Recently a doctor in New Jersey wrote his two senators and made it known that he opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He made it clear that he hoped for them to vote against the bill as it stood. Well one of them, Frank Lautenberg, has yet to respond and in the case of Lautenberg everyday that goes by without a response creates an increasing risk for there never to be a response. At 85, Lautenberg has little time left and his pace has slowed down quite a bit and is not getting any faster these days.
However New Jersey’s junior senator, Robert Menendez, did send a reply to the good doctor’s correspondence.
He wrote:
Dr. Harris;
Thank you for contacting me to express your support for education priorities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this important issue.
…….Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate your support. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of more assistance.
I invite you to visit my website ( http://menendez.senate.gov) to learn of other important issues to New Jersey.
Robert Menendez United States Senate
Wasn’t that nice? After letting the Senator know that he opposed the ARRA, Senator Menendez thanked Dr. Harris for supporting him.
Now there are two things to note here. Dr. Harris never acknowledged any support for the Senator. He simply asked the Senator to properly represent his views and vote against the bill and not only did Senator Menendez ignore that fact in his reply, in the end, he did exactly the opposite of what Dr. Harris hoped for and voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That does not warrant support. If anything it is reason for opposition to the Senator.
And then, of course, there is Senator Menendez’s totally, out of the blue, reference to Dr. Harris’ support for so-called “education priorities” in the bill.
Dr. Harris made no mention of such support. He never once mentioned education in his letter. But as you can see, Senator Menendez articulated his appreciation for it.
The incident shows us a few things.
First, few elected officials actually read through all of their mail. There is quite a lot of it so that should not to be held against them. So long as they have a hard working, attentive staff with a well run office and efficient constituency caseworkers.
Obviously Senator Menendez doesn’t.
Senator Menendez apparently has an overpaid staff stuffed with patronage positions that provide little more than lip service to those who he represents. The staffer who sent the wrong boilerplate response to Dr. Harris obviously does not care and that does not instill a great deal of confidence in the people Senator Menendez represents.
A good staff is a sign of a good legislator. A good staff not only properly communicates to the people, they properly communicate the needs and desires of the people to the legislator that they work for.
Granted, this is just one letter but it is symbolic. It is a symbol of just how detached the political class is from the people they represent.
Many of them almost feel that the politics they deal with is none of the people’s business. They feel that the people do not know any better and that the people would be better off if they just left things up to them.
Nowhere is that better demonstrated than in the video I submit for your review at the end of this post this post.
In it, one of Washington, D.C.’s most powerful and corrupt politicians, Charlie Rangel, actually tells a fellow New Yorker from Brooklyn to “mind his G-Damn business” when he asks the Congressman to explain how he expects to get away with some of his shenanigans like driving a taxpayer subsidized Cadillac around for personal use, refusing to pay taxes on rent properties that he owns, and abuses the use of four rent controlled apartments below market rates all while writing the very tax code that he exempts himself from.
Now I am originally from Brooklyn and let me tell you, take away our baseball bats and other weaponry and you still will not be treated kindly by us after giving the response that Rangel did.
What Rangel seems to have forgotten is that as a public servant, his business is our business. It is especially our business, like it or not, when he is breaking and skirting the very laws that he is instrumental in writing and forcing us to live by while he doesn’t.
These two examples may seem insignificant but they say a lot.
These examples are just more proof of the prevailing bad attitude that our political leaders posses. It demonstrates that many are out of touch with us and that they truly lack any connection to the fact that they are no better than us and that they are not immune from the legislation they create.
Of course it would help if we, the people, held our elected officials accountable when elections rolled around but that rarely happens. After all Charlie Rangel has been reelected to his Harlem congressional district 19 times. That’s 38 years.
Frank Lautenberg, who didn’t even bother to respond to Dr. Harris’ letter, has been reelected to the United States Senate five times.
And Senator Menendez was originally appointed to his senate seat. He subsequently won election to his seat after little more than a year of incumbency. His relative newness is what probably accounts for his at least pretending to care what the people think, even though his reply to Dr. Harris totally ignored the point he wanted addressed.
In the end, I guess it comes down to the fact that we get what we deserve. I mean if we want our elected officials to be held accountable, should we not hold ourselves accountable for the choices that we make when we vote for these elected officials?
Yes, but the good ones at least try to send the right one and not some random subject or one that is the complete opposite of your position. Specter never writes back. At least he's honest about not caring about what the people want. The other tools send garbage letters back.
Menendez always sends out these form letters. Even if you send him an actual hand-written letter on fancy stationery. I know, because I've done it. Some junior staffer skims it for whatever "issue" you might be writing about, pulls the appropriate "thanks for supporting me" form letter, and drops it into the Franking pile.
