danivon wrote:Still, there should be a way to head off issues like that without them becoming a massive political football.

If it were started right now, it would appear political--that's just the season we're in.

However, this does seem, as you indicate, a matter of common sense.

Personally, I'd be for fixed limits, but that would probably never pass. However, some kind of independent review in the event six justices feel compelled to request such a thing ought to be in the Constitution. For example, 6 Justices sign a petition to have a fellow Justice's competence reviewed. Two doctors are appointed, one from each House, and the Justice's personal physician is brought in to testify in closed hearings. Each House votes, the President signs, the Justice is removed.

Each Justice would have to waive medical privacy when sworn in--if such an event were deemed necessary.

Maybe it could be simpler. However, with the President, really only one Party is involved. With the USSC, an abundance of caution would be needed to prevent such a mechanism from being used for political reasons.

I apologize if I stretched the bounds of inferring an implication of someone's statements (RJ) or argued against something not expressly advocated by someone (Purple) Anyhow... I am a little dubious of any external fix to this problem. It seems like the Supreme Court handled it pretty well when Douglas became incompetent. Sometimes things are best resolved without formal rules. Whatever formal system is devised could be abused and given how partisan Congress has become I would say there would be a danger that things could be manipulated to get a justice off of the court in order to alter the balance of the court.

And I fixed my avatar--happy, Purple?!

freeman2 wrote:And I fixed my avatar--happy, Purple?!

Considering there are what, a dozen, of us who post here . . . did you have to take Sass' avatar?

I'm just sayin'

What will change if Romney is reelected in November? With the exception of Justices, and a few other things, it appears that most folks here suggesting that not a heck of a lot will change.

I've been struggling with the idea of voting for Obama. While his rhetoric matches my idea of the world much better than Romney's, I do think, as I've written here, that Obama may become a war criminal in courts outside the US. The way the war has been conducted: assassination, bombing, and not even bothering to capture people anymore, just kill them (and everyone around them) so you don't have to deal with prisoners. Actually sickens me when I think about it.

But is Romney going to do any better? He could be worse, but he could be better, but he really could be different.

As a technocratic leader--that I hope he would be, not the guy who ran for the nomination--might he really conduct this war differently than Obama? The president actually has a lot of say on issues like this and he could completely change US policy all by himself. How would Romney conduct this war? Any different than Obama, and how so?

George, I just can't see anyone voting for Romney based on the idea that he would care more about human rights than Obama. The guy is a robot--you think he is going to challenge the military and the CIA to change policy? He is not going to do anything that will mak him look weak. I guess if you can't vote for Obama because of your concerns about drone attack etc, I understand. But I can't see voting for Romney based on the premise that he would do better. I think there would be at least more cause for concern with Romney that he might get us involved in Iran or somewhere else, whereas Obama has drawn down on our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, did not get heavily involved in Libya, has not gotten involved in Syria and seems reluctant to get involved in Iran. He has used some harsh means to take on Al Qaeda, and can be criticized for that, he did inherit those tactics from a prior administration (and, apart from their morality or compliance with international law, the tactics have been effective). I have to say that for me torture makes me more uncomfortable than drone attacks. If Obama were military adventurous I would be more concerned--but he seems to want to avoid using military force unless he has to but watch out when he has to. I'm ok with that. War is not pretty--uses whatever means available to win and then get out. But torture I find completely reprehensible and barbaric.

In my weak moments I fantasize that Romney will morph into a Bloomberg-like technocrat manager, focused on efficiently managing the business of government, and that in his second term he will become an independent and in his third term . . . Oh wait.

geojanes wrote:As a technocratic leader--that I hope he would be...

As I see it, this really gets at the root of the matter. Romney seems to be a technocrat in many ways. He's certainly smart enough to be one (to the extent that's important). His experience in business and with the Salt Lake Olympics was seemingly guided by rational rules of method, risk/reward, and the search for practical results. And he hasn't displayed (as I read him) much in the way of genuine ideological fervor that rises above (or simply ignores) common sense and wonkishness.

However... Can a technocrat be effective as POTUS?

History isn't really on the side of a positive answer. First of all, no one has ever gotten a mandate to rule technocratically because no one has ever run as a technocrat. (I'll mention two semi-exceptions in a moment.) In fact, I can't remember any candidate except Jimmy Carter making much of a point about their mastery of any aspect of technology. (He was a Navy Nuke.) And only very obliquely will candidates brag about how smart they are.

Who have been the most effective Presidents since WWI? I'd say FDR, LBJ, and Reagan, and you could hardly name three less technocratic Presidents. Let me amend that: you could not name three less technocratic modern Presidents. They lead the pack since 1920 in being least technocratic.

The two semi-exceptions among all modern Presidents: Carter and Clinton. Jimmah was certainly an ideologue, but as an "outsider" and as an engineer, he implied that whereas Nixon had governed with an excess of (paranoic) emotion, he'd be cool, calm and collected, basing his decisions on what's rationally best for the nation, not the perverse motives of a Nixon. To an extent he did indeed try to govern like that. It did not work out well. I don't want to get into a big debate here about Jimmy Carter; suffice it to say that in the list of "effective" Presidents through our history (which exists in my head) he does not appear in the top thirty.

