Over at BadEagle.com Dr. Yeagley informs me that my definition of the term "qualified", applied to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, does not align with a true conservative, modern definition of same, when in actuality my definition does not align with Yeagley's liberalized definition of the term "qualify" and its derivatives:
Terry, "qualification" these days, to a true conservative, means simply to know what it means to be American, by a studied Constitutional definition, and to love America.
And I reply:
I'm sorry Dr. Yeagley, I respect you and your opinion, but I cannot get onboard with what you've written above, which to my way of thinking is simply a lowering of standards for the sole purpose of making people like Governor Palin fit into some kind of 21st century (or something) definition of the term "qualified."
What you're describing in your definition is patriotism. Patriotism does not a qualified V.P. candidate make, albeit it is important that a V.P. candidate be a patriot, which, as you say, disqualifies Hussein Obama.
Okay, this started out as a long post in which I was going to show why the corruption of these terms by illegitimately making them synonymous with one another, as Yeagley has done above, can in no way be considered "true conservatism," modern methods and good intentions of some notwithstanding. But then I thought better of it, deleted everything I'd written in that vein, and decided to take another approach.
I'm asking for my readers, conservative and liberal alike, to either defend Yeagley's definition of these terms or to refute it in a comment to this entry. Anyone who wants to contribute to the discussion is very welcome to do so, but if you're simply going to engage the tack of insulting this or that contributor, or Dr. Yeagley himself, then I'm simply going to delete your posts (you know who you are). Fair enough? Good, then let the conversation begin.
34 comments:
I know who you mean, so you can delete if you want, it makes me feel good to express myself, if only to myself!
I have to agree with you on this for once. Sounds similiar to our own Comanche Business Committee of lowering standards or adopting resolutions to fit a position for a non-qualified position or person they want to keep or put on board, of course that person can always learn.
On the other issue of yeagleys definition, don't you know by now, he uses his own form of.... whatever! You have to know the full scope of his plan, he is the man in the maize, you have to get to him, maybe he will eventually tell you what he means, he most likely agrees with you!
All, please pick a name other than anonymous to post a comment under. And please stick with it.
Thanks.
Jayrock, I'm assuming you're the anonymous commenter in the above surviving post.
Could you elaborate on why it is you agree with me concerning this definition of terms issue as it relates to this post? Everything else aside. Thanks.
Here's something else for readers to consider...
I personally don't think I can lay down a solid works-every-time-for-every-prospective-POTUS definition of the term "qualifications". I mean, how does one prepare oneself for the presidency? There's no other job like, no other job with as much responsibility and so on, in America. A governorship of a State is the closest thing to it, and since the central government has grown to proportions eclipsing any and all states in this Union, there can be little comparison between the governorship of a mere state, no matter what its size, and the presidency of the United States. I'll grant you that a governor of, say, California, bears a closer resemblance to POTUS than a governor of, say, Wyoming or Alaska, but still the above holds true.
I do know, however, that it goes beyond simple patriotism. And for me personally Executive experience is, as a general rule, a vital qualification for anyone seeking the presidency...
Barama did not brag about himself, and name names, nor call others anything other than what they were. Just look at all the people after the fact that came out. They were helping him! He did not have bring up these important people.
I don't think he tried psychology on the American public. He used his REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE, in relating to ALL the AMERICAN PEOPLE who won his vote. He and his people managed this with while maintaining their self estseem and composer. On the other hand look at Palin bad mouthing everyone involved, and yeagley still hating the Black man, McCain is not so bad after the fact....but glad he lost.
Anonymous,
Fair enough. Obama ran a pretty clean campaign, all things considered. I don't think I can disagree with you there.
Will you please honor my request to identify yourself as someone other than "anonymous?" Thank you.
Terry,
One may "know what it is to be American by a studied Constitutional definition" and to love America without being a conservative.
To have the knowledge referred to in Mr.Yeagly's definition is not the same as agreeing with the "Constitutional definition". I think one could argue that an individual may be said to love America without agreeing with the "Constitutional definition" of an American.
For instance I could study polytheism and understand everything I studied without becoming a polytheist.
For that reason, I must disagree with Mr. Yeagly's definition.
You call it conservative yeagley calls it liberal, why can't you both agree that with Obamas' leadership it will be Progressive.
Our President Barack Obama was and still may be a Constitutional Law Professional, he is totally a Patriot from the top of his kinky hair to the soles of his black feet.
Would the world be rejoicing if McCain won? I think not, though he is a true Patriot, he is not true to his family.
Obama speaks of his wife the love of his life and life partner, she calls him "baby".
