Mark Hemingway at the Corner:
News flash: There’s not a job on the planet above the pay grade of the President of the United States.
For instance, Messiah.
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
What’s he talking about? On paper, George W. Bush took a pay cut to become president—his salary is currently around $200,000 a year.
yeah, every president of a Fortune 500 company makes more. Maybe he was talking about government pay grade? But that’s not right, either, because private contractors for government organizations can make more.
“Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.”
Yeah, b/c all issues can be decided in 10 words or less.
“You’re with us or against us.”
“Gonna smoke ‘em out of their caves.”
“His energy plan is a tire gauge.”
“I will cut taxes.” (only for my rich friends, though)
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
That settles that, right? No further questions necessary.
Of course, sometimes 10 words is more than enough. “I will be a pro-life President” makes it pretty clear he doesn’t believe women are human beings. At least as much as “At least I don’t slather make-up on like a trollop, you cunt.”
Oops. The “cunt” line is 12 words. Guess that’s why we’re supposed to lose interest before the “you cunt”.
————————-
And the President makes $400,000/year now. Cheney makes $200,000. Cheney’s net worth went from about $2 million to around $100 million during this administration due to his “deferred salary” from Halliburton (a company in the red before Cheney threw the treasury at them) and his stock in companies like Halliburton.
He’s always been paid dramatically more money by Halliburton, et. al. than the US taxpayers. So who really is his employer? The people who pay him a pittance? Or the people who funded his wildest dreams so long as he took advantage of his position that paid him a pittance?
So, basically Hemingway is saying that the office of president confers upon someone the ultimate authority to decide all of the big metaphysical and moral questions. Like when it’s appropriate to torture someone, for example. While that’s the guiding philosophy of the Bush administration, I don’t think it’s correct.
Some moral [and Constitutional] questions are beyond the authority of the President to decide. That’s one of the guiding principles of our form of government. Of course, if you want to confer upon the President the divine right to decide all moral and philosophical questions, why not have a Monarchy? Oh right, we kind of do. I look forward to the return of the rule of law in 2009, but I don’t know if any future president will give up the imperial powers that Cheney and Bush have unilaterally seized in the last several years. Let’s hope that Obama will, I know that McCain won’t.
Mark Hemingway must be an idiot. If it is a theological question, the specifics are above the president’s pay grade because: a.) The CEO of Exxon Mobil has a better answer or b.) The entity that is “above the president’s pay grade” is God. What did Obama mean? Which is the better answer? Which answer makes sense? If you said a.), your head is probably 95% bone and you probably write for the Corner.
To add: If Hemingway thinks that Obama’s responsibility as president would be to resolve theological issues to issue declarations and fatwas in the manner of a Pope or Ayatollah, as the final say on the planet, he must misunderstand the office.
So, basically Hemingway is saying that the office of president confers upon someone the ultimate authority to decide all of the big metaphysical and moral questions. Like when it’s appropriate to torture someone, for example. While that’s the guiding philosophy of the Bush administration, I don’t think it’s correct.
I bet Hemingway rails against Papal Infallibility, too. George Benard Shaw captured our modern mindset so well:
Compared with our infallible democracies, our infallible medical councils, our infallible astronomers, our infallible judges, and our infallible parliaments, the Pope is on his knees in the dust confessing his ignorance before the throne of God
Modern Republicanism looks more and more like a religious cult-of-power-and-the-presidency than anything else.
No, I think Hemingway is merely pointing out that all the highest-paid CEOs come from other planets.
For instance, that guy in charge of ExxonMobil? Plainly from Tatooine.
Hemingway was using some (no doubt highly selective) quotes to point out that Obama was waffling a bit on abortion. Obama may use weasel words on abortion, but if he wins, he’ll appoint pro-choice judges (and, let’s hope, justices). That’s the bottom line.
Paycheck as Veep: $200,000
Paycheck as POTUS: $400,000
Extra perks, including invading and/or bombing other countries with impunity and waving your bare ass at Congress: PRICELESS…
Holy cow: does anyone understand the concept of metaphor? I realize that Obama is an academic in his other life, but surely to god ordinary people can realize that he was speaking in a figurative sense, suggesting that certain things—such as the ability to determine when a fetus acquires human rights—are beyond his jurisdiction.
I think most of us would agree that it’s one thing to concede that life begins at conception, and quite another to legislate human rights for something that cannot survive on its own for a number of weeks or months. What sorts of human rights should a fetus get, anyhow? The right to vote? The right to food, clothing, and shelter? The right to be protected from murdering husbands or boyfriends? The right to be protected from abortion? It’s a tough question and answering it requires more thought than a one minute Q/A session can afford.
The “above my pay grade” remark was an attempt by Obama to say “this is a moral question that I am not prepared to make a definitive answer on”.
For 99.99% of the population, that’s probably a good, humble, position to take.
Unfortunately for him, he is in the 0.001% of the population that’s running for President. Those guys don’t have anyone above their paygrade. They are trying out for a job where they’re entrusted with the ability to rain nuclear fire down on humanity and wipe out the species. Whether they want to or not, they have to be able to answer hard questions. And it’s only a “hard” question in political terms, if you want to split the difference and try not to offend anyone. It’s not a difficult question at all in moral terms; you believe a fetus is a baby is a human, or you don’t believe that. Either way, say so and take your lumps, as McCain did. How hard would it have been for Obama to answer the question with “I believe that the unborn don’t have human rights in our system, we assign those rights to the child’s mother until the child has an independent existence, and we trust the mother to use wisdom and judgment in her decisions.”
Just another instance of Obama demonstrating the truth - he isn’t ready to be President. He can’t bring himself to say anything that will make anyone mad or decrease the chance that some wavering centrist will pull the lever for him.
“How hard would it have been for Obama to answer the question with “I believe that the unborn don’t have human rights in our system, we assign those rights to the child’s mother until the child has an independent existence, and we trust the mother to use wisdom and judgment in her decisions.”
What if that’s not what he believes? What if there are some human rights that Obama would assign to an unborn child, but not others? For example, I could foresee a situation in which an unborn child has the legal status of a murder victim if a husband, boyfriend, or someone other than the mother takes its life in the process of brutalizing the mother. However, if the mother herself decides to abort the unborn child, then the same fetus does not have the legal status of a murder victim.
The situation is complex and most people should be able to understand the answer that Obama offered under the circumstances. He said plenty during that conversation which could have angered people on either side of the political fence: which judges he would not have appointed to the Supreme Court was certainly a provocative statement to some blacks and to most conservatives; his definition of marriage surely offended many gays and lesbians; and his views on EVIL were very domestically centered whereas I think the pastor had international EVIL in mind.
Overall, I think the only way you can view Obama’s responses as less viable than McCain’s is if you are a simple-minded sheep sort of person. You like black and white; Obama likes some grays.
Well, shear my wool and call me at feeding time, then. Some gray is fine in his answer - if he gives an answer, instead of saying that it isn’t something he can judge, and he tries to kick it upstairs. There is no “upstairs” in the job he is applying for. My point isn’t whether his position on abortion is right or wrong; I’m a lot closer to his views than to McCain’s.
There are a lot of jobs where “I would refer that to my superiors” is a viable answer in the interview process. POTUS isn’t one of those jobs.
nice site, these articles make for a good read. I have nothing cutting to say on this article but am glad I read it
I hope the same people who endorse the idea of President-as-God shut the fuck up when it comes time to whine about the nanny state.
You know, I had fallen under the—apparently erroneous assumption—that the US did not have a state-sponsored religion. That the President was NOT the head of the church in the US, able to make theological statements as if they were fact. As if the President was only a politician and not, for example, the Pope or an anointed Monarch.
Hemingway, as well as our friend Dan in Denver, are under the impression that our President is required to be the head of the Church of America, a trained theologian who has God on speed dial. That’s a ridiculous position and any one who cared about religious freedom in America would shudder at such an idea.
“Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.”
—Bertrand Russell
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”
—Voltaire
There is no “upstairs” in the job he is applying for.
You’re shitting me, right?
Fine, I’ll say it one more time, nice and loud for the people back there in the cheap seats.
THE. PRESIDENT. IS. NOT. GOD. OR. SANTA. FUCKING. CLAUS.
He will NOT solve your existential crisis. He will NOT put your conscience to rest. He will NOT give you the clarity of your convictions. THAT. IS. STILL. YOUR. FUCKING. JOB.
Now grow up and do it.
“I hope the same people who endorse the idea of President-as-God shut the fuck up when it comes time to whine about the nanny state. “
Agreed. This is a good illustration how all of the anti-Nanny-state crap is a sham. It’s not about the state, it’s about who they want as the nanny.
You don’t have to be God, or Santa, in order to have an answer to the question that Obama tried to evade. When does a new person have civil rights? This is not a religious question, though certainly one’s religious convictions or lack thereof can factor into one’s answer.
It’s a political question, about rights and how our society lays them down and recognizes them. And a man who cannot answer the question straightforwardly, cannot have the top job.
“I don’t know and I’m going to leave it up to God” is fine, for someone who doesn’t have to sign or veto the legislation extending, or denying, civil rights to a fetus. The President has to have an answer. That’s not me yearning to have President Snugglypants cocooon my beliefs in a warm haze of authority.
That’s him doing his job.
The President has to have an answer
Bullshit again. The President has to enact OUR answer. So I repeat: get to work.
A writer at Salon said almost the same thing (while complaining the event was held in a church), so it’s not like President-as-Lord is exclusive to the right. And anyway, Obama WAS evading: he was asked a question that directly relates to a political issue which is deeply entangled in the Courts. Who appoints judges and Justices? The President.
Shorter Mark Hemingway: as a conservative defender of the republican constitution of the United States, I think having an absolute god-king would be great.
When does a new person have civil rights?
“You’re not a human until you’re in my phone book”—Bill Hicks
“It’s a political question, about rights and how our society lays them down and recognizes them. And a man who cannot answer the question straightforwardly, cannot have the top job. “
After all of the moral certitude of the last 8 years from “conservatives” and the Theologian in Chief, I, for one, am pleased to see this learned man admit that there are some questions of faith beyond which one person can not have answers for another. He’s leaving it up to the individual. I had assumed that self-determination was a core conservative principle and the President’s job was to stay out of these decisions. At least that’s how I understood his answer. We’ve known for some time that this idea is a sham. Perhaps I’m too old-school in that respect. If I were to possess my own uterus, I would be pleased to know that the individual responsible for enforcing the law of the land had no intention of laying claim to it and my use (or not) of it, leaving those choices…and consequences…up to me as an individual.
“he was asked a question that directly relates to a political issue which is deeply entangled in the Courts.”
As long as Roe is in effect, the discussion of civil rights for embryo-American’s is, for the most part, moot. As far as I know, there is some scuffling going on around the edges, but…deeply entangled?
“Who appoints judges and Justices? The President.”
He’s a Democrat. Of course he’ll appoint pro-choice judges who’ll not legislate a woman’s ownership of her uterus away from her. They generally would rather leave these difficult existential questions up to the individual with the uterus rather than forcing pre-digested answers on them. He answered the question leaving the decision wide open for individual self-determination, a quality from the conservatives who lived hundreds of years before the dawn of history.
Was he evasive, or did “conservatives” simply not like the answer?
“McCain’s answers were direct, confident and, most importantly, serious.”
gosh I wonder how someone would come to this conclusion