Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> >I therefore want a president who makes very good appointments.
> 

I will submit to you, Gene, that you want nothing of the sort.

Let's suppose for the sake of example that George were not incompetent.  Let 
me go with the generally accepted given that he is a warmonger and drools 
over 
the prospect of invaging Iran, at least, and perhaps Syria, Lebanon, Saudi 
Arabia, Egypt, and maybe Lithuania.

If he had appointed very, very competent people, I am thinking that instead 
of just invading Afghanistan and Iraq, he could have managed to also invade 
Iran and perhaps half a dozen other countries .... Venezuela, perhaps.

Instead of acquiring a few trillion dollars war debt and prescription drug 
debt, a competent president with very sharp appoitees might have been able to 
make it several scores of trillions of debt.

So ... would you rather have had Bush's appointees to be much more capable of 
doing his bidding that the ones we've had?

No, you can't go back and change the premise by saying if they were *really* 
competent, they would have talked him out of the war altogether.  This is 
like 
the answers you used to get from the Oracle at Delphi.  If you really think 
competence in appointees is the thing, you get the screwed world with war 
fronts in eleven countries all at the same time.

Still wan Bush's appointees to have been competent?

Like that, Obama's goal isn't for smaller government, spending less.  His 
definition of 'spending efficiently' isn't likely to be the same as yours.  
Do 
you want his appointees to be very good at deploying Liberation Theology and 
Marxism?   </HTML>