Latest Comments
ND News Feed
Calendar of Events
**************Eating Liberally -- The 4th Thursday of each month -- Valentino's, 1443 42nd St Sw, Fargo, ND -- 6:00 p.m.
This is a time to get together and eat and talk , just time for our friends. There is no format, dues, agenda etc., We can meet anytime or place we decide, picnic pot luck, local food, anything we want to, even invite speakers. But for now please show up, eat and talk to like minded friends. No need to RSVP just stop by and eat. email Trana if you like.
************
Anybody got anything that's interesting for me?
Links Worth Reading
ND Newspapers
ND Outdoors Sites
| FishingBuddy |
| NoDakOutdoors |
50 State Blogroll
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Featured Link
Krugman & Rolling Stone
Login Form
Support NorthDecoder
Search This Site
Feature Stories
| Personal |
| The Low Road |
ND Blogs (leftish)
ND Blogs (apolitical)
Regional Blogs (leftish)
ND Blogs (rightish)
| FreeRepublicans |
| Meartz's Lake |
| Too Much Dog Hair |
| Conserv. Harvest |
| Boyd Drive Follies |
| Matt's Blog |
Amazon Search
| C & E Lists North Dakota Political Power Hitters |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Chet | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Campaigns & Elections magazine has put out a list of political power hitters in every state. I have to say that the North Dakota list is "interesting," to say the least. Here's the list:
First things first: This is probably obvious, but nobody called me and asked for my opinion before putting this list together. How would you know this? Well, I've never even heard of three of the five listed Republican power hitters. This "Jonathan Casper" fellow may know every donor in the state, but you have to wonder how many North Dakota voters have ever heard his name. And they've got "Lonnie Dietz" on the list. That's interesting. If you're looking for something to point your finger at to explain how and why Rick Berg lost the "sure thing" Senate race that Nate Silver gave Berg a 90% chance of winning in North Dakota in 2012, Lonnie Dietz's face would probably be a good place to start. But I suppose the list of people who had "influence," and not necessarily "effective influence." My list on the Democratic-NPL side would be different, too. I'll give one example of why/how my list would be different: I expect this could be taken wrong by some, but I don't understand why Pam Gulleson is on this list. I like Pam, and I thought she ran an honorable campaign, but it looks like nobody on this list was a candidate in 2012. Except Pam. She was not a consultant in 2012. She's not a consultant now. And if we're going to pick a candidate from 2012 to include on the list as having been influencial, shouldn't it be Heidi Heitkamp? Call me crazy. And there's at least one other on this list I'd take off and would probably get some heat for doing. And, again, if you're going to include candidates, on the Republican side wouldn't you include Berg over one of his consultants? Or Cramer? So anyway, though I like all the Dems on the list, I'd have to swap in other people for at least two of them. In their place, I'd have to insert a few other people. I'll have to think a little bit about who those people are/were, but a couple names immediately popped into my head as possibilities. Assuming you agree with me that this list is flawed, who would you take off and who would you replace them with? For either party. Or do you think the list is perfect?
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Comments (5)
Random
said:
|
|
Badly researched On the Dem side, I'll give you Tessa Gould. Probably Joel, too. But the rest of them? No way. Gulleson's campaign was okay, but not great. And who does she influence? Kingsley doesn't even do politics at KK Bold. Maybe you could argue one of the other people at KK Bold is an influencer, but LaRoy has no business being mentioned within 20 miles of this list. Having him on this list takes away any credibility from the list. Jasper is a federal employee and so he's Hatched. You could call him a future "up and comer" or something, but not an influencer. Not right now. I'll give the Rs Pat Funkin, but none of the rest of them. Jim Poolboy should be on that list. So should Harold Hammburglar. They've paid good money for the ND Repugnican Party. The rest of the list should be Hammburglar's minions and money changers. I've never even heard of this magazine but I'd like to know who they used as sources. Those idiots should be punched in the nose for pretending to know the first thing about ND politics. |
|
Jim
said:
|
... I expect LaRoy ias a bit embarrassed about this. It's Wayne Kranzler who handles the politics at KK Bold. LaRoy actually hates politics. Random's right about the rest of this. Whoever wrote this has diminished the usually reliable insight at Campaigns and Elections magazine. |
|
big jake
said:
|
... Like a lot of crap from D.C., this fits right in. Who in the hell do these people think they are? More important, why do we pay any attention to them at all? Maybe we have not learned anything in spite of the drubbing our party has taken. If we are too succeed, we have to find some ground to stand on. The process of developing real political ideology and beliefs has been absent for many years. In spite of the nonsense that nearly on an hourly basis that is spewed out by the Republicans, tea baggers, Fox news, Rush, et. al., it has clearly worked. They have set the political tone and subsequent agenda for our country. We have been operating in a one party system aided by the DLC although that faction has been weakening. Their overt stupidity cannont stand even cursory examination. But we have failed to confront them on virtually every level. This is deeper than partisan politics. It is about who will own our country. If the next 50 years is like the last 50, we will have crossed the line and become Europeanized. A handful of elites, those who do their bidding and the rest of us who will work for them and at ever declining earnings. Come on Democrats---begin the dialogue. |
|
random
said:
|
... ------"If the next 50 years is like the last 50, we will have crossed the line and become Europeanized. A handful of elites, those who do their bidding and the rest of us who will work for them and at ever declining earnings"------ Don't you mean 'Latin Americanized'? The European countries have less income equality than the U.S. Only Britain is even close. |
|
big jake
said:
|
... That is not what I mean by "Europeanized". A reminder here is in order. Our European ancestors came here because they wanted to own something, build something, provide a better life for their families. The other stuff followed---religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom from government intrusion, the ability to defend ourselves and list grows. It was first to take care of our families and the opportunity that had to go with it. That was impossible in Europe as the elites had control of everything. We have been steadily moving in the European direction for decades. NO, not socialism although the implementation of European style socialism is what allows the elite to maintain power----give the folks something while the rich continue to own it all. It is the ultimate inability to, through our own sweat and efforts, that a better life is achievable. If we continue on the path we are on, that is the inevitable end result. The Right is not controlled by these elites. The Democrats just can't find the way to confront this and stand up for the principles that we were founded on and are dependent. Latin American never had these freedoms as evidenced by the 100 families that basically own Mexico and their co-conspirator, the Catholic Church and it has been that way since the beginning. This is an anti-elite position but not an anti-Catholic one. Just the way it is. |
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|