General Discussion

Legalequilibrium78

(103 posts)

79. Whether one like it or not, most of these appointees

Sun Oct 26, 2014, 07:23 PM

Oct 2014

Were selected not based on their political affiliation or allegiances to the Republican party. That is just really fucked up, if people on the left would implement such an idiotic, ideological methods on political appointments. This idiotic suggestion is what they employ and pracrice in third world countries like the Philippines. We select individual based on their respective merits, not on who you know, connected to and or solely based on party affiliation.

No one party, no one person, and certainly not one's political ideology has the monopoly on what is right for the country, has all the right answers to the nation's ill nor should it trump competency on selecting important people for gov't. and leadership positions. I am not really surprised that there are amongst us (the left) that want to see these method be put in placed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

194 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Centrism is for "LOSERS" -- what Thomas Frank says about Carter/Obama is a MUST READ [View all] nashville_brook Oct 2014 OP

"That we are living through an endless repeat of the 1970s is becoming more apparent all the time." bananas Oct 2014 #1

if only the music was as good. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #4

More like the widespread Repub upset wins in the 1978 mid-terms actually, hifiguy Oct 2014 #158

Well, at least we got rid of the harvest gold and avocado appliances Warpy Oct 2014 #5

those appliances were proof there's no dignity in austerity nashville_brook Oct 2014 #7

I was shocked when I moved here to NM Warpy Oct 2014 #11

dang, i had no idea there was a barrier to that! nashville_brook Oct 2014 #14

A passport card to drive into Mexico costs $30 for an adult and lasts 10 years Bluenorthwest Oct 2014 #51

First time applicant costs $55. former9thward Oct 2014 #93

that's plenty high enough to create a barrier. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #98

yep. mountain grammy Oct 2014 #34

Any analysis involving Raygun must include Iran hostages fasttense Oct 2014 #60

check out Perlstein's book, there's a lot more to Reagan winning than the October Surprise nashville_brook Oct 2014 #78

There were so many factors in that election. Yet, I see people here use it as an excuse merrily Oct 2014 #139

K&R.... daleanime Oct 2014 #2

Well here's a nice antidote to Sunday Hippie Punching. DirkGently Oct 2014 #3

capitulation is neither pragmatic nor effective... nashville_brook Oct 2014 #9

Either they're trying to sell us on their own spinelessness Warpy Oct 2014 #12

Centrism sucks... 99Forever Oct 2014 #6

centrism brought us the 2010 shellacking... nashville_brook Oct 2014 #8

Clintonian conserva-dem think won't cut it now. DirkGently Oct 2014 #20

well, you know who was a "Goldwater Girl"... nashville_brook Oct 2014 #23

My complaint with the tagging of Hillary as a 'Goldwater Girl' is that it is used by people who Bluenorthwest Oct 2014 #52

I agree. The fact that she was a Goldwater Girl pales in the face of her support for the Iraq War. rhett o rick Oct 2014 #64

^^shazam! nashville_brook Oct 2014 #75

Snap! L0oniX Oct 2014 #92

Youch! DirkGently Oct 2014 #112

Yep. She did not only vote for the invasion, she urged her fellow Senators to vote for it. merrily Oct 2014 #136

Democrats trusted her. Where they might not listen to the Dim-Son, they rhett o rick Oct 2014 #167

By her own statement, she did not read the NIE. And now, she says her Iraq vote was a mistake. merrily Oct 2014 #168

+1 Marr Oct 2014 #175

Blammo. hifiguy Oct 2014 #162

"says she still sometimes votes Republican" I don't think Warren has said that since she ran as a merrily Oct 2014 #134

some are starting to wonder if Hillary is serious about running nashville_brook Oct 2014 #140

A good friend IRL keeps reminding me that politics is cyclical. merrily Oct 2014 #145

i'm finding young people way more bitter and ready for real change than my peers in the 80s nashville_brook Oct 2014 #154

Very shortly after MTP deigned to have Sanders on, Ed Shultz interviewed merrily Oct 2014 #159

