When Should Aging Politicians Retire?

Texas Congressman Ralph Moody Hall was born a few weeks after Warren G. Harding died in office, Vice President Calvin Coolidge had been sworn in and the Republican Teapot Dome bribery scandal was shaking confidence in the Republican Party. He was ten when FDR was first elected and an adult when there was an President in office not named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Other than John Dingell (age 87), Hall is the last living congressman who fought in World War II. An attorney, he was elected to the Texas state Senate in 1962 and then to Congress in 1980. He was an ultra-conservative Democrat, helped found the Blue Dogs, voted to impeach President Clinton, supported Bush over Gore and finally switched to the GOP in 2004. He's now not just the oldest Member of Congress, he's the oldest person to ever serve in Congress. Last June, smelling food and hearing the familiar refrain of I Will Survive, a confused Hall wandered into a Gay Victory Fund celebration in the Rayburn Office Building. Although he is a cosponsor of all kinds of homophobic GOP legislation, he was welcomed warmly by his LGBT colleagues and given "refreshments." Later when Roll Call mentioned that the doddering Texan had "let his hair down," a snappy staffer wrote a quote for him: "I would just say that while I do have a good head of hair for a 90-year-old, I do not have the quantity of hair, nor the inclination, to let it down."

Nor does he have the inclination to retire from Congress, despite 5 primary challengers, including one from well-funded ex-US Attorney John Ratcliffe. Hall's age is the key issue in the primary and Hall is begging voters to give him just one more term.

“There’s going to be a transition that’s inevitable,” Ratcliffe said. “I provide a good alternative for voters to consider right now.”

Ratcliffe, 48, a partner at a law firm headed by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, embraces Hall. In 2005, he donated $2,000 to Hall’s campaign. And their positions differ little-- both consider themselves conservatives but not tea party representatives.

Ratcliffe sees himself more as Hall’s successor than opponent, and many Republicans in Rockwall would agree. The question is whether voters will unseat Hall after more than three decades in Congress.

“He’s like everyone’s grandpa or great-grandpa,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican consultant in Texas. “It’s pretty hard for a lot of people to feel like he’s being ‘fired.’” … Ratcliffe said that rather than asking those loyal to the 17-term congressman to choose, he hopes to seek out new, younger voters. He plans to make social media a key part of his campaign, a contrast to Hall’s habit of sending handwritten notes.

…Matthew Orwig, who preceded Ratcliffe as U.S. attorney, said the race will be one of the energetic vs. the sentimental. Age is a factor for voters, he said.

“He is the oldest member ever to serve in Congress,” Orwig said of Hall. “Of course people are talking about his age.”

…But both candidates have vowed to say nothing negative against each other. Ratcliffe called Hall before he filed to tell him he was running. The incumbent said he told Ratcliffe he wished he wouldn’t but didn’t try to talk him out of it.

“He’s a friend of mine and a strong supporter,” Hall said. “I think he got tired of waiting.”

Hall skydives. And there's an unspoken conspiracy in Congress and in the media to make believe he isn't senile and that he can still function. An aide told the media “He’s a dynamo." The media reprinted it. Hall's office said he would swim the 21-mile English Channel-- but added it would take too long since he would have to swim one mile a day. “I may swim down to Cuba,” he said. “I’d be swimming downhill.” The media printed it. No one prints that he's not up to the job any longer. Hall is a devout non-believer in Science and Boehner and Cantor had a little joke when they made him chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Laughs over, he was gently pushed aside by a more lucid-- and more venal-- Texas colleague, Lamar Smith and now has the non-position position of "Chairman Emeritus."

Another member of the Science Committee is middling Democratic backbencher Eric Swalwell, who successfully primaried Pete Stark in 2012, ending the illustrious career of a Bay Area legislator who is a decade younger than Hall, but who was in Congress for nearly a decade when Hall first arrived. Ironically, Stark grew up as a Republican and switched parties because of his opposition to the Vietnam War. He beat a fellow Democrat, a man in his eighties in a 1972 primary, claiming his opponent had been in Congress too long. Swalwell used the same argument to defeat him 4 decades later and went after Stark a lot less genteelly than Hall's opponents are going after him. Currently, we have a similar situation just to the south of Stark's old district where a wealthy political opportunist, Ro Khanna, smells blood in the water and is relentlessly attacking 72 year old Mike Honda. Hall and Stark may well have been losing their facilities; Honda isn't. And 72 isn't necessarily an age when people should be pushed aside.

