The pain in the butt from South Carolina is leaving at the end of the year. Not like it will change the Senate any, but he was an annoyance to the GOP establishment.
As I posted when I shared this on FB, while his political views are somewhat different from mine, I have long felt that he holds his honestly (unlike some in his party who are nothing more than opportunists or hypocrits). He rarely made me embarrassed to have him as one of the serving senators from the state I live in. I do, however, hope that whoever replaces him will be more sparing of the use of procedure to stall business he/she doesn’t like.
Current opinion seems to be that Rep. Scott from will be chosen to replace him. Other possibilities include Rep. Mick Mulvaney from the north end of the state, or possibly one of the close clique associated with Gov. Nikki Haley.
Stephen Colbert, will you support your beloved South Carolina in its hour of need?
Apparently DeMint is one of the poorest members of congress and is taking a job that pays about $1M per year.
Of possible interest - Scott would be the only African American Senator, and the first Republican one since the 70s.
He was an embarrassment IMHO
The latest truth commission in Honduras did brand that action a coup, and Zelaya was allowed to go back to Honduras, the Demented Demint just showed that he was still living in the past era of the USA reflexively supporting any military coups.
However, although he should had resigned for a reason like that, it sounds to me like there was another reason why he is resigning for, and not just for the one he claims to; unless one can say that becoming the head of a think thank full of deniers of science when it affects the bottom line of big business, gives one more power than the one a senator has.
On edit: Yeah, I would not be surprised that he is looking for better pay.
I am astonished, frankly. He holds such a strong grip on South Carolina (where I now live) that it has been simply impossible to get a congressional nomination down here without his approval.
But, I suppose all men have their limits. Maybe DeMint found his.
My first thought was that this might be another indication that Congress is becoming more hostile for Tea Party. But maybe not: maybe DeMint just thinks he can have more influence this way.
I’m doubtful that that had anything to do with his decision, though it’s not like we’re going to find out. DeMint had said would not run for a third term in 2016, and like any Senator (more than most, I think) he’d have had his choice of very lucrative jobs in lobbying and punditry and public speaking appearances. The current salary for Senators is $174,000 per year, by the way.
He’s going to head the Heritage Foundation. That’s pretty much the definition of lobbying and punditry so I guess he’s ahead of the curve.
I’m not saying this job is the only way he could have made that much money. But it’s as prestigious and influential a way for a guy like DeMint to make that kind of money as there is. This seems like a very good opportunity for him, especially if as you say he was not going to run in 2016 anyway.
That is not a lot of money, especially as Senators apparently have higher expenses than most, what with multiple residences and travel costs.
Apparently DeMint’s net worth is about $50,000, which is not much.
[The only way to actually amass a lot of money in the Senate is via “honest graft” (ala Joe Biden), and apparently DeMint did not take that route.]
I wonder if, in his new position, DeMint’s ability to promote Republican candidates like Christine “I Am Not a Witch” O’Donnell, Richard “Let’s Talk About Rape Some More” Mourdock, and Sharron “Sharia law has taken over Frankford, TX” Angle, will be diminished or enhanced.
I suppose we can only wait and see.
That’s an interesting comparison because Biden was also frequently described as one of the “poorest” Senators and I think his net worth was generally pinned at around $200,000. I think describing any Senator as poor is absurd. They may indeed have large expenses (I doubt they pay for their own travel), but they make a significant salary, have very high visibility, and they quickly get rich at any time by trading on their political connections when they leave office. Becoming the head of a think tank is an honest way to do so compared to becoming a lobbyist.
What do you mean by “Honest Graft”? Is that a random cheap shot for partisan reason?
In 2008 Biden had more debt than assets. Can I get get some cites?
Really, though: who cares? These are people with enormous power and (usually) a lot of wealth. Some are have relatively less wealth than others.
That may be misleading.
[Sorry for the cite to a MB post. The original link doesn’t work, or is behind a paywall.]
Yeah, but a million in assets and 1.5 million in debts after a lifetime of work at the top echelons of power isn’t indicative of “honest graft”.
I just took issue with an inaccurate political jab thrown in for no reason other than petty sniping.
So, you don’t have a cite then?
Can you keep looking, because I’d like to see it.
I suggest you read the article as reprinted in the linked MB post. It appears to be a reprint of the abstract in my second link.
But even from the abstract alone you can get the fact that measuring Biden’s wealth by his reported assets is misleading because his wealth is concentrated in his 7,000 sqf home on a 4 acre estate, estimated to be worth about $2.5M in 2008 (presumably somewhat less now) which are not included in these reports.
The abstract does not detail the (alleged) sweetheart deals involved in his getting to that point. You can look them up yourself if you’d like.
Or not. This is really ancillary to this thread. Truth is that at the time I first posted in this thread about it I did not recall the specifics altogether, and my post was based on a vague recollection of having read an article in the NY Times about Biden’s political/business career, and I assumed it was a well known fact. I poked around a bit for a cite in response to Marley’s post, but am not going to debate it.
So are you going to retract it? That would be the honest thing, since you can’t find a cite.
Why would I retract it? That would be the stupid thing to do, not the honest thing to do.
And speaking of stupid things, pulling the “cite” ploy as if we’re playing some sort of debate-game with cite rules also qualifies.
I just want to know if what you said is correct. I have seen nothing to suggest that it is so.
If this information was real, I’d like to know it. Not just repeat bullshit opinion pieces from the echo-chamber.