Women Are Not Under The (Health Care Reform) Bus – They’ve Organized to Drive It
Dec 23rd, 2009 | 19 responses
The Senate’s vote on health care reform will now be at 7:00 am tomorrow morning. (See more here.) But the conference committee process that will begin after Congress takes a winter break will be contentious.
A lot of attention, as many readers of The Moderate Voice know, has focused on how women fare under the House and Senate versions. One outgrowth of that attention is the effort Not Under The Bus:
The facts page alone at the site makes it worth visiting if you really want to understand why many (not all – I’m not saying ALL) women are frustrated, to put it mildly, with both the House and the Senate versions. There are links and stats to satisfy every level of interest.
As a newly elected but not yet sworn in council member in my small city (less than 6000 total population), I’ve already attended to issues that have multiple stakeholders with different agendas. All I will say is what I’ve said before: no one should write about what an elected official to do, and believe that it’s the final word or even authoritative, until they themselves has run for and occupied elected office. You just have to be in these shoes to understand what it feels like to have those stakes coming at you.
19 Responses to “Women Are Not Under The (Health Care Reform) Bus – They’ve Organized to Drive It”
“I’m not saying ALL”
That's good, because you cannot, Jill. They're not speaking for all, as even a brief review reveals.
(It's predictable, in fact. Clumsy late timing for it, too.)
It's little different than Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson speaking for all black (and all other) Americans.
this is such a good news, and thank you for giving a nice and infornative post,
http://ezinearticles.com/?Zetaclear-Review—Do…
“No one should write about what an elected official (will/should) to, and believe that it’s the final word or even authoritative, until they themselves has run for and occupied elected office.”
I guess we disagree, Jill. It seems on it's face a recipe for weakness. Since, I'll guess, less than 1% of the population will ever run or hold office, I guess they should assume their thoughts, beliefs, and wishes mean next to nothing, especially if they believe such things without having had the experience you describe.
The electorate's job is to inform the politician as to what they want…..
The Politician's job is to figure out how to give it and the political expense or pay off…..
The Political LEADER has an agenda above his political success…….
All issues are contentious, but what would benefit the people the most? I think that question the way we are set up to govern today is only an afterthought……..regrettably.
I think an electorate that over empathizes with the difficulty and conflicts inherent in the job, renders itself overly sympathetic and ultimately impotent. The center leaning way right is where we are and it translates into corporate governance, government by lobbyists, and spineless politicians, with increasing secrecy and militancy at home and abroad.
The politician who cannot discern the interest of the people from the interests of his supportive corporations is likely corrupt which is the situation we have today in the congress.
Oh, Happy holiday, Chanuka! Enjoy those delicious Latkes.
Chanuka ended last Friday but I'm loving the Christmas cookies I've been getting. Thank you and a happy holiday to you too.
Yes, we disagree. There are more than enough opportunities for people to run for things at any and every level and it can be within an organization, when they're in school, when they're in a religious institution or any number of opportunities that allow people to understand the difference between campaigning v. making decisions and leading.
Our system revolves around the setting of expectations and whether voters feel those expectations have been met or they've been let down. If you've never placed yourself in such a position upon which those expectations have been placed and had to make choices that guaranteed not everyone would be satisfied, and you'd live to hear about it and have to face that reaction?
Then I just don't given the same credence to what is said.
That is why I believe people who write about politics and politicians should have to run for office at least once in their life.
Yes – anyone can write about politics and politicians. But I can choose the weight I give it.
Then, Jill, based on what you said and apart from the good wishes
(apologies for wrong Channuka date), I would hear you repeating the
position you held before and after my comment, that then would register
in some inward place that I was relatively unheard, had no impact on the
person I was speaking to. That's probably enough for me to reach over to
the volume dials just behind the ears and tune you out. No, you wouldn't
be getting my vote. Now, maybe you know that, and it's all
prefigured……..so it's no loss to you. Go ahead, make your appeal to
the people your think really matter.
I think the mandates that are out there for politicians who want to lead
are SCREAMING to be heard– The destruction of the middle class, no pay
raises for the working class in 30-40 years, lobbyists destroying
democracy, healthcare that all other postindustrial nations have taken
on as right of its citizenry, wars that do nothing to protect us,
accomplishing the exact opposite, environment/climate, etc, etc.– I
mean it is so obvious…… I think the only way I could be happy with
the politics of the last 30 years is if I owned stock in weaponry, war
supplies, — which by the way many neocons did…………There used to
be something higher than mere serving one's interests……I'm not sure
anymore.
I too choose to weigh the bombast of politicians ………..and decide
accordingly. You probably already know, unless he does a major turn
around in the next 3 years, I won't be voting for Obama again.
Best wishes!
This is that, “if you don't agree with me, you must not have read or heard me” thing again, isn't it?
Wow.
No – I just do in fact disagree with you. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
Jill, anyone involved in government, including any and all who are government, have plenty to say legitimately abuot government. It's one thing to say that as an insider you have a better idea of things than anyone who hasn't been “walking in your shoes.” True enough. But anyone who has powers of observation and intelligence can provide criticism of value, and there's no question that they are in a legitimate position to supply it if they are the objects of government.
“no one should write about what an elected official to do, and believe that it’s the final word or even authoritative, until they themselves has run for and occupied elected office”
Well, this would have been a backup for defense of the Messiah cult following Obama used to have.
But do you realize that this lays to waste all the hatred and all the valid criticism, too, thrown at Bush?
(And Reagan)
Food for thought. Have a good holiday, incidentally, and good luck in office.
…and is that not precisely what you did? dissed me comment and moved on…. I think the kettle does protest to much…..
What is is that you didn't hear, I heard, I disagree, I move on in search of someone who does– is that not democracy………….or what? Don't you like democracy.
Let me gets this straight…..you want to be a politician who “feels” the contradictions of the body politic, makes a decision that disappoints others, but you want us all to “understand” the difficulty of the predicament you been placed in……. and have that pass for democracy? Based on that theory, all politicians everywhere, including places you may not hold in positive light, have to deal with the same contradictions, and they too, have an agenda they are pushing, and that pleases at least some of the supporters and they would love it if everyone would just go along with “deep” understanding and acceptance.
That my leader “deeply' feels for me, as he signs off on legislation that will kill me, my family, my ideas, or send my son to a meaningless war from which he comes home half crazed or crippled, is not enough. That is why we have protest and demonstrate, though it has become an exercise in civil disobedience to do so.
Still I wish you a peaceful and joyful holiday, though it is clear from your comments I would not support you. Good luck with the electorate you have chosen to appeal to.
Spirasol – Er, um – I dissed you, because I don't agree with you? Oh – ok. /not
You seem to be projecting an awful lot of angst and do so by putting assumptions onto me, who I am, what I do and why I do what I do, or don't do for that matter. Why don't you ask me a bit about why I ran etc. before making assertions like:
“Don't you like democracy.
Let me gets this straight…..you want to be a politician who “feels” the contradictions of the body politic, makes a decision that disappoints others, but you want us all to “understand” the difficulty of the predicament you been placed in……. and have that pass for democracy?”
Yeah – um – you got all that from…what exactly? Wow.
Anyone can speculate about anything. But how you can say that based on my comments, you wouldn't support me is confounding – although I guess you, you know, “know.”
This whole notion of “the electorate you have chosen to appeal to” – I don't know where you live or who has influenced you, but maybe you should start with the 10 part series I wrote at BlogHer about why I ran for office and what I think about the endeavor of being an elected official before you start writing about “the electorate you have chosen to appeal to.” You can find them all here:
http://www.blogher.com/blog/jill-miller-zimon
Or not.
I'm here – this is really me and really my name. You, on the other hand, are 100% anonymous to me. No exposure whatsoever and easy to write and accuse as you have done. That alone sets us apart in a way that is even more unique to people who run for let alone get elected to office and places the critique in a different category. That's not personal – it's just fact.
I'm sorry that you have so much frustration to vent, period, let alone someone you don't even know.
DLS – The reading between the lines that is going on with my assertion is really baffling. There is a pecking order, I am not impressed by many people and I don't expect too many people or all people to be impressed by me. That's not what listening to someone's critique is about – in regard to any topic.
This is media literacy, and literacy of any kind, at it's foundation. We look to see who is talking about what. My assertion has been and continues to be that I place a different weight and value on what people say depending upon where they're coming from – this isn't revolutionary.
And in regard to political punditry and critiquing of an elected official's performance, expectations etc., the same would apply. Constituents get different weight than non-constituents, people who have served in office before and run for office before – they too get a different weight.
Why this concept is so controversial escapes me. Yes – I think Chris Cillizza should run for office and see what it's like – but I still think he's pretty sharp. Joe Scarborough – I often don't care for what he's said, but I often put forth effort to remember that he ran and served in public office, so I recalibrate how I view what he's said. David Gergen has seen multiple presidents and presidencies and sessions of Congress closer than most humans ever will – this gives his critiques unique weight to me.
If people are not running who says what through some kind of balancing routine, well – I think that's a real problem. Everything everyone says does not deserve the same weight.
See the above comment. Thanks and ditto – except of the good luck in office part.
Jill,
“Everything everyone says does not deserve the same weight.”
I've never contested that fact. Why would my frequent criticism and contesting various things here (especially since the lib Dems have run wild this year and so has political sentiment elsewhere, including here) lead you to suspect (or imagine) anything else, instead?
What I am contesting is the illogical inference of exclusivity in your plain-language word choice (and your defensive reaction to its being contested). You're implying (even if not meaning and truly claiming) that nobody else but the Qualified deserves any weight (or attention or respect) at all. That's what's contested.
Yes, good luck in the arena, as Ted Roosevelt said famously. (Nobody's questioning your advantage and greater weight as an insider, by the way. You know, what Roosevelt said about being in the arena.)
Thank you – no – I had not ever read that quote but it doesn't surprise me.
For those curious (it's worth reading), from http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm:
Thank you – no I'd not read that quote before but it doesn't surprise me – here it is for others (from http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm). Of course, I'd change it to “Person in the Arena.”
You're welcome. Glad it's not surprising. Good luck in that arena, and I'm glad you understand that criticism of value (what led you to replace someone else in that office?) should, indeed, be kept in its place.
And it's nice to see older, high-quality American English prose, too, isn't it?
Happy holidays.
For those curious – I had a glitch or something in my connection and the comment got posted twice re: Roosevelt quote – sorry all.
Oh – it's a great, great quote – really reflects what I started to feel, very strongly, about three or four months into the election. Definitely will be a quote I'm putting somewhere to always remember-I after all have to remember the obligations I have.