My Congressman, My President, My Governor
Posted by: Deryl McCarty | 08/04/2008 11:45 PM
Have you ever walked down the street with a rock star? Ok, neither have I, but today was close.
Dave Reichert, "the Sheriff" - the guy who for 20 years chased down and finally caught that scumbag SOB (a technical term for the Green River killer) did a walking tour today among the businesses in Orting and Eatonville. Dave Reichert is AKA Republican Congressman Dave Reichert, WA-08. Yeah, I know, these are not big burbs, but they are the city/town heart of the Pierce County portion of his Congressional District. And they like Dave. While men and women on the street tried to play it cool, when they saw him, they knew him, they reacted to him and everyone had a smile on their face and in their eyes when they met him. They like him and he likes them. It is a joy to watch.
But that experience today, and a conversation I had with a TNT (The News Tribune) reporter last week, put me in a pensive mood.
Why is someone like Dave Riechert such a well-liked, easily re-elected Congressman when Congress as an institution has only single digit approval? Do we somehow choose our Congressmen and women differently than other offices? I think the answer is yes, but I will leave it to political scientist PHDs to research the question.
I put it this way: there are two types of political offices - bureaucratic and personal. And it is the office not the person that determines the designation, but it is the person who comes closest to meeting the office expectations who is elected to them. A bureaucratic political office is one where we choose the occupant based on political, policy and philosophic differences between the candidates. We don't aways evaluate their leadership or personal characteristics except in the negative. (Being a bank robber, for example, is generally a negative; though robbing the biggest bank -- Congress -- like Illinois' Rostenkowski seemed ok for a while).
I believe there are three (or two and a half) personal politicians. And we can tell those folks by what you call them. The first is: My Congressman or My Congresswoman. The important word is "My". Other politicians are called THE Attorney General or THE Insurance Commissioner or THE Senator. No disrespect intended, just that they are not personal politicians, they are not "My" politicians. The second personal politician is, strangely, because he is so far up the food chain, My President. We are probably the only nation whose chief of state and chief of government is personal. Even in the darkest of political days (1993-2001 and 1977-1981) and even though I did not vote for them, I still referred to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter as My President. We choose these folks not strictly on policy and philosophy, thought we spend a lot of time researching those factors, but on leadership, character, trust, courage and likeability.
In the summer of 1998, I was watching an NBC Nightly News broadcast segment that was looking at potential presidential candidates on the Republican side of the aisle. As Tom Brokaw, or whomever, was discussing the two or three possible 2000 Republican candidates, they showed film clips of each at some sort of political event. "W" was shown in a 5-10 second clip shaking hands in a crowd. I watched that clip, turned to my wife and said with absolute conviction, "That is the next President of the United States." "How can you tell that?" she asked. (Well, actually her question had a lot of endearing four letter adjectives having to do with my "spotty" ability to forecast the future. But that is a different story). "Because", I said, "watch how he works the crowd." He shakes hands with people individually. He takes your hand, looks YOU right in the eye and establishes communication, trust and a personal relationship without looking at the last guy, or the next gal or looking around for whom might be more important in the crowd. Just you. (I have since met him in person twice in very small settings and can confirm that is exactly how he is, not how he operates, how he is.) "W", My President, was a personal politician running for a personal political office. Winning seemed a foregone conclusion (though it took Florida a month to figure it out.)
The third personal political office is a sometimes thing. One could argue that in NYC or Chicago, Hizzonor (the Mayor) is personal. But not in most cities.
Governors are that way too. In many states, the Governor is personal. I would argue that to Louisiana, Bobby Jindal is personal. The Governator, Arnold, is personal. In Washington, we are about to make our Governor personal.
In fact, I would argue that the two major campaigns for Governor of Washington this year are not even on the same plane, maybe not even on the same planet. One campaign is talking about policy and history and the other is talking about leadership, security (personal and economic) and the future. One candidate is talking about me. The other is talking to me. One candidate is personable, warm and likable. The other is more used to putting on a stony game face to argue a case in front of irascible judges or petulant juries. She is a "just the facts, m'am" administrator. She's not a bad person, just not personal.
So this year it is a race between THE Governor (Christine) and MY Governor (Dino).
My Governor is going to win.
I hope you're right, Deryl, except that it still doesn't explain why our representative, Mr. Reichert, was in Orting instead of in DC where he belongs. Other Republicans are still on the floor of the House, discussing America's business, like drilling for more oil to get us out of this economic crisis. Mr. Reichert is enjoying the bike trail that the Washington state legislature rammed down the throats of the farmers who actually owned the land out here.
Instead of showing leadership and supporting his constituents, Mr. Reichert was on vacation. I live in Orting, but unfortunately was at work and unable to be the voice in the crowd that would have asked-- over and over until he answered it-- what he was doing there.
Mr. Reichert is going to lose his seat this year, either to Darcy Burner, a young lady of forgettable stances and the inability to complete anything she starts (She left Microsoft before her major project was rolled out. She went to law school, but dropped out to run for Congress... this isn't someone we want to have as a representative.) or to Jim Vaughn, a Blue Dog Democrat that I fully support.
