![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
Fair ~ |
|
|
 Email link
 Read comments (72)
 Blog archive
 Share link
One Sailor's StoryPosted Tuesday, January 26, 2010, at 4:59 PM
Cromwell was privy to secrets regarding American submarine tactics for the War in the Pacific. The Sculpin took position to spy on a large Japanese naval convoy. At dawn, the enemy suddenly changed course. Without warning, the entire convoy, along with several destroyers and attack cruisers, headed directly towards the Sculpin. Quickly they submerged and for two hours quietly waited as the enemy convoy passed overhead. After waiting what they thought was a safe amount of time, the Sculpin surfaced a mere 600 yards from the Yamagumo. The Japanese convoy Commander had heard that American submarines were in the area, and the huge destroyer had been left behind for just such an occasion. The fight was on. Sculpin made an emergency dive, and struggled through two massive depth charge attacks. This left the submarine battered, with many of it's depth and pressure gauges damaged. The crew fought on, and managed to evade the destroyer as it dealt with a surface squall. At noon, Commander Cromwell decided to creep to the surface to look around. The submarine's depth gauge was broken, and the the sub unexpectedly broached the surface, and again was detected. The sub took more depth charges in a relentless attack from the Yamagumo. This crippled the sub even more. Commander Cromwell was forced to run the sub at full ahead underwater to keep from sinking. The destroyers' sonar was able to track the sub this way, and the attack continued. Fearing that the submarine would be lost with all aboard, Commander Cromwell surfaced the ship, and engaged in a vicious surface battle, while allowing his men to escape the wounded sub in life rafts. As the Submarine was about to go under for the last time, Commander Cromwell gave the order to abandon ship. Cromwell, fearing that through his capture, and probable torture, that he may give up critical secret information, stayed aboard and went down with his ship. The Navy had no idea what had happened to the USS Sculpin until many months later. After VJ Day, surviving crew members were released from Japanese POW camps and told the story of Commander Cromwell's bravery. For his actions, Commander John Phillip Cromwell, of Henry Illinois, was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Who knows exactly where men gather the courage to bravely go to their deaths. Some say it is God, or duty, or perhaps it is faith. Perhaps it is love. Cromwell was fearful that he'd give up information that would cost many lives, and maybe a war. This is the type of history that we should be teaching in schools, not the 'America sucks' stuff that is being taught now. Our youngsters should learn the stories of real heroes, and why they did what they did. I doubt any of you have ever heard of Commander Cromwell. Why? After 911, I heard some dummies marvel at the bravery of the Islamic terrorists. "Willing to die" for their cause. They believed that murdering thousands of innocents would vault them into a sexual Utopia complete with dozens of virgins. Why do you think John Cromwell gave his life? For sex with virgins? Brave and true people have given their lives for this country for hundreds of years. In the days ahead, I think we ought to remember our heroes, and honor their sacrifices. The progressives have heroes. They are guys like Mao, and Che, and Marx. They treat the USA as the root of all evil, and I grow tired of that. We are going to need some heroes as our Constitution, and our very Republic, are under attack. We need folks who will stand against the progressives. It was George Washington who told us that the preservation of liberty was in the hands of the PEOPLE, not the government. It is time to take that direction of President Washington seriously. Ronald Reagan told us that "people are not free, unless government is limited." You can read about Commander Cromwell @ Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Trying to Understand Liberal Morality(102 ~ 9:31 AM, Mar 16)
Work In Progress
Consent by Shotgun
I Just Want You To Love Me
Decept-a-Cons and The Big Lie
|
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Gearjammer,
When you turn your writing ability loose, you are about as eloquent and talented as anyone around.
Bur then you turn that talent to political preaching, the effect is considerably diminished.
WWII saw an incredible number of heroes in the highest sense of the word.
Korea proved the next generation of young men capable of meeting the test. Several of them reamain with me during every Veterans and Memorial event.
Regional TV carried services for a young GI this week. He dived atop a live explosive to protect his buddies somewhere in Afghanistan.
Where you lose me is when you start preaching that you have the simple solution to what the U.S. must have politically.
