Why do these mental patients think the Council is a forum for "contributing a viewpoint"? Members are charged with running the goddamn city. Where are all the political hacks who actually know how to do stuff?

While not commenting on the actual race ... politicians are supposed to be amatuers. When you get a pol who has made that life a career there isn't anything he wont do to retain office.

Possibly an old-fashioned notion. Certainly obsolete in this day and age. Doesn't mean it does not have merit.

Bullshit. Lack of experience in politics is not a qualification for serving in politics.--------

Nor should it be a disqualification, Erica.

--- Jensen

Why? Is lack of experience in performing surgery a disqualification for performing surgery? How about lack of experience in fixing my fucking brakes? I should hope so. They should give these bozos a test before they're allowed to speak, see if they can run a meeting or perform some other administrative task. WHY are they supposed to be amateurs? You want an amateur driving your bus?

They should give these bozos a test before they're allowed to speak, see if they can run a meeting or perform some other administrative task.

Good lord why? The test is called an election. Running a meeting is not hard. Grown ups can do things like that. If not ... well that what the next election is for.

Interesting that you see the most God damned elitist opinions in places like this. What happened to rule of the people? Truimph of the common man?

WHY are they supposed to be amateurs? You want an amateur driving your bus?

Surgery - mechanic - commerical driver - politician.

You're comparing apples and dump trucks, Fnarf.

Why? So they won't be required to make politics a lifetime job. So they won't be compelled to seek office to make their daily bread. To reduce corruption in office because they need their job. So they won't turn into farking lobbyists when the voters turn them out.

Politics (and I am simplyfying greatly, sure) didn't use to be the province of professionals. You stepped up, served a term at the legislature and then went home to your real life.

Introduce the idea that politics is your job and you get crap like the Congres voting themselves a pay raise every two years and perks and not having to even obey the rules they make for the rest of us when it comes to pensions, right-to-work and so on.

I want professionals to fix my truck - I'll pay for that, damn skippy. But put a professional in charge of the country? Of making up the rules that govern the rest of us? Pass.

When, exactly, was politics for amateurs as you describe? Why, I do believe you're going to try and pull some "Founding Fathers" bullshit on me here. Well, it wasn't true then and it's even less true now. Running the government is a complicated technical profession, like it or not.

And if "anyone can run a meeting" how come so few of them are run well? Including a few run by councilmembers I've been at. Grownups? This is Seattle, there are no grownups here. I think this parade of geeks has proven that.

Okay, FNARF999. Why don't you take
the time to tell us, based on your
judgement, who might be the best individual to occupy this seat?

---Jensen

When, exactly, was politics for amateurs as you describe? Why, I do believe you're going to try and pull some "Founding Fathers" bullshit on me here. Well, it wasn't true then and it's even less true now.

I wasn't going to - credit me with some nunace, eh?

But actually .. yes. Sure you can look at the guys who signed the Declaration or the Constitution and you'll see what look like professional pols. They weren't, not in the sense you see today.

What you might be seeing are the famous names in history - they made their mark and some were careerists, true. They're a fair minority of the people who served - most did indeed set aside their profession or their farm, served a term or two at the state capitol and went back to their lives.

And if "anyone can run a meeting" how come so few of them are run well?

Lack of adult supervison.

Look. Taking your statement at face value - that politics is too technical to leave to the hoi polloi - the logical conclusion is simply hire it done and forego all this election folderol. You don't elect your surgeon or your mechanic after all.

A hereditary monarchy is one solution - done right with privlege and class restrictions and an aristocracy you can have a long run before things fall apart or you get a guy like Charles I.

You're sassy in your arrogance, Erica.

The American political system was not meant to foster career politicians. The idea of democracy is to elect officials who empathise and represent the public sector. That people actually make a career out of being career government officials goes against the spirit of public representation, because career politicians develop a disconnect with the public sector and their point of view.

That was O'Neill's point, and it's a good point to make, even though his context was the antithesis of preaching to the choir. I don't think a council full of career politicians took too kindly to his stance.

