Wednesday, October 09, 2013

QotD: Subversive Edition

As the Chicago politics writ large continue to play out on the national scene, ToddG notes:
There's a term for someone who works from within the government to undermine morale and readiness at a time of war. That term isn't supposed to be President.

13 comments:

Erich505 said...

Ha!

drjim said...

Zinger!

RabidAlien said...

Amen.

Robin said...

The National Park Service seems astonishingly willing to further destroy their rep in their zeal to express their contempt for the public.

Caleb said...

In two sentences, Todd effectively summed up the administration's policies towards our war fighters and veterans.

It was also, as I said on PF, a pretty sick burn.

Anonymous said...

Give this administration a chance. I am sure that they will do something even more shameful and disgusting in the next three years.

I wish I was wrong. But I know I am right.

Ed said...

Here's to those who put the "fun" in dysfunctional government. Can the No Such Agency see with which finger I am saluting?

Joe in PNG said...

Obama has convinced me that nothing good comes from allowing Presidental reelections. Let's make it four and out.

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

Limit the president to one term of 6 years, followed by a mandatory term of 6 years at hard labor in the Dry Tortugas.

Or something like that. You get my drift.

Anonymous said...

"Chicago politics writ large..."

Beautiful. And tragic.

Joe in PNG said...

I like it. Add in the possibility of a vote of no confidence from Congress after two years, followed by an immediate public retention vote.

mikee said...

If possible, could we make it the law that halfway through the president's term, and the terms of Congress, all taxpayers must vote approval of the current occupants of office, or a new election be held within 4 weeks?

Limiting it to taxpayers might be the key to getting, and keeping, the right people in office.

Mike said...

"mikee said:
Limiting it to taxpayers might be the key to getting, and keeping, the right people in office"

I can't disagree with the principle. We require judges to recuse themselves from cases they have personal or financial involvement with, after all.