"The next two things you have to do..."

Posted at 7:39 AM on February 1, 2006 by Bob Collins

The blogs are roiling today with speculation (that's pretty much what blogs do, bless 'em) that Patty Wetterling has all but announced her decision to enter the 6th District race. This is based on some comments in the Star Tribune (surprisingly, according to blog-supplied links, the only source of political information for a lot of folks who spend a lot of time describing it in unflattering terms) published on Tuesday that she wants to continue her work "at the federal level."

That is then linked to comments from lone DFL candidate Elwyn Tinklenberg in October that he was assured by Wetterling that the only reason he got into the race is because he was assured by Wetterling that she would not run. In other words, the big "story" brewing is that Wetterling is breaking a promise.

Here's a bulletin: Politicians say whatever politicians need to say. Let's suppose, for example, a candidate -- a congressman, let's say -- is rumored to be interested in higher office. Let's say a Senate seat. So a reporter says to the congressman, "is it true you're thinking about running for the Senate?" You know the answer that's coming and so do I. "I'm only interested in being the best congressman for the next two years."

Really? That's all you're interested in? Figuring out what you'll be doing two years from now doesn't interest you? The Super Bowl? That doesn't interest you?

When I was learning to fly, my instructor told me "there's only two things that matter when you're flying a plane."

"What's that"" I asked.

"The next two things you have to do," he said.

OK, so pilots are one step ahead of politicians, who recognize that the only thing that's important to say is the next thing you have to say.

So let's suppose Wetterling gets into the race everyone with an ounce of political savvy knows she should've jumped into in the first place. Grown men will cry and opponents will be shocked -- shocked -- that she broke a promise.

Sure, it'd be nice if politicians told the whole truth from time to time, but the issue also raises questions about whether truth is a fixed data point. Do circumstances matter?

If Mark Kennedy says "I'm opposed to drilling in ANWR" right up until the moment that he votes for drilling in ANWR, do the circumstances surrounding that vote matter? If Samuel Alito were to say "I support precedent," can we take it to the bank what his vote on court cases would be even before they're filed?
If Wellstone says "this is the last time I'm running for office," and then runs again. does it matter if Democrats taking control of the Senate changes the circumstances surrounding his decision?

I don't know. That's my answer. But on the day I come up with one, I'm thinking the answer should be the same for all three.

Do we really want to bet the farm on a politician's statements?

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories