The Failure Of American Institutions, Not Of Conservatism, Made Donald Trump Possible

[r9etb]

Way too many candidates were running.  They need to have no more than three.  Each candidate should go up to a committee and state their case, and from that three are selected to run.

Gasp!  You're suggesting a return to the dreaded Smoke Filled Room!  I happen to agree with you.

The practical application of the idea would be for the party to name some number of "vetted candidates" who best represent the principles of the party and have the qualifications to serve in the office in question.  (Not just the presidency, in other words).  Other candidates would be free to enter the fray -- but as people who have not been "vetted," their chances would be significantly diminished.

This is what a political party is supposed to do.  It's pretty much the party's main responsibility. 

That said, a few observations.

1.  The principles and qualifications demanded by the party are at the mercy of those who decide on what candidates are considered "vetted."  The battle for the heart of the party, therefore, would be fought and won or lost in determining who serves on the committee.

2.  The strength of the party depends on the qualities of the committee.  A weak or misguided committee would pass on weak or misguided candidates.  One wonders if Trump would have been declared "vetted" by today's RNC hierarchy: I suspect  he would have.

3.  Because the committee becomes the locus of political power within the party, and therefore the nation, it is susceptible to corruption and undue influence by big-money donors and power brokers.  The interests of the broader party membership, not to mention the general population, are secondary -- if they are considered at all.

4.  To mitigate the influence of power brokers, the membership of the vetting committee must be term-limited, and made accountable to the broader party membership, via state conventions.  IMO, membership of the committee would be drawn from each state, perhaps in accordance with the number of electoral votes; or perhaps on a two-per-state basis as for the US Senate.

[r9etb]

You missed fear, my friend.

Indeed, I did.  I appreciate the addition.

[dfwgator]

That's why the RNC Chairman matters.   They are the ones who will be primarily responsible for who gets to run.

Reince Preibus has been a dismal failure, he created this circus, and he should have been canned after Romney lost in 2012.

[r9etb]

That's why the RNC Chairman matters.   They are the ones who will be primarily responsible for who gets to run.

Reince Preibus has been a dismal failure, he created this circus, and he should have been canned after Romney lost in 2012.

Well, yeah.  The problem is that Preibus is basically unaccountable, in addition to being incompetent.  And the hierarchy of the RNC are likewise unaccountable and incompetent.  The GOP is a party that has lost direction and motivation.

The only way to change that is to make the states more responsible for the makeup of the national party leadership; and even that requires more active participation by the rank and file of the party.

[Rivergirl]

Anger at the republican party promulgated day in and day out by none other than Levin, scammity, rush, and assorted other traitors.   Pretending that Obama was not about to veto any and all republican legislation proposed.
No matter how many times O used his executive privilege (illegally) it was always the same mantra from the above named loudmouths.  Always the fault of the republicans. 
They got their wish and now they will be sorry for what they wished for.  All their dollars will not make their own lives better.

[Resp3]

Way too many candidates were running.  They need to have no more than three.  Each candidate should go up to a committee and state their case, and from that three are selected to run.

Back then, those three candidates would have been Walker, Paul and Bush. While I agree that any one of those would be better than what we are stuck with now, none of them would have been our best choices.

I have no problem with a crowded field. The problem was with a weak and ineffective GOP that gave us McCain, then Romney, then Trump.

[Resp3]

Gasp!  You're suggesting a return to the dreaded Smoke Filled Room!  I happen to agree with you.

The practical application of the idea would be for the party to name some number of "vetted candidates" who best represent the principles of the party and have the qualifications to serve in the office in question.  (Not just the presidency, in other words).  Other candidates would be free to enter the fray -- but as people who have not been "vetted," their chances would be significantly diminished.

This is what a political party is supposed to do.  It's pretty much the party's main responsibility. 

That said, a few observations.

1.  The principles and qualifications demanded by the party are at the mercy of those who decide on what candidates are considered "vetted."  The battle for the heart of the party, therefore, would be fought and won or lost in determining who serves on the committee.

