Something for free

[casey73]

Someone once said that Americans would vote for the devil himself if it meant getting something for free. I think they just did. Welcome to your brave new world. Being on the loosing end of this, I take some comfort in knowing there will be plenty of opportunities to say I told you so when the proverbial fecal material hits the fan under Mr. Obama's watch. They are dancing in the streets in North Korea, Syria and Iran today. Remember, duck and cover

[Brian H.]

I sadly agree.

[Enzo]

Election campaign rhetoric is all fine and dandy, but it is not healthy to believe it.

W. Bush has not managed yet to start world war 3, and I suspect in his remaining days, he won't, nor I further imagine will DIck CHeney. This in the face of dire predictions made four years ago to that fate.

Now when we listen to the right wing chorus of Limbaugh/Hannity we hear again and again how liberals hate America, and we all want to sell America out to the Ay-rabs or whatever, that there is zero leadership on the left side of the aisle, and so on and so on. That's right America, fully half of us hate AMerica. Go figger.

And remember when some one - and I now forget who and don;t really care - in the congress decided to leave the republican party and changed over to the democrats? That has been a few years ago now. The L/H crowd was livid and they ranted on and on and on about what traitor this man was, he was not an American, we was utterly beneath contempt. They carefully explained that people made promises to their constituency and should keep them, etc, etc. Of course when Joe Lieberman made a similar move, he was hailed by these same people as someone of courage and a stand-up guy who libed by his principals and so on. SO apparently all you have to do to be a traitor is leave the republican party, but leaving the democratic party makes you a hero.

WE were of course also treated to various insinuation about Obama. He's a Muslim, his middle name is Hussein for God's sake. He made a slip of the tongue one speech adn mentioned he had been to most of hte "57" states. Naturally the L/H crowd staright faced came out to tell us there are 57 Arabic nations and this "obviously" was what Obama had in his heart and mind. Oh please...

He's going to raise all our taxes and destroy the economy, he's going to take away all out guns, and "oh yeah well just let him try..."


Point is, when you start to believe all this hyperbolic crap, it clouds your thinking.


Hey, I can admit that I don't REALLY think Palin is dumb as a post. She's no Nobel candidate, but she's not stupid. ANd I don;t really think that all conservatives hate the constitution so much they want to trample it into oblivion. But in terms of election rhetoric, that is standard issue.

And may I point out, it is serious bad form to start hollering "I told you so" before there is something you told us about happening.

[billybillybilly]

... every election seems like a high school popularity contest ... name calling , finger wagging and all . the lesser of 2 evils is generaly a common sentiment . with only 2 evils to choose from , we will allways be in a state of conflict or atleast advisarial in nature . its a double edged sword that drives both parties further from eachother ... even to the extent that bitter posts about losing and not about solutions rear their heads in music based forums .

if people really want to make a change , go outside and see what can be done in your own neighborhood to make things better . i guarantee complaining about not getting your way will do nothing for the country or you ... or more importantly , me .

[Mark Hammer]

Most of the rest of the world was looking forward to the election of Barack Obama. Why? Because they wanted an American leader who might talk with them rather than tell them what he was going to do and then proclaim "You're either with us or against us". I'm not saying John McCain is incapable of such a change, but the entire group of GOP hangers-on that would accompany his election might be, and as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the further removed from the Bush administration, the better. For them, McCain is like the really terrific fiancée with the family from hell that you'll never be able to get rid of.

They also wanted a sign that the USA empathised with them, and having someone who seems to be like them is a good sign of that. Just imagine you're a citizen of, say, Indonesia, and off the plane strides the president to visit your country for the first time in lord knows how long. What gives you more hope for friendly sympathetic relations, a young guy whose step-dad grew up there, or another old white guy?

America's capacity to deal effectively with its own domestic affairs will depend considerably on its ability to diminish the number of foreign distractions and costs. Whatever else his strengths or weaknesses might be, the last thing Obama will be is intransigent with the rest of the world (and there is a difference between not being intransigent, and being a sucker). This doesn't make the job of fixing domestic affairs a breeze, but it does suggest that anyone who wishes to dedicate themselves to fixing those matters will be able to do so with fewer foreign distractions.

Say what you will about the guy but he's a helluva lot more analytical than the current guy in charge. I don't know if you've ever watched question period in the British parliament (well worth it if you have the chance), but if you've ever seen Gordon Brown or Tony Blair respond during question period, you'd be utterly ashamed of your current president. Having observed Obama these last 8 months, I have no doubt he could handle himself admirably during question period.

[hasserl]

Who is this "rest of the world"? When I look around at countries criticizing the US I see countries more fucked up than a wooden carbureuter. We're suposed to be concerned about who they want in OUR Whitehouse?

Oh, I get it, misery loves company.

[Brad1]

Ahem...may I have your attention please:

http://special.cjonline.com/stories/...53922770.shtml

Oh...and here's what happened today:

http://cjonline.com/stories/111008/b...aholiday.shtml

Funny...or scary....you choose.

Brad1

[Mark Hammer]

The "rest of the world" I was referring to was a long list of countries that would love dearly to partner with the US on friendly and mutually profitable terms but are simply fed up with the tone of the Bush administration.

They have no real criticism of "the US" as people, or even as a culture, but have serious reservations about what gets foisted on them by a specific administration. Their desire to see Barack Obama elected is simply a reflection of exasperation about the recent past, and hope for the future. Nothing particularly bad about that.

I draw your attention to this: http://www.welt.de/english-news/arti...s-of-fans.html Will he make good on all of that? Time will tell, and you are entirely within your rights to be skeptical, but the fact of the matter is that hundreds of millions of folks world-wide look at his election as a sign of good things to come world-wide. And if they are willing to cut the US a bit of slack because of it, then the US has already benefitted from his election. He doesn't have to be a godsend or saint for his election to be a good thing. All he has to do is be himself on a consistent basis, and get people to work together. That's a decent start, don't you think?

Now, is it possible that folks in some places have placed a little too much faith in this transition of power? Sure.

If you have the inclination and time, here's a nice little piece to get folks to simmer down and be realistic: http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008...74&l=54&v=4860

[hasserl]

Rubbish, that speach was full of platitudes.

We've had long and succesful, mutually beneficial, partnerships with people all over the globe for centuries. Anti-war zealots and anthropogenic global warming lemmings are pissed that they had little success forcing the US to bow to their altars during the Bush Presidency. Now we're supposed to feel good that we've got a weak President that will bend to the will of citizens of other countries? Rubbish.

[Enzo]

Rubbish?

We have been pissing off our friends, that's the deal. They are still our friends but are a little cooler about us than before. We repeatedly sent out COndoleeza Rice with the message, "We will be glad to discuss our disagreement on ...whatever... issue, as long as you accede to our every demand and start doing everything we say." In other words we will discuss anything as long as you agree beforehand there will be nothing left to discuss.

When we piss off friends, we will no longer get the level of support we once enjoyed from them.

In the first gulf war, the elder Bush built a world wide coalition in support of our efforts in Iraq. In the second gulf war, the younger Bush told the world we're doing this regardless and managed to put together a supporting coalition of half a dozen troops from Iceland, a squad from ANgola and a couple volunteers from POland.

Time was we were the only 400 pound gorilla in the room, and we could say and do whatever we wanted. Now we have several 400 pound gorillas seated at the table. It just might possibly be good idea to get along with them.

[Jag]

Leaving the wars aside, just ask a Canadian about how we've been treated on the soft wood lumber issue or how much NAFTA has benefitted us. From where I sit, all benefit appears to travel South.

succesful, mutually beneficial, partnerships

are a matter of perspective.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Enzo

Rubbish?

We have been pissing off our friends, that's the deal. They are still our friends but are a little cooler about us than before. We repeatedly sent out COndoleeza Rice with the message, "We will be glad to discuss our disagreement on ...whatever... issue, as long as you accede to our every demand and start doing everything we say." In other words we will discuss anything as long as you agree beforehand there will be nothing left to discuss.

When we piss off friends, we will no longer get the level of support we once enjoyed from them.

In the first gulf war, the elder Bush built a world wide coalition in support of our efforts in Iraq. In the second gulf war, the younger Bush told the world we're doing this regardless and managed to put together a supporting coalition of half a dozen troops from Iceland, a squad from ANgola and a couple volunteers from POland.

