Is it time for John Conyers to ride into the sunset?

[swingline]

I notice that Peters will be facing off with Hansen Clarke in the 14th. I wish he or Clarke would try to take on Conyers in the 13th.

Peters vs. Clarke shouldn't be happening. Sander Levin turned 80 a couple of weeks ago, He's had a fine legislative career but he has selfishly announced for reelection when he should have stepped aside for Peters to run in the 12th. Now we will lose either Peters or Clarke in the Michigan delegation. Peters and Clarke are at the top of the current Democratic talent pool in Michigan. They are the future and now one of them will be cast off because of an octogenarian's prideful belief that he will have the energy to fend off increasingly popular suburban Tea Party and anti-Detroit, anti-federal government [[anti anything Democratic) candidates. He should be helping both Peters and Clarke get reelected. Instead, he might not get reelected at all and the Democrats will have an unnecessarily contested primary. Levin's decision is shortsighted and selfish.

[R8RBOB]

Peters vs. Clarke shouldn't be happening. Sander Levin turned 80 a couple of weeks ago, He's had a fine legislative career but he has selfishly announced for reelection when he should have stepped aside for Peters to run in the 12th. Now we will lose either Peters or Clarke in the Michigan delegation. Peters and Clarke are at the top of the current Democratic talent pool in Michigan. They are the future and now one of them will be cast off because of an octogenarian's prideful belief that he will have the energy to fend off increasingly popular suburban Tea Party and anti-Detroit, anti-federal government [[anti anything Democratic) candidates. He should be helping both Peters and Clarke get reelected. Instead, he might not get reelected at all and the Democrats will have an unnecessarily contested primary. Levin's decision is shortsighted and selfish.

Now this is what I am talking about. Old soldiers refusing to step aside and let the younger fresher troops fight for Michigan. So we have a 85 year old, a 82 year old and a 80 year old running for reelection to preserve the clout. The problem with this is that young people can be so damn disrespectful than they can ignore the older folk.

[Zacha341]

Three words re. the need for Conyers to run again:

NOT! Just GO!

[Woodward's Cousin]

I am puzzled by the delay by Hansen Clarke in reversing his decision to run in the new 14th after Peters announced that he was running in that district. The political insiders/operatives I have consulted give Clarke no chance now in the 14th against Peters but a fightinmg chance against Conyers in the 13th. There is still time to make this move, but each new entrant in the 13th represents someone who will have top be talked out of the race by proponents of Clarke, or actually beaten by Clarke in a fractured primary. I believe it is in Clarke's best interest to switch back.
And, by the way, if Clarke loses, and is not embarrassed, he waits a few weeks and announces for mayor in 2013.
I share the view stated above about the drag of Johnson's legal history--folks are forgiving, especiallly when the subject has been straight for a good long time, but Mr. Kilpatrick has given all one-time convicted felons a salient , lasting taint, as in " We don't need to be reading about how our congressman was convicted of a felony back when".
I would not be suprised to learn that certain power brokers have approached Ken Cockrel about running in the 13th--where he lives, in contrast to Conyers and Clarke.

[R8RBOB]

I am puzzled by the delay by Hansen Clarke in reversing his decision to run in the new 14th after Peters announced that he was running in that district. The political insiders/operatives I have consulted give Clarke no chance now in the 14th against Peters but a fightinmg chance against Conyers in the 13th. There is still time to make this move, but each new entrant in the 13th represents someone who will have top be talked out of the race by proponents of Clarke, or actually beaten by Clarke in a fractured primary. I believe it is in Clarke's best interest to switch back.
And, by the way, if Clarke loses, and is not embarrassed, he waits a few weeks and announces for mayor in 2013.
I share the view stated above about the drag of Johnson's legal history--folks are forgiving, especiallly when the subject has been straight for a good long time, but Mr. Kilpatrick has given all one-time convicted felons a salient , lasting taint, as in " We don't need to be reading about how our congressman was convicted of a felony back when".
I would not be suprised to learn that certain power brokers have approached Ken Cockrel about running in the 13th--where he lives, in contrast to Conyers and Clarke.

Now, I'm surprised. Are you saying that the insiders believe that Peters would get enough Detroit voters to beat Clarke? He can't beat Clarke with just suburban voters.

[Woodward's Cousin]

Peters will have 4,5,6 or more times as much money as Clarke, and will have enough votes from the non-Detroit parts of the district,e .g., the Grosse Pointes, Farmington and elewhere in Oakland County to come in first in the primary. It's not what the GOP foresaw when they threw Peters in with Levin, but it is what will happen. Oh, and remember that Mayor Brenda Lawrence of southfield is running and is not likely to withdraw, siphoning off Southfield and Oak Part votes and attempting to secure votes in the city. You are no longer suprised.

[R8RBOB]

Peters will have 4,5,6 or more times as much money as Clarke, and will have enough votes from the non-Detroit parts of the district,e .g., the Grosse Pointes, Farmington and elewhere in Oakland County to come in first in the primary. It's not what the GOP foresaw when they threw Peters in with Levin, but it is what will happen. Oh, and remember that Mayor Brenda Lawrence of southfield is running and is not likely to withdraw, siphoning off Southfield and Oak Part votes and attempting to secure votes in the city. You are no longer suprised.

After looking at the new map, I see your point. I give Hanson Clarke credit. He didn't want to fuck over Conyers so he agreed to switch to make it easy for Conyers to get reelected. This is why the old heads should move out of the way.

