In a sole-searing exhibit of disdain, an Iraqi heel slung two shoes at President Bush during a news conference. To his credit, Bush displayed considerable polish in dodging the flying size 10s, utilizing the reflexes he’s developed in sidestepping criticism and blame for the previous eight years.
The shoe-thrower, an Iraqi journalist, is believed to be an Oxford graduate. Secret Service agents were momentarily caught loafing as he pumped both shoes at the outgoing president, but managed to cobble together their wits and sock him to the ground.
PAD
UPDATED 12/15: Here’s something to ponder. If other United States politicos hold press conferences in Iraq, are all Iraqi journalists going to be required by the Secret Service to remove their shoes and check them in a box outside the room. I mean, one nimrod years ago failed in an attempt to sneak explosives onto an airplane via his shoes and since then we all have to go in stocking feet through the metal detectors. So if shoes ARE being used as a means of expressing disdain, is that going to be accounted for in future Iraqi press gatherings?
• 
No Rob. I’m not saying you’re mentally ill, but angry… thats another thing.
I’ll not be sad in any way when Karl Rove and Fred Phelps bite the dust. But at least in Rove’s case, I don’t wish him bodily harm. I just wish he’d never entered politics in the first place, and I wish he’ll retire for good.
Phelps is a different case, as I believe he is demented scum in a level that Bush or Rove or Rumsfeld can’t come even close. I’ll not be an hypocrite: I’d feel a wonderful sense of Schadenfreude at Phelps’s suffering.
Rob Brown: “I have to disagree. She’ll be fine, and as far as I’m concerned she’s as much a war criminal as the rest of them. If she can’t end up in prison, I’ll accept a minor inconvenience like a black eye as a substitute. Too bad Bush wasn’t the recipient. FTR, I also didn’t think it was unfortunate when her predecessor, Tony Snow, died. “Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy,” I said to myself.”
FTR, Rob, you’re a sorry excuse for a human being. Just thought I’d add that.
I just didn’t care when it happened.
That’s different from “it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy,” Rob, and you bloody well know it.
It’s hard to do but I think when you let someone else’s hatred goad you into any sense of pleasure at the thought or reality of their suffering you are just letting a sadist make you more sadistic.
I won’t give the standard claptrap about how “this makes you no better than them”–of COURSE you’d still be better than them but, oh my, what a small hurdle that is.
Consider Phelps. Consider the victory he gets when mere words from his mouth drive otherwise decent normal people to utter the kind of anger and hatred upon him that would normally not cross their minds. he himself is pretty much powerless, one of life’s great losers, but you just know that he gets off on the rage he sees in others, rage he himself created.
You are being too hard on Rob. Dividing the world into good and bad, black and white, those who are for us and those who are against us, the pure and the profane, is an pasttime with a long history. Many have been drawed by its reassuring psychological appeal. If you identify who the villains are then you know who the good guys are, and its you.
It’s also par for the course at many internet sites…far more so than is typically found at this one. The kind of statement Rob made would get attaboys from many at Dailykos or Democratic Underground, just as it would at Freerepublic were it targeted at someone on the left side of the aisle. Here? Not so much.
I’m not trying to identify who the villains are, Micha. I’m just expressing great disappointment with my fellow man and (especially) my fellow geek.
An appropriate response to you creating opportunities to slam DailyKos (where you refuse to take corresponding slams at conservative sites where the hate in the comments are in the posts) seems to be that Mark Evanier recently felt free to link to a DailyKos post, and I wouldn’t characterize him as uninformed politically, a radical, or hateful.
The fact that Mark Evanier linked to a dailykos post does not in any way change the fact that Rob’s post would be welcomed there, as it was not here. There’s no point to your point.
Nor would mentioning dailykos without mentioning a corresponding conservative site make the comment any less valid. But, in fact, I specifically mentioned Freerepublic, a far right conservative site. You are trolling for attention. Guess you got it. Merry Christmas.
She’ll be fine, and as far as I’m concerned she’s as much a war criminal as the rest of them. If she can’t end up in prison, I’ll accept a minor inconvenience like a black eye as a substitute. Too bad Bush wasn’t the recipient. FTR, I also didn’t think it was unfortunate when her predecessor, Tony Snow, died. “Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy,” I said to myself.
