Man, I was in the middle of writing this post a moment ago and all of a sudden it just flashed: "your post has been successfully published." So, if you came across it in the brief moments before I corrected it, a thousand pardons for an incomplete posting.
At any rate ... perhaps you are just itching for an old style actually in the driveway, Bund fight. Looking to get the proverbial itch scratched. But what the hell, I'm game ...
"dramatically right"... what a load of swill! Ask me if I think the reasone de guerre of the War in Iraq justifies the costs to date, and we'll see how far "right" I've come!
Excuse me? I proposed that your ideology had swung rightward, when compared to the rabid Reagan brow beating, 2nd Amendment redefining "swill" you espoused in the early oughts. How does "the reason de guerre" for the Iraq invasion define a left or right ideology? Nearly the entire Senate voted for the presidential authorization to invade Iraq. The "reason" settled upon by the administration (WMD's) has nothing to do with a left or right ideology. Thus your support or lack thereof has little to nothing to say about YOUR ideology. If you want to sate that modern day "conservative" ideology and the "traditional" Democrat party stance both include a robust defense and a hawkish approach to Islamo-fascism, hence you have remained consistent on National Defense, then fine, I'd agree. I wasn't proposing that you started out as a rabid leftist those years ago when we met. Perhaps I can better put it this way - your complete 180 degrees on the 2nd amendment (and make no mistake, it was); a "backing off" if you will of your support of government social intervention, when combined with the Democrat Party's hard left shift on defense, abortion, gay marriage, socialism even, has caused a "dramatic swing" in the way your ideological alignment is presently defined.
In other words, if you combine your holding onto traditional Democrat Party values, a turn on guns and your (albeit tepid) endorsement of the Reagan years (compared to the disdain you once held for him) WITH the modern Democrat Party's hard left turn, YOU can no longer label yourself "left of center", for the center has shifted to your left ... while you simultaneously took a few steps right. So what does that make you in the current American political lexicon? A CONSERVATIVE. And that label is one you would have found laughable only 8 to 10 years ago. THERE is the dramatic swing I was attempting to reference.
****
(NOTE: You are NOT being charged by the POST, nor are you being paid by the WORD... so perhaps in the future we could employ a little something we like to call "selection" when it comes making points or arguments from an article or story? Thanks!)
Did you notice my name to the right there, under "Bund Founders?" You see where I'm going with this? If I feel the full article is warranted, then THE FULL ARTICLE IS WARRANTED! And if you don't like it, reread the disclaimer at the bottom ... he, he.
And by the way, this is not the post which I foreshadowed earlier. But, as a teaser I'll say, if we agree on the present (mostly anyway), then lets argue some history ... later tonight.
Monday, December 1, 2008
hmmph...
"dramatically right"... what a load of swill! Ask me if I think the reasone de guerre of the War in Iraq justifies the costs to date, and we'll see how far "right" I've come!
However, you are correct in that recently, we haven't had much to argue about. I am still convinced that Obama is FAR more left than he pretended to be during the general election... far more, in fact, than he allowed us to see in the primary election (and that was pretty far left). Regardless of the cause or reasoning, we all agree that the fight must be WON in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we face a real threat from radicals and extremists across the globe.
Unless you want to discuss theology again (and I'm sure you don't), I'm on the Mormon-side of the "Prop 8" debate, and you were spot-on with the commentary regarding the ENTIRE article you posted.
(NOTE: You are NOT being charged by the POST, nor are you being paid by the WORD... so perhaps in the future we could employ a little something we like to call "selection" when it comes making points or arguments from an article or story? Thanks!)
Your point that there hasn't been anything to disagree over is very accurate... but let's not sign me up for my "Ronnie Reagan Fan Club" membership just yet, and I'm not ready to slap in the F Ryan-household favorite TiVo reruns of Family Ties so I can coordinate my wardrobe to match Alex P. Keaton's. I'm simply the last of the Truman/Kennedy Democrats... and YES, it does speak volumes about how far the DNC has gone left.
