If Maine could have a statewide town meeting — maybe held in the world’s largest Grange hall — we probably could agree on who should replace Olympia Snowe in the U.S. Senate. Well, maybe we wouldn’t agree, but we probably could come up with a short list of acceptable candidates.
But that’s not how we do things, and more’s the pity. If we did, we would likely draft candidates willing to set aside partisan loyalty, ideological dogma and electoral longevity for the good of the nation.
The acceptable candidates would want federal spending reined in, especially as the economy recovers. They would work to further reduce the cost of health insurance for businesses and individuals, and be open to any plan to achieve that goal, regardless of which party hatched it.
Those candidates would tackle changes to Medicare and Social Security to ensure their long-term viability. They would sustain the social safety net while also building ladders out of poverty. They would support spending that protects Americans home and abroad, but refuse to issue blank checks to defense contractors while masking such profligacy as patriotism.
And perhaps most important for these times, they would be worried about the economic health of the nation’s middle class, while remaining wary of fixes that stifled the entrepreneurial spirit.
But instead of our collective values drafting that short list, would-be senators across the state are scrambling to win their party’s nomination for the open Senate seat, position themselves as viable independent candidates or vault from local elected positions to seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. It ain’t pretty.
We’ve seen this political chaos before, when George Mitchell announced in 1994 that he would not seek re-election to the Senate. Of course, it was Mr. Mitchell’s sudden, unexpected departure from the Senate that opened the way for then-Rep. Olympia Snowe to win that seat.
That year, Maine’s two members of Congress faced off in the Senate race. Republican Snowe built a large war chest and crushed Democrat Tom Andrews, winning 60 percent of the vote. Mr. Andrews, idealistic, bright and thoughtful and probably a rising star in his party, suddenly was washed out of electoral politics. He also was very liberal, which was not an asset in 1994, as the country recoiled from what it saw as the Clinton administration’s sharp left turn.
Though Sen. Snowe is now hailed for her role as a moderate Republican in a closely divided Senate, her record in the House was less centrist. During the Reagan years, she consistently supported the president’s agenda. But Maine changed. From reliably Republican, state voters supported the Democratic presidential nominee in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008. Sen. Snowe wisely began reflecting the state’s fiscally conservative, socially liberal, slightly left-of-center views.
Mr. Mitchell was Senate majority leader, and in electing Ms. Snowe, Maine lost clout at the federal level. But not for long. Sen. Snowe distinguished herself as a centrist; early on, she joined with several other women who joined the Senate in the 1990s on key votes on reproductive rights and related issues. And she voted “not guilty” on both articles of impeachment against President Clinton.
But partisan divides got deeper, and Sen. Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins carved out a place near that chasm that proved valuable for Maine. Living close to that edge, though, came at a personal cost. Two primary challengers rallied the tea party faithful to abandon her. At a caucus earlier this month, Republican voters booed her. That moment may have recalled for Sen. Snowe the end of Margaret Chase Smith’s Senate career. The popular and principled Republican lost a re-election bid in 1972 by a 6 percent margin.
Sen. Snowe’s yes vote on the Recovery Act had President Obama courting her for his health care bill. As a member of the Finance Committee her yes vote brought the Affordable Care Act to the Senate floor, but not before winning some concessions. But in the end, she voted against the bill, earning her the disdain of both sides.
Sen. Snowe listed the bitter partisan fights of recent years as a reason for leaving. So Maine and the nation lose a woman of integrity who has been willing to talk and listen to both sides. In a recent meeting with the BDN Editorial Board, she drew comparisons between the current budget process and that used in the Reagan years. That historical knowledge will be missed.
But 33 years in Congress is a long time, and the senator may have recognized the moment to step aside for new ears and new voices. If only we could be confident our string of stellar senators will continue.
Snowe more Olympia!
It would be refreshing if a person who had very little money, a regular job, and would live on his/her salary as a senator. It would also be refreshing if this person would return to his/her former life without accepting a cushy job as a lobbyist or in a corporation.
People with intelligence and motivation tend to make higher wages.
or marry well, or inherit, or commit crimes, or are people who take advantage of others, or people a la Madoff, or people like Jack Abramoff. There are many reasons for wealth not all of which are tied to legitimate, non self serving people
Do you have ANY numbers whatsoever to back up how many are on the lists you describe.??? Is it 5 percent?? If so, You’ve bought right into President Obama’s plan.