Time was we were the only 400 pound gorilla in the room, and we could say and do whatever we wanted. Now we have several 400 pound gorillas seated at the table. It just might possibly be good idea to get along with them.

In my perspective it was Chirac and Schroeder that screwed us by not backing us in Iraq. It is US that should be pissed at them. They failed to get our backs, they bailed on us when we needed them. What kind of friend is that? It is THEY that should be groveling to us.

One can just as easily say it is others that have demanded concessions from us. But appeasement to the left never works. The left cannot be appeased by concessions, they will only take as much as they can and demand ever more. Appeasement is only viewed as weakness by the left. IF the Bush Admin remained strong in not conceding on core principals, or in areas that would result in detriment to the US, than good on them. They deserve our praise for that, not condescension.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Jag

Leaving the wars aside, just ask a Canadian about how we've been treated on the soft wood lumber issue or how much NAFTA has benefitted us. From where I sit, all benefit appears to travel South.

are a matter of perspective.

30% growth in economy.
104% growth in exports to NAFTA partners.

"In 1998, total three–way trade among Canada, Mexico and the United States rose to about $752 billion, with Canada–U.S. and Canada–Mexico trade accounting for $484 billion (Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Department of Commerce and SECOFI). Since the implementation of the NAFTA, Canada’s trade with the United States has risen 80%, while trade with Mexico has doubled.

Canada’s NAFTA exports have likewise grown substantially, and have been particularly successful in high value added sectors such as automotive equipment (trucks, cars and parts), machinery and parts and industrial goods. In 1998, the growth alone in Canada’s exports to our NAFTA markets was roughly equal to the total value of our exports to Japan and to the 15 nations of the European Union (EU) combined. The growth in our NAFTA exports last year also more than offset the drop in exports to other important international markets, attributable to the financial crisis and its aftermath. Reflecting this trend, the share of exports to NAFTA partners in Canada’s total exports has increased from 80.8% in 1993 to 84.3% in 1998."

All benefits traveled south? You're kidding, right?

[Enzo]

In my perspective it was Chirac and Schroeder that screwed us by not backing us in Iraq. It is US that should be pissed at them. They failed to get our backs, they bailed on us when we needed them. What kind of friend is that? It is THEY that should be groveling to us.

Hey guys, we're gonna go downtown and start some fights, you want to come? Who? Oh some guy we don;t like. He calls us names but he never leaves his bar stool. Oh he'll swing back at you, but he never starts things. We're gonna beat him up. You're all for that, right?

[billybillybilly]

Originally Posted by Enzo

Hey guys, we're gonna go downtown and start some fights, you want to come? Who? Oh some guy we don;t like. He calls us names but he never leaves his bar stool. Oh he'll swing back at you, but he never starts things. We're gonna beat him up. You're all for that, right?

thats awesome ! like a pseudo dead kennedys song !

give me Enzo or give me death !

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Enzo

Hey guys, we're gonna go downtown and start some fights, you want to come? Who? Oh some guy we don;t like. He calls us names but he never leaves his bar stool. Oh he'll swing back at you, but he never starts things. We're gonna beat him up. You're all for that, right?

Let me give you a different perspective:

Hey guys, that a-hole we all know so well is at it again and we'd better do something this time to stop him for good.

Yeah, good idea. We got your back if you need us.

OK then, let's do it, We're going.

Well jeeez, we didn't think you really meant it. I don't know. Uhmm, uhmm, our pants might get dirty, we might break a finger nail or something, our mommy might get mad at us. We're not gonna go.

What do you mean you're not going to go? You know what a shit head he is. He lives a lot closer to you guys, you're a lot more likely to get it before we do.

Yeah but, we don't like to fight. It's not thivilithed.

Well we're going with you or without you. Somebody's got to have some balls around here, if you're to scared to save your own ass we'll have to do it for you, again.

Oh you big bully! You're tho mean!

[Steve A.]

Originally Posted by casey73

Someone once said that Americans would vote for the devil himself if it meant getting something for free. I think they just did. Welcome to your brave new world. Being on the loosing end of this, I take some comfort in knowing there will be plenty of opportunities to say I told you so when the proverbial fecal material hits the fan under Mr. Obama's watch. They are dancing in the streets in North Korea, Syria and Iran today. Remember, duck and cover

And how exactly would that be worse than what we have been going through for the past 8 years...?

