What say we return some COMPETENCE to government

Seems to me that if one doesn't like the government they have then maybe they should do something about changing it? Like finding more people that feel the same way and vote? Aren't WE the people the ones that elect the politicians? Doesn't that mean that WE are responsible for who is in office being in office? (elected officials I mean)

Yes, it's all our fault, cuz we're stupid.

Yeah and that election will probably be rigged too

You honestly don't feel that way do you? I am being serious. Do you think the presidential elections are rigged in some way? If so, please tell me why you think that? I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say that before.

Kickycan,

I can't say I have run into anyone here at A2K that I would actually call stupid.

Farmerman

How many folks here on this site acknowledge or even comprehend how the term "incompetent" might apply to this administration? How many in the broader population of the US? Per a poll noted on MSNBC news last evening, those polled who held that Bush handled Katrina well was nearly identical to those who thought he had bungled it badly.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/talk/050912ta_talk_remnick

a teeny cut of blathams clip, in which our "special Ed" president made the profound statement

Bernie, I am but left with the hope that many of his staunch supporters will, slowly , remove their blindfolds and see that, this president is without any substance. Hes an empty suit , who brings a past of priviledge and not much else to the game. Hes not a guy used to hard work and solving problems. Hell he doesnt even demand that of his chiefs. His comment to Mike Brown
the other day'Brownie , youre doin a hell of a job".
Had Mr Brown been in the private sector, where we demand results, his ass wouldve been fired after his butt licking memo to Chertoff as the storm raged .

Bush's numbers are at a historical low. Hes becoming an embarrassment and a liability to those GOPers who wish to be reannointed in 06.

Lots of folks here who profess a broad view and understanding of history, now decrying the lack of "competence" in American and European politics. I would like to hear from some or any of them just when was an age that exhibited the reciprocal quality - competence?

Perhaps they will cite the early years of the 20th century during which the European powers blindly descended into a war that devastated Europe and - from the distant perspective of history - had no discernable object or potential benefit to anyone. The only thing worse than this war, - and betraying as much incompetence - was the peace that ended it, merelly setting the stage for a series of aftershocks that continues today.

Alternatively they could look to the interregnum between the World Wars while Europe and America descended into a deep and lasting economic depression and tyrannical bloodthirsty regivmes arose in Germany and the then Soviet Union. In America a decade of the fabled "nothing to fear but..." rhetoric of FDR and endless but ineffectiove government tinkering in economic matters produced almost no discernable economic benefit, until the massive rearmament program of 1940 got the economy going again.

One could consider the spectacle of the incompetence of the Democratic powers in the face of the attacks by Germany and Japan. The blindness of British, French, and American leadership in the face of the Nazi challenge and the persistent illusions some had about the Soviet monstrosity. The rapid fall of the British, French, and American colonial outposts in Asia -- from Indochina to Java and Singapore and of course the Phillipines do not suggest a high degree of preparedness and military competence on the part of the defending powers which together had more military assets at their disposal than their aggressive enemy and which had wasted years contemplating the coming attack by Japan with blind complacency.

The period after WWII provides yet another spectacle, but I believe I have made my point already.

"Competence" -- relative to what ???

all enjoyable reading georgeob.However, Competence need not be comparative. Its a condition of , in this case, leadership that derives from the simple axiom that "the government ought to have some idea that it knows what the hell its doing"

Comptetence is like beauty, we may not agree whose the greatest beauty of all time , but we can all agree whats ugly.

On a careful reading, I'm not sure what that sentence means. I suspect those in the Federal government dealing with the Katrina disaster do believe they know what they are doing.

I hope you are not suggesting that the qualities of "competence" and the lack of it do not logically require some reference point. I am surprised by this - coming from you.

Dare I say that the last 20 years before the current administration are starting to look pretty good.

you are somehow not in full agreement with my thread title? So you think that the present administration is definably competent?

We can , if you wish, tally who were the "greatest" incompetent leaders of our nation and I'll bet that GWB will sit somewhere near the top , maybe in the top 3. Is that something of the reference point you describe?

georgeob said
So did captain William
Smith and Joseph Hazelwood.

heh.. i'll take even farther back to gerry ford. i liked that guy. talk about making the best of a bad hand.

Yes the good ole days ... missile attacks on aspirin factories in the Sudan; bugouts in Somalia; Madeline Albright sucking up to Kim Jong Il; Presidents initialling treaties with no evident intent of ever submitting them to the Senate for ratification. Very impressive competence that.

I didn't compare the two wars. You people pick up on one or two keywords, and stop thinking. I said that the fact that someone is in the White House when bad things happen doesn't mean that he is at fault.

george ? is that it ? are we gonna forever play tit for tat ? we can, if ya want ?

the aspirin factory ?

a) that's different from bombing a restaurant, where saddam was supposed to be, the night before launching shock & awe, how? no saddam there. a few fragged waiters, but no evil tyrant.

b) how does that square with assertion that clinton did nothing ?


somalia ?

a) have you forgotten just who deployed troops there ? less than 90 days before the end of his term ?

b) have you forgotten that it was a humanitarian aid, not a combat mission ?

c) how many guys would you like to have seen eat it before "bugging out", as you say ? or would you rather have thrown more guys and money at an operation sponsored by the u.n. that you love so well?


sucking up to l'il kim ?

a) and the difference from the current offer of incentives differs in what way ?

not sure what treaty you refer to ?

also, as apparently you have nothing in mind other than "clinton", i'd have to assume that it's not really competence that you want, or want to discuss. if so, you could easily pointed at reagan and said, "yeah, like him".

Indeed. I don't recall Clinton being in power for the last 20 years. And DTOM, you have a point about going further back. But unfortunately, I was too young to remember.

You are missing the point entirely.

If you will look back you will see that my argument was that history reveals (retrospectively) rather consistent incompetence on the part of governments, and that the first several pages of this thread were devoted to beating the current horse by those so inclined, with no attention whatever to just what might be a reasonable historical standard.

Tit for tat may be your game, but it is not mine.

georgeob.
George, by trying to , somehow, use that argument to be an apologist for the present incompetence ,isnt effective.
Its nothing more than a dressed up version of "yo mommas so fat that..."