Ruling: Only for the rich?

Posted Friday, January 8, 2010, at 10:09 AM

State Rep. Henry Fincher, a Democrat who said this week he won't run for Bart Gordon's U.S. House seat the GOP now thinks it will soon own, explains his reasoning: He'd have to take a leave of absence from his job and raise at least $2 million.

"It's a shame that it's a rich man's game in Washington," Fincher said, according to The Associated Press.

Democrats are decrying expected redistricting following the 2010 Census.

Let's leave political parties behind for a few moments and think about a couple of things.

Congress is overpopulated with the rich. I don't have a problem in general with people being rich, but can they really relate to the majority of the people they claim to represent?

Those with good minds and ideas shouldn't be left out of the political process just because of lack of money.

And redistricting shouldn't be set up to favor one party over the other; I'm not naive enough to think that'll ever change, though.

One other thing stands out: Fincher says it's a rich "man's" game. And Ed Whitacre, General Motors' chaIrman of the board, said a few weeks ago a skilled "businessman" is being sought as GM's new chief executive officer. Are women's rights beginning to erode slightly?

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Oh yea we will be stuck with another fat cat republican who only cares about padding the pockets of his rich buddies at the expense of the average person. Corker will be so happy.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 10:30 AM

If you were trying to be a better golfer, would you constantly criticize Tiger Woods or would you try and learn from his experience( golf only, not his personal life)?

Why so much jealousy and animosity toward successful people then?

If a person hasn't figured out how to make solid decisions in their personal or business life, why would anyone want them making decisions for the country?

In most cases, money is like a magnifying fun house mirror that gives a reflection of how hard a person works and the wisdom of their decisions.

-- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 10:54 AM

Maybe they're just not politically correct enough to use gender neutral terms. I hardly doubt that either comment was meant to "erode" women's rights. That's a reach, David.

-- Posted by Thom on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 11:33 AM

I wonder why Wonder Why is always wondering why. I suppose you believe that all the democrats in DC are just po folks eking out a living by the sweat of their brows. Give me a break, Demoncrats, Rebublidiots, they are all part of our national thugocracy.

-- Posted by cherokee2 on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 12:43 PM

Point well taken, Thom. Sometimes figures of speech can be taken too literally...I'm guilty of that.

-- Posted by David Melson on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 12:49 PM

If a person has not had some financial success, how would they live while pursuing the nomination?

You can bet that if they lose just the nomination, they will not be "supported" while they try to get back into the mainstream workplace.

My next question is not to criticize the intention behind the following programs but IF a political "want-to-be" was subsidized, would there be a certain part of society that takes advantage of that? Like abusing food stamps, social security, medicare?

I wish I could offer a better solution to what we have now, but term limits is the only thing that comes to mind and that has some drawbacks too.

-- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 12:56 PM

Your question assumes the "the rich" were never part of "the majority of people they claim to represent". All wealthy were born that way? They never had to work to become successful?

I agree there are a lot of good ideas left on the table when "average" people (I really despise that term) are not involved in the process. If you want to be heard, get involved.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 8:26 PM

I wonder why because it is foolish not to, we should always want to understand what is going on around us and not live our lives as blind little puppets. It is a good thing to wonder why and question what is happening, to understand the whats and whys, to ask for the facts of what we hear. I have no trouble admitting I don't know and understand everything.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Sat, Jan 9, 2010, at 12:52 AM

I did not intentionally double post that, sorry.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Sat, Jan 9, 2010, at 12:53 AM

I wondered why you did that lol.

-- Posted by cherokee2 on Sat, Jan 9, 2010, at 7:25 AM

I wonder why because it is foolish not to, we should always want to understand what is going on around us and not live our lives as blind little puppets.

""Oh yea we will be stuck with another fat cat republican who only cares about padding the pockets of his rich buddies at the expense of the average person.""

-- Posted by wonderwhy

Contradict much?

-- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Jan 9, 2010, at 8:53 AM

Absolute power always corrupts absolutely.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 4:11 AM