Senate score: Lawyers 57, manufacturers 0
posted at 3:00 pm on October 3, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Today, many of us will watch our favorite football teams play in the NFL, and those games come down to the players on the field. Do you have a roster designed to succeed, or do they feature an imbalance in personnel that leaves a team weak and unable to respond when it gets tough? Ron Johnson, the Republican nominee challenging Russ Feingold, points out that the US Senate has a great roster for a class-action lawsuit — but not when it comes to creating an environment for economic growth or effective budgeting:
It’s time for some serious roster changes.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
acasilaco on October 3, 2010 at 9:01 PM
You’re missing (or intentionally ignoring) my point. Beaing a lawyer should not be a stepping-stone to political office. For all practical purposes it should be an impediment. Running a campaign for political office has also become a matter of money, with all of the pitfalls that engenders.
We have over-representation of the legal profession in our so-called representative government and little or no representation for entire classes of people. Add to that the career politician who becomes more and more estranged from the people he/she came to represent and you have “law for the lawyers by the lawyers”.
To get back to the thread title: How many representatives come from manufacturing backgrounds? Hint: A Union leader is not manufacturing. The unions have been a parasite on the back of manufacturing for decades.
mad scientist on October 3, 2010 at 9:51 PM
Gee, I always thought you had to be a lawyer to be a politician. {O,o} Ack! Plblpblt!
More seriously, these are the same seniltors who say things like, “Me read the bill? ME???” or “Constitutionality is for the courts to determine.”
It surely is time for a VERY serious house cleaning in the Senate – and the House which is probably pretty bad in this regard, too.
IMAO lawyers in the House or Senate should recuse themselves from voting on ANY law because there is an implied conflict of interest involved.
{^_^}
herself on October 3, 2010 at 10:05 PM
I am neither missing nor ignoring your point. I think we just disagree. Which is okay. (And I thank you for disagreeing politely.)
acasilaco on October 3, 2010 at 10:21 PM
It fascinates me that a degree in law gives you a certification to know what the hell you are talking about. Lawyers curse and condemn each other in the court room and share a drink afterwards. They think we don’t notice. Individuals with wisdom are rarely noticed but the people with wisdom listen to these individuals and cull the necessary realities that make sense. Grandma called it horse sense but the logic is the same. The USA is awakening to the complexness of this game.
mixplix on October 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Not necessarily. But with respect to the legal profession, generally yes. Just like engineers can talk about engineering, doctors can talk about medicine, ranchers can talk about cattle, and so on.
acasilaco on October 3, 2010 at 11:09 PM
When you hear a politician talking about “creating jobs”, run.
Wine_N_Dine on October 3, 2010 at 11:21 PM
You’re missing the elephant in the living room. The real clearinghouse for political office in America today is the media. You won’t get anywhere with just money and, until very recently, even your own support base wasn’t enough if you were not deemed “electable” by the political class.
In the bizarre funhouse mirror of the propaganda machine, being an ambulance-chaser, lifelong public teat-sucker, Mafia union boss, or even a freaking “community organizer” aren’t things you have to apologize for.
But actually being a PRODUCTIVE member of society? To liberals, that’s not merely a strike against you; it’s a death sentence waiting to be carried out.
logis on October 3, 2010 at 11:21 PM
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” a.smith
NORUK on October 3, 2010 at 11:58 PM
Forgive my ignorance, especially in the face of a mean-faced clipped-haired woman such as cur6, but what does ‘HTH’ mean, other than a pool supply company?
Lanceman on October 4, 2010 at 12:17 AM
From urban dictionary:
HTH.
crr6 on October 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM
It means that liberals are what Ayn Rand referred to as “subjectivists.” Neo-hippies are (pardon the expression) constitutionally incapable of understanding the fundamental concept of communication: that the words used must have a common meaning to more than one of the participants.
logis on October 4, 2010 at 1:35 AM
I also find that their use of acronyms is meant to condense an entire debate into a more convenient exchange by rendering it to its lowest common denominators. Much the same way they dismiss entire conversations of polite exchange with standard liberal talking points followed by standard insults.
hawkdriver on October 4, 2010 at 5:44 AM
HTH.
