I just don't understand why President Bush would fire all those lawyers because of incompetance and not fire Carl Rove and associates who lead us down the garden path of an unwarranted war. It just doesn't make any sense to me. BTW, Jon Stewart is one of the most politcally well educated men in the country as well as one hell of a comedian. John Bolton comes off as a facist who isn't playing with a full deck. I don't mean to sound disrespectful to people in power it's just simply how I perceive them everytime they venture forth on television and shine down on me.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

[edit on 22-3-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Stewart got the typical response one would expect from a superficial, liberal-oriented audience. What Bolton said was correct:

The people voted for a president because they wanted the country to move in a certain direction.

The president should appoint people that help him to move the country in that direction. To do otherwise would be to betray the people that elected him.

That is the essence of democracy.

To appoint one's political enemies as advisors merely invites discord and gridlock.

The legislative and judicial branches are the appropriate checks-and-balances on the executive branch, not the executive appointees.

I'm afraid not. The president is responsable to ALL Americans. Not just the ones who happen to share his party, i.e., "those who elected him."

And in this presidents' case, with a damn-near even split in both his elections, the correct response to the people ofthe nation would be to maintain the status quo.

........and the status quo would be what, exactly? The policies of the Clinton administration?

Originally posted by The Parallelogram

Opinions can and should diverge on how to reach a certain goal, not on what the goal is.

Here is the second part of the sentence again.

not on what the goal is.

emphasis yours.

Please explain how you think I misunderstood that.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by The Parallelogram]

Of course people are free to express their own opinion. And the president is free to fire those who do not go along with his game plan.

Think of it as a football team. You are the QB, and the coach calls for a running play.

You had better be handing off, blocking, or running the ball, or else you'll spend the rest of your time on the bench.

You're all dense. Jon Stewart and some of the audience seemed to have conceded Bolton's point that the President has the right to appoint those who agree with him, but Stewart held on to the notion that the President has an ethical duty to appoint those with a diversity of opinions.

Nonetheless, the irony of some of the Bush's decisions still ought to incite humor (e.g. appointing a man to the UN who has little regard for the institution).

Personally, I'm disappointed by the Dems. What they're doing now is not the reason I voted for them so recently. They need to take real action against the President instead of political posturing. If they want to pull our troops out, then they'll put forth binding resolutions regarding its budget. If they want to hold the president accountable for the mistakes in intelligence and during the war, they'd impeach him. Instead we get political posturing with non-binding resolutions because they fear being accused of not supporting the troops (if the resolution is crafted correctly, they can blame the president for not pulling out the troops properly), and inquiries into the firings of AGs (I don't care about AGs--I want him impeached).

In the end, the question should be of when the Dems will grow a spine.

Originally posted by supercheetah
You're all dense. Jon Stewart and some of the audience seemed to have conceded Bolton's point that the President has the right to appoint those who agree with him, but Stewart held on to the notion that the President has an ethical duty to appoint those with a diversity of opinions.

That's where Stewart was wrong. The president has no legal, ethical, or moral obligation to appoint someone who disagrees with him.

Checks and balances are the duty of the other branches of gov't, the legislative (Congress) and the judicial (SCOTUS).

The president has no obligation to insert a third system of checks and balances into the executive branch.

Nonetheless, the irony of some of the Bush's decisions still ought to incite humor (e.g. appointing a man to the UN who has little regard for the institution).

It may seem humorous, but Bolton was the man we needed at the UN. The corruption and anti-American sentiment was rampant. To appoint an apologist as Ambassador would have been foolish, and only serve to perpetuate the corruption.

Personally, I'm disappointed by the Dems. What they're doing now is not the reason I voted for them so recently. They need to take real action against the President instead of political posturing. If they want to pull our troops out, then they'll put forth binding resolutions regarding its budget. If they want to hold the president accountable for the mistakes in intelligence and during the war, they'd impeach him. Instead we get political posturing with non-binding resolutions because they fear being accused of not supporting the troops (if the resolution is crafted correctly, they can blame the president for not pulling out the troops properly), and inquiries into the firings of AGs (I don't care about AGs--I want him impeached).

