A president is "elected" (and I use the term loosely)
to represent the whole of the US and not just one
party. While there is much "rewardism" associated
with backing the horse or NASCAR that winds up in the
winner's circle, the fact of the matter is that the
person whom the people have chosen to do the job
expect some facet of fair and well-balanced
representation. Parochial interests simply do not
serve that at all.
Yesterday's note stood on my big toe as it relates to
politics. In order to present a fairly all-round
picture on such matters, I read materials from the far
right to the far left and many points in between. I
have friends I truly respect whose political beliefs
are sometimes in direct opposition to my own, but
hearing their point of view and taking the time to
factor in those points of view in my overall decision
making allows me to make better informed choices.
Admittedly, there have been times when I have had
friends I really like who were so far away in position
that I've had to stop and say, "What's the matter with
me because I like A, B, and C, and I can't believe
they feel as they do."
Staying strictly with members of one party wreaks of
agendaism and not the bipartisanship government the
American public has long sought, especially after many
years of very nasty political campaigns.
I realize a leader may want a "Yessa boss" working for
him/her; however, a good leader wants the
best-qualified person and must be willing to admit
that (s)he can't have all the answers on all the many
things for which (s)he must be responsible and should
not negate someone's value simply because they did not
bet on them in the race.
We're talking about the value of art and the
humanities, not the value of being a "good stooge" or
"good ass" or "good elephant."
Only a real ass would disqualify someone who was, for
all other purposes, qualified from such a position
and, if the Party had done its homework, it would have
known, in the first place, what that person's
political persuasion was. For goodness sakes, voter
rolls are far too easy to access. If they expected an
elephant's only board, they would have checked that
fact out first instead of insulting our lister in just
this fashion. It sort of reminds me of the milk
commercial where the man is taunting the chimp with
his food. Rather cruel.
We're not just talking about governing Texas or the
Republican Party. We are talking about providing
oversight to "We the People of the United States". We
come in all shapes, sizes, colors, ethnic and/or
racial backgrounds, religious and nonreligious
perspectives, and political belief systems. Those who
are selected to oversee such things as the Arts should
clearly be representative of that.
Harrumph. The opposite simply irks me!
--- "David E. Haberstich" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
why would a President
> want to appoint someone
> who will fight with him? If the appointment process
> is highly politicized,
> why would it surprise anyone if Senate confirmation
> hearings often include
> disingenuous, thinly veiled attacks on the
> candidate's politics?
=====
Indigo Nights
[log in to unmask]
Looking for a job? Try:
Check out the REVISED Got Links, your one-stop portal
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/stanmer/414 Updated 02/14/02
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
