While reading this article, I got the sense of increasing anger and frustration on the author's part. But that's OK, because anger and frustration is very appropriate in this case.
I'm far from genius stature. But when I managed to lead the Dem takeover in a local municipality, I carefully determined which positions were most vital to fixing the major problems we had. For those spots, I appointed people that were loyal to my agenda - at least where it relates to the position's responsibilities.
Then I considered the positions where removal of folks who could potentially turn out to be disastrous is very difficult. And I again appointed people who I knew would be reliable supporters of the agenda we ran on.
Last, all the other positions with very limited ability to derail my core goals went to folks who I could easily replace if they didn't support my 'mandate' from the voters.
So I compare that to Obama and can only see two possible conclusions: 1). he did exactly what I did and rahm (etal) are the supporters of Obama's true agenda or 2). he failed to take control or his agenda, allowing insider hacks to seize the administration.
And whichever it is, I surely won't vote for Obama again. He's either no better than a repug or even more spineless than the stereotypical Dem. I'll support a Dem primary challenger or third party - while reserving the right to change my mind if Obama cleans house and
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment