Centerfield

Surely you mean that the posturing to leadership ratio is very, very high? Because that (not low) would indicate lots of posturing and very little leadership.

I know, picky, picky, picky. Comes of being forced to learn arithmetic in grammer school long ago.

Yes, of course.... Whoopsie!

Strangely, I don't think it's just at the Congressional level. Here in Dallas, our City Council is actively doing things on a regular basis that are bad for average citizens but good for developers and people with the money and/or power to affect the system.

I think we are undergoing some sort of evolution from the past when we had no idea what our politicians did to the more open present where the technology exists to see things that might best be left in the dark. I think it's going to be painful to watch for a bit but the optimist in me says we'll get through and have a better political class as a result.

I was thinking about this the other day. Seems to me that over the last decade both parties went on the path of Mutually Assured Destruction--and succeeded. By using the most despicable tactics in the book, absolutely anything to win elections, they managed to convince the public that they're ALL as despicable as could be.

While the Dems high-five each other over driving Bush's approval rating down to the high 30's, they've driven Congressional approval ratings down to the mid-20's. And confidence levels in all branches are at historic lows. Even Tom DeLay couldn't manage that.

But we still seem to have great confidence in our military.

It's MAD, I tell you! MAD!

It really is a bit ironic that the only time people believe politicians is when they are telling us how awful other politicians are. Surely not that many of us have first-hand knowledge of individual politicians from which to verify that they are telling us true about that.

It really is a bit ironic that the only time people believe politicians is when they are telling us how awful other politicians are.

Maybe it's because that's when they seem the most sincere!

Or perhaps that's the one area where we believe they actually have some experience and expertise. As opposed to all the other areas where they pontificate.

LOL. No argument here.

But at the local and state levels anyway, I've known many many pols, and found that quite a few are quite capable and disgustingly honest and idealistic. Never took a count, but lots. Seems that there's an almost palpable erosion of integrity as they rise up the "food chain."

Be interesting to study whether the erosion in integrity is a requirement to rise up the "food chain." Or whether lack of integrity makes a politician more interested in moving up.

think we are undergoing some sort of evolution from the past when we had no idea what our politicians did to the more open present where the technology exists to see things that might best be left in the dark.

Hmm...good point. That might explain why Congress feels the Internet is so dangerous.

Another factor might be that Pelosi and Reid are terrible. Pelosi is almost as bad as DeLaw was, IMHO, because she's as far from the mainstream and almost as lovey-dovey with the ethically challenged, we're seeing. Reid is weak on his own ethics and strictly sticking to defense; What were the Congressional Dems thinking?

Their ethical problems are pretty big problems for a party that won on ethics in the last cycle.

Boy, the ranks of the dissatified (with congress) are swelling! I'm shocked I say, shocked. :-) Not.

With the advent of the internet, people are probably at least somewhat more in touch with their worlds and how they work. That means that just maybe some folks are willing to entertain the notion that the world's a bit more complicated than they used to think.

At the same time, politicians are both more ideological (in order to win by preaching to the proper choir), and less in tune with outside the beltway takes on issues,maybe due to incumbency, I don't really know. Here's the thing. Maybe it's just me, but aren't politicians' polished PR-driven takes on issues becoming more and more schticky, and aren't regular folks becoming more aware of and less tolerant of these schticks?

I mean, no matter what the issue is when a politiican speaks, don't you expect it to be the blandest version of whatever the pol thinks 51% of the people want to hear?

Here are the two things that are missing from pol speak that I think concerned and really worried folks want to hear...#1, both sides of the story, and #2 something that, while we don't want to hear it, we sort of suspect it's true and will be relieved to have someone else confirm so its at least on the table.

I mean, pick an issue....the war, iraq, abortion, healthcare, social security, any one you like. Don't you know that 99.9% of pols will speak as though their half of the story is the whole story? (Of course to the extent that such behavior could be viewed as cowardice, we have to ask ourselves whether or not that's actually the people's fault to some extent.)

The only real exception seems to be when a party gets booted and gets temporary religion, which always turns into selective amnesia when that party re-assumes power.For example, while it's tempting to be encouraged that the GOP sounds serious now about earmark reform, aren't we all driven cynically to assume that it's probably mostly spite, and that GOP minority posturing is just going to get inherited by the democrats whenever the GOP re-takes the majority.