Did you see the news? Ted Pitts is going to run for Gov Lite.
Ted Pitts is my representative (and a pretty good one). I live in his district. Legal resident and everything.
So what do you think? Should I take advantage of this pending vacancy to make my move? Is it put up or shut up time for the Unparty?
I could never run for office before, as it’s strictly against the rules for newspapermen. But now? Who knows? When election year rolls around, I could be working at something else that would present a conflict — either in my mind, or that of my future employer.
But it is an intriguing thought, nonetheless. As much as I’ve written over the years about what legislators should do…
Related Posts
Absolutely! Run, Brad, run…
Go for it!
I echo Karen; go for it. Hopefully you are a fairly good administrator, or at least can delegate and verify. It’s pretty obvious that you have the other necessary qualifications:
1) Knowledge and understanding of how government is supposed to work
2) A student of history
3) Communication skills honed after decades in the journalism business
4) Iron-will commitment to the principles of functioning government, public schools that serve all of our children, and social responsibility that balances personal freedom
5) A willingness and openness to learn from good sources
The problem is going to be mobilizing the people who look at the facts and then derive their theories. There aren’t enough of those kind. The other candidates are going to get the huge backing from those who push their ideology regardless of the facts, or better said, make the facts fit their ideology.
We need intelligent leaders who can speak English, so I hope you try.
Herb provides all the reasons why Brad would NOT be a successful politician in South Carolina. Those yoyos would never feel comfortable with a truly qualified candidate. Then again, why not give it a shot.
It depends… would you start a twitter account?
This is your moment.
This is your time.
You are the change you’ve been waiting for.
And all that other crap.
Let’s put it this way: if you don’t do it, you’ll regret it til you die, and always wonder, “What if…?”. If ever the moment was ripe for an alternative to Sanfordism for SC voters at every level, it’s now.
Besides, it’s a win-win.
You win, and Warthenian Unparty principles go live on the State House grounds.
You lose, and you write a book about the whole crazy thing.
Choose your own adventure.
I’d like to see you run. I’m betting it might open your eyes to the way politics really works in South Carolina. Plus you’ll enjoy filling out all the ethics commission forms.
Will you be running as a Jake Knotts Republican or a Tommy Moore Democrat? Will you make taking down the Confederate flag from the State House a key plank in your platform or is that an opinion that is better kept under wraps in Lexington?
What will be your campaign slogan: “If you aren’t a Democrat, Republican, or Libertatarian, I’m Your Man!”
Running for school board in 2002 was both one of the best and worst things I ever did. Best because it allowed me to see very clearly how things work in the school district. And worst because it allowed me to see very clearly how things work in the school district.
I’d suggest you add the following to your Netflix queue in preparation for your run: All The Presidents Men, Bob Roberts, W.
Why don’t you run for a local position first to see if you’re even qualified to represent the people around you. Why do people think they’re qualified for a high office when they haven’t ever held an office at a lower level? A liberal Democrat (which is what you truly are) is going to have a tough time getting elected in your/my district.
“I could never run for office before, as it’s strictly against the rules for newspapermen.”
So… hypothetically, what happens if you were somehow to win the seat and then get offered a job? Will you resign your seat or decline the job offer?
I refer the honorable gentleman to the column I ghost-wrote some weeks ago.
Do it!
I agree with Bill C.
Look what we got with Mark in Congress and as Governor. Going straight to the top, you never have to learn to work with anybody or learn what other levels of government provide and how they do it.
We need revisions to qualifications to require starting at the bottom.
I agree with Bill C and martin.
We need a ruling class in this country. Lifetime politicians who really know and want what’s best for us and know how to get it done. It’s a game, Brad. You’ve got to know how to play the game to be effective. Let’s face it, the idea that anyone could be involved in self-governance is foolish.
You have to join the system at the bottom, Brad. The system will turn you into a good leader. You may have integrity now, but you have too much independent thinking and not enough party-loyalty to be a good leader. If you start at the top, you may go about doing what is best for the state. That’s not good because you won’t get the chance to learn that as an elected leader, you’ve got to do what is best for you and party first and foremost, so you can keep your seat and continue being able to do what is best for the state secondly.
/s
Personally, I think Brad has enough work experience at knowing about the “little guy,” and being a servant instead of an empire builder personality. He has a lot of insider knowledge of how state government works, and his profession has brought him into all kinds of situations that have given him a broad knowledge of life. He also has a basic understanding of theology and ethics (some of the best German Bundestag parlimentarians were/are pastors/theolgians, and not professional attorneys).
