Ageism in politics
California has two senators who are elderly, one seriously impaired and needing personal assistants to steer her throughout her day.
I agree that McConnell appears to be struggling to stay at his post and most likely should retire — what are his doctors saying? What is in the best interest of his party? A retired elder statesman post is a good gig, I would think.
The “other” woman seems a force of nature in heels, but has a lot of personal baggage accumulated over the years, which might come back to bite her sooner than later. Most old time pols, however, just can’t step away gracefully.
I don’t think it is all about the salary and perks, but influence peddling is surely tantalizing — IMHO.
mtierney said:
California has two senators who are elderly, one seriously impaired and needing personal assistants to steer her throughout her day.
I agree that McConnell appears to be struggling to stay at his post and most likely should retire — what are his doctors saying? What is in the best interest of his party? A retired elder statesman post is a good gig, I would think.
The “other” woman seems a force of nature in heels, but has a lot of personal baggage accumulated over the years, which might come back to bite her sooner than later. Most old time pols, however, just can’t step away gracefully.
I don’t think it is all about the salary and perks, but influence peddling is surely tantalizing — IMHO.
Senator Feinstein isn't running for re-election.
If she resigns or otherwise leaves her position on the Senate Judiciary Committee, any replacement would be blocked by Mitch McConnell.
Another example of how two-faced the GOP is.
I lean towards age limits, if only to avoid the awkwardness of what we are watching in politics.
Of course people do not age at the same rate but I assume the reason eligibility for retirement was originally 65 was it was a fair guess at the point health issues physical or mental might occur. I've had endless discussions about this with friends and we all love to argue that people are living longer but are they in better health? Some yes of course.
I argued on MOL against Markey when he was challenged by Joe Kennedy 111 on the bases of age. Markey may have been in great health and still may be but if he suddenly faced a health crisis we would add another name to the list. Although I was a fan of Nancy Pelosi, I was pleased to see Hakim Jeffries move into position.
I'm also for term limits and of course that includes SCOTUS.
And the there is this reality…..not ageism, but physical and mental challenges accommodated for a senator solely because of the vote count. Perhaps Fetterman would get healthier if he were back with his wife and kids in PA? Not having to wear a suit again ever! I can’t remember a member of the Senate getting special passes re decorum in the past. Can you?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/28/us/politics/john-fetterman-pennsylvania-interview.html
mtierney said:
Not having to wear a suit again ever! I can’t remember a member of the Senate getting special passes re decorum in the past. Can you?
mtierney said:
And the there is this reality…..not ageism, but physical and mental challenges accommodated for a senator solely because of the vote count. Perhaps Fetterman would get healthier if he were back with his wife and kids in PA? Not having to wear a suit again ever! I can’t remember a member of the Senate getting special passes re decorum in the past. Can you?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/28/us/politics/john-fetterman-pennsylvania-interview.html
It would be great if people based their comments on what's in the articles they cite.
An excerpt: "But in recent weeks, Mr. Fetterman has been adjusting to a more normal life for a lawmaker. Using a tablet that transcribes voice to text, he has started taking questions from reporters in the hallways, a staple of a senator’s life in Washington, and has begun inviting reporters into his office for informal off-the-record chats. He won approval last week of his first legislative proposal, an amendment to the annual military policy bill, which he wrote with Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, to ban the sale of strategic petroleum reserves to foreign adversaries."
nohero said:
It would be great if people based their comments on what's in the articles they cite.
An excerpt: "But in recent weeks, Mr. Fetterman has been adjusting to a more normal life for a lawmaker. Using a tablet that transcribes voice to text, he has started taking questions from reporters in the hallways, a staple of a senator’s life in Washington, and has begun inviting reporters into his office for informal off-the-record chats. He won approval last week of his first legislative proposal, an amendment to the annual military policy bill, which he wrote with Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, to ban the sale of strategic petroleum reserves to foreign adversaries."
you overlooked this part…
“It has been an unusual first six months in Congress for Senator John Fetterman, the 6-foot-8, tattooed Democrat from Pennsylvania, who moved to Washington in January after suffering a near-fatal stroke on the campaign trail last year and going on to win one of the most competitive seats in the midterm elections.
“Mr. Fetterman arrived on Capitol Hill, signature hoodie and all, as a figure of fascination. For months, though, he kept colleagues and reporters at an arm’s length as he labored to cope with auditory processing issues that are a side effect of his stroke and a debilitating bout of depression that he now says prompted him to consider harming himself.
“He was treated for clinical depression at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center earlier this year, and his six-week stay there placed him at the center of a national conversation about mental health, a role he wasn’t always certain he wanted to fill.”
mtierney said:
nohero said:
It would be great if people based their comments on what's in the articles they cite.
An excerpt: "But in recent weeks, Mr. Fetterman has been adjusting to a more normal life for a lawmaker. Using a tablet that transcribes voice to text, he has started taking questions from reporters in the hallways, a staple of a senator’s life in Washington, and has begun inviting reporters into his office for informal off-the-record chats. He won approval last week of his first legislative proposal, an amendment to the annual military policy bill, which he wrote with Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, to ban the sale of strategic petroleum reserves to foreign adversaries."
you overlooked this part…
“It has been an unusual first six months in Congress for Senator John Fetterman, the 6-foot-8, tattooed Democrat from Pennsylvania, who moved to Washington in January after suffering a near-fatal stroke on the campaign trail last year and going on to win one of the most competitive seats in the midterm elections.
“Mr. Fetterman arrived on Capitol Hill, signature hoodie and all, as a figure of fascination. For months, though, he kept colleagues and reporters at an arm’s length as he labored to cope with auditory processing issues that are a side effect of his stroke and a debilitating bout of depression that he now says prompted him to consider harming himself.
“He was treated for clinical depression at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center earlier this year, and his six-week stay there placed him at the center of a national conversation about mental health, a role he wasn’t always certain he wanted to fill.”
No, I didn't. That's recent history which anyone paying attention already knew. If you're going to argue that people aren't allowed to show that they've recovered, that's pretty cruel.
You commented on Senator Fetterman as he is now, and I responded with the relevant quote.
When press and president have each other’s back on social media….it’s called censorship.
The most embarrassing revelation of the “Facebook Files” released by House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan yesterday (described in more detail here) involves the news media:
In one damning email, an unnamed Facebook executive wrote to Mark Zuckerberg and Cheryl Sandberg:
We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press, to remove more Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content.
“We see repeatedly in internal communications not only in the email above, but in the Twitter Files, in the exhibits of the Missouri v Biden lawsuit, and even in the Freedom of Information request results beginning to trickle in here at Racket, that the news media has for some time been working in concert with civil society organizations, government, and tech platforms, as part of the censorship apparatus.
“In the summer of 2021, the White House and Joe Biden were in the middle of a major factual faceplant. They were not only telling people the Covid-19 vaccine was a sure bet — “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations” is how Biden put it — but that those who questioned its efficacy were “killing people.” But the shot didn’t work as advertised. It didn’t prevent contraction or transmission, something Biden himself continued to be wrong about as late as December of that year.
“If you go back and give a careful read to corporate media content from that time describing the administration’s war against “disinformation,” you’ll see outlets were themselves not confident the vaccine worked. Take the New York Times effort from July 16th, 2021, “They’re Killing People: Biden Denounces Social Media for Virus Disinformation.” You can see the Times tiptoeing around what they meant, when they used the word “disinformation.” In this and other pieces they used phrases like, “the spread of anti-vaccine misinformation,” “how to track misinformation,” “the prevalence of misinformation,” even “Biden’s forceful statement capped weeks of anger in the White House over the dissemination of vaccine disinformation,” but they repeatedly hesitated to say what the misinformation was.
“Any editor will tell you this language is a giveaway. Journalists wrote expansively about “disinformation,” but rarely got into specifics. They knew that they couldn’t state with certainty that the vaccine worked, that there weren’t side effects, etc., yet still denounced people who asked those questions. This is because they agreed with the concept of “malinformation,” i.e. there are things that may be true factually, but which may produce political results considered adverse. “Hestiancy” was one such bugbear. Note the language from the unnamed Facebook executive above, which describes the press lashing out “Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content,” not “disinformation.”
“This is total corruption of the news. We’re supposed to be in the business of questioning officials, even if the questions are unpopular. That’s our entire role! If we don’t do that, we serve no purpose, maybe even a negative purpose. Moreover, think of the implications. News outlets wail about “disinformation” when they’re aware the public has tuned them out. When people don’t listen to reporters, it’s usually because they suck. You can do the math, as to why the current crop embraces censorship. A more embarrassing outcome for our business would be hard to imagine.”
Ma'am. this is the "Ageism" thread. Your "Lies About The Vaccine Are Fine With Me" post should be in the "Rose Garden".
mtierney said:
“We see repeatedly in internal communications not only in the email above, but in the Twitter Files, in the exhibits of the Missouri v Biden lawsuit, and even in the Freedom of Information request results beginning to trickle in here at Racket, that the news media has for some time been working in concert with civil society organizations, government, and tech platforms, as part of the censorship apparatus.
“In the summer of 2021, the White House and Joe Biden were in the middle of a major factual faceplant. They were not only telling people the Covid-19 vaccine was a sure bet — “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations” is how Biden put it — but that those who questioned its efficacy were “killing people.” But the shot didn’t work as advertised. It didn’t prevent contraction or transmission, something Biden himself continued to be wrong about as late as December of that year.
“If you go back and give a careful read to corporate media content from that time describing the administration’s war against “disinformation,” you’ll see outlets were themselves not confident the vaccine worked. Take the New York Times effort from July 16th, 2021, “They’re Killing People: Biden Denounces Social Media for Virus Disinformation.” You can see the Times tiptoeing around what they meant, when they used the word “disinformation.” In this and other pieces they used phrases like, “the spread of anti-vaccine misinformation,” “how to track misinformation,” “the prevalence of misinformation,” even “Biden’s forceful statement capped weeks of anger in the White House over the dissemination of vaccine disinformation,” but they repeatedly hesitated to say what the misinformation was.
“Any editor will tell you this language is a giveaway. Journalists wrote expansively about “disinformation,” but rarely got into specifics. They knew that they couldn’t state with certainty that the vaccine worked, that there weren’t side effects, etc., yet still denounced people who asked those questions. This is because they agreed with the concept of “malinformation,” i.e. there are things that may be true factually, but which may produce political results considered adverse. “Hestiancy” was one such bugbear. Note the language from the unnamed Facebook executive above, which describes the press lashing out “Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content,” not “disinformation.”
“This is total corruption of the news. We’re supposed to be in the business of questioning officials, even if the questions are unpopular. That’s our entire role! If we don’t do that, we serve no purpose, maybe even a negative purpose. Moreover, think of the implications. News outlets wail about “disinformation” when they’re aware the public has tuned them out. When people don’t listen to reporters, it’s usually because they suck. You can do the math, as to why the current crop embraces censorship. A more embarrassing outcome for our business would be hard to imagine.”
mtierney said:
California has two senators who are elderly, one seriously impaired and needing personal assistants to steer her throughout her day.
I agree that McConnell appears to be struggling to stay at his post and most likely should retire — what are his doctors saying? What is in the best interest of his party? A retired elder statesman post is a good gig, I would think.
The “other” woman seems a force of nature in heels, but has a lot of personal baggage accumulated over the years, which might come back to bite her sooner than later. Most old time pols, however, just can’t step away gracefully.
I don’t think it is all about the salary and perks, but influence peddling is surely tantalizing — IMHO.
for the record, the junior senator from CA, Alex Padilla is 50 years old.
You may be thinking of Barbara Boxer, who retired from the Senate six years ago. Padilla is the second person to fill that seat since Boxer. You may recall the previous person. She's pretty well-known.
ml1 said:
for the record, the junior senator from CA, Alex Padilla is 50 years old.
You may be thinking of Barbara Boxer, who retired from the Senate six years ago. Padilla is the second person to fill that seat since Boxer. You may recall the previous person. She's pretty well-known.
I kind of thought the description fit Nancy Pelosi except that she is not a Senator. The "force of nature in heels" struck me as very Nancy.
mtierney said:
And the there is this reality…..not ageism, but physical and mental challenges accommodated for a senator solely because of the vote count. Perhaps Fetterman would get healthier if he were back with his wife and kids in PA? Not having to wear a suit again ever! I can’t remember a member of the Senate getting special passes re decorum in the past. Can you?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/28/us/politics/john-fetterman-pennsylvania-interview.html
I supported Fetterman with a donation because I was inspired by his courage. I already liked the man and his will to keep going, even knowing he would endure criticism and in some cases be mocked, inspired me. I often root for the underdog.
