Why are certain politicians so visible?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 7:05 PM GMT
    Somebody please enlighten me in a non-partisan fashion:
    So I can see why the press would want to talk to you if you're the Senate leader, the House Majority Leader or even the Minority Whip. I can see that for certain unofficial positions, e.g. if you're the honorary chairman of the Tea Party or the spokesperson for the Black Caucus.

    So why are we hearing so much from certain people like Kerry, McCain, Lieberman, Kyl, Graham, and Collins? What makes their opinion so valuable to the press? OK, Kerry and McCain ran in previous presidential elections, but they lost, so what makes their opinion so much more valuable?

    When was the last time you heard from Akaka, Carper, Cantwell, Hagan, Isakson, Klobuchar, Lemieux, Merkley, Stabenow or Udall, just to name a few Senators?

    Is it
    a. they like the spotlight?
    b. they are the ones that make the most difference (because of their voting (they influence the direction of the vote, or they are the ones on the fence)?
    c. the relatively silent ones have nothing to say?
    d. it takes a major personal event like prostate cancer (Wyden)?
    e. the various networks each want to say they spoke with Senators and those vocal ones are the most "available" ones?
    f. it takes a controversial position or statement for them to be noticed?
    g. all, some or none of the above?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 7:10 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidIs it
    a. they like the spotlight?
    b. they are the ones that make the most difference (because of their voting (they influence the direction of the vote, or they are the ones on the fence)?
    c. the relatively silent ones have nothing to say?
    d. it takes a major personal event like prostate cancer (Wyden)?
    e. the various networks each want to say they spoke with Senators and those vocal ones are the most "available" ones?
    f. it takes a controversial position or statement for them to be noticed?
    g. all, some or none of the above?

    All of the above.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 7:11 PM GMT
    What politician? Where? I don't see one...
    Rangel2.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 7:13 PM GMT
    If that's the case, that's really sad for American politics. We all know that those who respond to surveys don't necessarily reflect the true prevalence of views.
    I'm going to vote for the biggest braggart next time.icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 7:25 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidIf that's the case, that's really sad for American politics. We all know that those who respond to surveys don't necessarily reflect the true prevalence of views.
    I'm going to vote for the biggest braggart next time.icon_razz.gif


    Hey, if the braggart can back it up with fact, why not? icon_biggrin.gif

    I don't mind a healthy ego in my politicians or my surgeons.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 7:31 PM GMT
    Or is the quiet ones are the most constructive ones?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

    Where's another Gang of 14 when you need them now? Most of the nominees for federal judges have been filibustered in this Congress.

    wiki on O's judge nomineesAs of July 2010, Obama's nominees to the district and circuit courts had been confirmed at a rate of only 43.5 percent, compared to 87.2 percent during Bill Clinton's administration and 91.3 percent for George W. Bush. The Center for American Progress, which compiled the data, commented:

    Judicial confirmations slowed to a trickle on the day President Barack Obama took office. Filibusters, anonymous holds, and other obstructionary tactics have become the rule. Uncontroversial nominees wait months for a floor vote, and even district court nominees—low-ranking judges whose confirmations have never been controversial in the past—are routinely filibustered into oblivion. Nominations grind to a halt in many cases even after the Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously endorsed a nominee. [106]

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Dec 19, 2010 8:15 PM GMT
    With Collins (Republican), it's because she's often thought of (by the Democrats) as someone who can be persuaded to vote with the Democrats on some issues.

    With everybody else, whomever has something to say that will sound good on the news, is going to be seen and heard on the news. The news and opinion shows want something that will draw viewers. So, they gravitate to the politicians who are at the more extreme ends of the political spectrum.

    We can always expect leaders to be interviewed, whether it's military leaders, Congressional committee chairmen, etc. Also, anybody who has something outrageous to say (Palin ?) always makes the news.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 8:21 PM GMT
    So we should encourage the more moderate politicians to speak out, and to discourage media coverage on the partisans on either side.

    At least that's the theory.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2010 10:32 PM GMT
    Maybe there's hope after all between the leaders of the Senate:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/obama-appointee-deal_n_799313.htmlAfter a monthslong blockade, Senate Republicans have agreed to let at least 19 of President Barack Obama's non-controversial judicial nominees win confirmation in the waning days of the congressional session in exchange for a commitment by Democrats not to seek votes on four others, according to officials familiar with the deal.
    ...
    As part of the arrangement, the Senate has approved 10 judges in the past few days without a single dissenting vote. One of them, Albert Diaz, had been awaiting confirmation to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., since clearing the Judiciary Committee in January.
    ...
    The agreement was worked out between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Republican counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, with the knowledge of the White House, officials said. Spokesmen for the two Senate leaders declined comment.