LEWIS: Tell us a little bit about you and your business experience and how you got here.
RAESE: I made my money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it. I think that’s a great thing to do. I hope more people in this country have that opportunity as soon as we abolish inheritance tax in this country, which is a key part of my program.
Are you kidding me?
Man of the people!
An honest politician, don't you think?
ReplyDeleteMind you, not one for whom I would vote, but really, really honest (and, just perhaps, really, really politically stupid, if not just plain stupid).
Nah, he sounds like one who is in a safe district.
ReplyDeleteDid you see any of the Colbert testimony? I'm still not sure exactly why he was asked to testify, but the results were brutal on so many levels. Congress looked every bit like the fools they are.
Pretty sure "the old-fashioned way" is prostitution.
ReplyDeletePolitics... Prostitution... What was the difference again??? :-)
ReplyDeleteThis is the logical endpoint of fiscal conservative political philosophy. Someone sometime must have "earned" that money so it's only right that it be freely gifted down as many generations as it can be stretched. (After all, Great Grandpappy Raese wouldn't have broken his back/his slaves' backs earning it if he couldn't leave it to provide for his beloved progeny, right?)
ReplyDeleteWho is the Senator at about 1 minute in, who looks rather unimpressed? I think he realizes what a disaster this publicity stunt is for the Senate.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought Raes was actually taking a slap at the holder of West Virginia's other Senate seat (Raes is running for Byrd's old one): Jay Rockefeller IV. Yes, *those* Rockefellers, of which Sen. Jay is unusual for being a Democrat instead of a Northeastern moderate Republican. A little more time in Wikipedia reveals that Raes and Rockefeller were opponents back in 1984 when then-Gov. Rockefeller first ran for the Senate. Raes has since run for governor and senator, failing each time. He's never held any political office.
ReplyDeleteThis is a record that reminds me of Christine O'Donnell, who is now on her third bid for Delaware senator. Are these people really so full of themselves that they can't conceive of starting in elected office at any position lower than senator/ governor? If they were starting at a law firm, would they be demanding to be equity partners; if starting at a corporation, would they demand to be CEOs? I do not get the psychology of people who keep running for high political office, instead of taking the hint from their first failed campaign that perhaps they ought to try more entry-level positions (mayor? state senator? Congressman?) first.
Much as the current crop of Republican leadership's attitude toward Muslims and immigrants make G.W. Bush look enlightened, several of 2010's candidates make Sarah Palin look wholly qualified for the office to which she aspired in 2008. City Councilwoman + small-town mayor + 1.5 years Alaska governor = much better qualified to be VP and perhaps president, than O'Donnell is to be a senator based on her achievements in life (the main one seems to have been an ability to get on TV and say things that make conservatives look idiotic).
I actually suspect that most high office-seekers have borderline sociopathic tendencies that enable them to do the amount of lying necessary to function in our political culture and to sell anyone and anything down the river to hold onto power.
ReplyDeleteBut putting that aside, I don't think the phenomenon you're describing is that surprising, PG. Maybe Mr. Raese would see a lateral move into a lower office as a demotion. I don't know if he even has a day job, so let's take the example of Al Franken. Obviously he jumped right into a statewide race, but given his celebrity and likely earning power, is it any surprise he immediately wanted into the big leagues? Even someone like O'Donnell was at least high profile enough to be all over Bill Maher's show. Moreover, I suspect most politicians would run for the highest office they can get their party's nomination for unless 1) they're very happy, secure, and established in their current jobs, or 2) they see a better shot at that higher office in the not-so-distant future. So the only thing that really stands out about the folks you mention is their ability to win primaries without first serving as state senators or what-have-you.
Addendum: I actually think it's instructive to consider Obama's primary challenge for a House seat. Not a "wait your turn" approach, exactly, even though he'd held another office. More like taking a chance at a big payout.
ReplyDeletejoe,
ReplyDeleteNote that after Obama lost the 2000 primary for Congressman to Bobby Rush, he didn't then try to run against Rush in 2002. Instead, he licked his wounds and waiting for an office to open up that wouldn't require running against an incumbent. Give it your best shot; nothing ventured, nothing gained; insert-cliche-of-choice. I can understand shooting for the highest office at which you can half-plausibly believe that you have a shot the *first* time you run. It's repeat losers like O'Donnell and Raes whom I find puzzling. In particular, if they're so gung-ho to serve in public office, why not shift their ambitious to providing that service in something a bit lower than the U.S. Senator's office?
The obvious answer is that they consider those lower offices a step down from their day job, whatever that might be. For example, I suspect "Tea Party activist turned city council member" (assuming the "city" is a small town of a few thousand somewhere in "Real America") gets fewer talk show invites than even a failed Senate candidate. I think the analogy to other professions fails because winning an election is fundamentally not like climbing the corporate ladder (and even a serial loser of a candidate can succeed in a wave election year; compare this to the legal job market, where employers really do make judgments based on an expected timeline for applicants' career tracks).
ReplyDelete