I mean he has to budget carefully and drives himself. As opposed to giving speeches to companies with business before the government(as if they actually want to hear what the Clintons have to say with their extensive experience in running businesses! LOL!) and being driven around by hired help.
Yes, *most *of us would not be smart enough to lay anything aside from years of six figure salaries, would we? The fact that he can so badly mismanage his own finances is hardly evidence of his suitability to manage all of ours too, now is it?
But he can truthfully say"I have never yet been charged!" So he’s got that going for him, which is nice.
That’s a fair attack. It’s also a fair compliment that unlike a bunch of other career politicians, he has not cashed in on his office the way the Clintons did, or Harry Reid.
There’s gotta be *somebody *in that car you can be proud of.
I am deeply amused at your attempts to spin Rubio’s poor financial situation as a sign that he’s a “man of the people”, and moreso by your suggestion that “cashing in on one’s office” is limited to Democrats in some way.
Is there a reason that Saint Ronald of Reagan isn’t on you list of ex-pols who milked the cash cow?
Perhaps the Clintons have been the most spectacularly successful at cashing in on the presidency, but they’re not the only ones to have wanted to replenish the ol’ coffers after leaving office.
The fundamental problem is that absent price controls, the going rate for ex presidents to give a speech is very high. I’m all for summoning enough public condemnation that this practice becomes more and more marginalized through stigma, but let’s not pretend it’s anything but bipartisan.
In terms of the Clintons “cashing in” there are some facts that should in fairness be remembered.
When he was President, Bill Clinton collected a $200,000 annual salary. Hillary Clinton was the First Lady, which is not a paid position. They presumably also had some income from investments but I think we can assume they were minor; the Clintons didn’t come from a wealthy family like the Kennedys.
As you may recall, the Clintons had to deal with some legal issues during his term of office. And lawyers cost money. This was a personal matter so the Clintons had to pay for these legal expenses out of the own money. $200,000 wasn’t going to cover it.
So by the time Bill Clinton left office, the Clintons were several million dollars in debt. But Bill Clinton was now a private citizen and was no longer bound by the earning limits placed on public officials. He could go out and sell his services for the market value. (Hillary Clinton had gone directly to her Senate seat.)
It’s true that Bill Clinton made speeches and got paid a lot of money for doing so. (There was at least one public appearance where he was paid more for a single event than he made in a year as President.) But nobody was forced to hire Clinton. People chose to do so and presumably felt his presence was worth the money they agreed to pay him.
Personally, I don’t begrudge a man going out and earning as much as he can when he’s deep in debt. I think it’s to Clinton’s credit that he was able to pay off all his debts within four years of leaving office.
Huh. I remembered there being a delay in Clinton’s election to the Senate but she was actually sworn in 17 days before Bill left office.
The delay you may be thinking of was the Republican governor in Minnesota stalling Franken’s certification for as long as he could.
I thought this thread was about Rubio. Certainly there’s a thread or two about the Clintons that this conversation can be moved to…
No, I meant I thought it was a couple of years between the end of Clinton’s term and her announcing her Senate candidacy.
Which leads to the trivium that for a few days, we had a sitting President married to a sitting Senator.
If only William King had lived another five years…
FYI. It was on page A 12 of Saturday’s paper - below the fold. Hardly an important place. The word “scandal” was not used or implied. One adjacent story headlined a Tennessee bus driver who had been texting before an accident.
Florida pols seem to be treated well by the law there. James Ellis Bush’s three kids were all were busted for drugs yet served very very minimal or no sentences. Perhaps the Times was aiming more at that treatment for the favored rather than the Rubios specifically. (Mrs Rubio had 14 violations over that time.)
In more than five decades I have never had a moving violation. So, compared to me, he’s a poor driver.
BTW, no one on the right was complaining when the Times ran four straight days of front page articles on the Clinton Foundation and its donors.
Compared to the magnitude of the story, yeah, it is. My nothing-town paper doesn’t print traffic tickets any more, let alone 18 year old tickets.
It’s also the dishonesty in rolling out the numbers in order of least truthful to most truthful. 17 first, then 13 of those are hived off to someone else, then half of the tiny remainder of tickets for the actual candidate are only after that revealed to have been dismissed.
The New York Times does now have a substantial story about Marco Rubio’s finances. Assuming all the facts are true, it really does show a picture of a very immature man who can’t handle his finances. If he’d just ran up a few credit cards in his 20’s, that would be one thing. But, this article shows Rubio as being completely irresponsible and playing very loose with campaign finance laws. This is far more relevant than a few speeding tickets.
That’s a *good *thing, right?
I think they are being too fair to Rubio, up to bending like a pretzel to make it so.
Here is what a regular fishing boat looks like:
http://www.freefoto.com/preview/2026-25-20/Fishing-Boat--Holy-Island--Northumberland
The kind of fishing one gets from that is very different from an offshore fishing boat and those boats are mostly for sport or recreational fishing, it also does not mean that it is not a speed boat too, unlike the ones that normally can be reported to be regular fishing boats.