Reply
Tue 13 Mar, 2007 09:17 am
I just sent $50 to his campaign. Good for him.
I'm fairly tired of hearing about politicians' religious beliefs, and so I'll have to stretch that to Rep. Stark's take on the issue, or lack of it, as well. Show me the votes, period.
We're I chatting with him on a personal basis, I wouldn't mind hearing about it.
I have some previous experience with the esteemed Mr Stark. I found him to be supremely interested in the glories of Pete Stark; very demeaning in his treatment of people he regarded as occupying a lower position in life than his own; ill-tempered; and vain. A real arsehole.
I don't attribute that to any of his beliefs (or lack of them). I think it all comes naturally to him.
Self-centered arrogant arse? What's not to like?
ob1
georgeob1 wrote:I have some previous experience with the esteemed Mr Stark. I found him to be supremely interested in the glories of Pete Stark; very demeaning in his treatment of people he regarded as occupying a lower position in life than his own; ill-tempered; and vain. A real arsehole.
I don't attribute that to any of his beliefs (or lack of them). I think it all comes naturally to him.
Kind of like someone who doesn't suffer fools to meet your bull sh*t standards?
I had a campaign reception in my home for Pete when he first ran for Congress in the 1960s. In all the years I've know him, Pete has never discussed religion---until he was asked about his.
I admire Pete Stark for his devotion to the common good and his integritity. He's also very smart.
BBB
Re: ob1
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:georgeob1 wrote:I have some previous experience with the esteemed Mr Stark. I found him to be supremely interested in the glories of Pete Stark; very demeaning in his treatment of people he regarded as occupying a lower position in life than his own; ill-tempered; and vain. A real arsehole.
I don't attribute that to any of his beliefs (or lack of them). I think it all comes naturally to him.
Kind of like someone who doesn't suffer fools to meet your bull sh*t standards?
I had a campaign reception in my home for Pete when he first ran for Congress in the 1960s. In all the years I've know him, Pete has never discussed religion---until he was asked about his.
I admire Pete Stark for his devotion to the common good and his integritity. He's also very smart.
BBB
Just ask him. He also married very well.
I think it isn't so much his inability to suffer fools - he does that quite well with his many toadies. Rather, I have observed him thoughtlessly and scornfully pushing aside relatively powerless people, merely for his own convenience. Things I wouldn't do myself.
A few years ago I was working with Don Perata on issues relating to regional economic development. On a lobbying trip to Washington on issues relating to the Bay Area Navy base closures, we were hosted by Ron Dellums at a rather routine lunch in the Rayburn building. Along with us was a young woman from the community relations staff of the Naval Aircraft Rework Facility at Alameda. For her the whole experience was apparently quite exciting and new. As we were waiting to take our seats, Pete Stark unexpectedly showed up and, in a brief & silent but dramatic vignette which I observed, looked around the table; identified her as someone relatively unimportant; and took her seat. She was crushed -- I quickly offered her my seat, but could tell that the magic of the day was irretrevably lost for her.
In our several conversations Pete revealed himself to be primarily interested in himself, finding interest in others only to the extent that they reflected back the wonders of Pete Stark.
I'm sorry, George, but I am not that impressed with your story.
A) I happen to think that a leader should be mostly assessed on the things he does which affect many others. I really don't care that much if they are occassionally rude to others-or even often rude to others. (For those wondering about my Giuliani postings, my point there was just how far over and above the "normally overlookable" his actions were with regard to his wife). Each member of Congress represents over 600,000 people and each Senator represents 6 million. Their personal foibles have to be enormous before they can begin to overshadow their public actions.
B) Politics is an area where many are called, few are chosen, and we can expect to see a rather visible status game. For all I know, it can be understood in Washington that if a Representative or Senator arrives for a conference, somebody of lesser postion is expected to give up their seat automatically. I don't know. But even if that is not the case, this chair incident is no big deal. I've seen a lot less polite behavior on the part of others many times, and people just shrugged it off.