I don’t think he’s a micro-manager type either, which is never good for a governor; he has to be able to delegate, but keep a watchful eye on his staff.
The real question for me is whether Brad can win with the “good-ol-boy” background of politics in this state, aside from the compromises that usually have to be made in any American situation in order to get elected. I guess we can always pray for a miracle!
Wow. I wasn’t expecting this much encouragement, even from folks who are usually detractors. You realize if y’all talk me into this, my wife is going to hunt you all down to get her revenge…
Bill, Martin and Birch raise a VERY good point. Unlike Doug and others who quite sincerely believe in term limits, I believe that being an effective elected official requires knowledge and experience. And I have rejected many a would-be governor or member of Congress on the grounds that they should start smaller.
But I don’t consider the House to big to start. Especially for someone who is steeped in the issues and has dealt with them for years. For instance, Anton Gunn was a “beginner,” except that he was a budding political professional who had a deep grasp of the issues, and an unusual (almost Unpartisan, although he is unmistakably a Democrat) desire to work across barriers. He’s just started out, but I think he has the potential to be a significant force in the General Assembly — a force for good.
Then there’s Ted Pitts, who was pretty much a newcomer when he ran for this seat (and in fact, in that first race, we endorsed the incumbent, partly because of his inexperience), but I think he’s been a very conscientious and effective representative. And I’d love to have his support if I run (hey, we DID endorse him subsequently).
And while I think experience in local government is a good preparation for the Legislature, I actually think I’m less qualified for that than I am for the House. I’m just not as steeped in the issues facing Lexington County Council, I don’t know the players, I don’t know where the levers are to get things done nearly as much as I do with regard to the State House.
Some people, being overly kind, have urged me to run for governor. Really. But even if I thought they were serious, I would not do that for the very reasons that Bill and Martin and Birch cite.
But if I were to run for office, this level feels just right.
Husband — George Hearn, member, S.C. House of Representatives;
Kaye Hearn was voted to the SC Supreme court by the body of the legislature of which her husband, George, is a member.
I say keep it in the family. You may as well join them so that you can keep your eyes of the ever moving target of honesty in politics.
I knew Anton Gunn and that is a bad example to use. If he wouldn’t have gone into politics he would be a very successful conman or preacher (there’s not that big of a difference between the two). He always was focused on the next “get rich quick” scheme. If you want to model yourself after a slumlord and self-labeled “motivational speaker”, more power to you. Sure he is passionate about certain ideals, but so is Jesse Jackson and they both have the same motivation and goal… to bring attention to themselves.
You do realize that your “overwhelming support” is coming from your flock of sheep. It’s no different than a preacher getting glowing remarks from the choir.
As far as I can tell, Bill C. is exactly right. But don’t wait for support from the rest, or you’ll be waiting until Judgment Day. If you’ve got a fire in your gut, then start, wherever you want to start, and feel is a fit. And then tell it like it is, and hope and pray for a miracle, because most people are not going to want to hear the truth or anything close to it. They want leaders (false shepherds they are called in the Bible) that will tell them what they want to hear: that they can drive their gas-guzzlers all they want, and it doesn’t matter, that they can cut taxes and still have all their military retirement benefits, fabulous roads, border security, police effectiveness, etc. etc., and all the good things that they want from government, and not have to pay for it.
(I’m on a rampage, but I just realized that I know people who are libertarians, pro Grover Nyquist and Mark Sanford, and yet the live from government benefits as , for example, retired school administrators and military personnel! Go figure.)
To sum it up, they can have everything they want, and of course if someone else is poor, well that’s their fault, and the great thing is, well, God is going to bless America because God sanctioned all of that.
Well, there are people who don’t think that way, that government is needful to protect the less fortunate from the wolves that want to take advantage of them, and God gets angry over injustice, and we need some leaders to raise their voices so they can fall in behind them.
So go for whatever the Almighty has put into your soul. You may well fail, but not because you didn’t try.
But I would make sure that my wife can at least say, “if that’s what you think you should do, then do it.” I don’t think you mean that she’s going to nag you about it, or be negative. From what you’ve written about her, she’s got to be a good woman, a really good one. There have been a few leaders out there, like John Wesley, who did their life’s work in spite of their wives, in fact, he probably wouldn’t have been the traveling evangelist he was and transformed Britain and ultimately America (Methodism’s influence on our culture and our morals was absolutely phenomenal) without his wife being such a negative spirit. But thankfully, those women are few. You have a good one, make sure she is on board.
If I sound like a pastor, that’s because I am one, and I realize I need to shut up.
Herb, one thing about men of the cloth… they’re a good cure for insomnia. They like to think they’re word is important, they like to hear themselves talk and they can talk just about anyone to sleep. Why in fact, they almost like politicians, except politicians will tell you what you want to hear instead of what he wants you to hear.
Since Brad declares that he is “a pragmatist”, with no core philosophy, how would he communicate with the voters who do have a core philosophy?
Will he do like Bill Clinton in that room full of Wall Street Bankers, when asked what his positions would be on issues regarding them, and say, “Whatever you tell me they should be.” ?
Or will he do like Obama, and pretend to be 180 degrees opposite of what he really is, out of cynical content for the working stiffs who are being suckered by a fresh face?
Libertarians and conservatives with core morality and a well-thought-out philosophy have it so much easier – they don’t have to make up answers on the fly.
Brad, I hope your part of Lexington County is different from the parts where I’ve spent the last three days doing address canvassing. One young man yesterday told me he didn’t want me around. I reminded him (politely, even called him ‘sir although he’s 25 years my junior) that I wasn’t on his property, I was standing on a public road. I think the Stars and Bars flying at the gate to his house made him think I was some kind of carpetbagger. Maybe your part of the county has some 20th-century folks in it.
The people of District 69 are a forward-thinking, 21st-century set of God-fearing solid citizens who work hard, pull their own weight, care deeply about their community and their state and are just looking for representation that is as good as they are… (How’s that for buttering up the voters? Am I on my way?)
Any of y’all ever see “The Candidate,” with Robert Redford? He’s a liberal political activist, son of a former senator, who never dreams of running for office until political consultant Peter Boyle comes and tempts him with the line that he can be completely honest about his views, and by running get a great pulpit for expounding them. Redford asks, “What’s the catch?” and Boyle gives him a note that says, “You lose.” Taking that as a promise (because he doesn’t really want to go to Washington), he runs.
PLOT SPOILER: The rest of the story is about how human nature pulls and corrupts even an honest man who INTENDS to lose. He starts compromising here and there because he’s SO far behind in the polls that it’s personally painful and humiliating, and … well, I’ll stop there.
It’s worth seeing.
I mention that because I think I would go into this (and don’t we all like to think of ourselves this way) willing to go down swinging advocating my own views without reservation. But I also know that a good representative listens to the voters and considers THEIR wishes rather than his own priorities, and while he might choose the unpopular course in the end, he at least respects the consensus of his district where he can — and therefore someone running to be a representative should do that, too, and doesn’t just go by what HE thinks. You have to be willing to adapt to some extent to the views of others, or you’re just an arrogant jerk.
So I would go into it with a certain ambiguity: I’d have MY agenda, but I’d also have to listen to the agenda of others. And you can see that either as being humble and “servant leader,” or as doing whatever it takes to win. So my conscience would always be on my case, saying “Are you modifying your views because it’s right to listen to the people, or just because you’re trying to win?” And I think I’d be pretty hard on myself in that regard. And yet, if I’m NOT willing to change my mind on some things as I go through the process, am I not a know-it-all jerk?
I say all this to reflect the fact that after all these years of closely observing politics, I’ve realized that being out there actually trying to do things in the real world can be a lot more complicated than pontificating as an editorialist. An editorialist should strongly advocate for what he believes, without compromise, and to hell with the consequences because in the abstract world of opinion, there ARE no consequences. In the real world, it’s more complicated. The best, most effective (and therefore better servants to their constituents) representatives learn when to stand like a stone wall on a principle, and when to give ground to accomplish a good, but less than great, goal — which is sometimes (but my no means always) the wiser goal. And that’s a constant, complex process of decision-making. And even the most capable, principled person in the world will get it wrong sometimes.
Am I up to doing that wisely? I don’t know.
Well, that kind of rambled to no clear purpose.
Too much coffee late in the day again.
I think I see what the problem here is going to be. You understand the mechanics of political pragmatism, and the necessity of keeping certain things “close to the vest”, psychologically speaking, for the sake of the bigger picture.