"dramatically right"... for shame!
Don't make me break out some examples from our past to show the stasis of my views!
However, you are correct in that recently, we haven't had much to argue about. I am still convinced that Obama is FAR more left than he pretended to be during the general election... far more, in fact, than he allowed us to see in the primary election (and that was pretty far left). Regardless of the cause or reasoning, we all agree that the fight must be WON in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we face a real threat from radicals and extremists across the globe.
Unless you want to discuss theology again (and I'm sure you don't), I'm on the Mormon-side of the "Prop 8" debate, and you were spot-on with the commentary regarding the ENTIRE article you posted.
(NOTE: You are NOT being charged by the POST, nor are you being paid by the WORD... so perhaps in the future we could employ a little something we like to call "selection" when it comes making points or arguments from an article or story? Thanks!)
Your point that there hasn't been anything to disagree over is very accurate... but let's not sign me up for my "Ronnie Reagan Fan Club" membership just yet, and I'm not ready to slap in the F Ryan-household favorite TiVo reruns of Family Ties so I can coordinate my wardrobe to match Alex P. Keaton's. I'm simply the last of the Truman/Kennedy Democrats... and YES, it does speak volumes about how far the DNC has gone left.
"dramatically right"... for shame!
Don't make me break out some examples from our past to show the stasis of my views!
The problem ...
... if you want to call it that, is that during the interim since our first meeting you have swerved dramatically right (emphasized by the Party of your youth swinging dramatically left), and I have read a lot more history books and research (compared to when we first met), thus less disagreement in opinion as events up for discussion unfold. And not to further disillusion you, but I have never claimed that Reagan won the Cold War on his own, but that he was the impetus. The Pope, the Polish president, and Margaret Thatcher were all unequal partners in that victory.
But I have something for later this evening ... that might fulfill your request.
But I have something for later this evening ... that might fulfill your request.
I'm not kidding...
Someone better come up with a good, spirited debate topic soon...
Otherwise I am going to begin re-hashing some tired old chestnut from our mail-list past... like exactly WHEN the Great Depression ended, or whether or not Reagan ended the "Cold War" single-handedly while dressed like Rambo and clenching a combat knife between his teeth.
I'm serious... so someone get busy!
Otherwise I am going to begin re-hashing some tired old chestnut from our mail-list past... like exactly WHEN the Great Depression ended, or whether or not Reagan ended the "Cold War" single-handedly while dressed like Rambo and clenching a combat knife between his teeth.
I'm serious... so someone get busy!
2% of the population.
First, a correction - Titus implied that I indeed did not maintain the sanctity of Thanksgiving by posting on my politics de jure on that sacred of holidays. He may be technically true, that I posted on the actual day, of things other then what I was thankful for. However, upon further inspection one will note that the registered time on that post was roughly 4 a.m. Eastern time - that is to say NEPA time. Making it 1 a.m. in Vegas. This further reveals that I made the post on WEDNESDAY NIGHT before I went to bed, and for any casino employee worth his salt, especially one whom has been employed via a swing shift, 1 a.m in the morning, before you go to bed, qualifies as THE NIGHT BEFORE. So, in light of this correction I must make further notice that I did not even turn on my computer during the day in question (unlike some people ... AHEM), for I was enjoying my familial blessings. Rather I opted to text my friends and family the words HAPPY THANKSGIVING, so as to have a minimal interruption in enjoying the bounty that is my life. There is your AHEM.
****
Now as to the subject line. In Germany, 1933, the NAZI Party rose to power. In part due to their ever growing determination to blame the Wiemar Republic's (and prior to that the loss of WWI/ Treaty of Versailles) on a small segment of the population - Juden, or Jews. We all know what followed next. Now, I am not contending anything approaching the Nazi regime is in stall for Mormons, but I will take note that Titus, as are we all, made a point to say that he was thankful for his ability to voice opposition in the town square, without fear of reprisal. Well ... that's true ... at least in 49 states.
