Representation

what does it mean to 'represent' another person? to act or speak for another person; that's what the dictionary says. if you are a state legislator, would that or should that change your definition of represent? i don't think it should.

so if you took a need to your legislator–your representative–and asked them for help getting something changed, don't you think they should? if you went to your legislator with a bill already drafted and asked them to support it and advocate for it on your behalf, don't you think they should?

i know a certain legislator–Representative Jeanette Wallace–who has maybe lost the meaning of the word 'represent'. my representative couldn't care less about me.

i went to her in 2004 and asked her to help me fix how the state deals with stillbirth. i believe she told me to take it up with the county, as if they have any control over the procedures. so basically, she did nothing.

in 2007 and 2009, i went to her and asked her to support and advocate the bill that we have been trying to get passed. i wanted to ask her in person. she would not see me. before you say, "well, during the session she's very busy. not in los alamos very much." i was at the capitol. i was standing in her office. she still would not see me. i could not even get 5 minutes with my representative during a legislative session at the capitol. isn't she there *for* me? clearly not.

this is an election year. this year she has some competition. before the primary there was actually more than one candidate willing to run against her or in her place. competition is good.

part of me hopes that Stephanie Richard wins, but part of me does not. i don't believe a democrat is what is best for Los Alamos County. i don't believe a democrat is what is best for this bill that i have poured my soul into. i know it is more difficult for democrats to support it. i also know that Richard has two masters when it comes to education, and that worries me for a whole other reason.

some will say Wallace is the better choice because she has seniority and lots of influence and many friends. but if she never uses them for those she represents, then what good are they? Richard will be a freshman; she will have no friends, no influence with anyone. but maybe that will make her more eager and more willing and more representative.

i truly believe Wallace needs to be gone, but i don't know that Richard is the right person to replace her. (though i'd love to have an actual conversation with Ms. Richard.)

naive or jaded

which am i?

i voted for a president that i hoped would not only set out to change things but would actually succeed in doing just that. i'm not alone. i know lots of people who voted for him.

since it has barely been a week since he actually took office, i am still holding onto that hope. i will not give up on him yet.

today he went to capitol hill to talk about his economy-stimulating efforts with republican leaders. before he even got there, the republican leadership was on the news telling everyone who would listen that they don't support his bill. now, i know they got to see the bill before obama's visit, so obviously they have already formulated their opinions of it. but COME ON! can't you at least make us think you were discussing it with an open mind?

i tend to think that the job of the congress is to play the bad cop. where the president gets to play the good cop. yes, clearly it didn't work that way for W, but that's only because he's a complete idiot.

this is not the way i wish it were. i wish our federal government could work *together.* like we hired them to do. i don't want representatives to automatically stand divided on the party line. i want them to use the few brain cells they possess and try to rise above the stupidity of DC politics.

and at the very least i would like them put on a good face. don't come out BEFORE the meeting and bash the bill. at least get in a room and discuss the damn thing before you pass judgement on it.

i elected someone who seems to have learned a thing or two in his 47 years. now, if only the rest of the politicians could just **grow up,** i think we might actually get out of "high-school mode" and accomplish something.

election day

we voted today. i waited for tuesday because i wanted nate to be a part of ELECTION DAY. and he was. he wore his "Vote Now" t-shirt (from old navy) and even got a sticker. he also got a lesson from mama about announcing what my ballot says for everyone to hear. (thanks nate, i'm sure all those other voters cared a great deal about my votes. now, shut up about it.)

later he said we should make a sign with all of our names and who we voted for. he voted for obama. and he said baby willow did, too. i voted for obama for sure. but since it wasn't my vote, i'll keep jeff's choice private.

nate was very interested in seeing the map and which states turned red or blue. he didn't want to go to bed until it was over. we assured him that the decision would definitely be made by morning. so off to bed with him.

it was exciting to see the election through his eyes this year. he has no idea what the issues were or even who the candidates really were. i have no idea why he chose obama other than because i chose obama. but he was so very excited about it all. he loved to spout the latest political ads and was quick to call them all "stupid" in turn based upon those ads.

but i, for one, am completely happy that this election is over and done with. the 10 political calls a day can end now, thank you very much.

too much

this morning nate says . . .

mama, Martin H****** needs to stop making higher taxes!

he was pretty mad about it, too. lots of feeling there. more than i have, for sure.

so is it too much TV? or simply too many political ads? they feed right into my 4yo's budding sense of right and wrong.

context

ahhhh, politics.

recently, Fernando C' de Baca, a republican party chair in one NM county, was interviewed by the BBC. in at least one interview (there apparently was a second interview in which he said basically the same thing), he said:

"The truth is that Hispanics came here as conquerors," he said. "African-Americans came here as slaves.
"Hispanics consider themselves above blacks. They won't vote for a black president."

ooook. take that as you will.

here's the thing . . . in an interview specifically about his comments, he said, "that was taken out of context." (naturally, "out of context" is a person's way of saying, "you are twisting my words for your own purposes.")

really? is there a context where that wouldn't make him sound like an ignorant racist? i can't thing of one.

women's suffrage

ok, normally i don't like to talk politics with anyone but my husband. in a social setting i think it is one of the taboo topics. quietly, i am leaning towards obama. i might get more vocal about that as time goes passes. that being said, i have to ask this question:

who are these women who would vote for sarah palin simply because she is a woman?

more specifically, who are these women, or for that matter people in general, who would vote for a party, a ticket, an agenda simply because they want to vote for a woman? what about voting for the candidate team who stands more closely for what you actually believe in, what you want for yourself, what you want for your country?

sarah palin does not stand for what i believe in nor does the republican party, with a few exceptions. i can't say the democratic party stands for my beliefs completely either, but it is at least a little bit closer. i would gladly vote libertarian, but i think their candidate is slimy this time around. i don't trust him.

see, i do pay attention to past voting patterns and past statements. i find it interesting that most candidates will come around to the party line the more prominent their campaign gets. but when that happens, i have a difficult time trusting them. if they vote pro-life and spout pro-life statements, i don't think they suddenly believe pro-choice. i have no problem with someone who can say, "i'm pro-life. but for the benefit and safety of the country i don't believe abortion should be made illegal." that's honest from day one. and i would expect that politician's voting record to reflect that very statement.

palin was chosen to appeal to the more right-wing, conservative republicans. which puts her that much further away from my beliefs. so am i going to vote for her simply because i feel voting for mccain is voting for a woman? not on your pro-life.