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

Yes, Hank, you and I agree today, too. I think Sebby was characterizing Ty on the great stuff.

He ends his Presidency with one major legislative accomplishment, ACA, the ultimate destiny of which will be determined by his successors and the legislature which tried to thwart it. It has actually been a while since a President had any meaningful legislative legacy - Reagan was really the last time there was a legislative change on this scale (the '86 Tax Code).

In foreign policy, I don't know how it will turn out in retrospect. The issues I have with his foreign policy looking back today are almost entirely with his Middle Eastern policies, and, frankly, he may have ended up doing the best he could with a bad situation, though at this moment in time I think he could have done better. We will see how much worse his successor is.

But, yes, he can aspire to being seen as a good president, but not a great one.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

I find it extremely troubling that the two people who get scrutinized over these sorts of speaking fees are a woman and black man. Not an eyelash is batted over the white men who routinely command these sorts of fees.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

That isn't true. The opposing party always slams an exiting president for cashing in. What is odd here is Dems questioning a Dem Ex-President.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

I don't lump Ty into the category of folks who think like this, but, yes, I think a lot of the Trump Trolls and Bernie Bros out there assume white men get big checks all the time, no biggie, but what must a black dude or some chick have done to get this kind of payment?

I mean, it's like a black dude playing a lot of golf when he's supposed to be out draining our swamps. Where does he get off doing that?

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

(Not scrolling first and GGG already said it, but) Would it be different if he took a partnership at Wachtell? If so, why?

I'm pretty sure that that would inspire some Brocialist grumbling, but not even get a mention from the likes of Yglesias and Barro. Which is dumb. If it's bad to take Wall Street money for speeches it should be bad to take it as legal fees.

As for Barro, the response to this: Is that there's always another interest group. Whichever one isn't pissed off might pay for speeches.

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

You think that's because of what they did as president and not who each company is likely to want to hear from?

I don't think Exxon doesn't want to hear from Obama because of what he did during his presidency but rather because of who he is and who Exxon is.

Actually, the Google/Bush example kind of highlights it. Bush did nothing I can think of that was hostile to Google's interests as president, yet we both think Google is unlikely to hire him to speak. That's because a bunch of California liberals don't want to hear from a GOP ex-President, not because of some pre-corruption he didn't give them.

I think it's bad for Dems that socialists are trying to make it look bad for Dems and even worse that some Dems are taking up the cause.

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

The premise is, accepting speaking fees after you've held office is "soft" corruption. Given how in-demand all Presidents are after they leave office for speaking engagements, the wide array of organizations he will be paid to address, the fact that he's the first black President, the actual knowledge and perspective he has on the world and life in general--political, practical, whatever--the idea that he might somehow be making decisions in office to make sure that gravy train is available when he leaves is quite simply ridiculous.

More likely? I disagree. Obama is just as likely to be in demand on Wall Street as in Silicon Valley.

No one said you are.

Ah. The good old, "obviously" line. When something is obvious, there is no need to say so.

Look, I understand that people are fucking stupid. Bernie gains traction because people don't understand that addressing Wall Street for a speaking fee is not the same as being owned by Wall Street. I get that perception is everything to completely uninformed voters. But does it make sense for no Democrat to ever address Wall Street banks? That's obviously ridiculous. They make up a huge portion of our economy and one would think could benefit from hearing a perspective outside of the one they constantly jerk each other off with inside their Greenwich-to-Wall Street bubbles--i.e., we are smarter and work harder than everyone else and deserve tons of money and can self-regulate. Maybe you and Bernie and whoever's article you shared should think about what they're actually saying at these speaking engagements.

And what makes the most sense is for Bernie to start pushing the theme that we shouldn't shield each other from ideas. Hell, if he can take Berkley to task for it, he can shut up about Democrats speaking to Wall Street without implying they're bought and sold. Focus on the message.

Yes, he absolutely will be paid to speak by a ton of organizations. Your example of the NRA doesn't prove your theory.

If Bryan Stevenson is paid to address a group of district attorneys or judges, is the assumption that he can't advocate against injustice in the justice system? If Coulter is paid to spew her garbage at Berkley, is she any less racist?

What undermines confidence in the system are the actual decisions politicians make. The fact that politicians have handed over the government to corporations by allowing them to draft legislation, develop policy, access decision-makers, etc. is the problem. Speaking engagements, especially for Presidents, after leaving office is not the problem. Trying to make it into one is a cheap trick politicians use to campaign to people with small minds.

TM

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

Damn, man. Hank and I agree.

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

Whiff.

TM

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

I actually think hindsight is going to give him great credit for restraint in foreign policy, as the current administration and probably successive future ones get right back into the war games.

He was less peaceful than I'd prefer, but he also seemed to be one of the only people in Washington that understood that there are limits to what can be accomplished with American military power and that problems like Syria and North Korea do not have military solutions.

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

Pure garbage, unless by "something better," you mean setting an example and never accept speaking fees. Bill Clinton took tons of speaking fees and runs a global foundation that does a ton of great things. If you think Obama doesn't have a huge second act coming, you're crazy.

TM

Re: Let's Try to Put This Stupidity to Rest
 

Here is Hillary Clinton talking to Goldman Sachs. She is advocating a program to give women entrepreneurial support, and talking about the role of women in the Global economy and using her forum and the CGI/Goldman relationship to build support for investing in women and in integrating women's contributions into metrics and measures of wealth and well-being.

She got paid for this.

She should do this every fucking day of the week, and she should do this for JP Morgan and Cantor Fitzgerald and every other firm on Wall Street.

She should take Exxon's money to do this.

She should get Obama doing this.

This is very good.

And if you think that is not the case, you are getting in the way of a powerful force for social change.

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

This is possible, though not my view. Let's have this discussion again in 5 years.

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

When Trump keeps me up at night, this helps me get to sleep.

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

Which would go entirely unnoticed.