The Common Purpose of Agreement with the Aristocrat
Justin Katz
Sitting next to Kate Coyne-McCoy, who is regional director of the pro-abortion advocacy group Emily's List, for the WRNI Political Roundtable that airs today, I saw first-hand just how thrilled the far left is with the election of Governor Lincoln Chafee. (Listen around 6:40 a.m. and 7:40 a.m. on 102.7 FM/1290 AM and online later here.) Indeed, the only thing that thrilled Coyne-McCoy more was the success of now-General Treasurer Gina Raimondo. (Think on that those of you who thought you'd give her a chance.)
The conversation began on the topic of Chafee's inaugural call for "coming together," and the quotation that the Providence Journal prints here:
Laying out his vision for the next four years, he asked "all Rhode Islanders to join me in boldly reaffirming Roger Williams' vision of a 'civil state' ... a vibrant, diverse community that is free of political, cultural and ethnic division."
I made the elementary point that politics is the art of dealing with division, so Chafee's vision is built around a non sequitur. What a "common purpose" means in that context is for the opposition just to drop those topics on which Chafee knows himself to be decisively correct, whatever large numbers of his fellow Rhode Islanders may think. Civility becomes his willingness to walk away from an argument.
Unfortunately, his past behavior proves Chafee to be a guy who sees astonished reactions among his ideological opponents as evidence of his own fortitude, and the love of his agenda among mainstream media types is so strong that he'll get away with governing from fantasy land, at least for a while. This is a guy whose economic development plan appears to be to implement same-sex marriage, open the door to illegal immigrants (and push for amnesty, nationally), impose a tax increase on currently tax-free goods and services, insult prominent entrepreneurs, and threaten economic development officials with personal liability if their investments go wrong. He proclaims openness and "coming together" while declining to meet with the local leaders of issue-by-issue opposition. And he gets away with it.
Earlier this week, Monique noted Pawtucket Times columnist Jim Baron's suggestion that Chafee should throw his arm around Education Commissioner Deborah Gist, in part to "shut up" folks (like me) who see the unions behind Chafee's door. It will be interesting to see whether and how Baron reacts when Chafee does no such thing — when he marches right along with his political assumptions, contrary evidence be damned.
Will those who tingle at the elevation of Linc Chafee adjust their views when Rhode Island further deteriorates politically and economically, or will they find somebody else to blame? (Remembering that the General Assembly already gets a pass.)
(Think on that those of you who thought you'd give her a chance.)
Is there no room for patience or deliberation for the ideolouge. Define instantly those with whom you will argue and fight. Don't wait, consider, empathize, or have any exchange. Only identify and segregate. Us and them. No chances for the friends of your enemies. Es ist verboten.
Baloney, Phil. I didn't offer a conclusion; I merely suggested that folks who helped start Raimondo's political career as voters should consider that people who dedicate their lives to the cause of killing unborn babies are tantalized about her political possibilities. I hope she does marvelously investing and managing little Rhody's money, but if she goes on to advance a cause that takes millions of innocent lives each year, then marginal improvements in state finances pale in comparison.
Phil is again engaging in the time-dishonored tactic of projecting. He accuses Justin of being an "ideologue" and going too quickly on the attack, not giving Raimondo a chance. Aside from the accusation being untrue, such behaviors are what Phil, Russ and the other Leftists do reflexively as their standard practice.
The shameless hypocrisy of the Left is on display once again, thanks to Phil's self-revealing post.
We see through your BS, Lefties. Soon you won't be able to fool anybody.
I just heard it. It was laughable as that segment is usually a "debate" between the far far far left and the far far far far far left.
Who will "progressives" blame when their marxist policies fail?
Not themselves-but you already knew that.
It will be "the far right ray-zist religious tea bagging wackos" in the House who didn't bailout the states.
We see through your BS, Lefties. Soon you won't be able to fool anybody.
Posted by BobN at January 7, 2011 8:20 AM
Would that were the case. They've been fooling the marks in this state for 76 f****** straight years.
I don't think it amounts to jumping to conclusions to to form an opinion based on what emanates from a known quantity(in this case Kate Coyne-McCoy).
I have long considered Coyne-McCoy to be one of the most vile creatures in this states' political scene.her endorsement of someone makes me think there's not much to like or trust about that individual.
This is a matter of logic,although it's not 100% reliable(what is except that you're gonna die?)
Raimondo probably ahs the technical creds to do the job,but where elase will she stick her nose in?(Whatta schnozz.)OK,that was gratuitous.
Phil nails it above, a perfect illustration of the fear of difference which defines the reactionary right. Have you even met Raimondo, Justin? She was clearly the most qualified candidate. We're lucky to have her.
Let me come down somewhere in the middle on the Raimondo comment. Just wrote:
"Indeed, the only thing that thrilled Coyne-McCoy more was the success of now-General Treasurer Gina Raimondo. (Think on that those of you who thought you'd give her a chance.)"
The insinuation that I get from that is you think the General Treasurer will have a policy on abortion or be able to assist the pro-choice people in some way. However, that might not be the case. Maybe Coyne-McCoy was happy because she thinks that RI desperately needed a great General Treasurer to help us get back on track and thinks that Raimondo is the right person. There could be a whole number of reasons as to why KCM was happy about the fact.
People aren't defined by just one stance or what they do. People are multi-faceted and have different ranges of thoughts and beliefs and can be in favor or opposed to issues or people for any number of reasons. I don't think the insinuation you put on Raimondo is completely fair.
"Maybe Coyne-McCoy was happy because she thinks that RI desperately needed a great General Treasurer..."
Maybe that as well, but Emily's List is an organization whose goal is to elect pro-choice women. I'm sure she was pleased that we have such a qualified candidate in Raimondo.
Russ-wow,,she was the most qualified candidate.I guess.She was up against a political hack who had some questionable history about residency/tax obligations.It's bad enough we have a Governor now who had those issues-we don't need the whole Exexcutive Branch filled with them.
One thing about Raimondo pisses me off more than Emily's List.
She cited "other parties" being put in the public eye when refusing to disclose her tax return,but promised she'd do so after election.Now she says she'll make it public after a year in office,so that all we'll be able to see is her income as General Treasurer.
It seems like a cheap,evasive maneuver to me.But Russ,I know you won't disappoint me and will explain what a petty,miserable right wing fanatic I am for bringing this up.
She could've just said"I'm not releasing it".She wasn't compelled to.
Sounds like somebody's more scared of Raimondo than of Chafee. Maybe because the blueblood meme and some of the other crap that gets thrown at Chafee won't stick to her so easily?
Well, Joe at least that's an issue that is possibly relevant to her ability to do the job of general treasurer. I'd prefer if she disclosed the returns too (partners at Point Judith Capital be damned). But I didnt' view it as such a problem that it would override her obvious qualifications for the job.
Patrick,
The glee clearly had more to do with the prospects of where Raimondo might go after the treasurer's office. It's a stepping-stone office, and precisely because issues like abortion don't come up in treasurer races, it is important for people to be aware of that aspect of her background.
"The glee clearly had more to do with the prospects of where Raimondo might go after the treasurer's office."
Yes, I meant to mention that part too, and I get your point of "Hey if she does run for Governor, make a mental note of this!", but at the same time, I'd like to take things one step at a time and cross that bridge when we come to it. If she does run for Governor, then those sorts of stances can be brought out.
Why should pro-lifers give a candidate a pass on the issue when the pro-abortion crowd is planning on that very basis? Seems like a strategy for defeat.
wrt tax returns, I don't understand why people see having a General Treasurer who knows how to invest money and make millions and is personally a millionaire is a bad thing. I'd rather have a millionaire investor as my state's Treasurer than someone who loses a quarter of a million dollars of the state's money and then files for bankruptcy so he doesn't have to pay it back. Or something like that.
Gina, be proud of your success. Don't hide it. But then again, all her "friends" over at RIF think she shouldn't be allowed to make those millions. Funny how there's all this Wall Street greed and there should be a personal income cap, yet they'll rally behind her as their candidate. Yeah, we already knew that consistency in an argument isn't their strong point.
Spam filter disallowed another comment (love the new system guys!). Try this again...
"But then again, all her "friends" over at RIF think she shouldn't be allowed to make those millions."
I'm with Paine on that one...
**quote**
The contrast of affluence and wretchedness continually meeting and offending the eye, is like dead and living bodies chained together. Though I care as little about riches as any man, I am a friend to riches because they are capable of good.
I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable in consequence of it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, while so much misery is mingled in the scene.
