Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Politicking Ain't Easy

I saw this post at TPM about the New Hampshire Republican who said that "defective people, the drug addicts, mentally ill, the retarded -- all of them" should be left to die. And well, that is what it is.  I suppose I can understand the sentiment in a theoretical sense, but, well.  No. 

But the part of that post I found more interesting was a letter that guy wrote to a newspaper, which I'll reprint in its entirety, as it's a bit of honesty that really should be better understood:
I'm a New Hampshire Republican representative. Got slid in during the Republican landslide last fall. So far I really don't know what I'm doing. The whole process is so alien to anything else. A new Rep really needs a coach along with him at first but there is no room for anyone to sit with him, and no way they could holler at him in a committee meeting.

Am learning the hard way. Little by little. I think that a few of the other first time reps must be in the same boat with me. We're all sort of bluffing it out. The few votes I've made so far I really didn't know what I was voting for or against. Just looked at the people around me and went along with them.

There is so much pomp and circumstance connected with the legislature. You have to separate the real doings from all the fluff. People who obviously are making very generous salaries come and go as witnesses before the various committees with tidbits of usually self-serving information. You wonder where the money is coming from to pay these people.

Yes, slowly if I keep my health, I'll master this trade and hopefully be of some use to the state. I like to write about things and applied for this job mostly to have the opportunity to write about politics from the inside. They say the pen is mightier than the sword but you've still got to get your scribbling read by the people.
And that's the truth, I'm sure.  I believe it.  I just wish more politicians would say this sort of thing.

Because all new jobs are tricky to become accustomed to, and I can easily understand how difficult being a legislator would be.  Yet, we expect them to do it all.  They're supposed to know how to raise funds, fight opponents, manipulate the media, run a staff, respond to constituents, save the day, and never make a mistake.  And, if they're lucky enough to have time left over, they'll read the legislation they're voting on; even if it was changed a few hours before the vote.

Because it really is too much for most people to handle.  You get into office by running on charm, sham, and luck; and then you hold on for your dear life for a few years until you can start to understand how it all works.  That's how it is for regular jobs, and in politics, it's like that times a million.  And so you really are dependent upon the party apparatus to tell you how to vote and what to think. 

And of course, even those people are just making it up as they go along and nobody ever really has any firm answers about anything.  Just as soon as you think you understand the rules of the game, everything shifts and you're out of a job.  Any politician who can stay in office past two terms has a real knack for it and should be commended for his/her performance.



And that's why, whenever I hear people whine about how Obama sold us out or is a conservative, I just want to punch them in the fucking face.  Seriously.  Oh, wah!  So you gave a few bucks to Obama.  You put a sign in your yard and a bumpersticker on your car.  And now you think he owes you the world, because you're his base and you have all the answers.  Well why the hell won't you get off your ass and run for office, if you think it's so easy?  Huh?

Because seriously, I'm not trying to make excuses for him.  This is an acknowledgment that this shit is hard, and as smart as I am, I don't want his fucking job.  And if the only thing Obama ever did was to prevent John McCain and Sarah Palin from owning the Whitehouse, that was more than you've ever done in your life.  So you should be down on your knees praising his black ass that he did what you couldn't have ever done, and what many of his critics said couldn't be done.

And if he gave us a respectable healthcare plan, job stimuli, credit card and Wall Street reform, and a repeal of DADT; well, that's just the icing on the cake.  Because the man's doing an impossible job and needs all the help he can get.  And thanks to Republican over-reach, he really shouldn't need that much help, as we're all getting a clear idea of how much better Obama is than the alternative. 

3 comments:

John of the Dead said...

So I'm supposed to ignore the fact that he campaigned on withdrawing troops from Iraq (we're still there) and ending human rights violations (just codified indefinite detentions, plus we're cheerfully torturing US citizen Bradley Manning)? "Better than terrible" is supposed to be "good enough"?

I don't wish to diminish the tangible good he's done. Kudos! But we're still engaged in an illegal war and we're still torturing people. Either of those could change by simple Executive Order, right now. Why haven't they happened?

We used to have the notion in this country of the Loyal Opposition. Under sane conditions, that role would be filled by the opposing party. Since the Republicans aren't remotely loyal, they can't very well fill that role. Obama is trying very hard to be centrist, therefore I suppose it's up to the leftist to be the Loyal Opposition, which is what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to do what I can to hold him to his campaign promises of ending the Iraq war and respecting human rights. Is that so crazy? Would you really take a swing at me because I think Obama should try to implement the foreign policy on which he ran and was elected?

John of the Dead said...

So I'm supposed to ignore the fact that he campaigned on withdrawing troops from Iraq (we're still there) and ending human rights violations (just codified indefinite detentions, plus we're cheerfully torturing US citizen Bradley Manning)? "Better than terrible" is supposed to be "good enough"?

I don't wish to diminish the tangible good he's done. Kudos! But we're still engaged in an illegal war and we're still torturing people. Either of those could change by simple Executive Order, right now. Why haven't they happened?

We used to have the notion in this country of the Loyal Opposition. Under sane conditions, that role would be filled by the opposing party. Since the Republicans aren't remotely loyal, they can't very well fill that role. Obama is trying very hard to be centrist, therefor I suppose it's up to the leftist to be the Loyal Opposition, which is what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to do what I can to hold him to his campaign promises of ending the Iraq war and respecting human rights. Is that so crazy? Would you really take a swing at me because I think Obama should try to implement the foreign policy on which he ran and was elected?

Doctor Biobrain said...

Nice try, John. But you're not in the group I'm referring to. Yeah, you think you're a hardcore liberal, but you're still going to vote for Obama. You know he could do better, but you understand that he's done some good. You think he's a centrist, not a conservative or a Republican or a sell-out traitor. Sorry to say this, but that means I don't plan on taking a swing at you. Re-read what I wrote and you'll see I said nothing about Obama critics; only the ones who think he's a sell-out or a conservative.

If you think you're a hardcore Obama critic, you need to take a look at the people criticizing him. I'm thinking about writing a post on this, but I'll just say right now that in the political spectrum within liberalism; you count as a centrist Obama critic, not at all hardcore.


As for Iraq, we're still on the schedule he set for withdraw. He's withdrawn lots of troops and our mission is totally different now. Get back to me if he falls off pace of the schedule he announced in 2009. I could be mistaken, but I don't think he ever ran on an immediate withdraw from Iraq.

As for Bradley Manning, that's all pretty messed up and I'm having a hard time swallowing all that. Thus said, I don't think "torture" is the right word. Not that it's entirely wrong, but it has connotations that I don't think strictly apply in this case. Particularly as you're using it in the stronger connotation sense, yet know that it's not deserved. Waterboarding is torture. From what I've read, they're just treating him like shit. Not cool at all, but not really the same thing.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I seriously doubt his treatment is being dictated by Obama. At a guess, it's what the miliary's doing, and I'm just hoping that someone is putting a stop to it; now that the word has got out. It's just not in Obama's character at all to do this sort of thing.


As for the Loyal Opposition, I really don't think you're using that properly. Because the emphasis on that concept is an opposition that is loyal.

And for as much as Republicans aren't being a loyal opposition, it's because they're not loyal. In fact, they're trying to undermine his authority every chance they get. But they're most assurdedly fulfilling their role as the opposition. Their job is to pull him to the right, not make him go further left.

Similarly, when Republicans were in power, our job wasn't to make sure Bush made us more secure. It was to make sure he wasn't taking our liberities. The fact that our role had us be more liberal is because we ARE more liberal, not because that's what loyal oppositions do.