Do you really believe that the only problem we have in our country is some people are wealthy??
Once again, give me a percentage of those you think undeserving. If it’s not a high number then you should get a new schtick.
I am as far from wealthy as you can get at the moment and yet for some reason I’m not bitter that others have more. I believe YOU are BITTER.
Why not broaden your horizons? Look AT ISSUES and figure out who is of questionable character through rational thought, instead of BLIND hatred and envy.. Plenty on BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE to chose from .
All you have to do is look at those sectors of society who contribute large amounts of money to all Congressional and Presidential political campaigns and you will have a good list of those who are influencing the passing of laws favorable to the interests of said contributors.
Right, BOTH party’s are equally guilty.Do you dispute this?
I noticed no attempt to dispute my comments, just more of the same.
‘”the rich are terrible people.”
No dispute. The system is corrupt. Rich aren’t terrible people just greedy and want their own way at the expense of the rest of us.
How can anyone expect to be taken seriously when your essentially saying ALL wealthy people. How many of these people you despise do you know? One, two? And yet you have the expertise to know what everyone thinks and does. Forget President, perhaps you should be King of the world.
SOUR GRAPES.
All you have to do is look at the tax structure.
Who sets the tax code?????? Is it the business’s?
Our corrupt politicians are responsible for the tax code. Corporate America can throw all the money they want at the issues, Without politicians in their pockets they would have no power.
The DNC has done a wonderful job with the weak minded in directing them to focus on people NOT EVEN IN THE ROOM WHEN LAW IS MADE. Those representing us on BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE are responsible for the TAX CODES.
We’ve had a back and forth now and all you keep saying is the wealthy are bad. NEVER ANY SUBSTANCE TO YOUR COMMENTS. You don’t counter any point with a valid argument.
” The rich are greedy”
‘All you have to do is look at the tax structure.”
“All you have to do is look at those sectors of society who contribute large amounts of money to all Congressional and Presidential political campaigns and you will have a good list of those who are influencing the passing of laws favorable to the interests of said contributors.”—– I agree, BOTH PARTIES are equally as quilty.
Have you ever heard of a Soros or a Koch (two of the competing party’s hit list) being on the hill voting on ANY law? Please realize that our politicians are interested in one thing only, RE-ELECTION. Ask Olympia, why do you think she’s getting out.
No argument here. So I would assume that no matter who gets elected, wealthy or poor, the political system would corrupt him/her. But then shall we consider who is most likely to become elected?
Your probably right.
I think many of these people went in with the best intentions but found three things when they got to Washington.
1. It ain’t easy to get anything done.
2.”Wow, I get to hang out in D.C.”
3.If they play the cards right they can have the cushy spot for a long time.
What’s the solution?
I think a start would be term limits. Some will argue that every time the election’s role around we have the opportunity to get rid of the bad politicians. The problem is that too many that vote just rubber stamp the person they’re familiar with. Let’s be honest, I believe it’s a pretty small percentage of our population that truly pay attention and aren’t swayed by partisanship. Most are just sheep that go along with popular opinion of those they follow.
But then, how would term limits eliminate corruption? It would seem to me that if one was on a committee, for example, regulating some group of corporations and he/she acted legislatively in favor of said corporation what would stop that term limited politician from accepting a cushy position with that corporation when he was term limited out? In addition, what would prevent said term limited person from running for another position where he could also help said corporation and with super pacs accept the help of the corporation to get elected?
I said it was a start. I’m not Tim Geithner, come to think of it neither is he.
Part of a term limit concept may demand an individual be out of office two years. Nothing is perfect but limits would be an improvement.
I certainly don’t have all the answers but I’m not seeing the DNC talk about money other then to trash the wealthy.
Like it or not I do see the RNC talking issues and solutions more often then the DNC.
It doesn’t even matter whether I agree with anything Paul Ryan puts out, he talks issues.
I was thinking more along the lines of a third party, elimination of pacs and super pacs, and a $1000 limit on political contributions from anyone and only on a yearly basis.
