(02-05-2009 10:41 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(02-03-2009 04:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  In the realm of "we read people the way we expect to read them", this rates pretty high. I never said I was against welfare... in fact I fully support helping those who cannot help themselves, even for a short time. My comment about "the general welfare" was more about things like building a sports park in Puerto Rico (part of the current proposal). While this is certainly a useful thing for those people, and it is possible that someone could convince me that it was more useful that I currently believe... but on the surface, how does it benefit the people in Texas who help pay for it? The fact is it doesn't, but by voting for the project, Texans probably got something they wanted... which (to allude to another post of yours) may not be something they NEEDED.... so we get hundreds of things done simply to scratch someone's back that nobody REALLY needs. People are getting screwed, but the list of favors bought or bartered is so long, there's no way to track it... and we got funds for construction on Katy, so we don't care.

My bad for reading that wrong (it was a little ambiguous, but I see what you meant). I'm totally with you on the above argument, especially as regards the "pet projects" issue, which I'll admit I don't fully understand, not being in politics. But I think one reason for the prevalence of these kinds of things is the accumulation of wealth far and above the norm by single persons and corporations. I'm not going to get radical and argue for socialism, but we obviously take this into account in some areas (i.e., the stock market) and I have to think there is some way to get a handle on lobbying (my personal preference is to ban it entirely) and particularly the money that goes with politics. If I could devise a fool-proof system to ensure that no one who ever went into politics could get rich beyond a "reasonable" upper-middle class income, I would support that 100%. Heck, in my dream world people would have to take a vow of poverty to go into politics. Then it'd be real public service, and you'd be damn sure that only people interested in serving were applying. But I've probably strayed a bit from what you were talking about here...

How about a system like the CEOs have, where they are paid to increase revenues (GDP) and cut expenses (taxes)? The make-up of the taxes is important, to be sure... and you'd have to factor in social programs... but still, it could be done.

(02-05-2009 10:41 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  Interesting to me that you like Palin. I suppose if you really liked the "cleaning up" side of her, which I don't know enough to determine if that was a true thing or not, I can kind of see this position. My shock with Palin was not so much about her personally (though I think it would be hard to pick someone with whom I agree less), as I imagine she's a fine governor. I just was in no way convinced that she could be #2. I will 100% admit here that my sources of information were her debate, the interviews (good and disastrous) and liberal-leaning newspapers (New York Times), so perhaps I just got a very biased view. My impression of here was that she was not at all aware of the issues on a national level. This was not her fault, of course. I also thought she came off as catty ("palling around with terrorists?" really?), closed-minded (one of those never ever admit you were wrong types), and possibly even unintelligent. The last one is perhaps the least fair as I don't know her, and it could just be the effect of watching that awful interview with Katie Couric. My point is, when McCain picked HER, over all the other conservative women (if that was the reason for his choice), I thought he had totally lost his judgment. And that's a person you really really can't feel good about voting for.

This last statement is the kind of thing that usually gets me labeled "elitist", but I'll say it anyway. One reason I can't support the GW Bush's and Palin's for president is not just their politics, it's that they, as people, are very ordinary. I know that this is for some a rallying cry - "a president like the rest of us", or the even more banal "a guy you could have a beer with." I don't really understand it. For me, I want to see the BEST person the US has to offer into office. I don't mean the most intelligent, I mean the most moral, AND hardworking, AND intelligent, and understanding person we can find. I want to say of the president "this man/woman is a better person than me in every way". I'm pretty sure that GWB and SP fail in intelligence, probably in morality and certainly in understanding compared to other options on the table. GWB spent more time on vacation than any other president, so maybe I should dock him the hardworking aspect too.

I think perhaps what I liked was how proud the people of Alaska were of her. She was certainly not an elite, but as Governor of Alaska, she had to fight some pretty intelligent oil company CEOs to get concessions and entrenched politicians just to get elected. I think I was disappointed in some of her performances, but equally bothered by the fact that they WERE PERFORMANCES, and they wanted her to perform. I think back to the Nixon/Kennedy debate... Many people believe Kennedy won because he was better looking, more clean-shaven and wore colors better suited to TV (first televised debate I believe). NONE of those qualities are high on my list. As #2, I never looked at her as #1 in waiting... and frankly thought that was low brow by some... I looked at her as bringing other qualities to enhance/augment those of her running-mate.

