The Special City Council Meeting Was Basically a Total Clusterf*ck
 |
Forgive the title, but my feelings at the moment can be summed up in one word: ARGH.
I can't stand pretty much all politicians. I really can't. My brother works in politics. We grew up being taught about and watching politics. I'm fascinated by politics. But I can't bring myself to fully believe in any politician. Tonight's council meeting reinforced that feeling.
The city council held a special meeting to discuss whether its president, Calixto Torres, apparently a very close friend and supporter of our pathetic excuse for a mayor, should be removed from his leadership position. I don't know Torres. I know ridiculously little about him, actually. The fact that he's a close friend and strong supporter of the Perez doesn't earn him any points in my book, but let's face it--many of the people on the council publicly supported Perez at one time or another, including during the most recent election, AFTER the story about his sketchy relationship with a contractor pulling in millions from city jobs came to light. Our esteemed Attorney General, the same man who now condemns Perez's actions, endorsed his bid for re-election. So quite frankly, the fact that Torres is a "supporter" of Perez doesn't mean much to me at all. Not when most of the council members now calling for Torres' replacement either endorsed good ol' Eddie or didn't open their mouths on the subject.
Here's the thing. Even assuming that Segarra, the apparent council president-hopeful, meant the things he said about not really wanting the job but answering the call, not being interested in running for mayor ever, wanting to clean things up, work for the people of Hartford--even assuming all that, what difference will it really make at this point? Will having Segarra as council president, based on a bitterly divided council vote, ultimately do a damn thing for our city? Will having Torres ousted based on a bitterly divided council vote, called following the machinations of three council members, do a damn thing? Is this really a "measured," "responsible," " appropriate" response to what's going on with Perez?
Hell no. It's not a response at all, as far as I'm concerned. You know what would have been impressive? If these three council members had stood up DURING THE LAST ELECTION and spoke up against Perez and his supposed crony Torres. THAT would have been freaking impressive. THAT would have been leadership. Calling for his resignation THEN would have been a measured, responsible, appropriate response to his flagrant ethical violations and apparent illegal conduct. Tonight's meeting? That was just pathetic grandstanding and political maneuvering. That was more of exactly what Hartford doesn't need.
What does Hartford need? Real guts. People who actually put the interests of this city before their own interests. In other words, real leaders. Perez needs to resign. For the good of the city he claims to love so much. Hubie Santos is, by all accounts, a great defense attorney. And I'm sure that Perez has been counseled not to give up his seat, because when it comes down to it, from a defense perspective, resigning from his seat means giving up a bargaining chip that could save him jail time down the road. As a lawyer, I get that. As a Hartford resident, though, I want him out. Yesterday. The best thing for the city would be for him to resign and take his groupies with him. After listening to the meeting tonight, I think Torres should probably resign, too.
Is that fair? No, probably not. Innocent until proven guilty, etc etc. The court of public opinion, however, is pretty solidly against Perez (finally). And the court of the city council opinion seemed pretty solidly against Torres, so I don't see how that body can possibly pull it together enough to help the city through its many, many problems with such a divisive figure at its helm. (Even Luis Cotto, the so-called "swing vote," asked Torres to resign even as he voted against replacing him because of the way the vote came about.) These things matter in politics, and anyone stupid or crazy enough to run for public office shouldn't act so indignant when it turns out that the burdens of proof are different in the eyes of the public than they are in the eyes of the law.
So who's going to stand up here and (forgive me, ladies) start acting like a man? Who's going to actually put Hartford first, instead of talking a good game and doing nothing? I have to confess, I'm not holding my breath that any of these yahoos currently in charge of our city (or our state, or our country) have the balls to do what needs to be done for the good of their constituencies.
But hey, you never know. Someone could surprise me. I'm not holding my breath, that's all.
Welcome to the general disillusionment of being a 'subject' of our corrupted political system..
We need a boy scout. Honest to a fault and with the courage of his convictions to stay the course of righteousness in the pit of snakes that the political arena has become. Sadly, we seem to live in a time when dishonest and unscrupulous people far out number the boy scouts, so the battle to right this yawing ship of fools will be long, arduous and not without its costs.
And who would take on that job, knowing that since the days of JFK's assassination, the ability to do anything, right under the nose of the public without detection is apparent?
How many honest-to-a-fault, intelligent, moral, charismatic people do you suppose there are, who have no issue with the possibility of martyring themselves?
Reply to this
I think a lot of the problem with today's politicians stems from the fact that people make a career out of it. "Political representative" just shouldn't be a permanent job title. I think when people think of being a politician as a career, rather than as a job to do for X amount of time, that's what creates the sense of entitlement to the job and warps the reason people originally went into politics.
I also think the problem at this point is that the type of people who would just do the job for X amount of time, who could martyr themselves, who are the Boy Scouts, are disgusted by the whole process and wouldn't jump into it for all the money in the world.
Reply to this
Well now, Scott. "Sadly, we seem to live in a time when dishonest and unscrupulous people far out number the boy scouts." If I've read my history right, I have to ask: and when did they not? The bar gets set too low (or nobody wants to get messy and even touch the bar) and then we swing and it gets set at an impossible height . . . plus sa change, etc.
My hope once more is that most everyone will begin to see the beauty of applying reason and heart to any issue instead of idealism and cunning.
Let's keep on it but with our feet on the ground and our humor in our pockets.
