Pick a Loser
Today's paper tells me that our good Governor has decided to go with a drug plan. A drug plan for low-income Californians. A good drug plan. A just drug plan. A drug plan with teeth.
Too bad he didn't like any of the other vastly similar drug plans that were proposed over the last few years, but it's an election year and, damnit, it's time for that drug plan!
Which got me thinking about elections, and campaigns, and the good of mankind. You know that co-worker you have that never does anything until anyone else does it? Come on, we've all had that co-worker. You and said co-worker are assigned similar tasks --or even teamed up on the same task -- and Co-worker will dawdle and watch you from the corner or his/her eye or whatnot until you start doing something, and then suddenly Super Coworker springs into action by doing exactly what you're doing, and then later will prod you to ask if you did whatever it was you were doing, and what were the results, and look, here's what s/he did. And don't be surprised if Super Coworker knifes you in the back by saying s/he led the project. Which is why it's always good to document your work and, say, use email for another part of your task that Super Coworker can't overhear and therefore doesn't pursue. That really takes the air out of Super Coworker.
Anyway, I digress. Back to campaigns. A few years ago, the Governator was just getting into office. He had Big Plans. He was going to blow up the boxes (which, if you looked at the plan, was just streamlining and centralizing the system, which is what we did last time we "radically" remade government). He had to lay out a plan and stick to it. Now, he's running for re-election. His opponent has a snowball's chance of beating him. However, that pesky gnat is out there redefining health care and making it one of his platforms. Suddenly, Arnold's gotta be strong on health care. Not his forte in the past two years. But I'll bet you he's got an enthusiastic (or not -- they burn out) staffer who knows all s/he needs to know about health care, and can spell out for the Governor what's going to go over well in the polls.
I'd always wondered why someone would run a losing campaign in a big arena like the California governor's race. Usually, once they finally win something and are noticed and loved and interviewed on the subject, they talk about how the losing campaigns were such great learning experiences, and how they cut their teeth on those campaigns and how the mistakes they made back then helped them be so successful now. Which sounds very nice and all, but that's a lot of donated money they blew and time they spent away from their families and, if we're to really believe them, then maybe they should have put together a more experienced campaign team to support them.
And again, that's a lot of donated money they blew. Time and experienced staff be damned, there are people who always give to party candidates no matter what, and there has to be a reason for it beyond party loyalty. Okay, so there's one benefit that I knew of -- there are organizations out there that raise money for candidates, and they absolutely track this stuff and always hit the same donors, and are really interested in said donors' opinions.
But now I'm fascinated by this other benefit. People have been trying to get Arnold to do stuff on drugs for years, but he wasn't into all that. Then, along comes what Asm. Frommer calls "Extreme Makeover -- Political Edition." Angelides wants health care? Well, then, Schwarzenneger will show you health care!
Heaven and earth couldn't move a sitting governor to pick drug benefit legislation, but a campaign can. A political challenger's campaign. A good campaign. A strong campaign. A losing campaign, but still, a campaign. Makes me want to run out and send a check to Angelides.
Not that I'm going to. I'm still unemployed. Fortunately, in other news of the world, I got a job! I'll be doing grantwriting and program development for a local health care nonprofit starting August 14th.
Too bad he didn't like any of the other vastly similar drug plans that were proposed over the last few years, but it's an election year and, damnit, it's time for that drug plan!
Which got me thinking about elections, and campaigns, and the good of mankind. You know that co-worker you have that never does anything until anyone else does it? Come on, we've all had that co-worker. You and said co-worker are assigned similar tasks --or even teamed up on the same task -- and Co-worker will dawdle and watch you from the corner or his/her eye or whatnot until you start doing something, and then suddenly Super Coworker springs into action by doing exactly what you're doing, and then later will prod you to ask if you did whatever it was you were doing, and what were the results, and look, here's what s/he did. And don't be surprised if Super Coworker knifes you in the back by saying s/he led the project. Which is why it's always good to document your work and, say, use email for another part of your task that Super Coworker can't overhear and therefore doesn't pursue. That really takes the air out of Super Coworker.
Anyway, I digress. Back to campaigns. A few years ago, the Governator was just getting into office. He had Big Plans. He was going to blow up the boxes (which, if you looked at the plan, was just streamlining and centralizing the system, which is what we did last time we "radically" remade government). He had to lay out a plan and stick to it. Now, he's running for re-election. His opponent has a snowball's chance of beating him. However, that pesky gnat is out there redefining health care and making it one of his platforms. Suddenly, Arnold's gotta be strong on health care. Not his forte in the past two years. But I'll bet you he's got an enthusiastic (or not -- they burn out) staffer who knows all s/he needs to know about health care, and can spell out for the Governor what's going to go over well in the polls.
I'd always wondered why someone would run a losing campaign in a big arena like the California governor's race. Usually, once they finally win something and are noticed and loved and interviewed on the subject, they talk about how the losing campaigns were such great learning experiences, and how they cut their teeth on those campaigns and how the mistakes they made back then helped them be so successful now. Which sounds very nice and all, but that's a lot of donated money they blew and time they spent away from their families and, if we're to really believe them, then maybe they should have put together a more experienced campaign team to support them.
And again, that's a lot of donated money they blew. Time and experienced staff be damned, there are people who always give to party candidates no matter what, and there has to be a reason for it beyond party loyalty. Okay, so there's one benefit that I knew of -- there are organizations out there that raise money for candidates, and they absolutely track this stuff and always hit the same donors, and are really interested in said donors' opinions.
But now I'm fascinated by this other benefit. People have been trying to get Arnold to do stuff on drugs for years, but he wasn't into all that. Then, along comes what Asm. Frommer calls "Extreme Makeover -- Political Edition." Angelides wants health care? Well, then, Schwarzenneger will show you health care!
Heaven and earth couldn't move a sitting governor to pick drug benefit legislation, but a campaign can. A political challenger's campaign. A good campaign. A strong campaign. A losing campaign, but still, a campaign. Makes me want to run out and send a check to Angelides.
Not that I'm going to. I'm still unemployed. Fortunately, in other news of the world, I got a job! I'll be doing grantwriting and program development for a local health care nonprofit starting August 14th.
posted by Sophia & Sienna's Mom at 9:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home