If there was a simple answer, the framers of our Constitution would simply have established an hereditary monarchy, instead of the three portions of our federal government.
We have a strong executive, stronger legislative and even stronger judiciary.
When all within each are doing their jobs fully and with positive direction, there is no better governance system on earth.
But the operative requirement is POSITIVE.
Totally negative opposition and obstructionism is neither positive nor patriotic.
The problems this country faces require the best effort from everyone in a leadership position. This past year, we didn't get it.
I don't recall any Democrats being enthusiastic supporters or fans of George W. Bush, yet Democrats provided needed votes to pass many of his major proposals -- when he could not muster enough votes within his own party.
I doubt any regular readers of this blog/response have any questions concerning my total lack of respect for DubYah and his Draft Dodgers, as patriots or public officials.
But, he occupied the White House and had the responsibility for decisions only The President is empowered to make.
Another man has that responsibility now. Doctrinaire political robots should not be obstructing every executive effort -- but they are.
This president cannot achieve the needed actions with a solid block of lock-step opposition.
Commander Crowell did not ask his officers and men to join him in going down with his ship.
When Audie Murphy climbed atop a burning half-track to man Quad-50s and singlehandedly fight off a Nazi battalion, he didn't ask any of his squad members to come load ammo.
When Joe Kennedy Jr. flew a pure suicide mission, he did not ask for company.
Tragically, many in American politics today lack the courage to stand alone against their party and supporters.
An entire block marches in precise formations as directed by their authority figures.
Where are the Goldwaters, Vandenbergs,Carl Alberts, Tafts, Page Belchers and Carl Haydens when we need them?
The President has proposed a massive three-year freeze for the federal budget, excepting only DEFENSE and congressionally mandated entitlements.
The limited liberal faction is already screaming, moderates are in full support. Supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans are voicing opposition.
What will satisfy these people -- Do they want the electorate to exhume Everett Dirksen and annoint those remains as Emperor?
How about Robert Taft?
Will Strom Thurmond do for them?
Why not George Wallace, so they can prop him up in the school house door?
How about the mayor of Arkansas' Dogpatch tourist park, Orval Faubus?
Of course, we could annoint TV's new darling, Sen. Elect Brown.
But where would that leave First Dude, Bristol, Willow, Trig and the new darling of PLAYGIRL'S center fold -- the distinguished intellectual, Levi?
Communists idolize Mao, Marx and Che. Progressives tend to idolize Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR. FDR fought Nazis.
Hank,
We, the long suffering readers of the McCook Gazette's blogs, have put up with you mindless rant for what seems like an eternity. But now you bring in children with your venom. Yes, they may be the family that all liberal America can hate without guilt, but they are children none the less.
You sir, have entered a new catagory, EVIL.
I think it's arguable that Sarah Palin is evil for using her children for political means. I would never want to put my children in front of a sharply divided country in the political arena and then use them to get votes. That is evil.
You have never left your old category, BS.
Now you see how quickly this spun from a "celebrate our heroes" theme into a liberal smackdown of conservatives? Pathetic.
Jaded - Certainly you are mistaking "sharing" for "exploiting". If I were running for VP of the US...I would share that with my children; which is exactly how I saw this situation with Sarah Palin. I didn't see any evidence of her foisting her children into the limelight in any way to try to draw attention to herself.
She was asked about her experience of having a child with down's; she relayed an answer. What gain would she or her children get from the flaying she received from not aborting her infant son, and for a pregnant teen in the household.
The fact that Hank keeps bringing this up, and you taking it one step further brings both of your motivations into question.
Sorry. I guess when the E word starts getting thrown around I wanted to make an alternate point.
And I saw plenty of unashamed "hoisting." I don't understand why you would defend such a terrible politician as Palin anyways. She ditched her obligations to her state and took a job with Fox. Wow.
My "motivation" is to read an interesting blog and respond every so often.
And Sam, I enjoyed your blog, until you childishly started comparing progressives with communists.
Mickel,
"Now you see how quickly this spun from a "celebrate our heroes" theme into a liberal smackdown of conservatives? Pathetic."
What is pathetic is what I can only assume is your INTENTIONAL failure to understand or recognize why liberals on this board react the way they do:
Sam writes...
"The progressives have heroes. They are guys like Mao, and Che, and Marx. They treat the USA as the root of all evil, and I grow tired of that."
Is that what you call "celebrating our heroes?" Because I call it ruining a well written blog with thoughtless, gutless, immature, and loathingly predictable mud-slinging.
"The progressives have heroes. They are guys like Mao, and Che, and Marx. They treat the USA as the root of all evil, and I grow tired of that."
Unless you mean progressive communists? Of which I have seen no one on here that fits that bill.
That's like saying:
"The conservative Christians have heroes. They are guys like Timothy McVeigh, Adolf Hitler, and Lucifer. They treat the USA as the root of all evil, and I grow tired of that."
I think Mickle meant how quickly this has become a celebrate our heros blog, to a smackdown of liberals.
I think Mickle meant how quickly this has become a celebrate our heros blog, to a smackdown of liberals.
Yes, exactly. Just like Sam's original script:
A celebration of our heros, to a smackdown of liberals.
We have a right to resent being called communists. I hate communists.
To be fair, if Sam wrote a book and it was full of good storytelling with no Rush vomit I would read it. I think Sam is a good writer.
Jaded - That is a lousy example you just gave, and here is why:
I understand the political spectrum they indoctrinate kids with nowadays, but Hitler was a progressive, and far left winger, not a right winger. I understand why you libs and progressives foster that lie, to confuse, and have us look the other way while you work to undermine the Republic.
Tim McVeigh was a murderer, ah....what quotes from conservatives can you show us, that supports Tim McVeigh, or Lucifer for that matter?
Yet my diluted friend, we have countless examples of Obama administration officials and the cultural left, speaking out for Mao, Che and Marx.
Also, I know why you leftists hate Sarah Palin.
So transparent are you. I love the way you leftist spin the attacks on Palin and her family to make it look like she exploited them.
That is the side of you leftists that really just makes me wanna puke. You guys, with all your proclamations of caring and sharing, are truly mean spirited intellectual snobs, at best.
You hate Palin, because she represents the woman you are afraid of. A woman, who is successful, without having to abandon her God, her family or her values.
Oh, and Sarah Palin has a real man for a husband, and you libs cannot stand that. You guys like the metrosexual types huh?
Huh? Do tell, Sam...
Reformed - you know, I am going to grant you your point on progressives admiration for Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR.
That why I am alarmed at today's (quoting Hillary) "modern progressive". They have gone beyond Roosevelt and Teddy. We are still stuck with, and going broke trying to pay, for FDR's fantasies, now you wanna chase Marx?
No thanks!
to the Jaded American, your example was not only silly, but ignorant. It is your hero, President Obama, who follows the teachings of Sal Alinsky, and he was a big fan of Satan. Lucifer was the "rebel" Alinsky admired so much, he dedicated his book to him.
Like Sam, I will await your proof that any conservatives have spoken out for Tim McVeigh, or Hitler or the devil.
Sam, thanks for pointing out these heroes. The point you make so clearly, escapes those lost in liberal thinking.
Your example was a perfect Jaded! Look at the Cons' reactions!
Sham and his ilk like to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of "worshiping Mao" or "hating America." Your example was apropos and the dullards on this board missed you point entirely...but not me:
Let me spell it out for Sham and leo: you calling liberals Marxists/Socialists/Maoists/etc is as stupid and silly as a liberal saying that your heroes are guys "...like Timothy McVeigh, Adolf Hitler, and Lucifer."
Take a moment and NOTE your reaction to being told your heroes are Lucifer, Hitler, and McVeigh...now use your very simple brains and THINK about your reaction to this BEFORE you accuse anyone of loving a dictator. Screwballs.
Then maybe you better get the message to the obamanites in the administration that are stupid enough to say they look to Mao for inspiration! What was that dumb broad's name, and what was (emphasize was) her position in the Obama Administration? Have you forgotten her already, Iggo?
