I once knew a state representative in Lynn, MA who came up with a winning slogan: "Tim Bassett Is A Lousy Politician". As I recall, the Lynn lawmaker used the phrase to win a term or two or three up on Beacon Hill giving meaning to the use of irony in politics.
That same claim has been resurrected over and over again at every level and every year since I first heard it.
In presidential politics this year Mitt Romney, the former Governor of MA, the former nominee for U.S. Senate and 2008 presidential contender, is using the line again, having accused his GOP opponents of being "professional politicians" in a recent speech. Shameless.
In New Britain, Mayoral Nominee Tim O'Brien's primary opponent, a multi-term alderman and office seeker, labeled himself the "people's advocate, not professional politician!!!" Shameless again.
Most voters easily dismiss the "professional politician" charge because it always comes from a professional politician trying to deflect attention from issues and their own credentials. The use of the tag line, however, is just another way of putting down the pursuit of politics and public service -- a meaningless phrase that further contributes to voter apathy and indifference.
And what's wrong with voting for a professional politician? He or she may know what their doing when they attain public office.
Showing posts with label national politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national politics. Show all posts
17 September 2011
21 January 2010
MA Election Senate Fallout: Labor Leader Says Dems "Under Reach" on Issues That Matter
Who would have thought that a special election in Massachusetts would be the end of the Obama regime and a retreat from the "change that you can believe in" that was voted in just a year ago?
Media "gas bags", Democratic "moderates" and no small number of propagandists for the corporate right are proclaiming this new political reality in the aftermath of the special election in Massachusetts won by Republican Scott Brown.
Less is said about the Coakley campaign failing to practice Tip O'Neill's cardinal rule that "all politics is local" or that Coakley put all her money and eggs in a December primary, leaving her few resources and a general election plan that wrote off Brown as just another GOP patsy. In this case the better candidate with the "I'm mad as hell" message won. No matter that behind the pick up truck and neighborly image is a guy with six properties, including one in Aruba, who probably never met a Wall Street financier he didn't like.
Before the Rahm Emanuels in the Obama White House try to resurrect the Democratic Leadership Council formula of having Democrats move to the right, President Obama and the national Democrats should heed the "wake up call" of AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
Media "gas bags", Democratic "moderates" and no small number of propagandists for the corporate right are proclaiming this new political reality in the aftermath of the special election in Massachusetts won by Republican Scott Brown.
Less is said about the Coakley campaign failing to practice Tip O'Neill's cardinal rule that "all politics is local" or that Coakley put all her money and eggs in a December primary, leaving her few resources and a general election plan that wrote off Brown as just another GOP patsy. In this case the better candidate with the "I'm mad as hell" message won. No matter that behind the pick up truck and neighborly image is a guy with six properties, including one in Aruba, who probably never met a Wall Street financier he didn't like.
Before the Rahm Emanuels in the Obama White House try to resurrect the Democratic Leadership Council formula of having Democrats move to the right, President Obama and the national Democrats should heed the "wake up call" of AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
17 March 2009
Iraq Authorization and Wall Street Bailout Votes: Two Of A Kind
The outrage now being expressed in Congress over the excessive bonuses paid to AIG executives -- especially from Republicans -- is an outrageous display of phony indignation.
When the federal bailout legislation was making its way through Congress last September there was some concern expressed by Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats on reining in executive pay and bonuses. It was Republican insistence on "no strings attached" and Democratic complicity in laissez faire use of public dollars that have brought us to this point.
Legitimate reservations that led Connecticut's 2nd District Congressman, Joe Courtney, for example, to vote against the bill were set aside to allow the "rescue" to go forward. Courtney was the only member of the Connecticut delegation to vote no on a package that is coming back to bite us.
Saving Wall Street and such conglomerates as AIG trumped writing any oversight protection that would have prohibited this latest display of corporate greed (or should we call it welfare?). A blank check was given to George Bush and Henry Paulson to keep rewarding those who conducted business in ways that have contributed to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
"And there’s no quid pro quo here — nothing that gives taxpayers a stake in the upside, nothing that ensures that the money is used to stabilize the system rather than reward the undeserving," observed the NY Times' Paul Krugman last September.
