presidential inauguration
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 01/20/05 - 12:05 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: |
Of course that means internal dissenters chanting anti-Bush slogans far more than international terrorists.
Once again: You're either with W, or agin' him. And if you're agin' him in any way, watch the flurk out, 'cause they're comin' to get ya!!! |
Got a source for that explanation or is this just your opinion? 
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 13:15 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
Got a source for that explanation or is this just your opinion? |
Yeah, I've lots of anecdotal sources that led me to form an opinion. If I had time I could find actual cites as well, but here goes for now.
The first is W's loyalty mania, which equates dissent with disloyalty, and as we know, disloyalty where the Prez is concerned=treason.
He also simply doesn't want to know. he doesn't want to know bad news about Iraq, just 'progress reports' and he has orchestrated security to such and extent that he's barely seen any dissent in four years. One need only recall the last campaign.
Not that I want anyone to be able to take a shot at the POTUS, but geez, maybe it would help that whole hubris thing if he had some visceral, personal notion of how many people don't like his policies. Hell, he's proud about the fact that he doesn't even read newspapers. He asks his advisors (who have been chosen for their loyalty and know that he doesn't like bad or contradictory news) for what news he needs to know.
Those are some serious blinders for the Leader of the Free World to be wearing.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 15:25 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: |
The first is W's loyalty mania, which equates dissent with disloyalty, and as we know, disloyalty where the Prez is concerned=treason.
|
Doesn't every President have this 'mania'? Isn't that something we would come to expect (if not necessarily like) in a system with political parties, no matter who sits in the Oval Office?
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 16:00 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | | Doesn't every President have this 'mania'? |
No, just the dictators posing as democratic leaders
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 16:48 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | | Doesn't every President have this 'mania'? Isn't that something we would come to expect (if not necessarily like) in a system with political parties, no matter who sits in the Oval Office? |
Not really, GR, and certainly not to this extent. Many presidents valued the back-and-forth, the weighing of options, the intellectual exercise of debate and consideration--those of both parties.
Clearly anything coming out about this White House shows that this is not the case. W. makes a decision, has a vision for how things ought to be, and then tells his people to carry it out. He doesn't want dissent or debate inside his own cabinet. Compare that to Clinton, who was famous for big all night intellectual BS sessions about topics of the day. He also brought in David Gergen as an advisor, a GOPer who had worked for Nixon, Ford and Reagan. He wanted contradictory viewpoints to help him get the broadest picture possible.
Heck, W had two token moderate GOPer in his Cabinet (Powell and Whitman) and we saw how seriously their advice and concerns were taken. . . sayonara Colin and Christie!!! Like he'd ever get a Democrat to advise him. No Way Jose!! He simply doesn't care about opposing viewpoints.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 16:58 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: |
Not really, GR, and certainly not to this extent. Many presidents valued the back-and-forth, the weighing of options, the intellectual exercise of debate and consideration--those of both parties.
|
I would offer Lyndon Johnson up on the other side of the political spectrum (Vietnam notwithstanding). Robert Caro's The Path to Power series portrays LBJ as someone who would take no opinion of others - not John Connally, not Sam Rayburn, not Franklin Roosevelt - that did not either agree with him, or further his journey to the White House. And this was down past the political to the personal level. Now granted much of this came out after his presidency - after his death, really - and not while he was in office. But it can occur on both sides of the political fence.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/20/05 - 18:55 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | | But it can occur on both sides of the political fence. |
Most things we've argued about here can, Gdawg. It's just that not everyone can be as open minded as to see that. Hence my post about the OFFICE of the pres needing some revamping on inaugural spending, not any one particular person. Many of them have done the excesses thing but that doesn't seem to be a concern, depending on who's doing the bellyaching about it.
On that topic, I was listening to KYW on the way back here tonight and they were talking about the parade today. About 2 hours and....what did they say.....11K marching? As opposed to Eisenhower's first which was over 5 hours long and Woodrow Wilson's way back in the early 1900s which had something like 40K people involved. Interesting to see how different parts of the process were handled by different pres's. Someone brought up to me today that Carter declined the limo ride and decided to do it on foot and was criticized for that too, saying that it was a disgrace. You'll never please everyone in this country EVER, no matter who's in charge. No wonder so many people take that "who cares" attitude that Po Po mentioned in another post.
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/22/05 - 13:32 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | | I would offer Lyndon Johnson up on the other side of the political spectrum (Vietnam notwithstanding). Robert Caro's The Path to Power series portrays LBJ as someone who would take no opinion of others - not John Connally, not Sam Rayburn, not Franklin Roosevelt - that did not either agree with him, or further his journey to the White House. And this was down past the political to the personal level. Now granted much of this came out after his presidency - after his death, really - and not while he was in office. But it can occur on both sides of the political fence. |
Could it be that a political "spectrum" doesn't really exist in the US (or Canada for that matter)? Could it be that the mainstream media's real roll in society is to try to pit Republicans vs Democrats and make them argue about trivial issues so that the mainstream public feel safe that they live in a democratic society? Could it be that the media's real roll is to try maintain an illusion of a two party system where each party represents opposite ends of some arbitrary politcal "spectrum" to which we all have access? Could it be that we actually live in a politcal oligarchy where rule is maintained by a select few and the majority of the public are placated into thinking that the political fringe they are contented to participate in makes their system of government superior to "non-democratic" states? Could it be that this whole discussion about innaugral spending is a symptom of this disease? Could it be that this post is slightly off topic?
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/22/05 - 16:02 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
Most things we've argued about here can, Gdawg. It's just that not everyone can be as open minded as to see that. Hence my post about the OFFICE of the pres needing some revamping on inaugural spending, not any one particular person. Many of them have done the excesses thing but that doesn't seem to be a concern, depending on who's doing the bellyaching about it.
|
Have you not read the posts here where people said they thought it was excessive for either side??
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/23/05 - 11:20 Post subject:
the Clinton Library cost in excess of 165 million. All private funds.
Most expensive library. In prespective that seems like a great deal of money too.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/23/05 - 12:23 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | the Clinton Library cost in excess of 165 million. All private funds.
Most expensive library. In prespective that seems like a great deal of money too. |
And many of the funds were donated by "anonomous" sources from the Middle East. The Clinton Library refuses to names these sources. Hmmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/23/05 - 12:29 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
And many of the funds were donated by "anonomous" sources from the Middle East. The Clinton Library refuses to names these sources. Hmmmm... |
little said about that.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/23/05 - 19:59 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | the Clinton Library cost in excess of 165 million. All private funds.
Most expensive library. In prespective that seems like a great deal of money too. |
There's the problem. These things are funded privately, it's considered trying to buy influence (as in the inaugural events) or paying for services rendered (as in a Presidential library). They get funded at government expense, it's seen as a use of public dollars that could be used better somewhere else.
What's the solution? Is there one?
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/24/05 - 14:04 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | the Clinton Library cost in excess of 165 million. All private funds.
Most expensive library. In prespective that seems like a great deal of money too. |
Wonder how much the Lewinsky exhibit cost? 
Wow, that's a lot of money. How come no squawking about that waste of funds that could be better used to serve the underserved?
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/24/05 - 14:08 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
Wonder how much the Lewinsky exhibit cost?
Wow, that's a lot of money. How come no squawking about that waste of funds that could be better used to serve the underserved? |
I am not a Clinton fan, however at least I can go visit the library and learn something about a certain time in history.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