Bob Menendez is a hack, sort of like Chuck Schumer with less manners.
Alaway write an actual letter - hanmd-written even, if you want a real response. Emails don't work. I don't know why, but politicians pay very little attention to emails. They will put written letters ahead of phone calls which they put ahead of emails. Of course if you really want their attention write a letter and enclose a check!
RSobin, yes it is a matter of being looked at equally. We are in a totaly different area with different problems and advantages from back east. However the eastern part of the US has all the political power.
Um thats "pathetic" Erock. For a professional politician whos words are his craft well, try harder, an insult looses all it's sting and backfires badly when you can't even spell the insult correctly. But far be it from me to correct the resident expert on foreign policy.
yes yes the great kempit glossing over the GOP and the harm it causes. And Speaking of parrotting what do you parrot? The GOP RNC Talking point memo? Your pathedic but hey keep it gives me a good laugh.
We gave em that money less than 90 days ago. Of course they show a profit. In juxtaposition Benifcial banks are defunked as of today. All branches are closing. Benificial was an American company though. Citibanks largest stockholders are from Saudi Arabia. Guess that makes a difference.
I know I could show a profit if I was given a 45 billion dollar check. The first thing they were gonna do with it was but a new jet, Hmmmmm
The fight is over redefining marriage, not over equal rights. The vast majority of Americans are for civil unions for anyone. Whereas the majority of Americans are against redefining marriage. So, let me ask this simple question? Why fight to redefine marriage and piss off the majority of Americans when you could easily level the field by making only civil unions for everyone and leaving marriage out of government entirely? That approach would work as most people support civil unions and it leaves the churches to have marriages as they see fit. It is a wonderful way to separate Church and State instead of using the State to define the Church or the Church to define the State.
posted by mduminiak on 03/10/2009 @ 4:41 PM
Best way I have ever heard it put.
The fight is over redefining marriage, not over equal rights. The vast majority of Americans are for civil unions for anyone. Whereas the majority of Americans are against redefining marriage. So, let me ask this simple question? Why fight to redefine marriage and piss off the majority of Americans when you could easily level the field by making only civil unions for everyone and leaving marriage out of government entirely? That approach would work as most people support civil unions and it leaves the churches to have marriages as they see fit. It is a wonderful way to separate Church and State instead of using the State to define the Church or the Church to define the State.
So instead of saying gays can have a marriage recognized by the government and ending it, we reclassify all marriages as "civil unions" and piss more religious people off? What you fail to realize is the church's that spent millions of dollars to for the Prop 8 deal in CA don't want gays getting married at all, no matter what you call it and will still fight it anyway. I stand by my assertion that gay marriage should be legalized.
I am saying that marriage is a recognized religious sacrament by the VAST MAJORITY of Americans, whom our government is supposed to represent. I am not saying anyone should be forced to divorce. I am simply saying that all current government recognized marriages should be re-classified as civil unions and then all people should be eligible for a civil union, including gays, more than two people, different races, different religions and whatever - as it would be a legal status not a sexual or family one.
So we have to force all the non-religious to get divorced? And how do you explain your assertion that marriage is a religious institution without using a religious deffinition for it? Basically what youre saying is, marriage is religious, end of story. Why can't seculars claim marriage?
I am not defining it for any religion. I am saying that government should not force its definition upon any religion nor should any religion force its definition upon government. Marriage should be left to religion and government should get out of it entirely. That is my position. Civil unions only and equally.
Imagine, it is your bigotry which blinds you. It is your bigotry against others who do not think like you which prohibits you from understanding that many Republicans and Democrats too, by the way, do not want government to redefine marriage. Your inability to understand that prohibits homosexuals from receiving equal treatment under the law by accepting domestic unions or domestic partnerships. I for one do not promote less rights for myself or any other gay individuals. I also do not intend on foisting my lifestyle on others or having theirs foisted on me. That is why I am comfortable with a term that defines same sex unions and differentiates it from opposite sex unions. Whether you like it or not, there is a difference between the two. Just like there is a difference between men and women or blacks and whites or Catholics and Jews. We are people, but we can be identified as male or female or black or white. Or are you suggesting that we eliminate those terms and stop calling women, women or men, men? As for Mduminiak’s comment, I find it hard to understand how you, Imagine, can consider the facts that he brought up to be a rationalization. The truth need not be rationalized. The truth simply needs to be listened to and what Mduminiak said is the truth. If you have a truth that can refutes his facts than manufacture them. But I wouild also like to add, what does this have to do with the stated facts of this post? What does this have to do with the fact that I believe our political leaders are detached from the realities that their constituents face?
Provide me witha religious deffinition of marriage. First, I want to know which religion you are deriving the deffinition from. Secondly, I want to know if you are using said religion's holy text, tradition or a combination. Then I need a justification as to why one religion gets claim to marriage.
If marriage were not recognized by government, what difference would religious variety make? Domestic partnerships or civil unions for all people and State marriages for none makes more sense than redefining marriage.
I am against all government involvement in marriage and believe that only domestic partnerships should be available from government. -------- However, while you bring up the subject of mixed marriages being once forbidden; is it not also fair to bring up that marriages are not only forbidden to same-sex couples, but also to minors, siblings, and several other groups? A line must be drawn somewhere when it comes to marriage. That is why I favor removing marriage from the government's control and leaving it a religious institution to be granted as any given church sees fit. As for the State, it should grant domestics partnerships to any people who wish to enter into such an arrangement which would provide certain legal rights and also certain legal responsibilities.
What you're saying when you say that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry and heterosexuals shoud is that heterosexuals possess rights that homosexuals do not. The same thing happened years ago when black people couldn't vote, or when women couldnt own property. It was biggotry. And thats what it still is. MD, I'm surprised that you would try to rationalize this.
Imagine... parties do change their "official" stances. It used to be that Republicans were the more progressive (consider Lincoln) and Democrats were the social conservatives (consider Woodrow Wilson). Kennedy actually went against a big chunk of his own party in fighting segregation.
Being against the redefinition of marriage is not the same as being against gays. Being against lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 is not the same as being against 18-20 year olds. Being against using our military as the world's police force is not being against our soldiers. A policy stance is about that policy, not about hating anyone.
Since when is the Republican party not anti-gay? Sure, I know republicans who support gay rights, but thats not reall the official platform. I dont care how many beliefs a group and I share. If they dont think i deserve equal rights, then I wouldnt be a member of that group. But thats just me. I have some self respect.
Well Imagine, as I wrote, I am quite comfortable with the priciples of the Republican and although that may not be understood by those who tow the narrow line of liberal orthodoxy, others do. Others understand the liberal propoganda that tries to paint Republicans as ant-gay simply because they do not accept the entire agenda of a few extremists. As for dissent, I have no problemsdissenting with members of my party. I have strongly disagreed with some of President Bush's policies and I strongly disagree with Republicans who have objected to earmarks and then went right ahead and created earmarks. Now if you expect me to dissent from the principles which make me a Republican than you will be waiting for a long time. I stand by my beliefs and my beliefs, like my party, are not defined by any single individual. I am not a Republican because of any individual. No one person makes a party. I am a Republican because the principles of my party are the founding principles of this nation.
Imagine, while I agree that being a party man is not a good thing as the party makes mistakes and they should be admitted - I cannot agree with your specious remark that the Republican Party hates Kempite. The fact that leading Republican candidates have hired him to key campaign positions is evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. It is an insult to your intelligence to parrot the false accusation that the Republican Party is anti-gay.
Kempite, I find it sad that you are so tied to the Republican Party that you refuse to dissent from that at all. I can't understand being aligning yourself that close with any group, let alone on that hates you.
David2008, I am not sure what erock wrote that you are responding to and I really don't care, Neither should you. I ignore his inane commentary and plagiarized thoughts. He simply parrots another useless hypocrite on u4prez whom I call Sybil. The best response to erock's senseless and incongruent ramblings is "Polly want a cracker?". Besides, he has no sense of purpose and will follow the agenda that you create, as he does mine. However, from your comment I do gather that you are reffering to the fact that my post uses three Democrats as an example and the reason for that is quite simple. The focus of the post is a resident of New Jersey who wrote his Senators and received inadequate responses to it. Now it is to no fault of my own but both of those Senators are Democrats, so I could not criticize Republican Senators for their inadequate responses. In the case of Charlie Rangle, well I just did not have a video of a Republican legislator telling voters to mind their business and there is no better example of my point than the corrupt and entrenched Charlie Rangle.
David sometimes you need to bash your own party in order to get back to basics. And I love that you gloss over what I say instead of refuting it because u know I am right. I think the GOP when it actually does what it preaches is a great party but we havent been doing that geezes we have a GOP House member getting it on with House Pages! And our former Speaker covered it! I am sorry but the GOP needs a healthy does of critism instead of just partisan hopla.
Hey and why are no Republicans talked about? I mean they all pretty much write the same BS response letters or emails to anyone who writes them. O and I remember a Rep.Fossella who was a champion for social conservatives till it came out he was having an affair and had a child with the woman. If you are going to go after Politicians thats fine but go after your party as well. And trust me theirs probably plenty to talk about. How accountable did the rank and file of the GOP make the GOP leadership when we passed billions in pork, trillions in spending, expanded government, botched Katrina, Delay got charged with crimminal charges. O right we looked the other way or defended it all. Geezes I get your a hack but this pretty sad even for you.
<< Home