Added to that, I was turned off by Dr. Oz, so supporting Fetterman was logical to me and not merely for the importance of the extra seat.
I get that this man, both a giant in size and courage, is a character. Having once married a man with a seat on the exchange who was 6'7' and was most comfy in torn off jeans shorts, I'm amused. But no, he didn't wear them on the floor of the exchange.
Morganna said:
I get that this man, both a giant in size and courage, is a character. Having once married a man with a seat on the exchange who was 6'7' and was most comfy in torn off jeans shorts, I'm amused. But no, he didn't wear them on the floor of the exchange.
Fetterman "dresses appropriately" when he's on the floor of the Senate.
[Edited to add] Despite what Ms. Mtierney says, Senator Fetterman is not getting a "special pass for decorum". His "comfy clothes" are for when he's not on the Senate floor, as noted in the article.
nohero said:
Fetterman "dresses appropriately" when he's on the floor of the Senate.
[Edited to add] Despite what Ms. Mtierney says, Senator Fetterman is not getting a "special pass for decorum". His "comfy clothes" are for when he's not on the Senate floor, as noted in the article.
No, I didn't mean to imply that Fetterman did, I was just defending the big guy in shorts image and assumed the next question would be if he wore them to work.
nohero said:
mtierney said:
“We see repeatedly in internal communications not only in the email above, but in the Twitter Files, in the exhibits of the Missouri v Biden lawsuit, and even in the Freedom of Information request results beginning to trickle in here at Racket, that the news media has for some time been working in concert with civil society organizations, government, and tech platforms, as part of the censorship apparatus.
“In the summer of 2021, the White House and Joe Biden were in the middle of a major factual faceplant. They were not only telling people the Covid-19 vaccine was a sure bet — “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations” is how Biden put it — but that those who questioned its efficacy were “killing people.” But the shot didn’t work as advertised. It didn’t prevent contraction or transmission, something Biden himself continued to be wrong about as late as December of that year.
“If you go back and give a careful read to corporate media content from that time describing the administration’s war against “disinformation,” you’ll see outlets were themselves not confident the vaccine worked. Take the New York Times effort from July 16th, 2021, “They’re Killing People: Biden Denounces Social Media for Virus Disinformation.” You can see the Times tiptoeing around what they meant, when they used the word “disinformation.” In this and other pieces they used phrases like, “the spread of anti-vaccine misinformation,” “how to track misinformation,” “the prevalence of misinformation,” even “Biden’s forceful statement capped weeks of anger in the White House over the dissemination of vaccine disinformation,” but they repeatedly hesitated to say what the misinformation was.
“Any editor will tell you this language is a giveaway. Journalists wrote expansively about “disinformation,” but rarely got into specifics. They knew that they couldn’t state with certainty that the vaccine worked, that there weren’t side effects, etc., yet still denounced people who asked those questions. This is because they agreed with the concept of “malinformation,” i.e. there are things that may be true factually, but which may produce political results considered adverse. “Hestiancy” was one such bugbear. Note the language from the unnamed Facebook executive above, which describes the press lashing out “Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content,” not “disinformation.”
“This is total corruption of the news. We’re supposed to be in the business of questioning officials, even if the questions are unpopular. That’s our entire role! If we don’t do that, we serve no purpose, maybe even a negative purpose. Moreover, think of the implications. News outlets wail about “disinformation” when they’re aware the public has tuned them out. When people don’t listen to reporters, it’s usually because they suck. You can do the math, as to why the current crop embraces censorship. A more embarrassing outcome for our business would be hard to imagine.”
Ma'am. this is the "Ageism" thread. Your "Lies About The Vaccine Are Fine With Me" post should be in the "Rose Garden".
maybe she’s just trying to prove, by example, that when one reaches a certain age one can’t always stay on target.
Steve said:
maybe she’s just trying to prove, by example, that when one reaches a certain age one can’t always stay on target.
no, your knee-jerk assumption is wrong, I blame the misdirection of the Substack article to the extreme heat over the last few days. All should be better with the promise of a weather break ahead. I was going to post the article properly later in the morning, but I think it is not necessary at this point — the intended audience read it!
mtierney, re: the heat, good news from Wisconsin! The heat (such as it was) has broken here, and cooler weather should be arriving in NJ soon.
(about kissing a frog, it makes a great fairy tale, but don't people warn us nowadays not to expect a partner -- or nominee -- to change just because we wish he would?)
I think there should be an age limit and term limits. For age limit, I think somewhere in the range of 70-75 years is fair. For term limits, a max of 4 terms as US Representative and 3 terms as Senator.
Age or term limits would require a change to the Constitution, right? Not impossible, but unlikely.
Let me be the first oldster here to support working for such a change — 40 years away from the real world, on the government’s teat, is way too long. I would support higher salaries for dedicated people elected to serve our nation. Life after public service should be a prelude to a still rewarding private professional life.
dave said:
Age or term limits would require a change to the Constitution, right? Not impossible, but unlikely.
mtierney said:
Let me be the first oldster here to support working for such a change — 40 years away from the real world, on the government’s teat, is way too long. I would support higher salaries for dedicated people elected to serve our nation. Life after public service should be a prelude to a still rewarding private professional life.
dave said:
Age or term limits would require a change to the Constitution, right? Not impossible, but unlikely.
7 in 10 democrats feel Biden should not run for a second term. What percentage of republicans feel Mitch McConnell should step down before 2026? They’re both the same age. Trumpenstein will be their age if he gets a second term, will you be willing to share the cartoons that may pop up then?
Old people in positions of power are all under scrutiny now, as it should be. That’s why term limits are needed.
mtierney describes what used to be called public service, or civil service, as "40 years away from the real world, on the government’s teat, is way too long"
I am so so so tired of unthinking, scattershot badmouthing of people who choose to work directly on public projects. Granted there are some jerks, goof-offs and do-nothings in government, as is certainly also true in the private sector. There are also a slew of dedicated and knowledgeable people trying to hold things together and make a better country for all of us (though this was probably more noticeable when there was a smaller proportion of badmouthing and a larger proportion of proposals for improvement/adjustment).
Jaytee said:
Old people in positions of power are all under scrutiny now, as it should be. That’s why term limits are needed.
The Presidency has term limits and that hasn't done anything to stop the Mr Burnses of this world from clinging to power.
People have studied state legislatures that have adopted term limits and the net effect has been to simply shift power from career lawmakers lobbyists who write legislation for assembly persons and senators too in experienced in the issues at hand to write it for themselves. We should be working to decrease the power of lobbyists, not enhance it.
I would, however, absolutely support mandatory retirement ages for politicians and judges. If we, as a society, can decide that folks under 18 are too young to vote and adults under 30 are too young to be Senators, we can certainly decide that folks over 80 are too old to wield power
Burns is CEO of a private-sector nuke energy plant, so board of dirs. would decide on his hiring, benefits and pay, not Congress.
terp said:
How great must these jobs be for them to hold on for so long?
It's not just in politics -- feels like in general we're at the tail end of a generational change, but the prior generations won't actually retire. I'm seeing this in movies and TV for instance, with actors and the characters they played in their youth still being pushed (and in some cases even digitally resurrected if the actor has passed) -- Indiana Jones, the most recent Matrix, Picard, Star Wars, etc.
I have no problems if they can still do it. For instance, Clint Eastwood still makes really good movies.
Some of these people on the hill can't do it any longer, but there they are.
If we were to switch Biden with McConnell, would our resident right wing “conservative” abstain from posting about McConnell’s age and health issues?
I really feel age should not be a problem with leadership, but health issues surely are problematic. After all, the VP is just a heartbeat away if the president slips off the stairs. If McConnell was president, how might the cartoons look?
Feinstein is also an obvious problem, and I feel she’s going to pull the same stunt that RBG did and harm the Democratic Party.
How can congress handle situations like these? With very old, sickly people still hanging on, even with one foot in the nursing home… and the other on a banana peel… term limits has to be enacted.