A smart steady leader and a Super Patriot who loves his Country and Family and puts them First! is what we need!
Okay, I'm generally not a three-strikes-and-you're-out type personality, more like a one-strike-you're-out type. Ask my children. But I do have patience under certain circumstances.
Any posts from this point forward written under the name "anonymous" will be summarily deleted. I don't care whether you agree with me or disagree with me; whether you make outstanding points or blatantly poor ones, your post will be deleted.
That is all.
You call it conservative yeagley calls it liberal, why can't you both agree that with Obamas' leadership it will be Progressive.
Yeagley doesn't call it liberal. I called Yeagley's definition a "liberalized" definition. We need to be careful not to attribute to Dr. Yeagley something he didn't say.
Our President Barack Obama was and still may be a Constitutional Law Professional, he is totally a Patriot from the top of his kinky hair to the soles of his black feet.
Okay, you and I have a different conception of what constitutes a patriot. But that's ok. We all, including Dr. Yeagley, seem to be in agreement that patriotism is an extremely important qualification for the job. We just have different ideas of what patriotism is. You mention in addition Obama's credentials as a "constitutional law professional." So it's important to you that a president have these same credentials?
Would the world be rejoicing if McCain won? I think not, though he is a true Patriot, he is not true to his family.
McCain has done patriotic things in his life, and those acts of patriotism are to be commended. I think McCain is patriotic, but not a true patriot. There is a difference.
As to the remark about the world "rejoicing" over Obama's election, it's a little disturbing to be frank.
Obama speaks of his wife the love of his life and life partner, she calls him "baby".
A lot of married couples do that.
A smart steady leader and a Super Patriot who loves his Country and Family and puts them First! is what we need!
Executive experience is not important to you, or have you just made an exception in Obama's case?
Mom,
Your observations are interesting, and I of course agree on your point about studying other religions and belief systems, and knowing and understanding them apart from any desire or whatever to follow them, indeed from an opposite desire at times; from a desire to know them well enough to be able to detect them even as they are disguised in appealing garb. But I'm confused by the following statement in your post:
One may "know what it is to be American by a studied Constitutional definition" and to love America without being a conservative.
Could you elaborate.
Terry,
How many of your posters will say that they love America even though they are not conservatives. (Or at least they claim not to be. I suspect that if they really examined themselves they would find that what they love about America are those bits that are maintained by conservative values-but I digress.)
Some of them even claim to have a knowledge of our Constitution. (Our president-elect as a Constitutional scholar comes to mind here.)I'm just saying that it is possible to study the Constitution and claim to love one's country while not holding(or at least not claiming to hold) conservative values.
I was quoting Mr. Yeagly's definition which is not particularly conducive to analysis.
We are beset with all sorts of people who seem to think that Americans are something other than the Constitutional definition.(That being, by implication, self reliant, responsible, thinking people who understand the value of the free market and the freedoms granted to us by our creator, and who are unwilling to allow those freedoms to be confiscated by an overbearing government.) Folks seem to be embroiled in some sort of feel good, be nice, socialistic feeding frenzy at the moment.
I cannot for the life of me see anywhere in the Constitution any mention of government doing for people what they ought to do for themselves. Yet so many of the jubilant supporters of our current president elect are bubbling over at the notion that, with Mr. Obama as president, the hungry will be fed, the poor will be clothed, all that troubles us will be taken care of by our overarching, paternal, benevolent government. Indeed, to hear folks like jayrock tell it, "Even if Obama's admin comes at us with half of the promise that I suspect he has then we are in for better days ahead.
We finally have someone on our side, looking out for the middle class. I'm tired of the rich getting all the breaks under Bush's regime.".
Ah the days of glory are now to come , where all of the rest of us will get rich with no effort on our part, while those who are currently rich, no matter how hard they worked or what risks they took to earn it, will go down in flames and taste what it's like to be poor, right? To me, that's not America, but it seems to be the overwhelming belief of those who voted for Mr. Obama that it is, or should be. More than that, it seems to be the message that our Constitutional scholar used to get those votes.
My apologies, I've strayed from the discussion topic again, which, I believe was a definition of "qualified" to be president as a conservative. Upon re-reading the post, if Mr. Yeagly's definition is agreeable to conservatives, it can only be because we have so few leaders of principle and character who are willing to dip their toes into the dirty water of politics. Serving in public office these days seems to be a matter of d***** if you do and d***** if you don't, so why get dirty when I don't have to? The answer, as it has always been, is to steer the country, but fewer and fewer people are willing to drag themselves and their families through the mud to do so. It costs to do the right thing, and it costs dearly. We suffer from a leadership deficit and this is the result. Indeed, if Mr. Yeagly's definition is acceptable, I would be a likely candidate for POTUS as would you, Mr. Morris. I know that I am not qualified to do that job, just as I am not currently qualified to be a brain surgeon. There are no formal qualifications other than the ones listed in the Constitution, but we would be fools to assume no others are necessary.
The extreme right seem to consistently beat on the drum of polarity, as if to champion the middle class is to promise riches. It's an illogical argument and easily defeated.
No what Obama looks towards is a U.S. where the middle class are no longer exploited. Moving taxes back to benefit the middle class is not socialism. Taxes are always distributed to different areas accordingly. What we have done over the past 8 years is tried the Republican experiment of tax cuts for the wealthy/corporations. Big oil has done fine. The wealthy have done great. The economy is in the tank however. The American public has voted against 8 years of the same. The people have spoken.
You may call is socialism but the middle class call it a departure from business as usual, at least in regards to Republican values and the last 8 years.
You may call it socialism but the middle class call it a departure from business as usual, at least in regards to Republican values and the last 8 years.
Funny you should express it that way, Jayrock. Sarah Palin, who you call an idiot over and over in another thread stated almost the exact same thing (verbatim to what you've stated elsewhere) in an interview Sunday with the Anchorage Daily News:
“I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a 10 trillion dollar debt in a Republican administration? How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration?”
But anyway, that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about qualifications for the presidency. We all seem to agree that patriotism is a key qualification. We all seem to agree that knowledge of the Constitution is key, though you've said elsewhere Jayrock that you don't study the constitution and you have no loyalty to the American People. Everyone agrees, I should think, that intelligence is a key qualification for a president. But am I the only one who believes that a president should have a lot of high level executive experience in government?
I think the POTUS should have a high level of executive experience, but not necessarily in government.
Fair enough, Mom. Not necessarily in government, but that is probably the best executive experience to prepare one for the presidency, we agree on that, right? You're thinking a CEO of a large corporation I assume?
For me an ideal president, in terms of executive experience, would be someone who'd worked his way up in government from, say, a mayoral job to the governorship of a large state with a large budget and all that. This of course assumes no major scandals and whatnot. ...
One reason I so strongly opposed Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court (her "conservatism," such as it is, notwithstanding), is precisely for this reason that she had no state level experience to prepare her for the job.
There is a big problem with that, to my mind. Was she a qualified lawyer? Yes. Was she qualified to serve on a state court? Yes. Was she qualified to serve on the Texas State Supreme Court? Probably. Yet she never had served in any of these positions. All of her governmental experience was at the national level under Bush. Where's her connection to the states? Where's her loyalty to her own state, and to the other forty nine states by extension?
I have a big issue with politicians and judges who never serve in positions under their own state governments. Federalism -- that neglected principle that is crucial to the survival of our form of government -- is in no way maintainable with such unqualifieds occupying seats at the national level.
The unfortunate and very obvious flaw in the argument about executive experience is our current president. He has clearly trashed our country and currently has the lowest approval rating of any president, including Nixon, since approval ratings have been recorded.
He was the governor of TX.
My argument is that there are many types of experience one can gather in preparation for POTUS. Being a governor unfortunately, or fortunately, however you want to look at it, does not immediately make you eligible.
Other than that, does one think Trump is presidential material? If going by executive experience?
Also, that is the FIRST intelligent thing to come out of Palin's mouth that I've heard. God forbid she actually say that during her mudslinging. She knew the truth but chose to distract with lies and accusations. Doesn't change my original outlook. She's a liar on top of being an idiot.
Again Terry, you put words into my mouth. It's getting tiresome. I have to only guess it's because I come from such a realm of experience outside of your own in small town Oklahoma...
I have loyalty to my family and tribal people, the Comanche, first and foremost. Call me crazy but last time I checked, they were considered Americans.
This country tried to exterminate my people though wars then later broken treaties, then later termination and relocation programs. It wasn't that long ago, this country isn't that old. My father cannot speak his language because his mother was beaten for speaking it in boarding schools, where Indians where you know, forcibly moved to.
Methinks we don't come from the same American perspective. We are from the same state even and do not have the same American experience.
This is the difference between Right and Left. The right seems to think that everyone is or should be like them. The left seems to understand that the world is not so simple.
The unfortunate and very obvious flaw in the argument about executive experience is our current president.
Jayrock,
That's not a flaw in the argument. What other executive experience did Bush have when he became president? He was a two term governor with not a lick of executive experience besides. Compare the responsibilites of a governor of Texas with those of another state with a similar population. You'll find that in the former the governor bears a lesser proportion of governmental responsibility.