As much as has been said on this site, I have yet to hear anyone say they look to lucifer, hitler, or mcviegh for inspiration? But, if you have evidence of that, please regurgitate it for us!
By the way, do you have your popcorn ready, and your drool rag out for "More lies and promises from Bozo the clown" tonight?
Sam,
Can you please provide some examples of administration officials who idolize or worship Mao, Marx or Che?
OK, RRW, I give you Anita Dunn, in her own words. You might want to skip over the first 15 seconds, because I am sure you don't want to listen to glen. She is now back in private employment, good riddance!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1zg2NOC...
Is it true that a Democrat was quoted today, saying there was a pool on which Democrat would stand up tonight and say "you lie"??????????
Want some cheap entertainment tonight?
Play Obama Bingo!
http://www.atr.org/state-union-time-play...
"I think Mickle meant how quickly this has become a celebrate our heros blog, to a smackdown of liberals."
Uh...actually I was referring to the American hero that Sam used in his post. An honest, average person put into extraordianary circumstances; and putting his country and his fellow man above himself. My lament is that we cannot see eye to eye on the bravery, courage and sacrifice of one fellow American. I don't recall engaging in a "smackdown" of liberals.
Oh, and by the way bigdawg & GI - is your gutless mudslinging any less loathsome? Seriously?
BINGO!!!!!!!
Sam engaged in a smackdown of liberals and when someone called him on it you piped up that it was too bad that us nasty liberals had to take a blog about a hero and turn it into a smackdown aginst conservatives. I would recommend scrolling up.
Its not about seeing eye to eye on an american hero but more about being told who I idolize.
"Then maybe you better get the message to the obamanites in the administration that are stupid enough to say they look to Mao for inspiration!"
Who other people look to for inspiration is up them. But to say that because one Democrat says something positive about Mao that means ALL Democrats believe the same way is why Jaded's point was such a good one: Are all Republicans closet homosexuals because a handful are? Of course not, but by your logic they would be...get it? So quit...or don't...nobody around here is surprised anymore by the Cons and their insistence on simplicity in thought.
Fantastic speech tonight by the way...my spirits are rejuvenated.
You bet! He can read a great speech with the best of them! Why, there was enough hot air and manure produced in an hour and fifteen minutes to power a small city! Talk about renewable energy! Campaign 2012 is on full power!
I agree with you Joe, it was a "great speech." See, now we are burning that bipartisan oil.
bigdawg - As a fellow man standing in the puddle, covered with mud and a hand full of the stuff ready to fling: I see your point, however, In my piping up, I referred to no one as "nasty".
Maybe both sides would be better served to reign in the vitriol just a bit over a tad.
Pray tell, bigdawg....whom WOULD you name as your heros?
Now if we could really change education so maybe a high-school graduate like you could read also. It was "read" a great speech (written by others, in a hurry for sure) full of rhetoric and double-speak, which is about what was expected! But then, if you got a cheap thrill out of it, then something was accomplished tonight rather that a lot of hot air contributing to "global warming"
Funny, I thought it sounded like a cheap rehash of the 2008 campaign! Or, a preview of the 2012 campaign. I am sure there are a lot of Democrats up for election in 2010 that hope he is out of town when they start their campaign. The Bozo coattails are not really what they had hoped they were!
I really loved it when he called out the Supreme Court! When they had the front-row! Maybe he should study "separation of powers" a little closer!
By the way, did anyone count how many times the narcissist-in-chief used "I" "Me" or "My"??????
And then he talks about nuclear energy? Wait till all the tree-huggers crawl out from their caves tomorrow and hear that he had the audacity to mention nuclear energy! Congratulations, Bozo, you just alienated another bloc of your support! Heck, now we will have to endure 30 reruns of Hanoi Jane and the "China Syndrome!" And Jane has been quiet for so long! Please, Bozo, let sleeping dogs lie!!!! All we really need is for the government to figure out how we can all buy solar panels when 1 in 10 will have to buy them without the convenience of having a job to pay for them!
