One expects cabinet members and the President to have unified themes and present a coherent public message, but one hopes that in private discussion there is a diversity of oppinion, and that decisions are tempered by open debate. I guess there’s a perception that Bush only wants to surround himself with folks who will tell him what he wants to hear. I think one should not underestimate, though, how much Bush leans on others when they are ideologically sympatico. The “yes person” thing could be a two-way street.
A demonstration from the party of tolerance and diversity (the Democrats, I assume)? No, it’s something we call “a political cartoon”.
Since when does a political party repudiate, or, indeed, need to repudiate a cartoon?
Of course you do - it isn’t kissing dubya’s ass.
I forgot, which of you Dopers was it that is involved in Bush’s private deliberations and meetings with to paides?
OK, is this a big whoosh? Are we being baited or something?
Well, Bushnik obsequiousness and credulity isn’t exactly a fresh new meme, and it’s something of a cottage industry to ridicule Bush’s most loyal advisors and supporters as little more than supplicants, unfairly or no.
At the advisory level, I doubt this is the case. I think Bush relies on them too much for them to be real “Yes Men”. It’s more of a Vulcan Mind Meld, if you ask me.
What goes on privately doesn’t matter if she isn’t willing to ever disagree with him publicly. Publicly, she is a freaking parrot. As NSA she was a hell of a campaign manager.
The only debatable question arising from the OP is (fill in the blanks):
“Is Bricker a _____________, or is he just a _____________?”
You’re not supposed to disagree publicly. The Executive branch was designed to be fairly solidified.
The Constitution developed the Executive to be an exact opposite to the legislative. There would not be the deliberation and arguing and compromise seen in the legislative branch. This was seen as necessary because the executive, in the original sense, was most important in times when quick action was needed and speedy decision had to be made, this type of duty does not lend itself to decisions via debate and committe.
A great flaw in democracies is sometimes decision making is too slow. The founding fathers recognized that for pressing matters of national security the legislative process was not fast enough. However, for important matters that will have binding and lasting effects on the entire country, the legislative process is seen as superior because it is deliberative and prone to compromises.
So anyways the President has cabinet officers to be given delegated duties and to give advice. Look at the Executive branch like you would a large corporation. The CEO will have department heads who oversee the more minute details of the corporate operations. And those department heads delegate a huge amount of authority as well because in a large corporation a single department is enormous in scale.
The Federal government is the same, but bigger.
The President delegates a huge amount of authority simply because he must. He listens to department heads’ advice simply because he must, no President no matter how learned has the mental abilities to be informed on every matter that arises in governing the nation. That’s one reason why the President has a cabinet.
But at the same time a department head is supposed to realize his/her boss is the CEO. If the CEO has decided on something the time for advice or persuasion is over, you’re supposed to do what the boss says. If you spout off your mouth to the press you scare the stockholders (voters) and it hurts the company. You will then be summarily fired.
I don’t think much good has ever come of a insubordinate cabinet member. Colin Powell has failed in serving as Secretary of State in my opinion. His open insubordination is tantamount to a department head of a large corporation showing the company’s weakness to rival companies.
Apparently since Condi is a black woman Republican, anything derogatory about her can only come from Democrats and such criticism must be based on racism and/or sexism. She isn’t being criticized for being black or female, she’s being criticized for her lack of an independent voice. While ultimately the Secretary of State tries to implement foreign policy as set by the president, most presidents have found it useful to have someone at State with the gumption to speak his/her own mind. Since Condi has never shown that capability, that’s what she’s being mocked for and that is fair game regardless of her race or sex.
All right, fair enough.
Frankly, I did see a certain racist element to the cartoon, but upon reading the above replies, and given the fact that I’m alone in that perception, I think it’s more likely that my perception is inaccurate.
It’s certainly fair game in the political cartooning world (although, I would argue, not accurate) to characterize Rice as Bush’s parrot or yes-man. I think the fawning servility was what triggered a racist picture in my mind initially, but if we dare not draw a cartoon of a powerful black woman as a fawning sycophant simply because she’s black, then THAT RESTRICTION is racist; Ms. Rice should not be immune to an attack that would be made freely on a caucasian simply because of her race.
So I withdraw the complaint.
I salute you, Bricker. To read others’ opinions and admit that they could be right and you could be wrong is impossible for some. And to have what could have been another partisan name calling thread stay civilized is refreshing.
Well, I repudiate this cartoon.
Condi is a lap dog, not a parrot. 
But Bricker, as you withdraw your complaint (good show, that) are you also stating that Democrats are not responsible for the output of an independent political cartoonist?
Good on ya, Bricker.
Seconded (or thirded or fourthed, or whatever it is now…)
No, the Democrats are not responsible for the content. But had it truly been racist, I was hoping the Democrats would condemn it, thus taking an affirmative step to distance themselves from the opinion presented. Pat Oliphant self-identifies as a Democrat, and while I agree that the Democratic party does not have an obligation to continually monitor cartoonists and announce what their reaction is to every bit of political fluff that comes along, I thought that my post HERE would result in some repudiation here.
As my interpretation of the drawing seems to be wrong, obviously none of the above is applicable.
Add me too.
This statement is kind of frightening to me. You think Powell was openly insubordinate!!! I think Powell’s problem is just the opposite…While he was, as near as we can tell, a voice of reason behind the scenes, he was all too willing to totally trash his own credibility in defense of this administration in public (i.e., in his presentation before the U.N.).
I shudder to think of the kind of loyalty that you seem to demand.
[I should also note that if you want a case where Powell was apparently very close to being insubordinate (or so I’ve read), you have to go back to the time when he was the head of the Joint Chief of Staff when Clinton came into office and proposed letting gays serve openly in the military. That is another disappointment about Powell…The only time when he has really been willing to break publicly with a President who he is serving was when it was to support continued discrimination.]
OK, so portraying a black woman as having exaggerated lips isn’t racist but normal caricature, where features real or imagined are exaggerated for effect. Fair enough (are there any dissenters from this view?). Where does one draw the line? Gary Trudeau imagining the President calling Dr. Rice “brown sugar?” Jeff Danziger portraying her as Prissy from Gone With the Wind? What about a magazine which portrays Clarence Thomas as a lawn jockey?
The answer to “where does one draw the line?”, BTW, is separate from “when should partisans be expected to call it out?” The lawn jockey portrayal, for example, was in a magazine with a very small circulation (small enough that it since died) – it’s reasonable to expect only subscribers and others close to the magazine (owners, for example) to take action or even to speak out.
An artifact of caricature. He is representing Ms Rice as a parrot (“Beeeyoootiful plumage…”), and she speaks. Hence, a parrots bill ends with a pair of lips, which is likely to appear exaggerated. There is, of course, nothing in Mr. Oliphant’s work to suggest any racism.
Reminds me, off topic: when I was a child in still-segregated Texas, I recall seeing old Tom and Jerry cartoons on the TV, with Tom the Cat belabored by a “mammy” stereotype, chasing him with a broom, so on and so forth. To my young eye, she was the housekeeper. Some thirty years later, my son saw the same cartoon, and assumed that she owned the house.
Besides, white is as white does. Ms Rice is a terminal workaholic, classical pianist, dyed-in-the-wool academic (provost of Standford, IIRC) and fervent partisan of conservative causes. That’s whiter than I’ll ever be.
Well you’ll have to forgive us if we don’t immediately recognize which statements, celebrities, windbags, and silly drawings are to be attributed to the Democratic Party, as opposed to merely the individual speaker, celebrity, windbag, or silly cartoonist. And spare us the sneering about “the party of tolerance and diversity” and such until, like, we have some idea what you’re talking about and why it’s our responsibility.
That’s the line for me. That is a disgusting, racist statement.