Werthless wrote:

allentown wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Mitt Romney has reached a new low, in my opinion. Attacking a US embassy staff during a crisis for simply trying to defuse danger is despicable.

The guy is a dick.

How do you feel about the Obama administration throwing them under the bus?

How did Obama administration throw them under the bus? The guy still has a job after issuing a statement he was specifically ordered not to issue and then issuing a running series of tweets about it. It is different to just issue a statement, believing you are acting in exigency and doing what you think your bosses would want, had they been there, and doing what this guy did -- submitting it for approval, being ordered to make revisions, and then issuing it without revision.

Truman had a plaque on his desk: "The Buck Stops Here." In the same way that CEOs are ultimately responsible for everything that happens in their organization, Obama is responsible for the official statements said by his representatives. You wouldn't want a CEO to argue "Well, I told him not to do this. It's his fault." It's throwing the guy under the bus, publicly, to avoid direct blame for the activity.

If the guy is not doing a good job representing the President, then he shouldn't have that job. That he wasn't fired reflects a lack of accountability, not lack of blame.

TenuredVulture wrote:I for one am shocked to learn that someone trained as a diplomat tried to act diplomatically.

Or more seriously, we as a society have gotten to a point where politeness and civility are not just devalued, but in fact dismissed as bad things. This is tied to the romantic elevation of emotion over reason and the central importance of feelings in our bizarre world of psychology. We see this everywhere--Boehner's tears, guests on the Jerry Springer show, sports talk radiohippies and such eschewing politeness, rappers saying the most foul things imaginable and doing in the name of "keeping it real". People say whatever pops into their head and see no value self-censorship. Indeed, those who practice self-censorship are criticize as repressed.

I blame Rousseau. And hippies.

Bucky wrote:Positive Correlation between microbreweries and Obama voters?

allentown wrote:

Werthless wrote:

allentown wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Mitt Romney has reached a new low, in my opinion. Attacking a US embassy staff during a crisis for simply trying to defuse danger is despicable.

The guy is a dick.

How do you feel about the Obama administration throwing them under the bus?

How did Obama administration throw them under the bus? The guy still has a job after issuing a statement he was specifically ordered not to issue and then issuing a running series of tweets about it. It is different to just issue a statement, believing you are acting in exigency and doing what you think your bosses would want, had they been there, and doing what this guy did -- submitting it for approval, being ordered to make revisions, and then issuing it without revision.

Truman had a plaque on his desk: "The Buck Stops Here." In the same way that CEOs are ultimately responsible for everything that happens in their organization, Obama is responsible for the official statements said by his representatives. You wouldn't want a CEO to argue "Well, I told him not to do this. It's his fault." It's throwing the guy under the bus, publicly, to avoid direct blame for the activity.

If the guy is not doing a good job representing the President, then he shouldn't have that job. That he wasn't fired reflects a lack of accountability, not lack of blame.

Again, I don't see where he threw him under the bus. If a diplomat makes a statement as representing the views of the US or the administration and it in fact does not represent those views, then the administration has an obligation to correct what was said. You are treating this as not taking political responsibility for what a way-underling civil service guy says against orders, rather than as needing to get the diplomatic message correct in the end. The guy is likely a career civil service guy and you don't just instantly fire those guys. I also think the President's message was relatively supportive of the embassy staff and the message sent out. They obviously didnt like the tweets and subsequently didn't like the guy going against orders.

Monkeyboy wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I for one am shocked to learn that someone trained as a diplomat tried to act diplomatically.

Or more seriously, we as a society have gotten to a point where politeness and civility are not just devalued, but in fact dismissed as bad things. This is tied to the romantic elevation of emotion over reason and the central importance of feelings in our bizarre world of psychology. We see this everywhere--Boehner's tears, guests on the Jerry Springer show, sports talk radiohippies and such eschewing politeness, rappers saying the most foul things imaginable and doing in the name of "keeping it real". People say whatever pops into their head and see no value self-censorship. Indeed, those who practice self-censorship are criticize as repressed.

I blame Rousseau. And hippies.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see this more as a new ager thing, rather than hippies. They are different, though most people act like they are the same. It's amazing how much static hippies catch for basically saying things that most people believe. It must be the lack of deodorant.

“It didn’t come from me. It didn’t come from Secretary Clinton,” Obama said. “It came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. And my tendency is to cut those folks a little bit of slack when they’re in that circumstance rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office.”

“It almost feels like Sarah Palin is his foreign policy adviser,” Matthew Dowd, a former political adviser to President George W. Bush, told the Washington Post. “It’s just a huge mistake on the Romney campaign’s part—huge mistake.”

On a day-to-day basis, Romney’s foreign-policy point man is Dan Senor, a former spokesman for the American government in Iraq, who wrote a book about Israel’s economy that Romney often cites. Senor, a longtime neocon, often travels with Romney. On Tuesday, according to a report from ABC News, he was travelling with Paul Ryan in order to brief him along with Reuel Marc Gerecht, another well-known neocon, and Jamie Fly, who worked at the National Security Council under George W. Bush. John Bolton is another important player in the Romney team. Often dismissed even on the right as a hirsute blowhard, Bolton appears to have persuaded Romney to take him seriously. A third influential adviser is Eliot Cohen, a professor at John Hopkins, who once worked for Paul Wolfowitz. Then there’s Bill Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, who is also said to have Romney’s ear.

Kristol, Bolton, Gerecht, Cohen, and several other of the people who are listed as informal advisers on Romney’s Web site are former members of the Project for the American Century, the neocon think tank that will forever be linked to the invasion of Iraq


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/j ... z26OOZQvxf

TenuredVulture wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I for one am shocked to learn that someone trained as a diplomat tried to act diplomatically.

Or more seriously, we as a society have gotten to a point where politeness and civility are not just devalued, but in fact dismissed as bad things. This is tied to the romantic elevation of emotion over reason and the central importance of feelings in our bizarre world of psychology. We see this everywhere--Boehner's tears, guests on the Jerry Springer show, sports talk radiohippies and such eschewing politeness, rappers saying the most foul things imaginable and doing in the name of "keeping it real". People say whatever pops into their head and see no value self-censorship. Indeed, those who practice self-censorship are criticize as repressed.

I blame Rousseau. And hippies.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see this more as a new ager thing, rather than hippies. They are different, though most people act like they are the same. It's amazing how much static hippies catch for basically saying things that most people believe. It must be the lack of deodorant.

New agers, hippies, radio talk show hosts, sports fans, rappers, Kardashians, Tim Tebow. I have a long list of people who seem proud to have eschewed politeness and have adopted an ethos of "let it all hang out".

allentown wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Mitt Romney has reached a new low, in my opinion. Attacking a US embassy staff during a crisis for simply trying to defuse danger is despicable.

The guy is a dick.

How do you feel about the Obama administration throwing them under the bus?

How did Obama administration throw them under the bus? The guy still has a job after issuing a statement he was specifically ordered not to issue and then issuing a running series of tweets about it. It is different to just issue a statement, believing you are acting in exigency and doing what you think your bosses would want, had they been there, and doing what this guy did -- submitting it for approval, being ordered to make revisions, and then issuing it without revision.

"Romney looked weak today I feel. I'm still kind of absorbing it myself. At one point, he had a certain slight grimace on his face when he was taking tough questions from the reporters, and I thought, 'He looks like Richard Nixon.'"

TenuredVulture wrote:The Foreign Service is staffed in the main by career civil servants, who cannot be fired for political reasons. Even super grades have lots of protection from politically motivated firings. I'm pretty sure the only people who work at will in the Executive branch are Presidential appointees.

jerseyhoya wrote:
I think they'll keep the attack on, but Romney needs to try and stick to substantive stuff.

Doll Is Mine wrote:Mitt Romney has reached a new low, in my opinion. Attacking a US embassy staff during a crisis for simply trying to defuse danger is despicable.

The guy is a dick.

TomatoPie wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
I think they'll keep the attack on, but Romney needs to try and stick to substantive stuff.

I think that both sides -- Romney and Obama -- know that the election will not be decided by thoughtful persons evaluating substantive stuff. Such persons pretty much know which camp they are in.

The folks in the middle -- they may vote, they may not. They watch network TV, and they are informed by Oprah, sound bytes, and the 6 o'clock news.

Each side is going to try to turn the other's words and actions into something that scares the undecideds. Does the GOP do more of that? I wish they did.

pacino wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
I think they'll keep the attack on, but Romney needs to try and stick to substantive stuff.

I think that both sides -- Romney and Obama -- know that the election will not be decided by thoughtful persons evaluating substantive stuff. Such persons pretty much know which camp they are in.

The folks in the middle -- they may vote, they may not. They watch network TV, and they are informed by Oprah, sound bytes, and the 6 o'clock news.

Each side is going to try to turn the other's words and actions into something that scares the undecideds. Does the GOP do more of that? I wish they did.

i know youre trying to sound erudite and enlightened but it's not really coming across.

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
I think they'll keep the attack on, but Romney needs to try and stick to substantive stuff.

I think that both sides -- Romney and Obama -- know that the election will not be decided by thoughtful persons evaluating substantive stuff. Such persons pretty much know which camp they are in.

The folks in the middle -- they may vote, they may not. They watch network TV, and they are informed by Oprah, sound bytes, and the 6 o'clock news.

Each side is going to try to turn the other's words and actions into something that scares the undecideds. Does the GOP do more of that? I wish they did.

i know youre trying to sound erudite and enlightened but it's not really coming across.

Thanks, professor. And why are you even in this thread? Seagull approach working out for ya?