|
|
Terrorists on ROFF?
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:56:01 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote: But the trouble is that that his refusal to admit to *any* mistakes comes across as being borderline pathological. It seems to me that he would gain in stature, not lessen it, by identifying where mistakes were made and then pointing out how he's learned from them. Thereby he will be able to avoid repeating them in the future. My major qualm concerning this issue is that far from his "no mistakes" being a campaign ploy to show him as a strong leader, it may be an actual reflection of his view of himself, the world and his place in it. What I meant was that his admitting to mistakes when asked that question during the debate or in press conferences would serve no good purpose in terms of the election - it's a "no-win" situation for any candidate and admitting specific mistakes does nothing really but give ammo to opponents - look at the raking Kerry took over his "I made a mistake" comments. Bush has said things such as that he'd rethink certain things, etc. and in point of fact, he didn't say he never made a mistake, he said that he was sure he had made mistakes, but he just couldn't think of one at that moment. And yes, ff course, it was election politics answer, but again, about the only choice any candidate would have. I do find it interesting that Kerry and Edwards don't get put the same questioning by the press corps in general (but granted, when they make a mistake G and admit to a specific mistake, they do get slammed over it). TC, R |
Terrorists on ROFF?
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:56:01 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote: But the trouble is that that his refusal to admit to *any* mistakes comes across as being borderline pathological. It seems to me that he would gain in stature, not lessen it, by identifying where mistakes were made and then pointing out how he's learned from them. Thereby he will be able to avoid repeating them in the future. My major qualm concerning this issue is that far from his "no mistakes" being a campaign ploy to show him as a strong leader, it may be an actual reflection of his view of himself, the world and his place in it. What I meant was that his admitting to mistakes when asked that question during the debate or in press conferences would serve no good purpose in terms of the election - it's a "no-win" situation for any candidate and admitting specific mistakes does nothing really but give ammo to opponents - look at the raking Kerry took over his "I made a mistake" comments. Bush has said things such as that he'd rethink certain things, etc. and in point of fact, he didn't say he never made a mistake, he said that he was sure he had made mistakes, but he just couldn't think of one at that moment. And yes, ff course, it was election politics answer, but again, about the only choice any candidate would have. I do find it interesting that Kerry and Edwards don't get put the same questioning by the press corps in general (but granted, when they make a mistake G and admit to a specific mistake, they do get slammed over it). TC, R |
Terrorists on ROFF?
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:56:01 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote: But the trouble is that that his refusal to admit to *any* mistakes comes across as being borderline pathological. It seems to me that he would gain in stature, not lessen it, by identifying where mistakes were made and then pointing out how he's learned from them. Thereby he will be able to avoid repeating them in the future. My major qualm concerning this issue is that far from his "no mistakes" being a campaign ploy to show him as a strong leader, it may be an actual reflection of his view of himself, the world and his place in it. What I meant was that his admitting to mistakes when asked that question during the debate or in press conferences would serve no good purpose in terms of the election - it's a "no-win" situation for any candidate and admitting specific mistakes does nothing really but give ammo to opponents - look at the raking Kerry took over his "I made a mistake" comments. Bush has said things such as that he'd rethink certain things, etc. and in point of fact, he didn't say he never made a mistake, he said that he was sure he had made mistakes, but he just couldn't think of one at that moment. And yes, ff course, it was election politics answer, but again, about the only choice any candidate would have. I do find it interesting that Kerry and Edwards don't get put the same questioning by the press corps in general (but granted, when they make a mistake G and admit to a specific mistake, they do get slammed over it). TC, R |
Terrorists on ROFF?
"riverman" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... I, myself, am not particularly religious, but I'd much rather have a man with Bush's beliefs than a man with none at all - as always, YMMV. Why is that? Is there some assumption that a religious person has some sort of Moral Compass that a non-religious president would lack? Or that a religious president is less likely to be extemist or something? I think both of those perspectives have been borne out to be very false over history... It has always amazed me that non-religious Americans would want as their CIC and President someone who professes to believe in an invisible, supernatural being with whom he can talk and who gives him instructions for his actions. (To the non-religious, thats how it must look.) To them, that would be a character flaw, not a desireable trait, I'd think! --riverman It is a character flaw. We have elected a man who says he is guided by one of the most backward, primitive brands of garbled nonsense on that whackjob shelf known as fundamentalist Christianity ( itself a simplified, backwoods form of primitive Judaism). (Everybody has heard his version of "speaking in tongues", Im waiting for him to start handling snakes in the oval office.) His "religion" is the standard "born again" ex-honky-tonker strain, favored by poorly educated, ex-snake oil salesman, usually adopted after long periods of drunkenness, family abuse, and unethical business practices. Its a way to avoid being a man and making amends for the damage such a person does. And, It is a secular pseudo-religion that exploits the obligation of other Christians to exercise "forgiveness." Clinton used it too, but didn't build his career on it. Bush, in a stroke of evil genius, forged his political career by exploiting this "forgiveness" thang, But . . . George's inability to admit mistakes is the "tell" that gives him away as a smirking cynical smartass, because a basic tenant of the "born-again" deal is a full and public asking for forgiveness. That is something his inner DKE could never do. It may yet bite him in the ass. Robertson may smell the inner rat. Dave Face it, the Emperor has no clothes. |
Terrorists on ROFF?
