Talk:Political football

Request for comments

Before doing a massive rewrite of this article, I want to get some comments on the "facts" that I would like to add (some of which conflict with the current article):

• A political football is purposely unresolved. Conflicts do not automatically become political footballs. It is when nobody resolves the problem that it becaomes a political football.
• If the previous comment is correct, the definition has less to do with "running with the ball" and more to do with "passing the ball" to the next elected official.
• Earliest uses according to OED start in the 1500s. Also according to OEM, the usage was limited to unresolved problems by the 1600s. American Football became similar to what we know today in the 1800s. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that the term comes from American Football when it was used before American Football was invented.
• Contrary to the previous point, all early usage according to OEM are from the U.S.

I was going to post a lot of references, but I found these consolidated in a tiny section on one page [1]. You will have to scroll down to the Political Football section. Kainaw 20:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the other night after I wrote this I was driving and started to think, "no, its more of a issue that both sides has trouble scoring with (no matter how hard they try), it is like a ball covered with mudd, one side grabs it, heads for the goal, but then fumbles it and then the other side does the same thing." A good example in the U.S. is weather or not to drill in ANWR or not. I have a good analogy thought up for that one. A second one would be the health care issue. I knew that night that it needed to be edited. As for the date. I am still convienced it came from the U.S. and I would have to say we MUST go with documented proof, and the closest thing for that is:

"The web reveals that 'political football' appeared in a U.S. political cartoon in Judge magazine during the term of President Harrison, 1889 to 1893. The cartoon's caption: Political Football. President Harrison – "What can I do when both parties insist on kicking?"

If I had to guess, I would say the term might have been "gressed pig" before it became "political football."

So, yes edit away. It needs it. I think "massive" is overstated. I started out with the best of intentions, but my thought process took a side alley.

WikiDon 05:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

With "massive", I didn't mean that the article was wrong. I meant that I wanted to make more than a few changes. I intended on keeping much of the existing article. I added a first attempt at a rewrite. I will look at it again tomorrow. I usually hate my first attempts and have to rewrite them again later. I'm also looking for a copy of the Harrison cartoon because I would like to add the image to the article. Kainaw 15:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Where did you find the cartoon? WikiDon 16:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

An original (probably not THE original) was on auction on some website. Since it was published in the 1800s, the image is public domain. So, I took the photo of the lithograph and cropped out the frame. I also ran a sharpening filter over it to make it look better. Kainaw 19:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Abortion and Environment

I think abortion is a great example of the concept, but "environment" is a fairly poor one. There are a limited set of decisions to be made by the government concerning the topic of abortion (most simply:legal or illegal), but the environment is a widely complex subject matter involving many different decisions of different types. I came here from Arctic Refuge drilling controversy which is an example of an environmental subject that is a political football, "environment" really isn't one. Unfortunately, I can't think of a widely known one that would qualify as a good replacement for "environment" --Aranae 03:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I was using "environment" as a catch-all for the many political issues that politicians ignore. It goes from large-scale issues, such as drilling for oil in Alaska, to small ones, such as widening a historic highway in South Carolina by cutting down dozens of hundred-year oaks. It is just an example, so any better example is more than welcome. Kainaw 14:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The environment versus capital exploitation IS and HAS been a political football for years and years, from the time of men like Audubon and Muir. I think Aranae is being to literal in looking for an example. Lets look at ANWR for a second.

If you were a Republican congressmen from Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, or Texas, you have always wanted to drill for oil in ANWR. If you were a Democrat from California, Massachusetts, New York, or Oregon, you did NOT. But, for many other politicians in other places it was not so cut-and-dried. If you were a left-leaning liberal in a state that had a lot of petroleum production this was and is a political football. The same is true if you were a right-leaning conservative in a “green-environmental state.” If you were running for election and said lets drill, you lost the green-environmental vote. If you said we are not going to drill you lost the “green-capitalist” vote. So, what most of these politicians did was walk the fence, trying to act like they wouldn’t drill to the left and would drill to the right.

Since the first oil crisis, in 1974, BP, ARCO, and Amoco (both now part of BP), and ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, have wanted to drill in ANWR. But every time the pro-drilling right started moving the football toward the end zone (a vote for “yes” in congress), the defense for the left stiffened and when elections got near, the right-leaning conservatives fumbled the ball in favor of votes. Then the left picked up the ball and headed toward the opposite end zone but would eventually fumble in favor of inflation, higher-pump prices, jobs and corporate campaign contributions. I knew that when the average pump price went over $2.50 this year, that the oil-right would finally score a touchdown. When prices reached that level, it was just too much for the average voter to put up with. The farther the price of gas went up, the more the average consumer-voter etc. would push the politicians, the football pile, to the right. If gas prices get to high, that will cause inflation, and then a recession, even the left-wing Democrats do NOT want that.

But, for the thirty years prior this was a political football for most middle of the road politicians. It was always jobs-inflation-votes versus environmental protection-votes issue.

What about where to locate the nuclear disposal facility? This was and is an environmental-political football. The consumer-voters want cheap electricity, but also say “not in my state” to the disposal facility. It a lose-lose football, and a political nightmare, for a politician is many states. Shut down the nuclear power plant and double your voters’ energy bill? And, that doesn’t clean up the spent fuel rods for the past forty-years. Then that brings up a second question, due you burry them right there, or put them on a truck and drive them through “my town?” My power plant is coal, or natural gas, fired, why should I put up with the rods having an accident in my neighborhood? I don’t use nuclear power. This is another nightmare, to please both Greenpeace and your biggest campaign contributor, XYZ Power Company. Now you’re going bald and gray, and your only 34, and a woman.

What if you were a politician in Benton County, Washington? Your largest employer is Hanford. Your biggest problem is the clean up of Hanford’s nuclear waste. This was a nightmare for some politicians. The far left were screaming for years, “shut it down!” But, if you did, unemployment in Benton County would have gone from 5% to 35% the minute you put a padlock on the gate. You couldn’t shut it down. But, your far left-wing assemblymen across the isle, from Seattle, was saying: “SHUT IT DOWN!” Now Benton County is receiving billions in federal dollars over decades to clean it up. JOBS!

Don’t look for the globally perfect example, a political football may not be obvious in one particular voting district, it may be cut-and-dried there. But, when the issue gets to the capital, and you have two competing district interests to weigh, it becomes one. And, has a politician, you don’t want to commit to either side.

WikiDon 17:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

References

I would just like to recommend that more references be added to this article. Thank you. --164.107.223.217 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Obtuse/US bias

The current article is obtuse and displays a clear, unjustifiable US bias. A 'political football' is not so much an 'unresolved issue' (a definition bordering on euphemism) as one which gets looked at and kicked around, not on its own merits, nor the merits of the relevant issues, but dependent upon the participant's political background. In other words, the issue does not get the attention the speaker feels it deserves, but has become subject to 'party lines.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.217 (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the history, the original article tried to avoid U.S. bias. Over time, there has been very little evidence of the term being used outside of the U.S. - which has led to increased U.S. bias. As for "unresolved"... When something is "looked at and kicked around", it is "unresolved". I disagree with your opinion that a political football doesn't get the attention the speaker feels it deserves. It is my opinion that the speaker, which would be the politician, doesn't want to be forced to make a decision and, therefore, never gives the issue much attention. -- kainaw™ 13:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Most political issues are unresolved and get kicked around by parties of different shades of opinion. So in a sense it could be misleading to pick out one or two, and call them 'political footballs.' But when someone does, this side of the drink, it tends to mean that we feel that it has become a mere plaything of politicians, instead of being given due consideration. Perhaps the usage is different here - and the football, which is given much attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.109.179 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)