Email This Post

15 Responses to “Open Forum (#3): What Would You Like to Discuss?”

1. Katrin Reichhold Says:
   May 30th, 2007 at 11:38 am

   I have been wondering about why it is that always the very good, and promising, and ‘special’ people in power, (i.e. Presidents) get assassinated, or killed, and not ever the bad, or evil ones.

   I have heard that no president in the history of the US has ever been physically as unprotected as G.W. Bush. (meaning, he sometimes walks, and meets with people alone). According to the above logic, that would make sense, right?

   Does this mean that especially ‘good people’, and this would also include Jesus, are really a big threat to the ‘other type’, or at least bigger than one may guess?

   Or is it just that ‘the other type’ feels more comfortable with killing. And even if they are not bad people, it seems to me that Republicans are much more comfortable with guns than Democrats. I have a neighbor like that, who keeps a gun loaded in case he ever encounters intruders. After this happened once before, and they messed up his yard, and car, the neighbor told me he would not hesitate before shooting next time.

   What do others think?

2. James Says:
   May 30th, 2007 at 12:08 pm

   Concidence, it`s a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time: being bad or good as recognized by the observer of historical events, has nothing to do with assassinations or mortalities. The reason for polical parties or individuals embracing violence as a means to counter threats is related to the temper of the times. Bush meets and walks alone because he choses to; it`s like trying to make an is be like an ought if one equates
   Bush with evil or good.

3. Jim Z Says:
   May 30th, 2007 at 2:22 pm

   Katrin, did you mean to say that no president in history has been as protected (not as unprotected) as GWBush? I couldn’t say for sure, but I’ve certainly heard for the past 6 years that he is the most isolated (physically and regarding ideas and information) president in anyone’s memory, especially from any person or groups who are not a fierce loyalists. Just checking.

4. Andrew Bard Schmookler Says:
   May 30th, 2007 at 5:46 pm

   A stunning little glimpse of Mitt Romney:

   In that campaign, Romney was on the verge of taking down the most prominent Democrat up for election that year, Senator Ted Kennedy. In September, 1994, with just seven weeks to go, polls showed Romney slightly ahead. A wave of anti-Democratic sentiment then sweeping the nation would give the GOP control of both the House and Senate in November.

   On election day, however, Kennedy crushed Romney by a 17-point margin, 58-41. One factor was Kennedy’s unexpectedly strong performance in two debates, a sharp contrast to Romney’s shaky stage presence. Romney said, “I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.” Kennedy shot back: “I am pro-choice; my opponent is multiple choice.”

   The back-breaker for Romney was a series of television ads produced by Bob Shrum (author of the book, due out shortly, No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner). Charlie Baker, the Kennedy campaign’s senior strategist that year, told The Huffington Post that the ads were designed “to get on the record all sides of Romney’s business career” — a hugely successful leveraged-buyout practice that Romney claimed had created jobs.

   The Kennedy campaign discovered that Ampad, a company purchased by Romney’s Bain Capital in 1992, had recently bought SCM, an office products company in Marion, Indiana. All 350 workers at the SCM plant were laid off, then offered their jobs back at reduced wages. They went on strike. The Kennedy campaign sent a crew to Marion to film the workers. A half dozen ads resulted from the interviews, most of them quoting workers denouncing Romney for lining his pockets at their expense. A women tells viewers: “I’d like to say to the people of Massachusetts, if you think it can’t happen to you, think again, because we thought it couldn’t happen here either.” Romney nosedived in the polls.

5. Andrew Bard Schmookler Says:
   May 30th, 2007 at 6:09 pm

   How should we see Romney. Is he a more or less ordinary politician, with the usual level of moral quality? Is he one of those really fake jobs that keep popping up on the Christian right– the Jimmy Swaggart, the James Bakker, the Rev. Haggard, the Pat Robertson? How should we see this guy who might, God forbid, become president in a couple of years?

6. Andrew Bard Schmookler Says:
   May 30th, 2007 at 6:39 pm

   Here’s something about Hillary Clinton, followed by a comment from me.
   

