Years ago Olver produced an ad which was a take off of the country song I’ve been everywhere emphasizing how many places in the state he has been to and worked for. It is still one of the best ads of its type I’ve ever seen. As the ad doesn’t mention an opponent or a year it is regularly rolled out each election. FactCheck.org even gave it an award in 2008.
“Every two years, this guy blows the dust off of his campaign commercial which is simply themed “I’ve been everywhere.” Except he hasn’t held any town hall meetings anywhere in Massachusetts’ First District. The first and last time he visited any towns in Western Massachusetts was to shoot that damned commercial.
It is a first rate ad but it looks like it will take more than that to ensure a 20th straight year of democratic control of the MA-01.
And just to remind everyone. My examiner columns are currently my only source of paid income (other than the occasional pc fix) I’m paid by the hit so every time you read one of my columns or you forward it for someone else to read it’s like dropping a penny (well almost a penny) in DaTipJar.
Of course if you want to kick into DaTipJar outright or hire me to write, that’s very welcome too.
I really like Morning Joe, I like Joe, I like Mika, I like Barnicle. They drive me nuts a lot because I DO like them. If I didn’t I wouldn’t care. (its the same way with Andrew Sullivan, he was one of the first blogs I ever read and when he went over the hill it hurt because I remember how great he used to be)
Today on Twitter he is doing a pubic service in a series of tweets explaining the political stunt used by Democrats who rather have a political point than help for 9/11 responders.
I know many rabid ideologues don’t let facts get in the way, but House leaders chose to kill a 9/11 relief bill they could have passed.
Some might think this is unnecessary, but you should never assume that just because you know something other people do as well. People have to be constantly reminded by nature.
I’ve always remembered a particular episode of Gilligan’s Island (Gilligan vs. Gilligan available online here) that had a particular exchange between Mr. Howell and the Russian spy posing as Gilligan. Mr. Howell puts his chess piece on an illegal square. Mr. Howell reacts indignantly:
Mr. Howell: Young man are you accusing a Howell of cheating? I’ll have you know I’m far too wealthy.
Spy Gilligan: To cheat?
Mr. Howell: No, to be accused!
It reminds me that there once was a time when our icons such as JFK were far too important to have their dirty laundry aired in public.
How does that relate to The Rangel/Waters issues? Consider this; as Black America gradually progressed in rights and influence, they also gradually took the places at the seats of power that their growing influence and the slow progress toward legal equality demanded.
Like all men and woman those people who attained power and office were individuals with their own strengths, weaknesses and foibles. However those foibles while they might be known in their own communities were not aired to the general pubic. Not because the community approved but because you didn’t tear down your own when it took so long to get to the mountaintop (this is of course not unique to the Black community). As blacks migrated to the democratic party and as the party became more dependent on their vote, it became a priority for the party as well to keep any problems in house with a tact cloak of silence. Thus any such suggestion became a racial issue and the proponent of such questions a racist.
Now however things are different, the digital age forces light on things that were once hidden (read Rev Wright) and with our first black president (sorry Bill Clinton) it is impossible to pretend that African American’s place in American society is defined primarily by the sins of the past.
James Clyburn not withstanding, Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters ethics issues have nothing to do with race and everything to do with actions. The actions against them are not signs of the return of the Jim Crow past meant to keep Black America underfoot. It also shows we have progressed beyond the equally offensive but less violent era of tokenism.
This is the sign of a new era where we can look at a member of congress of any race and see…a member of congress. This means we can judge said member not on the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I think that’s progress and America in general and the Black community in particular are better off for it.
Update: Morgan Freeman knew what he was talking about.
…for revealing that in the face of corruption we intend to give Charlie Rangel a stern reprimand!
The Texas Democrat said he intended to call the head of the full ethics committee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), to apologize for telling reporters that the subcommittee recommended reprimanding Rangel for allegedly breaking House ethics rules. The revelation was not included in the lengthy documents on the charges faced by Rangel that were released on Thursday.
So says Rep Steve Green.
Let me translate this for the general public.
“Rep Lofgren: I’m so sorry I let the cat out of the bag that we plan on punishing Rep Rangel; who over nearly 40 years in the house likely knows more secrets about members of the house than the CIA ever will; with only a reprimand rather than any actual punitive action. I’m sorry I’ve revealed that the ethics committee is not about to punish the man who writes the tax law for avoiding taxes thus putting all of us in an embarrassing position of having to explain why to the voters in a year when we are already in trouble.”
End translation.
If anyone was wondering why Rangel isn’t cutting a deal, you now know. And what will that mean for Rangel, lets look at some history:
A reprimand carries no consequences. A censure doesn’t either, except for the perception that it’s a stronger reprimand; Barney Frank got censured in 1990 for using his influence to fix parking tickets for his partner, but he still became chair of the House Financial Services committee. However, a Representative who gets censured has to stand in the well of the House to have the language read aloud, which at least causes momentary embarrassment. A fine would carry more sting, but an impeachment or expulsion would send a clear message about following the rules.
Or as Captain Ed closes:
Yes, this would mean that Rangel would get the exact same punishment that Joe Wilson got for exclaiming, “You lie!” during Obama’s speech to Congress last fall.
After all corruption and tax evasion is one thing, but defying THE ONE? That is unthinkable!
Krauthammer just said he is surprised that he would turn down a reprimand deal. Why should he make any deal? If they are afraid of doing more than a reprimand then he knows they aren’t willing to challenge him, and like I said, he knows where 40 years of secrets.
What does the Rangel case tell you about the democratic congress? They are more afraid of Charlie Rangel than the American people.
Update: I couldn’t help but think of the 4th doctor Episode City of Death and the Doctor and Duggen. Jump to 3:25 and you’ll see that in at least one respect the Democratic Ethic committee and the 4th doctor have one thing in common:
The text of the exchange is as follows:
The Doctor: If you do that one more time Duggan I’m going to take very very severe measures!
Gosh darn it, it was supposed to be a surprise! Perhaps a nice surprise, tied up in a little bow, and delivered on August 11th when Democratic Party leaders throw a big birthday fundraiser — er, party — for the man whose birthday passed two months earlier. Who knows? The combination celebratory good feelings, hard campaign cash, and the softball reprimand might have convinced Charlie to shut the hell up and take a pass on the ethics trial slated now for the middle of the campaign season.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 