Posted by: McQ on Friday, June 29, 2007 He trots out what he calls his "first law of politics" which, whether agreed to or not, seems apropos given the outcome on the immigration bill: Scott Rasmussen’s first law of politics is that America’s politicians aren’t nearly as important as they think they are.Well, yes and no. "No" when they get shut down like they were in the case of the immigration bill. However, imagine the answer had they rammed the bill thorough. And in the past, that's most likely what would have happened. So perhaps a corollary to the law is politicians are becoming less and less able to act with impunity, as they have in the past, with every passing day. Sunshine and grassroots communication are a wonderful thing, regardless of your feeling about this particular bill. One of the more interesting reactions, however, have been those of politicians who, to put it mildly, think they are more important than they are. I've had several emailers forward an audio link to a confrontation between Sen. Voinovich and radio talk-show host, Sean Hannity. The first thing that strikes you is how ill informed Voinovich is on many issues. Probably the most telling remark Voinovich makes, however, is one in which he claims that constituents calling his office aren't going to 'intimidate' him concerning the immigration vote. For a sitting member of Congress to consider constituents voicing their opinion on legislation that they think may effect their lives as attempts at intimidation is simply absurd. But it demonstrates the level of arrogance they have behind the smiling veneers they show the public. Slowly dawning on these people is the fact that the entire paradigm has changed as concerns their relationship with the public. And they're still trying to figure out its ramifications. The fact that bloggers are in on conference calls with various members of Congress, to include the leadership, is indicative of this sea-change. Watching Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss, both Republican Sentors from GA change from supporting the bill to being against it was also very instructive. In a story headlined, 'we heard you', they acknowledged they were out of touch with their constituency as concerns the bill. Again, whether you agree with the bill or not, or whether you agree with their changing sides or not, you have to acknowledge that things have definitely changed on how business will be conducted in the future. While compromise bills cobbled together in smoke filled back rooms and passed with hardly any debate may have been de riguer in the 20th Century, in the 21st politicians are faced with an entirely different world. It isn't all about websites and having a blog up as some might believe. I continue to be fascinated by these changes and watching their efforts to understand and adapt too them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