   Sen. Clinton, who complained about corporate America’s largesse and skyrocketing executive pay during campaign events Wednesday, said she did not believe her message was undermined by her acceptance of the private flights. In line with Senate rules then in effect, Clinton’s campaign has said she reimbursed Gupta at the cost of a first-class flight, typically a significant discount off the expense of a private jet.

   “Those were the rules. You’ll have to ask somebody else whether that’s good policy,” she said.

   The Senate earlier this year voted to change the rules to require senators, their staff and candidates for federal office to pay the charter rate for flights on corporate jets. All the presidential candidates serving in the Senate, including Clinton, voted for the change.

   My comment:

   If it is true that everybody does it, AND if it were to be the case that anyone who did not do it would be at a serious disadvantage to survive politically, then I find no fault with someone who does what must be done to hold office.

   But even if it is true that everybody does it, BUT IT IS NOT THE CASE that a person needs to operate that way in order to survive politically, I would wish for a politician to have the integrity to avoid all unncessary corruptions, to weigh that integrity more heavily than being able in some way to indulge oneself.

   I don’t know which is the case.

7. James Says:
   May 30th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

   Mitt Romney seems decisive, without pausing to reflect and would make a great president, one who would make decisions without pause, without reflecting on the consequenses, because a decision had to be made: this is what presidents do!

   Politicians accept help because of the cost and the necessity to win, which is an unacceptable but necessary practice. They win by any means necessary and belive in what they do because alas, this is the way of the world.

8. Andrew Bard Schmookler Says:
   May 30th, 2007 at 7:21 pm

   I am at a loss, James, to understand why you would think it a virtue for a president to make decisions “without pause, without reflecting on the consequenses, because a decision had to be made: this is what presidents do!”

   It had better not be what they do.

   How often do you suppose a president has to make a snap decision. Almost never. This is not ping pong we’re talking about but the formulation and execution of policy in a very complex world. Careful and wise deliberation are absolutely indispensable, and even when people deliberate to their best level of skill, the challenges are often far beyond people’s capacity to meet wholly.

   We do want someone who can make a good decision in a hurry and under pressure, like if a report came in that a bunch of missiles were heading our way from Russia or China. So much would be at stake that we want to be reassured that the president is a person who can keep his cool in an emergency.

   But even the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which was one of the most intense situations of having to make decisions under pressure in a very finite period of time, took THIRTEEN DAYS, and left room for very intense deliberation involving a lot of people.

9. James Says:
   May 30th, 2007 at 8:21 pm

   If one cannot make decisions of import, then one should not be President. Do you think Al Gore was ready for command when he lost the presidency? Absolutely not! The Supreme Court granted Bush, the decision maker, the post of Commander in Chief. You know, the President has so many documents placed before him, that he cannot physically sign them all; so a machine is used. These decisions – that we know of; – some made at the Pentegon – must be without pause and without reflection, because emotion would effect a tremble before calamity. That`s the way it is, the ship of state is directed by a commander who is feared; who is respected; who is obeyed: that is the duty of all under him and there is no time to pause.

10. R Stein Says:
    May 30th, 2007 at 9:15 pm

    James,

    I don’t think we realized your privileged access inside the Oval Office.
    I never really wondered how things went on there; I guess now we know.

    r d

11. ToddR Says:
    May 31st, 2007 at 12:05 am

    Re James’ recent post:

    “If one cannot make decisions of import, then one should not be President.”

    OK, that one’s not false, just trivial.

    “Do you think Al Gore was ready for command when he lost the presidency? Absolutely not!”

    Huh? Mere assertion without evidence.

    “The Supreme Court granted Bush, the decision maker, the post of Commander in Chief.”

    A poorly-stated fact. It is true that the President is Commander in Chief, but a better statement would be that the Supreme Court decision meant that challenges from the Gore campain would stop and Bush would assume the Presidency on Inauguration Day. By implication he would be Commander in Chief. So what? What does that have to do with decision making ability/capacity?

    “You know, the President has so many documents placed before him, that he cannot physically sign them all; so a machine is used.”

    What does that have to do with decision making capacity/ability?

    “These decisions – that we know of; – some made at the Pentegon – must be without pause and without reflection, because emotion would effect a tremble before calamity.”

    Which decisions? By definition the ones which need to be made instantly? A minority of the important ones. And it’s not even true. Commitment and resove are primarily emotional. Some emotions would effect a tremble and others wouldn’t.

    “That`s the way it is, the ship of state is directed by a commander who is feared; who is respected;”

    In general, I think those are contradictory. I really cannot remember anyone who I both feared and respected, but can remember some I feard and many I respected. I don’t think I’m all that unusual in that regard.

    “who is obeyed: that is the duty of all under him and there is no time to pause.”

    I have been told that the UCMJ requires any soldier to refuse to obey an illegal order. Once I went to each of several Armed Forces recruiting stations which were right next to each other (Army, Navy, Marines) and asked to look at a UCMJ to look it up, but none of them had one.

    Maybe some other reader here knows about this point and will comment.

12. Linda Jean Edwards Says:
    May 31st, 2007 at 12:07 am

    James said:
    “Do you think Al Gore was ready for command when he lost the presidency? Absolutely not! The Supreme Court granted Bush, the decision maker, the post of Commander in Chief.’
    Al Gore was a hell of a lot more “ready” to take on the presidency than our illustrious Shrub. The partisan Supreme Court stole the 2000 election from Gore and placed it in the hands of an incompetent sociopath. It is not necessary to go into any of the pathetic details. This was the beginning of America’s descent into HELL. Shrub has been like a kid with a shiny new toy: “THE PRESIDENCY” and we already are painfully aware that he has made many decisions “without pause and without reflection, because emotion would effect a tremble before calamity.”

    HUH???? CALAMITY BUSH should be his legal name.

    Sorry James, I’m sure you are a fine person, but what does this mean exactly?
    “the ship of state is directed by a commander who is feared; who is respected; who is obeyed: that is the duty of all under him and there is no time to pause.”
    You have described a king, a monarchy, not a democracy.

    What is Congress supposed to do then, just sit in the peanut gallery and twiddle their whatever’s all day long? Even if that probably is all they manage in a day’s work, there is such a thing as Congressional oversight– I just do not know what has happened to those pesky checks and balances, supposedly put in place long ago by men who were attempting to thwart any attempt by some incompetent jerk to turn himself into the very thing they had left behind in dear old England.

    I sincerely recommend a good dose of Mark Morford:

    “Bush Declares Self ‘Mega Decider’
    New documents ensure Dubya will rule America, should calamity strike. Free balloons!”
    By Mark Morford
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2007/05/30/notes053007.DTL&nl=fix

    An excerpt:
    ” Unless the violent twinge of queasy paranoia crossed with that uncontrolled bout of colon-clenching sighing you experience is deadly accurate and your radar for all things sinister and Rovean is right on target as you read about the delightfully titled National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51 and the Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, wherein it is calmly and furtively revealed that, in essence, George W. Bush owns your sorry ass.
    Or, to put it another way, it looks like the Bumbling One just gave himself ever more power. Power to control and dictate the entire government, power to really spread the gospel of happy GOP incompetence, power to command the entire wobbly American universe should some sort of epic — or not so epic, as the case may be — calamity strike the homeland.

    It goes something like this: Should any “decapitating event” occur in American that somehow incapacitates the D.C. power structure, should “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions” take place, well then, all power and decision making would devolve to the White House, which would then attempt to orchestrate our very survival and oversee all essential governmental functions with none other than the president himself as, well, Super-Mega Lord Decider. With extra crayons.
    You know, a dictator.”

13. James Says:
    May 31st, 2007 at 9:21 am

    Privileged access not required; membership in the human race required; thus, empathy generated to visualise group dynamics is auto scripted.

14. James Says:
    May 31st, 2007 at 9:39 am

    I should have outlined the interconnect leading to the opine on Presidential decisions and consequenses, `cause it does leave “The Bard” at a loss. Well, there`s always a “next time.”

15. Jim Z Says:
    June 1st, 2007 at 11:06 pm

    How anyone could see GWBush, during his first campaign, or during any moment of his entire presidency as even remotely qualified or prepared to be president, is beyond me.

    Incidentally, under the US Constitution, a president becomes commander in chief of the armed forces during war.

Leave a Reply