Clinton was exceptional in that he did strongly imply during the 1992 campaign that he was an exceptionally smart guy. He ran as a moderate, a "New Democrat", with a wonkish record from Arkansas - implying a less ideological more pragmatic approach to governance. We were even sold to some extent on the idea that Hillary was a sort of technocrat. And once in office his first really big effort was a quite technocratic effort to reform healthcare. The real author of that plan, Ira Magaziner, could be described as a technocrat par excellance.

It didn't work out. Technocracy in general really didn't work out for Clinton, and he soon found himself simply playing politics, governing more like a Reagan or LBJ than an Ira Magaziner. The Republicans forced him into it - there's no question about that. And in my opinion, if Romney tries to govern like a technocrat the Democrats will soon cut him down to size and force him to be a politician. Which party is which, in this case, is irrelevant. It's simply that we have a two-party system and ain't neither one of them called the Technocracy Party.

Can a technocrat be effective as POTUS? I fear not. As much as I'd like to think it possible, I fear not. Can Romney be effective as POTUS? I fear not. That's not to say that Obama has been or will be more effective.

The place for technocrats is in the cabinet, or even sub-cabinet. Look again at the three most effective modern Presidents (as I named them): FDR, LBJ and Reagan. These men were all consummate politicians. They'd each spent many decades in the thick of partisan politics, fighting with two fists and not a lot of rules. They were each important leaders before they ran for the top spot.* For some reason men like that don't run much for President any more. John McCain was a long-time two-fisted pol, and something of a leader, and couldn't beat a barely-known first-term Senator with no accomplishments. Before McCain the last candidate I'd place (barely) in this class was Richard Gephardt. And the last who really qualified was Bob Dole. All losers. And consider the roster of candidates Carter beat out for the nomination in 1976: Mo Udall, Scoop Jackson, Robert Byrd, Birch Bayh, and Lloyd Bentsen. All real politicians who knew how to get things done in DC, and they lost to a peanut farmer, who hadn't a clue.

Yes, it's tempting to think of Romney as a technocrat and hope he'll govern that way, but it might be wiser (if less intellectually satisfying) to hope he'll be a ball-busting SOB who sees only the big picture and leaves all the details but the very messiest to the guys in the small offices.

*This is less true of Reagan than of FDR and LBJ, but for a good 20 years before he ran for Prez Reagan had, second only to Barry Goldwater, defined what it meant to be a conservative.

purple

His experience in business and with the Salt Lake Olympics was seemingly guided by rational rules of method, risk/reward, and the search for practical results

This was suppossed to be his strength. Playing Chicago politics, and Rovian strategy they are no longer strengths as Romneys campaign is forced to defend itself in the area that was supposed to define his campaign...
Culminating in this devasting commericial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... d3mMj0AZZk

(And to those who take exception to its content...that arguement doesn't matter. It matters what effect it will have on the millions of viewers... ... In swing states, where this will gain a lot of exposure.... it will destroy Romneys previous "advantage"... (It and the weeks of political attacks on his bank accounts, tax filings, SEC filings and the record at Bain... Plus the very evil criminal in Batman this summer is Bane anf thats just image piling on ain't it?...
Thats mostly his fault, not releasing tax returns etc. And partly the parties. In the nomination process not one of his opponents went after him in this area with true effect. With real professionals going at him, he's now ...or after a few more weeks of this line of attack, given up his advantage here...

geo

As a technocratic leader--that I hope he would be...

Actually, I think his record in Massachussetts suggests he might actually be this...if he weren't leading the Republican party. He almost seems to run away from his Massachussetts record, mostly because of Romney Care... (A technocrats response to a problem that needed solving.)
And yet, as a governor he did seem to be a compromising technocrat.
Problem is, that the republican base hates that kind of political leader. They are anti-science, anti-elitist and anti-evidence based... . What defines a technocrat? Science, evidence and being "elite".
Huntsman, who ran as a technocrat I'd argue, got no support....
Sarah Palin remains popular with a third of the party....
Romney wouldn't be allowed to be a technocrat if he got elected, by HIS base. Would he have the courage to cleave from the Norquistian ideologues and carve out a pragmatic position in the middle with help from many sympathetic Democrats?
Nothing so far suggests he has that kind of a backbone. After all he signed Norquists pledge didn't he?
Or perhaps he has no deeply held beliefs or values that he isn't willing to compromise just to get elected....
Or Maybe he just chose the wrong party for his skill set?

I am confused about the Bain thing. Why would he be down as the CEO in filings to the SEC if he wasn't? Who was the CEO if not Romney in the 1999-2002 period?

danivon wrote:I am confused about the Bain thing. Why would he be down as the CEO in filings to the SEC if he wasn't? Who was the CEO if not Romney in the 1999-2002 period?

He was the CEO. The question is was he actually doing anything other than signing papers.

2 points:

1. If he was running Bain and the Olympics simultaneously, he is unbelievable as a multi-tasker and Biden should resign, Obama should make him VP and resign himself, so we don't even have to be bothered with an election. He is the most incredibly capable human being to exist in Western history.

2. Have a look at this post (all of it). Here's a snippet:

CNN reported last night that the accusations from Team Obama of felonious conduct are sheer nonsense and lies — and got that message from four executives at Bain, two of whom are “active” supporters of Barack Obama. John King spoke to all four, three of whom are Democrats, and all four said that Mitt Romney left Bain in a big hurry in 1999 in order to work full time on rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics. The rushed departure created a lot of paperwork headaches as Bain tried to unwind Romney from leadership, which required a significant amount of time. That’s why the company had Romney’s name on their SEC paperwork the next two years, as King reports:

Now, Obama's scorched Earth campaign might work, but it shows how little he has to run on. He, basically, has to DQ Romney to win. And, he'll lie as often as is necessary to win. Whatever it takes. We could be reading about burglary in Romney's campaign HQ.

fate

Now, Obama's scorched Earth campaign might work, but it shows how little he has to run on

.


What it shows is that he's an effective campaigner in todays' political climate.

rickyp wrote:fate

Now, Obama's scorched Earth campaign might work, but it shows how little he has to run on

.


What it shows is that he's an effective campaigner in todays' political climate.

If that helps you reconcile "hope and change" with the current Obama "destroy and obliterate," sure, fine.

But, effective? Nixon was effective too.

fate

He was the CEO. The question is was he actually doing anything other than signing papers.

Unfortunately for Mitt it isn't that simple. Back when running for governor he testified, under oath, that he was indeed active as a board member in companies in which Bain had positions.
It may be that his campaign will split hairs and say; "yeah, but that wasn't Bain....so we didn't lie...."
But it still comes off as disingenuous...he was acting on those boards to protect Bains interests....

[quote]Romney sat on the board of the LifeLike Co., a dollmaker that was a Bain portfolio company while Romney was in Utah, and in June 2002 he told the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission that he had remained active on that board, as well as on the board of Bain alum company Staples. The Bain statement says that he had no involvement with any Bain portfolio companies since the day of his departure in 1999, and the Romney campaign cites that statement as an authoritative source. The Romney campaign is therefore asserting that Romney lied to the Ballot Commission in 2002[/quote
]

And then there's that Swiss bank account and those Caymans accounts...
What I can't figure out is why things like that wouldn't seem to be areas of vulnerability to his campaign team? And why they weren't cleaned up when he decided to go full bore for Presidency...
Perhaps he wasn't fully convinced he'd win the nomination?
On the otehr hand, this is the party that nominated Sarah Palin.

rickyp wrote:fate

He was the CEO. The question is was he actually doing anything other than signing papers.

Unfortunately for Mitt it isn't that simple. Back when running for governor he testified, under oath, that he was indeed active as a board member in companies in which Bain had positions.
It may be that his campaign will split hairs and say; "yeah, but that wasn't Bain....so we didn't lie...."
But it still comes off as disingenuous...he was acting on those boards to protect Bains interests....

Romney sat on the board of the LifeLike Co., a dollmaker that was a Bain portfolio company while Romney was in Utah, and in June 2002 he told the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission that he had remained active on that board, as well as on the board of Bain alum company Staples. The Bain statement says that he had no involvement with any Bain portfolio companies since the day of his departure in 1999, and the Romney campaign cites that statement as an authoritative source. The Romney campaign is therefore asserting that Romney lied to the Ballot Commission in 2002[/quote
]

And then there's that Swiss bank account and those Caymans accounts...
What I can't figure out is why things like that wouldn't seem to be areas of vulnerability to his campaign team? And why they weren't cleaned up when he decided to go full bore for Presidency...
Perhaps he wasn't fully convinced he'd win the nomination?
On the otehr hand, this is the party that nominated Sarah Palin.

Nice link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... r=Politics

Look, if he committed perjury, have him arrested.

If that crook of an AG, Eric Holder, has any integrity, he'll put Mitt on trial by Tuesday, right?

This whole thing is a smokescreen and you know it. There is nothing there of significance.

Nothing like, oh, I don't know, running up nearly $6T in deficits, forcing a medical program on the American people that they don't want, arrogating power to himself that he does not have to reverse welfare reform, and on and on.

In other words, Obama wants to avoid his record so he's straining at gnats over Romney's--and lying left and right. He claims Romney outsourced. This is the "proof" of that?

Well, we don't need proof to know Obama outsourced American jobs using TAXPAYER'S monies. That was part of his Stimulus--and part of his "green" investments.

So, want to fight about outsourcing? Want to fight about who is the biggest liar? There's barely room, even allowing for gravitational pull, for Obama's nose to remain in Earth's atmosphere.

Tell you what: why don't you vote for Barack "the Liar" Obama? Oh, that's right--you can only vote if we don't demand ID.

Purple wrote:...no one has ever gotten a mandate to rule technocratically because no one has ever run as a technocrat.

Come to think of it, I'm wrong. Herbert Hoover both ran as and governed as a technocrat.

Somehow I think the precedent, and possible comparison, doesn't work to Romney's competitive advantage!