Those sound good as well. unfortunately, the people who vote on those things would never allow any of it to happen. Term limits as well.
Oh–I thought they were really going to say what the next senator would look like. I hope he looks like my brother. Kevin Raye looks a bit like my brother.
I’m picturing Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
I’m picturing Jim Longley, Sr.
He didn’t have the temperament for politics, though, right?
If you mean he didn’t sell us down the river for personal gain then I suppose you’re correct.
If you mean that when he made a promise to serve only one term and kept it (unlike that lying sack of excrement in the red dress), then you would also be correct.
Whoever the next Senator from Maine turns out to be. I hope that they have the intestinal fortitude to not swear allegiance to any politiacal power group. Wether that group be right or left. That they keep in mind that they are representing everyone from all parties and walks of life. Not some narrow self interest group.
If we as a state can find someone like that, with the strength to bear up under the pressures that will be exerted on them, we will be very fortunate indeed.
Well, I guess you don’t want a Democrat, because they all have to kiss Sen. Reid’s ring in order to speak, vote, or breathe. But, since Reid will not be the majority leader come January, I guess it doesn’t make much difference.
I would be happy with a Democrat if that person kept their constituents in Maine at the forefront of their decision making. Unlike all but a very short list of Republicans who have signed fielty to Grover Norquist who to my knowledge has never held elected position in the united states.
Much of this article and many others claims that 1) a state with a senator or senators more senior than others accrues some benefit above what other states receive, and 2) Mainers somehow had received more than other states because our senators, at times, straddled the partisan divide.
Please, anyone, give some examples of benefits Mainers got that other US citizens did not get because of these factors. I don’t know of any.
While we got lots of “free money” and “benefits” from Washington, our roads have deteriorated, our incomes have languished and our welfare rolls have surged. I guess it really hasn’t helped, has it?
I can give you one example. MMA located on the former Loring AFB was kept alive for a couple of years because Sue Collins pushed for more money to be pumped in. She does know the area, she grew up there. One really stupid thing she backed was a bypass of Caribou which is currently under construction. I don’t understand how she thought that further damaging Caribou was a good idea. The townsfolk have been upset since the moment this was revealed.
I suspect it will “look” a lot like a bald guy who used to be governor, unless Chellie can buy it. Sorry, Cynthia…the grown ups are in it now.
The next Senator from Maine could be a key vote on the fate of Obamacare, the HHS mandates as well as the investigations into growing corruption probes of Fast & Furious, Solyndra, and Media Matters.
Olympia was always there to aid and abet the big ugly hand of government in stealing our money and strangling our liberties. When the proles rebelled (e.g. fisheries regulations) she would ride in on a white horse and ‘negotiate’ a manicure for the ugly hand, whereupon the rump swabs at the BDN would salaam and sing her praises as if she were the Saviour entering Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.
What a crock.
COMPROMISE has become a dirty word in Washington.. If you expect to get everything you want without bending then I don’t want you in office.
THAT means BOTH parties.
There is no compromise in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
If Joe Stalin wanted to cut off both your hands, Olympia would ‘compromise’ him down to just your right hand, three fingers on your left hand and four toes of either foot — plus a campaign contribution and committee chairmanship for herself. Good riddance to her and her kind.
Snowe has the most anti-conservative voting record of all the Republican Senators. She’s a RINO through and through. Just hope Mainers have the guts and intelligence to elect a real conservative. The state needs a strong conservative Senator to keep the state from further decline.
By the way, Sen. Snowe was instrumental in the closing of Loring AFB. Maybe one of these days the whole truth will come out. But, I doubt it.
You guys looking for a strong right-wing conservative here in Maine, are banging your heads against a wall, I’m afraid. Who is going to elect him or her? The votes just aren’t there.
It won’t if the BDN has anything to do with it.
We have been fortunate to have Senators through the years that refused to bend to party pressure. Collins and Snowe have done well respresenting the state. Let’s just hope that continues.
WTF? “The Clinton administration’s sharp left turn”? Get real. Clinton was far to the right of all previous Democratic Presidents and Candidates. That’s like saying Obama is a Socialist. The concept is too absurd to contemplate.
Obama is a Kenyan. The Kenyan is a marxist.
Uhh, yeah. Keep lying to yourself. WaHaHaHa!