending much time talking about the issues. It was more in terms of "Do you want the first woman president or the first black president?" or "Are you sexist or racist?"

In this year's Republican race, we had "the rock star of the week" phenomenon, with each contender being described as THE right one, only to be shot down a week or two later.

Incidentally, in 1999, I was living in the same apartment complex as a very wealthy older woman who was a major donor to the Oregon Republican Party. The management held a coffee gathering every week, and I happened to sit at a table where people were wondering who would come after Clinton. This woman said, "George W. Bush is going to be the nominee." Having read Molly Ivins' descriptions of him, I asked, "Really? Don't you have anyone better?" She said, "They told us that Bush will be the nominee." Sure enough...

What is so "beneficial" about nearly two years of theater when the Big Money Crowd has already decided long before the primaries that some candidates are "frontrunners" and others barely exist?

Frank Partnoy's thesis is invalid! The US has devolved into a system of perpetual campaigning. Our elected representatives (especially in the House because US Representatives come up for election every two years) begin campaigning for the next election immediately on taking office. "Work week" in DC parlance gets shorter and shorter. Members spend more time away from DC raising funds than they spend doing the people's business.

WRONG WRONG WRONG - The entire thesis of Partnoy would only apply ... shut off every potential politician from every form of media expoosure and disbursement. Go ahead ... try and fill a 24/7 news cycle without some political blowhard commenting on some 'Merican Issh-Ah. Look at Michelle Bachmann - other than spouting laughably ignorant quotes ... what leadership or guidance has she provided this country? Nothing, Bupkiss, Nada, Zilch... and yet... you'll see her on some darn program next week ... you ... betcha!

Not a very convincing case, Frank. Maybe if campaigns offered more substance people would be inclined to agree with you.

With people on both sides being so angry and getting more and more agitated by watching attack ads constantly I can hardly wait for November to get here so that we can all start being civil to each other again.