Good Lt on October 4, 2010 at 7:48 AM
Thank you. I may be asking you folks to translate cur for me in the future. She’s certainly too highbrow for my paltry IQ.
Lanceman on October 4, 2010 at 9:39 AM
There are a few doctors in the Senate. One would think that doctors would do what’s best for patients according to the Hippocratic oath. Funny thing, all the medical doctors in the Senate voted against ObamaCare!
Steve Z on October 4, 2010 at 11:38 AM
EFFECTIVE! EPHINNAY!
CynicalOptimist on October 4, 2010 at 11:45 AM
There are a few doctors in the Senate. One would think that doctors would do what’s best for patients according to the Hippocratic oath. Funny thing, all the medical doctors in the Senate voted against ObamaCare!
Steve Z on October 4, 2010 at 11:38 AM
I think those doctors thought it was the hypocritic oath, lol.
jeffn21 on October 4, 2010 at 12:01 PM
I ran the numbers for senate candidates across the country a couple of weeks ago for my blog. This is what I found:
We really must STOP ELECTING LAWYERS!!!
HakerA on October 4, 2010 at 12:14 PM
There’s nothing wrong with acronyms — when you want to avoid saying a long phrase repeatedly. Efficiency is, literally, a conservative value.
But TextSpeak is the language of narcissism. All children care about is being heard; they couldn’t possibly care less about being understood. And with arrested adolescents it’s even worse: they INTENTIONALLY speak in cliquish jargon, because that makes them feel “smarter” than the grownups.
logis on October 4, 2010 at 12:19 PM
It has always amazed me that so many people think of lawyers as “smart.”
I worked for many years with engineers — brillant people who sometimes don’t speak with perfect eloquence. But now I spend more time with lawyers — who are all able to communicate beautifully, but usually can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag.
As politicians often say (in private): “There are only two things that matter in the world: perception and reality. And reality doesn’t matter.”
logis on October 4, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Oh, I thought of another one: Mike Lee.
I am still hoping for a well-reasoned (preferably polite) response from one of the anti-lawyer commenters here as to why voting for lawyers is bad, but voting for Lee, Buck, Miller, and Rubio is nevertheless good.
Those are all superb candidates, and lawyers as well. Again, I say: Ideology is what matters here.
acasilaco on October 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Count it!
Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2010 at 2:32 PM
You know, until they throw out those centuries of precedent to make a decision to suit their ideology. Which you will either hail as exceedingly brilliant (if it’s a liberal decision) or fantastically stupid (if it’s a conservative decision).
HTH
Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Howsabout this?
Officers of the court may neither run for, nor serve in, the legislative branch or the executive branch of the federal govt.
It sorta blurs the distinction between the several branches of govt to have lawyers making laws, no?
Akzed on October 4, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Here, let me google that for you…
Akzed on October 4, 2010 at 4:21 PM
How so? Judges can’t hold legislative or executive positions while they are judges, which makes sense. But attorneys (aside from judges and their clerks) are no more in control of the judicial branch than notaries public are in control of the executive.
acasilaco on October 4, 2010 at 4:38 PM
Since Jimmy Carter, every single Democrat nominee for President has been a lawyer, except for Algore, who went to law school for 2 years but did not graduate. In 2008, all 3 major Democrat contenders for the nomination were lawyers. The Democraic Party is the Lawyers’ Party !
silverfox on October 4, 2010 at 8:00 PM
Three careers that require successful liars: actors, lawyers, politicians. The more ‘believable’ an actor the better. A lawyer has to defend his client even if he knows he is guilty. In both cases they are doing what is expected of them, and the better the liar the more successful they are. Politicians (trained as lawyers) follow this pattern, usually to our detriment.
jerseyman on October 4, 2010 at 9:09 PM
Blurring the line between separation of powers when an executive policy maker/enforcer (Elena Kagan) is appointed to the Supreme Court, resulting in recusal on 50% of the cases before her first session of court.
jerseyman on October 4, 2010 at 9:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2