"riverman" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... I, myself, am not particularly religious, but I'd much rather have a man with Bush's beliefs than a man with none at all - as always, YMMV. Why is that? Is there some assumption that a religious person has some sort of Moral Compass that a non-religious president would lack? Or that a religious president is less likely to be extemist or something? I think both of those perspectives have been borne out to be very false over history... It has always amazed me that non-religious Americans would want as their CIC and President someone who professes to believe in an invisible, supernatural being with whom he can talk and who gives him instructions for his actions. (To the non-religious, thats how it must look.) To them, that would be a character flaw, not a desireable trait, I'd think! --riverman It is a character flaw. We have elected a man who says he is guided by one of the most backward, primitive brands of garbled nonsense on that whackjob shelf known as fundamentalist Christianity ( itself a simplified, backwoods form of primitive Judaism). (Everybody has heard his version of "speaking in tongues", Im waiting for him to start handling snakes in the oval office.) His "religion" is the standard "born again" ex-honky-tonker strain, favored by poorly educated, ex-snake oil salesman, usually adopted after long periods of drunkenness, family abuse, and unethical business practices. Its a way to avoid being a man and making amends for the damage such a person does. And, It is a secular pseudo-religion that exploits the obligation of other Christians to exercise "forgiveness." Clinton used it too, but didn't build his career on it. Bush, in a stroke of evil genius, forged his political career by exploiting this "forgiveness" thang, But . . . George's inability to admit mistakes is the "tell" that gives him away as a smirking cynical smartass, because a basic tenant of the "born-again" deal is a full and public asking for forgiveness. That is something his inner DKE could never do. It may yet bite him in the ass. Robertson may smell the inner rat. Dave Face it, the Emperor has no clothes. |
Terrorists on ROFF?
riverman wrote:
snip It has always amazed me that non-religious Americans would want as their CIC and President someone who professes to believe in an invisible, supernatural being with whom he can talk and who gives him instructions for his actions. (To the non-religious, thats how it must look.) To them, that would be a character flaw, not a desireable trait, I'd think! --riverman Yes, that is how it looks. But there's no choice. A non-religious person could never get nominated, let alone elected. And not just agnostics or atheists - just being unwilling to join or attend a church would blacklist you for a large part of the American public. -- Stan Gula |
Terrorists on ROFF?
riverman wrote:
snip It has always amazed me that non-religious Americans would want as their CIC and President someone who professes to believe in an invisible, supernatural being with whom he can talk and who gives him instructions for his actions. (To the non-religious, thats how it must look.) To them, that would be a character flaw, not a desireable trait, I'd think! --riverman Yes, that is how it looks. But there's no choice. A non-religious person could never get nominated, let alone elected. And not just agnostics or atheists - just being unwilling to join or attend a church would blacklist you for a large part of the American public. -- Stan Gula |
Terrorists on ROFF?
riverman wrote:
snip It has always amazed me that non-religious Americans would want as their CIC and President someone who professes to believe in an invisible, supernatural being with whom he can talk and who gives him instructions for his actions. (To the non-religious, thats how it must look.) To them, that would be a character flaw, not a desireable trait, I'd think! --riverman Yes, that is how it looks. But there's no choice. A non-religious person could never get nominated, let alone elected. And not just agnostics or atheists - just being unwilling to join or attend a church would blacklist you for a large part of the American public. -- Stan Gula |
Terrorists on ROFF?
Tim J. wrote: But the trouble is that that his refusal to admit to *any* mistakes comes across as being borderline pathological. It seems to me that he would gain in stature, not lessen it, by identifying where mistakes were made and then pointing out how he's learned from them. Thereby he will be able to avoid repeating them in the future. My major qualm concerning this issue is that far from his "no mistakes" being a campaign ploy to show him as a strong leader, it may be an actual reflection of his view of himself, the world and his place in it. All of what you say would be correct in "real-world every day life", but doesn't work in the political realm. This goes to another point I made earlier, that a "real" person, like one who admits their shortcomings or mistakes, cannot be elected or retain a high elected office. The opposition (either side) has teams of people looking for the Achilles' Heel of the other. If I was running for office (not likely, for the same reasons Wayne K. already detailed) and said I made a mistake, my side would say exactly what you did about being able to identify mistakes and learn from them. My opposition, however, would slam me for flip-flopping (sound familiar?) and making the mistake in the first place. It's a no-win move to admit a mistake within the political arena. Unfortunately, that's how I see things too. Given our political system, I agree that it would be a "political" mistake for a politician to admit to a mistake. For some reason, it seems the electoral populous has the illusion that somehow a President should be infallible and admitting that a mistake was made is political suicide. Maybe I've lead a sheltered life or hang out with the wrong people, but I've yet to meet an infallible person. EVERYONE makes mistakes. It's how a person deals with the mistakes he's made that's important. What is labeled as flip flop , isn't necessarily a bad thing and what is labeled as consistency and steadfastness could be a disaster. Realizing that you have made a mistake and changing your actions to rectify that mistake is MUCH better, IMO, than to continue to be steadfast in your opinion when you are wrong. Willi |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter