The Baggage Train.

Going back to that WyoFile editorial, one of the replying letters stated this:

Sorry Kerry, buy you couldn’t be more wrong about Harriet Hageman – you made the mistake of trying to predict how she will be judged in history on one issue which will rapidly decrease in importance as Trump goes down in flames.

The only way to predict how Harriet will be viewed in her new roll as a Representative is to do an in-depth review or her substantial record in the courts – particularly the Federal court system. Its my understanding she has been one of the most successful and foremost natural resource attorneys in the United States and has argued cases at the highest level. To understand her experience in this field of natural resources one must recognize there are less than 10 really experienced individuals in Wyoming who have proven over the years their expertise in the field of natural resources. They include Jill Morrison, Doug Thompson, Ken Hamilton, Angus Theumer, Dan Hielig, Karen Budd Falen, Harriet Hageman and maybe a few more. Harriet is near the top of this distinguished list of competence.

The bottom line is that Harriet can be expected to be one of the most knowledgeable natural resource experts to ever be elected to Congess. If she equals or exceeds her past performance she will have a major impact on natural resource issues in the house. It will be important to see which committees she is appointed to and whether she can put together a staff of truly talented experienced natural resource experts.

Her unique experience as a natural resource attorney positions her to write amendments to legislation, existing laws which could redefine the ESA, Clean Water Act, Wild Horse and Burro Act, Wilderness designations, etc. and do this in a House of Representatives controlled by the Republications at least for the next 2 years. Never under estimate a person who has proven over and over that she is all about competence, competence, competence. The Donald Trump thing will wilt in the very near future and we’ll see Harriet in the legislative setting instead of the court room setting. Will she be as successful in Congress as she has been in the courts. Based on past performance, I think Harriet will be as influential.

This taps into something that's been bothering me throughout this election, or rather, maybe several somethings.

Those are; 1) when does "being a lawyer" credit you as a candidate, and when does it discredit you, in the public eye, 2) does the propaganda on lawyers match the reality, 3) does anyone really believe that having been a successful lawyer in private practice means you're going to be a big wheel in Congress, and 4) if Hageman's record is correctly cited, why would we support it?

First, a disclaimer, which I've noted before. As noted here, I knew Hageman slightly at one time.  Early on, because of her circle of friends, I frankly assumed she was a left wing Democrat.  At that time she was shy and hardly spoke, so my assumption was probably way off, but if it was way off, she was a unique personality in that her friends must have been way outside of her political beliefs.

That actually credits a person.

Indeed, one of the people like me, who had friends that were in her circle of friends, is mentioned in the letter above.  And that person definitely has very left wing beliefs and is married to one of Hageman's school year friends who also have very left wing beliefs, at least based on their views at the time, and their careers since.

Interesting.

It's additionally interesting as that person would most likely be on the opposite end of the spectrum on all the issues listed.

That brings up the point that lawyers careers tend to reflect the work that was available when they started off.  It doesn't necessarily reflect their personal views.  In the case of the person I'm thinking of above, it does, as their choices in career paths would reflect that.  In at least one other person listed above, it probably does as well, although they took a big diversion from their pathway at one time.

Hageman?  

Well, I don't know.  She did seem to develop, from what little I know of it, a career that focused a lot on water law at one time and then branched into something else, that being the representation of far right interests on various land and environmental issues.  I know of her representing a super wealthy import on a house construction case, however. Perhaps that was a favor of some kind.

Most lawyers actually are at least a little left of center.  Even the self-proclaimed right wing lawyers I know tend to actually be left of center, a little.  I've met a few really right wing lawyers, but in those cases one was a fellow who was so wealthy he really didn't have to do anything, and who came from a very conservative background (I also know a very left wing lawyer who was so wealthy the lawyer didn't actually have to do anything).

Of the three really right wing lawyers I've known over the years, two of them were from, you guessed it, somewhere else.

Is Hageman really right wing?  Well, she is now, and has no choice but to be.  Her father was a right wing legislator, and she's from Ft. Laramie, so if she is, she probably came by it naturally.  If she originally wasn't, she is now, and she has to be.

Which will make her irrelevant in Congress.

Which, in an out-of-order sort of way, brings us to number 3 on our list "3) does anyone really believe that having been a successful lawyer in private practice means you're going to be a big wheel in Congress"?

I can't think of any examples.  Can you?

Let's start with the letter writers citations here:

The bottom line is that Harriet can be expected to be one of the most knowledgeable natural resource experts to ever be elected to Congess.

Well, setting aside Herbert Hoover, maybe.

Hoover was a mining engineer. 

If she equals or exceeds her past performance she will have a major impact on natural resource issues in the house. I

How so?  Legal work is presenting your case to a jury or judge, and in this line of country, probably mostly to a judge.

That, frankly, doesn't mean squat in terms of arguing policy in Congress. 