This sort of comment makes it impossible to take you seriously. You sir, are a heel.
Apart from demonstrating that you have absolutely no clue what a “war criminal” is (go on, look it up, we’ll wait) you haven’t a leg to stand on even if you’re claiming that everyone who participated in the civilian government during the war is a war criminal. Perino was the communications director for the Council on Environmental Quality. Do you think the Air Force was delivering bombs by Northern Spotted Owl? In what universe does someone who takes a job as a press secretary years after the war is started (and was therefore clearly not involved in the decision to go to war), who never fired a shot in her life, qualify as a war criminal? Torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib was a war crime. Answering questions during a press briefing? Not so much. Do you really have a reason for thinking she needs to be imprisoned– or thwacked in the head– other than her affiliation with an administration that does not meet with your approval?
The hypocrisy is pretty clear actually. “War is bad. It’s wrong to hurt people.” “The people being hurt are Bush and his minions.” “Oh, okay then.” But I don’t think the comment about meds was implying that you’re mentally ill. I think it was a suggestion that, since you’re apparently endorsing taking satisfaction from the painful, lingering death of another human being, you should hope the shoe’s never on the other foot. “Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy,” someone might say.
Thank you for validating the argument that discussion of the site you introduced mention of here isn’t relevant to this thread.
The appropriate response to you attributing troll-motives for making an unambiguous observation of your behavior seems to be that you have more than my word that such behavior is disloyal to our hosts. I have no reservation against reminding you of this, and am satisfied to settle it with that.
And thank you for not attempting to explain how my mentioning a conservative site can be interpreted by any intelligent reader as somehow not mentioning a conservative site.
As for whether or not my comment was relevant, I will leave that to people whose opinions matter more than yours. The relevance seems obvious to me; Rob has probably been exposed to the typical kind of what passes for discourse on many political websites and/or blogs run by people of a certain political view. He probably felt that he had every reason to think, given PAD’s well expressed antipathy to Bush, that his statement would be well received by most of the readers. It wasn’t, which I think illustrates the disconnect between the big web pundit sites and the real world.
And here’s another thing–nothing that I can recall Rob ever saying in the past would make me think of him as the kind of person who would put so much emphasis on politics that he would let it trump basic decency. If he saw someone in trouble I have no reason to think he would ask what his political leanings were before deciding to help him. Some folks, as we have seen, pretty much let politics rule their interactions with others, probably because they lack the ability to rel;ate to people on any kind of normal human level. But most of the people at the rant sites are just going with the flow, it’s like being at a game and cheering with the crowd even if you really aren’t all that into the team. Shout “Go Yankees!” at the top of your lungs at a Waffle House and you might get weird looks (or, if in Boston, shot).
So anyway, I would hope that Rob wasn’t really serious about what he said or, if he was, a few years of Obama will give him the serenity to see that such feelings aren’t really good ones to have. You could end up like…let’s just say, someone you wouldn’t really want to be.
My not-at-all-subtle observation that you’ve admitted to introducing partisan irrelevancies — which your reply demonstrates you’ve read but you have refused to deny — doesn’t seem to depend on the disqualification of whatever point you’re trying to make. So, sure.
You don’t hold posts by me you claim offend you against our hosts. Why do you hate that site so much?
Not if your own word it was irrelevant means anything. Thank you for continuing to contradict yourself.
Mike, this is that time of the year where people are supposed to be charitable, nice, full of good will, etc. That being the case I’m going to actually try to help you out here. I’m going to give you a very nice Christmas gift. You see, your biggest problem is that you often try to dispute issues in people’s posts that either (A) they didn’t say or (B) you’ve attached some strange meaning or relevance to that no one but you sees or cares about.
Your latest shots at Bill Mulligan are a perfect example of this. Bill pointed out in a very even handed manner that people on some of the larger political blogs on both sides of the spectrum might welcome or cheer a sentiment like Rob’s if expressed about someone they disagreed with politically.
Here it is again for you to review.
Bill Mulligan: “It’s also par for the course at many internet sites…far more so than is typically found at this one. The kind of statement Rob made would get attaboys from many at Dailykos or Democratic Underground, just as it would at Freerepublic were it targeted at someone on the left side of the aisle. Here? Not so much.”