2.  The strength of the party depends on the qualities of the committee.  A weak or misguided committee would pass on weak or misguided candidates.  One wonders if Trump would have been declared "vetted" by today's RNC hierarchy: I suspect  he would have.

3.  Because the committee becomes the locus of political power within the party, and therefore the nation, it is susceptible to corruption and undue influence by big-money donors and power brokers.  The interests of the broader party membership, not to mention the general population, are secondary -- if they are considered at all.

4.  To mitigate the influence of power brokers, the membership of the vetting committee must be term-limited, and made accountable to the broader party membership, via state conventions.  IMO, membership of the committee would be drawn from each state, perhaps in accordance with the number of electoral votes; or perhaps on a two-per-state basis as for the US Senate.

5. Reduce the campaign process from 18 months down to six. No other nation has such a ridiculous pre-election time frame. I do believe in the effectiveness of state primaries but early primaries are damaging and ineffective and therefore should not begin until May.


@r9etb

[r9etb]

Anger at the republican party promulgated day in and day out by none other than Levin, scammity, rush, and assorted other traitors.   Pretending that Obama was not about to veto any and all republican legislation proposed.
No matter how many times O used his executive privilege (illegally) it was always the same mantra from the above named loudmouths.  Always the fault of the republicans. 
They got their wish and now they will be sorry for what they wished for.  All their dollars will not make their own lives better.

Excellent point. 

And they're playing to the people who dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as "RINOs" or the dreaded "GOPe." Not that such things don't exist, but the idea of political tradeoffs and incremental change are anathema to those who want what they want Right Damn Now, Dammit!  Of course a guy like Trump, who loudly promises magic fixes, is going to appeal to that sort of crowd.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Anger at the republican party promulgated day in and day out by none other than Levin, scammity, rush, and assorted other traitors.   Pretending that Obama was not about to veto any and all republican legislation proposed.
No matter how many times O used his executive privilege (illegally) it was always the same mantra from the above named loudmouths.  Always the fault of the republicans. 
They got their wish and now they will be sorry for what they wished for.  All their dollars will not make their own lives better.

WINNER, WINNER!

CHICKEN DINNER!

[r9etb]

5. Reduce the campaign process from 18 months down to six. No other nation has such a ridiculous pre-election time frame. I do believe in the effectiveness of state primaries but early primaries are damaging and ineffective and therefore should not begin until May.

I'd agree with you about putting the primaries later; but I don't think you can easily compare the duration of our campaigns to those of other nations, which tend to have a different process for selecting their chief executives. 

The chief executives of other countries tend to be selected indirectly, by the party or coalition that has the parliamentary majority.  In such cases, the vetting process has been done over years, as the prospective prime minister has risen through the party ranks; and he's selected by other members of the parliamentary body. 

We have a more or less direct election, and as such more time is required for the voters to learn about the various candidates, not to mention the candidates making themselves known.  That process is currently badly broken, but the need for additional time seems pretty clear to me.  I think 6 months is probably not long enough.

Other countries (i.e., France) also have a national election for President.  But unlike us, France has an official vetting process: "In order to be admitted as an official candidate, potential candidates must receive signed nominations (informally known as parrainages, for "sponsors") from more than 500 elected officials, mostly mayors." 

The vetting process itself would probably reduce the amount of time needed, as it would tend to produce candidates who are more or less already known, and whose records are readily available to the voters.

[Smokin Joe]

It is hard to believe that even now ya'll still don't get it.

Immigration or rather lack of even attempting to control illegal immigration is what made Donald Trump possible. That you can look at what is happening in Sweden, Germany, France and England a still not "get it" is mind boggling.

Control it? It is being subsidized by the Federal Government through outfits like Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities and a host of others only nominally connected with the churches, and funded with our tax dollars. The Southern Border is just the NAFTA highway for the drug cartels.