Activists Target Mormons for Gay-Marriage Ban's Success in California
In the nearly four weeks since Election Day, gay activists and thousands of their supporters have rallied outside Mormon temples around the country, protesting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' support for California's Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to make same-sex marriage illegal in the Golden State.
There have been calls to boycott the annual Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah; some activists have called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah. Protesters have defaced some church buildings, and in Arapaho County, Colo., the Sheriff's Office is investigating a possible hate crime — the torching of the Book of Mormon on a church's doorstep.
Even the state of California itself has announced that it is investigating the church's involvement in Proposition 8, which was approved by a vote of 52 percent to 48 percent and, barring a Supreme Court overturn, will ban gay marriage in the state.
There have been no other reports of backlash against other groups that supported Prop 8, notably African-Americans and other churches and religious denominations that turned out in heavy numbers to push through the ban.
Exit polls after the Nov. 4 vote showed that 70 percent of black voters and more than half of Latino voters voted yes on Prop 8. About two-thirds of self-identified Christians supported the ban, and married voters and parents also showed strong support. The Knights of Columbus, the Catholic Church and evangelical groups in the state also urged for a ban on gay marriage.
So why is the Mormon Church the only target?
It's because of the money, says Evan Wolfe, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a New York-based group that supports same-sex marriage.
"The Mormon Church hierarchy led the way on this attack on gay families and the California constitution," Wolfe said. "They provided more than half of the funding. They provided the ground troops and were a major political force in a way that no other group was.
"It's not like there's one centralized voice telling everyone whom to protest. People have their own reactions to what they see with their own eyes, and what they saw here was a $40 million deceptive campaign to take away rights, led by the Mormon Church hierarchy."
Lorri Jean, CEO of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, wrote on the organization's Web site that she doesn't blame African-Americans or minority groups for the passage of Prop. 8.
"We have been critical of all of the out-of-state conservative religious groups that made significant contributions to the campaign, including the Knights of Columbus National Headquarters in Connecticut and Focus on the Family in Colorado. But the truth is that the LDS church leadership in Utah specifically directed its membership to get involved with the Yes campaign in an unprecedented way — both in terms of volunteer time and dollars," Jean wrote.
"The campaign they funded was one of lies and deceit, clearly in violation of the religious tenet of “thou shalt not lie.”
Ron Buckmire, president of the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition, an organization that organizes African-Americans for gay rights in Southern California, said fewer African-Americans supported the gay-marriage ban than was originally reported -- 57 percent instead of 70.
"People were emotional after Obama being elected and recognizing the ideal that the African American and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community were part of one large progressive alliance that were going to enact change … was not necessarily true," Buckmire said.
"Once they realized that, and that some of the data is not exactly correct and they were actually being hateful to some African-Americans, I think they then focused on the Mormons, the religious people and some Republicans as well."
Rev. Roland Stringfellow, coordinator of the Bay Area Coalition of Welcoming Congregations, a network of gay-friendly religious organizations, said that he has heard of African American individuals being harassed for the passage of Prop 8, but that many are using the Mormon Church as a scapegoat for their anger.
"Many gays and lesbians have been hurt by the church and they see the Mormons as a way of taking out that aggression, not only on the Prop 8 position, but on their life in general," he told FOXNews.com.
"I think simply it comes down to everyone needing a scapegoat. I think we're seeing that with the Republican Party, where people are pointing fingers at Sarah Palin as to why John McCain lost."
Back in June, soon after the California Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional in the state, the Mormon Church sent a letter to members announcing its support of Prop 8, which was designed to overturn the ruling. The church's members subsequently donated millions of dollars to support the Yes on 8 campaign.
According to Californians Against Hate, which lobbied to defeat Prop 8, Mormons gave $25 million of the almost $40 million that groups supporting the initiative spent on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts.
"They did the slickest commercials you've ever seen, and they mostly do it to convince younger people why its OK to be opposed to same sex marriage," Californians Against Hate founder Frank Karger told FOXNews.com.
Mormon voters themselves had little effect on the ballot initiative's outcome, simply because the Mormon population is small in California. There are only about 750,000 Mormons in the state, about 2 percent of its 38 million residents.
But over 59,000 Mormon families contributed to the Yes on 8 effort, Karger said. "Without the Mormon money it would have been a very different campaign."
Mormons also donated time — walking through California neighborhoods to get voters talking about Prop 8, he said.
In the weeks after Nov. 4, of Gay activist John Aravosis, editor of Americablog.com, called on Hollywood to shun the Sundance Film Festival, held just a few hours' drive from Salt Lake City.
"Anyone who attends Sundance is quite literally funding the enemy," he wrote. Aravosis also called for a boycott of tourism and skiing in the "Hate State of Utah."
California Musical Theatre Artistic Director Scott Eckern, a Mormon and graduate of Brigham Young University, resigned from his position with the Sacramento theater group on Nov. 12 after undergoing pressure from artists who scorned his decision to give $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign.
And last week, Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that the Mormon Church did not report all of its non-monetary contributions to the campaign.
"I just want to make sure that when they involve themselves in California elections that they play by the rules," Karger said.
"They bused people into California the last three weekends going door to door and out with signs on the major intersects and major highways. It’s a common California roadside activity, but they did it with hundreds and hundreds of people," Karger said.
On Friday, the commission said it would investigate the complaint.
Californians Against Hate also has called on gay-marriage supporters to boycott A-1 Storage facilities around the state because the business's owner gave more than $700,000 to the Yes on 8 cause.
On Nov. 14, Mormon Church leaders issued a statement criticizing the backlash.
"Since the people of California voted to reaffirm the sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman on November 4, 2008, places of worship have been targeted by opponents of Proposition 8 with demonstrations and, in some cases, vandalism," the church's First Presidency wrote.
"Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues. People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts to force citizens out of public discussion should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere."
But gay activists say they are right to single out the Mormons for the success of California's ballot initiative.
"What is clear in any case is that we did not lose this election because of African Americans," Lorri Jean wrote.
"Even if African Americans had voted for and against Prop 8 in the same proportion as white voters, we still would have lost."
I can't begin to tell you the holes in these people's argument. They would have loss with or without the black vote that was 57 or 70%, yet it was far and away larger then the Mormon vote. It was this it was that, the Mormon money, the Catholic help etc etc, - a blind hatred clarified and united by their singular hate for WHITE CHRISTIANS. What they need to come to terms with is that it was the majority of their fellow Californians that passed Question 8. Mormon money did nothing more then raise the awareness that such a vote was on the ballot, for people -in this case the majority of Californians - had formed their opinions on this long ago, and each and every commissioned poll on the subject dating years back shows this to be true! Scapegoat indeed.
****
Now as to the subject line. In Germany, 1933, the NAZI Party rose to power. In part due to their ever growing determination to blame the Wiemar Republic's (and prior to that the loss of WWI/ Treaty of Versailles) on a small segment of the population - Juden, or Jews. We all know what followed next. Now, I am not contending anything approaching the Nazi regime is in stall for Mormons, but I will take note that Titus, as are we all, made a point to say that he was thankful for his ability to voice opposition in the town square, without fear of reprisal. Well ... that's true ... at least in 49 states.
Activists Target Mormons for Gay-Marriage Ban's Success in California
In the nearly four weeks since Election Day, gay activists and thousands of their supporters have rallied outside Mormon temples around the country, protesting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' support for California's Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to make same-sex marriage illegal in the Golden State.
There have been calls to boycott the annual Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah; some activists have called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah. Protesters have defaced some church buildings, and in Arapaho County, Colo., the Sheriff's Office is investigating a possible hate crime — the torching of the Book of Mormon on a church's doorstep.
Even the state of California itself has announced that it is investigating the church's involvement in Proposition 8, which was approved by a vote of 52 percent to 48 percent and, barring a Supreme Court overturn, will ban gay marriage in the state.
There have been no other reports of backlash against other groups that supported Prop 8, notably African-Americans and other churches and religious denominations that turned out in heavy numbers to push through the ban.
Exit polls after the Nov. 4 vote showed that 70 percent of black voters and more than half of Latino voters voted yes on Prop 8. About two-thirds of self-identified Christians supported the ban, and married voters and parents also showed strong support. The Knights of Columbus, the Catholic Church and evangelical groups in the state also urged for a ban on gay marriage.
So why is the Mormon Church the only target?
It's because of the money, says Evan Wolfe, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a New York-based group that supports same-sex marriage.
"The Mormon Church hierarchy led the way on this attack on gay families and the California constitution," Wolfe said. "They provided more than half of the funding. They provided the ground troops and were a major political force in a way that no other group was.
"It's not like there's one centralized voice telling everyone whom to protest. People have their own reactions to what they see with their own eyes, and what they saw here was a $40 million deceptive campaign to take away rights, led by the Mormon Church hierarchy."
Lorri Jean, CEO of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, wrote on the organization's Web site that she doesn't blame African-Americans or minority groups for the passage of Prop. 8.
"We have been critical of all of the out-of-state conservative religious groups that made significant contributions to the campaign, including the Knights of Columbus National Headquarters in Connecticut and Focus on the Family in Colorado. But the truth is that the LDS church leadership in Utah specifically directed its membership to get involved with the Yes campaign in an unprecedented way — both in terms of volunteer time and dollars," Jean wrote.
"The campaign they funded was one of lies and deceit, clearly in violation of the religious tenet of “thou shalt not lie.”
Ron Buckmire, president of the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition, an organization that organizes African-Americans for gay rights in Southern California, said fewer African-Americans supported the gay-marriage ban than was originally reported -- 57 percent instead of 70.
"People were emotional after Obama being elected and recognizing the ideal that the African American and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community were part of one large progressive alliance that were going to enact change … was not necessarily true," Buckmire said.
"Once they realized that, and that some of the data is not exactly correct and they were actually being hateful to some African-Americans, I think they then focused on the Mormons, the religious people and some Republicans as well."
Rev. Roland Stringfellow, coordinator of the Bay Area Coalition of Welcoming Congregations, a network of gay-friendly religious organizations, said that he has heard of African American individuals being harassed for the passage of Prop 8, but that many are using the Mormon Church as a scapegoat for their anger.
"Many gays and lesbians have been hurt by the church and they see the Mormons as a way of taking out that aggression, not only on the Prop 8 position, but on their life in general," he told FOXNews.com.
"I think simply it comes down to everyone needing a scapegoat. I think we're seeing that with the Republican Party, where people are pointing fingers at Sarah Palin as to why John McCain lost."
Back in June, soon after the California Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional in the state, the Mormon Church sent a letter to members announcing its support of Prop 8, which was designed to overturn the ruling. The church's members subsequently donated millions of dollars to support the Yes on 8 campaign.
According to Californians Against Hate, which lobbied to defeat Prop 8, Mormons gave $25 million of the almost $40 million that groups supporting the initiative spent on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts.
"They did the slickest commercials you've ever seen, and they mostly do it to convince younger people why its OK to be opposed to same sex marriage," Californians Against Hate founder Frank Karger told FOXNews.com.
Mormon voters themselves had little effect on the ballot initiative's outcome, simply because the Mormon population is small in California. There are only about 750,000 Mormons in the state, about 2 percent of its 38 million residents.
But over 59,000 Mormon families contributed to the Yes on 8 effort, Karger said. "Without the Mormon money it would have been a very different campaign."
Mormons also donated time — walking through California neighborhoods to get voters talking about Prop 8, he said.