Reply to this
"If I've read my history right, I have to ask: and when did they not?"
I'd like to believe that it is only in my lifetime that things have gone so horribly down hill.. but not being a student of history, i really don't know if that is truth or fantasy.. and honestly, i'm not sure it is relevant.
But i have to ask, why would we embrace anything above idealism? I know that the idealistic perspective is impossible to actually create in reality, but as the basis for our intended path of growth and change, it seems there could be no better inspiration. Idealism is after all a perspective of perfection, and while perfection may well be impossible to achieve, does that mean we should stop aspiring to achieve it?
As to your reference to "cunning" i can only presume that is not a reference to anything that i advocated..
Reply to this
Oh, embracing idealism is one thing, expecting an ideal candidate is another. Knowing my own history and habits and that of many people I admire and respect, I also know we would not withstand the perfection test. I prefer my idealism imbued with a good bit of realism. And I do strongly feel that what has happened in the past is relevant in that human nature does not change overnight or even w/in a decade or two. When we understand ourselves as a part of a continuum, I believe we are better equipped to make reasonable judgments.
You presume correctly: the habit of applying cunning to issues is one I attribute to "the powers that be."
Reply to this
Simply put, the past does not determine the future, and too much time spent focused in the wrong direction serves no purpose towards forward growth and new thinking. Human nature CAN change in the blink of an eye.. though more often i imagine it happens over the course of an electoral term of office.. I suspect that all too often, a bright eyed idealist manages to slip into an elected position of power only to be crushed by the sheer weight of the political monster/machine that they must wrestle with, until they too become dirtied, disillusioned, another cog in the machine.
I disavow any membership in any 'continuum', other than that of the general collection of patriotic citizens who love this country even in the face of all its faults. This continuum may have deep roots and a rich heritage, and that is a proud thing, but how much of that is relevant to decisions that need to be made today about how to fix what is wrong in America today?
Precious Little.
What matters today, as everyday, is what is now, and what is to come? How do we best serve the needs of the people of this great country, today and in the future.. Not how do we get a hot tub built on the city's dime, or how do we help our old college friend get this contract from the state or federal government so he can offer me back substantial campaign contributions.. and who cares if the contract exports all of the labor to another country? profits will be up, right? except it screw the lifeblood of America, its workforce, and the economy in the process..
We used to produce everything, from food to great machines in this country, now all we produce is consumerism and debt. Who in their right mind would think this is good for the country? It could only have been done out of unfathomable ignorance, or pure greed.. I'm betting on greed as the motive.
back to the crux of my point; we need a boy scout.
sadly, i doubt we will ever find one who will survive long enough to make a significant change in the current nature of things
Reply to this
Emily if you think you can do a better job in running Hartford, why don't you run? You seem to know ALL the answers on how to run this City! After all you come from a family of Bullsh*t politicians yourself don't you? And your opinion of the Mayor of Hartford is not appreciated from a know-it-all. You don't speak for all Hartford. I have lived in this City since 1966 and this is the first time that a Mayor of Hartford have reached out to ALL Hartford residents no matter what race you are. You write alot of Bullsh*t probably learned it well from your relatives in politics. Walk the walk and talk the talk, if not go home and raise babies hopefully not to be as judgmental as you. Who made you judge, jury and excutioner?
Reply to this
Nice. Um, I write a blog with my opinion. If you don't like it, fine--no need for the personal attacks. And as for the family of politicians, I have no idea WHAT you're talking about. My brother is involved in politics, but he is not a politician, and not that it's any of your business, but we don't talk much about Hartford. And the "raise babies" comment is especially classy--sexist much? What's next, telling me to shut my mouth and go back to the kitchen? If you'd like to have a dialogue about this, try using your real name. I do.
Reply to this
Wow. If we want to take exception to Hartford politics then we must be know-it-alls? I'm not looking for a mayor to "reach out" to me - I want one to lead my city with integrity and yes, walk the walk. Take a drive along Park Terrace/Hamilton St/Zion St and tell me you are proud of those "Eddie Perez for mayor" posters on the burnt out, boarded up, "graffiti-ed" buildings. Ask the men whose lovely home during the 80's in that area is now a desolate eye-sore, whether the Perez administration has lived up to its promise.
None of us speak for all of Hartford, we are all speaking for ourselves as legitimate voices OF Hartford. I don't care if we've lived here since 1922 or 2002, when we LIVE in the city and do register our car here when we own one and pay whatever taxes those things accrue and care about others who live here too, then we get to say what we think and experience and believe about our elected officials.
Reply to this
Forgive the response to your tirade, being that it was not pointed at me, but as voters we are all judges and juries of our elected officials, that is our job and our duty.. not to just blindly elect someone and keep supporting them regardless of how fraudulent or borderline criminal their activities may be (i.e. Perez's whole amnesty for illegals program..)
But i'm sorry, does that opinion make my opinion 'not appreciated' as well?
Well that's just fine. Appreciated or not, my opinion is mine to share, and share it i will. While you may not agree, I think history will show that more people are in agreement with the dissenters than the approvers of Perez's reign.
I would love to throw my hat into the ring and help fix whats wrong with politics but as EmGee points out,"I also think the problem at this point is that the type of people who would just do the job for X amount of time, who could martyr themselves, who are the Boy Scouts, are disgusted by the whole process and wouldn't jump into it for all the money in the world."
Reply to this