C) You have made very similar postings about Senator Barbara Boxer, also a Democrat and also therefore ideologically opposed to yourself. Like with Stark, it was a minor case of impoliteness in public. I can see that someone in politics can really, really rub you the wrong way and just by coincidence they are from "the other side". But two instances are beginning to get suspicious, especially considering the similarity of details in both cases. I am sure these incidents happened in some form, but we have to wonder is these reports are going to become a habit.
D) In this incident at least, as opposed to Senator Boxer, we have the word of BumbleBeeBoogie, a poster of equal credibility to yourself, who paints quite different picture of Mr. Stark.
Considering your jabs at Senator Boxer on this board, and the similarity of form to your jabs at Representative Stark, I would be more inclined to trust BBB's assessment on this one. At least she doesn't seem to writing her experience with Rep. Stark as one of a series of "expose's" of the other side, as you seem to be doing.
Shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! Imagine my surprise that you would side with BBB on this...
So, Stark has expressed his beliefs and that is cool with liberals. Does that about sum it up?
I wonder though... is it only because he claims to be an atheist?
McGentrix wrote: I wonder though... is it only because he claims to be an atheist?
An interesting question. BBB already told us that she met Stark because they share political beliefs, and that is how she got into the position to vouch for his character.
Tell you what, McGentrix. Point us to an example of a prominent conservative who publicly announced his atheism, and if BBB, myself and and a bunch of liberal posters put up messages that say, "EEEWWWW, I've met them and they are so, so,
icky" like George did about Stark and Boxer, and you will have made a significant point about the way things work on Able2Know.
Until that happens, I am not sure
what point you are making.
All right, all right, i admit it . . . i'm an enthusiast . . . that doesn't make me a bad person . . .
kelticwizard wrote:McGentrix wrote: I wonder though... is it only because he claims to be an atheist?
An interesting question. BBB already told us that she met Stark because they share political beliefs, and that is how she got into the position to vouch for his character.
Tell you what, McGentrix. Point us to an example of a prominent conservative who publicly announced his atheism, and if BBB, myself and and a bunch of liberal posters put up messages that say, "EEEWWWW, I've met them and they are so, so,
icky" like George did about Stark and Boxer, and you will have made a significant point about the way things work on Able2Know.
Until that happens, I am not sure
what point you are making.
My point would be that I wonder what the hubbub would have been if he said he was a born again Christian. Everything else being the same and all...
It just happens that I have had a great deal of contact with politicians of both parties. My father served in the Congress for about twenty-five years (a Democrat from Michigan) and I grew up in that world. Additionally, in my own career I have come into contact with many others and have as many or more positive anecdotes about some of them (for example very liberal Democrats such as Ron Dellums and others less so such as Dianne Feinstein) as I do negative ones, such as those about Barbara Boxer and Pete Stark. The latter two have several characteristics in common - ones that I find particularly reprehensible, and that may explain the conjunction.
I believe I accurately described both events. Both were vivid and obviously hurtful to their victims. Moreover they involved lapses in precisely the areas that are central to the representative roles and responsibilities of these "leaders". Both individuals go to great lengths to portray themselves as true representative of the people (in the abstract), but both revealed themselves to be something quite different in very concrete situations.
I agree these snapshots don't necessarily tell the whole story. But I would be willing to bet they accurately reflect some persistent characteristics..
<I guess I must have turned conservative>
kelticwizard wrote:McGentrix wrote: I wonder though... is it only because he claims to be an atheist?
An interesting question. BBB already told us that she met Stark because they share political beliefs, and that is how she got into the position to vouch for his character.
Tell you what, McGentrix. Point us to an example of a prominent conservative who publicly announced his atheism, and if BBB, myself and and a bunch of liberal posters put up messages that say, "EEEWWWW, I've met them and they are so, so,
icky" like George did about Stark and Boxer, and you will have made a significant point about the way things work on Able2Know.
Until that happens, I am not sure
what point you are making.
I don't think the atheism has anything at all to do with either your point or my story.
Apart from the literal "I've met them part, I believe that if you reflect a bit you will recognize that personal attacks on conservatives are actually quite common on A2K.
Setanta wrote:All right, all right, i admit it . . . i'm an enthusiast . . . that doesn't make me a bad person . . .
i heard that you are also a homosapien
and that you live a homosapien lifestyle
Congressman Pete Stark
What's not to like about Congressman Pete Stark? ---BBB
Congressman Pete Stark
Congressman Pete Stark has served in Congress since 1973. A senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, he is currently the Chairman of its Health Subcommittee. Stark previously served as the subcommittee's Ranking Minority Member from 1995 to 2006 and as its Chairman from 1985 to 1994.
Before being elected to Congress in 1972, Stark was a successful businessman and banker. Upon entering Congress, he served on the House Banking and Currency Committee. After completing his first term, Stark was named to the Ways and Means Committee, whose scope includes taxes, Medicare, Social Security, trade and public assistance.
From 1981 to 1984, Stark served as Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures. As Chairman, Stark became known as one of the nation's foremost advocates of tax reform. He later served a critical role in shaping the historic tax reform act of 1986. In the years since, he has been a vocal voice for tax fairness and opposed the addition of corporate loopholes to our nation's income tax laws.
In January of 1985, Stark became the Chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee. As Chairman, he presided over major reforms to the Medicare system. While cutting billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse, Stark expanded benefits for tens of millions of Medicare beneficiaries, provided COBRA health continuation benefits to workers, and made numerous improvements in the quality of our nation's health care.
Stark champions universal health care, and speaks out for peace, freedom of choice, and protecting our environment. He is a tireless advocate for children, families, senior citizens, and people with disabilities, as well as the residents of the 13th Congressional District.
A diverse area stretching along the east side of the San Francisco Bay, the 13th Congressional District runs from Alameda to Fremont.
Stark is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with a degree in engineering and the University of California, Berkeley with a Master's degree in Business Administration (MBA).
In 1963, he founded Security National Bank in Walnut Creek. The bank grew from a small storefront operation to a $100 million financial institution with branches in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Stark sold his interest in the bank after his election to Congress.
Before his business career, Stark served in the U.S. Air Force. His other civic activities have included: Director, Common Cause; Chairman, Board of Trustees, Starr King School of Ministry; Board Member, Housing Development Corporation; Board Member, Council for Civic Unity, and many others.
Stark has four daughters, three sons, and eight grandchildren. He is married to Deborah Roderick Stark of San Lorenzo.
McGentrix wrote:kelticwizard wrote:McGentrix wrote: I wonder though... is it only because he claims to be an atheist?
An interesting question. BBB already told us that she met Stark because they share political beliefs, and that is how she got into the position to vouch for his character.
Tell you what, McGentrix. Point us to an example of a prominent conservative who publicly announced his atheism, and if BBB, myself and and a bunch of liberal posters put up messages that say, "EEEWWWW, I've met them and they are so, so,
icky" like George did about Stark and Boxer, and you will have made a significant point about the way things work on Able2Know.
Until that happens, I am not sure
what point you are making.
My point would be that I wonder what the hubbub would have been if he said he was a born again Christian. Everything else being the same and all...
McGentrix...surely you jest...if he had been a born-again Christian and been rude, the cries of hypocisy would have been deafening. I guess you forgot that rudeness is a virtue only for atheists.
McGentrix wrote:Shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! Imagine my surprise that you would side with BBB on this...
So, Stark has expressed his beliefs and that is cool with liberals. Does that about sum it up?
I wonder though... is it only because he claims to be an atheist?
You gotta try seeing in 3D sometime. 'Liberals' does not equal 'atheists'.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace