McLovin: Sorry Vic, although I do believe that racial issues are absolutely relevant, worthy of debate, and unfortunately still the cause of many problems in our country, I found this to be one of the biggest dog and pony shows in recent memory.
32 minutes ago
Victor: There is a PR side to everything politicians do. With that as a given, I appreciate the message and example being shown with the olive branch being extended as opposed to the contention that characterized the previous administrations various dealings.
24 minutes ago
McLovin: I think the ONLY reason that today's "beer event" happened at all was so the President could put this to bed since it was affecting him negatively. He hadn't intended to be sucked into this sideshow in the first place except for his off-the-cuff remark at the press conference the other day, and this was just damage control. Now I know that you (and many others) aren't fans of the previous administration, but for an apples-to-apples comparison, what was the similar situation that he found himself in, that he handled differently? I ask that as an honest question, not in a 'you're wrong' kind of way
Above is an excerpt from a discussion I was having with one of my Facebook friends (No, his name isn't McLovin. They just REALLY resemble each other). We are of course referring to the president inviting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and arresting officer James Crowley to the White House for a drink to smooth things over after the "drama" of the previous weeks. "McLovin" posed an excellent question with his last comment which happens to speak directly to the number one reason I voted for Barrack Obama: diplomacy.
It's important to have principles. It's even more important that a leader have the courage and testicular fortitude to stand on those principles in the face of criticism. For this, I give the Bush administration the highest kudos. A major fault that I found in Dubya's regime was his diligent refusal to man up and admit when he was wrong coupled with his stubbornness in circumstances where it was not only unnecessary, but counter-productive. I believe the less than stellar response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster was a situation faced by Bush that is parallel to Obama's (where there was (a) a conflict, (b) a misstep by the president, and (c) an opportunity to own up to and correct the misstep). According to Rich Lowry at the New York Post, one of Bush's top mistakes during his presidency was "underestimating the power of explanation. By temperament and ability, Bush was more a "decider" than a "persuader." He's not naturally drawn to public argument, giving his administration its unfortunate (and not entirely fair) "my way or the highway" reputation at home and abroad." Although he eventually owned up to a few mistakes, the fact that he waited until the end of his presidency to do so dilutes his sincerity in my eyes.
Obama obviously spoke out of emotion with his statement regarding the Cambridge police. What came as a shock to me was the fact that he immediately owned up to the negative impact of his word choice. He even went a step further by taking ownership of the strife in holding the "beer summit". Consider the current relationship (or lack thereof) of the United States with countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. Don't you think it's essential to our national security and economic well being that our leader 1. has the character to quickly admit when he's wrong and 2. possesses the ambassadorial skill set to ensure that rational heads prevail?
PS: I have to give credit for the "testicular fortitude" statement to Beezy Photography
No comments:
Post a Comment