She thought she could retire after Clinton won and be replaced by another progressive. She in her hubris did not retire during 2008-10, the only other period where she could have.
I remember the day after the 2014 midterms the sponsors who were letting me stay in their home for the duration of the campaign were yelling about RBG's selfishness not leaving while the Dems had the Senate. They ended up being right.
She тАЬthoughtтАЭ. Did she realize (or warned) that itтАЩs very difficult for a party to win a third consecutive Presidential election? Also, there was no guarantee that Dems would have won the senate even had Hillary won in 2016. In that case, Republicans likely would have just held her seat open (along with ScaliaтАЩs) until a Republican was elected President.
You donтАЩt take chances like this when the next 50 (or more) years of American democracy is at stake.
I'm not convinced she was even thinking that deeply.
She was hellbent on becoming the longest serving Jewish justice on the court, wanting to eclipse Brandeis and his 23 years. That would require her to stay on until April 2016.
My opinion is that everything else she said about things were excuses, some even to herself, to justify her staying on until then.
She wanted to have that in her legacy, and in so doing she undermined the actual legacy of her career. I'd argue selfish more than hubris, although hubris was definitely present as well.
There's no reason to think deep. It was widely speculated that Dems would lose the Senate in 2014, and she was already in her 80s. She should have retired. Obama asked her to retire. She didn't, and now has no legacy.
Yeah, Clyburn comes off as incredibly selfish and entitled in that quote. He is a public servant, but instead of pointing to some issue he's fighting for that justifies staying in public office even after he's aged out of leadership, he's just whining about having to give up his cushy lifestyle.
Crazy thing is he shouldn't even need to give up his cushy lifestyle! He's been in congress long enough to have a pension. If he's stuck only able to get by with his congressional salary then he made some big mistakes somewhere.
More like a longtime Congressman who thinks he's earned the right to decide when to retire. You don't have to agree, but people like him are usually given that respect. There's a strong argument to be made that the margins in the House and the imminent threat to democracy dictate a different kind of thinking, but this is probably more the rule than the exception for members of Congress regarded as institutions in themselves.
If everyone left after 2 years, the lobbyists would rule even much more than they do now, so I think that's a really off the wall extremist point of view. On the other hand. I'm not saying he shouldn't retire now. In fact, I think that would be the most honorable thing for him to do. But the number of historical precedents behind his actions is innumerable. And he's done quite enough for it to be repugnant for anyone to call him a "bitch", which is also a gendered insult that means to belittle him as female. You didn't do that, but I think the level of vituperation against him should be toned down a little bit.
I never said anyone shouldn't run for reelection, but if the justification is "I just like being in Congress", then I'm completely unsatisfied with that.
I get that thinking but it's a wholly selfish viewpoint for him and anyone else in that position.
Fact is that these jobs are at their core positions of public service. They exist to help steward the nation and its people in a direction that aligns with the values and enrichment (in all meanings of the word, not only financial) of its people. It is not a job that exists as a hobby or for the benefit of the people filling it. Staying in the position when they are sufficiently aged that they are not able to give it their all, that they are sufficiently divorced from the future needs of the nation and its people, that they are sufficiently divorced from the zeitgeist, should not be the norm. Should there be exceptions, people who are good choices despite that? Yes. But they should be exactly that: exceptions.
Yes, there's been a lot of backsliding on this with greed and disappointment abound. When someone like Clyburn sticks around for what seems like the reason of "I've done this as long as I can remember" it reflects poorly on him. If he was going around talking about it with less entitlement and more like he felt that for reasons XYZ that he was specifically suited to handle the challenges of the present era and that he felt he was still suited to the job it might be different.
Is there evidence that he's not able to give his all or is divorced from the needs of the people? I wouldn't overconclude from something he was quoted as saying on one occasion to mean that he's lost core values he's committed to working toward.
No one, not even the most exceptional of individuals, is capable of giving any taxing and challenging job their all at the age of 84. Age takes its toll on all of us and those tolls are going to show up even stronger once people start to hit their 80s.
I disagree. Mahathir Mohammed became Prime Minister of Malaysia again in his 90s after a couple of decades out of office and saved Malaysia from the disarray caused by the corrupt PM who preceded him. Some exceptional people can do great jobs late in life.
The big picture is Clyburn wants to be able to play kingmaker again in the next Presidential cycle. And given the way Biden was able to stack the primary map, it's extremely likely that Clyburn will get to.
Clyburn honestly needs to go off that quote alone. What a b*tch
Some people die quickly if they don't have work to do. Clyburn has had a great career. Who are you to call him a bitch?
ThatтАЩs the ONLY reason why I have ANY empathy with RBG.
Exactly. But her decision not to leave earlier had way more serious results than Clyburn staying is likely to have.
I don't see how that's relevant, the calls for RBG to retire started way before 2016.
She thought she could retire after Clinton won and be replaced by another progressive. She in her hubris did not retire during 2008-10, the only other period where she could have.
Edit: It was 2012-14, I got it wrong.
Hubris is exactly the word. Overconfidence struck down by an unforeseen event, in this case the Comey letter.
2012 - 2014 is the last time she couldтАЩve retired and been replaced by a likeminded judge.
My bad, I got terribly confused.
I remember the day after the 2014 midterms the sponsors who were letting me stay in their home for the duration of the campaign were yelling about RBG's selfishness not leaving while the Dems had the Senate. They ended up being right.
She тАЬthoughtтАЭ. Did she realize (or warned) that itтАЩs very difficult for a party to win a third consecutive Presidential election? Also, there was no guarantee that Dems would have won the senate even had Hillary won in 2016. In that case, Republicans likely would have just held her seat open (along with ScaliaтАЩs) until a Republican was elected President.
You donтАЩt take chances like this when the next 50 (or more) years of American democracy is at stake.
I agree.
I'm not convinced she was even thinking that deeply.
She was hellbent on becoming the longest serving Jewish justice on the court, wanting to eclipse Brandeis and his 23 years. That would require her to stay on until April 2016.
My opinion is that everything else she said about things were excuses, some even to herself, to justify her staying on until then.
She wanted to have that in her legacy, and in so doing she undermined the actual legacy of her career. I'd argue selfish more than hubris, although hubris was definitely present as well.
There's no reason to think deep. It was widely speculated that Dems would lose the Senate in 2014, and she was already in her 80s. She should have retired. Obama asked her to retire. She didn't, and now has no legacy.
She may, eventually, but yeah.
Yeah, Clyburn comes off as incredibly selfish and entitled in that quote. He is a public servant, but instead of pointing to some issue he's fighting for that justifies staying in public office even after he's aged out of leadership, he's just whining about having to give up his cushy lifestyle.
Crazy thing is he shouldn't even need to give up his cushy lifestyle! He's been in congress long enough to have a pension. If he's stuck only able to get by with his congressional salary then he made some big mistakes somewhere.
He's refusing to cede power.
He kind of comes off like a feudal lord who thinks it's up to him when to cede power.
More like a longtime Congressman who thinks he's earned the right to decide when to retire. You don't have to agree, but people like him are usually given that respect. There's a strong argument to be made that the margins in the House and the imminent threat to democracy dictate a different kind of thinking, but this is probably more the rule than the exception for members of Congress regarded as institutions in themselves.
I don't agree at all. Being a member of the House is a two year job, acting like it's some kind of lifetime appointment is straight up insulting.
If everyone left after 2 years, the lobbyists would rule even much more than they do now, so I think that's a really off the wall extremist point of view. On the other hand. I'm not saying he shouldn't retire now. In fact, I think that would be the most honorable thing for him to do. But the number of historical precedents behind his actions is innumerable. And he's done quite enough for it to be repugnant for anyone to call him a "bitch", which is also a gendered insult that means to belittle him as female. You didn't do that, but I think the level of vituperation against him should be toned down a little bit.
I agree that bitch was uncalled for.
I never said anyone shouldn't run for reelection, but if the justification is "I just like being in Congress", then I'm completely unsatisfied with that.
Totally understood.
I get that thinking but it's a wholly selfish viewpoint for him and anyone else in that position.
Fact is that these jobs are at their core positions of public service. They exist to help steward the nation and its people in a direction that aligns with the values and enrichment (in all meanings of the word, not only financial) of its people. It is not a job that exists as a hobby or for the benefit of the people filling it. Staying in the position when they are sufficiently aged that they are not able to give it their all, that they are sufficiently divorced from the future needs of the nation and its people, that they are sufficiently divorced from the zeitgeist, should not be the norm. Should there be exceptions, people who are good choices despite that? Yes. But they should be exactly that: exceptions.
Yes, there's been a lot of backsliding on this with greed and disappointment abound. When someone like Clyburn sticks around for what seems like the reason of "I've done this as long as I can remember" it reflects poorly on him. If he was going around talking about it with less entitlement and more like he felt that for reasons XYZ that he was specifically suited to handle the challenges of the present era and that he felt he was still suited to the job it might be different.
Is there evidence that he's not able to give his all or is divorced from the needs of the people? I wouldn't overconclude from something he was quoted as saying on one occasion to mean that he's lost core values he's committed to working toward.
No one, not even the most exceptional of individuals, is capable of giving any taxing and challenging job their all at the age of 84. Age takes its toll on all of us and those tolls are going to show up even stronger once people start to hit their 80s.
I disagree. Mahathir Mohammed became Prime Minister of Malaysia again in his 90s after a couple of decades out of office and saved Malaysia from the disarray caused by the corrupt PM who preceded him. Some exceptional people can do great jobs late in life.
The big picture is Clyburn wants to be able to play kingmaker again in the next Presidential cycle. And given the way Biden was able to stack the primary map, it's extremely likely that Clyburn will get to.
That's even worse.
Bingo.
Does he have to be in the House to do that?