The passage of the bailout is eerily similar to the 2002 Congressional authorization on the Iraq War that, in retrospect, ignored the War Powers Act and was adopted under false pretenses. How many times have we heard legislators from both parties say if "I knew then what I know now I would have voted differently."
We may be about to hear the same thing on the September bailout vote in Congress. The authorization of force in Iraq and the authorization of bailout money to financial giants showed a rush to judgment. Oversight by a lame duck and irresponsible White House and Congress was missing on both the Iraq vote and on a bailout that is creating anger and resentment across the country.
When the federal bailout legislation was making its way through Congress last September there was some concern expressed by Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats on reining in executive pay and bonuses. It was Republican insistence on "no strings attached" and Democratic complicity in laissez faire use of public dollars that have brought us to this point.
Legitimate reservations that led Connecticut's 2nd District Congressman, Joe Courtney, for example, to vote against the bill were set aside to allow the "rescue" to go forward. Courtney was the only member of the Connecticut delegation to vote no on a package that is coming back to bite us.
Saving Wall Street and such conglomerates as AIG trumped writing any oversight protection that would have prohibited this latest display of corporate greed (or should we call it welfare?). A blank check was given to George Bush and Henry Paulson to keep rewarding those who conducted business in ways that have contributed to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
"And there’s no quid pro quo here — nothing that gives taxpayers a stake in the upside, nothing that ensures that the money is used to stabilize the system rather than reward the undeserving," observed the NY Times' Paul Krugman last September.
The passage of the bailout is eerily similar to the 2002 Congressional authorization on the Iraq War that, in retrospect, ignored the War Powers Act and was adopted under false pretenses. How many times have we heard legislators from both parties say if "I knew then what I know now I would have voted differently."
We may be about to hear the same thing on the September bailout vote in Congress. The authorization of force in Iraq and the authorization of bailout money to financial giants showed a rush to judgment. Oversight by a lame duck and irresponsible White House and Congress was missing on both the Iraq vote and on a bailout that is creating anger and resentment across the country.
14 December 2008
O'Brien's Call For Special Elections For U.S. Senate Vacancies Gets Traction With L'Affaire Blogojevich
State Rep. Tim O'Brien (D-24) gets a well deserved accolade from Connecticut Local Politics this weekend on his legislation requiring that special elections be held when vacancies occur for the U.S. Senate.
O'Brien saw his proposal die in the 2007 General Assembly with a criticism that his motive was "partisan." Democrats haven't held the Governor's office in a long time and Jodi Rell, the incumbent, would be the sole appointing authority now should Chris Dodd or Joe Lieberman move on before their terms end.
You can't blame O'Brien for bringing up the legislation (filed as HB 5034) again in light of the machinations of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the bipartisan calls springing up in the Land of Lincoln for "Blago's" removal. "Blagojevich, according to FBI-related wiretap sources, wanted to sell Barack Obama's vacated seat to the highest bidder, among other "pay to play", indictable ideas.
U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)quickly called for a special election. It is a likely scenario that the Illinois Legislature will move quickly to impeach the sitting governor and set a date for an election -- denying the cornered incumbent the chance to appoint or leaving it to the Lieutenant Governor who has called for the incumbent's resignation. An Illinois special election, however, would bring electoral credibility to whoever fills Obama's shoes and certainly promote the idea in other states.
O'Brien, who researched and offered the legislation as a member of the General Administration and Elections Committee (GAE), found it odd that U.S. Representative seats are always filled by special elections but not U.S. Senate seats. There was a time when senators were not elected by the people, but by legislatures. Gubernatorial appointment powers may be a throwback to those days. O'Brien cited the contradictory methods in filing the bill.
"My proposal was simple - let the people decide who represents them." says O'Brien on his blog. "It is already the process we use to fill a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives when someone leaves that office. There is no good reason for why the process for filling vacancies in the U.S. Senate should be any different."