In the end, the question should be of when the Dems will grow a spine.

The Dem's are looking forward to the '08 election. They don't care about America; they only want to gain power.

Originally posted by jsobecky
That's where Stewart was wrong. The president has no legal, ethical, or moral obligation to appoint someone who disagrees with him.

Checks and balances are the duty of the other branches of gov't, the legislative (Congress) and the judicial (SCOTUS).

The president has no obligation to insert a third system of checks and balances into the executive branch.

The president has an ethical duty to keep his views well rounded. Appointing people with a diversity of opinions doesn't mean those people will necessarily disagree with the president--rather, they'll approach problems from different angles than the president. Ultimately, appointees must still carry out the will of the president, even if they do disagree with him. That has nothing to do with checks and balances, and this approach to appointees proposes nothing of the sort.

It may seem humorous, but Bolton was the man we needed at the UN. The corruption and anti-American sentiment was rampant. To appoint an apologist as Ambassador would have been foolish, and only serve to perpetuate the corruption.

Corruption and anti-Americanism? That's speculation. The real problem is that the UN makes pronouncements, but has no real power to back them up (and yet it spends so much money). The UN was supposed to be little more than an international negotiation table. It's grown beyond that, but it's still as powerless as ever, and yet people expect it to be able to back up its pronouncements with substance it never had.

The Dem's are looking forward to the '08 election. They don't care about America; they only want to gain power.

Does anyone from the major parties care about America? I doubt it, but alas, they're the most publicly palatable.

The president does not have a moral or ethical obligation to appoint someone who disagrees with him but if he has any brains he will....but then again we are talking about bush minor so that precludes the brains part.

Thing is though if you go back over the past, say 50 years it is my bet that you will find some odd things... democrats appoint cabinet ministers who support the mission of the departments they are appointed to...Republicans appoint cabinet ministers who are usually opposed to the mission of their job (whats up with that?) (don't answer that I already know) but more important to this discussion democrats are not afraid of different opinions and will appoint a whole spectrum of opinions around the president so that he can get the best and most wide reaching advice but ya know the real difference lies in approach and that tells the whole story...by and large democrats tend to be pragmatists and the republicans tend to be ideologues.

Originally posted by supercheetah
The president has an ethical duty to keep his views well rounded. Appointing people with a diversity of opinions doesn't mean those people will necessarily disagree with the president--rather, they'll approach problems from different angles than the president. Ultimately, appointees must still carry out the will of the president, even if they do disagree with him. That has nothing to do with checks and balances, and this approach to appointees proposes nothing of the sort.

So, how do we know that this president does not have people around him with diverse views? It is impossible to know. Jon Stewart realizes that, and that is why what he wants is not what you suggest.

He wants Bush to appoint Democrats.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The Dem's are looking forward to the '08 election. They don't care about America; they only want to gain power.

I'm going out on a limb here, but you've got bumper stickers, don't you?
And what do you think the war is about. Giving democracy to Iraqis? Stopping the evil doers that hate our happiness?

The elite are out of touch with the people and yet somehow this turned into a "democrats hug trees, republicans smell their own farts" debate. Lives are statistics, and so are approval ratings.

I guess I've become so cynical about this that I don't care anymore.
Oh no, American troops and Iraqi civilians are dying in an unjust war.

The government doesn't care, so why should I?

Good, less people for the planet to sustain.

That was one of the best interviews I have ever seen on The Daily Show.

What topped it was the next days show, where Jon "summoned" Doris Kearns Goodwin to confirm that John Bolton was in fact wrong about his take on Lincoln.

In my opinion Stewart/Colbert is the best hour of programming on TV.

Stewart/Colbert '08 all the way.