But as an incorrigible editorialist, your most natural instinct is to externalize, articulate, and analyze those complexities.
This makes for very bad sound bytes in the political arena.
An effective politician has to internalize that complex thought process, keep most of it private, and distill it down to digestible, marketable, notable quotes for public consumption, instead of vomiting it out in a way that confuses or bores the constituency.
The qualities that serve you well in the editorial arena could turn you into a political gaffe machine.
You might consider studying the metamorphosis of Al Franken from satirist to serious pol. That’s a textbook case of how to successfully transition from public commentator to public servant.
Jfx is very insightful. I still hope Brad runs and succeeds.
And Bill C., all I can say is that not all “men of cloth” are cures for insomnia. There are gifted men and women, mostly without the “cloth,” by the way, who are both in touch with the Unseen, and still with their feet on the ground, so that what they have to say will rip you out of your seat. Well, assuming you have any kind of “antenna” for the Unseen world. We’re pretty good at analyzing the first four dimensions, but sorely blind to the rest. I was privileged to be exposed to the preaching ministry of some of these folks early in life, several who stayed as guests in our home when I was growing up. Ian Thomas (a several-times-over WWII decorated British officer in the Royal Fusiliers who took the initial surrender of Monte Cassino), Stuart Briscoe and his wife Jill Briscoe of Elmbrook Church in Milwaukee , along with their son, Peter Briscoe at Bible Fellowship Church in Dallas (see tellingthetruth.org); Stephen Olford of Calvary Church in New York, and even Chuck Swindoll, who for all of his adherence to the political right still has his heart in the right (or maybe I should say “left”) place. More recently Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan, Winrich Scheffbch, a Lutheran in Stuttgart–and Billy Grahahm’s “successor” in German, Ulrich Parzany, also a Lutheran–if your understand German. Or if you don’t, there’s the Episcopal-Anglican John Yates at Falls Church, Virginia. A few of these are dead and gone, but their messages and books are still around.
The above are a good cure for apathy, which a far worse blight on our churches than insomnia ever was.
This all has nothing to do with the topic on this thread, and I’m pretty sure you didn’t want to read any of it, but I couldn’t just let your statement go that preachers are always boring. God is not boring, and neither is His Word, when it is properly communicated, and the people “have ears to hear.” But too many people, perhaps most, have their noise-cancelling headphones on. They are like a friend of mine who went to the dentist for a root canal, and instead of novocaine, the dentist gave him a set of headphones and acid rock (or whatever-sorry, but I got left behind after early 60’s rock, I’m still listening to the Beach Boys) turned up to full volume. The music (noise?, depending on one’s point of view) drowned out the pain.
God is there, and He communicates; a lot of us just don’t want to hear any of it. But hear we will, sooner or later. “The whole earth is full of His glory,” and “a little while, and I will shake the heavens and the earth.” Global warming is just, literally, the tip of the iceberg.
Amen, Herb. And on the noise thing: Do you know that hundreds of years ago “dentists” — or rather, people who pulled teeth for a fee — would employ drummers or other noisemakers to provide sensory overload and distract their patients. Remember, they were operating WITHOUT novocaine…
And JFX is right. I’m a little like Austin Powers, who said that
No, I don’t mean the sex and drugs part. I mean that I am accustomed to saying exactly what I think about anything and everything, in great and exhaustive detail, holding nothing back, in a consequence-free environment. Not only consequence-free, but I was paid for it! I was expected to keep cranking out the opinions, non-stop.
In politics, you have to think in terms of, “If I say this about A, how will it affect my ability to get B done? Which is more important to me — spouting off about A, or getting something done on B?” You have to pick your battles. I didn’t have to do that before. I could enter every battle that interested me, and get involved only to the extent I wanted. I could just throw out a comment that I imagined to be witty and walk away and never think about it again. Or I could throw all my energies into a battle, and fight it on and on for years.
Yeah, I get some of this with blogging, but I don’t get paid for blogging (so far, anyway), so I can’t throw my energies into it with the same abandon. Ever since I got canned, every minute I spend on the blog is a minute I’m not spending working toward getting a job (or if not a job, enough gigs here and there to earn a living in the absence of one). So I feel sort of guilty blogging, which takes some of the zest away.
Would I be able to think and speak strategically, or would I just spout off and be a “quote machine” for the media (“Go ask Warthen… he’ll ALWAYS say something, even when the smart people are clamming up”).
