Scott Smith Holds Campaign Kick-Off (Full Video)
Scott Smith holds a Campaign Kick Off Event at Thomas Bull Memorial Park in Montgomery, NY, September 8, 2020. Smith is the Serve America Movement (SAM) Cand...
Scott Smith holds a Campaign Kick Off Event at Thomas Bull Memorial Park in Montgomery, NY, September 8, 2020. Smith is the Serve America Movement (SAM) Candidate running in New York's 18th Congressional District. The candidate explains why he is running and elaborates on the priorities of his campaign. Learn more at www.MrSmithForCongress.com
In this video I describe the dangers of our current division-based political paradigm as well as highlight some very concerning facts about my opponents.
Smith Shares Stance on Term Limits
Candidates for office are quick to voice their support for term limits without offering broader discussion or perspective on what it really means or how it would function in practice. I would also remind people that in recent history many candidates and the elected proclaimed they would among other things, “Stop Common Core," or “Repeal and Replace the ACA," or “Limit the influence of big money in politics”. These and so many other pledges share the distinction of having gone unfulfilled. Words are easy.
In regard to the Term Limits pledge, examine what it says. The pledge reads as follows: “I, __________, pledge that as a member of Congress I will cosponsor and vote for the U.S. Term Limits Amendment of three (3) House terms and two (2) Senate terms and no longer limit.”
If you have paid any attention to congress over the years one thing that is glaringly apparent is that they vote on all kinds of things, over and over again, more often than not to no actual consequence. Show votes or votes of political theater are the norm, not the exception. Therefore, to pledge to “co-sponsor and vote for” an amendment is largely inconsequential. Granted, making the pledge is in the scheme of things better than not making it, but recognize it for what it is. The substantive pledge would be to impose a term limit upon oneself regardless of whether Congress and those who embody it ever develop the will to legislate such. I don’t recommend holding your breath while waiting for such a bill to become law.
I have proposed term-limits since I first declared my candidacy in the 2104 race and further pledged to never work as a lobbyist. Not only have I said such things, but I have previously acted in accord with them. While serving on the City Council in Middletown, I opposed the removal of voter implemented term limits by the Council (1). It is instructive to note that the ability of the council to remove the term-limits by mere council vote was a by-product of then NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s shenanigans in pursuit of a 3rd term (2). It is a rare thing that politicians will limit themselves; it is more commonly the opposite.
Another, and perhaps more important consideration, is the notion that limiting the “professional politicians” to a certain number of terms will necessarily have a large impact on governance. Perhaps many people are not familiar with the inner workings of the electoral process, particularly in terms of ballot access and candidate selection, or the degree to which it is monopolized by the two Major political parties. Already in NY efforts are underway to further inhibit access to the ballot and to thwart electoral competition. To get straight to the point, the candidates for office are selected by the party infrastructure. Removing candidates by way of term limits will not change the fact that their replacements will then be selected by the same party infrastructure. It is highly optimistic to believe that the resulting “new” candidates will not be selected to serve and advance the parties interests just as the “old” candidate had done. Again, term limits should be implemented; however, people must temper their expectations as to their efficacy.
Although candidate Farley states “Term limits will make members of Congress accountable to the people they represent, instead of to Washington insiders,” she must recognize that it will take much more than that including broader honest competition. Similarly, Congressman Maloney speaks often of the competitive nature of the 18th District and how he welcomes open competition. In addition, he has on more than one occasion stated that he believes there should be more policemen, firefighters, and teachers running for congress. However, when he had the opportunity to act on those proclamations his deeds fell far from his words.
In light of all of this I make the following challenge to Ms. Farley and Mr. Maloney: Make and stand by the pledge that I have made. Pledge to adhere to a self-imposed term-limit AND to never work as a lobbyist following your service. In addition, endeavor to have your actions align with your words.
(2) https://www.recordonline.com/article/20100828/NEWS/8280326
In observing the ongoing Impeachment process there is much to consider. In regard to the nature of the proceedings themselves some distinct perspectives stand out. First, if one operates under the presumption that an impeachable offense has occurred, then the partisan divide in government has grown so cancerous that it prevents our elected representatives from properly performing their constitutional duties. Second, if one operates under the presumption that an impeachable offense has not occurred, then the partisan divide in government has grown so corrupting that it has driven our elected representatives to abuse the impeachment process in service to political ends. Admittedly, a third possibility exists, that one political side is righteous and faithful to their duties, and the other is not. Choose for yourself which party deserves which label. I can’t speak for everyone, but I am well beyond this particular belief.
Whichever the case may be, it is also clear that both sides of the political divide are more than happy to look for and take advantage of the optics of the events for political gain. Two clear examples of this include the late-night Nadler nonsense and the Stefanik stunt. In the former instance Chairman Nadler abruptly postponed the committee vote to allow members time to consider their decision. The suggestion that any of the voting members were not already decided is absurd and an insult to the intelligence of us all. It was clearly done in pursuit of a more favorable televised viewing time. In the latter instance, Representatives Stefanik and Nunes orchestrated a dramatic scene where the congresswoman was repeatedly shut down by Chairman Schiff. The nature, content, and validity of her questions aside, Representative Stefanik and Representative Nunes had to know full well that the rules allowed for her questions, but that she was asking them at an inappropriate time in the proceeding. Asking them at the appropriate time, which she eventually did, would not have provided the same visuals.
If after subjecting yourself to the proceedings you desire some humor, then you need only dig up comments from the current members who also held office during the last Impeachment. It is beyond comical the degree to which they are all quoting each others past comments and talking points.
All of the above boldly punctuates the fact that we the people have a House in desperate need of cleaning.