So I know I rarely post here anymore, but this link was too epic to let slide:
None of my family and friends is allowed to appear on Wheel of Fortune. Same goes for my kids’ teachers or the guys who rotate my tires. If there’s not a real conflict of interest, there is, at least, the appearance of one. On another level, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from nearly half the cases this session due to her time as solicitor general. In nearly all private and public endeavors, there are occasions in which it’s only fair and correct that a person or group be barred from participating because that party could directly and unevenly benefit from decisions made and policies adopted. So should state workers be able to vote in state elections on matters that would benefit them directly? The same question goes for federal workers in federal elections.
The quote
None of my family and friends is allowed to appear on Wheel of Fortune. Same goes for my kids’ teachers or the guys who rotate my tires. If there’s not a real conflict of interest, there is, at least, the appearance of one. On another level, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from nearly half the cases this session due to her time as solicitor general. In nearly all private and public endeavors, there are occasions in which it’s only fair and correct that a person or group be barred from participating because that party could directly and unevenly benefit from decisions made and policies adopted. So should state workers be able to vote in state elections on matters that would benefit them directly? The same question goes for federal workers in federal elections.
Ridiculous…
Thanks Steve, lazy of me to omit the punchline.
Well, let’s go in another direction. How about anyone who receives any benefits from the government should not be allowed to vote? So, if you receive Social Security benefits, then you can no longer vote. I would like Pat to argue that to his audience.
I don’t like game shows anyway. Except “Divorce Court.” They give away the best prizes.
Normally, this is where I let loose a string of beautifully eloquent obscenities at Sajack’s general direction. As I’m in polite company, I’ll try and resist.
I’m sure Sajak is completely non-partisan, aside from donating over $17,000 to a party that wants to drown government in a bathtub. Of COURSE, he doesn’t want public servants to vote – we tend to vote for the party that actually believes in government.
I know Pat served in Vietnam and should have at least a little OUNCE of respect for those who fought for our right to vote – particularly since all he did in Vietnam was dee-jay for Armed Forces Radio.
I think I’d like to solve the puzzle… how about, “Pat Sajak knows jack diddly squat about the Constitution, and he has bad hair”
Random Thoughts…
This kind of “STUFF” resonates rather well with the “typical” American voter…
Note the quotes from one of the more popular presidents, Ronald Regan…
Yet in spite of this rather anti government
mindsetquotes this president was in charge of one of the largest growths of the federal government workforce….From Sajack’s website… “I’ve been doing some writing (mostly political) for a new right-of-center site called Ricochet” … “For one thing, the ground rules for posting demand civility and, for another, you have to pay to particpate.”
Would offer since he is being paid to make these comments to an audience that perhaps expects these kind of remarks/comments should anyone be surprised….
IMO suspect that most
politicianspeople fail to grasp that, currently, a speech/blog posting/news story which is posted/shared/distributed locally tends to be spread rather rapidly and there MIGHT be a significant price to pay.@ Henry — Liberals and conservatives both tend to forget that Reagan also made clear in that first inaugral address:
“Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work—work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.”
His belief in government that walked beside the people rather than riding on their back was what attracted me to public service.
On a broader note, government reformers of all types might want to read the actual writings of our founding fathers who by and large thought alignment of interests (rather than avoiding conflicts) was the best way to insure good government. Ben Franklin in particular made clear in his autobiography how much he believed the public good was best served when private citizens came forward to provide public goods in order to make a profit for themselves. Most 18th century government leaders would find our ideas regarding “conflict of interest” laughable and wonder how we expect to get the best from public employees if they have limited personal financial interest in the outcomes of their efforts.
I think what makes this so crazy is that everyone benefits indirectly from elections and many many people benefit directly. To create a list of the latter, just look at who’s lobbying government the hardest (as expressed in dollars spent). Should those lobbyists and the people who give them money be barred from voting since the outcome will translate into cold hard cash in their pockets?