Scott Murphy, robot

In one of two glossy, taxpayer-funded fliers that arrived this week from freshman Rep. Scott Murphy, there were three mini headlines about how he is trying to keep taxes down in various ways (none of them particularly convincing). Each headline starts with the word "Fighting". That  language reminds me not of the smooth technocrat Murphy ran as last year, but of his then opponent Jim Tedisco, who has always practiced, sometimes to excess, a combative style of politics. Tedisco has been making noises about running again, which is not necessarily good news for Republicans since he shows little evidence of having learned necessary lessons from the disastrous campaign he and the NRCC ran last time. But he has won plenty of prior elections, and maybe Murphy's people figure it can't hurt to steal some of his anti-tax thunder.

Murphy, who has an uncanny resemblance to Robert Redford in "The Candidate", strikes me as the perfectly plastic politician, willing to adopt personas and policies as convenient. In this he follows in the footsteps of his predecessor Kirsten Gillibrand, who has been eager to ditch any inconveniently conservative prior positions in her new role as a U.S. senator. Murphy has adopted more or less identical positions to Congresswoman Gillibrand (including ritual genuflection to the pro-choice lobby), but does anyone think he would be slower than her to abandon the conservative ones, such as opposition to gun control, if the political wind changed? It seems naive even to raise the question, when the most powerful politician in the state makes no secret of a crucial coming decision being shaped by opinion polls.  

Comments

[Brian]

" Kirsten Gillibrand, who has been eager to ditch any inconveniently conservative prior positions in her new role as a U.S. senator"

Actually, I'd argue that it was those conservative prior positions of hers that seemed inauthentic (designed to appeal to a more conservative district electorate) and that this is probably a return to her more natural positions (which happily for her coincides with a more liberal state electorate).

[Bob Conner]

You may well be right. One heard something similar from pro-life supporters of Mitt Romney, who said his pro-choice position as a Massachusetts politician was inauthentic, and that his pro-life stance before and after represented the real Mitt. Maybe so. But you have to wonder how authentic any of the stated convictions of a great many politicians are, since they seem so willing to adopt or shed them as convenient.

[Brian]

(recalls then-Gov. Bush's warnings in the year 2000 against the dangers inherent in nation building)

[Bob Conner]

I think that falls more into the category of learning, too slowly, from experience. Rumsfeld was hostile to nation building and seemed to have presided over an Afghan victory without doing it, but his policies in both Afghanistan and Iraq were discredited over the next few years. Bush did better with Gates, in my opinion.

[Brian]

No, I think Gov. Bush was right.

[Brian]

Although I personally love the mailer that told us about how ordinary people have to live within their means (apparently he's unaware of credit cards, mortgages and college loans) and that DC must learn that. Not only did he send an expensive, taxpayer funded glossy mailer to tell me this, even though he has my email address, but he sent me two!

He also sent duplicates of the other mailer.

And yes, it definitely came across as someone who was merely mouthing the talking points handed to him by a consultant or pollster.

[Brian]

Although your complaints exemplify the paradox of being a politician. If you simply reflect your constituents views as Gillibrand did (more conservative when representing a more conservative electorate; more liberal when representing a more liberal electorate), you're accused of flip-flopping and having no principles. If you hold on to your principles regardless of what your constituents think, you're accused of being arrogant and out of touch.

[SSG Mike]

Let's put thing in the right perspective. I am a disabled veteran who has been out of work for more then 3 years with no help from the State of New York or the parties that represent my district. I have put his life on the line for this country. And look what it has given back to me. I have concerns to other fellow returning veterans who have given there life for this country to come back here and face the same garbage I have face to support there family without any help from this State, this is just unacceptable. I have contacted Congressman Murphy office and many occasions asking for his help with employment in the State of New York, but all I got was same old political bunk. Then I contacted my New York State Senator and still the same political bunk again. If this is how veterans in this country get treated for serving. Then I should have stayed a civilian; maybe then I would have a job in this state, possibly as a Congressman or s Senator. I listen to the television about the dropping unemployment rate and I laugh. I worked for unemployment for many years and all I have learned is statistics can be manipulated to show what the party in charge wants it to show. It is all a political scam to get Americans thinking thing are changing, but deep down there are still high property taxes, layoff, and taxes going up every day. It is time for a change in both state government and federal government. I have met and talked directly with the new congressional candidate for the 20th Congressional District Colonel Christopher Gibson, a true Americans who has put his life on the line for this country just like all the other veterans and soldiers of this United States. It is time for a change and Colonel Gibson is the right change for the 20th Congressional District.

[Todd]

Scott Murphy will not 'fight' for anything except his own advantage. He flip flopped on health care as soon as Obama and Pelosi started pressuring him. Murphy did not 'fight' for his constituents. Murphy's opponent this Fall, Chris Gibson, has proven in war that he will not cut and run when under pressure. I'm convinced Gibson would fight for his constituents and not sell out to the Washington power structure.

[Concerned voter]

Scott Murphy's mailings may say he is fighting for the tax payer but he is voting for more spending and big government. I am looking for a congressman who will vote the same way in Washington as he campaigneed in his district. Unfortunately Scott Murphy has not done this. Chris Gibson is a person who I believe will be the same person in Washington as in his district. Whouldn't that be a breath of fresh air.