Presidential Transition

[gpop]

Hey guys, maybe he's right; seems like we are all too simple, too stupid, or too contaminated to understand the complex saintly benevolence of her majesty, Christina of Argen-Kult.

If something went wrong... well it was obviously someone elses fault.
She was right all along: Argentina is way better off than say - Germany or Canada; nobody likes those guys anyways.
Argentina is producing so much and so well... why would it need anything from the outside world. The next satellite will be a Top-House!
As for this election hic-up... it was obviously a mistake and should be cleared up and back on track in no time; just as soon as the next family member is inaugurated into the Pink-House. Family and friends is the new democracy after all.

We've been deceived buy the entire outside world. Lanata -with his wily hypnosis- and his blasphemous internal dissenters has led the voters astray. Even with Macri in office, the Kult is really the ones running the show. Every nation in the world (save for Venezuela) don't and can't understand how things are here. And dollar reserves much better off in buried deep under ground somewhere in S. Cruz than in the central bank. The rest was spent on chorizos and jet fuel so her-majesty could get her daily newspaper.

This is a f#%king paradise and everyone else is just jealous. Hail to the queen!

 

[syngirl]

This is democracy. Macri wants/dreams with absolute power while his is super limited.

Cristina wants/dreams with absolute power.


There, fixed that for you.

 

[clooz]

What was it you read? Reagan was referenced for the way he graciously acknowledged his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, in his first inaugural address - nothing more. Why would you think Iran-Contra and Grenada (several years in the future) had anything to do with that? Or that the post addressed democratic process in leadership? It was about the contrast with the current Argentine transition if that wasn't clear. Please continue to think it's funny, though, if that corresponds to your world view.

Ed, your post that motivated my response was this "But that's how it's done in a democracy. Someone wins and the loser accepts the results (which rather surprisingly did happen here, hallelujah!).

Reagan's graciousness to Carter is a model that every politician in a transition should study. It shows real class - and not because it was made mandatory by legal statute (which, ElQueso, I believe is your point)."

When you write "that's how it's done in a democracy ... the loser accepts the results" I read you as claiming that in democracies there is a transfer of power in which the losers do not obstruct the winners from executing the duely transfered powers of office. The "results" are the winning of power as well as the winning of office. If you narrow the claim to cover only the speech during the transfer of office, or to the transfer of power but allow obstruction of the execution of power by losers, then this not what I think you mean by gracious. The gracious transfer of office will allow and enable execution of duely transferred power - this is the essential spirit of a democratic transfer of power.

So wrt your claim, my general opinion is that there is widespread obstruction before, during and after transfer - in fact in almost all transfers of power - in democratic elections and non-democratic governments worldwide. In the UK there are notorious examples from the 60's to the present where obstruction lasted years at all levels of government. It is not clear to me that today there is any real difference beween obstruction during transfer and obstruction in execution of power after transfer. It seems to me that obstruction throughout has become the normal practice. Carter-Reagan was an exception. Having a polite and tolerant transfer of office ceremony is better than nothing, but it is often a misdirection for media attention.

 

[EJLarson]

Ed, your post that motivated my response was this "But that's how it's done in a democracy. Someone wins and the loser accepts the results (which rather surprisingly did happen here, hallelujah!).

Reagan's graciousness to Carter is a model that every politician in a transition should study. It shows real class - and not because it was made mandatory by legal statute (which, ElQueso, I believe is your point)."

When you write "that's how it's done in a democracy ... the loser accepts the results" I read you as claiming that in democracies there is a transfer of power in which the losers do not obstruct the winners from executing the duely transfered powers of office. The "results" are the winning of power as well as the winning of office. If you narrow the claim to cover only the speech during the transfer of office, or to the transfer of power but allow obstruction of the execution of power by losers, then this not what I think you mean by gracious. The gracious transfer of office will allow and enable execution of duely transferred power - this is the essential spirit of a democratic transfer of power.

So wrt your claim, my general opinion is that there is widespread obstruction before, during and after transfer - in fact in almost all transfers of power - in democratic elections and non-democratic governments worldwide. In the UK there are notorious examples from the 60's to the present where obstruction lasted years at all levels of government. It is not clear to me that today there is any real difference beween obstruction during transfer and obstruction in execution of power after transfer. It seems to me that obstruction throughout has become the normal practice. Carter-Reagan was an exception. Having a polite and tolerant transfer of office ceremony is better than nothing, but it is often a misdirection for media attention.

Had you said that, any of that, in your post, it would have been a continuation of a lively thread with several points of view expressed. Your contribution, however, was:

"This is one of the funniest threads I have read in a long time. Reagan - Iran-Contra and invasion of Grenada - as an example of democratic process in leadership?"

I found that comment to be arrogant and patronizing - that you were laughing (funniest, right?) at the poor fools who didn't know that Reagan was a horrible president who should never be used as an example for anything good. Now that's a far cry from what you just wrote, which was reasoned and thoughtful. Of course I have no idea what was in your mind when you wrote the first one, but I still can't read it any other way than insulting and disrespectful to those who'd expressed their thoughts in the thread.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[ElQueso]

Maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe I haven't seen many examples in the US of sheer obfuscation of the transfer of power - on the administrative side of things. But when did any (at least recent) president's administration literally refuse to meet with those coming in and go over the situations that are ongoing - the details of day-to-day running of the government, etc? It's one thing to leave behind some poorly-worded signs and such (which is about the most I believe happened when Bush assumed power, taking over from Clinton, not tons of damages and such - those pranks probably happen with every presidential transfer of power.) but quite another to say "you are not in power until I leave office and I will not cooperate with helping to hand over the keys to the executive washroom - as well as brief you on the situation of the daily business of running the government."

That is what, to me, makes a democracy. Cristina sees no "loyal opposition", she sees traitors and devils who are trying to undermine the legacy that she painstakingly built over the years. She doesn't seem interested in a smooth transfer of power, and one only has to look at something more serious - what she did in the last two years to stretch things out until she left office - to see that there's something even worse even than not cooperating with a transfer of administrative power to the incoming administration, beyond what may be absolutely required by law.

While it may be legal, that's not democratic. I wonder if she would have declined to meet (her and her current ministers and staff) with the incoming administration, had it been Scioli winning.

 

[Rich One]

Enjoy now watching 678 last days.. all these panelistas militantes transmitting Government propaganda will be out of work and the Inflated salaries.....

 

[scotttswan]

Enjoy now watching 678 last days.. all these panelistas militantes transmitting Government propaganda will be out of work and the Inflated salaries.....

Are they not supposed to be moving to c5n?

 

[glasgowjohn]

Are they not supposed to be moving to c5n?

Just watch C5N change editorial slant over the next few weeks.
I wouldnt be surprised if it becomes C5M...

 

[Gringoboy]

There appears to be a discussion over where the swearing in ceremony will be held as Macri has asked for it to take place in the Casa Rosada so it won't get ruined by the K supporters who are said to be planning numerous protests.
I can't really see the difference because they would only transfer from Congreso to Plaza de Mayo.
Further, he needs agreement from the Queen (future ex Queen) and we all know what a dog in a manger she is.

 

[ItsyBits]

There appears to be a discussion over where the swearing in ceremony will be held as Macri has asked for it to take place in the Casa Rosada so it won't get ruined by the K supporters who are said to be planning numerous protests.
I can't really see the difference because they would only transfer from Congreso to Plaza de Mayo.
Further, he needs agreement from the Queen (future ex Queen) and we all know what a dog in a manger she is.

The reason i believe is that Macri wants to avoid la campora and such waving flags and throwing stuff and all that crap that he and maybe a few more argentinos thinks dont belong in a congress.