Politics is a filthy business.
Actually, filthy doesn't really quite cover it.
For most in the elective realm, it's not particularly a matter of "if" they are going to betray the people who supported them for office... but "when."
I had a chance to look over some verbiage today from an elected official to a constituent.
The constituent was pondering, in the form of a question, what it was that enabled this elected official to completely obliterate many of their campaign promises made when they were running.
The problem with the response is that if the words used justified absolutely ignoring a political/campaign promise based on some nebulous, unexplained "change in circumstances," then the question becomes the title of this post:
When does a political promise mean anything?
Did this candidate for office put up a disclaimer, first?
"Oh yeah... by the way... if *I* think some unnamed "circumstances" change, I can ignore this pledge?"
When are we supposed to believe those running for office?
How are we supposed to hold them accountable, save for waiting for them to run for re-election when we get the opportunity to vote for someone else?
And how does voting for someone else undo the damage their broken pledge has caused?
How does that get us back the tax dollars they promised as a part of their campaign to never vote to take away from us, for example?
I asked someone very close to this individual if they thought a vote for this legislation would be supported in their district if it were put to a ballot measure.
"No...." that person told me... "it would probably lose by 65%."
I have to agree. Knowing the district in question, that's likely a fairly accurate assessment.
Which makes me wonder: precisely WHAT "circumstance" has changed that enables this person to vote "yes" on this legislation when their two House seat mates both voted "no?"
I pay fairly close attention to what's going on around here. Closer than the vast majority of those in this area, to be sure.
What is it that possessed this elected official to vote for something they promised they would NOT vote for; that they KNOW the overwhelming majority of their district would oppose... and that resulted in so very little going back to the people here locally?
What possessed them to support an emergency clause? What possessed them to to support stripping out any referendum clause?
You see, the democrats lie, and screw the people all the time. When they shaft us, they wrongfully call it "leadership."
Jimmy "Molehill" Moeller is the local democrat master of what they're calling "leadership."
The sleazeball mayor of the Vancouver Soviet, Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, tried to use that very same dodge when he ran for mayor the first time.
Of course, I knew immediately that he was doing that lying scum thing on the tolling issue for the CRC/Loot Rail scam, and called him out on it for months before the election... but too many believed him when he made that claim... much like too many believed this politician when they promised not to vote for these increases.
Perhaps here, the clue is that this politician believes their job is to "watch over" us.
Here's a bulletin: we're not children.
And that's a fundamental problem, in that their job is to DO WHAT WE TELL THEM WE WANT.
Politicians are SUPPOSED to work for US; NOT the other way around.
"Watch over them" indeed.
Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for the question I posed.
Chances are, we'd all be best served by presuming that everyone running for office on the major issues are, in fact, lying to get elected.
There are a select few, of course, who bring honor to the table. But they are far too rare in number and depth, and typically sicken after much exposure to a system that rewards the worst that those we elect have to offer instead of the best.
And with our current state of government at the state and national level, isn't this what we've come to expect... the idea that those we elect somehow know better than those who foolishly elected them?
Actually, filthy doesn't really quite cover it.
For most in the elective realm, it's not particularly a matter of "if" they are going to betray the people who supported them for office... but "when."
I had a chance to look over some verbiage today from an elected official to a constituent.
The constituent was pondering, in the form of a question, what it was that enabled this elected official to completely obliterate many of their campaign promises made when they were running.
The problem with the response is that if the words used justified absolutely ignoring a political/campaign promise based on some nebulous, unexplained "change in circumstances," then the question becomes the title of this post:
When does a political promise mean anything?
Did this candidate for office put up a disclaimer, first?
"Oh yeah... by the way... if *I* think some unnamed "circumstances" change, I can ignore this pledge?"
When are we supposed to believe those running for office?
How are we supposed to hold them accountable, save for waiting for them to run for re-election when we get the opportunity to vote for someone else?
And how does voting for someone else undo the damage their broken pledge has caused?
How does that get us back the tax dollars they promised as a part of their campaign to never vote to take away from us, for example?
I asked someone very close to this individual if they thought a vote for this legislation would be supported in their district if it were put to a ballot measure.
"No...." that person told me... "it would probably lose by 65%."
I have to agree. Knowing the district in question, that's likely a fairly accurate assessment.
Which makes me wonder: precisely WHAT "circumstance" has changed that enables this person to vote "yes" on this legislation when their two House seat mates both voted "no?"
I pay fairly close attention to what's going on around here. Closer than the vast majority of those in this area, to be sure.
What is it that possessed this elected official to vote for something they promised they would NOT vote for; that they KNOW the overwhelming majority of their district would oppose... and that resulted in so very little going back to the people here locally?
What possessed them to support an emergency clause? What possessed them to to support stripping out any referendum clause?
You see, the democrats lie, and screw the people all the time. When they shaft us, they wrongfully call it "leadership."
Jimmy "Molehill" Moeller is the local democrat master of what they're calling "leadership."
The sleazeball mayor of the Vancouver Soviet, Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, tried to use that very same dodge when he ran for mayor the first time.
Of course, I knew immediately that he was doing that lying scum thing on the tolling issue for the CRC/Loot Rail scam, and called him out on it for months before the election... but too many believed him when he made that claim... much like too many believed this politician when they promised not to vote for these increases.
Perhaps here, the clue is that this politician believes their job is to "watch over" us.
Here's a bulletin: we're not children.
And that's a fundamental problem, in that their job is to DO WHAT WE TELL THEM WE WANT.
Politicians are SUPPOSED to work for US; NOT the other way around.
"Watch over them" indeed.
Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for the question I posed.
Chances are, we'd all be best served by presuming that everyone running for office on the major issues are, in fact, lying to get elected.
There are a select few, of course, who bring honor to the table. But they are far too rare in number and depth, and typically sicken after much exposure to a system that rewards the worst that those we elect have to offer instead of the best.
And with our current state of government at the state and national level, isn't this what we've come to expect... the idea that those we elect somehow know better than those who foolishly elected them?
No comments:
Post a Comment