Posted on 10/11/2015 10:22:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“The [Peter] principle states that a person rises only as high as permitted by his own incompetence.”
I’m sorry Vision, I don’t think you have that exactly right. I actually read that book years ago and I think what it says is that a person rises UNTIL he/she reaches his/her level of incompetence. In other words, in a hierarchy every one is doomed to become incompetent.
Obama is certainly incompetent as president, but whether or not he proves the principle I don’t know. I’m perfectly willing to believe the man was incompetent at all levels.
Nail on the head bump.
It’s okay, no need to apologize because it was a good catch.
It looks like what I described was not the peter principle itself, but the basis for the principle, namely, that a person’s incompetence limits how high he should rise.
barack has proven this part to be wrong because he didn’t deserve either a first much less a second term in the white house.
He’s just a post turtle.
Exactly.
Question: So why is this kind of tripe constantly dragged over to FR for consumption?
Answer: Freepers running pissing contests to see which one can out-post the other. Never considering how their actions have displayed an appalling inability to recognize the difference between yellow journalism and prescient reporting. Thus having a decidedly negative and damping effect upon the level of discourse here at FR.
I wish this brilliant political insight were shared with us at the beginning of the article rather than at the end. I wouldn't have had to read any further then. There's a few more minutes of my life completely wasted.
Disagree with Rabbi Pruzansky’s assertion the Republican slate is qualified.
The majority couldn’t manage a profitable lemonade stand.
” In retrospect, it is still mind-boggling that citizens of the most powerful nation on earth, presumed leader of the free world, risked its governance on a community organizer of little note, a senator for less than one term with no legislative achievements to speak of.”
Not so mind-boggling when you consider the increasing number of low education voters and massive voter fraud.
exactly .... the end of the essay is the meat;
Everyone knows where this is headed already – so why not vote this November? Hillary Clinton is ethically challenged with a cackle that makes one’s skin crawl, and will struggle – thankfully – to overcome Joe Biden. It says something about the state of American Jewry that the first Jewish candidate to be leading the polls in several states this late in a campaign is an intermarried, unaffiliated socialist.
The Democrat candidates are weak, but weak Democrats have won in the past by drawing heavily from the fear chapter in the Democrat handbook. They’ll accuse Republicans – any and all – of being anti-woman, anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-elderly, anti-poor, and anti-middle class and promise to hand out more free stuff. I would quite enjoy a Fiorina-Carson ticket being labeled anti-woman and anti-black.
The Republican slate is filled with qualified candidates. None is without flaws, but then, who is anywhere in life? Whom do the Democrats fear most? Judging by the level of attacks, the answers in no particular order would be Christie (for his campaigning skills, his ability to get things done with a hostile legislature, and his knack for communicating his positions in a way voters understand); Rubio (bright, young, dynamic Hispanic with a keen grasp of the issues – and young almost always beats old in presidential elections); Kasich (for his record of achievement as a congressman and as a governor of a critical swing state); and, somewhat less, Jeb Bush (who is suffering from Bush fatigue but whose war chest will not allow the Democrats to steamroll him at any time during the campaign).
Democrats should fear Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina and even Donald Trump – the first two because they cut into indispensable Democrat blocs and the latter because, well, he is unpredictable and all the rules of politics have changed in the last decade.
Trump will most likely flame out shortly after the voting starts. Democrats may wish for Ted Cruz because he is very conservative; be careful what you wish for, as there is no brighter, more articulate candidate than the Texas senator. Win or lose, he will be around for a long time. Mike Huckabee is a sage and folksy presence, a good combination. Almost all the candidates project what is most needed in a president: firm, sensible convictions grounded in reality and a reasonable way of implementing them.
The shame is that there are so many quality people – Graham and Jindal, to name two others – running for president that it is impossible for all of them to really get a fair hearing by the voters.
Down the road, we can evaluate each candidate’s approach and feelings toward Israel, if only to irritate Ann Coulter. For now, the race is on – even if it is just about a year too early.
*******
About the Author: Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun of Teaneck, New Jersey, and author, most recently, of “Tzadka Mimeni: The Jewish Ethic of Personal Responsibility” (Gefen Publishing House, Jerusalem, 2014). His writings and lectures can be found at www.Rabbipruzansky.com.
I think it would be worthy of thought if we were still in the traditional political calculus of predictable voter patterns. My point is that we are NOT. Media, political pundits, traditionalists in the sense of the old campaigning meme, and conventional powers that be were all wrong. Their logic is wrong because the field on which they are playing has been paved over.