Also, on Brian's rebuttal to Fnarf's assertion that potential candidates should be tested for relevant city councilmember skills:

Good lord why? The test is called an election.

This guy 'passed' two 'tests', Brian. Would you consider him qualified?

I actually agree with Fnarf. I believe these people, and any potential councilmember, should have to show they can do certain relevant tasks efficiently before we trust them with a city council seat.

certain relevant tasks efficiently....

Hmmm. Now what might those be, Gomez?

Why don't you and Fnarf tell us what would be on your tests?

---Jensen

Okay, examples:

You can run a meeting? Run your own candidate hearing. If it's disjointed and disorganized and lacks an agenda and direction, or if it's clearly slanted towards not revealing any pertinent information about yourself, clearly you're not capable of doing so.

Give a speech defending a particular plan of action, then field questions afterward.

Or draft a bill, introduce it and do the same.

Let's judge people on their qualifications, skills, character and ability, not on some cliche-laden speech and their connections.

Gomez....these certainly sound well within the capabilities possessed
by a bright high-schooler or your
run-of-the-mill mid-level manager
at Boeing. Thanks for posting them.

---Jensen

This guy 'passed' two 'tests', Brian. Would you consider him qualified?

I do. This puts me in the minority here by a long chalk I imagine.

Gomez your skills test is an interesting idea. But you'll run afoul of the fact that it's contrary to the spirit of a democracy. On a practical level you run the risk of putting in place a mechanisim that can be used for evil ends - barring otherwise qualified candidates from office by rigging the test.

Similar tests whose origins have good intentions to keep the voting process clean include property requirements, literacy tests, poll taxes and so on.

But I repeat - if being able to meet your qualifications is that important then it is too risky to leave to the chance of an election. You need a professional, dedicated class of people to adminster your country, with schools and exams. These people in the past have been called aristocrats and they have a very good record for running the empire for the benefit of the upper class and the comfort of their subjects.

It won't be America and you won't be citizens but hey .. it will be well run.

If it's so easy, then how come virtually none of the current council crew can accomplish basic tasks? You know, the reason the mayor runs roughshod over these bozos is because they all think they're US Senators, and thus their only job duty is the emission of clouds of hot air.

My ideal candidate? Someone who's come up through the ranks, not necessarily in city gov but in something associated with it (business or public service), someone who knows how our public utilities are put together, someone who can attract the interest and support of some section of the populace while doing so, and someone who can keep him- or herself from making unfocused, unworkable pronouncements about transit or density every ten seconds like a particularly pointless clock.

Ideally I'd like to see an old-time pol with a big fat cigar that he (or she) never lights, who has a vast network of friends and enemies and a store of colorful anecdotes who can smile as he or she puts the knife in.

How about a current council staffer who knows how the job is done, has the contacts to build a successful campaign, and is itching to get out from under their boss's shadow? There's gotta be one somewhere. There have to be competent people who can run the government, or else we're doomed. Personally, I think we're doomed; the grotesque failure of the monorail proves that a political class doesn't exist in this city, and thus we are going to be in the hands of earnest nimrods forever.

The ideas expressed above about the Founding Fathers are (a) laughably false, as they were all first-rate professional pols, and (b) irrelevant, as government today does not resemble in the slightest what they did then. Gentlemen farmers? Not for my city, thanks very much. Anyone who thinks different is either Antonin Scalia or his unwitting tool.

I'll ignore Jensen's classy response to my basic examples. Obviously, Jensen, the tests would be a bit more complex, specific and involved than that.

But Brian, exactly how does asking your candidates to show some basic competence violate the spirit of democracy? Do you really want some dumbass representing you as a citizen?

And as for your conspiracy theory of the city rigging a test... well, really, wouldn't a corrupt city government rig a totally democratic election process anyway? It's highly unlikely the city would stoop that low. To assume guilt of your elected officials is an even bigger admission of failure of the spirit of democracy.

To assume guilt of your elected officials is an even bigger admission of failure of the spirit of democracy.

Don't a large minority of progressives believe that about Bush? Not trying to turn a days old thread in a hard-to-find post into a Bush argument ... just saying.