🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeffrey E. Salzberg (JSalzberg@uh.edu) wrote:
> In article <420r0l$n6r@anarchy.io.com>, doggey@io.com (dogboy) wrote:

> >The staff and aides are hired by /for the congressperson. When
> >the congressperson, changes, the aides and staffs do too.

> If that were entirely true, that would mean that every few years we'd be 

little is ever ENTIRELY true, we can only workwith terms like generally.

> throwing out the people who knew what they were doing and replacing them with 
> people who were absolutely clueless.  In real life what happens is that many 
> or most staff people who work for departing members go to work for new 
> members.


And your source is?

I haven't worked on any Federal campaigngs, but in New York I was
HEAVILIY involved with local city, county and state campaigns as
a Republican committee person. Most political appointees
where tied to the party or the candidate. Each new candidate awarded
the positions to people that had worked on their campaign, or they
had close personal ties with. Generally you wanted your staff to
be your MOST TRUSTED confidants. MY neighbor in NY, John
Nacarrato worked for Hamilton Fish Sr. for years. He did so because he
and Ham were close personal friends, for anyone else, he
was to busy with local politics, ( first alderman, then County
Legislator) and when Ham retired ( did he pass away,
I can't remember) he got out of federal politics.
When we switched Mayors in Kingston, we even switched Treasurers.

All this is purely personal experience, but most Polisci texts
present the positions as political patronage as well.
So if you have documented evidence to the contrary, you may
well be able to change my position on this one, since my call
is all based on personal experience and some 14 year old texts.

Jeff Gaer