Let me put it in perspective... I think I'm pretty intelligent. I think you are as well. I think I could be a pretty good President... do you (think you could)?? If so, would you want that job?? Do you think you'd ever get elected?? For me, the answere to those questions are no... even though I think we're proving in this and a few other conversations I'm having with people "on the other side" that we really aren't as far apart as most people think... but boy, the parties sure make us feel miles apart, don't they?

(02-05-2009 10:41 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(02-04-2009 06:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  First, I REALLY like this conversation... I hope it isn't taken wrong by you or anyone else... I find this constructive

me too! It's really really hard to offend me. As long as a debate is fueled by logical or data-backed, or at the very least coherent arguments, I'm in. I usually lose interest once people start getting emotional, and using words like "all republicans think x" or other non-constructive things. Not that I won't occasionally do it myself... I just try really hard not to.
Interesting to me that you like Palin. I suppose if you really liked the "cleaning up" side of her, which I don't know enough to determine if that was a true thing or not, I can kind of see this position. My shock with Palin was not so much about her personally (though I think it would be hard to pick someone with whom I agree less), as I imagine she's a fine governor. I just was in no way convinced that she could be #2. I will 100% admit here that my sources of information were her debate, the interviews (good and disastrous) and liberal-leaning newspapers (New York Times), so perhaps I just got a very biased view. My impression of here was that she was not at all aware of the issues on a national level. This was not her fault, of course. I also thought she came off as catty ("palling around with terrorists?" really?), closed-minded (one of those never ever admit you were wrong types), and possibly even unintelligent. The last one is perhaps the least fair as I don't know her, and it could just be the effect of watching that awful interview with Katie Couric. My point is, when McCain picked HER, over all the other conservative women (if that was the reason for his choice), I thought he had totally lost his judgment. And that's a person you really really can't feel good about voting for.

This last statement is the kind of thing that usually gets me labeled "elitist", but I'll say it anyway. One reason I can't support the GW Bush's and Palin's for president is not just their politics, it's that they, as people, are very ordinary. I know that this is for some a rallying cry - "a president like the rest of us", or the even more banal "a guy you could have a beer with." I don't really understand it. For me, I want to see the BEST person the US has to offer into office. I don't mean the most intelligent, I mean the most moral, AND hardworking, AND intelligent, and understanding person we can find. I want to say of the president "this man/woman is a better person than me in every way". I'm pretty sure that GWB and SP fail in intelligence, probably in morality and certainly in understanding compared to other options on the table. GWB spent more time on vacation than any other president, so maybe I should dock him the hardworking aspect too.

Agree very much on the quality of the conversation.

I'm basically libertarian. The least appealing republicans to me are the religious right-wingers and the neocons. And I like Sarah Palin, who was mostly portrayed as belonging in either of those camps. Why? Becuase my opinion is based on what I've seen of her as governor of Alaska (with which I've had some familiarity becuse of my work). She is a very popular governor of the most libertarian state in the country. She could not be that if she were the person that she was portrayed to be during the presidential campaign. No way.

I think she was pretty much screwed over by the media. I sincerely believe that if the criticisms applied to her lack of experience had been applied with equal vigor to Barack Obama, he'd never have made it past the Iowa caucus. But I don't fault them for that. I expect it. There is media bias in this country, and anyone who is not a far-left-winger just needs to realize it and deal with it.

I do fault the McCain campaign. They did a terrible job of presenting Palin to the American voting public. They did so poorly that I ultimately decided I could not vote for McCain, because I did not want anyone as incompetent as his campaign staff trying to run the country. I think they got seriously outbluffed by the Obama campaign. The attraction of Palin was that she wasn't one of the Washington insiders; the others--McCain, Obama, and Biden--all were. From the start she was threatening to become a bigger folk hero than the Messiah. Initial attempts to sabotage her because of domestic issues blew up in the democrats' faces, especially when she stepped up to the plate in the middle of the storm and hit a tape-measure shot. So the Obama people attacked her on those grounds--she's not one of us, she doesn't know Putin, she's got no foreign policy experience, etc. And the McCain camp choked--they're right, she's not like us, OMG what are we going to do? We'll fake it, try to make her look like one of us, after all, can't she see Russia from her house?

