Senator Lisa Murkowski Hits a Double – Rudeness AND Hypocrisy in One Press Release!
26 01 2010On occasion I have been known to write a letter to one of my congressional representatives. When I do, I try to make sure it’s thoughtful and makes my point. I never name call. I never insult. Most people realize that doing that just turns people off. It says “I don’t care if you listen to me, I’m just going to yell at you because I want to.” And I really do care, and I want to be heard so I do my best to make my point clearly without being insulting.
Every time I write Senator Lisa Murkowski, I get an email or a letter back from her office telling me she will “take my opinion into consideration.” Now, I know that this basically means she’s already made up her mind, and she’s not going to do what I want, but at least she takes the time to respond, and to do it politely. I feel reasonably sure that someone in her office has made a tick mark on a piece of paper and registered one opinion in my column. The senator doesn’t call me names, or act in a disrespectful way. I respect that. And when you have two people who respect each other, you end up with the aptly named condition called “mutual respect.” In a contentious world, it goes a long way.
I’ve met Lisa Murkowski in person. She’s very polite in person. I found her to be intelligent and likeable. I didn’t argue with her or call her names because I can disagree with someone without name-calling and rudeness.
Apparently Senator Murkowski saves her rudeness for her press releases, in which she has decided to jump on the Republican talking points bandwagon and refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat” party. Republicans know that Democrats hate it when their party is called the “Democrat Party.” They know it full well, which is why they do it. And that says a lot.
Here’s a little background.
“Democrat Party” is a political epithet used in the United States instead of the name (or more precisely, the proper noun) Democratic Party. The term has been used by some conservative commentators and some members of the Republican Party in speeches and press releases.
The word “Democrat” is not at all controversial, except when it is used as an adjective (as in “Democrat Party” or “Democrat Senator” or “Democrat idea”). In that case some Democratic Party leaders and non-partisan commentators have objected to the use as adjective. New Yorker commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote:
There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be – a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.”
In 1984, when a delegate of the Republican platform committee asked unanimous consent to change a platform amendment to read the Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party, Representative Jack Kemp objected, saying that would be “an insult to our Democratic friends.” The committee dropped the proposal. In August 2008, the Republican platform committee voted down a proposal to use the phrase “Democrat Party” in the 2008 platform, deciding to use the proper “Democratic Party”. “We probably should use what the actual name is,” said Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, the panel’s chairman. “At least in writing.”
Yes, by all means… only use the intentional insult when you’re speaking, not when you’re writing it down. How kind. But even that little bit of good manners is too much to ask from Senator Murkowski. Or should I just call her Murky, or Kow, or a Rethuglican, or a Repuke, or a Repug? I mean, since we’re using epithets and slurs, and since we’re looking for “handy way(s) to express contempt.”
Maybe some day Senator Murkowski will take her etiquette tips from Wikipedia, but until she advances to that level, here’s her latest press release:
Murkowski Blasts Democrat Proposal to Raise Debt Ceiling by $1.9 Trillion
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Senate this week may vote on a Democrat proposal to raise the federal debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. Sen. Murkowski announced today that she will oppose the measure.
“Our nation’s credit card is beyond its limit. The budget deficit for the last fiscal year reached $1.4 trillion – roughly three times the previous single year record. Now, rather than move forward with fiscally responsible policies, the Democrat leadership has chosen to bring to the floor legislation that would raise the nation’s debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion to an astonishing $14.3 trillion. This would mark the fifth increase to the debt limit in the last 18 months and the third increase in less than one year.
“The current course is clearly unsustainable. If we do not address the fiscal crisis, we will be passing on to our children a weaker country than we inherited.”
Getting past the insult to one in five of her constituents, let’s look at the message itself – fiscal conservatism. A principled position, right? Here’s something to which the Senator can speak from the heart. It’s not just some kind of partisan political posturing. She has urged this kind of fiscal restraint from the previous administration too, because it isn’t just about throwing rocks at the other side, it really is about the issue. Right?
Think again.
Since taking office in 2002, Senator Murkowski has voted five times to increase the debt ceiling. She has voted for nearly $4 trillion in increases, raising the debt limit from $5.95 trillion when she first took office to $9.815 trillion in 2007.
June 11, 2002 – Murkowski Voted Yea to Increase the Debt Limit by $450 Billion, from $5.95 Trillion to $6.4 Trillion
Congress passed S. 2578 and the President signed the bill into law on June 28, 2004 (P.L. 107-19, 116 Stat. 734).
May 23, 2003 – Murkowski Voted to Increase the Debt Limit by nearly $1 Trillion, from $6.4 Trillion to $7.384 Trillion
Congress passed H.J.Res. 51, a joint resolution to raise the statutory limit, and the President signed the bill into law on May 27, 2003 (P.L. 108-24, 117 Stat, 710).
November 17, 2004 – Murkowski Voted Yea to Raise the Debt Ceiling by $800 billion, from $7.384 trillion to $8.184 trillion.
After the 2004 elections, Senator Frist introduced S. 2986. The Senate approved the increase and the bill was signed by the President.
March 16, 2006 – Murkowski Voted Yea to Increase the Debt Limit by $800 billion to $8.965 trillion.
The Senate passed H.J.Res. 47 and the President signed the bill.
September 17, 2007 – Murkowski Voted Yea to Increase the Debt Limit by $850 billion to $9.815 trillion.
H.J.Res. 43 was passed by the Senate and signed by the President.
Click for the $ figures for each piece of legislation (pages 9-14)
A twofer! Rudeness and hypocrisy in one little press release.
I know lots of Democrats who have voted for Lisa Murkowski in the past. The last time she got elected, she had pretty broad bipartisan support. Democrats considered her to be one of the more measured, moderate, centrist Republicans – kind of like Republicans used to be in the old days. My Democratic friends didn’t always agree with her, but they respected her. Not any more. But she obviously doesn’t care anyway.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:04 AM
I do not know. When I read or hear “democrat party” or something like that I just assume the speaker or writer is illiterate. To be blunt it makes the person using that word sound grossly uneducated.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:40 AM
@ 46 strangelet:
Reading your post, I had one of those “slap my forehead” moments when another ‘piece of the puzzle’ falls into place and I’m able to reconcile/answer some of my many (many, many, many!) personal mind-stumpers by (finally?) applying one thing to another…
To whit: For years now, I’ve been utterly baffled by the proliferation of so-called “mega Churches”; I – being ‘old school’ – couldn’t, for the life of me, wrap my mind around the notion that people would willingly join a congregation sooooooo large, that in joining, they were fated to be nothing more than just an itty-bitty speck [of one] amongst all the other itty-bitty specks constituting the congregation ~ just another face in the indistinguishable crowd.
Back in “my day” (which, admittedly, was long, long ago), a house of worship’s congregation was composed of the folks in/from the neighborhood; the congregants were an extended family and all knew each other by name. Houses of worship were big enough to meet the spiritual needs of the members AND small enough that the all the congregants ‘knew’ each other. Within the congregation, there was the ‘understanding’ that: if a member was experiencing a difficulty, all members rallied to their comfort and aid. From the priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, etc., on down, everyone in the congregation was engaged and *involved* with each other — not in an intrusive sort of way, but in a ‘you’re an integral part of my family, and because you are part of my family, what joys you or pains you also joys or pains me,’ sort of way.
I appreciate that we’ve a growing population and that funds are short, but I can’t help but wondering if ‘we’ don’t mind being part of a ginormous house of worship’s congregation because we’ve become ‘accustomed’ to ‘accepting’ being a speck in a political constituency, or if it’s the other way around. Or, possibly, we ‘accept’ both because it’s easier to ‘go with the flow” (bumping into SPs infamous “dead fish” along the way, or not) than to do else-wise? How about when it comes to consolidated schools in towns, cities, and/or districts: are ‘we’ doing what is financially expedient, or what is most beneficial for/to the student…
I do believe I’m going to have to puzzle this out some more. A lot more. beth.
[Disclaimer: For mudpups who are members of any super-large congregation, I mean no disrespect for your choice of place and/or fellowship within which you practice your Faith.
Please accept the above ramblings as just the thoughts of one who realizes there are whole bunches of things in this world I need to need re-examine and re-evaluate as the years –and situations – continually change; one who’s still trying to figure things out and grow. b.]
January 27th, 2010 at 4:54 PM
Chris @49
I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you say, but I think that the matter of deficit spending is not quite so serious as you think. After 1945 the world was a different place and since then all of it has been betting on the US to manage to do the right thing, as I think it was Churchill said, after we have tried everything else.Incidentally I think you meant billions instead of millions in your comment.
Since my ability to post is precarious I have to be brief, I can’t elaborate all at once on any of the points that follow but I want to suggest them.
Financial industry reform should be simple, Banks should be required to return 2/3 of their profits to their depositors in interest on ;said deposits, over time this would enable us to finance our national debt ourselves and it would uplift the entire underclass, the 99% of the population that lives from paycheck to paycheck. IOW it would make sense to save.
Education is indeed the key to our future success but we need to be pragmatic. My vision is that the US could become a scientific society. Instead of making things we devote ourselves to understanding things and most importantly, just exactly how our complex world works.
I throw these ideas out for consideration, if anyone is interested in following up I will try to do so by writing comments off line.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Hi KN @ 53
Yes, I did mean billions, not millions. Good catch. Billions of dollars are used to measure the incompetence of our government. Millions of dollars are used to measure what lobbyists spend these days to buy off government.
I am still gravely concerned about our future. No job growth in 10 years. No wage increases in 10 years. Well paying middle management jobs being sent to low wage countries. Declining innovation. Declining enrollment in math and science programs. Overvalued housing assets. These are all long-term problems. I could go on, but it is too early here to start drinking.
You are correct, it should be quick to regulate the financial industry. Repeal Graham-Leach-Bliley and restore Glass-Stegal. Repeal the Credit Futures Modernization Act. Basically, repeal any piece of legislation that Phil Graham had a part of because it is more than likely tainted.
I’d prefer to see the free market mechanics regulate the banks. Having said that, there is no such thing as an unfettered, free market. Someone always get sc*ewed. Best we can do is create competitively fair markets by restricting certain anti-competitive activities and creating transparency. Obama got it right last night by providing mid-tier banks $30 billion. It should have been $300 billion. That money should foster a lot of quick innovation among smaller tier banks to take market share from the big banks. If any regulation is necessary, it should be to prevent the big banks from acquiring smaller banks to get bigger.