Oh, so you didn't write "great speech?" Oh, nope, you sure did, I thought I read that write. Again, I agree, it was "great."
that is "read that *right*...sorry for the typo
Try not to wet yourself over the speech, Iggo. It was really what you could call a great environmental speech, because it was just the same old snake oil recycled from the campaign. The "More Lies and Promises from Bozo" show!
Sleep well!
Chunky and company,
The question was respecting heroes and Sam's eloquence regarding the one particular WWII hero. Certainly one of the superb unknowns.
My point was taking that story and trying tospin it into an ideological conclusion which had nothing to do with that submarine skipper.
Truth is all you super-conservatives, most of the folks who fought Nazis and Fascists in WWII were strongly of the populist streak. They had just survived the depression and weren't much into conservative politicians and theology.
FDR rated pretty high with most working people and farmers of that era.
So there's a real good chance any of those heroes would have resented being used to promote a political position totally foreign to their minds.
Your concern for those "poor children."
Miz Sary has already banked several million because John McCain had to make a hurried selection for V.P.
The nominee could have appeared at the convention with "First Dude" and left the kids home. She chose to go after the slot and made every point possible with the kids, "hockey mom" status, her "First Dude"and their Alaska lifestyle.
Give her a big cigar, she has taken an almost offhand selection by a generally weak candidate and is making a great run with it:
> A highly profitable book deal, despite the obvious reality, much of her campaign memory is sadly lacking in credibiity;
> A clearly profitable career currently as a much sought after dinner speaker at conservative events;
> Another step in her original TV career before the camera doing whatever Fox can figure out for her;
> That's the American way-- but at the same time the Palin family saga has turned into the biggest political soap opera in a long time.
Sam extols Todd as a real man.
"First Dude" has tried several ways to make a living, settling on none for more than a short time. Sesonally, with the open whaleboat, he has been a "commercial fisherman," with a stint working around North Slope oil operations, which ended sometime this past year;
He races snowmobiles and they apparently had some sort of machine shop and retail operation.
Colorful, but what has he built with this work history?
Clearly the politician spouse has run circles around him for income and achievement.
But as usual, the conservative voices find any disagreement with conservative spinning of any subject to be sick.
While more parents are finding themselves supporting a teenage mother and grandchild, it is a difficult situation when potential White House occupancy is involved.
When you are or were governor, with a single mother in the house, and the child's father is picking up big bucks for nude male cheesecake multi-page centerfolds for a profit hungry magazine publisher --That's little beyond national leader lifestyle.
Is the baby guilty of anything? NO!!
Guess how he is going to be referred to for his entire life?
Sorry conservative thinkers, but if Miz Sary had been named to run on the other ticket, you guys would have crucified her!!
Look at the garbage hurled at the Obamas about every detail of their lives.
Give them a Downs Syndrome child, a teenage unwed mother for a daughter and a young man who fathered that child popsing for a nude centerfold.
The diatribes would not stop for the next ten years.
I woke up dry as a bone Joe, thanks for the advice. I appreciate your skepticism, I felt the exact same way about Bush, the difference is that Obama's speech was actually in English.
There's obviously no women posting on this particular blog, as they would likely have spoken up and told one certain immature bigot on here to not call women broads.
I like that. One Democratic ex-official said something about Mao. And now all progressives are communists. Haha.
All conservatives cheat on their wives with younger men. Always in airport bathrooms.
FREDD, that is you, isn't it?
This is what is so fascinating about this blog. As a liberal it's kind of like walking into a room full of angry chimps. Well, at least Joe is like an angry chimp.
I'm not calling names by the way.
Joe acts like an angry chimp.
No real argument, just insults. Boring, fredd! Bozo lies (again) and fredd just wants to insult. Same stuff, different day.
No real argument, he says. I didn't realize that's what's going on. Especially with Joe. I don't remember fredd but I like him if he's on the bad side of a young country bigot.
Joe when you have argument other than....LIES! I will be interested. You accuse others of insults but that is really all you are capable of...and bad jokes...and racism. Well you do quite a lot know that I think about...a lot other than actually argue.
So let's have it...stop insulting and put forth an actual premise for debate....or continue being immature, but don't expect anyone to treat you with anything but animosity.
When Bozo stops lying, I will stop accusing him of lying!
Haha. Ok. Exactly.
Nice non-argument.
Oh, you agree he is a liar! We really are fostering a spirit of bipartisanship!
Exactly-the expectation that you would have nothing productive to say. No legitimate perspective to offer, no logic to examine.
What's wrong with the "liar" label? Don't you want to "examine" that logic? No, because you know it to be true! Most of what he said last night was lies, rhetoric, and promises that he has less chance to deliver on as each week passes. Of course, you don't want to consider that as an argument, because there really is no argument!
I have an idea. Instead of being little babies and calling "liar!" lets examine the lies individually. I am not sticking up for President Obama per say, I think my user name shows that I think they are all liars.
But wouldn't it be fun to pick him apart here? I mean, besides complaining that he uses teleprompters? Let's renew the healthy debate, and not the crybaby Joe approach.
What are President Obama's lies?
How is President Obama destroying the planet?
Is President Obama the devil? Like fooozball?
Does it feel good to be an anonymous bigot?
You ask one legitimate question, then follow with 3 contrite, childish lines. I won't waste my time with you, fredd. I was talking to Iggo.
Also, I will remind you that you broke your promise! You promised to ignore me! So, keep your promise and go away!
Exactly. You cannot answer the first question, but time and time again you justify the following lines. They are very appropriate to your style george.
I'm drawn to racists. They fascinate me.
"What's wrong with the "liar" label? Don't you want to "examine" that logic?"
What is wrong with it is you don't say what he is lying about. There is no logic because you make a sweeping statement that doesn't tell us anything. You argue nothing.
See Iggy, that's the thing with these kids. All these fellers love to rail about how bad Obama is and how socialist this administration is but, and this is that part they don't get, they simply cannot, be it thru ignorance or unwillingness, offer anything more substantial than someone else's sound bite.
God bless America
How about his statement that his administration has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs"? Lobbyists are employed, or had been offered as nominees in the Administration as he spoke! Or, do you consider the Deputy Defense Secretary to not be a position that formulates policy? How about Eric Holder, formerly a registered lobbyist? Let's see, his job is fairly significant in government, eh?
Here is a list for you to ponder:
* Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.
* Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
* William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
* William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
* David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric. Blocked by the GOP
* Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
* Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
* Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
* Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
* Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
* Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
* Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president's assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
That should just about cover the lobbyist lie, unless of course he was only concerned with locking out Republican and Conservative lobbyists!
Formerly registered lobbyists are not lobbyists Joe. A lobbyist is paid by a special interest to influence government, an ex-lobbyists is no longer employed by a special interest lobby. Do you really need someone to spell that out?
Like, they don't harbor any loyalty to their former employer, who will probably be their future employer when this regime is over? They just lobby in a different costume! Come on, Iggo, that is lame and you know it! We all know what he wanted the public to believe, or do you need someone to spell that out for you?
I suppose by your logic, if they were former child molestors, but weren't currently molesting any children, it would be ok to employ them?
That is quite an assumption. I worked at Taco Bell in high-school, but I was able escape their agenda of drenching everything in cheap nacho cheese.
I suppose by your logic once you are employed by someone you can never be free of their influence. Silly.
Wow, good point, Joe. That's more like it. It is a travesty that there are so many policymakers that used to be lobbyists. I'm not surprised. Thank you for a real argument. It's the William Lynn connection that's the most dangerous. It's arguable that there may be at least trace incentives for him in this position to favor continuous warfare, and no one needs that. On the other hand, if William Corr in in his respective position maintained his old professional biases it would probably be a good thing for society.
Sorry, Guillermo, but I do think it's a bit shady for there to be so many (recently ex) lobbyists in these positions. It smells bad. Like you wouldn't want to hire an ex-skinhead for customer service, even if he says he's not like that any more.
Dear Sam Eldridge,
I really enjoyed this blog. It was excellent, really. It's too bad the comments that followed get so far off the beaten path....I thought comments were meant to voice opinion of your subject matter? At any rate, the animated, sometimes childish arguments are good stress relief. Best laugh I've had all day. Keep up the excellent writing!