What if they'd had her say something like, "I haven't spent a lot of time on foreign policy because unlike certain people I thought I owed it to the voters to do the job they elected me to do as governor. I will have to come up to speed, but I'm a quick study--just ask anybody who has dealt with me in Alaska--and I will have an excellent mentor in John McCain. What I do know about foreign policy is that until we solve our energy dependence, we are subject to having to send American soldiers to die in the deserts of the middle east over and over. And I do know more about energy than the other three people on the two tickets--combined. I also know more about what it's like to live in Main Street America than anybody else on either ticket. Theyr'e all Washington insiders, I'm not. My role is to make sure that the thoughts and hopes of everyone who isn't a Washington insider will have a voice in someone who knows what life is really like. You got a daughter who's pregnant? So do I. You got a son in Iraq? So do I. I know what people in those situations are feeling, and I will be your voice in Washington."

That would have been much more in character for Sarah Palin, and I think it would have played a lot better. I wonder now whether she is too much damaged goods to be able to recover. On the other hand, having seen her in Alaska, I would not bet the ranch against her.

One (of many) areas where I think the Bushies did an absolutely awful job was succession planning. How hard would it have been for them to look at the field in 2007 and say, we've got a few young governors who might be viable VP candidates in 2008, maybe we should do a few things to polish up their resumes? How hard would it have been to send Condi Rice to Moscow to talk about something with Putin, and have Sarah go along to talk about what to do about seals in the Bering Straits or something? Get her a photo op or two with Putin, stop in London or Paris on the way over or back and do the same thing with Sarkozy and Blar or Brown. Given their well documented tastes for attractive young women, my guess is that Putin and Sarkozy would have jumped at the chance. Then have her go to Ottawa to do the same sort of thing with Harper. Do similar sorts of things to fill in gaps for Jindal, Pawlenty, Lingle, Sanford, and anyone else.

The republicans just blew it, on so many fronts. They deserved to lose.

(02-05-2009 12:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let me put it in perspective... I think I'm pretty intelligent. I think you are as well. I think I could be a pretty good President... do you (think you could)?? If so, would you want that job?? Do you think you'd ever get elected?? For me, the answere to those questions are no... even though I think we're proving in this and a few other conversations I'm having with people "on the other side" that we really aren't as far apart as most people think... but boy, the parties sure make us feel miles apart, don't they?

hehe. Intelligence is a funny thing... I'm good with numbers, a decent writer... but I am terrible at reading people, and I would have a hard time delegating and trusting my advisors (this is actually what makes me a good scientist, maybe). Maybe in 20 years I would be a lot wiser, but there is a saying in academia - "undergraduates think they know everything, graduate students realize they know nothing, and PhD's realize NO ONE knows anything." and it seems like every year I exchange one more black-and-white truth for another gray area... wiser perhaps, but also less certain. And people need certainty to lead (or, the appearance of it).

I would not get elected - too much partying at Rice (and photographic evidence), plus the real killer of not being a dyed-in-the-wool Christian of Acceptable Pedigree (catholic background! gasp!).

I have actually had a lot of leadership positions, but almost always out of necessity (i.e., no one else would do it, or I felt alternatives would be very bad) and not really desire for control... which is a typical INTP personality-type, actually (if you put faith in that psycho-babble). But if you ran for anything, I'd give you a vote... I am an Independent, after all.

(02-05-2009 06:27 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(02-05-2009 12:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let me put it in perspective... I think I'm pretty intelligent. I think you are as well. I think I could be a pretty good President... do you (think you could)?? If so, would you want that job?? Do you think you'd ever get elected?? For me, the answere to those questions are no... even though I think we're proving in this and a few other conversations I'm having with people "on the other side" that we really aren't as far apart as most people think... but boy, the parties sure make us feel miles apart, don't they?

hehe. Intelligence is a funny thing... I'm good with numbers, a decent writer... but I am terrible at reading people, and I would have a hard time delegating and trusting my advisors (this is actually what makes me a good scientist, maybe). Maybe in 20 years I would be a lot wiser, but there is a saying in academia - "undergraduates think they know everything, graduate students realize they know nothing, and PhD's realize NO ONE knows anything." and it seems like every year I exchange one more black-and-white truth for another gray area... wiser perhaps, but also less certain. And people need certainty to lead (or, the appearance of it).

I would not get elected - too much partying at Rice (and photographic evidence), plus the real killer of not being a dyed-in-the-wool Christian of Acceptable Pedigree (catholic background! gasp!).

