Your kind are a dime a dozen. *Everybody* tries to think of things that can go wrong. Some of those people even take it one step further and *always* find things wrong with every possible action. This group call itself "realists" whenever it is correctly labeled as "pessimists."
On the other hand, the *few* people who make it to the top, do so because they looked for ways to make the world work regardless of what is in front of them. These people are forever labeled as "dreamers" until they become successful, at which time they are labeled as lucky.
Being contrarian, seeing the glass always half empty, doesn't win; not in court, not in business, not in love, not in life.
On the other hand, finding ways to say "Yes" has a very high success ratio.
When I go into business meetings with new players, one of the many things that I observe is who in the group is looking for ways to say "No" to a business deal, and who is trying to find a way to make it work.
The ones who say "No" must be dispatched with (subtley, of course). They argue, cause dissent, and will actively sabotage progress.
In this saga, Burkett is that type of player. He calls himself a "rule follower", but what that really means is that he wants things to go his way (i.e. without much if any change), and anyone who threatens that way will be retaliated against. Rest assured that Burkett argued with superiors who dared suggest change.
The AWB Has Expired - Gun Owners Have Won Again For All Americans!
First of all, being a contrarian doesn't make one a pessimist. If others see the glass half empty, I often see it half full.
Second of all, I make one hell of a lot of money. My clients pay me because I take care of things for them. I don't do it by quoting Norman Vincent Peale. And I certainly don't do it by saying "no." You have the nerve to accuse me of being someone who doesn't try to figure out how to get something done? That's all I do.
Third of all, I never said anything remotely resembling the kinds of things you seem to think. I don't like all the coverage this is getting because it is giving democrats the opportunity to press their talking points. It may not work. It may be hurting them. I just don't like it. It's a distraction. Kerry needs a distraction more than Bush does. I hope I'm wrong.
And I don't have any idea how your business philosophy has anything to do with my assessment of this issue. So, I suppose you just thought Bush 41 was going to walk into a second term? I mean, to think otherwise would have been pessimistic, right? You must have been certain Dole would romp over Clinton, because we wouldn't want to think about what could go wrong, right? Well, I didn't. I've correctly picked every presidential election a month or so out since I was a kid in 1980. It's not a crystal ball, I just looked at how things shaped up during the campaign. I think Bush will win. But nothing is guaranteed and I don't like anything that takes away from what I perceived to be a nascent but growing sense of inevitability that has been interrupted.
Excuse me for not parroting the party line.