Posted on 07/27/2006 2:40:34 PM PDT by beckett
Why does the president call the secretary of state "Condi"? And what exactly is his philosophy?
Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Why does President Bush refer in public to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as "Condi"? Did Dwight Eisenhower call his Secretary of State "Johnny"? Did Jimmy Carter call his "Eddie," or Bill Clinton call his "Maddy," or Richard Nixon call his "Willie" or "Hank"? What are the implications of such informality?
I know it is small, but in a way such things are never small. To me it seems a part of the rhetorical childishness of the age, the faux egalitarianism of the era. It reminds me of how people in the administration and Congress--every politician, in fact--always refer to mothers as moms: We must help working moms." You're not allowed to say "mother" or "father" in politics anymore, it's all mom and dad and the kids. This is the buzzy soft-speak of a peaceless era; it is an attempt to try to establish in sound what you can't establish in fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Exactly right!
Well, you're making good sense as usual. Unfortunately it's lost on some of the folks here, but a worthwhile exercise nonetheless.
Thanks! :-)
Thank you kindly.
Its a dirty job but someones got to do it. LOL
Very fine post!
Indeed...thankfully my shift isn't for another few days. ;-)
Which is exactly why and how you embarrass the name Reagan.
Of course... but Reagan Man did not know that .. If you want to see if someone can find his butt with both hands, give him a way to refute what you say. It is a way to determine the level of retained knowledge.
I don't normally give openings this obvious ... but Reagan's Embarrassment is a special case.
All you have done is call people names. You have defended nothing and have soiled the memory of Ronald Reagan. You have not presented one fact because you don't know any.
I even gave you a way to attack me ... all it required is for you to know the shelf life of missile propellants. But you did not.
Section9 of course knew, you did not.
You're senile, go to bed.
Thank you Reagan Embarassment I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard.
I've heard several anecdotes confirming the magnetism and winning personality of the president (none of which make it into the mainstream media, naturally). It's certainly not my attention to attack him as a person. I pointed out in my original post that I regard him as a "decent fellow."
Of the several essential characteristics necessary for effective leadership, the presidents possesses, let's say, many. At a lower level of responsibility nobody would notice if he didn't possess them all. But at his level, those areas where he's weak stick out.
You mentioned Harry Truman, and I'm afraid I must strenuously object to the comparison. Truman was a far more seasoned politician than GWB, having spent decades in Pendergast's operation in Missouri. GWB basically worked as his father's aide for some years, then, after a few coddled years in private life, popped into the Texas state house, and, soon after, the White House, with very little actual experience as a working politician on his own nickel. More importantly, in our exercise of comparing Truman to Bush, Truman was a lifelong reader of history - an addict even - who would never have been at a loss for finding the appropriate historical reference or antecedent for virtually any chore set before him as president. Bush, on the other hand, had to be given a reading list by "Condi" soon after he entered the WH. On that list, which, in a rare Rovian political blunder, was actually released to the WH press corps, was included Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, a great work of literature that any educated person should have knocked off, at the latest, in his 20s. The president had never even heard of it.
This is not a small matter. For where Truman could reference any fact or event in history while laboring in the crucible of the Oval Office, the president must rely on his aides to tell him who Sun Tzu is, or what, if any, useful ideas for the present can be gleaned from The Art of War.
At his level, the President of the United States should be able to stand on equal footing with any ideological friend or foe with whom he must engage. Reagan was certainly up to the task, as was Truman, as was, though it pains me to say it, Clinton. Nixon of course was a bibliophile, and even gentle Jerry Ford was at ease in the world of ideas and policy wonkery.
But George W. Bush is not comfortable in that world. He tends to diminish its importance, it seems, with what someone else on this thread called "self-deprecatory humor," which is often used as a disarming mask to hide a true lack.
Bold decisions are what the president seems to want to be known for. While you seem confident that "future generations" will understand him better than we do, implying the approval of posterity, I wonder how you can be so sure that the bold decisions he's made will stand the test of time, since failure in Iraq, his boldest decision, is a very real possibility. Perhaps future generations will scoff at his boldness, and will wish that his decisions, however bold, had been better informed.
If Peggy wants to be so formal, why doesn't she use her proper name? I assume Peggy is a nick name. Me thinks "Peggy" is a hypocrite.
John Bolton would give our friend, beckett, heart failure two days after his inaugural should he become Prez.
What you realized about Reagan, after meeting him and watching him campaign and govern, was how utterly pragmatic a conservative he was. I suspect Bush is the same way, only we won't really get to appreciate him so much until years from now.
I remember the story you told about Reagan and the California assembly in the 1960's, how Reagan learned to settle for 3/4's of the loaf and had to endure the criticism from his "allies" on the Brigadier right for not holding out for the entire breadbox. That criticism followed him through his Presidency, although we don't remember it now because, in the wake of Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, Reagan is a giant.
Reagan understood that one can keep one's eyes on one's core convictions and maneuver around and make deals to get to the Promised Land. The Human Events crowd hated that about Reagan, and complained loudly during the early years (you DO remember the catastrophic '82 election cycle, don't you, when there was backbiting from the "conservatives"?). When he had to, he governed by making deals with Tip. Democrats were a different party, even in those days.
The Right never won an election in this country. If they had, we'd be discussing President Goldwater and how he dropped the Bomb on Hanoi. Reagan always understood how to mate conservatism and coalition politics.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
That is what both you and others on this thread (including Noonan) are concerned about. But why oh why must he interact with the world primarily through the intellect in order to be a great leader?
When I chose Truman as being similar in temperament I was referring to Truman's long history of good personal relations and the ability he had to build a power base on this. Overall a poor choice on my part.
The President also has a certain transparency that I respect and enjoy. Acting the part and concealing one's persona is usually the political way--especially for educated, upper middle class intellectuals. When you support the ordinary politician you are then forced to do so on ideological grounds without much idea of his or her personal nature. With the President, for better or worse, you know who you are supporting and why.
I think many, if not most, who think about the President have a visceral understanding of him and his nature. As a result, there are sharp disagreements about him and his actions.
I know intellectuals love history because I do. Unfortunately, as Soren Kierkegaard pointed out to understand is to study the past but, unfortunately, we live in the future. (a paraphrased quote)
I do believe the President is a man for the future and agree he will not write a book analogous to "Meditations." In the meantime, regards.
Wow. So, I'm civil and try to explain my position and you repay that by patronizingly telling me that my whining, venting makes it sound as if I need to go away. How gentlemanly of you.
You are not debating in good faith. We are not going to come to any sort of thoughtful understanding here. Therefore, I am going to let it be and let our comments stand for themselves.
I wish you the best of luck.
Thank you.
Thanks.
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.