I suspect I’d be a little of both. I’d try to win and be effective, but I’d also be more open and spontaneous than most officeholders. If I didn’t say what I thought, however diplomatically (or not), I’d bust a gasket.
Which means I might not last very long in politics. But I’d have some fun along the way.
And you know what? I think there’s a certain appetite out there for somebody who has something to say (or a lot of things to say) and doesn’t mind saying it. Whenever I have spoken to groups in the community over the years, I’ve followed a formula that works for me: I have brief opening remarks, and go to questions. People like to throw questions at the editor. And in answering them, I would simply let down my inhibitions and tell people everything I knew or thought about the issue they had raised, sometimes taking 10 minutes to answer a single question (or so it seemed). And the MORE easily and naturally I let it flow, the more the audiences seemed to like it, and the more people who came up and thanked me afterwards. And I think a large part of it was that I DID know a lot about what they were asking about, and I didn’t hem and haw and hesitate, worrying how the things I said might get back to me or cause trouble or something. I’d just let it flow, andpeople got into that far more than they did my carefully prepared remarks.
And not that many politicians in South Carolina have tried that. I believe, like Young Frankenstein, that “It… could… WORK!”
Brad,
Not that I would claim to have your gift of communication, but I tried the “say exactly what I think” approach when I ran for school board. I actually had the nerve to suggest that vouchers might be a useful thing to try for failing schools during one of the candidate forums. You should have seen the looks I got from the rest of the Stepford Candidates — who can only say that everything is great. When I talked about problems with classroom discipline, I was called the negative candidate by a current board member. The woman who took the one open spot on the board spent the first candidate forum in the bathroom throwing up because she was afraid to speak in public and could only read statements her husband had written for her. She’s still on the board.
Just know what you are getting into. The only thing that appears to matter is how much money you are willing to spend on signs and which incumbents’ butts you are willing to kiss in order to get their support.
Well, I like Ted and would welcome his support. He might feel obligated to endorse a Republican, though. Who knows? Maybe he’s already committed to somebody.
I don’t have any money of my own to put into it, so I’d have to ask other people for it, which I know I would hate. So don’t look for me to have a big warchest.
As for your school board experience — you and my Dad should trade notes. My Dad ran the Naval JROTC program at Brookland-Cayce after he retired from the Navy in 1978. He retired from THAT in 1991, and in between he saw a lot in the school system that he thought he could do something to help, so he ran for Lexington II board. He campaigned some — my daughter who graduated from USC over this past weekend was a kindergartner at the time, and walked the streets of his neighborhood distributing fliers. One thing he did NOT do is kiss up to the right people to get their endorsements. He came in last, or close to it, in a crowded field. The other people were just WAY more into the schmoozing.
Elections on that level are just SO intensely local and SO personal, and it can be such a narrow little world that unless you live and breathe it, there’s no point in running. You see people getting elected who have lived in that little corner of the community (and with five school districts in the county, the corners are very small) their whole lives, as have their parents and grandparents. They talk easily about who the football coach was 25 years ago, and what his won-loss record was, and everybody in his family. It’s very clannish.
Which raises two points:
— First, I wouldn’t fit in, and wouldn’t be elected, to an office like that. I’m much more suited to and conversant with, the kinds of issues that state legislators deal with. I’m more at home at the State House than I am the school district office — or the county courthouse, for that matter.
— Second, this way of governing our schools is ridiculous. I used to believe that school governance should be as local as possible (and I STILL believe the FEDERAL government has no business in K-12 education). But the multiple-districts-to-a-county model is insane. There’s no way to hold folks elected on that level accountable, because only insiders have the slightest idea what’s going on. There’s no media coverage, because media just can’t keep track of that many local bodies. (I always thought the MOST useful races we could endorse in might be school boards, but it was impossible even when I had a full staff — far too many unknown candidates for us to learn enough about them to be confident making the call. And you know what? The voters have the same problem, particularly since they get no help from the media.)
So one of the issues I would work on if elected to the House would be reform of school governance, starting with school district consolidation. If there were only one board per county, voters would find it much easier to know who the members were, and what they were up to.
Brad,
Hell has frozen over. 🙂 I agree with you 100%.
I self-financed my campaign for two reasons – I couldn’t ask people for money and I didn’t understand that others would be willing to spend $20K to win a job that paid $6K.
