Clarification/Follow-up by Bishop_Chuck on 12/19/04 3:33 pm:
Well perhaps not the ones on his cabinet, but I did get a political appointment back in the 80's.

It was really awful to those under me, since they had worked years to get thier jobs and rank, and here I was, not even knowing what was going on in the department and no in charge of it. It was good for the years till the political atmosphere changed.

I could have keep a job, but it may have ended up in Nome Alska after the polictical forces changed.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/20/04 9:43 am:
I guess you're right, excon. I guess that its a bad thing that the President who won the lection is putting his agenda ahead of the competitions. I guess we should scrub the election process completely in order to make sure that both sides get equal time.

That's not how the election system works, it's not how politics works and it is not how the Constitution works.

Th winner sets the agenda. The winner picks his cabinet. The winner decides... not those who disagree with him.

Bush is RIGHT.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/20/04 9:57 am:
the only way he doesn't have a mandate is if the word is redefined. It is an authorization given by an electorate to its representative.In our system that kicks in when the elected official is sworn in .It just does not matter what percentage that official wins by . A 55% vote is considered a landslide . How often does that happen ?

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 12/20/04 10:06 am:

Hello again Elliot:

Well as usual, you're absolutely 100% wrong.

I don't want him to pick people from the "other" side. I want him to pick people who will give him an honest assessment of what's so - not a person who will just agree with him. That's who he's picked.

It's not good for me, it's not good for you, and it's not good for the country.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/20/04 10:13 am:
Elliot;

not only that but Bush ran on his agenda. He laid all the cards on the table in an unambiguous way .Everyone knew what he would try to do in a 2nd term and he won the election and by winning the election got tacit approval do try to implement his agenda . Now we hear ;"oh no ! he is going to do what he said he will do !"

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 12/20/04 10:21 am:

Ok, wingers:

I'll say this once. Your dude isn't fooling me at all. He's not doing a thing that I didn't expect him to do. I just don't happen to like it, that's all. And if you expect me to keep quite while he continues to do the expected, well, you're expectations will go unfulfilled.

excon (happily so)

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/20/04 10:48 am:
Excon,

So again, it's like I said. It's not that what he's doing is bad for the country... it's that what he's doing is bad for YOU, and you're not going to keep quiet about it.

Fine. You are entitled to your opinion... after all, everyone has the right to be wrong.

But we should be clear about our wording. WE are not in for a rough few years. YOU are.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/20/04 11:49 am:
update . Lieberman is now also being considered for the new position of National Intelligence Director (NID).He already turned down Homeland Security and UN Ambassador but since he pushed so hard to create the position it seems unlikely that he would turn it down if asked . I for one would not mind seeing James Woolsey fill the position if there must be a NID at all.

Also before Snow was asked to stay on at Tresury ;the Whitehouse asked Alan Greenspan to consider the position. Greenspan served at the Fed. under Administrations of both parties and cannot be considered a 'yes man '.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 12/20/04 12:28 pm:

Ok again, wingdudes:

Here's my point:

Bill Gates hires the smartest people in the world, even if (no, especially if) they’re smarter than him, and then he lets them be smart. He does NOT hire people who agree with him or who would anyway. They don't kiss his ass and they tell him when he's wrong. He's very, very successful.

In my experience, people who DON'T do that, fail, or run a mediocre shop at best.

Bush needs to run his shop in the best interest of the country, not in the best interest of his ego, his church, his campaign contributors or any of his cronies who keep telling him how wonderful he is.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/20/04 12:36 pm:
I get to hire people all the time ;yes I want them to be as smart as I can get from the job pool. I am more than willing to get input from them on any # of issues that will improve performance .

I also expect and demand that they follow my agenda because I am responsible for the outcome. I would not hire ;or would fire anyone who does not work towards the aims that I direct them to achieve.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/20/04 12:47 pm:
I have to wonder how Gates would react to one of his key people going public about their disputes ?

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 12/20/04 1:30 pm:

Hello tom:

>>>I also expect and demand that they follow my agenda because I am responsible for the outcome. I would not hire ;or would fire anyone who does not work towards the aims that I direct them to achieve.<<<

You make my point for me. Most employers demand adherence to…… something… a dress code, “aims” an “agenda”. Most employers do as you do, which is “direct” their employees. Admittedly, most times when I was in business, I directed my employees too.