In the weeks after Nov. 4, of Gay activist John Aravosis, editor of Americablog.com, called on Hollywood to shun the Sundance Film Festival, held just a few hours' drive from Salt Lake City.
"Anyone who attends Sundance is quite literally funding the enemy," he wrote. Aravosis also called for a boycott of tourism and skiing in the "Hate State of Utah."
California Musical Theatre Artistic Director Scott Eckern, a Mormon and graduate of Brigham Young University, resigned from his position with the Sacramento theater group on Nov. 12 after undergoing pressure from artists who scorned his decision to give $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign.
And last week, Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that the Mormon Church did not report all of its non-monetary contributions to the campaign.
"I just want to make sure that when they involve themselves in California elections that they play by the rules," Karger said.
"They bused people into California the last three weekends going door to door and out with signs on the major intersects and major highways. It’s a common California roadside activity, but they did it with hundreds and hundreds of people," Karger said.
On Friday, the commission said it would investigate the complaint.
Californians Against Hate also has called on gay-marriage supporters to boycott A-1 Storage facilities around the state because the business's owner gave more than $700,000 to the Yes on 8 cause.
On Nov. 14, Mormon Church leaders issued a statement criticizing the backlash.
"Since the people of California voted to reaffirm the sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman on November 4, 2008, places of worship have been targeted by opponents of Proposition 8 with demonstrations and, in some cases, vandalism," the church's First Presidency wrote.
"Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues. People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts to force citizens out of public discussion should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere."
But gay activists say they are right to single out the Mormons for the success of California's ballot initiative.
"What is clear in any case is that we did not lose this election because of African Americans," Lorri Jean wrote.
"Even if African Americans had voted for and against Prop 8 in the same proportion as white voters, we still would have lost."
I can't begin to tell you the holes in these people's argument. They would have loss with or without the black vote that was 57 or 70%, yet it was far and away larger then the Mormon vote. It was this it was that, the Mormon money, the Catholic help etc etc, - a blind hatred clarified and united by their singular hate for WHITE CHRISTIANS. What they need to come to terms with is that it was the majority of their fellow Californians that passed Question 8. Mormon money did nothing more then raise the awareness that such a vote was on the ballot, for people -in this case the majority of Californians - had formed their opinions on this long ago, and each and every commissioned poll on the subject dating years back shows this to be true! Scapegoat indeed.
{sigh}
Well, we seem to have run off another liberal... Mr. Pasley doesn't seem inclined to participate in our discussions anymore.
It is almost a shame. I'd dearly LOVE to have someone explain to me the mindset of the modern liberal. How far from the Party can I be? I am still a registered Democrat, after all... I can't be the pariah that Ryan is, can I?
Funny thing is, now that I think about it... do you know who else I haven't talked to since the election? Our only OTHER liberal friend, Mike R. I expected him to call and "rub in" the loss, as he knows I voted for Mac, but no word from the "dark side" there, either.
Somewhere that has GOT to be a liberal that can rationally defend his/her position in a forum similar to this one (if not this one). No one has to "convert" anyone... no one has to "prove" another right or wrong. I just want the left's position explained to me in clear and concise terms that can be weighed against what I feel to be true.
Why is that so hard?
You'd think liberals were hard to find, for the love of Pete...
It is almost a shame. I'd dearly LOVE to have someone explain to me the mindset of the modern liberal. How far from the Party can I be? I am still a registered Democrat, after all... I can't be the pariah that Ryan is, can I?
Funny thing is, now that I think about it... do you know who else I haven't talked to since the election? Our only OTHER liberal friend, Mike R. I expected him to call and "rub in" the loss, as he knows I voted for Mac, but no word from the "dark side" there, either.
Somewhere that has GOT to be a liberal that can rationally defend his/her position in a forum similar to this one (if not this one). No one has to "convert" anyone... no one has to "prove" another right or wrong. I just want the left's position explained to me in clear and concise terms that can be weighed against what I feel to be true.
Why is that so hard?