I have actually had a lot of leadership positions, but almost always out of necessity (i.e., no one else would do it, or I felt alternatives would be very bad) and not really desire for control... which is a typical INTP personality-type, actually (if you put faith in that psycho-babble). But if you ran for anything, I'd give you a vote... I am an Independent, after all.

An INTP? So am I, curiously enough. Knowing myself, and the definitions of an INTP, . . . . I'd make a good advisor to someone in power, I'd be frustrated on the occasions when they didn't take the advice, and I'd be not the best choice when it comes to decisions, as I would constantly be analyzing. In my job, I have latitude to change my mind to improve things.

Politically, that's far less valuable a trait. The ability to plow ahead to achieve a goal is necessary, even when you know that you're scoring a 75% and not a 100.

I don't think it's a weakness to admit you're wrong. However, in politics, it hurts you more than the candor points you may gain. It's nice that Obama has taken the blame for nominating at least three tax-dodging jerks. However the whole fiasco is causing analysts to say his plans have been hurt significantly as a result.

In my way of thinking, no harm (nomination withdrawn), no foul.

However, it does bring his decision making ability into question, right or wrong.

(02-05-2009 08:24 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  An INTP? So am I, curiously enough. Knowing myself, and the definitions of an INTP, . . . . I'd make a good advisor to someone in power, I'd be frustrated on the occasions when they didn't take the advice, and I'd be not the best choice when it comes to decisions, as I would constantly be analyzing. In my job, I have latitude to change my mind to improve things.

I think it's the P that makes us constant second-guessers (and our innate desire for everything to be Exactly Correct)

The best part about being a scientist is being surrounded by NTs, I think. Of course the down-side is that you get very used to people thinking like you, and the outside world is a lot different - which is why I try to call my mother frequently as a reminder of that.

(02-05-2009 08:24 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Politically, that's far less valuable a trait. The ability to plow ahead to achieve a goal is necessary, even when you know that you're scoring a 75% and not a 100.

I don't think it's a weakness to admit you're wrong. However, in politics, it hurts you more than the candor points you may gain. It's nice that Obama has taken the blame for nominating at least three tax-dodging jerks. However the whole fiasco is causing analysts to say his plans have been hurt significantly as a result.

In my way of thinking, no harm (nomination withdrawn), no foul.

However, it does bring his decision making ability into question, right or wrong.

Hmmm... that's interesting. I was annoyed that he tried to push through the nominations when it became clear that the records weren't squeaky-clean as promised. I actually caught his apology interview on TV and was really pleasantly surprised that he had admitted being wrong (one of my absolute requirements to consider someone a decent human being is this ability) - and I'll be interested to see if it turns out to be a positive or negative for him. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be the latter.

Interestingly, Emmie and Rick... your last few posts point out something I have thought all along...

one one hand, we want a President who at least appeared to be certain.... and we call that leadership... which is a personality fault of Bush's... but like or appreciate it when Obama apologized for something as trivial (at least as compared to the conducting of War) yet in my mind, BASIC as checking to see that your nominee for Treasury had filed his taxes... what I mean by that is... the evidence that Hussein didn't have wmd, or that the Sunni's and Shiite's wouldn't "fall in line" was no where NEAR as obvious as the evidence that these guys had tax issues.

A lot of it depends on whether we like the guy in the first place... or whether we feel good about him or the job he's doing. I feel that had Bush apologized for everything that seemed like a misstep in his administration, we would have thought of him as even more incompetent than we do. I have no doubt that Obama will make mistakes in his 4th year, just as he will in his first... but if he is still apologizing for clerical/staff blunders in 4 years, his reputation will be similarly sullied. There will be a 4 hour you-tube of I'm sorry's.

I tell my son quite frequently... I am ALWAYS willing to discuss (ad nauseum) anything he wants... but when we disagree on something, I generally suggest he do it my way. Why?? Because if he do it HIS way and fails, it is his fault... and not only will he have failed, but he will be 'in trouble' for not doing as I said. If he does it MY way and it fails, he is the good son for doing what I said, and I am the failure, and will deal with the consequences. Certainly, as a young teen, he wants to try things himself, even if he fails... and that is fine. I try and limit the "do it my way"s to things I think are unfixable once done, or particularly important... Even when I fail, I feel I made the best decision I could at the time with the information available to me. I don't really feel the need to admit every mistake for doing my best, even when I'm wrong. Can you imagine a batter apologizing for every swinging strike?? CERTAINLY I feel compelled to fix it as best I can... This whole idea of expecting perfection out of people is simply beyond me (not talking about any of us)

(02-06-2009 09:59 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(02-05-2009 08:24 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  An INTP? So am I, curiously enough. Knowing myself, and the definitions of an INTP, . . . . I'd make a good advisor to someone in power, I'd be frustrated on the occasions when they didn't take the advice, and I'd be not the best choice when it comes to decisions, as I would constantly be analyzing. In my job, I have latitude to change my mind to improve things.