Bill Gates does not do that.

It’s easy to say – not easy to do. However, the times I’ve been the most successful, is when I listened instead of directed.

It is very difficult to hire someone who knows more about your industry than you do. It is even more difficult to leave them alone after you hired them. It’s even more difficult to hire someone who’s smarter than you, who has no experience, and let them create their own project. And, it’s even more difficult than that to run a company full of mavericks like that.

Bill Gates does that.

>>>I have to wonder how Gates would react to one of his key people going public about their disputes ?<<<

I suggest, tom, that Bill Gates is more interested in software than gagging his people. It’s a pretty open company. I don’t think he gags anybody. Gagging is a concept of corporate America.

It’s true. Bill Gates does exactly the opposite of everybody else. And he’s the richest SOB around.

I wish Bush would do that.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/20/04 1:43 pm:
Excon,

Bill Gates hires the smartest people he can find.

He then tells them "THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO ACCOMPLISH". Then he let's them go and be smart... toward his end.

If for any reason any of his smart people go and publicly say "I think Bill Gates' goals are wrong", he would (and has) immediately fired them. That's what happened to James Towne (former COO), Michael Hallman (also a former COO). And Im sure there are countless others as well. They disagreed with Gates' goals, and they were gone.

Don't be stupid, excon. EVERYONE hires people who will work toward their goals rather than against them. Sure, playing devil's advocate is a useful tool in analyzing a situation... I do it myself all the time. But once the decision is made as to what the overall plan is, an executive has the right to know that everyone on his team will work toward that goal, no matter what.

THOSE are the people that Bush is hiring for his Cabinet... the smartest people around who will work toward the same agenda that he is following.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 12/20/04 2:21 pm:
Ex,

Somehow, in spite of the usually buggy software Gates sells, people buy it. I guess you (not me) could look at it that way with Bush. Enough people bought into what he was selling in spite of the bugs that he became the most powerful SOB in the world, and as with Microsoft, I suppose the alternative just wasn't as attractive to people.

One can use all sorts of examples to justify your position, but in spite of them all you can't have a team without team players, and Bush is no different than any other president in that regard. No president could afford to be any other way, and it's beyond ludicrous for people to whine and moan about Bush surrounding himself with team players...which is exactly what Kerry would have done. Why should Bush be any different?

The left just can't take a hint. They can't comprehend why anyone would disagree with their worldview, and any idea contrary to it isn't worthy of consideration. Therefore, even though Bush somehow managed to get re-elected in spite of the superior intelligence, agenda and separate reality of the left, it is incumbent upon him to govern their way because no other way will do.

Of course if Bush did cave to demands for more 'diversity' in his choices, it would open him up to a greater probability of disputes, at which point the sharks would be waiting to attack, saying "I told you so" and telling us again how stupid we are and why we need them to tell us what to think and do. What's funny is Bush is proving, much to the dismay of the left and the media, that he is smarter than that.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 12/20/04 5:17 pm:
It,

If the Dems learn how to be sharks from **you good-ole-boy-Radical Right frenzy feeders**........how you folks with your control of the *most powerful media*, television, savage and silence honest debate about issues.

Your party is THE PARTY OF SHARKS. :):):)

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 12/21/04 8:40 am:
Choux,

Have you not figured out yet that I am, for the most part, a conservative, not a ** good-ole-boy-Radical Right frenzy feeder**? Oh well, just another example of the separate reality of the anti-Bush crowd.

The reality is, the left is far more vicious in their attacks than the right. In the past week, Tim Robbins asked "How about a good, old-fashioned impeachment?" Chevy Chase said "This guy in office is an uneducated, real lying schmuck..." and called him a "dumb f***".

Today, the AP reported support for Rumsfeld was dropping in the general public. Is it any wonder with the constant barrage of negative press the past two weeks? How many reported the rest of what Rumsfeld said, or that he received a standing ovation by the same troops?

In May of this year, the Pew Research survey found liberals in the media had increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004, compared 4 percent conservative in 1995 and 7 percent in 2004.

The average audience of CBS Evening News alone in 2004 is 7.2 million, four times more than Fox News' prime time average, while MSNBC finished the third quarter as fastest growing cable network in primetime.

Try again Choux. :):):)