As you can clearly see, Bill cites examples from both sides. You response to this made no sense whatsoever.
Mike: “An appropriate response to you creating opportunities to slam DailyKos (where you refuse to take corresponding slams at conservative sites where the hate in the comments are in the posts) seems to be that Mark Evanier recently felt free to link to a DailyKos post, and I wouldn’t characterize him as uninformed politically, a radical, or hateful.”
Please note the “(where you refuse to take corresponding slams at conservative sites where the hate in the comments are in the posts)” part. This makes you appear foolish from the get go. It seems to show that you either (A) didn’t read Bill’s post before attacking him over it or (B) simply can’t understand what you’re reading. Neither of these things makes you appear to be a great prospect for conversation or debate in the future.
Bill quite correctly poked a needle into your balloon by pointing out:
Bill Mulligan: “The fact that Mark Evanier linked to a dailykos post does not in any way change the fact that Rob’s post would be welcomed there, as it was not here. There’s no point to your point.
Nor would mentioning dailykos without mentioning a corresponding conservative site make the comment any less valid. But, in fact, I specifically mentioned Freerepublic, a far right conservative site.”
You then retreated into even more irrelevant and off point foolishness in an attempt to cover the fact that your opening statement to Bill Mulligan about his refusing to ”take corresponding slams at conservative sites” was completely inaccurate and completely a construction of your own mind rather than that of reality.
Bill mulligan then pointed out this simple observation…
”You are trolling for attention.”
… which seems to have struck a nerve with you. You then went deeper into irrelevancy and pointlessness to try and cover the failure and incorrectness of your initial post to Bill Mulligan. This could have all been avoided by the act of simple, sane thought by you prior to your posting anything to Bill Mulligan. A simpler tact could have been taken that would have enabled you have a longer exchange with Bill, get more of the attention you crave and even let you appear to be sane.
Watch.
__________________________________________________________________
Bill, I know that Kos and crew get slammed a lot these days, but I’m not sure that’s an entirely fair assessment of the site. The site gets so much traffic and has so many registered posters that you’re bound to get the good and the bad just like here. Two points to back that up.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/27/95537/6074
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/27/1006/42536
Both of these links go to Kos threads where people both said prayers for him and his family and condemned the more vile posters. Both threads contained posts by people that pointed out that “we” are little better than “them” if “we” say things that take joy and glee in the illness or death of people just because they are ideologically or politically opposed to “us” in POV. Further, Kos deleted a number of the threads that were filled with the more hateful statements.
While you do get some lefties that are, to be kind, very out there on Kos, I think you also get more than a few good eggs as well. There certainly seems to be a huge number of jáçkáššëš on Kos, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the percentage of them there isn’t as great as the sheer numbers sometimes makes it seem. It may even be no greater than here, it just may seem less here since the numbers are so much smaller.
__________________________________________________________________
See that? Bill would only have two places to go from there. He could disagree with you, but that would require his going and seeking out links to back his point that may or may not exist anymore. It would also require Bill having even more exchanges with you and thus giving you even more of the attention you so desperately crave. On the other hand he could end up agreeing with you and you would then be able to point to an actual moment where Bill said that he was in error and you were right rather than you constantly having to make up “victories” for yourself that never existed. It would also have the effect of making your posts look less insane, less pointless, less rambling and more worth future discussion.
Gift #2:
Don’t react so strongly to the “Troll” label. Don’t, if it’s been thrown at you, mention it in your posts responding to the poster who leveled that charge. It simply makes you look hyper defensive over the charge and gives added weight to the charge in the eyes of some. It’s that whole protesting too much canard.
See, you’ve almost got some people here convinced that you’re not actually a troll. Oh, no one believes that you’re a rational posters, they’ve just started to debate whether or not you’re a troll or someone with a brick wall mentality who is incapable of normal, rational or sane discourse. Getting defensive over the “T” word only opens yourself up to allowing older posters here to provide proof of your nature as a troll.
Watch.
__________________________________________________________________
Why, Mike, you question why people would attribute troll-motives to your rather strange posts? Maybe this is why.
From “The Robbing of David Hyde-Pierce”
Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2005 02:06 PM
Jeffrey, I think I know how distressing it is to have your feelings invalidated. You’ve got people working, laboring to minimize your feelings. But when you express any distress, your feelings aren’t invalide anymore, but justification to dismiss you. It’s the kind of inconsistency that can clobber someone who is otherwise well-meaning.
My point is, if you’re going to be a troll, you’re going to have to do a better job. I’m sorry, but I’ve been watching you since I’ve gotten here, and you just aren’t doing that well. I’ve been kicked off of communities before, and now no one even notices I’m a troll at all. Maybe I can help.
And then there was this Golden Mike Oldie…
From “Wotta Card”
Posted by Mike at May 19, 2005 10:02 PM
But if you’re going to be a troll, you have to do it well, like I said in the other thread. Deny it if you want, but there’s no kidding anyone we both know it can be great fun. However, if you just throw out a big hunk of text and people don’t understand you — you may as well have kept your point to yourself.
You see, Mike, you’ve freely admitted to being a troll and to enjoying being a troll and you’ve actively tried to inspire others to be a troll here. Is it really any wonder why this, combined with the general nonsensical and trivial nature of the majority of your posts, leads pretty much every long time poster here to determine that you are in fact a pretty worthless troll? No, it’s not.
__________________________________________________________________
Now, if you’re just craving attention you can follow the advice above and maybe last a little longer in conversations before the shroud is invoked than you usually do by simply thinking out your positions better. Even if all you want to do is take contrary positions you would be better served by taking rational positions rather than your usual tactics.
Now, if all you want to do is troll… The shroud works very well and you’ll be a very lonely little poster.
Think about it.
Beyond that I’m not going to go round and round with you about it and limit further, if any, posts to you on the threads’ actual topics. You’ll either be a saner poster in future or you won’t. Why waste the time on it if you show no desire to engage in normal debate?
Merry Christmas.
“Posted by: Jerry Chandler at December 16, 2008 07:21 PM
I’m not trying to identify who the villains are, Micha. I’m just expressing great disappointment with my fellow man and (especially) my fellow geek.”
I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to Rob.
That’s cool, Micha, but it could have been a valid statement about my post as well. My clarifying my intent, even if it was on a mistaken assumption, certainly only served to help convey to others what I was actually saying rather than what could be read into it.
OK Jerry.
My disappointment Rob’s attitude here — beyond the attitude to a political opponent’s death — stems from my brief experience in the extreme left. At a certain point it seemed as if my friends were becoming a mirror image of the people we were opposing — simplistic, lacking judgment, lacking moderation, intolerant, self-righteous. It started feeling as if from a movement seeking to improve society it became a cult of the self-righteous mostly interested in condemning everybody to their right and thus cleansing one’s self. It all left me very angry and frustrated.
Bill Mulligan: And here’s another thing–nothing that I can recall Rob ever saying in the past would make me think of him as the kind of person who would put so much emphasis on politics that he would let it trump basic decency.
Luigi Novi: Arguing that a two-minute Daily Show skit in which 7 people in a Wasila, Alaska family bar & grill restaurant are shown speaking in lightning-fast soundbites somehow qualifies one to assess the entire 5,400 people who populate that town (which you yourself were witness to on the 10.4.08 “The Palin Wink” board, Bill) is indeed allowing politics to trump one’s basic decency. That we agree, for the benefit of the doubt, that he would do a decent thing on the one hand by helping someone in need without first learning their politics, doesn’t change this fact on the other hand. His comments on this board, therefore, should not come as any surprise to anyone familiar with his prior pertinent comments.
Luigi, I’d forgotten that earlier exchange. OK, when it comes to politics the guy loses all sense of proportion. I’m just not ready to write him off as a potentially good guy (albeit with weakness for hyperbole). Maybe it’s the holiday.
Micha–forgot to mention, I think your analysis is spot on and accomplished in a few words what it takes me whole paragraphs to do.
you can understand the appeal of the either/or philosophy. It’s hard work to actually do something, while it’s often the easiest thing in the world not to do something. So you simply define “bad” in the simplest of terms–anyone who voted for X being an easy choice–and by simply not matching that definition you are, with no effort, “good”.
But like anyone who has joined some wacky religious cult, you will probably need the constant reinforcement that comes from an echo chamber and not take kindly to anyone who, ever so gently, points out that your logic is stuffed full of wild mulberry muffins.
Jerry- truth to tell, I have found Dailykos to be valuable on more than one instance. The diaries, that is. The comments…phew! And you are right, there are lots of decent folks who try to reign in the crazies or at least remind them that their hatred makes the rest of them look bad.
My point was that sites like that often encourage the kind of groupthink that ends up having otherwise sane people drinking whatever flavor koolaid it takes to cheer the death and suffering of someone who’s real crime was to disagree with them. And when people become used to that kind of thing, when they come to expect that this is how most people think and act, they are probably going to be in for a rude shock when they act that way in a normal setting (or even here).
(BTW, Jerry, you should get a little package soon. Originally a birthday gift, now it could be considered Christmas. If I’d waited much longer it could have been Arbor Day)
Thank you for making obvious the relevance of my response to this thread.
Hi, Jerry. You seem to need to hear that the website I link to in every post has email contact for me, with which we can take the barking-mad-spiral you’ve started off-board.
Bill Mulligan:
“you can understand the appeal of the either/or philosophy. It’s hard work to actually do something, while it’s often the easiest thing in the world not to do something. So you simply define “bad” in the simplest of terms–anyone who voted for X being an easy choice–and by simply not matching that definition you are, with no effort, “good”.”
Unfortunately, that’s not always true. In fact people who are inclined to extremes — evangelicals, anarchists — are more likely to be politically active, while the moderates stay at home too moderate and/or too paralyzed by a reality that cannot be reduced to nice simplistic terms. So the extremists go out and do, a lot. But since they’ve written off a large chunk of the public they want to influence, and they are too rigid to communicate with anybody who doesn’t think exactly like them, and they are too ossified to do anything interesting or original, their actions either have no effect or negative effect outside of their own circle. So it becomes like a cult ritual. (But I’m not bitter about it… not at all… 🙂 )
Micha, yeah, I didn’t mean to say that the black and white view holders don’t ever “do” anything–even just posting a comment is an action. I meant that they aren’t doing anything in the realm of thinking. What would Bush do? Well, I’ll do the opposite!
That isn’t thinking! It’s reacting and it isn’t even logical on that simple level. Bush (or Kennedy or Palin or Limbaugh or whoever your bogeyman du jour is) might be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or, and this will blow some minds, they might even be doing the right thing for the right reasons! It happens. But the knee jerkers will just merrily go on, dancing like puppets on the strings pulled by the people they hold in the most contempt. On that level it’s tragic.
You’re comparing Kennedy to a man Supreme Court justices have gone on record as committing a war crime (ruling reviewed UCMJ trials held under a president-only privilege in violation of Geneva, Summer, 2006). All that’s missing is the charge.
You see to be implying you don’t think that kind of crime should send anyone to jail.
“That isn’t thinking! It’s reacting and it isn’t even logical on that simple level.”
I see your point. You’re right. It’s the thinking that’s the problem.
“What would Bush do? Well, I’ll do the opposite!”
WWWD 🙂
I had a discussion with a guy who pretty much said something like that.
Part of Obama’s success was his ability to motivate moderates while still remaining a thinking man, while at the same time using the energy of the extreme in a useful way.
Bill Mulligan: Luigi, I’d forgotten that earlier exchange. OK, when it comes to politics the guy loses all sense of proportion. I’m just not ready to write him off as a potentially good guy (albeit with weakness for hyperbole).
Luigi Novi: Agreed.
Bill Mulligan: “(BTW, Jerry, you should get a little package soon. Originally a birthday gift, now it could be considered Christmas. If I’d waited much longer it could have been Arbor Day)”
No rush. We also celebrate Chinese New Years at my house, so it works for that as well.
I’m not defending Rob, but let’s put things into context here.
First, Rob’s oppinions are widespread among non-Americans. Like it or not, they’re not the oppinions of a lone extremist. Outside of the US, many people would love to see Bush and his circle hurting. He is incredibly unpopular (almost) everywhere. Rob is Canadian, if I’m not mistaken.