I think it's the P that makes us constant second-guessers (and our innate desire for everything to be Exactly Correct)

The best part about being a scientist is being surrounded by NTs, I think. Of course the down-side is that you get very used to people thinking like you, and the outside world is a lot different - which is why I try to call my mother frequently as a reminder of that.

(02-05-2009 08:24 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Politically, that's far less valuable a trait. The ability to plow ahead to achieve a goal is necessary, even when you know that you're scoring a 75% and not a 100.

I don't think it's a weakness to admit you're wrong. However, in politics, it hurts you more than the candor points you may gain. It's nice that Obama has taken the blame for nominating at least three tax-dodging jerks. However the whole fiasco is causing analysts to say his plans have been hurt significantly as a result.

In my way of thinking, no harm (nomination withdrawn), no foul.

However, it does bring his decision making ability into question, right or wrong.

Hmmm... that's interesting. I was annoyed that he tried to push through the nominations when it became clear that the records weren't squeaky-clean as promised. I actually caught his apology interview on TV and was really pleasantly surprised that he had admitted being wrong (one of my absolute requirements to consider someone a decent human being is this ability) - and I'll be interested to see if it turns out to be a positive or negative for him. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be the latter.

I agree it's a positive trait. I think it has more benefit in real life than it does in politics where you are under the scrutiny of media and millions of people . . . . . (many of whom are J's not P's and don't always cut people slack) . . . . and where there is always an opposition party (loyal or otherwise) who wants the chance to make the same decisions you are apologizing for getting wrong.

Truthfully, I'm not sure how you can vet everyone for this tax stuff. Daschle's stuff seems pretty obscene. I saw where he had helped scuttle a Bush nominee 8 years ago over less egregious, but politically incorrect, stuff. But some of this other stuff seems less serious.

The truth is that I think pretty much all of Congress and our career public servants think they're above the law or entitled, making it tough for a president to find anyone that is truly squeeky clean.

I could go on about Chappaquidick, etc, and how you or I would've been treated. Based on the sexual harassment awareness training I've had at work, I think it's fair to say that if I had taken advantage of an intern like Clinton did, I would've been jobless pretty quick. I could tack on Barney Frank and others . . . .

It's dangerous to generalize, and I doubt it would bear up under rigorous study, but it almost seems like Democrats are allowed to get away with certain things, and Republicans are allowed to get away with a different set of transgressions.

They say that Republicans get less slack on certain pecaddillos, because they are supposed to espouse family values (so we KNOW all Democrats are hedonists?)

Maybe Democrats get less slack on tax issues because they're the party that wants to increase taxes and feels that our money is really theirs . . . so when they don't bother to play by the same rules it's viewed as gross hypocrisy as well.

Again, perceptions that are probably not really grounded in any reality.

(02-06-2009 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Interestingly, Emmie and Rick... your last few posts point out something I have thought all along...

one one hand, we want a President who at least appeared to be certain.... and we call that leadership... which is a personality fault of Bush's... but like or appreciate it when Obama apologized for something as trivial (at least as compared to the conducting of War) yet in my mind, BASIC as checking to see that your nominee for Treasury had filed his taxes... what I mean by that is... the evidence that Hussein didn't have wmd, or that the Sunni's and Shiite's wouldn't "fall in line" was no where NEAR as obvious as the evidence that these guys had tax issues.

A lot of it depends on whether we like the guy in the first place... or whether we feel good about him or the job he's doing. I feel that had Bush apologized for everything that seemed like a misstep in his administration, we would have thought of him as even more incompetent than we do. I have no doubt that Obama will make mistakes in his 4th year, just as he will in his first... but if he is still apologizing for clerical/staff blunders in 4 years, his reputation will be similarly sullied. There will be a 4 hour you-tube of I'm sorry's.

I tell my son quite frequently... I am ALWAYS willing to discuss (ad nauseum) anything he wants... but when we disagree on something, I generally suggest he do it my way. Why?? Because if he do it HIS way and fails, it is his fault... and not only will he have failed, but he will be 'in trouble' for not doing as I said. If he does it MY way and it fails, he is the good son for doing what I said, and I am the failure, and will deal with the consequences. Certainly, as a young teen, he wants to try things himself, even if he fails... and that is fine. I try and limit the "do it my way"s to things I think are unfixable once done, or particularly important... Even when I fail, I feel I made the best decision I could at the time with the information available to me. I don't really feel the need to admit every mistake for doing my best, even when I'm wrong. Can you imagine a batter apologizing for every swinging strike?? CERTAINLY I feel compelled to fix it as best I can... This whole idea of expecting perfection out of people is simply beyond me (not talking about any of us)

Being a P, not a J on the Myers Briggs scale, I change my mind more often than some. Often with a mea culpa.

It's interesting that a lot of people who know me well, or maybe more to the point, are around me a lot, feel that I apologize too much (or are too concerned with perceptions to put it another way). This includes my wife and parents among others . . . .

You can overdo it, that's for sure.

(02-06-2009 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  one one hand, we want a President who at least appeared to be certain.... and we call that leadership...

To be clear, it's what I think "the people" want and call leadership (which is my usual way of saying "people not like me, which is nearly everyone"). To me, absolute certainty on anything is a dangerous path... it's the equivalent to putting blinders on, plugging your ears and say "la la la la". I would have no problem with a leader that said "remember situation X that I took that position on, well, I was wrong, and this is why". The why becomes important for judging that person - it's not like you can say "I screwed up" and get a pass. You screwed up because you were mislead? Bad data? Bias? Actually you were just trying to get away with something? But admission of wrongdoing with an honest assesment goes a lot further with me than screwing up (on big things - I don't want an apology for every stupid thing) and being unable to have the intellectual honesty to admit so.

(02-06-2009 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  which is a personality fault of Bush's... but like or appreciate it when Obama apologized for something as trivial (at least as compared to the conducting of War) yet in my mind, BASIC as checking to see that your nominee for Treasury had filed his taxes... what I mean by that is... the evidence that Hussein didn't have wmd, or that the Sunni's and Shiite's wouldn't "fall in line" was no where NEAR as obvious as the evidence that these guys had tax issues.

Did Obama know about the tax issues? (I honestly don't know). It seems silly to think these people being nominated get handed a laundry list of potentially damning transgressions with check-boxes next to them (drugs? Mistresses? bribery?) because if they are dishonest and self-serving they will lie, presumably. I guess they could do background-checks, but surely the ones in place for people already that high up should have been cleared? Or maybe checking these things is really easy and he did try to push this guy through for some reason. Not cool with me, in that case.

(02-06-2009 10:45 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  It's interesting that a lot of people who know me well, or maybe more to the point, are around me a lot, feel that I apologize too much (or are too concerned with perceptions to put it another way). This includes my wife and parents among others . . . .

I used to do this a lot as well (ok, I still do), and what's funny is that I think feeling-type people don't say sorry unless they mean it, so it must seem like we people who say it all the time are "feeling sorry" when really those words are more of a short-hand for "I was wrong" (but in a casual way, that happens all the time - we just want to be honest about it!)

(02-06-2009 03:48 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  Did Obama know about the tax issues? (I honestly don't know). It seems silly to think these people being nominated get handed a laundry list of potentially damning transgressions with check-boxes next to them (drugs? Mistresses? bribery?) because if they are dishonest and self-serving they will lie, presumably. I guess they could do background-checks, but surely the ones in place for people already that high up should have been cleared? Or maybe checking these things is really easy and he did try to push this guy through for some reason. Not cool with me, in that case.

I doubt Obama knew beforehand... but yes, I believe that potential cabinet appointments are asked "is there anything I need to know about", and in some candid conversation at some level, that would include mistresses, tax problems etc. While I would not be surprised if a candidate said no and took his or her chances, I can't believe someone nominated to be Sec Tsy wouldn't think his IRS issues wouldn't be discovered... and absolutely, I believe that the people Obama charged with vetting his nominees BEFORE their names were made public would have been granted access to IRS records of a potential Tsy Sec.

Either he rushed to put them up... which I doubt... but maybe... or his people did a VERY poor job... which I believe more... inexperience in this particular facet... not faulting Obama, just stating a likely cause... OR he just really wanted those people... and hoped nobody would notice or make a big deal out of it... which I somehow doubt.