My argument is that there are many types of experience one can gather in preparation for POTUS. Being a governor unfortunately, or fortunately, however you want to look at it, does not immediately make you eligible.
Who has said otherwise?
Other than that, does one think Trump is presidential material? If going by executive experience?
No; But trump is not simply a CEO. He is other things, and one has to look at those other things that he is. He doesn't seem particularly gifted at keeping a steady wife, for instance. :-)
Again Terry, you put words into my mouth.
I did not put any words into your mouth. I did not say that Comanches are not Americans. In fact I've said the opposite. You did say that you do not study the constitution. You did say that you have no loyalties to MY people. Last time I checked my people, on all sides, were Americans with deep roots in this country.
Just let it be a lesson learned, Jayrock. Don't say anything you don't want to be held to account for.
Terry,
I was thinking of a CEO or equivalent of a large corporation. Possibly going into politics as a perceived civic duty after having been successful as a CEO.
jrock, executive experience is not enough. Character counts.
Ah but you did Terry and you do, say things that I did not say.
I can only gather it's your anger and "patriotic" fervor that clouds your vision and you get all riled up.
I did say I don't study the constitution. Because I said this, apparently this means to you that it means nothing to me. I never said that but you have said I say that.
Also you say I have no loyalty to Americans which is a lie. It's a matter of semantics it seems Terry, and how you want to interpret it in your own posts. Now you say I have no loyalty to YOUR Americans. Well, we can look at that argument.
By your own definition Indians cannot have dual loyalty therefore we cannot have loyalty to our own tribes. By assumption this means people who believe the same as you who live here are American and therefore I would NOT have any loyalty to them.
These are right wing extremists, a fringe group living in America. These are Americans no doubt, but hardly reprsentative of all Americans.
By the same token I have no loyalty to KKK folks.
Simple enough Terry?
Jayrock,
You seem to conveniently dismiss Obama's connections with Wright and Ayers et al. Now I ask you, which of us, myself, Mom, or Wright is on the fringe?
I wouldn't say Obama is part of the fringe because he has been elected as POTUS by a large majority of the American public. If ever Obama was part of the fringe (your words not mine) the American public has made him mainstream.
The question was about Obama's spiritual and political buddies, Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, at least one of which -- Wright -- can vote in American elections, and we can safely assume that he and his congregation voted Hussein Obama. So, assuming (again, a fairly safe assumption to make) Wright voted with the majority, this means he's part of the mainstream and not part of the fringe?
Incidentally, do you really believe that (1) Obama, after twenty years as a member of Wright's church didn't know what Wright was all about, and/or (2) Obama has really and actually severed for once and for all time his connections with Wright and Wright's beliefs?
Regarding your other post,...
You've said several times in your own defense (which I've never denied you and would not deny you, btw) that the constitution does mean something to you. But you've never said what it means to you. If it means something to you, it shouldn't be that difficult to articulate it, at least in general terms.
You say that by my definition Indians cannot have loyalties to their own tribes. (Again, I caution you to use the therefores sparingly. Take my word for it, it will serve you well.) I've never said anything of the sort. By my definition Indians, in their political capacities as dual citizens of the United States and their given Indian tribes, by definition are subjected to dividing their loyalties between one and the other, between their people and their tribes and the United States. Indians could make a choice between one and the other and refuse to participate in the other's political process. Thus, by my definition Indians most certainly can have a loyalty to their own tribes with the additional benefit of not allowing themselves to be corrupted by the exercise of their illegitimate dual citizenship priveleges. It may not be the popular or the mainstream belief, but who is seeking popularity? Certainly not me, Jayrock.
Over and over you place a great deal of emphasis on being a part of the mainstream in America, as if being part of the mainstream automatically puts you on the right side of a given issue or a given election result, or whatever. It's a common mistake that I've dealt with so many times in the past that it barely even interests me anymore. But being part of the mainstream doesn't automatically put you in the right, Jayrock, anymore than my being outside the mainstream automatically puts me in the right ... or the wrong for that matter. So there must be a higher law which governs that, know what I mean? Go try and discover it.
As for being in the mainstream, the vote tally on Wednesday was 55,805,197 for Mr. McCain and 63,007,791 for Mr. Obama. That's hardly a large majority.
According to Mark Alexander in the Nov 7th edition of the Patriot Post "Yet, of the 120 million ballots cast on Tuesday, McCain would be our president-elect if just 500,000 voters in eight key battleground states opted for him instead of Barack Obama."
I noticed you commented on Mr. Bush's low approval ratings, jrock. Kindly don't forget, that the approval ratings for the Congress were lower than Mr. Bush's.
None of which addresses the topic of this post. Qualifications for the presidency. What do you think qualifies a person to serve in that office, jrock?
Terry you're rehashing the same tired material that Fox news continued to rehash, even AFTER the Fox called it for Obama.
Honestly? We could dig for dirt on both sides. McCain's cronies dug, like the right usually does, because they had no substantive argument. They knew that they had to change the subject with the American people. They couldn't talk about the economy, said some themselves, so they had to divert and attack with this really lame Ayers and Wright thing.
The Ayers thing is really ridiculous and blown out of proportion. Obama stated he sat on some boards with Ayers in Chicago, along with other prominent Republicans, and this was many, many years after the weather underground incidents. Ayers at this point had become a professor. This is really stretching to make a point from you guys. I mean it's quite pathetic.
As far as Wright goes, who knows what Obama knew about him. Frankly I've heard worse about America from Native people.
Again, the people have spoken. You can go into if this happened, or that happened, but it comes down to the votes.
Also, trust that Native people will not take your word about our status and relationship with the U.S. government. Our ancestors made this agreement years before you were even born. You weren't included and have no say. You came later, we were here first. Trust that this relationship has nothing to do with you and your opinion matter naught. You live here now and so do we, but these agreements were made before you even had a brain cell. Understand that and move on. You can whine about it but it won't change anything.
You can consider yourself right all you want. It's America after all. The rest of us who voted in the majority of this election have our country back, finally.
I noticed you commented on Mr. Bush's low approval ratings, jrock. Kindly don't forget, that the approval ratings for the Congress were lower than Mr. Bush's.
Mom, yes, that's one of the interesting things about this election. The voters continued to punish the Republicans and reward Democrats even with the low approval ratings of the Democrat controlled Congress. But as I've noted before, bare majority Congresses are do-nothing Congresses.
There is also the matter of the Hispanic vote nearly doubling in this election. Most of the new Hispanic votes are the votes of newly naturalized citizens. I'd have to check the numbers again, but my recollection is that Obama won the Hispanic vote something like 78-22. To many of us that's no surprise at all as we've been warning for years that new immigrants are natural Democrats. That's the way it's always been going all the way back to the founding generation.
Sure, they're pro-family, anti-homosexual marriage, and whatever. But when you get down to where the rubber meets the road they're just a dependent lot overall seeking to get all they can from the benevolent central government. For all of their Hispandering, even going so far as to nominate the Great RINO Hispanderer himself, John McCain, the Republicans still couldn't close the deal with Hispanic voters. Maybe they'll have learned a good and vital lesson. Nah.
Jayrock,
A recurrent theme of yours is summed up well in this statement from your last post:
Again, the people have spoken. You can go into if this happened, or that happened, but it comes down to the votes.
Yes, it came down to the votes. It always has come down to the votes, and it always will come down to the votes as long as we continue to have free elections in this country. You act as though this is the only election that has ever happened in America, or, that this was the "mother of all elections" to borrow a phrase from Saddam.
Now, you and other liberals may think that my trying to figure out what exactly happened in this election is a useless exercise, but I'll bet the DNC doesn't see it that way, at least as it applies to themselves and their future prospects in the next election cycle, and the next, and the next, etc. Know what I mean ... dude?
TM wrote:
I'd have to check the numbers again, but my recollection is that Obama won the Hispanic vote something like 78-22.
I have rechecked my numbers, and the results are posted in this exchange between me and Lawrence Auster this morning.
Aspiration.
That is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the most important, if not most important, qualifications to becoming President of the United States. I'm not sure, that this is a qualification that can accurately be measured. However, I believe that any candidate should have aspired early in life or early in their political career, to the highest office in the land.
George W. Bush, for example, was a political unknown most of his life. Except, of course, that he was the son of a president. Through his last name, he was offered a stake in the Texas Rangers (professional baseball team, for those that might not know). He served as the GM, for the Rangers. From that exposure, he was able to ride in to the governorship of Texas. As far as I can tell, he never had any presidential aspirations. I fully believe that he was approached by the Republican party, as a candidate that they believed they could get elected to the presidency. He already had the name, then he had the experience of being governor and finally the backing of the Republican party.
Coming from his well-to-do background, I'm sure that it didn't seem at all unnatural to be handed the presidency. For my money, I don't want someone taking the job because it was handed to them on a silver platter. I want someone that has, at the very least, aspired to the position.
Flatulent Fuzz
Post a Comment