I’ve said before that if President Barack Obama cured cancer there are some people who would find fault with it. It’s not just Obama, mind you. We all have our detractors.
If your worst enemy were crossing the street with a handful of packages and you offered to help, they’d probably turn you down. They’d later tell all their friends that you tried to rob them.
Now, I’m not saying that the president has a cure for cancer. Nor am I saying that you tried to rob your worst enemy. But Tuesday night, President Obama took to the podium to lay out some plans to move this country forward — at least that’s how Democrats saw it. Republicans heard a completely different speech.
“Unfortunately, President Obama did not talk about plans for economic growth, like fundamental tax reform, energy independence, or significant changes to ObamaCare,” said U.S. Congressman Chris Collins, R-Clarence. “We could immediately bolster our nation’s economy by changing ObamaCare’s definition of a full-time work week from 30 hours back to the traditional 40. And we could repeal the medical device tax, which is hurting American manufactures. But we didn’t hear any of these solutions from the President. Instead, we heard more ‘big government knows best’ solutions that are paid for by borrowing more money from China.”
Compare that with U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s press release: “President Obama presented a compelling plan of how to achieve real opportunity for all hard working Americans. There is no doubt, the state of our union will grow stronger when every middle class American has a fair shot to earn their way ahead in our economy, and the next generation is equipped with the skills they need to reach their full economic potential.”
So … were they at different speeches?
I have a feeling that, as is often the case, both press releases were written before the commencement of Tuesday’s State of the Union address and the send button was hit just as the president was saying “and God Bless the United States of America.”
I also have a feeling that Collins’ press release would have remained unchanged even if the president announced the cure for cancer. And Gillibrand’s would be the same even if President Obama revealed that he truly is the closet terrorist many on the far right seem to believe him to be.
Perception is everything in politics. And life. We are defined not by our own actions but by how others see those actions, sadly. In other words, you just can’t please all the people all the time. So when you’re doing whatever it is you do, building your legacy, do what you think is right, not what you want other people to think is right.
Scott Leffler didn’t watch the State of the Union. He was busy watching the Sabres get beaten by Alexander Ovechkin. He tweeted about it @scottleffler.
Showing posts with label Kirsten Gillibrand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kirsten Gillibrand. Show all posts
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The power of 10 ...
A couple months ago, I bemoaned the relative silence of New York's junior senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. The same day that column ran, I was apparently put on her press office's mailing list. Silence is no longer an issue.
But that's not to say I don't have issues with Gillibrand. Some of them rather large. A perfect example comes from a press release I got last week announcing her “Plan to require minimum requirements for graduated drivers licenses in all 50 states.”
I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read it. I would have certainly spit it out.
I have no idea whether minimum requirements for graduated drivers licenses is a good idea or not. Gillibrand's press release made a decent argument for them, to be quite honest. And if each state wanted to take up the concept and pass laws with certain requirements for younger drivers, I'd be hard pressed to oppose it.
We're talking about teenage drivers here. The idea of teenagers behind the wheel frankly frightens me. Actually, the idea of teenagers in public frightens me. But I'd no sooner support a nationwide ban on teenagers in public than I could support a nationwide standard on teen driving.
Fact of the matter is, I abhor the concept of nationwide standards on much of anything. I believe the federal government's sole purpose is to do that which is necessary for us as a country, but impossible for states to do independently. Basically, I think the feds are there for military purposes to protect us.
Of course, there are some standards that I think are necessary nationwide. And most of those are outlined in the Constitution.
One of those Constitutional covenants is that the feds will not interfere with the states on matters other than where the Constitution dictates otherwise. It's the 10th Amendment. Or as I like to refer to it, the forgotten amendment.
It reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In other words, except where the Constitution says otherwise, the feds will let the states do as they wish.
Gillibrand's idea of national driving standards for the youth seems to be in direct opposition to this concept.
Worth noting, she's not proposing a law to create such standards. She's proposing a penalty for those states that don't create such standards; a withholding of federal highway funds, similar to how the federal government bullied all 50 states into raising the drinking age to 21, lowering the acceptable blood alcohol content to .08, and – for a time being at least – lowering state speed limits to 55.
It is, essentially, extortion. If states don't comply they lose money they were previously entitled to. How this is not seen as a violation of the 10th, I have no idea.
Gillibrand and her fellow senators don't have to worry about it too much though. The Supreme Court doesn't even seem to recognize the 10th Amendment. In modern history, it's been upheld very infrequently.
The concept was important enough to be in the Bill of Rights. Not to mention, it was in the Articles of Confederation before that. But it's not important enough for our present-day elected officials to pay any attention to it.
Then again, what is?
For more on “the forgotten amendment,” check http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com
But that's not to say I don't have issues with Gillibrand. Some of them rather large. A perfect example comes from a press release I got last week announcing her “Plan to require minimum requirements for graduated drivers licenses in all 50 states.”
I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read it. I would have certainly spit it out.
I have no idea whether minimum requirements for graduated drivers licenses is a good idea or not. Gillibrand's press release made a decent argument for them, to be quite honest. And if each state wanted to take up the concept and pass laws with certain requirements for younger drivers, I'd be hard pressed to oppose it.
We're talking about teenage drivers here. The idea of teenagers behind the wheel frankly frightens me. Actually, the idea of teenagers in public frightens me. But I'd no sooner support a nationwide ban on teenagers in public than I could support a nationwide standard on teen driving.
Fact of the matter is, I abhor the concept of nationwide standards on much of anything. I believe the federal government's sole purpose is to do that which is necessary for us as a country, but impossible for states to do independently. Basically, I think the feds are there for military purposes to protect us.
Of course, there are some standards that I think are necessary nationwide. And most of those are outlined in the Constitution.
One of those Constitutional covenants is that the feds will not interfere with the states on matters other than where the Constitution dictates otherwise. It's the 10th Amendment. Or as I like to refer to it, the forgotten amendment.
It reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In other words, except where the Constitution says otherwise, the feds will let the states do as they wish.
Gillibrand's idea of national driving standards for the youth seems to be in direct opposition to this concept.
Worth noting, she's not proposing a law to create such standards. She's proposing a penalty for those states that don't create such standards; a withholding of federal highway funds, similar to how the federal government bullied all 50 states into raising the drinking age to 21, lowering the acceptable blood alcohol content to .08, and – for a time being at least – lowering state speed limits to 55.
It is, essentially, extortion. If states don't comply they lose money they were previously entitled to. How this is not seen as a violation of the 10th, I have no idea.
Gillibrand and her fellow senators don't have to worry about it too much though. The Supreme Court doesn't even seem to recognize the 10th Amendment. In modern history, it's been upheld very infrequently.
The concept was important enough to be in the Bill of Rights. Not to mention, it was in the Articles of Confederation before that. But it's not important enough for our present-day elected officials to pay any attention to it.
Then again, what is?
For more on “the forgotten amendment,” check http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
More on Gillibrand ...
A funny thing happens when you publicly criticize a sitting member of Congress. They notice.
Last week I told you I had all but forgotten New York's junior senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Since that column ran, her press office has determined that I will never forget the senator again. Three times last Tuesday, I got press releases from her office, followed by two on Thursday and another four on Friday.
Of course, the entire lot of press releases amounted to very little, in my opinion. And frankly, if they were trying to tell me she was worthwhile, a carefully crafted email saying, “Hey, Scott, Senator Gillibrand has done all sorts of good stuff. Here's some examples,” would have gone a lot further.
A quick review of those press releases shows that one is a feel-good measure about tax credits. Two were feel-good puff pieces about the first lady's campaign to fight childhood obesity. One was about her military academy nominations. Three were about the anniversary of flight 3407. One applauded the potential end of “dont ask, don't
tell.” And the last was her public schedule.
I have good working relationships with people in the offices of many members of the local congressional delegation; Congressman Lee, Congresswoman Slaughter, Congressman Higgins and Senator Schumer. And as a journalist, I'd like to have a good working relationship with Senator Gillibrand's office. That probably would have been easier were it not for my shot across their bow last week.
But, hey. I call 'em like I see 'em. And I don't think the junior senator has what it takes to hold the high-profile job in the US Senate.
Last Thursday, my friend Alan Bedenko, who writes under the moniker of Buffalo Pundit for WNYMedia.net asked, “Can any Democrat around here name for me something – anything – that would render Kirsten Gillibrand unworthy of re-election?” He went on to question the campaign of Harold Ford, who is considering a primary against Gillibrand. While I don't disagree with Alan's questioning of Ford, I do feel the need to turn the original question around on him. “Can you name me something – anything – that would render Kirsten Gillibrand worthy of re-election?”
Alan goes on to say that Gillibrand “comes from an upstate background and arguably has a better understanding of – and experience with – upstate issues.”
That was enough for me when she was first appointed. I keenly recall thinking that she and I shared several ideals. But that only makes her equally qualified as I am to hold her job. I may have an ego, but I'm not so full of myself as to think I'd make a good US Senator.
My big flaw with Alan's thought process is that we should keep her cause she hasn't done anything wrong. The absense of wrong does not make something right. We should strive for something more – something better – than “well, they didn't screw up too bad.”
A certain Buffalo radio station used to have a liner that went like this: “Let's face it. Buffalo radio sucks. But we suck less.” Is that what we're going for?
If you're content with mediocrity, then, by all means, keep Gillibrand in office and don't consider anyone who might run against her. Better yet, if you're content with mediocrity, get out of New York State so that those of us who aren't can do something to fix it.
Last week I told you I had all but forgotten New York's junior senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Since that column ran, her press office has determined that I will never forget the senator again. Three times last Tuesday, I got press releases from her office, followed by two on Thursday and another four on Friday.
Of course, the entire lot of press releases amounted to very little, in my opinion. And frankly, if they were trying to tell me she was worthwhile, a carefully crafted email saying, “Hey, Scott, Senator Gillibrand has done all sorts of good stuff. Here's some examples,” would have gone a lot further.
A quick review of those press releases shows that one is a feel-good measure about tax credits. Two were feel-good puff pieces about the first lady's campaign to fight childhood obesity. One was about her military academy nominations. Three were about the anniversary of flight 3407. One applauded the potential end of “dont ask, don't
tell.” And the last was her public schedule.
I have good working relationships with people in the offices of many members of the local congressional delegation; Congressman Lee, Congresswoman Slaughter, Congressman Higgins and Senator Schumer. And as a journalist, I'd like to have a good working relationship with Senator Gillibrand's office. That probably would have been easier were it not for my shot across their bow last week.
But, hey. I call 'em like I see 'em. And I don't think the junior senator has what it takes to hold the high-profile job in the US Senate.
Last Thursday, my friend Alan Bedenko, who writes under the moniker of Buffalo Pundit for WNYMedia.net asked, “Can any Democrat around here name for me something – anything – that would render Kirsten Gillibrand unworthy of re-election?” He went on to question the campaign of Harold Ford, who is considering a primary against Gillibrand. While I don't disagree with Alan's questioning of Ford, I do feel the need to turn the original question around on him. “Can you name me something – anything – that would render Kirsten Gillibrand worthy of re-election?”
Alan goes on to say that Gillibrand “comes from an upstate background and arguably has a better understanding of – and experience with – upstate issues.”
That was enough for me when she was first appointed. I keenly recall thinking that she and I shared several ideals. But that only makes her equally qualified as I am to hold her job. I may have an ego, but I'm not so full of myself as to think I'd make a good US Senator.
My big flaw with Alan's thought process is that we should keep her cause she hasn't done anything wrong. The absense of wrong does not make something right. We should strive for something more – something better – than “well, they didn't screw up too bad.”
A certain Buffalo radio station used to have a liner that went like this: “Let's face it. Buffalo radio sucks. But we suck less.” Is that what we're going for?
If you're content with mediocrity, then, by all means, keep Gillibrand in office and don't consider anyone who might run against her. Better yet, if you're content with mediocrity, get out of New York State so that those of us who aren't can do something to fix it.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Spitzer: What we need
You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you might just find you get what you need.
Meanwhile, here in New York, we often get what we want. Only to find out what we wanted was not what we needed.
I read recently that former state attorney general and disgraced governor Eliot Spitzer was considering a run for the US Senate. While I'm not particularly keen on the idea of our junior senator being the guy lovingly referred to as “Client number nine,” after looking over the other possible contenders, I'm thinking he might be what we need.
Before reading that Spitzer was considering running against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand for the senate seat she was appointed to, I kind of forgot that Kirsten Gillibrand even existed. That's a bad sign for a US Senator. I mean, considering I can probably name most of the 98 senators who represent the other states, having to think about one of our own is a sign that she's not really a voice to be reckoned with, ya know?
I hate to admit it, but I kind of miss the one-two punch of Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. Sure, she was a carpetbagger who only wanted to use her senate seat as a step in her quest for the presidency, but her profile and demeanor meant more attention for New York.
Think of United States senators in the way they were envisioned prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. They were all appointed to act as ambassadors for the state, working on behalf of the state government to express the state's view in Washington. They needed to be strong, charismatic representatives to get their states what they needed.
With the passing of the 17th, the senate is now elected by the people and their role has changed. But most good senators are still the strong charismatic ones, acting as ambassadors rather than the proxies that one of my least favorite amendments has made them into.
Gillibrand may make a good proxy. But she does not make for a good ambassador. Spitzer would.
Some might say that his prostitution scandal would render him impotent when it comes to being able to get things done in the senate. I disagree. Yeah, his image is tainted. Sure he has an uphill battle to regain the respect of the world. But no matter what tawdry details of his sex life you may know, he's still Eliot friggin' Spitzer, a force to be reckoned with. And the school-yard style teasing in the senate would die down quickly as the steamroller reminded his colleagues why he gets things done.
It can probably be said that a senators effectiveness is directly proportional to how well his or her name resonates in the state's he or she doesn't represent. If I can't remember Gillibrand, what are the odds that anyone from Kansas can?
Yes, electing Spitzer would officially make us the laughingstock of the country temporarily. It's not something we want. But when the laughing dies down and Spitzer gets to work, the new one-two punch of Spitzer and Schumer would be exactly what we need.
Meanwhile, here in New York, we often get what we want. Only to find out what we wanted was not what we needed.
I read recently that former state attorney general and disgraced governor Eliot Spitzer was considering a run for the US Senate. While I'm not particularly keen on the idea of our junior senator being the guy lovingly referred to as “Client number nine,” after looking over the other possible contenders, I'm thinking he might be what we need.
Before reading that Spitzer was considering running against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand for the senate seat she was appointed to, I kind of forgot that Kirsten Gillibrand even existed. That's a bad sign for a US Senator. I mean, considering I can probably name most of the 98 senators who represent the other states, having to think about one of our own is a sign that she's not really a voice to be reckoned with, ya know?
I hate to admit it, but I kind of miss the one-two punch of Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. Sure, she was a carpetbagger who only wanted to use her senate seat as a step in her quest for the presidency, but her profile and demeanor meant more attention for New York.
Think of United States senators in the way they were envisioned prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. They were all appointed to act as ambassadors for the state, working on behalf of the state government to express the state's view in Washington. They needed to be strong, charismatic representatives to get their states what they needed.
With the passing of the 17th, the senate is now elected by the people and their role has changed. But most good senators are still the strong charismatic ones, acting as ambassadors rather than the proxies that one of my least favorite amendments has made them into.
Gillibrand may make a good proxy. But she does not make for a good ambassador. Spitzer would.
Some might say that his prostitution scandal would render him impotent when it comes to being able to get things done in the senate. I disagree. Yeah, his image is tainted. Sure he has an uphill battle to regain the respect of the world. But no matter what tawdry details of his sex life you may know, he's still Eliot friggin' Spitzer, a force to be reckoned with. And the school-yard style teasing in the senate would die down quickly as the steamroller reminded his colleagues why he gets things done.
It can probably be said that a senators effectiveness is directly proportional to how well his or her name resonates in the state's he or she doesn't represent. If I can't remember Gillibrand, what are the odds that anyone from Kansas can?
Yes, electing Spitzer would officially make us the laughingstock of the country temporarily. It's not something we want. But when the laughing dies down and Spitzer gets to work, the new one-two punch of Spitzer and Schumer would be exactly what we need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)