so enabling a douchebag is a legitimate way to get ahead? How about if your name is Hillary?
It’s a job. I know people who worked close enough to Hillary they could get her on the phone right now. I’d drink beer with them any day of the week. It’s a job there’s no need to demonize them. Gaetz is going to the pokey and they’re soon out of a job.
It’s a job. I know people who worked close enough to Hillary they could get her on the phone right now. I’d drink beer with them any day of the week. It’s a job there’s no need to demonize them. Gaetz is going to the pokey and they’re soon out of a job.
Meh, you make it sound like very few people have any agency over ethics. That’s sort of an apologist take. Maybe for lower level staff. But I don’t buy it for people who could, for example, get Gaetz on the phone, and he’d pick up. Those are his peers. Or Hillary’s peers.
Evil exists when good people do nothing, or however that saying goes.
Maybe not demonize, but if I was a subsequent employer I’d sure ask a lot of questions.
so enabling a douchebag is a legitimate way to get ahead? How about if your name is Hillary?
It’s a job. I know people who worked close enough to Hillary they could get her on the phone right now. I’d drink beer with them any day of the week. It’s a job there’s no need to demonize them. Gaetz is going to the pokey and they’re soon out of a job.
It’s a job, but there are lots of jobs in politics. You don’t have to choose to work for a womanizing douchebag who’s more interested in the camera than in his duties as a Congressman. Plenty of other people found other Congressmen or politicians to work for.
Like it or not, people judge you by who you choose to associate with and who you choose to work for, especially when the job you take is all about increasing the influence of that person.
that’s fair
if I get down off my high horse long enough, and had a kid who was a policy wonk, a job – any job – would be a foot in the door.
BUT if the job was with a bottom feeder I’d advise to grind it out elsewhere until a better opportunity comes along. The cynicism you develop working for people like that seems like it would be corrosive in the long run.
Yeah, but… At some point, it almost always seems to be the case that the type of people who end up working for these guys end up being the types of guys who’d work for people like that.
This is patently false. They’re mercenaries. I know a ton of people who do this and they’re not all ideologues (they’re all Democrats though). Broad strokes they agree but it’s a job and that’s all it is. Sure they want their boss to win and/ or set them up for a promotion by moving to another Pol but at then end of the day it’s all about the power, prominence and cheddar.
Its kind of the nature of the job. If you want to move up and get more important positions you need to move through the power structure. You don’t really have the luxury of holding out for the lone saint among politicians.
Just like if you want to work in campaign politics. If I love Bernie with all my heart but he doesn’t come calling I’m going to go with Klobuchar if she offers a job.
They frequently stay on one side of the aisle or the other but not always.
It’s a job. I know people who worked close enough to Hillary they could get her on the phone right now. I’d drink beer with them any day of the week. It’s a job there’s no need to demonize them. Gaetz is going to the pokey and they’re soon out of a job.
Meh, you make it sound like very few people have any agency over ethics. That’s sort of an apologist take. Maybe for lower level staff. But I don’t buy it for people who could, for example, get Gaetz on the phone, and he’d pick up. Those are his peers. Or Hillary’s peers.
Evil exists when good people do nothing, or however that saying goes.
Maybe not demonize, but if I was a subsequent employer I’d sure ask a lot of questions.
If they knew and/or facilitated him banging underage hookers light’em up but if they didn’t no need for extraneous collateral damage
so enabling a douchebag is a legitimate way to get ahead? How about if your name is Hillary?
It’s a job. I know people who worked close enough to Hillary they could get her on the phone right now. I’d drink beer with them any day of the week. It’s a job there’s no need to demonize them. Gaetz is going to the pokey and they’re soon out of a job.
It’s a job, but there are lots of jobs in politics. You don’t have to choose to work for a womanizing douchebag
Like Clinton Trump Kennedy Johnson FDR Jefferson ?
so enabling a douchebag is a legitimate way to get ahead? How about if your name is Hillary?
It’s a job. I know people who worked close enough to Hillary they could get her on the phone right now. I’d drink beer with them any day of the week. It’s a job there’s no need to demonize them. Gaetz is going to the pokey and they’re soon out of a job.
It’s a job, but there are lots of jobs in politics. You don’t have to choose to work for a womanizing douchebag
Like Clinton Trump Kennedy Johnson FDR Jefferson ?
Sure.
“These guys wanted 100% every time. In fact, I don’t think that would satisfy them, because they didn’t really want legislative victories. They wanted wedge issues and conspiracies and crusades. A lot of them wanted to blow up Washington. That’s why they thought they were elected.â€
Former GOP House Speaker Boehner.
Boehner is talking about people like Gaetz and Jim Jordan and Donald Trump. It’s an honest but sad indictment of that wing of the GOP and any staffers working for someone like that is well aware of who they’re working for. Maybe not child sex trafficking, but major POS.
Today on Fox News website:
Front Page: Number of articles about Hunter Biden and Cuomo: 4
Number of articles about Matt Gaetz: 0
Politics Page: Number of articles about Hunter Biden and/or Cuomo: 5
Number of articles about Matt Gaetz: 0
Fox has given up even any appearance of being ‘fair and balanced’.
I saw that article and something that came to mind was that over the years people kept on saying “this is what led to trump.â€
But from Boehner it seems like what led to trump was high level gop members driving wedge issues.
has given up even any appearance of being ‘fair and balanced’.
*“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.†*
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
I saw that article and something that came to mind was that over the years people kept on saying “this is what led to trump.â€
But from Boehner it seems like what led to trump was high level gop members driving wedge issues.
It was all started by one man: Newt Gingrich.
Yeah, but… At some point, it almost always seems to be the case that the type of people who end up working for these guys end up being the types of guys who’d work for people like that.
This is patently false. They’re mercenaries. I know a ton of people who do this and they’re not all ideologues (they’re all Democrats though). Broad strokes they agree but it’s a job and that’s all it is. Sure they want their boss to win and/ or set them up for a promotion by moving to another Pol but at then end of the day it’s all about the power, prominence and cheddar.
Its kind of the nature of the job. If you want to move up and get more important positions you need to move through the power structure. You don’t really have the luxury of holding out for the lone saint among politicians.
Just like if you want to work in campaign politics. If I love Bernie with all my heart but he doesn’t come calling I’m going to go with Klobuchar if she offers a job.
They frequently stay on one side of the aisle or the other but not always.
What he said
I saw that article and something that came to mind was that over the years people kept on saying “this is what led to trump.â€
But from Boehner it seems like what led to trump was high level gop members driving wedge issues.
It was all started by one man: Newt Gingrich.
Agreed.
Yeah, but… At some point, it almost always seems to be the case that the type of people who end up working for these guys end up being the types of guys who’d work for people like that.
This is patently false. They’re mercenaries. I know a ton of people who do this and they’re not all ideologues (they’re all Democrats though). Broad strokes they agree but it’s a job and that’s all it is. Sure they want their boss to win and/ or set them up for a promotion by moving to another Pol but at then end of the day it’s all about the power, prominence and cheddar.
Its kind of the nature of the job. If you want to move up and get more important positions you need to move through the power structure. You don’t really have the luxury of holding out for the lone saint among politicians.
Just like if you want to work in campaign politics. If I love Bernie with all my heart but he doesn’t come calling I’m going to go with Klobuchar if she offers a job.
They frequently stay on one side of the aisle or the other but not always.
What he said
That is pretty much my experience — as a career DC lawyer. Most people can’t be too picky if they want to succeed in that world. I know a solid person who spent many years working for a horror of a Congressman. That does not mean he agreed with the Congressman. There are limits, however, and Gaetz was a known clown even before the latest revelations.
What I observe is that people go into such a field thinking that they will be more righteous in their choices but, when the reality sinks in, they wind up picking career advancement over principle more than they’d originally expected.
I saw that article and something that came to mind was that over the years people kept on saying “this is what led to trump.â€
But from Boehner it seems like what led to trump was high level gop members driving wedge issues.
It was all started by one man: Newt Gingrich.
Agreed.
Eyeroll emoji
.
Receipts of payments made through CashApp and Apple Pay have been found. This guy is beyond smoked.
What was it that he said right after the story broke? “I have a suspicion that someone is trying to recategorize my generosity to ex-girlfriends as something more untoward.”?
“Generosity to ex-girlfriends.” Right, Matt. Right…
I mean… I understand what you’re saying, but if you’re the sort of person who’s going to (knowingly) work to grow the influence of someone who’s morally abhorrent, or work to advance policy that creates structures that are morally abhorrent, it’s reasonable to think that you’re going to be treated like you’re morally abhorrent, because you’ve done a lot of harm to people. Maybe you can get a job carrying water at a right-wing think tank or something… but your judgement is so demonstrably flawed that it would be irresponsible to give you meaningful decisions to make that effect anyone else.
Ignoring abstractions and digging directly into the concretions: You have a guy who enabled and encouraged another prominent right-wing failson who (off the top of my head) stormed impeachment proceedings, trivialized behavior around Corona virus, unapologetically drove drunk, and now (if the allegations are true) was flashing nudes around of his underaged conquests and created dehumanizing games related to their exploitation… Where (specifically) do you want that guy working within YOUR organization? For that matter, where’s a place that you can put him at your organization that wouldn’t be an obvious demonstration of your irresponsibility?
There should be consequences for these enablers.
I mean… I understand what you’re saying, but if you’re the sort of person who’s going to (knowingly) work to grow the influence of someone who’s morally abhorrent, or work to advance policy that creates structures that are morally abhorrent, it’s reasonable to think that you’re going to be treated like you’re morally abhorrent, because you’ve done a lot of harm to people. Maybe you can get a job carrying water at a right-wing think tank or something… but your judgement is so demonstrably flawed that it would be irresponsible to give you meaningful decisions to make that effect anyone else.
Ignoring abstractions and digging directly into the concretions: You have a guy who enabled and encouraged another prominent right-wing failson who (off the top of my head) stormed impeachment proceedings, trivialized behavior around Corona virus, unapologetically drove drunk, and now (if the allegations are true) was flashing nudes around of his underaged conquests and created dehumanizing games related to their exploitation… Where (specifically) do you want that guy working within YOUR organization? For that matter, where’s a place that you can put him at your organization that wouldn’t be an obvious demonstration of your irresponsibility?
There should be consequences for these enablers.
I agree in this case. Like I said, Gaetz was a known clown and working for him crosses a line for me. But, I am not a Republican. Would a basic Trump-endorsing Congressperson think this guy is too scummy to hire? If the answer is yes, it’s probably because of political appearances — they don’t want any association with Gaetz — and not because they think someone who would work for Gaetz is just inherently flawed. Just a guess.