Model Politician

OK - It has been some time since my last entry and boy have there been some real zingers to write about. I have no excuses other than to say I have had an extremely busy Summer. But now, the temptations to write are just to great - I can exercise no further restraint!

Today we experienced a the finest in political garbage slinging - so far from any meaningful speech it is hard to call it campaigning. The gist is as follows: During a speech (somewhat focused on education) given on Tuesday night, Obama dropped jaws when he made his barnyard remark. “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

Some claim this was a reference to Sarah Palin, others claim it was a reference to McCain’s general campaign platform. In any event, it quickly erupted into a political slap-fest. There are a couple of possibilities of intent which should be explored here:

Possibility #1: Obama truly made the remark in reference to McCain’s political platform - stinky fish, pig wearing lipstick, etc. etc. - No reference to Palin was intended and McCain’s retaliation was very misplaced.

Possibility #2: Obama intended to make a reference to Palin - without doing so directly. His ultimate intent being to solicit a reaction from the opposition only to gain more ammunition to accuse the McCain campaign of “Swift Boat” politics.

Possibility #3: Obama intended no reference to Palin, but his poor choice of analogies became an opportunity for the opposition. In this case, the response by the McCain camp served only to distract Obama from his typical rhetoric, forcing him to address the accusations.

This is the beauty of politics - us common folk can only guess at the true meaning of any candidates words - especially when delivered in pre-written, planned and rehearsed speeches. What really gets me is the how the media comes to any conclusion as to the intent of comments like these. This evening on the ABC’s World News, Charles Gibson reported that the McCain camp falsely accussed Obama of making his swinely comment in reference to Palin. I ask this - with so many possibilities existing in the realm of political gamesmanship how can the media be so sure? Let me guess, because Obama said so, eh?

None of this seems like higher ground or change to me - it all only serves to muddy the waters in our search for a political platform we can identify with. Plainly said, this is very much typical politics - but definitely not Model Politics.

New York seems to be having a rough go of it lately. Just last week, the New York Times called several of the state’s Congressional Representatives out onto the carpet seeking public opinion on their use of tax-payer dollars to fund exorbitant vehicle leases. Now,we hear of another congressman who basically checks himself out of reality for….oh….THE LAST THREE YEARS!

According to an AP Article this afternoon, Vito Fossella has been playing family guy with well, two families. So on top of the long-term infidelity, (and it remains to be reported on whether or not his wife knows about his other family) Vito makes a move to ensure he makes the front page (and on to my blog) - he gets himself arrested on a DUI charge!

At this point, all the details of how the story broke matter not. You have another elected congressman making a fool out of all his constituents and voters who put him in office. In Vito’s only defense to those same folks who backed him nothing on his bio page claims or otherwise indicates he is a strong advocate for family values. However, while I am not intimately familiar with his campaign platform, I think it would be safe to guess that he portrayed himself as a value-oriented guy. So, while most of us will agree that Vito has qualified himself as a Not-So Model Politician. Yet, there is one more part to this story. Read the rest of this entry »

The New York Times published a story today that discussed a benefit enjoyed by many in the House of Representatives. In summary, the article described the rather large array of vehicles leased by Representatives under a program financed by tax payers. There were several examples given in the article, yet this list likely does not even scratch the surface of the complete story. Be that as it may, there are many not-so-model examples presented - not to mention a shocking overall message of hypocritical financial irresponsibility.

Right out of the gate, let’s take a look at the specific examples given in the story:

Let us examine the representation here:

1. 10 out of 11 Representatives discussed in this story are Democrats and of these 10, only 1 is confirmed as paying less than $715 per month (not counting insurance, gas, or maintenance) for their tax-payer provided conveyance! (Hats off to Anthony Weiner for saving us a little money, eh?).
2. The single Republican Representative is paying $310 per month
3. 7 of the 11 Representatives hail from the state of New York for a total of over $4500 per month in lease payments (avg of $647) - Seems like New York has a little problem with over spending, eh?
4. Only one Representative has a vehicle that averages over 30 MPG - not very good “representation” at $4 / gallon, eh?

Adding salt to the fiscal wound is the fact that tax payers also subsidize the gas, insurance and maintenance for these vehicles…(not to mention each Representative’s base salary of $162,500 per year - hard to fathom their uncanny ability to survive, eh?). I also want to point something else out: take a look at the monthly lease payments for Rep. McNulty’s 2007 Mercury Mariner Hybrid ($816) and Rep. Slaughter’s 2007 Buick Lucerne ($808). Seem a little ridiculous to you? These cars go for an MSRP of about $30K, at best. So, what gives with the $800+ monthly leases? If this is any indication of these politician’s ability to be financial responsible, I would like none of it, thank you…

Read the rest of this entry »