Agree with Geffen? America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.

[wyldwolf]

Up until the late 60s or so, Democrats chose their candidates in the proverbial "smoke-filled room." The reasoning? Party leaders could better choose a winning candidate than voters.

So, considering the hoopla of Geffens remarks about the Clintons, do you agree with what he also said, "America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms?"

[DemKR]

1. He really surprised me

I really wish Barack Obama would denounce these kind of slash and burn campaign tactics. Democratic candidates attacking eachother is the last thing that needs to happen this election cycle.

[wyldwolf]

2. It seems to me...

If our candidates "were chosen in smoke-filled rooms" by party leaders, as Geffen suggests, Obama would stand less of a chance.

[ripple]

13. Obama HAS denounced slash and burn politics

Geffen was not speaking on Obama's behalf, he was stating his own personal opinion.

If you think Obama should denounce Geffen, should Hillary denoounce SC's Senator Ford for his comments concerning Obama?

It works both ways, you know.

[Norquist Nemesis]

49. LOL! Is that you Howard?

[Adelante]

3. Bring back Tammany Hall

I'm beginning to think we might as well :shrug:

[BootinUp]

15. Probably wouldn't be much worse.

The current system has worked so well for the Dems the last decade.

[Adelante]

18. And you'd get a turkey at Thanksgiving

:D

[IndianaGreen]

4. I am sure we all want the DLC's Al From and his band of neolib imperialists

tell us who will reign over us for the next 4-years.

Why not take this a step further and have a President for Life?

[wyldwolf]

6. that would be valid if Al From was a party leader.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Party leaders don't lead, they follow money and influence

If they had led at all, or if they had followed the people, they would all have opposed the Iraq War Resolution instead of rubbing their hands in anticipation of the great profits the war was going to bring to their financial patrons.

[wyldwolf]

26. and that had WHAT to do with From NOT being a party leader?

[IndianaGreen]

29. Speaker Gephardt listened to Al From's counsel on voting for IWR

in order to get the issue off the table for the elections. That's why Gephardt stood alongside Bush in the Rose Garden in an orgasm of congratulations for voting for IWR.

[wyldwolf]

31. he probably listened to his wive's, too.

[madfloridian]

5. He and Carville have a thing about smoke-filled rooms.

.

[Atman]

7. I will only agree that he has a point

Let's be honest here; we frequently use the "the people are too stupid" angle when it suits us. We use it to explain why overturning Jim Crow laws were a good thing, despite the fact that the majority of American's supported them at one time. We use the argument that a majority of Americans may support the death penalty, but sometimes the majority is just wrong. We use it to explain why American Idol is popular while quality shows get cancelled. We use the argument all the time when it helps achieve our goals.

I think Geffen has a point, although I do agree with the sentiment that "anyone who takes voters out of the process is nuts." Voters SHOULD be intimately involved in the process. The key word being SHOULD. Americans, for the most part, are a very stupid lot with no time for such mundane bullshit as politics. "They're all the same." You know you've heard THAT before...anyone who utters it should never be allowed to vote again.

.

[wyldwolf]

10. right, of course... but...

...if that is how our candidate was chosen, Obama would have less of a shot than he does. For that matter, so would Clinton. And Richardson...

[BootinUp]

17. You just ruled out a staggering number of voters.

Maybe I'm just cynical. Not.

[welshTerrier2]

8. other

neither our past nor current political process serves us well. choosing between the smoke filled rooms of the past and the cash filled rooms of today does a huge disservice to democracy.

[wyldwolf]

12. which what makes his statement pretty ironic

He's giving cash to Obama who would have less of a shot if our candidate was being picked by party leaders.

[mazzarro]

9. Such will quickly give rise to "brazen subjugation" of average citizen

With the present day lobbyist/wealth controlled political process, smoked filled room selection of candidates will clearly ill-serve the country and the world. Everything will be even more at the mercy of the global corporations and the wealthy alone.

[endarkenment]

11. On the other hand, since we never put the public into the process

maybe we ought to give that a try. How about we end all private financing of campaigns? Public financing only, reinstitute the fairness doctrine, wring the billions of graft poured into the system each campaign cycle.

"Up until the late 60s or so"? Not really. The era of the back room bosses ended long before that.

[wyldwolf]

14. I vote in the primaries, don't you?

[endarkenment]

22. So you think that there isn't a problem with

the billions of dollars going into the process, with a controlled corporate media, that the process, as is, is just fine?

[wyldwolf]

25. I dispute your claim that the public isn't involved in the process.

[endarkenment]

35. My claim is that the process is corrupt

and that we participate in a classic forced choice cardtrick scam. I've answered your question. Now its your turn.

So you think that there isn't a problem with the billions of dollars going into the process, with a controlled corporate media, that the process, as is, is just fine?

[wyldwolf]

36. but the public still participates

[endarkenment]

37. So you will not answer my question?

How rude. How typical. Is the current political system corrupt, yes or no?

