|
I think I've finally figured out why state media gatekeeper Kevin Landrigan's columns are so often irritating, and therefore, why I bother to read them less and less.
In Kevin Landrigan's world, Democrats have no principles and are guided by politics in every decision.
He never states this openly. Rather, it's like a natural law in the Universe According to Kevin Landrigan, and as a result, all the ink in the column devoted to Democrats falls neatly into that assumption.
According to Kevin Landrigan, John Lynch opposes gambling because it locks up the Law and Order electoral constituency. Carol Shea-Porter gives back Charlie Rangel money because she's scared of the NHGOP press releases; and when it gets explained to him that it was returned right after the Ethics Committee made their judgment on Rangel, the NHGOP still get the last word.
According to Kevin Landrigan, Maggie Hassan is targeting skyrocketing health care costs because it's allegedly going to be a tough year for a Democrat, and this will bring out the purple shirt people:
Republicans leaders insist this was a strategic blunder for "Maggie Care,'' as it's been lampooned coming on the heels of the volatile federal health care debate in Washington.
Yet, whatever becomes of this reform effort in the 2010 session, this is sound politics on at least one level.
All signs point to fiscal conservatives as energized in this election, and that could spell trouble for the Democratic majority.
Hassan's crusade will ensure those "Health Care for All'' activists, known for their purple T-shirts, are working overtime for her re-election, and for other Senate Democrats, as well.
(And, relatedly, did you notice in the passage above how in Kevin Landrigan's world, "fiscal conservative" is automatically not aligned with the Democratic party? Despite eight years of George W. Bush and his multi-trillion dollar war of choice, PayGo rules established by Democrats, and deficit-reducing health care reform that doesn't make donut holes?
Curiously, Republicans in Kevin Landrigan's world rarely fall under this guiding principle.
Adding: Come to think of it, the tipping point for me giving up on Landrigan was when he tied Lynch's response to the Vermont Yankee crisis to Paul Hodes' senate election.
Addinger: Note, by contrast, Pindell's take, who gives Hassan an "UP" mention in his political standing for the week for pushing something for the public good that might be politically bad for her:
The Senate Majority foreshadowed her huge policy gamble of S.B. 505 and some predicted/vowed that this would be the week when the Hassan for Governor 2012 campaign would be derailed. But that didn't happen, did it? Setting aside the policy idea itself and focusing purely on the politics, Hassan was setting the agenda with a bold plan on the dominant issue in American politics. Could she have rolled it out better? Yes. Will there need to be floor amendments to get this thing passed in the Senate? Yes, though it passed committee days after being introduced. Could next week be a disaster for her bill and her politically? Yes, it could.
|