The House of Representatives has 435 members, who all think of themselves as being the judges.  And unlike a real judge, they aren't, and don't have to be, constrained by what the law is and, while they should be constrained by the facts, they have never been.

They also all think themselves equal in their expertise to you, and really don't give a rats ass what your pre Congress career is.

Put another way, does anyone really think that AoC is going to think, "wow, Harriet, you know so much, I'm going your way!"  Or, for that matter, that Keven McCarthy is going to think "I struggled for years and sold my soul to become Speaker of the House, but I'm deferring to you Harriet".

Not bloody likely.

Particularly, and this is important for Wyomingites to realize, the House represents the population of the United States, which is about 70% aligned against what Harriet is seems to be for, based on her record.

Which takes us to this:

Her unique experience as a natural resource attorney positions her to write amendments to legislation, existing laws which could redefine the ESA, Clean Water Act, Wild Horse and Burro Act, Wilderness designations, etc. and do this in a House of Representatives controlled by the Republications at least for the next 2 years. 

Bar har har har!

Uh huh. The House is Republican, barely. 

The Senate, isn't.

The Oval Office, isn't.

You have to be delusional to believe that any legislation is coming out of the House with a right wing point of view on the ESA, the Clean Water Act, the Wild Horse and Burro Act, or Wilderness designations in the next two years.  

No freakin' way.

And if the last several elections cycles have shown, the rules about when houses switch are now broken.  If Donald Trump continues to whip the ass cart towards the cliff, the chances are just as good that you end up with a Democratic House and Senate in 2024.

Particularly if the GOP Rockettes in the form of Marjorie "Jewish Space Laser" Taylor Green and Lauren "Insurrection Barbie" continue to draw so much press.  Far right House female  House figures look more evil female villains in Marvel Comics right now that serious policymakers.  If you are a far right angry congresswoman, and that's the presentation that Hageman has given so far, firmly riding the Trump Ass Cart, do you really think you'll be taken as a serious potential policymaker?

Indeed, does any Wyoming politician have that street cred right now?  Senator Barrasso did at one time, but the GOP has seemed to use him recently to personally blame Joe Biden for gas prices when they go up, but not credit him when they go down.  Lummis might be faring the best right now, and she's clearly working on breaking away from the Wyoming GOP, with her sights set on a cabinet position in a future GOP administration she figures won't be Trump's.

Indeed, how the next two years go, with Lummis acting independently and Hageman beholden to Trump, will be interesting. 

And frankly, most Wyomingites aren't haters of Wilderness. Out on the street, it's easy to find Republican Wyomingites who would add more. That's an upper level GOP thing and one of the many examples of how they are out of sink with the electorate. Same with the Clean Water Act.  You can get visceral reactions to the ESA mostly because the right has hated it since day one. 

The Wild Horse & Burro Act matters to ranchers, and I don't like it, but most people don't think about it at all.

All of which is to say that I don't expect any Congressional action at all in these areas.  In 2024, the Wild Horse and Burro Act, the ESA, etc., will all be there, and Harriet Hageman's opinions on them will not have mattered one bit.

Which covers not only topic 3, but topic 4.

What about topic 2?

Well, maybe, in her case. The New York Times supported that view, that she was a lawyer who worked against environmental regulation for decades, and they're surely no fans of Hageman.

Well, what about 1.  Funny how that works.  If somebody's a lawyer, and their views seem to agree with yours, that means a lot. If they're a lawyer, and their views differ, they're a dirty bastard.  The High Country News, before she was a candidate or even close to being one, in 2009, stated the same thing, more or less.  So that claim seems to be correct.

But again, does that credit you?

Witness the Secretary of State election.  Chuck Gray complained that Tara Nethercott was a lawyer and was only campaigning for the salary, an absurd proposition. First thing he does his hire a lawyer to be on his staff.

Weird how that worked.

Which gets back to the letter writers point that we don't know how we're judged in history, until we're judged in history.  His point is that Hageman may overcome having a front row seat on the careering ass cart due to her background and skills.

And maybe she will.

But in order to do that, she'll have to get out of the ass cart quick, as otherwise she's just going to be wrecked baggage. And that's not an easy thing to.

"Tail Gunner" Joe McCarthy.  Richard Milhouse Nixon.

Two conservatives who didn't react, when they could have, both of whom might have been very much differently remembered than they are today.  By the time that McCarthy hauled in the Army in front of the House Committee on Un American Affairs, the bloom was off the Communist under every bush rose.  He should have known that and wrapped things up, stating they'd gone as far as they could, and have gotten back to things later. Instead, he rode that wagon over a cliff.  

Nixon should have exposed the Watergate burglars. He didn't order them to actually do anything. If he had, he'd have completed his second term, destroyed the negative evidence against him, and be remembered as the President who got us out of Vietnam.

Part of taking trips into dangerous territory with the baggage train is knowing when to leave it.