Sincerely,
"Not a 'broad'" :)
Jaded and Joe,
1) Lobbyists are not in their essence skinheads or child molesters, so both of comparisons are a bit on the ridiculous side, sorry to say.
2) Not all lobbyists are bad. The good ole' boys on K Street have certainly tarnished the reputation beyond repair, so I understand the cynicism, but it is illogical to believe that because some lobbyists have deep pockets and pay off our leaders, that ALL lobbyists have deep pockets and pay off our leaders.
Many lobbies are for things like creating good jobs in certain industries with better benefits, keeping state investments and capitol within the state in which it was earned, and developing and investing in new technologies that will make America cleaner and safer. The majority of lobbies are hard-working advocates who aren't trying to line the pockets of some greedy corporation. The minority of lobbyists are the scum suckers and greedheads that represent Big Steel, Big Tobacco, Big Auto, etc.
So, being a lobbyist does not make you a) inherently bad, b) unfit for public office. And being a FORMER lobbyist especially does not make you either of the aforementioned.
So, after all that, you are still sticking to the lie? You remember, the one that says "no lobbyists in my administration?" Not "no bad lobbyists", nor "good lobbyists", but "NO lobbyists!" Spin all you want, I do agree there are good and bad lobbyists, but NO means NO, NONE, NADA!
Guillermo,
I agree with you on most points, but I hate the idea of lobbyists. Sorry, I guess it's a prejudice of mine. I don't wanna agree with Joe anymore, so give me a nice rant against lobbyists. Like only Guillermo can. Don't let us communists down!
And don't listen to Joe. While he may have good points, he is a racist and probably assumes some level of brownness on you.
Joe, tell me the CURRENT lobbyist in Obama's admin. There may be some and I don't know about them, so enlighten me.
Certainly people are in there who have been involved with lobbies, but that is fine, like I said lobbyists (like Christians) are not inherently bad people just because a handful really are.
Obama's mandate, the way I understand it, was that no one could be both in a lobby and a member of his admin. This is a good rule. He didn't say, no former lobbyists allowed...he said pick one...I think that is fair and I think that is a good idea.
Comrade Jaded,
That was a funny post (see what big boy humor looks like Joe?), it's been awhile since this board made me laugh because of something other than stupidity...thank you.
I really do understand why you or anyone else doesn't like lobbies, quite often they are reviling, corrupt, and disruptive to the democratic process. On the other hand, just as many or more work really hard to advocate for large groups of people whose voices cannot be heard over the enormous din of our nation's legislative motor.
It is a classic example of a few bad apples ruining the bunch...but I would tend to agree that those bad apples doing the ruining have caused so much damage, and perpetuated greedy businesses so far in unraveling the morality of our government, that it's hard to see many good reasons to trust lobbies anymore.
I don't agree, however, that simply having been involved in a lobby means you are not qualified to serve the country.
JOSE,
The new president made an unpleasant discovery, trying to find competent experience for top-level government experience is a nightmare experience.
The rules require a lot of good people to say no to serving in any non-elective D.C. job.
Even worse, when you get to those relatively few who will leave high-paying jobs in their own businesses, corporations and companies, or state governments -- where they can generate outside income legally ------ IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FIND ANYONE WITH PROVEN ABILITY, MANAGEMENT SKILLS AND WILLINGNESS TO SERVE -- who has not been a lobbyist in some way or another.
Trying to hold to a "simon pure" test has left some jobs (TSA director) vacant for more than a year -- There is no indication anyone capable will accept appointment to the remaining posts.
I don't argue with your statement, Hank. I take issue when bozo says on national television "no lobbyists in my administration" when you, I, and anyone else listening with any common sense, understand that it is just another friggin LIE!
If you would bother to look back, you will understand I made no comment to the virtues or poison of lobbyists, I merely pointed out bozo's lie, one of many. You and Iggo can spin your wheels discussing lobbyists, while you ignore the lie!