Jim DeMint and The Revolving Door

4 Responses to Jim DeMint and The Revolving Door

  1. GiT December 6, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    Wouldn’t “headlines like these” lead one to wonder how many former congressmen are lobbyists, more than how many lobbyists are former congressmen…

  2. Tim LaPira December 6, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

    GiT:
    373, according to OpenSecrets. See http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z. Though they have yet to add Heath Shuler, Jo Ann Emerson, Jim DeMint…and probably a handful of others in the coming weeks/months. But to your point, I think both questions are worth answering.

  3. GiT December 6, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    This link, following from yours, on those who lost seats in 2010 suggests that over 50% of former Congress members went straight into lobbying. That may or may not be typical, but it gives a very different picture than “1%”.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/departing.php?cong=111

    I guess my gripe was just that, without a good idea of the size and turnover of the lobbying industry, knowing that 1% of lobbyists are former MCs really doesn’t tell me anything about how often I would expect to see headlines about MCs turned lobbyists.

  4. William deB. Mills December 7, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

    DeMint says he wants to translate right-wing “policies” into “real ideas” [CNN]. That right-wing policies are devoid of “real ideas” is not news to me, but it is refreshing to see a right-wing leader confess to the intellectual superficiality of right-wing political positions.

    Senator DeMint deserves credit for pledging to work for a legitimate conservative policy stance; the nation needs a healthy multi-party system. At the moment, it does not really have any political party characterized by both intellectual/moral health and any significant degree of influence. That puts the democratic ship of state solidly on the sand bar of hypocritical posturing. So I wish the man well.

    DeMint faces a real challenge putting intellectual depth underneath conservative policy positions such as a foreign policy shortsightedly designed to build a 19th century empire based on force and discrimination against “uppity” Muslims; the imposition of elite rule via the impoverishment of the middle class and destruction of the social services net; and a troglodyte debasement of science and the intellect. From those vague “principles” of neo-con/tea party thinking come a host of specific policies to which DeMint will need to attach, as he notes, “real ideas:” the craven kneeling down of Washington before Likudnik extremists, the visceral hatred of Iran, the refusal to recognize health care as either a universal human right or as a logical way of building a productive society, the insistence upon granting carte blanche to environmental destruction and financial manipulations for the sole purpose of further enriching a tiny band of the super-rich intent upon killing the goose that lays their golden eggs.