Angus King on Principles & Values
Independent Former ME Governor
We started watching segments of Ken Burns' epic miniseries "The Civil War." (If you haven't seen this lately, I urge you to buy it or rent it. In my view, it is the greatest documentary film ever made, enveloping the viewer in the sweep of the unfolding catastrophe in terms of both high-level strategy and its impact on individual men and women not much different from ourselves.)
If you go back to the speeches and rhetoric of the secessionists from the 1840s through the outbreak of the war, you'll find passages eerily similar to what we're hearing today, complete with references to the Second and Tenth Amendments, enumerated powers, the right of secession, and even the Boston Tea Party.
"When you get to be my age," he wheezed, "you're going to regret things about your life; see that you regret the things that you did, rather than the things you didn't do."
Wow. What a profound observation. Err on the side of action.
I have found that it's always easier to summon a list of arguments against any particular course of action, especially if that action involves any change from the routine or expected.
How about this one--does it make sense to run for governor when you've never even run for dogcatcher, have no affiliation to a political party, no organization, no staff, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% name recognition?
In the latter case, the final decision was explicitly based upon the old man's advice.
The Adherents.com website is an independent project and is not supported by or affiliated with any organization (academic, religious, or otherwise).
Such factors as religious service attendance, belief, practice, familiarity with doctrine, belief in certain creeds, etc., may be important to sociologists, religious leaders, and others. But these are measures of religiosity and are usually not used academically to define a person’s membership in a particular religion. It is important to recognize there are various levels of adherence, or membership within religious traditions or religious bodies. There’s no single definition, and sources of adherent statistics do not always make it clear what definition they are using.
The New England Governors’ Conference, an informal alliance since colonial days, was formally established in 1937 by the Governors of the six state region to promote New England’s economic development. In 1981, the Conference incorporated as a non-partisan, non-profit, tax-exempt 501(c)3 corporation. The region’s six governors serve as its Board of Directors. Annually, the governors select a Chairman to oversee the activities of the organization.
The NEGC’s framework permits the Governors to work together, to coordinate and implement policies and programs which are designed to respond to regional issues. The NEGC coordinates regional policy programs in the areas of economic development, transportation, environment, energy, and health, among others. Through these efforts, the Conference seeks to coordinate, effectively and cost-efficiently, regional policies that reflect and benefit the states. The NEGC manages committees of state officials in such areas as energy, the environment, and economic development.
The NEGC also serves as the New England Secretariat for the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP). The NEG/ECP, which first met in 1973, is a unique, inter-regional, bi-national organization. [Resolutions from the NEG/ECP appear on each Governor’s web page under the appropriate topic areas. NEG/ECP resolutions do not necessarily reflect the full policy stance of individual governors, but they do represent the consensus viewpoint.]
The National Governors Association (NGA) is the collective voice of the nation’s governors and one of Washington’s most respected public policy organizations. NGA provides governors with services that range from representing states on Capitol Hill and before the Administration on key federal issues to developing policy reports on innovative state programs and hosting networking seminars for state government executive branch officials. The NGA Center for Best Practices focuses on state innovations and best practices on issues that range from education and health to technology, welfare reform, and the environment. NGA also provides management and technical assistance to both new and incumbent governors.
Since their initial meeting in 1908 to discuss interstate water problems, governors have worked through the National Governors Association to deal with issues of public policy and governance relating to the states. The association’s ongoing mission is to support the work of the governors by providing a bipartisan forum to help shape and implement national policy and to solve state problems.
Fortune Magazine recently named NGA as one of Washington’s most powerful lobbying organizations due, in large part, to NGA’s ability to lead the debate on issues that impact states. From welfare reform to education, from the historic tobacco settlement to wireless communications tax policies, NGA has influenced major public policy issues while maintaining the strength of our Federalist system of government.
There are three standing committees—on Economic Development and Commerce, Human Resources, and Natural Resources—that provide a venue for governors to examine and develop policy positions on key state and national issues.
[Note: NGA positions represent a majority view of the nation’s governors, but do not necessarily reflect a governor’s individual viewpoint. Governors vote on NGA policy positions but the votes are not made public.]
|Other candidates on Principles & Values:||Angus King on other issues:|
Senate races 2017-8:
AZ: Flake(R) vs. Ward(R) vs.Sinema(D) vs.Abboud(D) vs.McSally(R) vs.Arpaio(R) vs.Marks(L)
CA: Feinstein(D) vs. Eisen(I) vs. Sanchez?(D) vs.de_Leon(D)
CT: Murphy(D) vs.Adams(D) vs.Corey(R)
DE: Carper(D) vs.Arlett(R) vs.Truono(R) vs.
FL: Nelson(D) vs.
HI: Hirono(D) vs.Curtis(R) vs.
IN: Donnelly(D) vs.
MA: Warren(D) vs. Ayyadurai(I) vs.
MD: Cardin(D) vs.Campbell(R) vs.Vohra(L) vs.
ME: King(I) vs.Brakey(R) vs.Ringelstein(D) vs.Lyons(L)
MI: Stabenow(D) vs.
MN-6: Klobuchar(D) vs.Newberger(R) vs.Overby(G)
MO: McCaskill(D) vs.Petersen(R) vs.Petersen(R) vs.Monetti(R) vs.Hawley(R)
MS-2: vs.Hyde-Smith(R) vs. McDaniel(R) vs.Espy(D) vs.
MS-6: Wicker(R) vs.Baria(D) vs.
MT: Tester(D) vs.Olszewski(R) vs.Rosendale(R)
ND: Heitkamp(D) vs.Peyer(D) vs.Cramer(R) vs.
NE: Fischer(R) vs.Raybould(D)
NJ: Menendez(D) vs.
NM: Heinrich(D) vs.Rich(R) vs.Johnson(L)
NV: Heller(R) vs.
NY: Gillibrand(D) vs.
OH: Brown(D) vs.
PA: Casey(D) vs.
RI: Whitehouse(D) vs.Nardolillo(R)
TN: Corker(R) vs.Bredesen(D) vs.
TX: Cruz(R) vs.
UT: Hatch(R) vs.
VA: Kaine(D) vs.
VT: Sanders(I) vs.Milne(D) vs.MacGovern(D) vs.Paige(R)
WA: Cantwell(D) vs.Hutchison(R) vs.Ferguson(D) vs.Luke(L) vs.Strider(L)
WI: Baldwin(D) vs.Vukmir(R)
WV: Manchin(D) vs.
WY: Barrasso(R) vs.Trauner(D)
Senate Votes (analysis)