[Woodward's Cousin]

Respectfully, Clarke would like to be re-elected and keep his job. Running against John conyers would not be "f***ing him over". It would be, in these circumstances, smart politics. That is why he initially switched, and why there is now a reason for him to switch back.
Whatever warm fuzzies he feels about John Conyers the main thing is--always is--political survival. Clarke thought he would be in good shape in Detroit and in the Grosse Pointes until Peters flipped over with his war chest and very strong fund raising ability. There are no doubt some current supporters, and some new ones, who, shall we say, uttered some encouraging fund raising words as the topic of a district switch by Peters was being considered.

[Hypestyles]

isn't peters way conservative in a lot of ways.. what's his take on the local transit issues?

..I suspect the 13th race in particular will probably get nasty during the campaign.. I just see it coming.. and if anyone besides conyers wins the primary [[not likely) it would be open rebellion among district delegates/volunteers..

[Fiddler]

Conyers should make a run for president. With the experience he has in improving the quality of life for all Detroits citizens he would be a shoe in for sure. An added bonus would be Monica as first lady.Two for the price of one.

[Parkguy]

Mikey--
I have to disagree. I had the pleasure to sit in a dinner speech a few years ago with Sander Levin in Washington. The topic was special education. He was able to trace the history of special ed legislation at the city, state, and federal level beginning in the'60s, He was knowledgeable and very wise in his remarks. You don't get that kind of understanding when you only have a term or two or three to learn the ropes.

[Zacha341]

Umm, I think I just chocked a bit thinking about that... LOL!

Conyers should make a run for president. With the experience he has in improving the quality of life for all Detroits citizens he would be a shoe in for sure. An added bonus would be Monica as first lady.Two for the price of one.

[Gistok]

Being a conservative, I will have very little to say in selecting our new rep in Congress. That having been said, I do favor term limits for members of Congress, regardless of who's in power. The idea of the Founders was for citizen-legislators, who serve for a little while and then return to live among the rest of the people. Anyone serving more than a few terms ceases to have the perspective of a regular citizen. Party and ideology don't matter in this. Long tenure corrupts, if not in the stealing money sense, then at least in representing the people. Also, for most legislators, reelection concerns grow to trump doing the right thing.

Do you actually believe what you just stated? If so, can you explain why some of our greatest founding fathers [[Jefferson, Madison) spent 4 decades serving the public? Yes much of it wasn't in congress, but did their long tenure in various offices corrupt them? I doubt it.

Imagine what our country would be like today if some of our best and brightest were sent home after 6 or 8 years? The concept of the Founding Fathers to become citizen-legislators was an "idea"... that was never put into practice from the very beginning.

[detroitsgwenivere]

I know that a lot of the pressure for incumbents to get re-elected comes from their staff. These reps employ several people each, many the sole bread winners, who stand to lose a substantial salary paid by taxpayers when these guys retire.

[softailrider]

Conyers should make a run for president. With the experience he has in improving the quality of life for all Detroits citizens he would be a shoe in for sure. An added bonus would be Monica as first lady.Two for the price of one.

He probably really busy ,every time he has an opportunity for a conjucial vist with Monica.

[Gistok]

I probably should have added another caveat on the subject of Founding Fathers.... back 230 years ago during the Revolutionary era... Americans life expectancy wasn't even 45 years of age... so back then 10 years was a long period of a persons life. Today it's not, with many healthy Americans living well into their 80s.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

[QUOTE=Gistok;274338]Do you actually believe what you just stated? If so, can you explain why some of our greatest founding fathers [[Jefferson, Madison) spent 4 decades serving the public? Yes much of it wasn't in congress, but did their long tenure in various offices corrupt them? I doubt it.QUOTE]

I do believe it, wholeheartedly. First, of course limiting terms will keep out some qualified people who have positive things to contribute. But there are trade-offs in all political systems and rules. There are many restricitions on holding public office, voting, and other aspects of political operation. I think the net benefits of term limits- specifically for Congress- exceed the drawbacks. George Will's book "Restoration" outlines how well intended people elected to Congress become less accountable and more out of touch with reality over time as they serve. This is also non-partisan; long serving people of all political stripes lead to a worse, less productive institution. And it has nothing to do with age. An 80-year can be an effective Congressman; I don't think an 80-year old who's been in office for 50 years and primarily living in Washington for that time serves either his constituents or his country as well as a new person would. An example of institutional corruption: Charles Rangel, months after censure by his peers of both parties for severe and repeated unethical conduct, was given a benefit dinner last week by his colleagues. The institutional corruption I am referring to belongs to his colleagues, for thinking that that is okay to do.

As for the founders, I would keep a few things in mind. First, NO ONE served continuously in one public office for great lengths of time. Most members of the original US Congress under the Constitution served one or two terms. No one in the first Congress in 1789 was still in office 20 years later. Second, back then Congress met for just a couple of months a year, leaving the members to spend 7-9 months at home, living among those that they served. No assistants screening the public, no spokesman spinning the news in their favor. Lastly, not one of our great founders [[members of the Continental Congress, Constitutional Convention, first Congress, early presidents, etc) would have had a different career had term limits been in place. They were modest enough to work in their job for a spell, but then to move on to private life, or a different office. Sure, they were men of ambition, but no one tried to stay in office forever, let alone the same office forever.

I think that one of the beauties of living in a representative republic is that most people COULD perform the job of legislator. 9 million and change in Michigan? Why should only a handful of people serve those 9 million over the decades?