Who's having fun at the party?

Wow! Lots of stuff happening on political parties lately. Todd Epp who is taking a short break on blogging had this to say about the Democratic party:

In my dealings with the state and local parties and groups since the 2004 election, I have pushed an agenda of attacking and of getting candidates and money for 2006 NOW. This has largely been rebuffed. I hear things like "this is a ten year process" or "we have plenty of time." We don't. If the S.D. Democratic Party and its county parties continue on the current do-nothing path, we will be a complete irrelevancy in just a couple more election cycles at the state and local levels. Sure, we might get a Tim Johnson or a Stephanie Herseth elected once in a while, but that will be because of their skills and their organizations' efforts, not the Party's efforts.

I have come to the conclusion that some of the South Dakota Democrats in positions of authority are afraid to go on the offensive. They are afraid of leading. They want the party to be a debating society, not a means of electing candidates. My Republican colleagues don't approach elections that way. That's also why they win. And unlike many of my fellow Democrats, I don't think the Republicans are idiots. Far from it. We should learn from them. But we don't. Our arrogance prevents us from learning from them.

This is actually pretty interesting, because I heard a similar complaint from a Democrat fairly hooked in with the process. That person thought there needed to be a change in thinking and direction at the party level, much like Todd is advocating.

It's funny. In his post, Todd mentions that he holds out some hope that he might be the Communications Director for the SDDP, but that his hope may be gone after his post.

Democrats, let me give you a hint. Hiring Todd would get our (Republican's) attention. Hiring some kid fresh out of college does not. Todd has experience and connections. College kid does not - it's on the job training for them. When I noted that Rick Hauffe was posting on the Grassroots Dems blog early this year, I pointed that out to some GOP friends as something to watch, because the possibility of Rick being active in elections this year is a cause for concern on our part. College kid isn't going to even get us to raise an eyebrow.

Don't get me wrong - you need to bring in the young college kids at some point, because that's how they get experience. That's how I got experience. But on the other hand, I didn't get the ED or Communications Director spot.

We'll wait and see if you decide to bring your "A-squad" this year. Either way, we're ready for you.

*Note* And bad Catholic me would ask you to keep Todd's family in your thoughts and prayers. If ever there was a time to give a person some encouragement, please consider doing so. Todd is what you would call "good people," irregardless of affiliation.

On my side of the aisle - I heard something that I think might shake my party to the absolute core. One of my many sources told me that there's a GOP county organization who is forming a committee to explore the possibility of changing the party bylaws to allow candidate endorsement.

Who it is, isn't important. But the sheer concept in South Dakota is phenomenal.

A little background. About, 12-13 years ago, I attended a GOP Central Committee meeting. I recently had become aware of a candidate that I had helped elect a year or so before got embroiled in a scandal soliciting.. er, favors.. from a business that the county granted a liquor license to. He deservedly got tossed out of office, but at the next election was running again as a Republican.

And it p'd me off. After what he pulled, he didn't deserve it. So, at this GOP meeting, I asked in this very public forum "Can we explore the possibility of endorsing candidates, or something so we can disavow support of this person."

It was like I broke wind in church. The discussion ended there, and things quickly moved on. And I felt like a bit of a leper.

Now, candidate endorsement by party groups is not a unique concept. In fact, it's done in many states. The candidates all line up and appear before the local party and explain their positions and beliefs. And then the party meets and decides to support one, or not at all.

It's a non-binding endorsement. And the people who do not get the endorsement are certainly free to run. But that winner gets to have "Endorsed by the ________ County Republican Party" on their ads. It would look like a pretty good benefit to seek to me.

Well, now we actually have this movement specifically coming from a county organization. And I think it should be openly embraced. If anything, it's going to empower county organizations and the Republican party like nothing before.

I was not one of those who supported the removal of straight ticket voting. I thought it weakened the party system of government. Ever since, I think party influence (on either side) and active county organizational membership has waned.

But now, here's something that would get people to stand in line to be a part of it. To be a part of the group who chooses who gets the endorsement. You'll see different factions driving their people in to the monthly meetings. There will be renewed demand to be "a part of the elite crowd." Yes, some people will not like it. But why? All will have equal opportunity to get their people in to participate in the process.

The election process would be driven more by the local party organizations than ever before.

Who will hate it? Statewide candidates. Not that they won't be seeking the favor of county organizations, but it will require them to pay more attention (i.e., travel) to each individual county and do the complete Lincoln Day Dinner circuit, as opposed to skipping some here and there. The travel schedule may just kill them.

If the intent is to have the extent of the endorsements go to the top level, I do think you'll see statewide campaigns organize better on a county by county level. Not just the top 2 or 3 offices, but also those for Secretary of State or PUC. They'll all be clamoring for the county level supporters - many of whom who currently do double or triple duty by acting as county people for more than one candidate. No more. If I was running, I'd want to get the best person first, and have them be exclusive to me.

Logistically, I would see it as having some big growing pains the first few years. But after that, I think you'd organizationally see renewed life in county groups. Because everyone would want to be part of that exclusive group who could say "We endorse ________ (name) to be our next Republican ________ (office). I know I would.

I'm going to be waiting with great interest to see if this movement gets anywhere. I'll let you know if I hear anything more about it.