Tom Reynolds announced today he would not seek re-election to Congress. Only two years ago, Reynolds was one of the most powerful men in Washington, in his capacity as head of the NRCC, and he was on the short list for future House Speaker. Today, he's an endangered incumbent, who, having hung on to his seat last time just by a thread, decided to go quietly into the night. This leaves Randy Kuhl as the only Upstate GOP incumbent seeking re-election. It is more evidence that New York's transition to a "deep blue" state is accelerating.
State Sen. George Maziarz has been mentioned as a likely successor. George is a great guy, and he'd make a great Congressman, but I wonder if he would (or should) give up a fairly safe GOP State Senate seat, to swim against the Democratic tide. If things went badly, both seats could be lost.
Frankly, this is a real loss for Western New York. Tom Reynolds was a real force who "brought home the bacon" for his constituents. His efforts as "dean" of the Western NY Congressional contingent are something that certain "would-be" leaders (e.g., Louise Slaughter and David Gantt) would be well advised to emulate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Another theory might be that this powerhouse of a congressman was more of an orchestrator of GOP defeat than triumph. Let’s face it, if this republican leader had led us towards fiscal conservatism instead of bringing home so much bacon, Republicans might still have a place in Washington. Imagine, somehow Democrats have became spending watchdogs, how did that happen? Republican “leadership” led us to waffle in Iraq and disappointed us time and again. Now he will slink off to avoid defeat, he must want to protect what campaign funds he’s already collected, does he get to keep that? Give Kuhl credit, at least he’ll stay and fight the odds, that makes him bigger than Reynolds or Walsh. I’ll support him with work and money.
I'd agree that Reynolds exit isn't the "career capstone" he probably envisioned a couple of years ago.
Clearly, the GOP congressional leadership lost its way with regard to taxes and spending and lets not forget about corruption. I don't think you can lay a heck of a lot of that at Reynolds' feet, however. My take on him was that he was a good representative of his constituents interests. If Washington (like Albany) is a cesspool, I don't think he caused it, he played by the rules he found there.
Repoman:
"Playing by the rules" when one encounters a cesspool is not good enough. "Bringing home the bacon" on the backs of hard working private enterprise citizens is disgusting ,not something of which to be proud, especially for a member of a party that purports to want less government. Good by to Mr. Reynolds- I'm sure he will live on the "fatted calf" due to his immoral Congressional Pension among other things.
When you see his time as exemplary , it points to how little you comprehend of the deep, wide desire for real, change. Newt is right, the Republicans just don't get it. If you don't stand for something, what's the point?
Let's replace Reynolds with a reformer, albiet one who can keep his pants on.
Your comments astonish me, since you appear to be someone who understands the rules of the game in state and local capitals.
Your comments show how easy it is to disconnect ourselves from the part we play in all of these issues we decry. We demand "change" (but not the parts of government that I support) we want to "cut government spending" (but not the programs I benefit from).
The problem may well not be corrupt officials but the fact that virtually every one of us is now a member of one or more special interest groups. We all want our politicians to support only those "good" things we are in favor of. We want them to stop supporting all the 'bad, wasteful stuff" we don't like.
Tom Reynolds is not to blame for this. He acted just the way most of us wanted him to. If you try to claim you haven't participated in this game, I'd say you need further self-reflection.
Repoman:
Upon further self reflection, I reject your position on two (2) points:
1. Your argument is that anyone who works in government cannot, by virtue of that fact, want less government. Anyone who works to get government grants cannot, by virtue of that effort, believe that system of taking money only to return it with strings, is silly at best and actually harmful in the long run.
By your standard, no politician- no government workers- no police officer- very few lawyers- could argue againt what you call 'the game."
2. Your premise that we all want to support those good things, we favor, and oppose the bad, wasteful stuff we don't like - is depressing to a point that sugggests anyone for less government should just quit the effort. I believe that in the final analysis, people are O.K. with "not getting something" as long as the "other guy" is also "not getting something." The problem is that politicians just simply take care of themselves by "playing the game" rather than challenging the nature of the game.
Based upon your agument we are all on "a bridge to nowhere."
My suggestion is along those lines but not exactly as you have phrased it.
1. Government employment:
Public Service was often a noble endeavor. This is mostly in the past. Today we have a political class that has made politics a career rather than a calling. I do believe that most of us who work in government do have good motives along with our self-interest. But at the highest levels of State and Federal government, personal interest often outweighs public interest. Further, things like unionization of public employees and pensions and benefits that have lost any connection to those in the private sector, are causing public employees to be too costly for the taxpayers they serve.
2. Our "piece of the action":
I do have a serious conceptual problem with "grants". Grants are just the flip side of unfunded mandates. We have government trying to do everything for everybody. If the people of Gates want a youth center, they should pay for it. Gates should not build a youth center with funds from the State or Federal government. How many youth centers in other towns did my federal and state taxes pay for? Lets just not spend the money.
That's no longer a choice. The average American now believes the "government" should pay for all kinds of things. Too bad they don't understand that the government is them and its their money. Government is now the first resort, not the last resort.
So, until the system changes, a guy like Tom Reynolds should get credit, not criticism. He did exactly what we send Congressmen to Washington to do; get more money back than we put in. You can pretend you want something different, but I bet you don't want to give up your FHA or VA mortgage, or your kid's Sallie Mae subsidized student loan, or even the ridiculous "bribes" (a/k/a tax rebates) we're getting from Albany and Washington.
Unless I'm wrong, and you don't want any of that, then I think you are being unfair to Reynolds.
Repoman:
I hear and to a great extent are in agreement with what you say.
But here is the question in regard to grants : If you and I, who would probably be sitting on different sides of the aisle - agree that the use of grants is a way to go through the back door to a select group-,currying that group's favor and avoiding the scrunity involved by the larger public - if we can agree that is not a healthy and above board use of citizens' money- if we were in government- would we - wheather from the left or the right- fight to curtail/stop the use of grants -or would we go along with the practice saying it was in the interest of our constituents to get their share.
If people like us can find common ground on something like this- I would think others actually in the legislature do as well. Still nothing changes. Just what IS the mechanism to change the system.
My only answer is to take $ out of being in the legislature. If one wants to represent a group of citizens in the Assembly or Senate-that is wonderful. I believe citizens owe those servants a debt of gratitude. However, I believe it should be serivce. Citizens will pay expenses- gas,toll bills, accomodations, a per diem for food-but that's all. No salary should go to members of the legislature. I believe that would take care of term limits - in a way that is much more in line with our constitution.
Post a Comment