Mr. Reichert is paid approximately $165,000 to work for six months out of the year. He was part of a Congress that voted his own wages. He's voted against drilling ANWR and offshore. His platform is eminently forgettable, and he's a waffler.
And I'll be happy to see him go.
Angry D.
I have several issues with the concept of “my” president, governor . . . and etc:
I may not have voted for the person but, even if I did, (s)he would not be there without the votes of thousands (or millions) of others. If I know them personally, they are a person I know by name; otherwise they are “the” governor . . . or whatever and that is especially true if I did not vote for them. I never considered Clinton “my president;” he was “the” president. The same is true of Bush, he is “the president.”
I have put the titles in lower case because I do not consider them exceptional. If they are male, they all have the same bodily functions as I, put their pants on one leg at a time, and have foibles and do asinine things from time to time, same as anyone else. They did different things in their lives but they are no better than I, just different. I am not comfortable speaking before thousands and I doubt they are comfortable walking a steel beam five hundred feet in the air. They decided to run for office, convinced me and a lot of folks to vote for them and got elected. As a result, they may have a substantial influence over my life but it is not always for the better; and that includes those I voted for, as well as those I did not. So, mostly, they are “the” whatever.
Why is the congressional rating so low? Because too many of these elected officials actually believe that their election makes them special; that they really are “The Honorable . . .” and are, upon election, somehow wiser and nobler than the electorate. Suddenly, people who would not have given them the time of day before their election now begin to kowtow to them and fawn over them. All too often, that goes to their heads,
Too many, especially at the statewide and federal levels, become remote and mostly absent, except in election years or to promote their pet projects, often for personal aggrandizement. When they do show up, they no longer eat in the local diner with constituents; instead, they are feted by the wealthy and powerful who are seeking greater wealth and power. Even if they were “my” whatever at the outset, they quickly become “the” whatever.
Though well liked, Reichert was also seldom seen by most constituents until campaign season. However, in answer to another comment; in fairness to Reichert, hanging around Washington, D.C. when congress is adjourned is mostly counter-productive. He should be, as indeed he is, in the district listening and talking to his constituents about their needs. However, he seems to hang out a lot in Bellevue where the money and the movers and shakers are. Remember, no matter how much money or power, it is still one person, one vote and he will need way more votes than just the movers and shakers if he wants to go back to the other Washington.
Will Rossi become “my” governor? I doubt it. He will be “the” governor. I reckon I will vote for him, partly because I like the other option less. Will he do a good job? That remains to be seen; hopefully he can and will do much better than the current governor.
Sagacious
I have several issues with the concept of “my” president, governor . . . and etc:
I may not have voted for the person but, even if I did, (s)he would not be there without the votes of thousands (or millions) of others. If I know them personally, they are a person I know by name; otherwise they are “the” governor . . . or whatever and that is especially true if I did not vote for them. I never considered Clinton “my president;” he was “the” president. The same is true of Bush, he is “the president.”
I have put the titles in lower case because I do not consider them exceptional. If they are male, they all have the same bodily functions as I, put their pants on one leg at a time, and have foibles and do asinine things from time to time, same as anyone else. They did different things in their lives but they are no better than I, just different. I am not comfortable speaking before thousands and I doubt they are comfortable walking a steel beam five hundred feet in the air. They decided to run for office, convinced me and a lot of folks to vote for them and got elected. As a result, they may have a substantial influence over my life but it is not always for the better; and that includes those I voted for, as well as those I did not. So, mostly, they are “the” whatever.
Why is the congressional rating so low? Because too many of these elected officials actually believe that their election makes them special; that they really are “The Honorable . . .” and are, upon election, somehow wiser and nobler than the electorate. Suddenly, people who would not have given them the time of day before their election now begin to kowtow to them and fawn over them. All too often, that goes to their heads,
Too many, especially at the statewide and federal levels, become remote and mostly absent, except in election years or to promote their pet projects, often for personal aggrandizement. When they do show up, they no longer eat in the local diner with constituents; instead, they are feted by the wealthy and powerful who are seeking greater wealth and power. Even if they were “my” whatever at the outset, they quickly become “the” whatever.
Though well liked, Reichert was also seldom seen by most constituents until campaign season. However, in answer to another comment; in fairness to Reichert, hanging around Washington, D.C. when congress is adjourned is mostly counter-productive. He should be, as indeed he is, in the district listening and talking to his constituents about their needs. However, he seems to hang out a lot in Bellevue where the money and the movers and shakers are. Remember, no matter how much money or power, it is still one person, one vote and he will need way more votes than just the movers and shakers if he wants to go back to the other Washington.
Will Rossi become “my” governor? I doubt it. He will be “the” governor. I reckon I will vote for him, partly because I like the other option less. Will he do a good job? That remains to be seen; hopefully he can and will do much better than the current governor.
Sagacious