**end quote**
Note that Raimondo is also a long time advocate for the homeless and currently on the board at Crossroads.
www.crossroadsri.org/whoweare/contactus/boardmembers.aspx
I'm actually not "afraid"(Bella I've been afraid of things in my life,but they weren't some piddly politicians)of Raimondo as Treasurer at all.She apparently knows what to do effectively with large amounts of money.What bothered me was simply the evasive behavior and her relationship with Coyne-McCoy,who is inimical to everything I believe in.
Russ, are you saying that you and maybe some others are ok with someone earning many millions of dollars each year, if they are generous with charities? I think I've seen people like Bill Gates villainized over at RIF, yet I don't think there are very many who donate more money to good causes than him.
Plus, isn't it a good thing to keep quiet about your own good deeds? People on the left complain about how much money that Carcieri made and how much Wall Street makes, yet we have no idea if those people also donate millions to charitable causes.
Justin
Permit me that I was a little confused about the link you were making to abortion rights and the new General Treasurer. I don't see it as that important. The support she receives from a pro choice advocate has no bearing on what she faces as Treasurer. I'm with Patrick on this inasmuch as people have all kinds of positions that a voter weighs before they cast their vote. Their position on abortion rights may disqualify them for some who push that one issue above all else. But once elected I think that reasonable people should give the new officeholder a chance. Don't you?
Someone objected to me calling Justin an ideologue. I don't see it as an insult but instead an accurate description. I think Justin would agree.
The difference, Phil, is that Justin and his colleagues actually do their own analysis and thinking and put up original ideas. All you and your friends do is blurt out adolescent, sarcastic wisecracks and talking points from the Leftist propaganda machine.
Colonel Klink: Schultz, into the cooler they go. Throw away the key.
Carter: Don't we get a trial or anything?
Colonel Klink: This is Germany. Although I do appreciate your sense of humor.
"
A Leftist quoting fictional characters to attempt to make a point? Didn't your friends point the finger at me for the same thing?
And repeating dialogue "borrowed" from others is an unexpectedly immediate example of what I just criticized Phil for. Thanks for making my point.
Even worse, in this case there isn't even a point to Phil's post.
Anyone turning in the wrong sheet or loudtalking gets A NIGHT IN THE BOX!!
Since we're on a roll here.
"Russ, are you saying that you and maybe some others are ok with someone earning many millions of dollars each year, if they are generous with charities?"
No, although people should be charitable as well. It's a question of whether the system is just. The paragraph containing that quote above begins with "It is not charity but a right, not bounty but justice, that I am pleading for." Paine countinues:
*** quote ***
There are, in every country, some magnificent claritics established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed.
*** end quote ***
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
(Think on that those of you who thought you'd give her a chance.)
Is there no room for patience or deliberation for the ideolouge. Define instantly those with whom you will argue and fight. Don't wait, consider, empathize, or have any exchange. Only identify and segregate. Us and them. No chances for the friends of your enemies. Es ist verboten.
Posted by: Phil at January 7, 2011 7:13 AMBaloney, Phil. I didn't offer a conclusion; I merely suggested that folks who helped start Raimondo's political career as voters should consider that people who dedicate their lives to the cause of killing unborn babies are tantalized about her political possibilities. I hope she does marvelously investing and managing little Rhody's money, but if she goes on to advance a cause that takes millions of innocent lives each year, then marginal improvements in state finances pale in comparison.
Posted by: Justin Katz at January 7, 2011 7:21 AMPhil is again engaging in the time-dishonored tactic of projecting. He accuses Justin of being an "ideologue" and going too quickly on the attack, not giving Raimondo a chance. Aside from the accusation being untrue, such behaviors are what Phil, Russ and the other Leftists do reflexively as their standard practice.
The shameless hypocrisy of the Left is on display once again, thanks to Phil's self-revealing post.
We see through your BS, Lefties. Soon you won't be able to fool anybody.
Posted by: BobN at January 7, 2011 8:20 AMI just heard it. It was laughable as that segment is usually a "debate" between the far far far left and the far far far far far left.
Posted by: Tommy Cranston at January 7, 2011 8:25 AMWho will "progressives" blame when their marxist policies fail?
Not themselves-but you already knew that.
It will be "the far right ray-zist religious tea bagging wackos" in the House who didn't bailout the states.
We see through your BS, Lefties. Soon you won't be able to fool anybody.