Steve Ahola

[Enzo]

ANd it all boils down to:

that a-hole we all know so well is at it again

He wasn't at anything "again." He was doing the same posturing he had been doing the previous 11 years, sitting there impotent under the no-fly-zone we were already maintaining.


Hey, we're gonna go beat a guy up. What did he do? Same old same old, he doesn't agree with me on things, and he's boastful. SO you need HELP beating this old fart up? Oh yeah, otherwise I come off a bully. Is he starting to get physical? No, he stays on his stool. Why would we want to help you perpetrate this crime? Wel, we'd be a mighty power everyone would really reallty respect. No, they'd think you were a bully. You start a fight in there, the waitresses will get hurt, the bar owner will be out a lot of lost business, not to mention repairs. Are you kidding me? WHy that there bartender would welcome us as liberators. And you don't think all his drinking buddies would react? Nah, we are a really really strong powerful mob, they wouldn;t dare slash our tires every day. They wouldn;t dare try to burn down our house. Cause we're really really... yeah we heard you... no thanks.

[billybillybilly]

... so does this mean were starting a crusade against drunk asshole barflys ? hmmm , sounds like weve got our hands full with that one . seeing as theres a handfull of assholes in every bar , we gonna need some more free time ... or were we gonna stop after that first one and just leave the job unfinished ?

[Mark Hammer]

Well, you're assuming that they (Bush and Co.) made wise decisions, and Chirac, Schroeder, and Chretien were UNwise to say "Nah, we think we'll sit this one out". There are a great many who were pretty confident at the time that wise decisions were not made in the White House about Iraq, and those initial assumptions have been backed up empirically pretty much every month since the beginning.

At least McCain had the cojones to tell David Letterman that he screwed up. Robert McNamara had the cojones to admit that many grave errors had been made with respect to Vietnam. Bush and Co. have never had the cojones to admit they screwed up, at any time. I do not even expect any sort of memoir 10 years down the road that will say "In hindsight, I may have screwed up".

[Enzo]

Of Bush it has been said, "Bush doesn't think, he believes."

How can you make mistakes when everything you do is right without question?

[hasserl]

That's not very fair. Because of the treatment of Bush by the media he can't admit to any mistakes. If he admitted mistakes in any way it'd be like bending over to pick up the bar of soap in a prison shower. Your hatred of Bush leads to a very misguided perception of him.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Enzo

ANd it all boils down to:



He wasn't at anything "again." He was doing the same posturing he had been doing the previous 11 years, sitting there impotent under the no-fly-zone we were already maintaining.


Hey, we're gonna go beat a guy up. What did he do? Same old same old, he doesn't agree with me on things, and he's boastful. SO you need HELP beating this old fart up? Oh yeah, otherwise I come off a bully. Is he starting to get physical? No, he stays on his stool. Why would we want to help you perpetrate this crime? Wel, we'd be a mighty power everyone would really reallty respect. No, they'd think you were a bully. You start a fight in there, the waitresses will get hurt, the bar owner will be out a lot of lost business, not to mention repairs. Are you kidding me? WHy that there bartender would welcome us as liberators. And you don't think all his drinking buddies would react? Nah, we are a really really strong powerful mob, they wouldn;t dare slash our tires every day. They wouldn;t dare try to burn down our house. Cause we're really really... yeah we heard you... no thanks.

Your analogy doesn't work. This guy wasn't as contained as you'd like to think. Check out this link:

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

But this has been hashed out years ago, and we're not going to change things now. The deal is, it wasn't your's or my decision to make. It was the Prez's, and like it or not it was his decision. The best thing to do in that case is to support the decision and get it done. The worst thing to do is exactly what has been done for the past 5 years, the lack of support.

There is no doubt that had France and Germany signed on and joined the effort things would have gone very differently. Not that we needed their military help (as if they actually had anything to offer), we needed their help politically. Their decision to not support us hurt us politically, not militarily. And for that they should be shamed. Don't offer excuses and bad analogies for them. They suck and they deserve to smoke turds in hell.

[Steve A.]

