Some politicians cannot understand why so many folks hate politicians.

To help them understand, I suggest they simply listen to themselves.

Let’s take the battle over the vacancy on the Supreme Court following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. President Obama has declared he will nominate someone to replace Scalia (He may even have already done so by the time you read this column). The Republicans say they won’t consider any nomination — because it is an election year. From what I can read, there is not much in our Constitution that says whether this is right or wrong.

The president tells us this is wrong. He calls the Republicans a lot of names over this plan. Vice President Biden says the same. He demands that the Senate should deliberate over the nominee, immediately.

Our Senator Chuck Schumer also scolds the Republicans for their intransigence. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid echoes those sentiments. In other words, election year be damned. They claim the Republicans are playing politics, throwing sand in the gears of the machine we use to appoint justices. 

As mentioned, the Constitution offers no guidance. So these are merely opinions. 

Here is why politicians are about as popular as last week’s lunch served for tonight’s dinner. A few years ago, these guys all said the opposite.

In 1992, then-Senator Joe Biden was head of the committee that vetted justices. He proclaimed that nominating judges to the Supreme Court in an election year was wrong. He told us earlier presidents refrained. And President George Bush should follow their example. This is the very opposite of what Biden says now.

In 2007, Senator Schumer said the Democrats should not allow President George W. Bush to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Bush still had seven months left in office. This is the opposite of what he says now.

Harry Reid has flip-flopped several times on the issue of how the Senate should deal with nominees from the president. And President Obama — when he was a senator — joined in a filibuster on a nominee. In other words, he helped toss sand into procedural gears. His spokesman says the president now regrets that move.

Is this the politicians’ version of the game: “All Change”? 

Suppose your friend tells you that such and such is absolutely wrong. A year later he tells you the same such and such is right. After the flip-flop do you take him seriously any more?

Can we take our politicians seriously? This is a pretty big issue. They did not make their remarks casually. They were not caught off-guard in a flippant response. They carefully prepared their remarks. When it helped their cause one year, they said X. When it helped their cause another year, they said Y.

So, were they lying then? Are they lying now? Did they believe what they said then? Do they believe what they say now? Do they believe anything?

Is this indeed just a game to them? A game in which words mean nothing? A game in which they can feed us anything? And we are supposed to swallow it? We, the rubes and patsies?

A child specialist told me once that parents can screw up their kids by doing just this. Kids hate it when parents say something one week and say the opposite the next week. They figure that in one of those weeks the parents lied to them.

This can cause confusion, resentment, and anger. 

I wonder if politicians cause the same feelings with voters. By saying what we hear them say over this vacancy — versus what they said before.

Cynics say politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths. They say politicians have no beliefs. And that they will say whatever works for the political moment.

Sometimes the cynics ain’t so cynical. Sometimes they tell it like it is.

From Tom…as in Morgan.          

Tom Morgan writes about political, financial and other subjects from his home near Oneonta. Several upstate radio stations carry his daily commentary, called Tom Morgan’s Money Talk. Contact him at tomasinmorgan@yahoo.com

Every now and then, I’m asked if I miss Congress. My stock answer is that no, I don’t really miss it, but there are definitely times when I’d like to jump into a policy debate or call congressional hearings.

This is one of those times.

Over the last few weeks, several media outlets have reported that U.S. military commanders want more American troops on the ground in places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and, most recently, Libya. This ought to have Congress working overtime to prepare for these requests. The military faces serious security challenges in the Middle East, but one can be sympathetic and at the same time skeptical, or at least probing.

Congress should push hard to get answers to some very tough questions. Where are we headed with these proposed troop increases? If they don’t work, what’s next? What’s our exit strategy? What are the prospects for negotiations? We insist that we’re going to destroy ISIS, but no other country in the international coalition fighting the Islamic State seems willing to put forces on the ground. Are we going to be the only one? And just how does the administration propose to destroy ISIS?

Congress has two key functions in our system of government: legislation and oversight. Most public attention — and certainly most media attention — focuses on policy-making and legislative maneuvering. But Capitol Hill’s role in overseeing the executive branch is just as important.

That’s because in seeking answers, Congress can force the President and his top advisers to articulate and defend their policies, their objectives, the steps they’re taking to implement those objectives, and the impact they expect. They need to explain the resources needed to obtain their objectives: in this case, how many troops, how much money, what are the risks to American lives and interests?

Simply put, government functions better when Congress pursues robust oversight. It sharpens objectives, improves government performance, makes the bureaucracy more responsive, and curtails wasteful spending.

Sadly, this key responsibility has fallen into disrepair. Really tough overseers of the administration’s policies — lawmakers interested in government performance, not political one-upmanship — have grown scarce on Capitol Hill. If we want to restore the vigor of the Congress, getting it to look into every nook and cranny of government is vital. The military’s pursuit of growing troop strength and new strategies in the Middle East would be a good place to start.

Lee Hamilton is director of the Center on Congress (www.centeroncongress.org) at Indiana University (IU), distinguished scholar at the IU School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years, representing a district in south central Indiana.