Posted by BobN at January 7, 2011 8:20 AM
Would that were the case. They've been fooling the marks in this state for 76 f****** straight years.
Posted by: Tommy Cranston at January 7, 2011 8:28 AMI don't think it amounts to jumping to conclusions to to form an opinion based on what emanates from a known quantity(in this case Kate Coyne-McCoy).
Posted by: joe bernstein at January 7, 2011 8:46 AMI have long considered Coyne-McCoy to be one of the most vile creatures in this states' political scene.her endorsement of someone makes me think there's not much to like or trust about that individual.
This is a matter of logic,although it's not 100% reliable(what is except that you're gonna die?)
Raimondo probably ahs the technical creds to do the job,but where elase will she stick her nose in?(Whatta schnozz.)OK,that was gratuitous.
Phil nails it above, a perfect illustration of the fear of difference which defines the reactionary right. Have you even met Raimondo, Justin? She was clearly the most qualified candidate. We're lucky to have her.
Posted by: Russ at January 7, 2011 9:47 AMLet me come down somewhere in the middle on the Raimondo comment. Just wrote:
"Indeed, the only thing that thrilled Coyne-McCoy more was the success of now-General Treasurer Gina Raimondo. (Think on that those of you who thought you'd give her a chance.)"
The insinuation that I get from that is you think the General Treasurer will have a policy on abortion or be able to assist the pro-choice people in some way. However, that might not be the case. Maybe Coyne-McCoy was happy because she thinks that RI desperately needed a great General Treasurer to help us get back on track and thinks that Raimondo is the right person. There could be a whole number of reasons as to why KCM was happy about the fact.
People aren't defined by just one stance or what they do. People are multi-faceted and have different ranges of thoughts and beliefs and can be in favor or opposed to issues or people for any number of reasons. I don't think the insinuation you put on Raimondo is completely fair.
Posted by: Patrick at January 7, 2011 10:34 AM"Maybe Coyne-McCoy was happy because she thinks that RI desperately needed a great General Treasurer..."
Maybe that as well, but Emily's List is an organization whose goal is to elect pro-choice women. I'm sure she was pleased that we have such a qualified candidate in Raimondo.
Posted by: Russ at January 7, 2011 10:43 AMRuss-wow,,she was the most qualified candidate.I guess.She was up against a political hack who had some questionable history about residency/tax obligations.It's bad enough we have a Governor now who had those issues-we don't need the whole Exexcutive Branch filled with them.
Posted by: joe bernstein at January 7, 2011 10:59 AMOne thing about Raimondo pisses me off more than Emily's List.
She cited "other parties" being put in the public eye when refusing to disclose her tax return,but promised she'd do so after election.Now she says she'll make it public after a year in office,so that all we'll be able to see is her income as General Treasurer.
It seems like a cheap,evasive maneuver to me.But Russ,I know you won't disappoint me and will explain what a petty,miserable right wing fanatic I am for bringing this up.
She could've just said"I'm not releasing it".She wasn't compelled to.
Sounds like somebody's more scared of Raimondo than of Chafee. Maybe because the blueblood meme and some of the other crap that gets thrown at Chafee won't stick to her so easily?
Posted by: bella at January 7, 2011 11:08 AMWell, Joe at least that's an issue that is possibly relevant to her ability to do the job of general treasurer. I'd prefer if she disclosed the returns too (partners at Point Judith Capital be damned). But I didnt' view it as such a problem that it would override her obvious qualifications for the job.
Posted by: Russ at January 7, 2011 11:25 AMPatrick,
The glee clearly had more to do with the prospects of where Raimondo might go after the treasurer's office. It's a stepping-stone office, and precisely because issues like abortion don't come up in treasurer races, it is important for people to be aware of that aspect of her background.
Posted by: Justin Katz at January 7, 2011 12:09 PM"The glee clearly had more to do with the prospects of where Raimondo might go after the treasurer's office."
Yes, I meant to mention that part too, and I get your point of "Hey if she does run for Governor, make a mental note of this!", but at the same time, I'd like to take things one step at a time and cross that bridge when we come to it. If she does run for Governor, then those sorts of stances can be brought out.
Posted by: Patrick at January 7, 2011 12:21 PMWhy should pro-lifers give a candidate a pass on the issue when the pro-abortion crowd is planning on that very basis? Seems like a strategy for defeat.