Originally Posted by hasserl

... The deal is, it wasn't your's or my decision to make. It was the Prez's, and like it or not it was his decision. The best thing to do in that case is to support the decision and get it done. The worst thing to do is exactly what has been done for the past 5 years, the lack of support...

So it is *our* fault that the war to liberate the oil in Iraq failed so miserably? Talk about blame the messenger...

The country as a whole has been very supportive of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq so I don't get your point.

Yes, Saddam was evil but why are we in the middle of a civil war in which all of the sides would wish we would just leave? I think it would have been better for the CIA or some other black ops to have just seen that Saddam was assassinated and that an acceptable leader was ready to take over. Of course a strategy such as that would not have liberated the oil, just the people...

And yes, the President does get extra powers in time of war, but I think what the framers of our Constitution had in mind was a war against a specific country, not a war against a general concept like terrorism. I'm surprised that our rights were not suspended during the infamous War on Drugs...

"My leader, right or wrong" was what lead to the Nazi's rise to power in the 30's and 40's...

But I think that we have been ignoring the real power behind the throne- Dick Cheney. He's been calling the shots since Day One, restoring the powers of the executive branch which had been restricted after Watergate. If Bush was the dumb frat boy I could never stand in college, then Cheney was the Emperor in Star Wars- evil through and through...

Steve

[hasserl]

So it is *our* fault that the war to liberate the oil in Iraq failed so miserably? Talk about blame the messenger...

I never said that now, did I. But who said the war failed miserably. It seems to me the war was won quickly and decisively in just a few short weeks. The post war occupation has seen some pretty bad times, but the war itself was relatively short and painless for us.

But back to your question, I think those that demonstrated in the streets against the war both before it started and during it's course, then after it was over, most definitely have culpability in what happened there. They gave encouragement to the enemy, and it is clear that the terrorists in Iraq played to the demonstrators using the media to exploit their deeds. If you took part in any of those demonstrations you have the blood of our soldiers on your hands. You simply cannot say you support the troops while you provide comfort and support to the enemy they are fighting. That is completely illogical.

why are we in the middle of a civil war in which all of the sides would wish we would just leave?

I don't think it's accurate to call the situation a civil war, and I don't think it's accurate to say that all sides wish we would just leave. The government actually wants us there and knows they need us there.

I think it would have been better for the CIA or some other black ops to have just seen that Saddam was assassinated and that an acceptable leader was ready to take over

Maybe, we can't do that.

I think what the framers of our Constitution had in mind was a war against a specific country, not a war against a general concept like terrorism

Wasn't the war in Iraq against a specific country?

But I think that we have been ignoring the real power behind the throne- Dick Cheney. He's been calling the shots since Day One, restoring the powers of the executive branch which had been restricted after Watergate. If Bush was the dumb frat boy I could never stand in college, then Cheney was the Emperor in Star Wars- evil through and through...

That is completely rediculous in every possible way. That is simply a characature that has been presented to you by Bush/Cheney haters that will use any means of propaganda to demean them. Bush get's full credit or blame in what took place. He obviously was advised by and influenced by Cheney and others around him. But there is no way at all Cheney is the monster you make him out to be or that he was the one making any decisions at all. That is pure bullcrap and couldn't be farther from the truth.

I still like the bumper sticker that says "I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than for a drive with Ted Kennedy".

[Steve A.]

Originally Posted by hasserl

... Wasn't the war in Iraq against a specific country?

While there is no dispute that we invaded Iraq in March 2003 with the assistance of our allies like Britain, I do not recall that we actually declared war on Iraq, as we had declared war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Of course the government that we put in power in Iraq supports us- without our support they would not be in power; I was referring to the people at large. Although Saddam was pure evil, I think that most Iraqis would say that they were better off when he was in power, just in terms of the infrastructure and utilities. Not that I would want to live under the rule of a dictator myself.

The government should have sent Jack Bauer in take out Saddam... "if you're caught, you're on your own!" That is the whole point of black ops.

Steve Ahola

P.S. You are a very brave man to offer to go hunting with Dick Cheney- I know that I would be scared spitless! For a good read, you ought to pick up "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein for a fresh view of everything that has been happening in our country over the past few decades: there is a method to the madness!

[Enzo]

It seems to me the war was won quickly and decisively in just a few short weeks. The post war occupation has seen some pretty bad times, but the war itself was relatively short and painless for us.

There it is, you are in denial. The war didn't "end" the day the troops got to Baghdad. The war is still going. A war is more than tanks rolling and generals surrendering. The initial battle was won quickly and decisively.

We were told the Iraqis would greet us as liberators in the streets. Didn;t turn out that way. Were SOME of them happy to see us? Of course. DId we as a nation see those few and think Oh goody they love us? No. Did our military think Oh goody Iraq welcomes us, problem solved? No. Did our soldiers think Oh goody they love us here, we have nothing to worry about? No. SO the fact that some of them were on our side over there didn;t change our perception that there was still trouble.

SO why then should we think for even a moment that these terrorists and others in Iraq or anywhere else are going to look at AMerica and see some people disagreeing with the Bush government and somehow think things were going their way? Are you sincerely trying to tell us that oh gee, they were going to accept our invasion and occupation as a wonderful thing, but now that they see some AMericans in protest they they would change their minds and start sending car bombs hither and yon?

Wasn't the war in Iraq against a specific country?

NO, it was not. The war in Iraq was IN a specific country, but the war was NEVER against Iraq. The president specifically would NOT declare war on Iraq. Why? Because to declare war on Iraq, he would have to rely on the congress to do it - it says so in the constitution - and Bush wouldn;t want to leave any possibility that he would have anything in the way of doing whatever the fuck he wanted. ONly congress can declare war.

[Mark Hammer]

Originally Posted by hasserl

That's not very fair. Because of the treatment of Bush by the media he can't admit to any mistakes. If he admitted mistakes in any way it'd be like bending over to pick up the bar of soap in a prison shower. Your hatred of Bush leads to a very misguided perception of him.

Actually, it works the other way, the media treatment was very much a consequence of his consistent failure to admit ANY failing or misjudgment whatsoever. Now, have the press behaved like a pack of hyenas leaping on a wounded gazelle? Yes, I would say so. But even folks like Helen Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas), who is no janie-come-lately to the Washington press corps, have been appalled at what they have seen in the current administration.

Ironically, the behaviour of the Bush administration has been echoed in the tone of responses like the one you provided, and certainly in the tone of many right-wing or Republican (and they aren't always the same thing) media pundits. It IS possible to say "I generally agree with the president on most matters, but here I disagree vehemently. He slipped up on that one." Bt the prevaililng tone has been to disavow any recognition of error in judgment at any point in any action.

The problem has been a fundamental lack of wisdom. One of the principal qualities or traits of the wise individual (and this is true of characterizations of wisdom across history, culture, and age) is the capacity to question the certainty of their knowledge, judgment, and life. The wise person says "But I could be wrong about that." The Bush administration was perhaps set on their course already when they entered office, but certainly the events of Sept 2001 cemented their approach to things as one of absolute certainty at all times, against all criticism. A traumatized America needed assurance from their leadership in the months afterward, and he provided it, but he continued on that path well past the point where it was needed, and it eventually morphed into sheer pig-headedness. Here's an interesting piece concerning wisdom, leadership, and the qualities of several administrations/candidates: http://hnn.us/articles/52853.html

You know, you guys could REALLY use something like the Westminister system to restore confidence in your leadership. Under that system, the Prime Minister is the leader of the nation, but is also a member of the House of Commons, like any other MP (or congressman, in your case). That means they have an obligation to face questions from the opposition in the House, and think on their feet like anyone else during debates, instead of only trotting out now and then to face the press with prepared notes, and absolute control over the duration of questioning. When you have a chance, take a gander at question period from the British parliament. I would say the Canadian parliament, but theirs tends to be livelier these days with less needless hooting. Ours has the pacing of NFL/CFL football, while theirs feels more like NHL playoff-quality hockey - really fast pacing. Plus, they sit closer to each other which adds a slightly different dynamic. Whatever his flaws were as leader, Tony Blair rarely failed to impress during question period. That guy was sharp as a tack.

[Steve Conner]

Mark, have you seen this?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bring-Home-R.../dp/1841150215

(The thesis of the book is that the Westminster system sucks and should be scrapped in favour of the American one.)