[wyldwolf]

39. uh... you made an erroneous claim and instead of owning up to it...

...you divert.

How rude. How typical.

YOU said "we never put the public into the process."

I say we do. It's called the caucus/primary system.

regardless of how flawed and corrupt it is , the public IS involved, is it not?

[endarkenment]

41. Oh bullshit: answer the question.

I made it quite clear that the public participates in a forced choice charade. As in the simple parlour cardtrick, participation is a sham. Now answer the question: is the current system corrupt, yes or no?

[wyldwolf]

42. oh, bullshit. You're STILL trying to dodge.

And if you look at my last reply, you'll see your precious diversion/question was answered.

[endarkenment]

43. You did not answer my question.

I answered yours directly: the public participates in a fraudulent process that denies them any real choices.

Your answer to my question, 'is the process corrupt' was "regardless of how flawed and corrupt it is". A non answer.

Is the process corrupt, yes or no?

[wyldwolf]

44. I suggest you reread post 39...

[endarkenment]

34. My claim is that the process is corrupt

and that we participate in a classic forced choice cardtrick scam. I've answered your question. Now its your turn.

So you think that there isn't a problem with the billions of dollars going into the process, with a controlled corporate media, that the process, as is, is just fine?

[Double T]

16. Geffen should do 'US' ALL a favor and keep his GD mouth.........

SHUT!!

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Funny, that's what Carville said about electing the head of the DNC.

"I think it's pathetic. It's so indicative of the Democratic Party. Now we're just playing into every stereotype: We're weak, disorganized, flopping around.... Somebody should have fixed this damn thing in November. I wish someone would have taken charge and three or four people would have gotten together in a smoke-filled room.... They're not running for president! They are running for party chair. This is supposed to be a rigged deal. You think the Republicans would do it this way?" - J. Carville

If one disagrees with Geffen on "smoke filled rooms" then I suppose that one would also disagree with Hillary's advisor, James Carville on "smoke filled rooms."

Oh, the irony!

[IndianaGreen]

24. The putrid stench of the corruption represented by Jim Carville

is what permeates this argument, and it also shows the intrinsic authoritarian character of the candidate they back for President.

How dare the American people consider someone other than the rightful heir to the throne, and I don't mean Al Gore?

[NashVegas]

20. Here's What I Said in This Forum in 2004 re:smoke filled rooms

The primaries are there so the people who really decide who's going to be the nominee will have time to convince the rest of us that we're the ones making the decision.

It's time the pretense stopped and they return it to the smoke-filled rooms. Those of us who see the game for what it really is are tired of being jerked around.

[Sammy Pepys]

21. I think there is something to be said for the smoke-filled room...

The public can be fickle, and a lot of the noise generator can confuse the gears a little bit. Sometimes (not all the time) a decision is better rendered by decree than by consensus.

I think that ultimately you need some small degree of smoke-filled roominess to get the wheels moving.

[The Magistrate]

27. Some Good People Emerged From Those 'Smoke Filled Rooms', Sir

Some good policy, too....

"Just because they're dead don't mean they stopped being Democrats!"

[wyldwolf]

30. I agree, and I think many are missing my point

The selection process via "smoke-filled rooms" mainly focused on the candidate's electability in the general election. However, when the caucus/primary system took hold, the candidate who won the nomination wasn't always who would play best in the General election.

So, I find it ironic that Geffen, who is supporting Obama, would make that statement when it isn't likey Obama (or Clinton) would be the candidate chosen in such a room.

[The Magistrate]

32. That Is An Important Consideration, Sir

When you get right down to the nub of the thing, all systems for selection have drawbacks and benefits, and the most important consideration is the quality of the people who operate the system, rather than the system itself.

"Democracy substitutes for appointment by the corrupt few election by the incompetent many."

[Southsideirish]

28. I agree 100% - Geffen is a genius! Post 1960's prez candidates have sucked!

[FrenchieCat]

33. Smoked filled room, media CEO offices, Money bidding.....

none of it represents democracy....if we even use the word...."chosen".

The correct word is elected by a plurality of votes. Everything else is bullshit, not democracy.

[flpoljunkie]

38. Speaking of "smoke," is this poll a "smoke screen..."

to distract from the rest of Geffen's pointed criticisms of the Clintons?

[wyldwolf]

40. sigh... you caught me! Now you can report it to Tinfoil Hat Central

New Rule: NO distractions while candidates are at war.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. His mistake is in thinking that candidates aren't still chosen in

smoke-filled rooms.

They still are, only it's the big money donors (perhaps with a corporate policy against smoking), not the party officials, who make the decisions.

[NashVegas]

46. Yup

Just imagine how much less elections would cost ...

[primative1]

47. Other ... They just quit smoking

The smoke filled room process still occurs. Only difference now is that the powers that be are much more health conscious and are forgoing the Marlboros.

[lojasmo]

48. Um...that's what happened in 2004.

And Kerry got stomped, so I'd say "no"