It's a bit hard to judge from the outside looking in. But based on some of his actions, like mocking a death row inmate before her execution, Bush borders on being a sociopath.
"In other words, if the president wants to appoint someone as incompetent as Old Brownie, he will fight for his right to do that." (CBS)
Sad. Bush wants someone with less education to be part of the job just so he can make that decision, how dumb is that? They don't even let businesses do that when hiring yet it's okay to have someone in the job of social provisions who may not be capable...someone slap that guy.
This has made me truly curious: what are the restrictions on who can be appointed to other governmental positions? I know there aren't similar requirements for SecDef (Rumsfeld wasn't a military commander, just a Navy flight instructor for 3 years). What about agriculture, transportation, etc? I know there are a lot of competent people out there whose experience isn't directly in the field they're overseeing.
If this restriction is similar to others already in place, then Bush is being a moron. If no other position has this sort of restriction, then I'd have to see a better argument as to why this particular position requires it.
I agree with the President, but probably not for the same reasons. It's a mistake to put a law on the books in response to a particular incident. That's how we got the Patriot Act. Let the market decide. Bush will be judged for Brownie (and a bunch of other stuff) in a couple weeks. There's no need to tie the hands of every President from here to eternity. Just get a President with better judgement.
i believe, probably naievly at this point, that the government was set up for "checks and balances". if one branch makes a bad decision, another branch is obligated to provide a check or balance. so, i'm supporting the congress in this case of gross neglegence. it would be nice if everybody in the LAST ELECTION had figured that mr. bush is a moron but, no, the majority decided that he had good judgement. or maybe diebold decided that. or maybe his judgement wasn't a "key issue" like keeping gay people in "their place".
I don't think anyone was under the illusion that W was a genius in the last election. But one of the weaknesses of only a two-party system is that, sometimes, we just aren't given much of a choice. As annoyed as I am with W, I still couldn't vote for Kerry.
I didn't equate this bill with the patriot act. I meant that they both came about using the same short-sighted logic.
8 comments:
It's a bit hard to judge from the outside looking in. But based on some of his actions, like mocking a death row inmate before her execution, Bush borders on being a sociopath.
"In other words, if the president wants to appoint someone as incompetent as Old Brownie, he will fight for his right to do that." (CBS)
Sad. Bush wants someone with less education to be part of the job just so he can make that decision, how dumb is that? They don't even let businesses do that when hiring yet it's okay to have someone in the job of social provisions who may not be capable...someone slap that guy.
This has made me truly curious: what are the restrictions on who can be appointed to other governmental positions? I know there aren't similar requirements for SecDef (Rumsfeld wasn't a military commander, just a Navy flight instructor for 3 years). What about agriculture, transportation, etc? I know there are a lot of competent people out there whose experience isn't directly in the field they're overseeing.
If this restriction is similar to others already in place, then Bush is being a moron. If no other position has this sort of restriction, then I'd have to see a better argument as to why this particular position requires it.
I agree with the President, but probably not for the same reasons. It's a mistake to put a law on the books in response to a particular incident. That's how we got the Patriot Act. Let the market decide. Bush will be judged for Brownie (and a bunch of other stuff) in a couple weeks. There's no need to tie the hands of every President from here to eternity. Just get a President with better judgement.
i believe, probably naievly at this point, that the government was set up for "checks and balances". if one branch makes a bad decision, another branch is obligated to provide a check or balance. so, i'm supporting the congress in this case of gross neglegence. it would be nice if everybody in the LAST ELECTION had figured that mr. bush is a moron but, no, the majority decided that he had good judgement. or maybe diebold decided that. or maybe his judgement wasn't a "key issue" like keeping gay people in "their place".
naively, that is
and look at where rumsfeld got us since he wasn't really up to the task.
also, i think equating a restriction on the appointing of government official to the patriot act is kind of a stretch.
I don't think anyone was under the illusion that W was a genius in the last election. But one of the weaknesses of only a two-party system is that, sometimes, we just aren't given much of a choice. As annoyed as I am with W, I still couldn't vote for Kerry.
I didn't equate this bill with the patriot act. I meant that they both came about using the same short-sighted logic.
Post a Comment