As far as I'm concerned, Gordon Brown can do no wrong, what with being a Scotsman.

[Mark Hammer]

Gord holds his own during question period very nicely too, if I may say so.

Actually, my comment was not so much a suggestion that the USA change its system of governance. Rather, they typically do not have the same opportunity to see how their leader thinks on his or her feet that some other nations have. That opportunity, plus someone in the saddle who CAN think on their feet (as opposed to having scripted Saturday radio broadcasts), would provide a delightful opportunity for Americans to feel some confidence in their leadership (and in their system of leadership) again. It is one thing to vote for someone because you like them or trust them better than another person. And it is quite another to watch how their mind works in real time when tackling a challenge posed to them by someone they are not permitted to simply ignore. With the exception of presidential debates, Americans have been cheated out of that opportunity for too long. I think they're nice people and they deserve better than having a leader who is sequestered away.

I should note that I am quite willing to accept that my view of GWB, based on what I have been able to see, might be misinformed. He might be impressive during question period, although my gut sense from what I have been able to see is "not likely". The point is that we shall never get to see about GWB what Brits, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders (among others) get to see about their leaders on a regular basis.

If Barack Obama wanted to seriously change the Washington dynamic for good, he could do no better than to schedule regular appearances before Congress to answer questions from all sides, much like question period. Once you open that door, there is no going back. Anything else would start to feel like an oligarchy operating behind closed doors.

NOTE: Of course, the very existance of Freedland's book suggests that the Westminister system is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of governance in the eyes of everyone.

[Enzo]

No matter what system we or anyone else may have, there will always be a "grass is greener on the other side" advocate.

I think W is not a dumb as he seems, but he is certainly not agile in ad lib situations. Reagan was great at presenting himself, but terrible when he went off the cards.

Success or failure as a president I do look forward to having someone atriculate in the WHite House.

[Mark Ingram]

Originally Posted by Mark Hammer

question period...

Two points from a different perspective:

1. Obama has shown his own difficulties when going off the teleprompter ('57 states', 'clinging to guns and religion')

2. The kind of (apparently unrestricted) shouting out of questions as I saw Tony Blair endure seems like the contest will always go to the one who is able to make the most noise. Thoughtful responses have to ba abandoned in favor of making enough noise. Soft-spoken, less-verbose people seem doomed to lose, regardless of their ability to analyze the problem or prepare a rational, intelligent response.

I do see the advantage of having the Pres/PM stand for questions before Congress, but I think we could also benefit from allowing John/Jane Q. public the opportunity to subject Congressional Represantatives and Senators (MPs and MLAs north of the 49th) to the same sort of questioning.

[Mark Hammer]

Originally Posted by Mark Ingram

Two points from a different perspective:

1. Obama has shown his own difficulties when going off the teleprompter ('57 states', 'clinging to guns and religion')

Fair point. We have our own collection of "interesting" prime ministerial quotes here ("Pepper? I put it on my plate.")

2. The kind of (apparently unrestricted) shouting out of questions as I saw Tony Blair endure seems like the contest will always go to the one who is able to make the most noise. Thoughtful responses have to ba abandoned in favor of making enough noise. Soft-spoken, less-verbose people seem doomed to lose, regardless of their ability to analyze the problem or prepare a rational, intelligent response.

It's actually quite orderly and articulate, but it IS a bit like watching a hockey game for the uninitiated. The shouting is to have one's question recognized next by the Speaker of the House. Depending on the tone of the question, the reply CAN have a bit of spin, or at least make some digs, but I find most replies I've watched are answered competently.

I do see the advantage of having the Pres/PM stand for questions before Congress, but I think we could also benefit from allowing John/Jane Q. public the opportunity to subject Congressional Represantatives and Senators (MPs and MLAs north of the 49th) to the same sort of questioning.

I think that is an excellent idea. My only caveat is that they need to understand both the issues and the available mechanisms for addressing them. Too many people know too little about government, and can waste too much time complaining or inquiring about things that do not work the way they think. But still, there is no shortage of people who are not elected officials that DO understand the issues and available mechanisms and can ask excellent questions.


Oh, and hi, Mark. We haven't traded notes in a while. Hope all goes well with you.