Reply #18: Of course, any misperception that one lawyer is buying the bench is awful.

[Czolgosz]

In the "bad old days" a small group of people (lawyers and others) was recruiting marginally qualified candidates and successfully promoting them. This unfortunate practice led to elected officials who were underqualified, overly beholden to the small group who recruited and promoted them, and not representative of the whole community. We could list the former (and a few remaining) office-holders who were promoted WAY above their meager abilities back in the day, but what purpose would that serve?

But I hate to hear these arguments applied to long-time Democratic office holders who are widely acknowledged to be doing a good job. For example, I want to scream when I hear people refer to long-time incumbent judges and judges who are seeking to move from one elected bench to another as "so-and-so's candidate." That is such bullshit. These judges are Democratically elected incumbents -- they are the voters' candidates based on past elections, not "so-and-so's candidates." To call hard working Democrats who have a long history of elected service "so-and-so's candidate" is crazy, and it strikes me that only a Republican or someone pushing a lesser qualified challenger would have any incentive to trash a widely respected sitting Democratic official who's doing a good job by almost all accounts.

With that said, I think it is worthwhile to look at who is supporting which candidate. In my mind, it raises real questions when a candidate has support from peculiar places. When I see a local candidate who is supported by contributers who are almost all outside the area she serves, that strikes me as troubling. When there is a candidate who nobody knew was a Democrat until she declared her candidacy and I see is supported by an overwhelming percentage of people who are supporting mostly Republicans in other races, that strikes me as troubling. When I see a candidate where all his money is coming from a few sources who all share a nearly identical narrow political interest, that strikes me as troubling. When I see a candidate who has a history, documented by non-partisan sources, of ruling in favor of financial supporters and against his opponents, that strikes me as troubling. But while these sorts of questions must be raised, they need to be based on facts and not based on rumors.

But to dismiss well-qualified candidates who have extremely broad support from all sorts of traditional Democratic Party supporters as "so-and-so's candidate" is unfair to the Democratic candidate, it's unfair to all the traditional Democratic Party regulars who are working their asses off for that candidate, and -- perhaps most worrisome -- creating the false impression of some imaginary "king-maker" does nothing but enhance the influence of the alleged "king-maker."

Let's judge the candidates by (1) their Democratic people-oriented values, (2) their history of hard work within the party, (3) their ability to do the job well, and (4) the breadth of their support within the party and within the community. Let's don't pick and choose candidates by rumor and according to alleged guilt-by-association with one faction or another within the party. We're all Democrats, let's pick the best candidates, with the best qualifications, and the broadest appeal, and then let's kick some Republican ass together.