House of cads

Polls can be useful tools at times in tracking public opinion, but too often they can be worthless.

The most recent example of the latter for me is the one that consistently shows the approval ratings of members of the U.S. Congress below 30 percent, leading the reader to false hopes there actually may be sweeping changes for that august legislative body in early November. Sorry, folks, but I’m here to tell you the chances of another New Deal-style revolution like 1932 or Contract With America-style overhaul like 1994 aren’t particularly good. Turnout for the earlier primary contests in other states have been depressingly low and there's no reason to assume Michigan's August 8 primary to be much different and, despite hotly contested battles for Governor and US Senator, I doubt if November's participation rate is much better.

One reason was summed up by the unknown voter who was rumored to have said, “I don’t like those politicians on Capitol Hill in Washington, they’re a bunch of scalawags. But I still love my own scalawag.”

A secondary and nearly just as important reason is very simply the fear of change.

The application of this premise shows up in the question: Which of the following area Republican Michigan congressmen and women, given these sorry overall approval ratings, is in danger of losing his or her job — Joe Schwarz, Peter Hoekstra, Vern Ehlers, Mike Rogers, Candice Miller, Fred Upton? Answer: None of the above.

Voters have a tendency to really dislike the collective lot of do-nothing rubber stamps for George W. Bush, but individually they’re well liked and regarded as celebrities. The result of this schizophrenia from voters is the return of most of these corrupt and incompetant lying pigs to the trough of federal government (where they enrich their friends while sticking you and me with the bill) and a continuance of the neurotic and useless public bitching about slick politicians while marching to the polls to send them back for another term.

Of the sorry lot mentioned above, the ones closest to home deserve a few choice remarks:
• Joe Schwarz, the Battle Creek Republican who somehow earned a reputation as being a member of that rare club these days known as a moderate. He was elected to the job after right-wing rich farmer Nick Smith retired, and since going to Washington he has marched to the drumbeat of Bush and the Neocons. Like his buddy, John McCain, he plays moderate on one or two issues but is a consistent member of the conservative side of the aisle. Once upon a time he may have been more moderate but the pressures of partisian politics and the GOP House leadership have turned Joe into another rubber stamp for Bush and Cheney- look at how conservative leaders are flocking to help him in his primary fight against Tim Walberg.
• Vern Ehlers, like Schwarz, he has earned a reputation as a moderate in the tradition of Gerald Ford and Paul Henry, but Vern, you’re no Paul Henry. He occasionally has bucked the Bush Administration on some environmental votes and has boasted he told the Big Three years ago they should embrace new technology, like hybrids. Speaking of boasting, I can’t recall any public appearance he’s made in Hastings in which he hasn’t reminded everybody he’s a “nukular physicist.” Sorry, Vern, but anyone who can’t properly pronounce what he does is no better than the dumbest and most incompetent president in U.S. history, the current occupant of the White House. Ehlers is famous for showing up once a year in Hastings and saying some awful things he gets away with. Here are three gems as examples: In 2003, he said he couldn’t support the president on the invasion of Iraq if no weapons of mass destruction were found. In 1995, just after the Oklahoma City bombing, he said he was more frightened by the far left than the far right. This past spring he admonished George Williston by declaring George W. Bush definitely is not the worst president in American history. Talk about damning with faint praise. We're still wondering for Vern to tell us who could actually be worse than the international embarassment currently in the Oval Office.
• Peter Hoekstra is a guy who has spent far too much time in corporate board rooms and not enough time understanding working people, but he doesn’t have to in his district. Not long after he came on the scene by unseating 26-year incumbent Guy VanderJagt, he showed a little independent thinking by calling a flag burning amendment futile in that you cannot force patriotism nor respect for the flag. Yet this year he reversed himself and supports a flag burning amendment to the Constitution. Hoekstra was acclaimed by the Grand Rapids Press as courageous in speaking out against the Bush Administration’s secrecy, yet he has defended the warrantless wiretapping and he joined in on the recent “discovery” of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, an assertion the White House wouldn't even join him in making. He's finally making noise about Congressional oversight but not only is it too little too late but it also appears to be case of getting back at the White House for failure to back his bogus claims of finding WMD in Iraq.

We’ve got a solid bunch of bozos representing us in Washington D.C., almost as bad as the clowns we send to Lansing. But, in the words of Pete Seeger, “We elect ‘em again and again.” We still hate slick politicians so much we send ‘em packing their bags for Lansing and Washington. Some might joke that's a fitting punishment but getting bad government from gerrymandered districts is no joke. This is a third reason that not one of these guys is likely to lose their perch in Washington despite massive voter anger over the direction of the country.

Schwarz's 7th District is the closest of the lot with only a 58%-36% advantage in 2004 (the rest on the list tending to be more in the range of 60% and over)- if anyone takes him out it's more likely to be his wingnut opponent supported by anti-tax zealots the "Club for Growth." Safely partisian districts lead to comfortable politicians that only need to keep one side happy enough to avoid serious primary fights. That's why we're getting a sudden rash of Congressional votes on gay marriages, flag burning and stem cell research (that one was set up so the rubber stampers in Congress can separate themslves from an unpopular president). American elections are quickly becoming as useless as those in banana republics. And we're getting the leaders to match.

A fourth reason is that the opposition party still isn't acting as such. Until the Democrats give voters a clear choice, don't expect the public to reward them at the polls in large numbers. 2006 may give us some changes in the political map but it doesn't appear so far to be like 1994- a tidal wave of change, more like a rip tide sucking our democracy further out to sea...