We as a Nation are still in the Wellstone ruled Oct 2014 #10

it was a leveraged buyout of the party. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #13

And Obama didn't bother to change most of the R positions that he could have cui bono Oct 2014 #32

Did not know that. THAT pisses me off. ancianita Oct 2014 #45

Whether one like it or not, most of these appointees Legalequilibrium78 Oct 2014 #79

With due respect, that is the biggest bunch of horse pucky I've read in a long time. rhett o rick Oct 2014 #105

spot-on. the continuation of regulatory capture is just one example of this failure. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #157

Totally untrue. The Bushites selected people not only for party, but religious views as well. merrily Oct 2014 #170

He replaced the U.S. Attorneys. former9thward Oct 2014 #102

Dimson replaced them gradually. Presidents before Dimson did it much faster. However, merrily Oct 2014 #171

I worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Phoenix while in law school. former9thward Oct 2014 #173

My "views" about hiring during Dimson's administration came straight out of C Span's coverage of merrily Oct 2014 #174

well to be fair we're starting to defend policies: unfortunately that just means bluewashing stuff MisterP Oct 2014 #15

Thomas Frank knows nothing about winning elections. geek tragedy Oct 2014 #16

hahahahaha! nashville_brook Oct 2014 #19

How many elections has he won himself? geek tragedy Oct 2014 #22

what expertise? look, this isn't rocket science -- you either have values or you don't nashville_brook Oct 2014 #25

lots of people with pure principles wind up irrelevant. nt geek tragedy Oct 2014 #39

and lots of people with murky principles .... PassingFair Oct 2014 #74

you make me laugh. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #88

Step 1: Attack the messenger. Check. cui bono Oct 2014 #38

Just for the hell of it, lemme try to explain the difference Jackpine Radical Oct 2014 #49

Bingo! Caretha Oct 2014 #87

"Pragmatic" is also declaring, based on zero evidence, that whatever actually got done was the best merrily Oct 2014 #189

did you read post #39? grasswire Oct 2014 #54

Yup LondonReign2 Oct 2014 #115

precisely. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #76

Fuck the phrase 'reality based' LondonReign2 Oct 2014 #114

I want Democrats to win elections. geek tragedy Oct 2014 #117

You want the person with the D behind their name LondonReign2 Oct 2014 #119

I know that the worst Democrat is better than geek tragedy Oct 2014 #122

The worst Democrats LondonReign2 Oct 2014 #123

That is substance- free ranting, not a fact-based geek tragedy Oct 2014 #124

The Swarm really needs to brush up on their debating skills LondonReign2 Oct 2014 #126

Sorry someone disagreeing with your opinions geek tragedy Oct 2014 #130

Nah, it's not the disagreeing LondonReign2 Oct 2014 #132

I promote winning, you prefer pure losers. geek tragedy Oct 2014 #151

Another tripe slogan AgingAmerican Oct 2014 #163

As opposed to complaining that every Democrat who was become geek tragedy Oct 2014 #164

Congratulations on your tireless work turn the Democratic Party into the LondonReign2 Oct 2014 #172

Why do you equate winning with Republicans? nt geek tragedy Oct 2014 #191

irony alert. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #127

Tell us, what experience does Tom Frank have in geek tragedy Oct 2014 #129

by your standards Karl Rove is king. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #131

Not since 2006 and "the math." geek tragedy Oct 2014 #152

Yes, and I don't agree with you about what they stand for treestar Oct 2014 #183

As much as Pres Obama accomplished the great wealth divide will soon rhett o rick Oct 2014 #194

+1-- hillarious that the "Reality-Based" line is always coming from the same people who Marr Oct 2014 #176

This should have been obvious to all at DU and elsewhere after the 2010 debacle Doctor_J Oct 2014 #17

it was so craven -- not even a slap on the wrist for Bushcrimes. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #21

