• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Rewards Media Matters with a Political Nomination: Monitoring ELECTIONS

I dont care one way or the other since the GOP and Dems have both proven they are equally adept at ****ing up the country. BUT...in 2016 I hope a republican wins, and then I hope they appoint a former Fox News boss to...anything. It doesnt matter what. The results here on this site would be something straight out of Raider of the Lost Ark. Faces will literally melt. Heads will literally explode. It would be fun to watch.

 
VanceMack said:
I dont care one way or the other since the GOP and Dems have both proven they are equally adept at ****ing up the country. BUT...in 2016 I hope a republican wins, and then I hope they appoint a former Fox News boss to...anything. It doesnt matter what. The results here on this site would be something straight out of Raider of the Lost Ark. Faces will literally melt. Heads will literally explode. It would be fun to watch.

Click to expand...


So I'm guessing Tony Snow doesn't count?
 
Hatuey said:
So I'm guessing Tony Snow doesn't count?
Click to expand...

Press Secretary is a pretty Press position. I think he was referring to (for example) someone like Sean Hannity being put on the elections' board or putting Ann Coulter in charge of the IRS.
 
Hatuey said:
So I'm guessing Tony Snow doesn't count?
Click to expand...
Id say the hatred has been cranked up to 11. Based solely on the number of people today that use the words "Faux News" and that rush to post threads about all things Fox News and gather together in their one way biased mutual masturbatory circle jerk, I'd put the numbers at 6 minimum. Maybe more. Now...I wasnt here at that time so you would know far better than me...how many Far left posters just mysteriously stopped posting after April 26 2006? Coincidence? Hmmmmmph....not likely.
 
cpwill said:
Press Secretary is a pretty Press position. I think he was referring to (for example) someone like Sean Hannity being put on the elections' board or putting Ann Coulter in charge of the IRS.
Click to expand...
I think if it happens in the future (mind you...I'm on the record as saying I dont think the GOP wins in 2016-they are always their own worst enemy) even appointing them as official greeter at the WH would cause an uproar.

(and for the record...it was a joke. You guys are taking it way too seriously. I dont REALLY think their heads are going to explode. OK..2 people stand a real good shot...but other than that...)
 
faithful_servant said:
Not anywhere near what I said. This is a position that should be free of as much partisan bias as possible, yet it was handed to someone who's biggest job to date has been to run a HIGHLY partisan website. It's a BAD choice, one that leaves the position open to accusation and questions. There are a LOT of people out there who are just as qualified, but don't carry the baggage the Butler does, so why make a choice that's guaranteed to bring heat to the position??? This is FAR from the first time this kind of thing has happened and it's a pattern that is bad for this country, not just because of which side of the aisle it's comong from, but for the precedent it sets, that of putting partisanship over what's best for the WHOLE nation.
Click to expand...

First of all it is highly debatable whether or not CEO of Media Matters was "his biggest job to date." Also it is highly debatable whether or not Media Matters is a "Highly Partisan Website." But putting those two issues aside it is pretty clear that given his limited amount of time spent as CEO of Media Matters and the success he had there in making them profitable it easy to conclude that he was hand-picked by the board to resolve specific financial/management issues with Media Matters and not as a permanent leader of the organization. That means his primary function was not Partisan Attacks but technical managerial issues. So just because someone works for an organization that YOU determine is highly partisan that should disqualify them from other offices. Again this a HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE criteria you are using that would be impossible to meet. The only questions that should be asked are; Is he qualified? Yes. Does he hands on experience working in and around elections? Yes. Does he have managerial experience at the level we are considering him for? Yes. Does he have experience in dealing with government regulations and regulatory compliance? Yes. Does he have anything in his past that indicate he would have any difficulty in meeting the requirements of this job? No. Ergo he is highly qualified, a proven entrepreneur, a proven manager, a proven lawyer with the legal expertise needed. End of story.
 
Redress said:
So you know exactly nothing about either the topic or the contents of the thread. Please get back to me when that changes.
Click to expand...