You'd think liberals were hard to find, for the love of Pete...
A "Team of Rivals"...
I'm not entirely sure even Abraham Lincoln himself could live up to the "hype" that the media and the Obamaniacs are making in comparing Barack to "Honest Abe".
More importantly, though... is the comparison fair and accurate? And is it the kind of "team" a modern President would want?
Lincoln, did, indeed, have a Team of Rivals. With only one exception, they did a GREAT job of doing everything Lincoln wanted them to do... either by the forceof Lincoln's will or their own efforts to support him. The important difference here is that Lincoln had the WILL to run the job himself... his cabinet was truly there to advice and counsel, while Abe made the calls.
The next most famous "Team of Rivals" was the Cabinets of FDR, and again, you have a strong-willed CIC running the show (at least till the fourth term, and we begin to see the cracks develop). However, what happens when FDR dies and Truman has to step in? He is forced to ask for the resignations of EACH and EVERY one of them.
Johnson tried it, too... and history remembers his failures far more than his successes. Finally, we have the Nixon Administrations, and his mistake was not in appointing men that rivaled each other, but that rivaled him. The public implosion that was the Watergate White House is the result.
Now, which of these examples most seems to typify the pattern Obama is following? Lincoln? FDR? or Johnson/Nixon?
It is always dangerous to leave old appointees in office, but it might work for him here with Gates. His appointment of Clinton as SoS is scary... she is very unlikely to be the kind of Secretary to double-check with the CIC before making decisions, and that means that we could have a repeat of the Cheney/Rummy syndrome fresh on the heals of the Cheney/Rummy fiasco itself. Hillary is more than capable of putting her foot in her mouth and over-reaching her authority while visiting some foreign capital... say the Kremlin, or Berlin, or Paris, or Beijing.
Is this the best way to create the "UNITY" and "HOPE" we were all promised? Obama wanted a mandate, and while the fact of that mandate is up for some debate, THIS isn't the way to institute the mandate into his Presidency.
He needs sycophants and "yes-men"... not political opponents and rivals... to cement the "public mandate" he so wanted from the election and didn't get.
More importantly, though... is the comparison fair and accurate? And is it the kind of "team" a modern President would want?
Lincoln, did, indeed, have a Team of Rivals. With only one exception, they did a GREAT job of doing everything Lincoln wanted them to do... either by the forceof Lincoln's will or their own efforts to support him. The important difference here is that Lincoln had the WILL to run the job himself... his cabinet was truly there to advice and counsel, while Abe made the calls.
The next most famous "Team of Rivals" was the Cabinets of FDR, and again, you have a strong-willed CIC running the show (at least till the fourth term, and we begin to see the cracks develop). However, what happens when FDR dies and Truman has to step in? He is forced to ask for the resignations of EACH and EVERY one of them.
Johnson tried it, too... and history remembers his failures far more than his successes. Finally, we have the Nixon Administrations, and his mistake was not in appointing men that rivaled each other, but that rivaled him. The public implosion that was the Watergate White House is the result.
Now, which of these examples most seems to typify the pattern Obama is following? Lincoln? FDR? or Johnson/Nixon?
It is always dangerous to leave old appointees in office, but it might work for him here with Gates. His appointment of Clinton as SoS is scary... she is very unlikely to be the kind of Secretary to double-check with the CIC before making decisions, and that means that we could have a repeat of the Cheney/Rummy syndrome fresh on the heals of the Cheney/Rummy fiasco itself. Hillary is more than capable of putting her foot in her mouth and over-reaching her authority while visiting some foreign capital... say the Kremlin, or Berlin, or Paris, or Beijing.
Is this the best way to create the "UNITY" and "HOPE" we were all promised? Obama wanted a mandate, and while the fact of that mandate is up for some debate, THIS isn't the way to institute the mandate into his Presidency.
He needs sycophants and "yes-men"... not political opponents and rivals... to cement the "public mandate" he so wanted from the election and didn't get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