Second, how many Americans would rejoice if something bad happened to someone like Hugo Chavez? A lot, I suspect.
Personally, I don’t have any desire to see something bad happening to Bush or his circle, as individuals. I just want them out of power and out of politics, never to come back. But I doubt that will happen, these guys are persistent, some of them were in Nixon’s administration, for God’s sake.
And I’m afraid Bush’s brand of politics are here to stay. It does no good to wish that Bush would get cancer or something. Sarah Palin is Bush in a skirt, basically. Populist, overly religious, authoritarian, anti-press, anti-intellectual, jingoist, messianic. We have to fight Bush’s ideas, not pray for something bad to happen to the man, that is infantile.
(But I still would love to see something bad happen to Phelps).
Part of Obama’s success was his ability to motivate moderates while still remaining a thinking man, while at the same time using the energy of the extreme in a useful way.
Yeah, it’s been fun to watch Obama pretty much live up to my expectations so far; his picks for his cabinet and refusal to cater to the out for blood crowd vis a vis Lieberman show that he was definitely the smart pick. The far right will still be expecting Armageddon and the far left is going apoplectic over actions so mainstream that even Ðìçk Cheney has to admit they’ve been rational wise choices but the people in the middle, the ones who actually thought it out before casting their vote have nothing to be alrmed at, so far at least (like any politician he has the ability to screw things up but so far so good).
his picks for his cabinet and refusal to cater to the out for blood crowd vis a vis Lieberman show that he was definitely the smart pick.
In general I’d agree, although maybe I’m just a slight member of the so-called “far left”. I wanted Lieberman gone and am fairly disappointed — not so much in Obama as in the Senate caucus, as they were the ones who made the choice. (And yes, I know that Obama had some sway there.)
I just think that if you spend an entire election cycle campaigning for the leader of the other party and bad-mouthing your party’s standard-bearer, just maybe that party should feel justified in yanking a lot of your perks. I mean, granted, I think Lieberman’s a walking pile of manure in a lot of ways, but this strikes me as fairly basic and not especially mean-spirited politics.
(And it was especially galling when Lieberman basically said “if I don’t get to keep the chairmanship I might see if THOSE guys want to go play with me.” Appalling.)
Whoops, forgot the other part.
In terms of the cabinet picks, I’d in general agree — not all of them are the people I really wanted in there, but they’re all very reasonable and justifiable choices, and all pretty frickin’ smart. I like that.
(I do think that he picked the wrong Clinton for Sec’y of State, though. Bill’s such a born diplomat that I think he’d have been terrific in the job, and said that as far back as ’04.)
TWL
“First, Rob’s oppinions are widespread among non-Americans. Like it or not, they’re not the oppinions of a lone extremist. Outside of the US, many people would love to see Bush and his circle hurting. He is incredibly unpopular (almost) everywhere. Rob is Canadian, if I’m not mistaken.”
1) The issue here is less about opinions than about attitude.
2) We shouldn’t condemn Rob too much. It’s not about extremists vs. moderates as much as a very natural inclination to go to the extreme, to the hyperbole, to the simplistic, to the emotional. It’s a common practice, quite understandable, but it’s a bad habit.
The world is not really divided to a few stupid extremists and a lot of sensible moderates. People in general sometimes are inclined to the extreme. That’s why extremists are not powerless fringes but an influential force sometimes.
There are some Israeli commentators, moderates like me who have become alienates by the practices of the more extreme left. But I have to tell you that although I tend to agree with their opinions, I still find myself feeling at times that they could be less extreme and more moderate in their attitudes.
3) Yes non-Americans… Well, people seem to be even more inclined to the over-simplification when relating to other countries. In a way, that’s what got Bush in this mess to begin with. Non-Americans have good reasons to be critical of Bush and America, but they should try to be less condescending about it — no country is devoid of stupid politicians, jingoism and all the other good stuff.
Rene: “Second, how many Americans would rejoice if something bad happened to someone like Hugo Chavez? A lot, I suspect.”
