Comments on: Romneyesque

By: Norwegian Shooter

Norwegian Shooter — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:33:25 +0000

That is skewed! MN state reps and senators make $31,000. They get a per diem, but are only in session 120 days out of the two year term.

Two points of contention, how do most state reps leave office multi-millionaires with $100k a year? Certainly you can’t make a couple of million dollars in outside income without attracting attention. Find out how many school board members there are per state rep. I’m guessing it is around 15-20. They all can’t think they will be state reps. Throw out NYC in all this. Certainly an outlier!

By: BYork

BYork — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:14:57 +0000

Actually, I speak to these people on a daily basis. However, I will grant you that perhaps my perspective is skewed because I live in New York where state representatives, both lower and upper house, make a base salary of almost $100K a year, which is typically supplemented by a “leadership stipend” that gets most of them well over the $100K mark. In addition, they get a daily per diem, when they are in session, of $150 a day cash to do with what they please. Staffs for the upper house usually total about 10-15 persons and the lower house 5-10. The same is mostly true for the New York City Council. And oh yes, these are all officially part time jobs so many of the legislators take on additional employment where they get to use their positions in government to earn additional compensation. Few enter office as multi-millionaires but most leave that way. School board members are all looking to get involved in the political system to get on this gravy train some day.

By: Norwegian Shooter

Norwegian Shooter — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:57:13 +0000

Belabor away! When is the last time you talked to a state rep, city councilperson or member of a school board? Most are very part-time work. And they certainly are not glamorous positions. Thankless is more apt.

By: BYork

BYork — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:19:11 +0000

Not to belabor the point but it has been my experience that regardless of how low you go down the political food chain the number one goal of virtually each and every elected official is self-preservation, i.e., reelection. Whether it’s a U.S. senator at the top of the food chain or a member of the lower house of the state legislature, it’s all about getting reelected and continuing to get called the honorable this or that, and getting a fawning staff, and all the other perks we bestow on our elected officials. I honestly believe that term limits would go a long way towards addressing this love of the perks of office over doing what is right. However, none of the controlling interests, i.e., the politicians, big business, the unions, etc., have any interest in pushing for this since the last thing they want is a change in the status quo. Business, the unions, the trial lawyers, etc., don’t mind the politicial class getting its piece so long as they get what they want. The rest of us? We don’t matter.

By: Norwegian Shooter

Norwegian Shooter — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:47:04 +0000

Whoops, it appears TPaw did have some actual positions to run from.

By: Norwegian Shooter

Norwegian Shooter — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:51:42 +0000

Wait a minute. First, having serious core beliefs isn’t a goal in and of itself. The belief is obviously more important.

Second, if by successful politician, you mean serious contenders for the Presidency, then fine, they’re all shape-shifters, including Obama. But for one person to represent 300 million, don’t they have to be able to wriggle around every issue? Do you really want a true believer in that office? (See Bush 43)

Third, go down the chain of power and you’ll find more and more people who are dedicated to serving the public, not themselves. Politician is not a universally negative descriptor. There is plenty of good done by them.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:53:31 +0000

I assume most successful politicians don’t have serious core beliefs. They wouldn’t have made it very far in mass democratic politics if they did. The ones that flaunt their dishonesty and unprincipled nature are the ones I cannot stand, and Romney is one of the worst.

By: BYork

BYork — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:39:18 +0000

It’s silly to think that any successful politician has any serious core beliefs. The goal of a politician is to get elected. Part of getting elected is saying whatever it is you need to say to get elected. The best you can hope for is that those who do get elected, carry out, to some extent, whatever agenda it is that you support. To think that any successful politican is in the political business for anything other than getting elected and reelected is dangerously naive. Of course there are plenty of aspiring politicians out there who cling to core beliefs but they don’t get elected to anything because they fail to grasp that politics is a business like any other.

By: crmac50

crmac50 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:07:14 +0000

“Giuliani at least believes what he believes and isn’t interested in changing that for a few votes.”

this is entirely untrue. i give you Rudy Guliani being interviewed by Charlie Rose stating that he believes that the NRA is wrong on gun control:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV1HuPofNws

and here he is in the 2008 republican primaries speaking to the NRA in support of their interpretations of the 2nd amendment and their philosophies behind gun control:

http://cnettv.cnet.com/giuliani-talks-nra/9742-1_53-50052348.html

giuliani is just as shameless as Romney.

By: todayslies

todayslies — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:22:35 +0000

“Romney went from telling us how deeply, personally affected he was by the death of a close relative who died in a botched abortion, which was why he would always and forever support legal abortion, to adopting as close to the opposite position as he possibly could.”

Romney’s story about what actually “turned him pro-life” really is amazing. He claims that a discussion of stem cell research with a local expert about a year before he ran for president suddenly made him turn to an aide and state that he just realized he was really pro-life.

What a pathetic human being.

By: bayesian

bayesian — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:03:40 +0000

Mr. Dimitrov -

It might well be that “doubling Guantamo” (by which I assume you mean to refer to torture, rather than e.g. indefinite and substantially arbitrary imprisonment) goes against the “traditions” of Western Civilization – it certainly goes against the stated principles of said civilization, but ignoring stated principles is quite traditional in Western Civilization (as well as, I think we may agree, any other civilization that has ever existed which has stated principles available to ignore).

Unfortunately, I cannot think of any principles of American Democracy that the ever flexible Mr. Romney has violated. On the contrary, he has done his best to live up to the highest historical standards of pandering to his perception of the electorate (in the instant case, the electorate being GOP caucus goers and primary voters).

By: Norwegian Shooter

Norwegian Shooter — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:58:07 +0000

Au contraire mon frere, Pawlenty is slick and charismatic enough to pull off at least one metamorphose. And that’s all he needs, because he doesn’t have any strong positions as public baggage like Romney had. He’s Zeligesque.

By: Krassen Dimitrov

Krassen Dimitrov — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:48:58 +0000

This otherwise nice piece does not spell the obvious problem here: when someone completely lacks any internal core of principles, he is eager to assume the most repugnant positions. Even ones that go against not only the principles of American Democracy, but against the traditions of Western Civilization at large: http://bit.ly/qFSrq

By: BYork

BYork — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:21:21 +0000

You hit the nail on the head about Pawlenty, which underscores the scary part about Romney – he could pull this off.