Last week, a fully lucid George Miller, age 68, announced his own retirement. He is one of labor's most avid and effective advocates and the hammer behind Nancy Pelosi's leadership. (His announcement has led to plenty of speculation that the 73 year old Pelosi will also be retiring.) One of Congress' best Members, Miller says he felt 40 years was enough. Perhaps he remembers how Pete Stark unceremoniously defeated the other George Miller in 1972, based on him having overstayed his time in Congress. Or maybe not. This George Miller was reelected in 2012 with 70% of the vote-- 2% better than Obama did in his East Bay district. "I was never," he told journalists at his announcement, "in awe of the 'indispensable man theory.' I tried that once on my high school football coach. And I sat on the bench for most of the year."

Within days, 75 year old Buck McKeon, as big a detriment to honest and effective governance as Miller was a boon, also announced his retirement. Good riddance! Earlier, a very ill, 82 year old Howard Coble announced his long-anticipated retirement, as did 74 year old Frank Wolf. When the longest-serving Republican in Congress, Bill Young announced he was retiring last October, he was 82 years old and died within a few days. Today, the oldest Members of the House are:

• Ralph Hall (R-TX), 90
• John Dingell (D-MI), 87
• John Conyers (D-MI), 84
• Louise Salughter (D-NY), 84
• Charlie Rangel (D-NY), 83
• Sam Johnson (R-TX), 83
• Howard Coble (R-NC), 82- retiring
• Sandy Levin (D-MI), 82
• Don Young (R-AK), 80
• Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), 78
• Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), 77
• Alcee Hastings (R-FL), 77
• Grace Napolitano (D-CA), 77
• Jim McDermott (D-WA), 77
• Lois Capps (D-CA), 76
• Hal Rogers (R-KY), 76
• Buck McKeon (R-CA), 75- retiring
• Maxine Wayers (D-CA), 75
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD), 74
• Frank Wolf (R-VA), 74- retiring
• Joe Pitts (R-PA), 74
• Henry Waxman (R-CA), 74
• John Lewis (D-GA), 74
• Tom Petri (R-WI), 73
• Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), 73
• David Price (D-NC), 73
• Jim Clyburn (D-SC), 73
• Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX), 73

The entire Democratic leadership is among the most elderly. Boehner just celebrated his 64th birthday, while Cantor is 50 and McCarthy is just about to turn 49.

There are only 7 Members under 35, Patrick Murphy (D-FL), 30, Aaron Schock (R-IL), 32, Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), 32, Eric Swalwell (D-CA), 33, Joe Kennedy (D-MA), 33), Justin Amash (R-MI), 33 and Jason Smith (R-MO), 33.

So why am I sharing all this congressional demographic information? Let's go back to George Miller for a moment. The earlier George Miller, in an adjacent district, was defeated in an ugly primary when he was 83 by Pete Stark, who was then defeated in an ugly primary 40 years later when he was 81. The current George Miller, decided he'd served enough years in Congress and announced his retirement at age 68, still in firm control of his facilities. Is it possible he felt he had given enough? I know it's possible.

I was still in my 50s when I retired as president of Reprise Records, making an incredible salary and still getting a great deal of satisfaction out of my work, despite some very unpleasant changes in the business of the Music Business. I had no need to buy a private jet or homes in Europe or leave my heirs vast fortunes that would spoil their lives. I had other plans-- giving back to society that had been so generous to me and enjoying life more and stressing about work less. And I felt that it was a positive example to make room for younger people to climb the career ladder below me. The music business-- like the politics business-- needs a mix of old people and young people in decision-making positions. The music business was even more unbalanced in favor of very old people than Congress is. There were peers of mine who didn't "believe" in computers… no, really. One gentleman not quite as old as Ralph Hall, told me, when I suggested he start using a computer, that he had a secretary to do his typing.

When George Miller announced his retirement, an e-mail list I take part in began a virtual wake. There was rending of garments and tearing of hair… an awful lot of shrieking and ululation. When I tried explaining the normal cycle of things, I was accused of not understanding the greatness of George Miller. Yeah, right.

"Anonymous Industry Sources Control Congress": Matt Stoller targets "industry lobbyists and their incestuous journalistic partners"

"This unaccountable and unelected system, where industry lobbyists and their incestuous journalistic partners directly contradict the power vested by the public in our elected officials, is why the public hates the Beltway and its trappings of power."

