No experience? No problem.
Turns out that the top FEMA officials "had little or no experience in disaster management before landing in top FEMA posts." (Read the full story here).
So the folks who are supposed to coordinate efforts to help us out during a big emergency have no real idea how to do it. What a great appointment by the President.
Big surprise? Not really. Bush gave them the jobs because they were his buddies or buddies of his buddies. That's pretty standard practice when you're President, although the article does mention that the FEMA higher ups during Clinton's term had significant experience with disaster management in Arkansas.
I don't think the White House is going to be able to spin their way out of this one. But they can try. (you'll need Quicktime to view this video; credit once again goes to crooksandliars.com, my new favorite web site, other than prez2012, of course!)
posted by prez @ 9:29 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
The horror of it all - now I am sitting here petrified thinking about what position Mark will hold during your presidency! Do I dare ask?
Maybe you should start thinking about 2008 instead of 2012. A viaable alternative to Hillary and whoever post-Bush runs against her for the Republicans.
Here's a continuation of the previous commet. Pretty long, sorry.
You can apply the concept of "disruptive technology" to the task of getting votes. I don't mean simply using the internet -- I mean coming up with whole new issues to focus on. Here is what I would present as my platform, if I were running:
1. Redirect Congress more productively and transparently: First, Congressional rules be modified to entirely disallow "riders" on proposed bills. That is, every proposal should stand or fall on its own merits. Legislators will hate this idea.
2. Next, redefine Pork-barrel politics: Acknowledge that acquiring appropriations for the home state or home district is what makes US politics go around. In compensation for #1 above, allot a portion of the annual federal budget to each member of Congress for his or her own pet projects -- a virtually discretionary budget with only minimal federal accountability standards. Legislators will love this idea.
However, it will shift the focus of every re-election campaign to include how appropriately the incumbent used his or her discretionary largesse for the district vs. what new ideas the challenger can present. Legislators may be neutral to this idea, as it could be played both ways.
Other projects, over and above these discretionary ones, must run the gauntlet of congressional appropriation -- not as attached appropriations riders on other bills -- hence, more likely to be good for the entire country. Legislators will hate this idea.
3. Imposition of a sunset clause requirement on every law, regulation, standing rule, presidential directive, and even Supreme Court decision. In short, every single aspect of the American political fabric comes up for review within a specified period of time. Legislators may hate this idea, perhaps. One possible result is that the the legal code may end up being simplified, although I can also imagine things going the other way.
4. Legalize tax protests: Taxpayers may specify where their taxes are to be allocated. Similar to the "California Budget" website. For a trial period of, say, ten years or so this would be only an advisory, but after the specified adjustment period, this would have the force of law. Each and every taxpayer would have the legal right to override the "default" appropriations and specify what parts of the US government should receive what portions of his or her own taxes. This would encourage every office of the government to make itself transparent and comprehensible to the American public. Legislators will hate this idea.
What I would stay away from -- at all costs -- is taking specific stands on the current range of traditional issues. Instead, I would tell the voters that I intend to appoint advisors from across the political spectrum (including representatives of the the nut cases at both ends) and encourage full and unprejudiced debate of the issues inside the White House.
I would encourage the public to view me as an open-minded person who thinks that there is something worth considering in virtually every stance -- which is why politics is an unending cycle, where there are no permanent winners and no permanent losers (except, of course, those who must die as the result of policy decisions).
My emphasis would be that no policy decision that puts America or American's in harm's way would be taken on the basis of a single ideology.
Since I'm not running for President myself, feel free to steal liberally from the above list. I do think it would work better as a complete package presentation, though, rather than picking and choosing parts of the list.
Cheers!
Pam's Dad
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home