Can I also suggest that the party of "old white men" actually make a stronger effort to reduce that image? A little?
If we want to bring in more people to the party, (more young people?) it needs to reflect their ideas of what America looks like a little more. Or, at least we should promote our diversity a little better on the public stage.
Not just the Thomas Sowells or Condoleeza Rice's, but at the lower levels of our constituency. and, while I understand during elections we tend to shy away from "lost causes" to consolidate for wins, now is the time to look into communities for good candidates that can challenge the idea that the left has control of "minorities" (swiftly becoming a larger part of our society than ever before).
And, women, of course. There are so many women in business these days and part of the larger community "activism". McCain is doing a decent job of promoting that. I don't mean with Palin, but in starting to have more women on his advisors list. But, community organization is very much a part of women's lives. You can't get much more grass roots than that.Comment Posted By kat-missouri On 30.10.2008 @ 14:41
As someone who wrote rather disparaging about Peggy Noonan and Parker's attacks on Palin over at Ace's, I'll agree with several aspects of your post.
Whatever I felt about those attacks, I don't agree with "purges". One of the other posts I wrote was very simple to the point. The Republican Party in general lacks several important aspects right now that are actually the cause of this undisciplined chaos and, in many ways, relates to the reason that bloggers haven't really coalesced into a good message machine. I think you hit on it, to some degree when speaking of the "punditocracy" of the right, but I would add that the pundits are left out, not just because the party lacks a concentrated effort to use these devices, but because of the top five things the party itself is missing. And, it relates to why there is a sense of war between the elites and populists.
1) No central message.
2) No Leadership
3) No Organization
4) No Discipline
5) No Party Loyalty
Harsh? Well, it's ten days out from the main election and the Cannibals are already tearing off chunks of the party and devouring it. They act like it is for the good of the party. Well, somebody ought to tell the Cannibals that it is damned hard to run a race when one of your legs has been chewed off and the cannibals are trying to rip your throat out. A little harsh reality seems to be in order here.
Why are so many republicans willing to go to the press and leak this or leak that about the politicians they serve? Why are certain commentators on conservative politics ready to devour and spit out parts or whole of the Republican Party and its candidates? Why is the Republican base so lackluster about their candidate or angry with these conservative "elitist" commentators?
See numbers 1 thru 4 leading to number 5. Don't blame reason 5 for numbers 1 thru 4. You only engender loyalty by having all of the others. So, here's a question for you? Who is leading the Republican party? Who is setting the message?
Can you point to anyone who is setting the message in the party or leading it?
Let me repeat those here. And, yes, I believe that some on the blogs would like to help set the next message.
I believe that one of the issues that may become the most contentious is the social conservative aspects of the party v. the libertarian economic and foreign policy hawks. Largely because some social conservative issues do not motivate these folks. Some of them don't motivate me, either. But there are ways to address them without shaving either the libertarians or social concerns off because there are certain values that we can agree on. It's those shared values that need to be the message, not necessarily a hodge podge of every message.Comment Posted By kat-missouri On 30.10.2008 @ 14:24
You seem to forget that there are all sorts of private schools and universities that are religious based. I need to look it up, but I believe one such institute has contributed a number of very successful CEOs and other executive management people.
The question here is whether he separates his duty and responsibilities as an administrator for the program from his beliefs and any tendency to prosletyze. People do this in every day life, as Chris points out. There should be a similar expectation for this gentleman and, aside from his position as Dean and the other appointment he filled, there is no indication that he has violated this tenet.
Further, when the constitution said, "there shall be no religious test" for public office, it meant not only that the government cannot demand a person have a specific religious belief to hold office, but that the office could not be denied to them because of their beliefs.
Now, you all might wish to believe that I am arguing this from the point of some sort of "fundamental Christian" belief (did it scare you that I wrote it?), but my point is simply that religious professions of faith cannot be the tool for discrimination against a person, neither the lack of or the belief.
If you found out he was a wiccan would this disqualify him?