Posted by: Justin Katz at January 7, 2011 12:24 PMwrt tax returns, I don't understand why people see having a General Treasurer who knows how to invest money and make millions and is personally a millionaire is a bad thing. I'd rather have a millionaire investor as my state's Treasurer than someone who loses a quarter of a million dollars of the state's money and then files for bankruptcy so he doesn't have to pay it back. Or something like that.
Gina, be proud of your success. Don't hide it. But then again, all her "friends" over at RIF think she shouldn't be allowed to make those millions. Funny how there's all this Wall Street greed and there should be a personal income cap, yet they'll rally behind her as their candidate. Yeah, we already knew that consistency in an argument isn't their strong point.
Posted by: Patrick at January 7, 2011 12:26 PMSpam filter disallowed another comment (love the new system guys!). Try this again...
"But then again, all her "friends" over at RIF think she shouldn't be allowed to make those millions."
I'm with Paine on that one...
**quote**
The contrast of affluence and wretchedness continually meeting and offending the eye, is like dead and living bodies chained together. Though I care as little about riches as any man, I am a friend to riches because they are capable of good.
I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable in consequence of it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, while so much misery is mingled in the scene.
**end quote**
Note that Raimondo is also a long time advocate for the homeless and currently on the board at Crossroads.
Posted by: Russ at January 7, 2011 1:46 PMwww.crossroadsri.org/whoweare/contactus/boardmembers.aspx
I'm actually not "afraid"(Bella I've been afraid of things in my life,but they weren't some piddly politicians)of Raimondo as Treasurer at all.She apparently knows what to do effectively with large amounts of money.What bothered me was simply the evasive behavior and her relationship with Coyne-McCoy,who is inimical to everything I believe in.
Posted by: joe bernstein at January 7, 2011 2:28 PMRuss, are you saying that you and maybe some others are ok with someone earning many millions of dollars each year, if they are generous with charities? I think I've seen people like Bill Gates villainized over at RIF, yet I don't think there are very many who donate more money to good causes than him.
Plus, isn't it a good thing to keep quiet about your own good deeds? People on the left complain about how much money that Carcieri made and how much Wall Street makes, yet we have no idea if those people also donate millions to charitable causes.
Posted by: Patrick at January 7, 2011 4:26 PMJustin
Permit me that I was a little confused about the link you were making to abortion rights and the new General Treasurer. I don't see it as that important. The support she receives from a pro choice advocate has no bearing on what she faces as Treasurer. I'm with Patrick on this inasmuch as people have all kinds of positions that a voter weighs before they cast their vote. Their position on abortion rights may disqualify them for some who push that one issue above all else. But once elected I think that reasonable people should give the new officeholder a chance. Don't you?
Someone objected to me calling Justin an ideologue. I don't see it as an insult but instead an accurate description. I think Justin would agree.
Posted by: Phil at January 7, 2011 6:44 PMThe difference, Phil, is that Justin and his colleagues actually do their own analysis and thinking and put up original ideas. All you and your friends do is blurt out adolescent, sarcastic wisecracks and talking points from the Leftist propaganda machine.
Posted by: BobN at January 7, 2011 8:07 PMColonel Klink: Schultz, into the cooler they go. Throw away the key.
Posted by: Phil at January 8, 2011 8:29 AMCarter: Don't we get a trial or anything?
Colonel Klink: This is Germany. Although I do appreciate your sense of humor.
"
A Leftist quoting fictional characters to attempt to make a point? Didn't your friends point the finger at me for the same thing?
And repeating dialogue "borrowed" from others is an unexpectedly immediate example of what I just criticized Phil for. Thanks for making my point.
Even worse, in this case there isn't even a point to Phil's post.
Posted by: BobN at January 8, 2011 10:12 AMAnyone turning in the wrong sheet or loudtalking gets A NIGHT IN THE BOX!!
Posted by: joe bernstein at January 9, 2011 4:18 PMSince we're on a roll here.
"Russ, are you saying that you and maybe some others are ok with someone earning many millions of dollars each year, if they are generous with charities?"
No, although people should be charitable as well. It's a question of whether the system is just. The paragraph containing that quote above begins with "It is not charity but a right, not bounty but justice, that I am pleading for." Paine countinues:
*** quote ***
Posted by: Russ at January 10, 2011 1:31 PMThere are, in every country, some magnificent claritics established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed.
*** end quote ***