My Two Cents On Miers (worth about a penny and a half)
Ok, now that I’ve had some time to think about it – I’ll add my two cents on Miers.
First, I do think Tony at A.M. Siriano makes a good case, and here’s why;
President Bush is a lot more of a forward thinker than people give him credit. He’s an astute strategist, and for some reason (mostly his own fault for not rubbing it in the faces of his enemies), people don’t give him credit for having a plan. I will admit that he’s not always good at laying out the details of his plan for everyone, but that too is potentially a part of his strategy.
As a business executive, I often look at what he is doing from a management standpoint – let’s face it, he’s the “manager of the United States”. When I consider my own management style, I can more easily see the angle he takes when he makes some of his decisions, such as the nomination of Harriet Miers.
When I make a decision that is for the greater good of the organization – it’s always ideal for everyone to understand the thought process that went into the decision, but most of the time it isn’t entirely necessary for everyone to understand – it’s more important that they trust me. I’ve been “appointed” to the position I am in because at least the “majority” of the powers that be thought I was capable of running the organization. Now, apply that to President Bush. The President has been appointed…by us…to run the organization. He isn’t obligated to reveal to us every thought process that goes into every decision. I’m not talking about blindly following the leader, but we’ve become a society that thinks we are entitled to a daily schedule of the President’s thoughts. We are not. I also think we forget, at times, that the President understands the weight of his decisions. I see a lot of Republicans who are acting like liberals with their implications that he’s sitting in the oval office “playing President” like a game of monopoly. I think there has been way too many people jumping to conclusions here before we’ve given him a chance to expose his motives and his plan.
With regard to the “cronyism” that the president is so often accused of – again, I refer to my experience as a business executive. When I have a position to fill – whether it’s a key position or something that requires less experience/expertise, the first thing I do is think about the people I know…my acquaintances…my trusted colleagues. If I need to fill a position of importance and I’m going to be the person who answers for the decision that is made regarding the qualifications or performance of whomever fills the position – you can bet I’m going to pull someone in to the organization whom I know I can trust and believe will not let me down. The same goes for vendors. When I took the position I’m in, the vendors I used at my old job came with me. I already knew I could trust them and count on them for what ever I needed to have done. I’m not about to hand money or control over to people or organizations that I do not hold in the highest of confidence. This practice is neither unethical nor unacceptable. It’s a practice widely accepted in every industry on the globe. It’s not called nepotism; it’s called being a responsible leader. A good leader will not only surround him/herself with people who will help make him/her an even better leader, but will also consider the big picture and look to the future of the organization. Will this person be good for the organization 5 years from now? How about 10...15...20? Will the decisions they make help grow the organization, not just today, but in the future?
In the case of Harriet Miers, I believe the President is looking beyond today and considering the future of the Supreme Court. He will be blamed for his decisions long after he’s gone – it’s the nature of being the President. He probably will not be praised for many of his decisions today or in the future – that, too, is the nature of being the President.
Today I choose to not blindly follow the leader – but sit back, with a watchful eye, and trust the man I chose to lead this nation. I don’t need to know the process of his every thought. I need only know that he is a good man with the best interests of the United States of America in mind – for today…and tomorrow.
Trackbacks on this post:
A.M. Siriano
First, I do think Tony at A.M. Siriano makes a good case, and here’s why;
President Bush is a lot more of a forward thinker than people give him credit. He’s an astute strategist, and for some reason (mostly his own fault for not rubbing it in the faces of his enemies), people don’t give him credit for having a plan. I will admit that he’s not always good at laying out the details of his plan for everyone, but that too is potentially a part of his strategy.
As a business executive, I often look at what he is doing from a management standpoint – let’s face it, he’s the “manager of the United States”. When I consider my own management style, I can more easily see the angle he takes when he makes some of his decisions, such as the nomination of Harriet Miers.
When I make a decision that is for the greater good of the organization – it’s always ideal for everyone to understand the thought process that went into the decision, but most of the time it isn’t entirely necessary for everyone to understand – it’s more important that they trust me. I’ve been “appointed” to the position I am in because at least the “majority” of the powers that be thought I was capable of running the organization. Now, apply that to President Bush. The President has been appointed…by us…to run the organization. He isn’t obligated to reveal to us every thought process that goes into every decision. I’m not talking about blindly following the leader, but we’ve become a society that thinks we are entitled to a daily schedule of the President’s thoughts. We are not. I also think we forget, at times, that the President understands the weight of his decisions. I see a lot of Republicans who are acting like liberals with their implications that he’s sitting in the oval office “playing President” like a game of monopoly. I think there has been way too many people jumping to conclusions here before we’ve given him a chance to expose his motives and his plan.
With regard to the “cronyism” that the president is so often accused of – again, I refer to my experience as a business executive. When I have a position to fill – whether it’s a key position or something that requires less experience/expertise, the first thing I do is think about the people I know…my acquaintances…my trusted colleagues. If I need to fill a position of importance and I’m going to be the person who answers for the decision that is made regarding the qualifications or performance of whomever fills the position – you can bet I’m going to pull someone in to the organization whom I know I can trust and believe will not let me down. The same goes for vendors. When I took the position I’m in, the vendors I used at my old job came with me. I already knew I could trust them and count on them for what ever I needed to have done. I’m not about to hand money or control over to people or organizations that I do not hold in the highest of confidence. This practice is neither unethical nor unacceptable. It’s a practice widely accepted in every industry on the globe. It’s not called nepotism; it’s called being a responsible leader. A good leader will not only surround him/herself with people who will help make him/her an even better leader, but will also consider the big picture and look to the future of the organization. Will this person be good for the organization 5 years from now? How about 10...15...20? Will the decisions they make help grow the organization, not just today, but in the future?
In the case of Harriet Miers, I believe the President is looking beyond today and considering the future of the Supreme Court. He will be blamed for his decisions long after he’s gone – it’s the nature of being the President. He probably will not be praised for many of his decisions today or in the future – that, too, is the nature of being the President.
Today I choose to not blindly follow the leader – but sit back, with a watchful eye, and trust the man I chose to lead this nation. I don’t need to know the process of his every thought. I need only know that he is a good man with the best interests of the United States of America in mind – for today…and tomorrow.
Trackbacks on this post:
A.M. Siriano
posted by P.I. Mom @ Tuesday, October 04, 2005
2 Comments:
At 2:52 PM, October 04, 2005,
Neo-Con Tastic said…
You helped calm my nerves but...
She supports gay/lesbian rights!
She supports AIDS programs!
She supported adoption between same-sex couples!
And that’s what we know from only 24 hours of searching.
Is that who you potentially want on the bench, another Ginsburg? (Not actually you but you get the point.) Don’t forget who nominated swing-vote O’Connor: the conservative, constitutionalist Reagan. That really blew up in his face.
Don’t get me wrong, I do trust W. I understand he's not telling us all. I’ve trusted him for more than five years. I'm not turning my back on him. We can be worried, it’s okay to be speculative - it’s healthy.
-BTW, my blog isn’t the only one who is speculative, I’ve managed to link some credible sources and bloggers.
At 10:04 PM, October 04, 2005,
P.I. Mom said…
Ok - let's look at what we really have...
Someone who has never held a position in which she could support or not support anything that changed any of our lives. The woman has never cast a vote. We have no idea what she will stand for until we wait it out. "She supported..." means nothing, considering her career has not given her the opportunity to vote on anything important. She admittedly used to be pro-choice and is now pro-life. I'm interested in seeing what else she may have changed her mind on.
I'm not ready to jump the gun yet. If she was so incredibly liberal, the dems would be kissing her feet. They're not. They're not sure what to think.
It will be interesting, to say the least, to see this thing pan out.
Post a Comment
<< Home