If he was a Deacon of the LDS, would this disqualify him? If he was a professed atheist would that disqualify him?
To me, the question is not his faith, but his ability to manage a large organization successfully. If that proof of management ability includes or consists of managing a religious institution (such as this university) or charity, what is the difference? Does it make him less qualified than the CEO of Northwest Camping Gear? Or more?Comment Posted By kat-missouri On 30.11.2005 @ 13:32
I'd say you were missing the point. The point is, if the guy believes in leprachauns, St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland or that Genesis is the literal history of the creation of earth, what's that got to do with his ability to count, manage people and make appropriate business and administrative decisions?
As long as he doesn't make anyone kiss the crucifix everytime they enter his office or sign any such pledge when working for USAID, there's no question or problem.
Now, Rick points to some issues, but then another poster comes along and points to this man's other posts and responsibilities which clearly indicate that he has more than religion or religious based employment to recommend him to an administrative or leadership position. Thus, I return to my original point, what does his religious beliefs have to do with being able to run a program effectively and efficiently?Comment Posted By kat-missouri On 30.11.2005 @ 00:14
Is it possible that the Dean of this university actually did the things Deans are supposed to do, like, I don't know, boost enrollment; improve funding from alumni, government grants (by very good writing) and other resources; reduce costs; improved testing scores and number of graduating students and all the other important business like Dean responsibilities for a University?
Do you really think that, even if this guy does hold fundamental beliefs of Christianity, that this some how disqualifies him as a good administrator? Do you suppose he'll go around the USAID program and make people sign a declaration of faith to work there or receive funds?
Don't get me wrong, because I know nothing about him or the university, I just think that your reaction is, well, over the top.Comment Posted By kat-missouri On 28.11.2005 @ 23:10
I guess I'm feeling the same. I think I feel like saying, "Whatever. You kids go on and play while we adults finish taking care of business."Comment Posted By kat-missouri On 14.09.2005 @ 12:53
I see bashing here but no alternative plans on what should or should not be done about terrorists aside from pull out of Iraq. Afghanistan too?
What is it that you all think would have precluded these attacks?
Westerners, unlike Islamists, tend to forget their history. This clash was coming from the moment that Mohammed was born. It was inevitable the moment that European empires broke apart and took over the Ottoman Empire establishing "mandates. From the instant that the Balfour Declaration was signed and the day that oil was found on the Arabian Peninsula.
As a matter of fact, had Mohammed never been born, I assure you that these men would have found another reason, another cause for which they would declare their reason d'eter as have any number of terrorist organizations declaring their resistance against nations since time imemorial. Bolsheviks, Marxists in Europe, Fascists, FARC, etc.
They say today's cause is Iraq. Tomorrow their cause will be Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan and Egypt. On 9/11 it was our presence in Saudi Arabia and Palestine-Israel conflict.
In a decade or less it will be Indonesia, Thailand, Philipines, Malaysia, wherever we come in contact with the Islamic world, they will claim a reason.
You may forget your history and geography, but they do not and more fool those that do as the saying goes, you are destined to repeat it.
Iraq neither makes us safer or less safe in the short run. But, it is not short term strategy that is at play. Certainly, bin Laden and his ilk have been declaring their hate for western decadence and interference in the ME since long before the first Gulf War. You could withdraw from every Islamic nation and never do another moments business with them and these men would claim that you are oppressing them financially by keeping them from the global economy.
Simply put, the reason is not only our existence or any activities within a region, but includes the desire of men to gain power in their own right and own names above those they claim to fight for.
Castro, Hitler, Lenin, Chavez, name a cause and a nation that did not revert to democracy immediately upon revolution and you will find the power seekers have stated causes throughout history and yet never lived up to one.
That is the nature of Islamist terrorists.
You ignore it at your own peril as have those who have come before you and the unfortunate many that will come after.Comment Posted By kat-missouri On 7.07.2005 @ 15:41
Pages (1) :