To tell you truth, I don’t know enough about Chavez to realize to what degree he is a good guy or a bad guy. He is a good example for this discussion because he’s not enough of a bad guy so that we should be happy if harm comes to him. The people who would be happy are the Pat Robertson types, I think.
“And I’m afraid Bush’s brand of politics are here to stay. It does no good to wish that Bush would get cancer or something. Sarah Palin is Bush in a skirt, basically. Populist, overly religious, authoritarian, anti-press, anti-intellectual, jingoist, messianic. We have to fight Bush’s ideas, not pray for something bad to happen to the man, that is infantile.”
Exactly. Ultimately that’s the kind of thinking that separates moderation from extreme, I think.
Sources like the PBS News Hour point out that Obama is following Lincoln’s example of hiring his campaign adversaries as part of their ongoing political coverage.
The obvious advantage of this is that all of these guys have existing access to political networks, and he can just go over to them and ask to impose on them. This is in contrast to the Bush/Rove-brand of slash-and-burn-Trotskyism we called neo-conservatism.
As far as Lieberman goes, I can understand your feelings (though were he a republican who had supported Obama I think maybe you might be more inclined to admire his desire to do what he felt was right despite the potential political cost) (then again…what political cost? maybe he knows the lack of spinal integrity in his colleagues better than we do) but keeping him was the smart move to make. A lot of costly, risky, unpopular choices may need to be made and the democrats will need every vote. makes no sense to throw any needlessly away.
Plus, I think too many of those calling for his hide came off as barking mad and the democrats know they aren’t going anywhere else so why give them more than lip service? Look, the netroots would support virtually ANY Democrat over ANY Republican. That being the case, there is no need for the Democrats to work for their votes.
I think Obama’s willingness to take Lieberman back into the fold shows that his talk of a change in tone was more than just the usual chatter. This will disappoint some of the true believers but I doubt he’s losing much sleep over that prospect.
(Note to Tim–I know your antipathy toward Lieberman is grounded in reality and a perfectly valid position to take. I’m talking about the ones who were practically frothing at the mouth for his hide. Obama gets elected and the thing they seemed most gleeful about was Lieberman finally getting punished…crazy. With all the country faces that should be small potatoes.)
(I know this may not sound like it but I mean this as a sincere compliment–I think Obama has read The Godfather as many times as I have. keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Hillary as Sec State? Masterstroke! Her fortunes are tied to his. He’s turned a potential backstabbing foe into an ally and got Bill in the bargain. No 2012 challenge from the Clintons, that’s for sure.)
I have no doubt as many supporters of Lieberman exhibit barking madness as those against him, and all the people I know who think the democrats should have yanked his privileges are each a bag of sugar sweeter than those I know who voted for McCain. From how you portray people, it’s worth mentioning.
I actually think Obama has been making a lot of good choices lately and and not throwing Joe Lieberman to the wolves was one of them. Lieberman acted like an idiot and has recently had to go so far as to lie about what he did and did not say about Obama during the campaign, but the simple fact is that he votes with the Democrats more often than he does against them.
Right now Obama has, by keeping Lieberman in the fold and not punishing him, come off looking like a magnanimous uniter, put Joe in a position where he won’t seek retribution of his own and likely created a situation where he can cash in a few favors from Lieberman in the future. The possible rewards that Obama could reap from this far outweigh the rewards that the momentary satisfaction that the “Kill Lieberman” crowd would have prompted them to give him.
Besides, following up on the Godfather comment from above, it’s easier to keep an eye on someone if they’re inside your tent rather than on the outside of it.
Tim: Bill Clinton could never be Sec’y of state. That would put him in the direct line of succession to the Presidency, and as a two term President, he would be ineligible.
PAD
I dunno, I think it would be funnier if the guy making a pretty impressive protest hadn’t been beaten to šhìŧ by the authorities for doing it.
Agree or not with how the guy exercised the freedom of speech he’d been promised, we did promise him that.
Dang PAD, I hadn’t even thought of that. You’re absolutely right.
This makes me wonder…can a president legally run for any other high office once he’s done? I’m thinking that he or she can, I seem to recall at least one who subsequently was a senator. I guess they could never become President pro tempore of the Senate or Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Probably not much chance of either of those two possibilities since I can’t imagine an ex-president running for the House and the presidency ages people to the point that I doubt they could last as long as it takes to become President pro tempore. When Obama’s one or (more likely) two terms are up he will be a real rarity–a young healthy man still, God willing.
