Cashing in on government "service"

I bet throwing John Wiley's name around really took Kirk to new heights ..

I break bread with Kirk from time to time....Kirk is a great guy; too left for me, but he is one of the honest guys.......although I thought the sweetheart deal given to his wife crossed the ethics line........................

I saw Kirk at a local Sam's Club years ago when he was running for the senate against John Cornyn. He was loading groceries into the back of his SUV. I walked up to him and said "I bet John Cornyn doesn't shop at Sam's." He burst out laughing and said "I bet you're right. He sends his maid."

What's he supposed to do? He's a lawyer. He's going to practice law. Lawyers get paid well. That's why the go to law school.

You expect him to join the Salvation Army? WTF?

I never said he shouldn't find another job; in fact, I thought i made it pretty clear, he couldn't cut it as a politician (win elections), so he rightly moved along once it became clear the electorate wasn't buying his bullshit.

I never said he shouldn't find another job; in fact, I thought i made it pretty clear, he couldn't cut it as a politician (win elections), so he rightly moved along once it became clear the electorate wasn't buying his bullshit. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I wasn't addressing you deranged boy. I was addressing the OP.

But, since you bring it up, Kirk was the first black mayor of Dallas, winning with over 60% of the vote as I recall and was a successful and well-liked Mayor in a town without a history of electing or liking black political officials. It's a shame he didn't beat Cornyn. We would have been spared his idiocy in the US senate.

Looks like ex US Trade Representative Ron Kirk has traded access to all those contacts he made on the taxpayer's money into a lucrative private sector job.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/h...las-office.ece

Somethings never change.. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Ron Kirk was a rich, well-connected Dallas lawyer even BEFORE he went into politics.

He is just going to back to doing what he used to do.

Exactly WHAT do you think he should do with all of his years of experience and all of the contacts he has made?

Is he supposed to have his memory erased and start his career over?

the OP (a lawyer) never used any connections to better himself ??

riiiiiiiight

A one-trick pony politician which didn't go over with the good voters of Texas.......................hi s mayoral reign was unimpressive...after seven years of Kirk dallas residents went with a grass roots reformer - Miller. We had our fill of Kirk's slick ways.

And he was quitter...he wanted to be the big deal Senator....he quite in the middle of his second term as mayor, and Texans said no.

I wasn't addressing you deranged boy. I was addressing the OP.

But, since you bring it up, Kirk was the first black mayor of Dallas, winning with over 60% of the vote as I recall and was a successful and well-liked Mayor in a town without a history of electing or liking black political officials. It's a shame he didn't beat Cornyn. We would have been spared his idiocy in the US senate. Originally Posted by timpage

A one-trick pony politician which didn't go over with the good voters of Texas.......................hi s mayoral reign was unimpressive...after seven years of Kirk dallas residents went with a grass roots reformer - Miller. We had our fill of Kirk's slick ways.

And he was quitter...he wanted to be the big deal Senator....he quite in the middle of his second term as mayor, and Texans said no. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If he didn't "go over" with the good voters of Dallas, why did it take SEVEN years to get rid of him? Seems like it should only have taken a couple.

If a guy cashes in his government service and you guys don't mind, so be it. I like what Jimmy Carter has done. There's a good guy for you. Found a worthy charitable cause, and served, didn't take.

Do you really need a response?

The answer to your question should be obvious.

If he didn't "go over" with the good voters of Dallas, why did it take SEVEN years to get rid of him? Seems like it should only have taken a couple. Originally Posted by ExNYer

upon being elected to national office of any sort, a law should come into effect, specifying a ten year prohibition after leaving office from working as:

1. a lawyer ,
2. speech giver for money,
3. lobbyist,
4. influence peddler
5. book writer if it even mentions, however obliquely, their time in office,
6. being employed by a foreign government,
7. serving on corporate boards unless its your own controlled corporation
8. or otherwise, in the eyes of a reasonable person, capitalizing monetarily from their government service other than using the experience in a general manner as one would any gained knowledge and or life experience


it should apply to spouses and to all lineal ancestors and descendants and to brothers and sisters and their spouses.

upon conviction the penalty would be the forfeiture of all money so earned or received either directly or constructively, a 2 million dollar fine and a sentence of not less than 10 years in a maximum security prison, to be served in general population.

upon being elected to national office of any sort, a law should come into effect, specifying a ten year prohibition after leaving office from working as:

1. a lawyer ,
2. speech giver for money,
3. lobbyist,
4. influence peddler
5. book writer if it even mentions, however obliquely, their time in office,
6. being employed by a foreign government,
7. serving on corporate boards unless its your own controlled corporation
8. or otherwise, in the eyes of a reasonable person, capitalizing monetarily from their government service other than using the experience in a general manner as one would any gained knowledge and or life experience

it should apply to spouses and to all lineal ancestors and descendants and to brothers and sisters and their spouses.
Upon conviction the penalty would be the forfeiture of all money so earned or received either directly or constructively, a 2 million dollar fine and a sentence of not less than 10 years in a maximum security prison, to be served in general population. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Now, your handle - "Nevergaveitathought" - that perfectly describes your post above, doesn't it?

Perhaps you have heard of our First Amendment? It's all the rage these days. Tout le monde is excited over it! C'est magnifique!

It prevents Congress and the states from infringing your rights to free speech. So, if you want to write a book or give speech - whether it is for free or for money - neither the federal government nor any state government can pass a law stopping you from doing so.

Also, what the fuck are the qualifications for "influence peddler"? You do 10 years in jail for persuading people?

Also, 10 years in jail just for BEING a lawyer? A perfectly LEGAL occupation? What is the crime? What if that is the only job the politician knows? If a lawyer is elected to just ONE 2-year term in the House of Representatives, they cannot go back to their old job for TEN years? They must pay $2M in fines?

And what kind of standard of judgment is "or otherwise, in the eyes of a reasonable person, capitalizing monetarily from their government service other than using the experience in a general manner as one would any gained knowledge and or life experience"?

I know you threw in the catch-phrase "reasonable person" to make it sound like legalese, but how does a jury determine what using experience "in a general manner" as one would in any life experience be? You could convict anybody for anything based on that BS phrase.

Also, why would it apply to relatives? They didn't get elected to office and have no control over their elected relative. Why would they lose rights because of something somebody else did?

Why would a woman lose her ability to work as a lawyer just because her brother got elected Senator? Why would she not be able to serve on the board of American Airlines?

my question is WHY SHOULD ANYBODY BE RESTRAINED FROM MAKING THE BEST LIVING THEY CAN as long as its within the law?

Lot of jealous, bitter fuckers out there. We ALL know who you are!

Do you really need a response?

The answer to your question should be obvious. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No, it isn't. He got re-elected. So obviously the good voters of Texas weren't tired of him - a least not the ones in Dallas.

The fact that he did not get elected Senator doesn't necesarily mean that the voters of Texas got tired of him. It just means the voters liked his opponent more.

You're trying to read into his failed election attempt a whole lot of conclusions about the electorate that just aren't supported.

You could have made similar conclusions about Ronald Reagan after he lost the GOP primary - not even the general election! - in 1976. And you would be wrong.