My goodness, this “37 years” line has come and gone and provided very little in the way of a wedge for Gomez. By definition it cuts both ways: Yes, Markey’s been in Congress a long time. On the other hand, maybe there’s a reason why he keeps getting re-elected. As President Bartlett put it: “We have term limits in America. They’re called elections.”
So I’m baffled as to why this line from last night is considered to be Gomez’s most effective:
“We still don’t have immigration reform done. And you’ve had 37 years to do that. We still don’t have a comprehensive tax reform done. And you’ve had 37 years to do that. We could have reformed Social Security and Medicare. And you’ve had 37 years to do that”. ….
Bob Oakes: An effective line.
Jeff Berry: I think so.
You gotta be kidding me. This betrays a hell of a lot more about Gomez’s ignorance of the legislative process than Markey’s effectiveness. Markey, of course, is known as one of the most effective legislators in Congress:
Most Effective Lawmakers Also Most Inspirational to Staff
It is a characteristic of the most effective Members of Congress that they attract and retain (and sometimes re-attract) the best and brightest people and use them to enhance their own scope, assets and leverage inside Congress. Markey is unquestionably one of these, with a longtime great staff of impressive loyalty and longevity.
…Markey and Dingell, models in this area, long have been favorites of mine, men who never lose their zeal for shaping the policies that affect the nation, and who are adroit and wily at the politics of Congress whether in the minority or the majority. For Dingell, known to all for his ferocity (it is not always a picnic to testify in front of him), the secret to his command of loyalty is that he also is a pussycat — warm and gracious to people around him. Markey and Dingell are both strong-willed and hate to lose. They also are about as different in personal style as one can imagine for Democrats sitting on the same committee and sharing many of the same political values, though not always the same views on issues.
It insults the intelligence to say that one US Rep, however brilliant and effective, and in whatever time frame, could wave his hand and make all well. It’s dumb on the face of it. And as Joanna Weiss wonders … what is Gomez promising in the next 17 months? Unicorns?
Look, if you have a problem with Ed Markey not being able to get stuff done, then the answer is to elect about 300 more Ed Markeys to Washington. We should be so lucky!
mike_cote says
I don’t have any concept that Mr. Gomez understands how Congress works (or crashes to a halt because of Republicans). It is as if he expects the role of a congressman to be a benevolent dictator.
fenway49 says
the 434 other members of the House, or the 100 members of the Senate, or the various Presidents of the United States having some say in these things? It’s all Ed Markey’s fault that Gomez’s party has filibustered everything in sight. It’s all Ed Markey’s fault that George W. Bush dropped immigration reform when the same xenophobic Republicans who are blocking it today blocked it then.
This guy is a moron.
mathelman says
just as Scott Brown suggested in his time, elect him and he’ll be able to bring Republicans over in the spirit of bipartisanship. (Indeed, bipartisanship exists somewhere between Democrats in the Senate supporting a majority American view and Republicans in the Senate supporting a reactionary, fringe minority.)
Just elect Gabriel Gomez and Jim Inhofe will stop denying climate change. Just elect Gabriel Gomez and Mitch McConnell will stop abusing the filibuster. Just elect Gabriel Gomez and Ted Cruz & Rand Paul will stop peddling fringe conspiracy theories. They’re all just waiting for Gabriel Gomez.
After all, we all recall just how effective Scott Brown was at convincing Jim DeMint and John Cornyn to build consensus with Democrats, right?
Charley is exactly right. Gomez is promising unicorns (when he’s not denying his own policy positions or distracting from his shady business record).
Al says
in any kind of legislative or regulatory body, at any level, Federal, State, or Local. When you are applying for a job and your competition is someone who has years of experience, the only thing you can do to hide that lack of experience is to attack the one with it, and hope that no one notices your shortcoming, and hope for the best. What I don’t understand, is with his inexperience, why does he think a job like US Senator is a reasonable one to think he should be elected to? Has he ever heard of Selectman, State Rep or Senator, or many local boards as a place to earn his stripes?
mike_cote says
Mr. Gomez ran for selectman in Cohasset in 2003 and lost. This is his second campaign.
