I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If I had a $65 million book deal, I would make some very different life choices.

Like not earning $50-80 million dollars per year for the rest of your life?

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Technocracy isn't always good politics.

It is clear that stupidity often makes for very good politics.

Should I put you down as pro-stupid, anti-technocratic or can we agree that whether or not something makes for good politics often bears little relationship to whether or not it is good policy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

So your position is basically what GGG said it was. If you're a Democrat, after you leave office you should decline opportunities to make money.

Come on, now. That's not a fair summary of what I've said, and you know it.

I don't think people look at this do. I think people understand that a former President has tons of opportunities they will never have. I think this particular issue only became one this time around because Bernie needed to distinguish himself from Hillary and this played well to his rabid base. Trump saw it and jumped all over it. Like I said, people are fucking stupid--so much so that Trump, who is actually corrupt, succeeded in painting Hillary as the corrupt one.

Hell, Bernie and Trump have managed to convince you that we should cater to the dumber constituents among us who were tricked into thinking that the whole thing is rigged and all the politicians are corrupt.

Bernie hasn't convinced me of much at all. I don't understand why Bernie keeps popping up in this conversation -- as I said, Bernie didn't beat Hillary with this issue, but Trump did.

Some people are fucking stupid. But politics is a duel of competing visions, and when Democrats act like Republicans, they miss the chance to draw a contrast persuade on that basis. If Democrats want to persuade voters that they are less corrupt than Republicans, than they need to find ways to persuade voters that there are meaningful differences between them. I have a hard time faulting Obama for taking Cantor's money, but it's also a missed opportunity to do better.

eta: Also, it's not lost on me that many Trump voters who described Hillary as corrupt were never going vote for her -- not all of those voters are there to be won. But the fact that they chose that as a line of attack is nonetheless telling.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is intentionally myopic--frustratingly so, because you realize that Goldman is made up of many people. She wasn't paid for a personal audience with Cohn. Stop being obtuse.

TM

I don't see social change happening from taking big money from the likes of Goldman Sachs. It is no coincidence that former Goldman bankers are working for Trump, or that when they work for Democrats they tend to the center rather than the left. If there's a social benefit from exposing Goldman to what Hillary and Obama have to say, fine -- but that doesn't require the huge fees.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Like not earning $50-80 million dollars per year for the rest of your life?

TM

I certainly wouldn't work as an in-house lawyer for a Silicon Valley behemoth.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If there's a social benefit from exposing Goldman to what Hillary and Obama have to say, fine -- but that doesn't require the huge fees.

What if it does? Like, maybe Hillary and Obama don't really want to go talk to a bunch of boring bankers, but will if it's a nice payday? That does not sound far fetched to me.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Come on, now. That's not a fair summary of what I've said, and you know it.

So in what ways is it okay to make money after leaving office? Book deal only? Getting a job with a company that can pay tremendous amounts of money in an industry that surely lobbies? Only in an industry that is Democrat-friendly? That's better than taking speaking engagements? I'd very much like to understand your universe of what is okay and what isn't? It can't just be "no banks," because tons of industries lobby and are influenced by a President's decisions.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Bernie hasn't convinced me of much at all. I don't understand why Bernie keeps popping up in this conversation -- as I said, Bernie didn't beat Hillary with this issue, but Trump did.

Bullshit. Bernie made it his core issue and Trump ran with it. Don't be ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Some people are fucking stupid. But politics is a duel of competing visions, and when Democrats act like Republicans, they miss the chance to draw a contrast persuade on that basis.

You're going to have to explain to me why taking speaking fees is "acting like a Republican." That's asinine.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Democrats want to persuade voters that they are less corrupt than Republicans, than they need to find ways to persuade voters that there are meaningful differences between them.

Again, if their actual actions while in office are insufficient to show no (or way less) corruption because some jackass raises a fake issue in a campaign based on a perception they were able to manipulate, then I don't know what to say. Bush colored Dukakis as a black murderer-lover. Was it politically smart for Democrats to run on a "lock black people up based on bullshit" platform for the next 20 years? Maybe. But is that how we should proceed? Or should we try to actually inform our uninformed, dumbass electorate?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't see social change happening from taking big money from the likes of Goldman Sachs. It is no coincidence that former Goldman bankers are working for Trump, or that when they work for Democrats they tend to the center rather than the left. If there's a social benefit from exposing Goldman to what Hillary and Obama have to say, fine -- but that doesn't require the huge fees.

Whatever. This conversation is ridiculous. I'm done with it.

TM

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Whatever. This conversation is ridiculous. I'm done with it.

