This is real. Really.
REPORT: DEMOCRATIC ALASKA CANDIDATE HAS NEVER VISITED THE STATE
A Democratic candidate running to replace Rep. Don Young, the Republican holding Alaska’s at-large congressional seat, has never been to the state, according to the Associated Press.
“She doesn’t live in Alaska. In fact, she’s never been to the state,” the Associated Press said of 64-year-old Carol Hafner who admitted she doesn’t even plan on campaigning in The Last Frontier state.
Hafner’s candidate filing lists both South Dakota and New Jersey as her addresses.
As The Hill notes, “The Constitution states that in order to serve in Congress one must meet age and citizenship requirements and inhabit the state at the time of one’s election.”
When the AP reached out to Hafner, the Democrat said, “I want to do good in a place that I feel a kinship for,” although she deems South Dakota as her stomping ground.
“Don’t lock me out just because I’m not a homeboy,” Hafner stated.
Candidate for Alaska congressional seat has never been to the state
Comments
Not just real.
https://carolhafner.com/
She looks on the face of it to be an Our Revolution-style candidate.
There are other Dems, an Undeclared Affiliation, and a NonPartisan running in the Democratic primary.
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/Core/candidatelistprim.php
Running for a seat without living in the district seems to be a
Democratic specialty, as in Jon Ossoff.
I thought I had written an essay about Ossoff's unsuitability as a candidate for Georgia's Sixth, but the search feature of this board hates me. In any event, Oossoff lived a two-hour walk from Georgia's Sixth and told a reporter that he (Ossoff) didn't see an issue in the fact that he had never lived in Georgia's Sixth and had no intention of moving there.
According to folks who should know, Sen. Ed Markey has lived only in the home of his long time girlfriend, now his wife, in the D.C. area for years. He simply keeps his deceased parents'. home in Massachusetts as his official address, but has not lived there since his school days. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/14/long-issue-markey-residency...
Oh. Mr. Frosty!
Markey's only private sector job ever was driving an Ice Cream truck in his Yute...
Also remember when he 'took on" the evil Cable Companies because they charged for a remote control? He carried one everywhere and waived it around. He somehow got some legislation passed. The result being that within 6 months the entire nations cable bills went up.
Gee, thanks Eddie!
Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!
Firesign Theater
Stop the War!
Certainly nothing new.
"Carpetbaggers" have
been running in races they have no business running in for 150 years. At least.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
What's the problem?
So this Carol Hafner who is running for the lone House seat in Alaska has never even been there? Big deal, I say. She would probably represent those voters as well as their existing Congressman - maybe even better. After all, we know that what the voters desire has no bearing on what legislation the elected politicians support or do not support. It's now One-Dollar-One-Vote ... and We the People don't have the dollars.
Hell, some random dude picked from the street in Calcutta would probably represent me better than my current Representative, the hard-right Republican shyster Kevin Brady.
Richard Couer De Leon is the problem.
For reference, Richard I spent a total of less than 6 months in his kingdom during his entire reign. As a result he nearly bankrupted the country to fight his wars, since he had zero care for the people he supposedly was in charge of. Feudalism was, just like democracy, supposedly a 2 way street with the lord providing for his people. Richard did none of that, instead spending the national treasury on castles and soldiers.
His propaganda arm was huge and vast, however, and he played it smart by setting up his brother to take the fall for his actions. hence why we still think of King John as the evil one, even though he signed Magna Carta, as a direct reaction to Richard's excesses.
So no, somebody who doesn't live in an area and has no regard for the people of the area, and thinks that they know better than the people of the area from the reports she gets... is not a good choice. Odds are she'll use it just like Richard used England. Selling it off to the highest bidder while she helps spend all the money on weapons and soldiers.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Our own Richard I
Thing is, my representative - who at least used to live nearby - no longer does, and once his "career" in government ends, odds are he will do as so many of his brother politicians do and spend his final days within driving distance of his present office.
Well, yes, exactly what we have now. And it's not just my district. I'd love to have the numbers of how many members of Congress move from their "home" district (usually to Washington) once they no longer "represent" us. From what I've seen over the years, it's a lot - it might even be most. Actually, I think they continue to "represent" those they always actually "represented" ... it's just was never We the People.
Honestly Obama fits the stereotype well too.
Especially considering that he's seemed to have Trump to function as his John.
A new Magna Carta would be at least a good step forward, since we seem to have dropped below that as far as the power of the king goes.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
New King, same as the old King
Quite right about Obama.
Insofar as a new Magna Carta, I understand that the Republicans need only a few more states and we will on our way. It will probably not be the Magna Carta we're thinking of, though. More likely it will be a MAGA Carta.
John didn't sign Magna Carta willingly
He was bullied into it by his barons, who ganged up on him and said "Sign This Or Else!" (Strictly speaking, he sealed it rather than affixing a signature.)
John's next move was to appeal to the Pope to get out from under the extorted contract.
John was not a good king shoved into a bad position - he was a weak individual shoved into one.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
True, but he also
had been doing the exact same thing for years, in his brother's name, and people loved his brother for it.
I had forgotten about the appeal to the pope, thanks for reminding me. I was wrong when I said he signed it,(and considering I was just reading about it last night I should have remembered that) so there's another error I will own up to.
However, I still feel John was made the scapegoat for a lot of Richard's actions. Weak individual, prone to gluttony and bad manners, and left a nine year old on the throne in a horrible situation (after allegedly overeating or being poisoned... but the records I can find says he died of illness) Considering how much power the barons gained from him, they would have had a motive to portray him as weak.
On this one I'm not certain. However, it's an interesting period and one that I'm revisiting and thinking about more.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Eleanor of Aquitaine
And, as dmw pointed out, Richard was a strong individual but a very bad King. (Only Henry VIII was worse.)
England would have been far better off having Eleanor of Aquitaine rule directly, but the first woman to make a success of Queen Regnant, Elizabeth I, "hadn't been invented yet".
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
The English had also just had a very bad example
Eleanor's mother-in-law, the Dowager Empress Matilda, had a clear claim to the English throne as the oldest surviving legitimate daughter of Henry I (he left no legitimate sons). There were two problems: her cousin Stephen, who wanted the throne even more than she did and staged a coup to get it, and her own arrogant and overbearing temperament. (Sound familiar?)
Between them Matilda and Stephen ripped England apart for over a decade, and it wasn't until Matilda's son Henry (II) came of age to take the field that any progress was made. Young Henry kicked Stephen's butt repeatedly until they came to an agreement that Henry would be Stephen's successor, which was called "good enough" and the fighting finally stopped.
As to Eleanor, her only "right" to the throne was by marriage, and the idea of planting your own backside on the throne that way was even farther away in space and time (IIRC it was first successfully done by Catherine I, consort of Peter the Great of Russia, in the 18th century). It was Eleanor, working behind the scenes, who kept the Angevin holdings from completely falling apart during the disastrous reigns of her sons Richard and John. But even so she attracted a very negative reputation as a scheming, manipulative, immoral and even murderous woman (she probably was the first two - you couldn't survive in the 12th century if you weren't - but no evidence for the last two).
There is no justice. There can be no peace.