-- Matt Stoller, in an OpenLeft post yesterday, "Anonymous Industry Sources Control Congress"

by Ken

Howie did a thorough job yesterday on CongressDaily's takedown of the Democrats next in line to chair the House Ways and Means Committee -- in the event that a replacement is needed for my congressman, Charlie Rangel. "Too liberal" is the hysterical screech about both Pete Stark of Callifornia and Jim McDermott of Washington, with assorted other allegations and innuendos piled on.

As Howie pointed out, such complaints never seem to come up when rabid right-wingers or conniving and/or outright thieving thugs serve as committee chairmanships. There doesn't seem to be such a thing as too conservative, or, where the interests at stake are pro-cooperate, too close to the interests the committee oversees.

I kicked this point around recently while speculating about the possibility of Sen. Russ Feingold taking over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from VP-elect Joe Biden in the event that John Kerry were to get the nod as secretary of state. As we know, that eventuality never eventuated. But, to his credit, Senate Majority Harry Reid put himself on record unequivocally that in the event Senator Feingold's turn came up, he would not be bypassed.

There's another dimension to the CongressDaily story, though, and I have to credit Matt Stoller with not just recognizing it but making a glorious federal case of it on OpenLeft. What set Matt's bullshit detector off is that "reporter" Peter Cohn, in a piece filled with Inside the Beltway opinions, and mighty strong ones at that, used not a single identified source. Bless his heart, Matt actually counted and found that the piece uses no fewer than nine anonymous sources -- among them a strong preponderance of lobbyists, whose interest in the matter is hardly impartial, or apt to be on the side of good government.

Here is my rendering -- in countdown form -- of Matt's rundown of The Anonymous Nine:

(1) a GOP tax lobbyist, who says that Charlie Rangel is "a long way from going down."

(2) a Democrat close to leadership (and thus presumably an actual member of Congress! the only one we're going to hear from), who says, "The conventional wisdom is [Stark] would have a tough time getting elected chairman."

(3) sources, who say that Stark is prone to gaffes, as when he suggested that our troops were in Iraq dying "for the president's amusement" -- a suggestion that aroused so much quick outrage that no consideration was allowed for the extent to which this catastrophic adventure was made possible by His Chimpiness's desperate, pathetic attempt to prove that he's something other than a worthless shell of a human being. Of course you're not allowed to say that if you're a serious D.C. insider.

(4) an industry lobbyist, who says that Stark "is just not tenable." Apparently the business community would "go nuclear. It would just be open warfare."

(5) industry sources, who describe Richard Neal of Massachusetts as "someone they could work with" (unlike Stark, who's "seen as very much in tune with the labor movement").

(6) sources, who say that Jim McDermott, while "a bit more of a pragmatist than Stark," is "still in the too-liberal category" and "also is a highly partisan figure."

(7) an industry source, who suggests that John Lewis of Georgia, "the well-liked, highly respected former civil rights leader whose selection could smooth over relations with the Congressional Black Caucus if Rangel were to be nudged out."

(8) sources, wo say that Richard Neal "is the favorite of the business community and has labor bona fides as well" and "is seen as a bright, active and relatively young chairman-in-waiting, but as fifth in seniority after Rangel, the time may not yet be ripe to choose him."

(9) another industry source, who "while noting the lack of a smoking gun, referred to the steady drumbeat of allegations as potentially damaging. 'In this town, impression often matters more than fact,' the source said."

Now Matt can be both one of the most lucid, logical writers I know and, when he gets up a head of steam, one of the most eloquent. In his final two paragraphs he demonstrates both modes.

First he explains what's wrong with Cohn's stringing together of these anonymous sources:

Not one single person will go on the record to discuss why the seniority system shouldn't work in the case of Stark, not one policy idea is considered in the article vis-a-vis Stark or anyone else's record, and the reader learns nothing about the tax writing committee from it other than nine anonymous sources in Congress think something. Apparently, the amorphous business community will 'go nuclear', whatever that means, Stark is gaffe-prone, but neither the public, policy, or the shift leftward in Congress as evidenced by Waxman's recent committee victory in the Energy and Commerce tussle are even referenced.

"And this is the point," he says, setting the stage for this:

One of the most insidious aspects of DC is how the conventional wisdom that dominates policy-making is shaped by an interplay between reporters and lobbyists, with ideas and voters entirely cut out. Based on this article, I have no idea if Stark would write good tax law or manage the committee well, I have no idea who the people are that are criticizing him and so the criticisms are entirely devoid of context, and Stark -- Air Force vet, successful businessman, and experienced legislator -- is completely powerless to respond. This unaccountable and unelected system, where industry lobbyists and their incestuous journalistic partners directly contradict the power vested by the public in our elected officials, is why the public hates the Beltway and its trappings of power.

Wow! I'm not even going to try to add anything to that. Maybe we should just listen to that last sentence one last time:

This unaccountable and unelected system, where industry lobbyists and their incestuous journalistic partners directly contradict the power vested by the public in our elected officials, is why the public hates the Beltway and its trappings of power.

POSTSCRIPT: THE NYT'S CLAMPDOWN ON ANONYMOUS SOURCES

Thanks to our colleague John Amato at Crooks and Liars for digging out a June 2008 report by New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt, "Culling the Anonymous Sources," on the paper's serious tightening of its use of anonymous sources in the wake of the Jayson Blair fiasco, including rather surprising results from a study he himself requested from students at Columbia University's Journalism School, which suggest that the paper has indeed reduced the use of anonymous sources by something like half.

In conclusion, Hoyt cites a memo recently sent to NYT news-room staffers by Executive Editor Bill Keller:

[H]e said it was “high-minded foolishness” to suggest that The Times or any newspaper forswear them altogether. “The ability to offer protection to a source is an essential of our craft,” he said. “We cannot bring readers the information they want and need to know without sometimes protecting sources who risk reprisals, firing, legal action or, in some parts of the world, their lives when they confide in us.”

That is why it is so critically important that anonymous sources not be used lazily or out of habit, and why, when they really are necessary, readers need to be told as much as possible about why the sources can’t be identified and how they know what they know.

#

Who Should Take Over House Ways And Means? Let's Make Sure We Poll All GOP Interests And Make Sure It's Not Some Dirty Damn Liberal

Who better to take over?

I've always been a firm believer that public servants who abuse the power of their office for their own benefit should be severely dealt with, regardless of political party. Whether it's Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Tom Delay, Jerry Lewis, Virgil Goode, Katherine Harris or Dick Cheney, politicians who commit crimes should get the book thrown at them. And, needless to say, that includes Democrats. Last week we tried to demonstrate that in the case of Charlie Rangel, although, I'm afraid, it went over the head of DWT's Mormon stalker (in comments). Pressure is mounting on Pelosi to make him give up his chair on the House Ways and Means Committee, considering that it was the abuse of that position that may have allowed him to commit a serious of serious offenses.

To understand how strong that pressure is, forget the parry-and-thrust between Rangel and the NY Times and instead consider that yesterday's CongressDaily featured a long post on the ins and outs of finding the right successor for Rangel. Do you recall any of the Inside the Beltway types viewing a Republican appointee to any job thru the lenses of how that person might be accepted by working families or by organized labor? Or did I miss the issue where CongressDaily suggested that Elaine Chao might be the world's absolute worst Labor Secretary because she loathes working people and doesn't recognize their aspirations as legitimate or worthy of her attention?

Did anyone ever question whether one of Congress' biggest corporate shills on environmental issues, Dirty Dick Pombo, would be unqualified to be Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee because he was unanimously loathed by every single environmental group in the country? And what about that issue of CongressDaily-- or any other daily-- that pointed out that maybe Joe Barton (R-TX) shouldn't be chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce because the $1,315,660 in legalized reported bribes he's taken from Big Oil over the years is far more than any other member of the House, more even than notorious Big Oil puppets like Don Young (R-AK- $964,763), Steve Pearce (R-NM- $804,815), Tom Delay (R-TX- $688,840), and Pete Sessions (R-TX- $582,264), and that all the green energy groups feel that Barton is an integral part of the energy problem in our country and decidedly not part of the solution? No, I must have missed it too.

But yesterday CongressDaily was dismissing Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee in line to follow Rangel-- should he decide to... spend more time with his family or need to spend more time in the court system-- because they are-- Heaven Forbid!-- too liberal. Or too intellectual. Or not in the pocket of Big Business lobbyists. And That Will Not Due in Companytown, DC.

Next in seniority to Rangel is Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Fortney (Pete) Stark, D-Calif., who is given virtually no chance. "The conventional wisdom is he would have a tough time getting elected chairman," said a Democrat close to leadership. From suggesting Republicans were sending troops to Iraq to die "for the president's amusement" to referring to a former GOP lawmaker as a "little fruitcake," Stark is prone to gaffes, sources said. "The guy behind [Rangel] is just not tenable. Republicans would have a field day," an industry lobbyist said, while noting the business community would "go nuclear. It would just be open warfare." A more viable pick might be Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin, D-Mich., who is next in seniority, although sources cautioned the cerebral Levin may be too deliberate for the high-profile job. Levin also appears to relish his duties at the helm of the trade panel. He is also seen as very much in tune with the labor movement, although industry sources said Levin was someone they could work with, as opposed to Stark. Also, the Democratic Caucus still largely respects the seniority system, the Democratic strategist said. "If you make the decision that Stark is too out there, then I don't see how you go over Sandy," he said. "He's been a loyal member, and nobody would doubt he's got the intellectual and legislative expertise for the job."

Next is Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee Chairman Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who is seen as a bit more of a pragmatist than Stark but still in the too-liberal category. He also is a highly partisan figure, and sources said there was generally little reason to reach down the seniority list to tap McDermott.

Maybe Republican interests and DC lobbyists would be more approving if Pelosi brought William Jefferson (D-LA) back on the committee and made him chairman. He's so much more cooperative and easier to... easier to... well, just easier. Like Rangel.


UPDATE: ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

Republicans were gleeful when the Bush Regime proceeded to act as though they had won a landslide-- or even an election. Now they're not able to grasp that victorious Democrats might put progressive ideas and the advocates of those ideas into play. And it's not just Pete Stark and Jim McDermott that Inside-the-Beltway reactionaries and profiteers are bemoaning. D-Day has a great analysis of how arch-wingnuts like the little neo-fascists at the American Enterprise Institute are trying to force Obama to pick someone else other than Xavier Becerra as U.S. Trade Representative. Let's see how long it takes him to buckle on this one. Maybe he should steel his nerves by watching this short clip of Barbara Boxer explaining electoral consequences to reactionary kook James Inhofe.

REPUBLICAN HYPOCRITES FAIL IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO FORCE CONGRESS TO CONDEMN PETE STARK

In another blatant maneuver to get the nation's eye off the ball, Republican obstructionists in the House forced a vote on condemning California Congressman Pete Stark. Aside from being a colossal waste of Congress' time, this blatant show of Republican partisan hypocrisy was an opportunity for Americans to see the minority party at its sickest and most pathetic. Not a single Republican voted for the motion to table this embarrassing resolution. The motion to table (kill) John Boehner's attempt to bring further disrepute to Congress passed 196-173.

You might be interested in knowing that 5 Democrats voted with the Republicans on condemning Rep Stark and another 8-- mostly reflexive reactionaries-- voted "Present," refusing to come to Stark's defense. You can probably guess the names of the disgraceful 13 Democrats. But just in case... the 5 who voted-- as they so often do-- with the GOP:

Jason Altmire (PA), still not kicked off the DCCC Front Line list
Chris Carney (PA), still not kicked off the DCCC Front Line list
Joe Donnelly (IN), still not kicked off the DCCC Front Line list
Brad Ellsworth (IN), still not kicked off the DCCC Front Line list
Heath Shuler (NC), still not kicked off the DCCC Front Line list

The 5 worst freshmen, none of whom have earned support from Democrats for re-election, these are the guys who consistently support the Bush Regime agenda inside the Democratic caucus. The 8 who insultingly voted "present," are 6 Bush-Dems and two progressives (Dave Loebsack of Iowa and Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri) who probably had their own crazy reasons for their bizarre votes, although in the context of their entire records should just get a role of the eyes and a pass on this. The other 6 are:

Dan Boren (OK)
Lincoln Davis (TN)
Baron Hill (IN)
Tim Mahoney (FL), still not kicked off the DCCC Front Line list
Charlie Melancon (LA)
Dennis Moore (KS)

After the censure resolution was defeated, Congressman Stark made a dignified apology to those who were offended by his remarks and asked the House to get back to the serious busienss of getting S-CHIP approved (Thanks to TPM for the clip.)




UPDATE FROM JANE

A Firedoglake reader called Stark's office to complain about the apology. "The person answering the phone told me that Stark had no choice;  Stark was told before the vote was taken that should he not apologize, the vote to censure would pass.  According to his office, that is the only reason he apologized." Anyone want to guess who forced one of the best congressmen in America to humiliate himself and put himself on a level with someone like Mean Jean Schmidt? Was in Rahm? Hoyer? Madam Off the Table? I may have just seen a hint. CongressDaily: "Majority Leader Hoyer today said Stark's apology was 'appropriate.'"