TM

YEAH! Me too. Everyone is so fucking talky today. Here is some early early Parliament for your earholes. "Funky Woman" from Osmium is the Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv2MHatAXdk

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

What if it does? Like, maybe Hillary and Obama don't really want to go talk to a bunch of boring bankers, but will if it's a nice payday? That does not sound far fetched to me.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here of why companies pay these speaking fees. There is an established market and you can go to any of a number of bureaus and identify people who will speak for a fee, ranging from David Gergen to Ken Burns to George Bush. If you run a major corporate or trade show event, you need a marquee speaker, and a big budget is justified. With 2500 attendees, a modest conference, $100 per attendee give you a quarter million budget for a keynote. You can cheap out with David Gergen at $50,000, go for Ken Burns at $150,000, get George Bush for $250,000. Ken Burns or George Bush may attract a couple hundred more attendees, often at a couple thousand a pop. Who do you hire?

When you actually price some of these talks with this in mind, the former Presidents often end up looking like pretty good choices. And there is a market for them, just as there is a market rate for lawyers, and they are getting market pay. Yes, it's a lot of money. But it's market and the economics easily justify it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Whatever. This conversation is ridiculous. I'm done with it.

TM

I was just talking about this conversation with a minority associate here (in the context of a broader discussion about firm diversity) and he made an excellent point.

If you want social change you need to see minorities enter and advance at places like Goldman, and having Obama in front of the room talking to the old white guys in suits in the front tables is helpful to all the young black women in suits in the back of the room.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here of why companies pay these speaking fees. There is an established market and you can go to any of a number of bureaus and identify people who will speak for a fee, ranging from David Gergen to Ken Burns to George Bush. If you run a major corporate or trade show event, you need a marquee speaker, and a big budget is justified. With 2500 attendees, a modest conference, $100 per attendee give you a quarter million budget for a keynote. You can cheap out with David Gergen at $50,000, go for Ken Burns at $150,000, get George Bush for $250,000. Ken Burns or George Bush may attract a couple hundred more attendees, often at a couple thousand a pop. Who do you hire?

When you actually price some of these talks with this in mind, the former Presidents often end up looking like pretty good choices. And there is a market for them, just as there is a market rate for lawyers, and they are getting market pay. Yes, it's a lot of money. But it's market and the economics easily justify it.

Absolutely. When we chaired the Planned Parenthood Luncheon two years ago, we looked at quite a number of speakers to get a balance of affordability vs someone compelling that would draw an audience. And Planned Parenthood's event people told us that you generally get pretty awesome responses to great speakers. The ones that aren't a draw per se have to work harder to get the audience's attention, but they're less expensive.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If you want social change you need to see minorities enter and advance at places like Goldman, and having Obama in front of the room talking to the old white guys in suits in the front tables is helpful to all the young black women in suits in the back of the room.

Good point.

I sit on the executive council of a diversity organization that needs a keynote speaker every year. It is absolutely vital that the keynote be well-known, dynamic, interesting, etc. We had Bryan Stevenson (who I think is probably the best speaker I've ever heard in my life) last year. We'd love to get someone like Holder or Lynch. We couldn't afford them, of course. I'd probably consider murdering someone to get Obama or Michelle, but suffice it to say if we had the money, we'd spend it. To insist that they decline these opportunities because we could easily be cast as a special interest group which could have benefited from special treatment by any of the people I listed while in office so that they would be able to land that fee once they left office is completely and utterly stupid.

Guess I wasn't completely done.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

So in what ways is it okay to make money after leaving office? Book deal only? Getting a job with a company that can pay tremendous amounts of money in an industry that surely lobbies? Only in an industry that is Democrat-friendly? That's better than taking speaking engagements? I'd very much like to understand your universe of what is okay and what isn't? It can't just be "no banks," because tons of industries lobby and are influenced by a President's decisions.

I don't have a universe of what is OK and what isn't. I just have a view that if he has a $65 million book deal, he doesn't need $400K from Cantor. I am reacting more to the $400K than to the fact that it's Cantor, which is why I said that my reaction would be the same if it were Boeing, McKesson or Google.

Bullshit. Bernie made it his core issue and Trump ran with it. Don't be ridiculous.

Sure, but she beat Bernie, and she lost to Trump. My gut is that people who otherwise were not going to vote for her seized on that issue in the primary to express their opposition, but that she lost votes she might have won in the general because of the way Trump used the issue. Do you disagree? Or are you saying it had traction in the general only because Bernie used it in the primary? If the latter, I disagree.

You're going to have to explain to me why taking speaking fees is "acting like a Republican." That's asinine.

If your standard is, is it legal, then you're holding yourself to the same standard that Republicans are held to, and missing the chance to differentiate. If you turn down some opportunities in a way that creates a different perception, then you're not acting like a Republican.

Again -- not trying to accuse Obama of acting like a Republican. Just regretting that he missed a chance to do something better.

Again, if their actual actions while in office are insufficient to show no (or way less) corruption because some jackass raises a fake issue in a campaign based on a perception they were able to manipulate, then I don't know what to say. Bush colored Dukakis as a black murderer-lover. Was it politically smart for Democrats to run on a "lock black people up based on bullshit" platform for the next 20 years? Maybe. But is that how we should proceed? Or should we try to actually inform our uninformed, dumbass electorate?

I take your point that Democrats ought not do things just because they might be politically popular. Whether or not it was politically smart for Democrats to run on a "lock black people up based on bullshit" (or, "law and order" for short), it was the wrong thing to do, and sometimes Democrats need to set political expediency aside to do what is right. In a different context, Presidents Clinton and Obama both asked Democratic Congressman to risk their jobs to enact meaningful legislation, and bravo for that.

But I see a different trade-off here. I'm saying that I regret that Obama didn't decide to set his own personal interests aside to do something that would have been better for Democrats. I hesitate to draw a general rule from this -- I don't think Obama should take a vow of poverty. I remain optimistic that he's going to do a lot more than just cash in.

eta: But again, if there's a principle at stake, it's not on the side of Obama taking the money.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Here I go again.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't have a universe of what is OK and what isn't. I just have a view that if he has a $65 million book deal, he doesn't need $400K from Cantor. I am reacting more to the $400K than to the fact that it's Cantor, which is why I said that my reaction would be the same if it were Boeing, McKesson or Google.

You are completely dodging the question. Below you said he shouldn't take a vow of poverty, but you are unwilling to even explore the types of jobs, payments, income he should have after leaving office. Since every. single. job. in which he would make a lot of money (and the fact that former Presidents may be in high demand is a fact of life) carries with it the implication that taking it may mean your decisions while in office may be tainted (according to you), I can see why you don't want to answer.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sure, but she beat Bernie, and she lost to Trump. My gut is that people who otherwise were not going to vote for her seized on that issue in the primary to express their opposition, but that she lost votes she might have won in the general because of the way Trump used the issue. Do you disagree? Or are you saying it had traction in the general only because Bernie used it in the primary? If the latter, I disagree.

I think that the people in the primary are different than the people in the general. I think Bernie scored huge points with the issue and I am not sure Trump would have seized on it at all if it wasn't a proven point-scorer. But the fact is, Bernie turned huge numbers of people who would have voted for her on the left away from her no matter what Trump did. (Fuck, just take a good look at Susan Dumbass Sarandon.) Given the small margin of his electoral win, do you think this wasn't significant in painting her as corrupt? If you do, I disagree.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If your standard is, is it legal, then you're holding yourself to the same standard that Republicans are held to, and missing the chance to differentiate. If you turn down some opportunities in a way that creates a different perception, then you're not acting like a Republican.

Well, that's clever. You just now carved out from something everyone does something you think Democrats shouldn't do. And now it's a standard that Democrats should be held to. Given the fact that you refuse to define how former Presidents can make their money, do you realize how ridiculous that is?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Again -- not trying to accuse Obama of acting like a Republican. Just regretting that he missed a chance to do something better.

I disagree. You just said that he is not living up to the standard for Democrats you just defined, which necessarily means he's acting like a Republican.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm saying that I regret that Obama didn't decide to set his own personal interests aside to do something that would have been better for Democrats. I hesitate to draw a general rule from this -- I don't think Obama should take a vow of poverty. I remain optimistic that he's going to do a lot more than just cash in.

Your first two sentences are in complete opposition to each other.

But here's the big question: If Obama is planning on doing incredibly wonderful things, where does that stand in relation to him also earning a ton of money? When we judge him based on all he's done before he was a politician, all he did (or wanted to do) while he was in office, and whatever he does after he leaves, is it possible to come up with a picture of him based on the totality of what he's actually done? Or should we all focus on his inability to live up to this standard in which one must avoid the soft corruption behind taking speaking fees upon leaving office? That is the kind of childish analysis that our uninformed electorate needs to be disabused of. Especially since it's a bullshit smokescreen employed by Republicans to conflate actual corruption with this ridiculous perception of corruption.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

eta: But again, if there's a principle at stake, it's not on the side of Obama taking the money.

You keep quoting this guy like he is convincing. He is not.

The President upon leaving office is in high demand from all sorts of organizations. He can pick and choose from so many organizations that it makes no sense to say that he made decisions consciously or unconsciously based on how one or two industries might pony up once he was out of office. Hell, the fact that he will accept fees from tons of different organizations cuts against this guy's argument in that if he chose to work in one industry (as opposed to speaking to lots of different ones) it's much easier to think he may have made some decisions in office to make that happen afterward.

Give this up. If you limited your argument to people like the Clintons, who commanded huge fees after leaving one office, but immediately prior to running for office, you'd have a leg to stand on--especially when she and everyone else in the world knew she was going to run again. But this "soft corruption" theory you're holding on to as it relates to Obama and speaking fees is stupid.

TM