assilem

Q1. If the president is doing this to save time for the commission, why doesn't he just say it?

A1. I honestly don't know.

Q2. What right does the president have to set the schedule for the commission?

A2. He is the p r e s i d e n t. They fit into his schedule, not the other way around.

Q3. These are respected people with tons of experience. Can't they be trusted to decide for themselves how to best spend their time?

A3. That question has no relevance. The only reason to post that question is to further the stupid flame war that I'm not going to continue on with. Call me what you want.

By the way. My "common sense" statement was not hostile. It was my opinion. To ME it makes sense. That is what the TFP is about. For you to imply that I was imposing my views on everyone else here is demeaning. This is a place for ideas and discussion not flaming. Don't put words in my mouth

That was a flame.

__________________
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel Angels

elfstar

Thank you for your honesty. That's all I was looking for.

It seems to me this is a contradiction. Whose time is he looking out for?

That question was meant to be a paraphrase of Q2. I'm not sure how you took it.

You claim your opinion is "common sense". But for it to be "common", it would have to be held by a significant portion of the population. Unless you offer some evidence that such a population exists, I don't think you are justified in calling it common sense. It is simply "your sense".

Furthermore, I think even common sense should have an underlying reason behind it. It is common sense that I should stop when a traffic light is red. But there is a reason for the common sense - namely that if I don't stop for red I'm likely to get into an accident. You have offered no such underlying reason for your "common sense", so your answer is little different than saying "because I say so" or "it's obvious".

Perhaps you were simply careless in your choice of words, but this is why I took issue. By using the word "common" you were in fact attributing that opinion to persons other than yourself.

rsl12

the "saving time" argument is the weakest i've heard. why do people who testify in court take the stand one at a time? Wouldn't it save time to have all the witnesses who saw basically the same thing testify together?? I hope the answer is obvious.

Regarding not taking in cameras or recording equipment: that's more understandable to me. part of the reason the president balked at letting rice testify and himself for that matter was because of a turf war, near as i can tell. prez thinks that the executive branch should be above the beck and call of such a commission, and therefore should not be forced to testify or be scrutinized by such a body. therefore, by not having anything recorded that could be reported by the media, it keeps the appearance that the president did not have to answer to anybody. but that's just speculation on my part.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

assilem

common sense
n.
Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.

Quote:

Originally posted by elfstar Perhaps you were simply careless in your choice of words, but this is why I took issue. By using the word "common" you were in fact attributing that opinion to persons other than yourself.

se·man·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-mntks) n.
The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.

__________________
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel Angels

ganon

those who do not trust them, will not trust them no matter what. Those that do trust them will tend to continue to trust them. I trust them. I was in the air force for all of clintons terms and I did not trust him, and I don't trust kerry. oh well.

__________________
"My give up, my give up." - Jar Jar Binks

onetime2

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I would much prefer someone with a balanced life making critical decisions rather than someone completely caught up in their "work".

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

rsl12

onetime--when a decision has to be made about who's going to manage your favorite football team, would you rather have someone running it who has a balanced lifestyle (say, gwb) vs. someone who is a workaholic (say, gibbs from the wash. redskins?)

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

onetime2

Certain workaholics can be effective in their jobs BUT overall I will consistently bet on a balanced leader over a workaholic.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

rsl12

fair enough onetime. just one question then--who would you consider to be the most successful sports team manager (if you're into sports anyways)? or even list the top 5. I will wager 10-1 that all of them are workaholics.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

filtherton

I'd like to see a winning football coach who spent more than 30% of the season on vacation.

nine

Not read everything above, but the concessions given by the enquiry to the Whitehouse in order to have Bush agree to answer their questions were three-fold

1) Bush is not under Oath
2) He appears with the VP
3) There is no transcript

Personally, I wonder more why items 1 and 3 were needed rather than item 2, which doesn't sound too bad.

onetime2

I don't know enough about coaches to say, but the comparison between sports and running the country is flawed IMO.

Football coaches have more intelligence about their opponents than would ever be available in other situations, they only have to be prepared on, what, less than 20 occassions, and the consequences of their actions don't impact the world (although I know quite a few fans who would probably disagree).

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

bouray

my only opinion...The commission had no choice but to accept the terms the president set, if they wanted the opportunity to interview him.

Why interview together? The only answer I could figure is that way the story between the two of them would be consistent. It wasn't being worried about what the pres. would say, but more concerned about what conflicting statements may have come out if each had been interviewed separately, right after the other.

rsl12

onetime--exactly. even though sports managers deal with situations not as important as running a country, the best ones are still working their butts off and don't lead balanced lives. the best managers, in general, are workaholics. look at fortune 500 companies, the best US presidents throughout history (i hope you don't think ronald reagan was one of the best--consider instead jefferson, washington, lincoln, both roosevelts).

it's true that being a workaholic does not mean you're automatically a good manager, but I think it's clear that the best managers are workaholics.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

onetime2

I disagree entirely. The best managers understand all the needs of those they lead. Workaholics tend to primarily value those who exhibit levels of "dedication" to work similar to their own. This does not translate into long term effectiveness.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Paq

Give me a workaholic president anyday...

coolidge and harding were prone to quitting around 4 pm in the afternoon and look where we went (not entirely due to that, but it's funny)

__________________
Live.

Chris