So how about we require that all candidates for Governor be teachers?
A full month after I broke the news of Bill Cissell's candidacy for South Dakota's lone House seat, the Sturgis Republican gets his first mention from the mainstream press. The Black Hills Pioneer's Mark Watson catches up with Cissell at the Spearfish Optimists Home Show, where Cissell spent Saturday gathering signatures for his petitions.
And Cissell goes on record with his first really bad idea of the campaign: rule by military elites:
He said only 30 percent of VA employees are veterans.
"We're supposed to get preferential treatment, but it's still who you know," he said. He would rather make it a requirement to be a veteran to work for the VA and even to run for the presidency.
"I tried to get Tom Daschle to bring a Constitutional amendment that would require someone to be a veteran before they could at least be president if not a member of Congress," he said.
Cissell added he wants the cuts to the military to stop and for the country to get tough on immigration [Mark Watson, "Cissell Running for U.S. House," Black Hills Pioneer, 2012.03.05].
Maybe, just maybe, having the VA hire nobody but veterans is a tolerable idea... assuming you can find enough former soldiers with medical degrees, computer science degrees, accounting experience, and all other qualifications in proportion to the business needs of the VA. We still want the best people serving our veterans, and it is possible that, in certain labor markets, the best people for certain jobs will just happen to be folks who never served in uniform but will proudly and effectively serve those who did.
But the suggestion that only military folks are qualified to make and enforce our laws flies in the face of the very vital principal of civilian rule. Cissell's proposal is absurd as Mitt Romney's rhetoric that suggests only a businessman or corporate vulture is qualified to for economic policy.
No one profession or class deserves unique or exclusive qualification for public office. We are a nation of soldiers and civilians, entrepreneurs and civil servants, homebuilders and teachers, hammer swingers and database designers, pastors and pickle vendors. All are American. All deserve a chance to prove their worth to steer the ship of state.
Cissell's focus on veterans affairs will gain him support in the Hills, where folks are keenly interested in maintaining superior government health care in Hot Springs. But khakistocracy will not and should win Cissell either the primary or the general election.
Related: After three weeks with the new fancy content management system, the only new content on fellow GOP House candidate Stephanie Strong's website is two comments from some liberal troublemaker. It's hard to tell which is better: a crappy website like Strong's, or no website like Cissell. (Bill! Get web presence!)
Also related: And really, Mark Watson: the best picture you could get of a Congressional candidate shows the clearly interesting face obscured behind a flag stuck in a water glass? Move over two feet and shoot again!
Cissell seems like a fairly motivated person who likely has an opinion on issues. Strong seemed to be a dumbed down version of Noem.
From a business perspective, being President is no different than being a company CEO or even an EMA Executive Director, for that matter… It’s all about putting the right resident experts in the right positions. For example, I don’t need to know the inner workings of a power distribution system, but if we have wide-spread power outages after a disaster, I better be sure I have someone from the electric company sitting in the Energy emergency support function chair of my Emergency Operations Center!!! The President doesn’t need to be a veteran in order to know how to run the military… That’s what the Joint Chiefs of Staff are for.
Willy will be a super advocate for Vets, no question. His idea about the POTUS having some military background comes, no doubt from deep, profound personal experience. I have no interest whatsoever in trying to talk him out of it. I suggest instead we hear him (and all other vets) out. They're not just the Mario Brothers in the latest video game.
"From a business perspective, being President is no different than being a company CEO or even an EMA Executive Director, for that matter..."
Wrong. Dead wrong. It's not like that at all.
Totally right, Bill. There's so much wrong with the statement "being President is no different than being a company CEO." Aside from the fact that they both have a general organizational structure, there's virtually nothing in common. The United States Government is not a company that is set up to produce maximum profit for a small group of shareholders. The government of We The People is not set up like AIG or Enron, nor does the Constitution envision it that way. Good lord.
The man appears to have beliefs based on experience rather than just expediency. Seems to be running to DO something - not to BE something. Can't say I agree that veterans have all the answers that are otherwise lacking or that the military needs all the money it's getting, but he comes off as more genuine than Rep. Noem - who clearly went to DC to become part of the establishment rather than to challenge the status quo.
“From a business perspective, being President is no different than being a company CEO or even an EMA Executive Director, for that matter…â€
Certainly has a fascist flavor to it.
The War Toilet's MC live on Bill Janklow's idea of public radio. Send Bill Cissell some money now!
In my opinion, the most over-estimated "credentials" for being President is being Reaganesqe with regard to communicating (except for matters of great national import). And the most underestimated is running of the government which begins with selecting great people to lead the various Departments (and this is the essential qualification of being a CEO) and "managing" Board of Directors (Congress).
Take out the personal views of political agenda and consider Obama as CEO as compared to GWB and WJC.
Let's judge Obama on each of these credentials:
1) Communicating: Since his major "accomplishmnets" are Obamacare, the Stimulus. HAFA, cash for clunkers, running the war in Afghanistan (Unpopular with the public), the auto bailout, Dodd-Frank, getting out of Iraq (popular with the public), you'd have to give him a mixed grade on communicating. The fact he has allowed himself to get drug into some matters he shouldn't have (ala accusing the Boston police officer of racism) and held the fewest press conferences in the modern era he also gets some demerits. And, I'm not sure we are really seeing him lead on the international stage. GWB was the best here but he also had the "benefit" of international incidents that galvanized unity around the world. Except for the great leadership of Hilary, Libya, Israel, Iran, & the world financial crisis has not been good for Obama demonstrating leadership.
2) Managing Congress: Since nearly all of his "accomplishments" were principally led by Congress, he either gets credit for good management of the Board or abdicating leadership depending on your perspective. I actually think he did well here.
3) Quality of his Cabinet and excessive use of Czars:
First, Czars are a poor management principle for long-term. They are to be used to perform a quick fix/reform/initiative and then institutionalized in tradition functions of operations. This is a major negative in my opinion. If you have good Cabinet Secretaries, there is no need for a Czar except for a limited and short-term basis. Name an issue that shouldn't be "run" out of a cabinet?
Second, his Cabinet. I think they are the weakest (at least in the top spots relative to Clinton/GWB) who I think in both cases had great Cabinet Members:
Chief of Staff: This has been a disaster for Obama. His best (Daley) lasted what a year and he is on his fourth one. Clinton had four over eight years (Panetta, Bowles, Podesta and McLarty (who was a disaster)). GWB had two (Card and Josh Bolton who were great).
State: We have been lucky as Albright, Powell/Rice, and Clinton have been all most competent and skilled.
Treasury: Geithner is/has been horrible similar to most of GWB's (except Paulson). Rubin was great except for his support of Gramm-Leach which I think caused the financial meltdown.
Defense: Again, here I think we have been fortunate as all of them had pretty good ones.
Justice: Here GWB didn't get it right until his last two years with Mukaskey. Clinton had one who didn't start out very good but seemed to get it right after Waco. Holder? I have nothing positive to say about him. He has had disaster after disaster (Gitmo, trying KSH in civilian or military court, Fast & Furious, enforcing voting rights violations to name just a few).
Health & Human Services: Clinton had one (Shalala) and Bush had two (Thompson and Leavitt) who have both gotten high praise. Sebelius gets mixed reviews. She has appeared to be running the mechanics of the Department well but this recent fiasco and letting her boss get drawn into a fight over conscience is crazy.
Interior/Agriculture/Transportation: I give all three Presidents for having pretty good ones (plus I'm tired of looking them up).
Bottom line: The Obama stands out with regard to picking poor performers (Chief of Staff, Justice, Treasury) and has none I would say is the best. His communication and management of Congress is better than GWB and less good than Clinton.
But, as I said in the beginning, the most under-appreciated is management and here Obama stands out in a negative sense.
(I didn't discuss the others only because they are smaller departments)
Ha! He must have taken the book "Starship Troopers" to heart. Service guarantees citizenship!
I just had a Starship Troopers moment...
wow. how many of these nut cases do the Republicans have?
Troy do you honestly just pull all that off the top of your head buddy?
I had to look up the names of some of the Secretaries. In fact, I would have run down the rest of the cabinet members (some of whom I remember were doozies in GWB's and WJC's administration) but figured if I couldn't name some of Obama's, I also couldn't comment on their competence.
...Troy keeps an eye on things, huh Charlie? He's cool like that.
So can anybody tell us how many of those Secretaries are member of the Council on Foreign Relations?
Check 'em out Sibby. Looks like you can apply too if you want to: http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html
The more you visit Madville Times the more likely the NSA will get a lock on you, Sibby.
The CFR is a serpentine network of international revolutionaries and fascist ideologues whose goal is to end American sovereignty and bring about a global, Marxist paradise. House, a socialist, wrote in his book, Philip Dru: Administrator, that he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." He told of a "conspiracy" which would gain control of both political parties, and use them as instruments in the creation of a socialist world government.
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/newworldorder/nworder06.html
Do you have your house wired to blow if they come for you, Steve?
when they come, rather....
At least Cissell has given me something concrete to disagree with him about. I hope that, if he gets himself on the ballot, he continues in that vein.
I used to work at Fort Meade as a chaplain. My colleagues there - nurses, custodians, social workers, doctors, etc. - seemed to be a really good bunch who had the best interests of the "old boys" at heart. Don't know about the higher ups.
There were some vets who were in and out on a regular basis.
One was a man, about 35, seriously mentally ill, whom the employees went above and beyond to care for. He usually lived on his own in a motel in RC. Every other week or so he took the VA van to Fort Meade. While he was there, without worrying about regs, staff made sure that he got a good meal or two, clean clothes, a medical checkup, and a mental health/medication check. This man never had an appointment. He just showed up and they all juggled tight schedules to care for him because they never knew when they would see him again. They were kind and gentle with him. It was very touching to see how they accepted, cared for, and loved this highly delusional man. I will never forget my opportunities to be part of that team. That is what good care is in its entirety.
Cool thread. I'm not surprised. Mr. Cissell does that to people. (Some here will recall that Willy and I used to work together back in the day.)
p.s. That crazy guy wasn't Willy, I don't think. Sounds a little young. What year was it?
I know Bill Cissell. Bill Cissell is a friend of mine. And, believe me, Kristi Noem is no Bill Cissell.
Wow... Perhaps I should have been more specific regarding my CEO/President comparison... It was ONLY in regards to the comment about how being a veteran should be a requirement to run for President. You don't really believe the CEO of McDonalds had to know how to work the fry station in order to become CEO, do you? If that's the case, I bet you probably think the CEO of H&R Block knows how to do income taxes... He doesn't, by the way. They were hired to run the company overall, not because they they worked in any of the different job roles they will ultimately be held accountable for and I know that hardly anything in government runs like a normal business.
I appreciate Mr. Bice's comparison. The President needs to know how to build and manage an expert team. Some veterans can do that. So can some CEOs. So can some community organizers. So can some teachers, principals, and coaches. Restricting the Presidency to a particular class of citizen excludes all sorts of talent.
One of my older friends (there are people older than I am) was a WWII bomber pilot. He saw a lot of the military and so did his family. One of his fears is that military and national guard people assume they know how to do civilian government better than do educated civilians. From what I see of them, they come with an arrogance that might awe military subordinates, but does not work well with free citizens.
Good point, Douglas! Some institutions just don't run well on a military mindset. Sometimes you need to give orders; sometimes you need to educate, discuss, and build consensus.