Quote of the day - Political optimism

"If the political rulers were men of merit and talent and governed only in the public interest, they would naturally command the affection and respect of the people, and the crises of authority bedeviling American society would end."

Don't you share this wish for today when private interests are corrupting government?

However, this is a summary of the ideas of many of the American politicians of the 18th Century, as written by Gordon S. Woods in "The Radicalism of the American Revolution", copyright 1991.

Unfortunately, the politicians of the 18th Century often did not follow through on ruling only in the public interest. Remember the term Gerrymander. It was a convoluted redistricting plan devised by Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts, and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.

Beware of labeling Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts

I'm taking a class called "Congress: A Messy Democratic Body" at University of Seniors at the University of Minnesota, Duluth. The instructor, Marv Heikenen, asked us to profile some Senators and Representatives. I chose Scott Brown, Sen. from Massachusetts because I think he is more independent than many think he is.

In a mostly Democratic state, he beat Attorney General Martha Coakeley to replace the late Ted Kennedy. Tea Party groups gave him support. However, "when told that at various times he has been labeled a conservative, moderate and a liberal Republican, he responded 'I'm a Scott Brown Republican.' According to Politifact, while Brown was a Massachusetts legislator, he voted about 90 percent with the state Republican leadership; however, Republican Leadership in the Massachusetts legislature is generally considered far more moderate than the national Republican Party."

He has praised some Democratic senators and said he is willing to work across party lines and has taken positions "at odds with some of his fellow Republicans and Tea Party conservatives" as well as "Glenn Beck other prominent conservatives."

"According to the Washington Post, Brown voted with the majority of Republicans 80% of the time. In the same poll, '56% of Massachusetts voters believed he has kept his promise to be an independent voice in the U.S. Senate.'"

As a pre-1980 John Anderson Republican, I think it's great to see that not all Republicans are Roboticans.

Quotes are from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_brown.

Senate seat of the people of Massachusetts?

Scott Brown, the newly elected United States Senator for Massachusetts, called his new position "the people's seat", "G.O.P. Senate Victory Stuns Democrats", New York Times, 2010-01-20. I read somewhere that he called it not a Kennedy seat, not a Democrat seat, but "the seat of the people of Massachusetts".

But how can it be "the seat of the people of Massachusetts" when so much money and time pour into Massachusetts for both candidates? I would say that outsiders determined the vote almost as much as the people who actually voted.

Scott Brown and the Republicans should be careful about congratulating themselves about the election. The turnout was 55 percent of the 4.1 million registered voters. That means that Scott Brown came in second to none of the above: forty-five percent of the registered voters didn't think the election was that important, twenty-eight percent voted for Brown, and twenty-six percent voted for Martha Coakley, and less than one percent actually took the trouble to vote for neither of the two major-party candidates.

Given that many commentators think Brown's 52-47 percent win over Coakley was a strong rebuke of the Democrats, I think they really should look at the 45-28-26 percent "win" for "none of the above" should be looked at as a strong rebuke of the political system in general.