They don’t understand his rise and apparent sustainment because they refuse to believe the animus and ire they and their political cronies have instilled in a very large portion of our citizens. Their only game now is “Trump will eventually fall..”, “Rubio will rise” (even if they have to lie about or beat the poll data until it surrenders the truth they want to hear and can publicize), and Jeb/Christie/Kasich are still blah, blah, blah. Horse pucky.
The weather pattern(s) for my section of the country (upper right quadrant) no longer make much sense to this 68 yr old ...
And as a relative newcomer to politics (1998 or so) ... I am openly amazed (and pleased) with the public turnout in political interest ... albeit, a new experience for many .... the citizen politician
A handle I accepted when I became a school board member .... citizen politician.
I got interested in politics when I mustered out in 1976 and suffered through Jimmy Carter. I welcome the “citizen politician” also. However, the problem is that so many of them become accomplished politicians far more interested in embedding themselves further into the swamp of DC and all it surveys than doing what they promised.
My own newcomer Republican Congressman just 4 years ago promised the world. A former professional - no connection to politics, ready to take on the world for me and the rest of his constituency...
The realization came for me when HE voted with Congressmen Lewis and Johnson (Ds) on the Ryan Capitulation Budget bill. He’s just another liar and that only took two years.
As far as I’m concerned, the Republican elitist leadership and that which they control cannot be ‘fixed’. It has to be soundly defeated and decimated throughout. And, that will not happen if we as a people follow THEIR traditional rules of campaigning, political thinking or believe their enablers.
Two words: Sarah Palin.
If Trump gets the nomination, and he thinks either Carson or Fiorina would be the best fit for VP, he should make the choice he thinks best.
But let no one here kid him/herself, the "identity" of our candidates is of no account. A woman politician is only lauded as a woman if she's liberal; a black politician is only lauded as a black if s/he's liberal; an Hispanic politician is only lauded as an Hispanic if s/he's liberal.
Moreover, liberals can lie about their identities and be accepted because of the fake identities (Warren, Dolezal: imagine the reaction to Sarah Palin attempting to convince people she had an Inuit ancestor).
O was packaged and sold like corn flakes. Remember Anita Dunn? His PR person said they never answered media questions....only put out what THEY wanted people to know about him.
Hillary and Bill had pics of Obama dressed as a Muslim...
Uncle Teddy went ballistic... ordered them not to use the Muslim pics. .
Teddy and Caroline later endorsed the befuddled Obama---
showing what a great country we are by endorsing a black man.
In other words he won in something of the same way as Nixon in 1968 (people forget that Wallace was a dyed in the wool southern democrat and that it's entirely possible the majority of the fellow Yellow Dogs who voted for him might have held their noses and gone for Humphrey) and Clinton in both 1992 and 1996 when Perot pursued his personal vendetta against the Bush clan. In a straight up contest he almost certainly would never have been elected the first time.
By the time 1864 rolled around the majority northern voters, and especially serving Union troops, were in no mood to compromise with the Confederacy for a quick peace and he was quite unexpectedly reelected. But his looks, despite the widespread caricatures of him as an ape, had little to do with it. Back then voters (men only) could actually read a candidate's words in print, and barring their susceptibility to persuasion via cash or whiskey or both, would base their vote on more substantial grounds than a pretty face.
It's no coincidence that everything changed in 1960 with television and "Mad Men" advertising electing the handsome and secretly diseased priapic son of a rich pro-Nazi philandering bootlegging kingpin named Kennedy.
It’s the usual anti Trump crap gussied up to look more intellectual.
Well, I still won’t say he’s homely, but of course it is true that very, very, very few people would ever have heard any candidates voice in those days, maybe not even seen an image of them, not at least until they became President.
And yes, TV has certainly changed that. Do we think any president elected since, say Nixon was less than OK looking?
That’s why I wonder about Trump’s appeal, I get it that he’s got real pizzazz but to me at least he’s pretty goofy looking.
Now, Christie is fat, and not at all tall (I was shocked by how truly round he was when I saw him in real life) but he has a handsome face. The one I see being truly hampered by less that good looks is Jindal. Although his wife is quite lovely judging from the one picture I’ve seen of her.
Like that wacky lefty, Dennis Kucinich (sp?), he’s practically a goblin and yet his wife is a stunner. Another big lefty herself and I think she maybe a Brit.
Oh, and if Ben Carson ends up getting the nom we are going to have to get Mrs. C. fashion help STAT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.