Interesting conclusion to a positive column about Barack Obama by the New York Times’ David Brooks: “The presidency is a bacterium. It finds the open wounds in the people who hold it. It infects them, and the resulting scandals infect the presidency and the country. The person with the fewest wounds usually does best in the White House, and is best for the country.â€
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
12 Comments
The person with the fewest wounds usually does best in the White House, and is best for the country.”
I’d be ok with that. IF it were not for the Republican smear machine that hacks and cuts at their own to weed out one and then hacks and cuts at the opposing Democrat.
It is not in their nature. But Democrats NEED to learn to play mean and nasty.
Thinking back to the many Presidents we have had and particularly the successful ones, I don’t believe the formula for success as President is that simple.
Thinking specifically of my choice for tough success as President, FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT was elected four times, couldn’t stand on his own legs during the entire time due to polio, battled the Great Depression, a financially drained nation, the approaching war in Europe, and finally full-blown World War. Surrounded by the maniac Adolph Hitler and his Nazi henchmen, the Italian fascist Mussolini and fanatic Emperor Tojo to the East … FDR provided tremendous leadership to America and the world.
Trying to classify Franklin Roosevelt as “one with fewer wounds” would be totally irrelevant to analysis of successful Presidents.
Now of course the easiest way to have no mistakes and no bad things for other to point to is to not have lived at all. Perfection is not a human trait nor does it lead itself to having lived, but if the candidate has made the effort to limit their mistakes and atone when they could. I can ask for nothing more, it does seem though that Politics and a small town have something in common. “If the truth is not bad enough, they will make up a good lie”.
Nice article to ruin this fine Christmas Day, you journalistic viper.
Why didn’t you just include the ‘Final Solution’ for Jews in your report as well?
Maybe you can still squeeze in lighting puppies on fire and throwing cats in rivers with bricks tied to their tails?
Use the republican strategy, Admit nothing, claim infallibility.
Bush had plenty of scandals before he got into office, it took another one to get into office and it hasn’t stopped since. However he said he was bringing honesty and integrity back to the White House so we didn’t have any more “scandals” like 30 year old land deals and affairs with interns. Ah, the good old days when scandals never hurt anybody.
Sanitizer would be inadequate to the task at hand. Most folks who run for political office, especially at higher levels, are motivated by the quest for power, and are accustomed to manipulating people and circumstances within their reach at present in an attempt to extend their reach in the future. This appetite for power and the willingness to manipulate are an ideal environment for the bacterium to flourish that David Brooks is referencing. I believe that this trait is almost universally true regardless of political stripe or expression of altruistic rhetoric by the candidate/office holder. I say almost universally true, because there have been some shining examples of high political office holders who are honest, honorable and trustworthy. This sub-species of politician is rare and is has always been on the endangered species list!
Is this bacterium/sanitizer question appropriate appropriate on Christmas Day as one commenter is questioning? As a Christian, I believe that the topic of the integrity of our leadership is appropriate today and every day. When Christ walked among us here on earth the conventional wisdom regarding effective leadership was one that emphasized power, overthrowing and punishing one’s enemy’s, etc. (not unlike today). Jesus proclaimed an inversion of conventional wisdom that emphasized service to others, humility and generosity. So today, December 25, 2007, these traits are just as important for us as individuals and are doubly important for those who would seek the presidency. Such an approach to life avoids the germs and the need for sanitizers.
I believe that Obama will be an honest President. Honestly is important but so if effectiveness. Jimmy Carter was honest but ineffective. Hopefully that is not a model we want to follow. You should be honest and nice when you can but when your opponets play nasty, so must you.
Obama may have abused drugs at one time, as so did Bush, or their have been claims of cocaine use anyway. I can guarantee that Obama probably would have done a better job than Bush had he been the prez for the past eight years. I don’t think its so much the past problems our presidents have but it how they deal with them. Bush came from wealth, so its likeley his problems we’re always being swept under the rug by his realitives to keep his career in the upswing, wheras Obama probably had to fight tooth and nail with himself to get back on the right track, with a lot less support.
Blaming “The Presidency” for causing scandals is typical for Liberals.
Blame someone other than the person for causing their own scandals.
Character.
Something most politicians don’t have.
Lack of it, is what causes scandals.
If you have no core beliefs, if you have no values, no honesty, and you lie and say whatever people want to hear depending on the direction of the polls, then you will have scandals.
Go ahead Eagle, blame someone else for causing scandals. Don’t blame the person who caused the scandal.
The cover up is always worse than the origianl misdeed. Career polticians can built up natural immunities to scandals with honesty & humility. How could have Clinton’s presidency been different if he had been truthful about the Gennifer Flowers affair and had apologized about the Paula Jones sexual harrassment incident when it happened instead of firing her? There probably never been a Monica Lewinsky deppositon in which he committed perjury on tape because there probbly never would have been a Monica Lewinsky incident.
How could attorney general Paul Morrison’s career been changed if he would had the humility to accept the consequences to his boorish behavior and publicly apologized to Kelly Summerlin in 1993. Morrsion privately apologized but then went on to retaliate against her out of fear. If he had accepted his consequences in 1992, he would not have had the affair in 2005 or he would have instead asked Joyce for a divorce first.
Too many of these type A personalities do not feel powerful unless they can get away with something wrong.
Although the Brooks column favors Obama, Brooks is a conservative and I suspect that he is also supporting Romney and/or Huckabee as the cleanest GOP contenders.
Bill – I think your “Type A” comment hits the mark. The qualifications for winning the presedency are precisely those that then lead to the downfall. Over-arching ambition with an “everything else be damned” attitude.