This diary originally started as a comment over on danfromwaltham‘s diary: Stephen Lynch will go to Washington to stand up, not fit in
I thought better of it, and came to the conclusion to write such a comment would be taking a giant squat on Dan’s effort to promote Lynch. Thus, tantamount to ‘hijacking.’ As we endeavor to play nice, this Primary season, I chose to take my observation and remarks away from Dan’s work, placing it here, to stand on it’s own.
Please note the closing frame of the recently debuted Lynch ad, as seen on Youtube:
Just yesterday, I provided a link to a Markey tale, from 1976. I’ll repost it, so that we can all be on the same page.
…
Ed Markey: The milkman’s son who broke the rules
By David B. Hilder, November 22, 1976
… While in his second term in the State House, Markey pushed for passage of a bill to eliminate part-time district court judgeships in Massachusetts. Part-time judgeships were lucrative for judges, who were allowed to maintain private law practices, and for politicians, for whom they were patronage gold mines. It was no surprise, then, when the House leadership, under Speaker Thomas McGee of Lynn, fought against Markey’s bill. It passed despite their objections, and McGee, known around the State House for his pettiness, gained his revenge by throwing Markey off the Judiciary Committee, and having his desk moved out into the hall.All this happened last January, and because of it, Markey received the Massachusetts Bar Association’s Legislator of the Year award and was praised in many editorial columns. Looking for a theme for an advertising campaign, Markey’s political strategists pounced on the Judiciary Committee incident.
Markey’s one television commercial opened with a narration of the desk-in-the-hall scene along with a shot of Markey standing in front of a desk placed incongruously in a State House corridor. At the end of the spot, Markey folded his arms across his chest, looking stern and tough. “They may tell me where to sit,” he said, “but nobody tells me where to stand.”
I like this Markey story. I makes me feel positive about the person that will go against the grain of the establishment, for the right reason. And, apparently, I’m not alone in this assessment, as Markey effectively rode this story to Congress, in 1976. No doubt, those who know Markey well, will know this story and the power it had. Has? I think it still plays well in 2013. I was 11, back in the day. Yet, growing up in our beloved Commonwealth, I can discern the political courage that Markey mustered. Likely, he will try to assure us that courage has manifested itself in countless ways, since his intial election. I’m listening.
Now, I’m no communications guru, but this feeling I have about Markey, must be coveted amongst any and all politicians. In elected representative government, the elected wishes us to feel that they will do, as we would do, in our stead. My opinion leads me to consider that Lynch’s communications guru would seek to displace Markey from this coveted perch, inserting Stephen Lynch.
Thus, “He’ll Stand Up. Not Fit In.” … Meh. I just heard Scott Brown try the ‘Not Fit In’ workaround. Echo?
Does anyone else, maybe folks with more ‘guru cred,’ get the same vibe off of Lynch’s newly minted slogan? Or, is this just what happens when certain ‘turns of phrase’ get reworked?
the “stand up, not fit in” line has been part of Lynch’s routine since before this Senate campaign.
In the Beltway, they survive as part of the herd. Each election cycle, they are cats. Cool cats. Alpha cats, for that matter.
The sloganmeisters only have so much hops to brew with.
Such is politics.
A very courtesy spokesman confirmed this phrase is not new to Lynch. Thus, I struck the incorrect words.
The aftershocks of NAFTA hit the Teamsters Union a couple years ago. Because Ed Markey supported NAFTA, staring in 2011, Mexican truck drivers were allowed to carry their cargo inside the interior of the U.S., displacing hard working American truck drivers who just want to earn a living. With high unemployment, we need a fighter for every job we can get, who doesn’t forget where he came from.
With all do respect, spare me the son of a milkman story, it ain’t gonna fly in this primary. Happy trails if you are a Mexican truck driver, sh!t out of luck if you are a Teamster trying to put food on the table, guess Walmart is hiring.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-08-10-mexican-trucks-us-highways_n.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/1st-Mexican-truck-allowed-on-U-S-roads-under-2325854.php
Mexican drivers have put little to zilch pressure on our trucking industry:
However, largely because of political resistance rooted in concerns such as the current ones, those provisions were never implemented. Mexican trucks have mostly been confined to a 25-mile commercial zone on the USA side of the border. Canadian trucks have no such restrictions.
Under then-President George W. Bush, a pilot program similar to the current agreement was begun in 2007. Each nation allowed up to 100 trucking firms to transport international cargo beyond the commercial zone on either side of the border.
The Obama administration cut funding for the program in March 2009. Mexico responded immediately, levying retaliatory tariffs against U.S. imports. …
The title of your second citation is: 1st Mexican truck allowed on U.S. roads under NAFTA (Published 4:00 am, Saturday, October 22, 2011)
That’s 2011, yo.
NAFTA, signed in 1994, had called for Mexican trucks to have unrestricted access to highways in border states by 1995 and full access to all U.S. highways by January 2000. Canadian trucks have no limits on where they can go.
But until now, Mexican trucks have seldom been allowed farther than a buffer zone on the U.S. side of the border, where their cargo was typically transferred to American vehicles.
I’m pretty sure 17 years is enough time to get some of the kinks worked out. No?
Lastly, with a straight face, tell me the Teamsters would not support Bill Clinton, if he could run for a 3rd term. I double dog dare you!
To enter the U.S. in 2011
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration offered a proposal on Thursday to allow long-haul Mexican trucks to move cargo in the United States.
The proposal, which the Mexican government greeted as a positive step, was the latest sign of a new willingness by the Obama administration to support free-trade measures backed by Republicans and by businesses despite objections from labor unions and other liberal constituencies.
Now the fact that this is allowed should send shivers up the spine of anyone who cares for their fellow American. This is just going to grow and grow and layoffs will happen in our trucking industry.
As to your last question, if the Teamsters and the unions that existed in the private sector had a half of brain, they would not have worked for Bill Clinton in 1992, they should have defeated him in the primary or help elect Ross Perot.
Thanks for letting me comment on your post. I wonder how the son of a milkman would have felt if hismfpdad lost his job to a foreign worker b/c bad trade deals some politician voter for?
“which didn’t happen”.
It is happening, albeit a very small scale, but is happening and likely grow.
CNN 2012-09-05: September 4, 2012 — Updated 2250 GMT (0650 HKT) Washington (CNN) — A year after Mexican trucks were first permitted to conduct long-haul operations in the United States, so few trucks have signed up for the pilot program that government auditors fear they won’t be able to complete a congressionally mandated study of the program’s safety. Only six Mexican trucking companies — most with a single truck — are participating in the program thus far, with some 24 other companies under review. As of July, Mexican trucks had made fewer than 100 long-haul trips into the United States. Unless the number of participating… more »
You are my last post, just poured a cold Schlitz, time to unwind. Thanks for commenting….
But at this point there is nothing that shows any impact to the trucking industry.
How did this post from a year ago January end up on the recommended list on May 11?
trying to figure that out myself…
…it has been because a second person just recommended it. What I can’t figure out is how john-from-lowell managed to recommend his own diary.
I went back to find a post of mine with one recommendation and I was not able to recommend it. john-from-lowell must have special powers, or maybe changed his account somehow.
I just tried and I was able to recommend my own posts. Who knew?
🙂