Al says
I guess a failed campaign for selectman in a small town qualifies him for a US Senate seat.
jarstar says
GG keeps talking about how he’s the only one of them who has a demonstrated record of bipartisanship. I’m still trying to find that record, or any record of anything he’s done that makes him qualified for this job of senator. Did he once help his neighbor, a Democract, shovel her sidewalk? Maybe that’s what he’s talking about.
pratt says
Mike_cote is right. Mr. Gomez ran and lost in the three-way race for Cohasset Selectman in 2003.
That local cycle had 2 challengers (Hill & Gomez) vs. 1 incumbent (Sullivan). Most of us involved in Cohasset elections in that era (I ran Hill’s campaign) saw Gabriel Gomez as a spoiler in the race. The results (Sullivan 959, Hill 719, Gomez 693) validate that idea. The incumbent was relatively unpopular, yet Gabriel’s late entry in the race caused the sizable anti-incumbent vote to be split.
Following his loss in 2003, Mr. Gomez served on the town Economic Development Committee and a special School Budget Investigation Committee, but never ran again in any local election.
The best published piece on his role in the Cohasset race remains Shira Schoenberg’s in the Springfield Republican (03/22/13): http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/since_losing_cohasset_selectme.html
kbusch says
Ed O’Reilly, when running against Kerry, similarly seemed to overstate what one member can accomplish.
Senator Warren provides an example of what amazing things a single Senator can accomplish. Grounding Gomez’ promises in the actual reality of Republicans would instead read, “Elect me as Senator and I will provide the Club for Growth and the rest of the Republican caucus a shiny new target in their hatred of RINOism.”
jconway says
And one that voters will remember. You are all overestimating them at your own peril, the average person doesn’t read the National Journal for fun, but the good news is people in Ed’s district (which is a good chunk of voters) know this is BS. I have never heard of Gomez before six months ago when he decided to run for Senate, I’ve met, seen, and heard from Markey plenty of times. People know he is a workhorse, not a showboat like Gomez or Brown. Keep knocking on doors, keep making calls, this jackass doesn’t deserve the win!
fenway49 says
The voters who would fall for that kind of thing generally were not watching the debate. I don’t know how much of any of this is penetrating the consciousness of anyone who doesn’t care about politics. I’ve been out knocking on doors and most of the people I’ve interacted with have paid no attention at all to Gomez.
Mr. Lynne says
… learned from the the Waxman playbook.
I wish more elected Democrats would read that book.
(sigh)
demeter11 says
that’s an effective line than it’s either time for him to retire or go work for a Republican campaign.
In general, WBUR has gone the way of the Glob looking to hype whatever it can and thinking fairness in journalism means treating something idiotic with respect.
kbusch says
I listened a bit to their commentary after the debate. The impression I got was the commentary you might get if a 12 year old entered some kind of contest usually reserved for adults, e.g. a poker championship or an auto race. For the 12-year old in that context, it is an achievement merely to appear adult among adults.
Likewise, there was no talk whatever about whether any Gomez said qualified him for the office, made any sense, or convinced anyone he’d make a great Senator. Rather, everyone was cheered that he didn’t sound inept and he made Markey “uncomfortable” a few times. In short, the standards for Mr. Gomez have been lowered so very far that he really does deserve the plastic trophy the vacuous Margie Eagan wants to bestow on him.
lynne says
Was Emily Rooney involved? If so, there’s your problem.
Trickle up says
An appeal to low-information voters is all he’s got.
It was his most effective line of the night.
lynne says
some tackling of the immigration issue in the Reagan era? Just sayin’. It’s not like this hasn’t been addressed before. Maybe not in the way that wound up being permanent, but still. Talk about ignorance on even the very issue he’s bitching about.
shillelaghlaw says
Over 37 years, all of those issues have been addressed and reformed at least once. To think that any fix is permanent is naive.
The status quo is the unintended results of someone else’s prior attempts at reform. EBT cards were a reform. Probation being taken over by the state from the counties was a reform. No matter how well thought out any policy is, there will always be a need to revisit it in the future.