Why make your response about me -- oh that's right, because you didn't read or perhaps you didn't understand the OP .... and I made your post look stupid, which is what it is. You also failed to answer the question... and instead attacked me personally. Way to go former mod! I can always count on your post never disappointing. :lamo
 
smb said:
First of all it is highly debatable whether or not CEO of Media Matters was "his biggest job to date." Also it is highly debatable whether or not Media Matters is a "Highly Partisan Website." But putting those two issues aside it is pretty clear that given his limited amount of time spent as CEO of Media Matters and the success he had there in making them profitable it easy to conclude that he was hand-picked by the board to resolve specific financial/management issues with Media Matters and not as a permanent leader of the organization. That means his primary function was not Partisan Attacks but technical managerial issues. So just because someone works for an organization that YOU determine is highly partisan that should disqualify them from other offices. Again this a HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE criteria you are using that would be impossible to meet. The only questions that should be asked are; Is he qualified? Yes. Does he hands on experience working in and around elections? Yes. Does he have managerial experience at the level we are considering him for? Yes. Does he have experience in dealing with government regulations and regulatory compliance? Yes. Does he have anything in his past that indicate he would have any difficulty in meeting the requirements of this job? No. Ergo he is highly qualified, a proven entrepreneur, a proven manager, a proven lawyer with the legal expertise needed. End of story.
Click to expand...

I never said one single word that his involvement in Media Matters (a VERY liberal site, in spite of what you want it to be) disqualified him. My perspective is about this wisdom of choosing him. There are a lot of VERY qualified people out there who don't have the baggage that he does and putting him in this kind of position is simply a piss poor choice due to the amount of flak that it will bring. Why not choose someone just as qualified without the "questionability" that Butler has?? The guy might be 100% qualified, but to choose him means pissing off a lot of people, when there are choices that could have been made that would be just as qualified and wouldn't piss off a lot of people. Now I fully expect that the response I'll get will be something along the lines of: "Any choice the President makes will piss off people.", but that's only because the President has repeatedly made this kind of choices and thus the criticism is well deserved. He could be making choice that people from all sides can get behind, but he repeatedly makes those that are guaranteed to be divisive.
 
faithful_servant said:
I never said one single word that his involvement in Media Matters (a VERY liberal site, in spite of what you want it to be) disqualified him. My perspective is about this wisdom of choosing him. There are a lot of VERY qualified people out there who don't have the baggage that he does and putting him in this kind of position is simply a piss poor choice due to the amount of flak that it will bring. Why not choose someone just as qualified without the "questionability" that Butler has?? The guy might be 100% qualified, but to choose him means pissing off a lot of people, when there are choices that could have been made that would be just as qualified and wouldn't piss off a lot of people. Now I fully expect that the response I'll get will be something along the lines of: "Any choice the President makes will piss off people.", but that's only because the President has repeatedly made this kind of choices and thus the criticism is well deserved. He could be making choice that people from all sides can get behind, but he repeatedly makes those that are guaranteed to be divisive.
Click to expand...

No it is because no matter what the President does it pisses a certain segment of people off. I would suggest you stop and read your own post and what a ridiculous claim it is you are making. The President should not nominate qualified people he wants into the positions but only appoint qualified people that he may not want but won't piss people off???? Really...that is your standard for political appointments? That is just asinine.
 
smb said:
No it is because no matter what the President does it pisses a certain segment of people off. I would suggest you stop and read your own post and what a ridiculous claim it is you are making. The President should not nominate qualified people he wants into the positions but only appoint qualified people that he may not want but won't piss people off???? Really...that is your standard for political appointments? That is just asinine.
Click to expand...

The real funny part is that Bush nominated and hired people who were actually totally unqualified and were forced to resign due to incompetence. Michael Brown comes to mind... Bremer is another one that sticks out, but there were many in the Bush administration.
 
smb said:
No it is because no matter what the President does it pisses a certain segment of people off. I would suggest you stop and read your own post and what a ridiculous claim it is you are making. The President should not nominate qualified people he wants into the positions but only appoint qualified people that he may not want but won't piss people off???? Really...that is your standard for political appointments? That is just asinine.
Click to expand...

He should appoint people who are qualified and who aren't guaranteed to piss off a large segment of the population. With the number of highly qualified people available, why choose someone that is going to set off people?? A true LEADER would do exactly that.
 
faithful_servant said:
He should appoint people who are qualified and who aren't guaranteed to piss off a large segment of the population. With the number of highly qualified people available, why choose someone that is going to set off people?? A true LEADER would do exactly that.
Click to expand...

A "large segment of the population" really. What evidence do you have the supports the claim that a large percent of the population even cares about this nomination or even knows about it much less is pissed off about it. That is a ridiculous claim.

On a slightly different note you claim that being CEO of Media Matters doesn't disqualify him for the job but why do you think anyone would be pissed off about his nomination? Was it because we ran a political consulting firm? Was it because he graduated from a prestigious private law school? Was it because he practiced law for 10 years? Was it because he was involved in several peoples campaigns? Or is it because he was the CEO of Media Matters. Throughout this thread there has been no other qualifications brought up of his, other than by me, other than the fact that he was the CEO of Media Matters. That alone was enough for most of the conservative and libertarian members posting in this thread to disqualify him for the appointment. That is what I find so ridiculous and indefensible.
 
smb said:
A "large segment of the population" really. What evidence do you have the supports the claim that a large percent of the population even cares about this nomination or even knows about it much less is pissed off about it. That is a ridiculous claim.

On a slightly different note you claim that being CEO of Media Matters doesn't disqualify him for the job but why do you think anyone would be pissed off about his nomination? Was it because we ran a political consulting firm? Was it because he graduated from a prestigious private law school? Was it because he practiced law for 10 years? Was it because he was involved in several peoples campaigns? Or is it because he was the CEO of Media Matters. Throughout this thread there has been no other qualifications brought up of his, other than by me, other than the fact that he was the CEO of Media Matters. That alone was enough for most of the conservative and libertarian members posting in this thread to disqualify him for the appointment. That is what I find so ridiculous and indefensible.
Click to expand...

You wnat to make this about Bulter, but I stated clearly and repeatedly that my issue is with the President. Why choose him when there are people who are just as qualified that don't have his baggage?
 
faithful_servant said:
You wnat to make this about Bulter, but I stated clearly and repeatedly that my issue is with the President. Why choose him when there are people who are just as qualified that don't have his baggage?
Click to expand...

Because he is the President...whether you like it or not. YOU have the problem with the President. I still defy you to prove with anything other than smoke out of south end that "majority of people" are somehow angry or otherwise put off by this nomination. If you have a problem with the President that is yours to deal with. Also if your problem is with the President then you can ALWAYS find an excuse to pissed off about anyone he nominates. That is exactly the argument I was making and now you finally clearly stated it. The problem is not with the fact the Butler was nominated but that President Obama nominated him. There is nothing the President can nor should do to correct that feeling. Nor should he even try.
 
smb said:
Because he is the President...whether you like it or not. YOU have the problem with the President. I still defy you to prove with anything other than smoke out of south end that "majority of people" are somehow angry or otherwise put off by this nomination. If you have a problem with the President that is yours to deal with. Also if your problem is with the President then you can ALWAYS find an excuse to pissed off about anyone he nominates. That is exactly the argument I was making and now you finally clearly stated it. The problem is not with the fact the Butler was nominated but that President Obama nominated him. There is nothing the President can nor should do to correct that feeling. Nor should he even try.
Click to expand...

So you're just going to ignore what I posted and instead argue a point that I'm not making...
 
faithful_servant said:
You wnat to make this about Bulter, but I stated clearly and repeatedly that my issue is with the President. Why choose him when there are people who are just as qualified that don't have his baggage?
Click to expand...

There's no reason why he shouldn't. You weren't likely to like his choice if he appointed the corpse of Ronald Reagan.

Even if you think it's "rewarding Media Matters" the fact is that Presidents often "reward" folks from their side. That's how the game works.
 
rocket88 said:
There's no reason why he shouldn't. You weren't likely to like his choice if he appointed the corpse of Ronald Reagan.

Even if you think it's "rewarding Media Matters" the fact is that Presidents often "reward" folks from their side. That's how the game works.
Click to expand...

If the choice creates more division, that's a VERY good reason he shouldn't. There are a lot of folks out there who are just as qualified that wouldn't make things worse, so why make things worse??
 
faithful_servant said:
If the choice creates more division, that's a VERY good reason he shouldn't. There are a lot of folks out there who are just as qualified that wouldn't make things worse, so why make things worse??
Click to expand...

Why should Obama acquiesce to Republicans who have done nothing but try to dick over his presidency since day one?
 
faithful_servant said:
Because he's the President of the United States, not the president of the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

So the Republicans can ram him in the ass at every opportunity, and he's just supposed to take it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom