As you may have noticed, there are ads on this website. I do not choose them,and I have no idea how they are chosen and placed. However, upon occasion, I see ads for Chris Dodd's re-election campaign. Let me make this perfectly clear: I do not endorse Chris Dodd for Senate. I do call and hope for the people of Connecticut to retire Chris Dodd in November, 2010.
I do not choose nor do I endorse any candidate at this time.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Laugh of the Day
During today's Meet the Press, there was, at least to me, a very amusing moment. The panel was discussing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press conference earlier this past week (Wednesday, May 13, I believe) in which she gave a less than admirable and rather rambling performance. Peggy Noonan made the following comment regarding that press conference: "Dazed and confused is a bad way for a speaker of the House to look." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30755466/page/6/ To me, it was not only an appropriate comment, given the behavior during the press conference, but it was so amusing as, to me, it was so reminiscent of a famous line from a well-known movie: "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." So said Dean Wormer in Animal House.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Where have the public servants gone?
A long time ago, in a land comprised of colonies that had just thrown off the tyranny of an oppressive government that provided the colonies with no representation, a group of very intelligent people came together and put together a new form of government. These men were not career politicians - they were public servants in the true sense of the word.
Flash forward 220 plus years, and you have to ask: "Where have all the public servants gone?" At some point, this country started electing politicians who served only two masters - themselves and their political party. The voters, the people, were forgotten, except at election time. Apparently, many elected officials have come to conclusion that public service is not about serving the public, but, rather, is "all about me".
Today, in an appalling but enlightening interview on Meet the Press, Senator Arlen Specter acknowledged that he switched his party affiliation based on his re-election concerns for 2010. Apparently polling and other information (not detailed) told him that he stood a better chance at re-election if he ran as a Democrat and not as a Republican. "Well, well, since that time [early April, 2009] I undertook a very thorough survey of Republicans in Pennsylvania with polling and a lot of personal contacts, and it became apparent to me that my chances to be elected on the Republican ticket were, were bleak. And I'm simply not going to subject my 29-year record in the United States Senate to that Republican primary electorate." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30535930/
To me, this is wrong on so many levels. First, when he last ran for office as a Republican, the Senator formed a contract with the voters, in essence saying "this is who I am, a Republican, and this is what I stand for, so vote for me. If you vote for me, this is what you will get." The people voted for him, and before his term is through, he decides to change his mind about who he is, what he stands for and how he will represent the people who elected him. I believe that people can and should change their minds as situations may warrant; however, I believe they should also do the honorable thing. If you change your party affiliation mid-term, step down and cause a special election to be called. Then, if you wish to remain in office, run as a member of your new party, and let the people decide if they wish to make a new contract with you and vote for you. Otherwise, you retain your office wrongfully, having broken your contract with the people who elected you.
Second, when David Gregory asked him whether he would be retaining his seniority and other Senate perks after switching affiliations, the Senator imperiously declared that he "earned" such "entitlements" with his seniority. "Entitlements" and "entitled" are two words that define some of the biggest problems with our elected officials. We the people need to remind our elected officials that they serve at the will of the people and are "entitled" to nothing, other than an acknowledgment of a job well done, if applicable, after their term is finished.
This sense of entitlement is why our elected officials have health care when a large number of Americans do not; why they have the best health care in the world, while Americans lack access to the same; why they vote themselves automatic raises without requesting such raises from the taxpayers who much pay for such raises. The claim of entitlement asserted by the Senator only strengthens the image Americans have of our Congress as the fox guarding the chicken coop.
The Senator also claimed to have fought to strengthen the Republican Party and yet, without completing such battle, he abandons it for the Democratic Party in order to better his re-election chances. It's difficult for me to respect decisions like that.
At 79 years old, it is time for the Senator to retire. I would hope that the people of Pennsylvania will see this and will retire him, no matter which party they vote for in 2010. Please, do not send Senator Specter back - he admitted today that he bases decisions on approval ratings and whether he can be re-elected and on the apparently all-important entitlements he can get. I didn't hear much, if anything, about his concern for his constituents. Please retire him and send a true public servant to the Senate - someone who puts the people of the United States of America above all else, including him/herself and the party.
Flash forward 220 plus years, and you have to ask: "Where have all the public servants gone?" At some point, this country started electing politicians who served only two masters - themselves and their political party. The voters, the people, were forgotten, except at election time. Apparently, many elected officials have come to conclusion that public service is not about serving the public, but, rather, is "all about me".
Today, in an appalling but enlightening interview on Meet the Press, Senator Arlen Specter acknowledged that he switched his party affiliation based on his re-election concerns for 2010. Apparently polling and other information (not detailed) told him that he stood a better chance at re-election if he ran as a Democrat and not as a Republican. "Well, well, since that time [early April, 2009] I undertook a very thorough survey of Republicans in Pennsylvania with polling and a lot of personal contacts, and it became apparent to me that my chances to be elected on the Republican ticket were, were bleak. And I'm simply not going to subject my 29-year record in the United States Senate to that Republican primary electorate." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30535930/
To me, this is wrong on so many levels. First, when he last ran for office as a Republican, the Senator formed a contract with the voters, in essence saying "this is who I am, a Republican, and this is what I stand for, so vote for me. If you vote for me, this is what you will get." The people voted for him, and before his term is through, he decides to change his mind about who he is, what he stands for and how he will represent the people who elected him. I believe that people can and should change their minds as situations may warrant; however, I believe they should also do the honorable thing. If you change your party affiliation mid-term, step down and cause a special election to be called. Then, if you wish to remain in office, run as a member of your new party, and let the people decide if they wish to make a new contract with you and vote for you. Otherwise, you retain your office wrongfully, having broken your contract with the people who elected you.
Second, when David Gregory asked him whether he would be retaining his seniority and other Senate perks after switching affiliations, the Senator imperiously declared that he "earned" such "entitlements" with his seniority. "Entitlements" and "entitled" are two words that define some of the biggest problems with our elected officials. We the people need to remind our elected officials that they serve at the will of the people and are "entitled" to nothing, other than an acknowledgment of a job well done, if applicable, after their term is finished.
This sense of entitlement is why our elected officials have health care when a large number of Americans do not; why they have the best health care in the world, while Americans lack access to the same; why they vote themselves automatic raises without requesting such raises from the taxpayers who much pay for such raises. The claim of entitlement asserted by the Senator only strengthens the image Americans have of our Congress as the fox guarding the chicken coop.
The Senator also claimed to have fought to strengthen the Republican Party and yet, without completing such battle, he abandons it for the Democratic Party in order to better his re-election chances. It's difficult for me to respect decisions like that.
At 79 years old, it is time for the Senator to retire. I would hope that the people of Pennsylvania will see this and will retire him, no matter which party they vote for in 2010. Please, do not send Senator Specter back - he admitted today that he bases decisions on approval ratings and whether he can be re-elected and on the apparently all-important entitlements he can get. I didn't hear much, if anything, about his concern for his constituents. Please retire him and send a true public servant to the Senate - someone who puts the people of the United States of America above all else, including him/herself and the party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)