Feb
22
2013

Ed Markey’s increasingly useful stupid rhetoric on Citizen United and the Dred Scott decision.

Yeah, I think that Massachusetts Senate hopeful Ed Markey’s (D, MA-05) going to have more problems in his primary than he thought that he was going to have in his primary.

Representative Edward J. Markey refused to back down Thursday from comments he made this week that seemed to compare the US Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance law to the high court’s 19th-century Dred Scott decision, a notorious pro-slavery ruling.

Because let’s see who the Boston Globe quoted in response. Reverend Eugene F. Rivers III of the Ella J. Baker House and Boston TenPoint Coalition called this a “somewhat revisionist approach to the Dred Scott case” (Translation: What the heck, Markey?). Reverend Talbert W. Swan II of the Springfield NAACP tried to polish the excrement a little, but concluded “I don’t think campaign ­finance can be compared to the subjugation of an entire people” (translation: What the heck, Markey?).  The Reverend William E. Dickerson II of Dorchester’s Greater Love Tabernacle noted that “We minimize the issue of the Dred Scott decision when we try to juxtapose it [with lesser issues]” (translation: What the he… oh, you get the point). And, of course, there was Stephen Lynch (Markey’s major opponent in the Democratic primary), who took time out from laughing at Markey’s gaffe to solemnly assure the world that while of course he feels that Citizens United should be overturned via a Constitutional amendment* (while still taking that dirty, dirty corporate campaign money, of course) he doesn’t think that it was anything as bad as the Dred Scott decision.

All in all: this is pretty much what happens when a Massachusetts Democrat who isn’t used to pandering to black voters tries to pander to black voters.  I take a slightly detached view on this, given that the GOP primary hasn’t shaken out yet.  After all, Stephen Lynch is of course unreliable: he’s a ‘socially conservative Democrat,’ which is semantically equivalent to ‘the Democratic Establishment hasn’t gotten around to breaking him yet.’  And Ed Markey is a crazy anti-science progressive who thinks nuclear power plants are almost as scary as roller coasters (NO, REALLY).  It’s a bit of a head-scratcher to try to figure out which candidate to hope for, although right now Ed Markey seems to be ahead on points (Stephen Lynch seems to be just low-profile enough that we’d have trouble pinning anything on him)…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: …What?  No, of course I’m thinking about how to snag this Senate seat.  I’m always thinking about ways to pick up seats, and so should you.  To quote somebody or other: if nobody fights the bad guys, then they win.

PPS: If that attitude bothers you and you’re putatively on my side, then perhaps you should be considering whether you’re really happy paying attention to politics.  You might want to consider taking a break.

PPPS: Life is not fair.  Suck it up and walk it off.

*No.

4 Comments

  • jbird says:

    I tend to default to wanting the most insane opponent to win just as a cautionary tale to the rest of the nation. But, at this point the House and Senate are full of cautionary tales. I’m not sure the current journalistic environment lends itself to lesson learning.

    • Brian Swisher says:

      We’ve got a frickin’ cautionary tale running the country…and a lot of people seem to think it’s a Good Thing…

  • sicsemperstolidissimum says:

    In fairness to Markey…
    .
    I seem to recall that there was a post Civil War US Supreme Court case, which was split 1 Democrat, n Republicans. This was one of the legal events that helped end Reconstruction, and thereby paved the way for Jim Crow.
    .
    I can kinda sorta see parallels between that one, and united.
    .
    Thing is, the Democrat who voted against? His reasoning was that he knew the Democrats, and knew they could not be trusted with what was being given to them. He was right. The Republicans who voted for it? They knew that the status quo could not be held for ever, that the post war stuff had to end sooner or later, or risk a Republican political majority maintained by force becoming permanent. They also knew that the Feds could not just use the army to hand the freed slaves freedom, that they would eventually need to take it for themselves to have any real ownership of it. The Republican Justices were also right in general, however I may quibble with the specific.
    .
    So maybe he has his court cases confused /and/ is a sloppy thinker?

  • If it’s going to be fast Eddie Markey and Stephen Lynch, you’d want Lynchie. He’s just your average run of the mill corrupt democrat from the People’s Republic while Markey’s a true believer moonbat.

    Not that I’d want either if I had my druthers…

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com