O'Brien intends to file the bill again in the 2009 session. Opponents arguing that the Governor should remain the sole appointing power will be sure to have the Illinois situation thrown back at them.
O'Brien saw his proposal die in the 2007 General Assembly with a criticism that his motive was "partisan." Democrats haven't held the Governor's office in a long time and Jodi Rell, the incumbent, would be the sole appointing authority now should Chris Dodd or Joe Lieberman move on before their terms end.
You can't blame O'Brien for bringing up the legislation (filed as HB 5034) again in light of the machinations of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the bipartisan calls springing up in the Land of Lincoln for "Blago's" removal. "Blagojevich, according to FBI-related wiretap sources, wanted to sell Barack Obama's vacated seat to the highest bidder, among other "pay to play", indictable ideas.
U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)quickly called for a special election. It is a likely scenario that the Illinois Legislature will move quickly to impeach the sitting governor and set a date for an election -- denying the cornered incumbent the chance to appoint or leaving it to the Lieutenant Governor who has called for the incumbent's resignation. An Illinois special election, however, would bring electoral credibility to whoever fills Obama's shoes and certainly promote the idea in other states.
O'Brien, who researched and offered the legislation as a member of the General Administration and Elections Committee (GAE), found it odd that U.S. Representative seats are always filled by special elections but not U.S. Senate seats. There was a time when senators were not elected by the people, but by legislatures. Gubernatorial appointment powers may be a throwback to those days. O'Brien cited the contradictory methods in filing the bill.
"My proposal was simple - let the people decide who represents them." says O'Brien on his blog. "It is already the process we use to fill a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives when someone leaves that office. There is no good reason for why the process for filling vacancies in the U.S. Senate should be any different."
O'Brien intends to file the bill again in the 2009 session. Opponents arguing that the Governor should remain the sole appointing power will be sure to have the Illinois situation thrown back at them.
01 October 2008
Ending Wall Street Welfare: Economist Says Democrats Need Long Term Strategy
Robert Kuttner, a widely published economist based at The American Prospect is providing some of the best commentary yet on the economic emergency precipitated by the excesses of the unregulated home mortgage and securities industries.
"Democrats will shortly become stewards not just of a temporary bailout but of a long term recovery strategy," writes Kuttner in a September 30th post "Learning from 1929". "They might as well begin by pointing us on the right path. That includes direct refinancing for homeowners, direct government involvement in the management of failing financial institutions that are recapitalized by government money, through something like the Reconstruction Finance Corporations of the Roosevelt era; and a transfer tax on stock and bond transactions, both to raise needed revenue and to damp down the kind of speculation that led to the meltdown. Then Congress can begin the task of regulating the financial system properly. The basic concept is that any financial enterprise capable of taking down the system requires the tight government supervision that in the recent past has been limited to commercial banks."
Kuttner suggests that the congressional Democrats are a long way from finding an authentic Democratic response that can effectively deal with the laissez faire and failed policies of Republicanism. Regulating the financial system correctly, argues Kuttner, is "the Democratic ideology. But lately, that set of core convictions has gotten rusty. It needs to be reclaimed, and fast. Too many Democrats are still thinking small."
Not, it should be noted, is the thinking of U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-2) who voted no on the amended Paulson proposal this week for all the right reasons. He was the only member of the Connecticut delegation to do so.
Kuttner doesn't stop at the Wall Street "rescue". "Government will need to rely on substantial public spending to pull the wider economy out of the hole. Most of that can be raised by surtaxes on the wealthy and by transaction taxes on speculation, but it will also require a temporary increase in public deficits. Raise enough revenue to cover about $700 billion of financial recapitalization in year one, and in years two through eight use the proceeds for public works, infrastructure, good jobs, universal health coverage, expanded pre-kindergarten and child care."
Kuttner's corrections, in other words, call for a New Deal in the 21st Century, not just to quell the high-finance meltdown on Wall Street, but to reduce the economic insecurity felt by a growing number of working and middle income households. Let's hope that when the Congress votes again, more of Kuttner's formula will be part of the rescue.
Original post from http://newbritaindemocrat.blogspot.com
"Democrats will shortly become stewards not just of a temporary bailout but of a long term recovery strategy," writes Kuttner in a September 30th post "Learning from 1929". "They might as well begin by pointing us on the right path. That includes direct refinancing for homeowners, direct government involvement in the management of failing financial institutions that are recapitalized by government money, through something like the Reconstruction Finance Corporations of the Roosevelt era; and a transfer tax on stock and bond transactions, both to raise needed revenue and to damp down the kind of speculation that led to the meltdown. Then Congress can begin the task of regulating the financial system properly. The basic concept is that any financial enterprise capable of taking down the system requires the tight government supervision that in the recent past has been limited to commercial banks."
Kuttner suggests that the congressional Democrats are a long way from finding an authentic Democratic response that can effectively deal with the laissez faire and failed policies of Republicanism. Regulating the financial system correctly, argues Kuttner, is "the Democratic ideology. But lately, that set of core convictions has gotten rusty. It needs to be reclaimed, and fast. Too many Democrats are still thinking small."
Not, it should be noted, is the thinking of U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-2) who voted no on the amended Paulson proposal this week for all the right reasons. He was the only member of the Connecticut delegation to do so.
Kuttner doesn't stop at the Wall Street "rescue". "Government will need to rely on substantial public spending to pull the wider economy out of the hole. Most of that can be raised by surtaxes on the wealthy and by transaction taxes on speculation, but it will also require a temporary increase in public deficits. Raise enough revenue to cover about $700 billion of financial recapitalization in year one, and in years two through eight use the proceeds for public works, infrastructure, good jobs, universal health coverage, expanded pre-kindergarten and child care."
Kuttner's corrections, in other words, call for a New Deal in the 21st Century, not just to quell the high-finance meltdown on Wall Street, but to reduce the economic insecurity felt by a growing number of working and middle income households. Let's hope that when the Congress votes again, more of Kuttner's formula will be part of the rescue.
Original post from http://newbritaindemocrat.blogspot.com
24 August 2008
The Nomination: Clinton, Obama, LBJ and Martin Luther King
In the back and forth of the Democratic Presidential primary season Hillary Clinton's remarks about Rev. Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson and civil rights sparked an unfortunate exchange between hers and the Obama forces.
Clinton was trying to make a point about governing, but her remarks were criticized for pitting Lyndon Johnson's delivery of landmark civil rights laws with the movement led by Rev. King -- all of this in the context of her running against a rapidly rising African American politician who ultimately deprived her of the nomination.
Barack Obama's acceptance speech on Thursday at the Denver convention provides a better opportunity to bring up King, Johnson, the presidency and the Democratic Party.
On 8/28 45 years ago, Rev. Martin Luther King delivered his "Dream" speech -- one of the most heard and admired pieces of oratory in U.S. history. King's speech and the movement he led pushed Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats to forge ahead with stronger, landmark civil rights laws for voting rights, accommodations and other aspects of equal opportunity in 1964 and 1965.
Clinton's intent was not to diminish the civil rights struggle but to say King's movement and Johnson's power and legislative acumen were not mutually exclusive. One complemented the other. The Southerner Johnson knew the consequences. "There goes the South for a generation," Johnson was quoted when he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law, predicting his party would lose elections and the "solid" South for many years as they surely did.
And now should it surprise anyone that Obama's multi-cultural background is still fodder for a GOP divide and conquer strategy first invoked by Richard Nixon in 1968?
Obama needs to draw the distinctions sharply between his vision and that of John McCain, especially on economics and the interests of people who "work hard and play by the rules." In doing so, he should revisit the King and Johnson legacy, perhaps noting that Clinton wasn't dissing King over LBJ at all.
The betting here is he will recall that long ago August 28th as he prepares to lead Democrats into the fall election. The moment will not be lost on Obama that his political ascendency this week is a direct consequence of both King's movement and Johnson's Democrats and what was said and done a generation ago. Obama's nomination will not be the end all for civil rights struggle, but a fulfillment of a huge piece of the "Dream".
(Photo Credit: Johnson Library and Museum from wikimedia.org)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)