Was Albright fired as Secretary of State when it came out she was ineligible to be president? If being disqualified from being president didn’t disqualify Albright, I don’t see why it should disqualify Clinton. I think only positions privy to specific nuclear contingency plans require you to be eligible to be president.
PAD: “Bill Clinton could never be Sec’y of state. That would put him in the direct line of succession to the Presidency, and as a two term President, he would be ineligible.”
I’m not sure that’s actually true. The only real ruling on it that I’m aware of is that you can serve no more than 10 years.
The 22nd Amendment: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
I don’t believe that this particular line of succession would be any different than a VP becoming president since it’s not based on being elected to the office. If Bill Clinton were to be SoS and something happened that put him in the Oval Office again he could serve his remaining time and then leave to be replaced by his VP pick.
I could well be wrong here, but I’ve never seen or read anything to the contrary.
Bill — you’ll get a longer response later when I have time to write it. Good points, though.
PAD — I think you’re mistaken in this case. We’ve had other Cabinet members who were ineligible to serve as President — Albright and Kissinger come to mind as two examples — so unless the law’s been changed in just the last decade or so, Bill could serve at State. He simply would have to get skipped over in the line of succession if it got that far.
If simply being in the Cabinet requires you to be eligible to be President, for that matter, then we have two people illegally in the Cabinet NOW — Elaine Chao and Carlos Gutierrez.
So I think you’re off base on this one.
Anyone have the time and inclination to get a real reference for this?
Or it could be interpreted that the line of succession can be overruled if the next in line does not qualify. If Obama nominates a 17 year old for transportation secretary and a tragic skiing accident takes out the first 13 in line, I don’t think the kid gets the job. Too young.
So if that’s the case, Bill could have gotten Sec State with the understanding that if something unfortunate were to happen to Biden, Pelosi and Byrd he would not get the keys to Airforce 1.
But Obama would never have offered it to him anyway. Bill is best used in more symbolic high profile situations–might make a good ambassador to the UN.
Tim: Bill Clinton could never be Sec’y of state. That would put him in the direct line of succession to the Presidency, and as a two term President, he would be ineligible.
This would not prevent him from being Secretary of State. He simply would not be part of the order of succession. For instance, there are often members of the Cabinet that were not born in the U.S. They cannot succeed to the Presidency. That does not stop them from serving as a Secretary of . The most prominent example that springs to mind at the moment is Madeleine Albright, who was born in Prague. If the President, VP, Speaker of the House, and President Pro Tempore of the Senate had all dropped dead, she would not have assumed the office. Whoever was Secretary of the Treasury would have had to step up.
Now, the political headaches of any former president serving as Secretary of State (or any other department) boggle the mind, but I’m not aware of any legal barrier that would keep him from a Cabinet position
Tim, I was writing while you got posted, or I wouldn’t have bothered–you’re right, of course. How Kissinger slipped my mind I don’t know.
Bill is best used in more symbolic high profile situations–might make a good ambassador to the UN.
I’ve often thought about him in terms of that option, too. I can’t see it happening now that Hillary’s going to be at State, but it’s an interesting notion.
The 22nd Amendment: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
Yeah, that only restricts the number of times he can be elected; there’s nothing in there that limits the number of years he can serve (assuming he gets in some other way than being elected).
Actually, Matt, the second half of that does limit the number of years he can serve: no more than “two years of a term to which some other person was elected.” There’s basically a ten-year maximum.
Wow, this has been informative. A little scary too. We live in a time when it is very possible for one well timed attack to cripple the government. Is there any law or rule that keeps at least one person in the line of succession away from the others at all times?
Wow, this has been informative. A little scary too. We live in a time when it is very possible for one well timed attack to cripple the government. Is there any law or rule that keeps at least one person in the line of succession away from the others at all times?
There’s a practice if not a law. During State of the Union addresses, one Cabinet member stays away from the party. There was a “West Wing” episode about that actually. The Mayor of Sunnyvale apparently was approved by the Senate somehow…