We're not talking about him hiring a gardner or maid and forgetting to check their immigration status... we're talking about his personal taxes.

(02-09-2009 09:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Either he rushed to put them up... which I doubt... but maybe... or his people did a VERY poor job... which I believe more... inexperience in this particular facet... not faulting Obama, just stating a likely cause... OR he just really wanted those people... and hoped nobody would notice or make a big deal out of it... which I somehow doubt.
We're not talking about him hiring a gardner or maid and forgetting to check their immigration status... we're talking about his personal taxes.

'

Frank Rich had a pointed editorial on just this issue yesterday:

Rich, NYTIMES op ed

"The tsunami of populist rage coursing through America is bigger than Daschle’s overdue tax bill, bigger than John Thain’s trash can, bigger than any bailed-out C.E.O.’s bonus. It’s even bigger than the Obama phenomenon itself. It could maim the president’s best-laid plans and what remains of our economy if he doesn’t get in front of the mounting public anger."

(02-04-2009 08:52 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(02-04-2009 06:55 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  Just my $0.02 worth. Remember that Nostradamus was probably better at forecasting than me because he didn't get bogged down in details like a lawyer trained as an engineer tends to.

While we're bringing up Nostradamus and prophecy, we should probably start getting ready for the winter solstice in 2012. Multiple cultures, calendards, etc. seem to be pointing to that date as the end of the earth/history or a new beginning. Obama will still be president whenever this goes down, so I hope he's ready. And it means that whoever is elected president in 2012 really won't matter.

That's December 21, 2012, right? I want to make sure I get it correct in my calendar.

(02-09-2009 09:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ...While I would not be surprised if a candidate said no and took his or her chances, I can't believe someone nominated to be Sec Tsy wouldn't think his IRS issues wouldn't be discovered...

I am often amazed by what a politician tries to get away with!

(02-09-2009 09:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Either he rushed to put them up... which I doubt... but maybe... or his people did a VERY poor job... which I believe more...

I think of the issue with the appointees' background checks like I do my projects at work. I can delegate a task to a junior engineer, but the responsibility for accurate work is ultimately mine as the project manager--especially if I am going to be stamping engineering drawings--so, if I miss something, it is up to me to fix it, apologize, etc. From what I've heard, Obama took responsibility for not uncovering his appointees' flaws and didn't throw his staff under the bus, so I think he handled it well.

(02-10-2009 05:17 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  From what I've heard, Obama took responsibility for not uncovering his appointees' flaws and didn't throw his staff under the bus, so I think he handled it well.

Taking responsibility - good
apologizing - good.
Learning from one's mistakes - priceless.

(02-10-2009 05:17 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(02-09-2009 09:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ...While I would not be surprised if a candidate said no and took his or her chances, I can't believe someone nominated to be Sec Tsy wouldn't think his IRS issues wouldn't be discovered...

I am often amazed by what a politician tries to get away with!

(02-09-2009 09:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Either he rushed to put them up... which I doubt... but maybe... or his people did a VERY poor job... which I believe more...

I think of the issue with the appointees' background checks like I do my projects at work. I can delegate a task to a junior engineer, but the responsibility for accurate work is ultimately mine as the project manager--especially if I am going to be stamping engineering drawings--so, if I miss something, it is up to me to fix it, apologize, etc. From what I've heard, Obama took responsibility for not uncovering his appointees' flaws and didn't throw his staff under the bus, so I think he handled it well.

Agreed... question is... what did he do (or what would YOU do) to the subordinate who failed? Re-training, re-assignment, reprimand, firing (as appropriate to the offense and the "reaction"). All can be done behind the scenes. I also blame the nominee... for I believe he CERTAINLY knew he'd had trouble before. THIS is the talk I'd like to have before agreeing to push on or withdraw.

This, to me, is neither Presidential or not. It is simply right. Most coaches worth their salt will give credit to the players and take blame themselves.... at least until it comes time to negotiate their contracts.

Here's the story on the person who lead the vetting process: http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.s...ml&coll=1. This was written only after Geithner's problems were known - not anyone else's.

I had read somewhere that someone knew had taken over the internal vetting process in early February. But from the article, it sounds like she was going to be backing away, anyways. And it sounds like, despite how intrusive the whole process was, they still missed stuff or just chose to ignore it.