I got this in an email but it really makes you think

[FarmerChick]

But I wonder---why don't we vote out the idiots and corrupt known theives and replace them with anyone else?

We don't do it. Why? I don't know.

Obama is a monster change. People finally said we need a big change and lets vote in that change. They did it and are taking a chance.

 

[patandchickens]

But I wonder---why don't we vote out the idiots and corrupt known theives and replace them with anyone else? We don't do it. Why? I don't know.

A lot of times it is because idiocy and thievery is in the eye of the beholder, and a majority of the voters in that person's state/district/whatever see things differently than an outside observer might.

For instance, many of the politicians that most make ya roll your eyes about the whole "politician" thing are *masters* at making sure their constituents get as many goodies as possible. You can call it "pork" or you can call it "doing what's best for my constituents", it kind of depends a bit on which side you're looking at it from

Also, there is the basic inertia of incumbency. For two reasons: "better the devil you know than the devil you don't", and also the fact that once you are IN office, it makes it very very much easier to raise money and (for other reasons too, such as brand name recognition) to run a successful campaign. So whoever's in office now automatically has a significant edge over any challenger... the populace has to *most of them* be *really* fed up with the incumbent to change things.

But, what can you do about that? Nothing that anyone has ever thought of, that I know of anyhow. It is just an inherent side-effect of an otherwise reasonably good system. Nothing is perfect.

Pat

 

[FarmerChick]

yes makes sense

cause that Alaska Senator(?) or Gov. (?)---honestly I can't remember what he was---but he embezzles like 1 mil BUT was sure to give his Alaska people a portion of it...they got their city parks built, they got their smaller projects handled, SO HE SHARED his thievry and it made it acceptable. (a real old man, I wish I could remember his name) LOL---but "they, as a group" the policitian and the voters shared in the money. That is why he got re-elected, even after being a known criminal for this money.

Ugh

That is what it comes down too seriously. The voters are no better (in a smaller way) than the politicans.

 

[Big Daddy]

If I have an idiot Democrat in office and I have the ability to vote him out, I won't. Why? Because then the Republican running against him will come in. Even if the Republican is running as a good guy he will start following the current party line once he is elected. I don't like the Republican party line , so I would never vote for a Republican. So unless the Democrats decide to run someone against the idiot incumbent then the idiot incumbent will stay in office. That's why term limits would be nice. Experience in politics just means more people that you owe favors to. Of course that's what politics is. A bunch of favors being bought and sold with voting.

 

[FarmerChick]

good point BD

wow--we can't win

 

[patandchickens]

I understand where the cynicism is coming from, and there is certainly a core of truth there, but I think it exaggerates considerably.

Isn't pretty much LIFE in general, unless you are a lone hermit, a matter of favors done and favors recieved and crafting compromises rather than getting exactly what you think would be best?

Why on earth would you expect politics to be anything different; and why is compromise (which is often, not always, what the 'favors' being discussed consist of) necessarily a bad thing??

Nobody is literally SELF sufficient, everyone lives in a world filled with other people who have just as many needs/wants/wishes/dreams/dislikes/problems/lines-in-the-sand as you yourself. Nobody can have everything their own way. Thus, give and take are an unavoidable and *appropriate* part of social life, including but not limited to government.

Remember that as hard as person A is pushing for the agenda they believe in wholeheartedly (and for sensible reasons), usually there is also a person B pushing for a conflicting agenda that THEY believe in JUST as wholehearttedly (and often for just as sensible reasons).

Either it's a permanent impasse and nothing at all gets done, like the Dr Suess book about the Northbound Zax and the Southbound Zax who will neither of them yeild an inch for the other; or people agree to get SOME of what they want in exchange for the other party getting SOME of what *they* want.

Of course this is not always used in the service of particularly noble goals, but I think it *usually* is, it's just that what you consider particularly noble DIFFERS AMONG PEOPLE

I mean, I myself may not think it's real important that some town in East Moose Elbow, Minnesota gets a clause tacked onto a bill that gets them federal money to start a National Pogostick Museum... but if you are a business in East Moose Elbow hoping desperately for more tourism, or figure it will create local jobs and half your family is unemployed, or you just genuinely think that pogosticks are *fascinating* and there *should* be a museum about 'em... then you will be glad that your representative found some way of making this clearly worthwhile and beneficial thing happen at long last.

The only thing wrong with that sort of pork, IMHO, is that it is unfairly routed according to which areas have the most powerful congressmen; and that all those $100,000-ses really start to add up budgetwise when multiplied across the whole country.

As far as "I will vote for your bill to legalize riding horses through town on a sunday if you will vote for my bill to decrease the tax on lettuce growers by 1%", you're back to REASONABLE grounds for compromise, IMHO.

You can't get everything you want. EVER. The wise man knows what's most important and tries to get THAT, while conceding nothing he is strenuously against. And that really *does* happen in politics, a lot more than is being given credit here.

Again, I would say to those who are baffled at how politicians can be such terrible people and why don't we vote them out and replace them with *nice* people, YOU go get elected and try it yourself, it will be most educational ;>

Pat

 

[me&thegals]

I mean, I myself may not think it's real important that some town in East Moose Elbow, Minnesota gets a clause tacked onto a bill that gets them federal money to start a National Pogostick Museum... but if you are a business in East Moose Elbow hoping desperately for more tourism, or figure it will create local jobs and half your family is unemployed, or you just genuinely think that pogosticks are *fascinating* and there *should* be a museum about 'em... then you will be glad that your representative found some way of making this clearly worthwhile and beneficial thing happen at long last.

Stop, stop!! I'm choking on my salad!

 

[FarmerChick]

For me, I think alot of people start politics with a good heart, but the internal corruption proves to be too much for most. Or the "strings attached" that comes with political office.

I don't think politicians are horrible people at all. For me, it is the racket they involve themselves in that turns them into a less version of their original issues when getting your votes.

They get in office, the red tape is horrible, the timelines are impossible to get anything accomplished quickly, the compromises are horrible, and the treachery of not compromising can get your political career shortlived.

So it is the nature of the beast itself, that seems to suck up people right into the dreaded heart of the beast.

I wouldn't do a political office ever. I couldn't handle the fact that I truly couldn't get anything accmoplished that I promised. I am not talking the local guy trying to push thru a city park....I mean the big promises. Like taking care of the citizens of a nation on the whole.

It has to be rough truly. And no privacy in your life ever again hardly.

It takes a rare person to handle those positions. While I applaud them for trying, I also hold them to high standards. If they want my vote and promise issues to be resolved, I want some damn action. They do have a responsibility to those they promise. So just cause they have a rough job, they volunteered for it and they should keep that fact in the forefront.

The minute they ask for our votes, is the minute their standards are to be questioned by anyone and everyone for their actions. We have this right I think. It comes with the territory.

Sure compromise must happen. It does everything in life.

 

[Big Daddy]

What's too bad is that to win they have to go around making a lot of campaign promises. The first speech I heard from Obama I said to myself that he has a lot of great ideas, but he'll never get them through Congress. Well at least he is trying to make good on his promises. He still has 3 years and some months.

 

[FarmerChick]

good point in a way---cause they have to SAY exactly what we want to hear to get elected....then when there are, changing the idea and the end result usually happens. Part of the trade I guess.