That was demoralizing. deurbano Oct 2014 #35

Completely demoralizing. cui bono Oct 2014 #41

many Dems ARE coming out charging for Dem values, and they might even win nashville_brook Oct 2014 #77

Bad morals = bad politics Doctor_J Oct 2014 #47

right, and after 8 years of not-so-much with the housecleaning, more... not-so-much nashville_brook Oct 2014 #99

Makes me wonder. We know from records that, historically, people with little or no income correlated jtuck004 Oct 2014 #66

this is a good point. economically disenfranchised are less likely to vote, that's why... nashville_brook Oct 2014 #121

jim hightower mopinko Oct 2014 #18

Probably a lot of truth in that? kentuck Oct 2014 #24

Liberals? Which liberals? cui bono Oct 2014 #42

I think it posted in the wrong thread Doctor_J Oct 2014 #50

I will vote heaven05 Oct 2014 #26

DURec leftstreet Oct 2014 #27

Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ woo me with science Oct 2014 #28

+1000 nt antigop Oct 2014 #29

first thing, reject hippie punching nashville_brook Oct 2014 #30

Hear, hear. woo me with science Oct 2014 #113

Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2014 #31

such good words to live by. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #86

Excellent. n/t DirkGently Oct 2014 #104

Papa and Babino Paul grin,,,,,,,,,,,, Cryptoad Oct 2014 #33

Wish Frank zentrum Oct 2014 #36

They haven't calmed down because it is in the interests of the rich truebluegreen Oct 2014 #57

Let me post this here as a topical example. Third Way apparatchiks take notice: Maedhros Oct 2014 #37

Oregon is a deep blue state. geek tragedy Oct 2014 #40

And yet Jeff won that seat in 2008 from Republican Gordon Smith. It was hard won too. Bluenorthwest Oct 2014 #53

Oregon voted for Dukakis in 1988. geek tragedy Oct 2014 #56

Portland is a deep blue city hootinholler Oct 2014 #58

That's how most blue states are. geek tragedy Oct 2014 #61

It's deep blue cities, suburbs and university towns in a sea of red n/t eridani Oct 2014 #107

John Kerry is a Centrist? emulatorloo Oct 2014 #43

Especially when the center keeps moving right. AtomicKitten Oct 2014 #44

Centrist goal post is on corporate wheels. L0oniX Oct 2014 #95

Nicely put! n/t DirkGently Oct 2014 #166

Have any of these so called Liberal experts on how Legalequilibrium78 Oct 2014 #46

how's republican light working for you? Doctor_J Oct 2014 #48

+1 nashville_brook Oct 2014 #71

You are a Doctor right? Legalequilibrium78 Oct 2014 #80

2014 has actually been a progressive-messaged campaign cycle nashville_brook Oct 2014 #84

What part of the country are those "progressives" running Legalequilibrium78 Oct 2014 #193

I agree. BlueEye Oct 2014 #55

Hillary can't win a primary against a true FDR dem nashville_brook Oct 2014 #72

Who is a "true FDR Dem?" wyldwolf Oct 2014 #94

Maybe someone who would intern an entire ethnic/immigrant group in "relocation camps"... YoungDemCA Oct 2014 #135

sorry my perspective on Obama differs from yours -- i believe policy matters and that people matter. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #143

You think? BlueEye Oct 2014 #109

"arguably center right" LondonReign2 Oct 2014 #116

Yeah, why not just try it. treestar Oct 2014 #67

The logic here is: YoungDemCA Oct 2014 #137

Wait. Republican "smears" should control who Dems run for office? DirkGently Oct 2014 #169

They should run for where their district might be treestar Oct 2014 #178

I can sort of see the passionate view that truly believes that it would work treestar Oct 2014 #177

"many of you here" seems to imply you don't identify with Democratic Underground posters nashville_brook Oct 2014 #82

okay thanks for the suggestion, duly noted. Legalequilibrium78 Oct 2014 #103

K & R !!! WillyT Oct 2014 #59

Centrism is for losers.... the_sly_pig Oct 2014 #62

"Centrism"? Man from Pickens Oct 2014 #63

Amen. woo me with science Oct 2014 #68

THIS should be an OP. n/t DirkGently Oct 2014 #69

so well said. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #70

^^^THIS^^^THIS^^^THIS^^^ L0oniX Oct 2014 #97

That's about it. Marr Oct 2014 #141

Amen to that hifiguy Oct 2014 #165

Damn straight. Thanks. riqster Oct 2014 #182

There's always going to be a center treestar Oct 2014 #65

just b/c there IS a center, doesn't mean it will win elections, much less 2016 nashville_brook Oct 2014 #73

Seems to have won elections plenty. wyldwolf Oct 2014 #81

worked out well for Reagan and Bush Jr, both. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #85

Well, I don't consider them centrists but if you do, you just defeated your own argument wyldwolf Oct 2014 #91

pssst -- they ran against centrists (that's why it worked out well for them) nashville_brook Oct 2014 #110

Let's try to think of a time when a "true progressive" ran in a presidential race... wyldwolf Oct 2014 #142

Obama *ran* as a passionate progressive -- governed as a passionless technocrat nashville_brook Oct 2014 #147

No. Obama was quite clear on his policy positions when he ran. You just swooned over his war stance wyldwolf Oct 2014 #148

some may fall into those two camps. do you dismiss them? nashville_brook Oct 2014 #155

you apparently do. Because Obama ran as a centrist on the ideas from his book. wyldwolf Oct 2014 #160

Of course it will treestar Oct 2014 #83

To the left of course. I wish people would quit posting this "center-right" bullshit eridani Oct 2014 #108

precisely -- the centrist doctrine doesn't resonate with Americans. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #111

There is no centrist doctrine treestar Oct 2014 #185

Bingo. As noted well by others "centrism" is a code word. DirkGently Oct 2014 #118

Why is that? treestar Oct 2014 #186

The "center" isn't what "centrists" represent. DirkGently Oct 2014 #188

I see that poll type cited a lot treestar Oct 2014 #184

How can not standing for one`s principles in order to "win" be a win? democrank Oct 2014 #89

He doesn't seem to include the effectiveness of the religious right and cultural elements loyalsister Oct 2014 #90

despite GOP spin, when polled scientifically, Americans are left-leaning... nashville_brook Oct 2014 #125

One thing to keep in mind democrank Oct 2014 #96

wow, my grandmother is now a "radical leftist" nashville_brook Oct 2014 #106

There's no sense of left / right perspective any more. DirkGently Oct 2014 #120

Reread reply #63. democrank Oct 2014 #100

i know, right! nashville_brook Oct 2014 #101

What a load of projection and ideological revisionism. riqster Oct 2014 #128

passionless centrists lose elections: Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Carter2 -- fact. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #133

Is "passionless" your new subjective term prove your case in your mind? wyldwolf Oct 2014 #146

you like that, huh? it's actually from the article. you should read it. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #150

Again, why hasn't a single left 'progressive' ever even gotten the nomination? wyldwolf Oct 2014 #153

b/c the party hasn't had the stones to stand up for our values -- but that might be changing. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #156

ohhh, it's the party's fault, not the candidate's. LOL. wyldwolf Oct 2014 #161

The party is made up of all of us treestar Oct 2014 #181

When it comes to the Presidency, neither side can get its most passionate treestar Oct 2014 #180

So Obama and Clinton had passion? treestar Oct 2014 #179

Oh yeah, "passionless". Another amorphous term used as if it were quantified. riqster Oct 2014 #187

quantified: two passionate unknowns, bill clinton and barrack obama both win primaries and win nashville_brook Oct 2014 #190

Again, crap. Passionless means whatever you want it to mean at the moment. riqster Oct 2014 #192

That without a central focus will spiral into oblivion seveneyes Oct 2014 #138

Just finished "The Invisible Bridge." hifiguy Oct 2014 #144

i found Reagan's ability to self-delude (in the book) to be terrifying. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #149