As the elections grow ever closer, I find myself wondering about the workings of both the candidates' psyche and those to be persuaded. The banners for two Idaho Congressional candidates are innocuous enough. A nice, clean slate from which to begin. They tell us nothing about either. This is how it begins in every election for every office. But hardly how it ends.
Ideally, candidates would stand before the public and tell us what they believe the issues to be and how they would be addressed. Then we could decide who's way we favor and so vote.
But that isn't the way it happens. They delineate the issues for sure. They're against everything the other guy is for. Then they promise us the world. " I'm going to this..." and "I'm going to do that...". We seem to buy into it but I have yet to figure out why. A first term congressman is going to do exactly what the party bosses dictate or there will be no prestigious committee assignments, not to mention money for a second go or an office above ground.
We need to remember brand spanking new congressmen are going to spend their first term trying to curry favor with the hierarchy so there is a chance for a second.
A senator at least has six years to gain a foothold. As they rise in seniority so does the power of pork. One of Lieberman's arguments against Lamont is that Lamont won't be able to bring home the amount Lieberman can. Look at Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Is there a building or highway in the state that is NOT named for him?? These two are old war horses and know all the nuances of the game. A first term senator can't touch them and all the campaign rhetoric in the world isn't going to change it.
In listening to all the upcoming hoo haa we're about to be exposed to, try to make sure that who ever you vote for isn't likely to demand bridges to nowhere or rain forests for farm country. For if they do accumulate additional terms their sensibility to our needs decreases proportionately. They no longer want to change the way the game is played; they become the game.