Brad said:
“I think there’s a certain appetite out there for somebody who has something to say (or a lot of things to say) and doesn’t mind saying it. Whenever I have spoken to groups in the community over the years, I’ve followed a formula that works for me: I have brief opening remarks, and go to questions. People like to throw questions at the editor. And in answering them, I would simply let down my inhibitions and tell people everything I knew or thought about the issue they had raised, sometimes taking 10 minutes to answer a single question (or so it seemed). And the MORE easily and naturally I let it flow, the more the audiences seemed to like it, and the more people who came up and thanked me afterwards.”
People do like a good public speaker who interacts with the audience. But public speaking ain’t politicking. It’s easier when you and the audience are pretty much automatically on the same side, the side of information, explanation, presentation, conversation. Those are pretty mellow roles. There’s an implicit, congenial agreement. You’re there as the “expert” or the “wonk”, opening up your brain for all to see.
It will be a lot different if your are a political figure.
It won’t be “Hey Brad, whaddaya know?”
It’ll be “WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR ME?”, or “WHY DID YOU DO THAT?!”, or “WHY DIDN’T YOU DO THAT?!”, or “YOU’RE A BUM!”, or “WHAT’S WITH THE BOWTIE?!”
Brad said:
“And I think a large part of it was that I DID know a lot about what they were asking about, and I didn’t hem and haw and hesitate”
That’s a great quality. And it’s very Un-Sanfordian. Last night our esteemed governor was on Hardball w/ Chris Matthews, ostensibly to talk about his and Rick Perry’s “Tea Party 2.0” PR gimmick. Naturally, Matthews dispensed quickly with that triviality and started throwing tough questions about where he would cut spending at the federal level, questions like “Would you cut Social Security?” Sanford hemmed, hawed, ducked, dodged, weaved, tacked, cartwheeled, and backflipped for several go-rounds before finally squeaking “Reform it.” And then he suggested they go back to talking about Tea Party 2.0.
Brad said:
“And not that many politicians in South Carolina have tried that.”
Hmmm, I don’t know. We have a grand Carolinian tradition of master shoot-from-the-hip political bloviaters. Are you the next Fritz/Strom?
Probably more of a Fritz than a Strom. Of course, I didn’t know Strom until late in the process, and he didn’t have much to say one way or the other at that point. But to this day, Fritz holds forth without reservation.
I’m not THAT uninhibited. Joe Biden’s got me beat on that score, too. I’d LIKE to say I would be like Lindsey Graham, but I can’t touch his standard. He speaks knowledgeably, and rapidly, about anything and everything. That’s because he’s smarter than I am — certainly more knowledgeable about the issues he speaks on. And I don’t say that, or think that, about many politicians. If I could talk like Lindsey, I’d DEFINITELY run for office.
I am sorry to have to say this but name recognition is worth a lot of money when you are running for office. Sad to say that a lot of people that vote the Democratic ticket are told ahead of time who the candidate is and how to punch the ticket. Republicans have not been able to organize their voting along these lines.
Brad, You are not in my district, so I can’t vote for you. Besides, I would all too often be the one asking “Why the #@!!& did you do THAT?!” But, are you willing and able to answer such gently worded questions cogently, without losing your cool?–because you will surely get plenty of queries along that line. But, I still contend you should at least give it a try. If you can’t raise money, then you’ll know this type of career isn’t for you. If you can, then give it a try. As often as I disagree with you, I at least understand where you’re coming from, and that’s more than I can get out of many other candidates. But please, no ad hominem attacks and no ‘code’!
Bill, Martin and Birch raise a VERY good point.
Well, I was being sarcastic.
I want to know how Fritz Holings, on a salary of $50,000 a year, was able to purcase a $285,000 motor yacht.
Senators make more than $50k a year. I don’t know what they made when he left, but now it’s like $174,000.
$174,000? Someone tell me why we call them public servants at that price.
Hell, I’d make sure I’d do whatever it took to retain my seat at that salary. Term limits, anybody?
Hey Lee Muller–
On Fritz… did you ever think that a Senator can make a living off of investments in the stock market, real estate or in hundreds of other areas? While Strom back-slapped and glad-handed, Fritz actually did his job in Washington. He is a very smart individual, which tells me he could probably figure out a way to make a living. Don’t insinuate that someone who served our state for half a century is a crook.