Comments on: The president’s palace guard

By: gcalder

gcalder — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:01:33 +0000

I agree with you completely that we fought the war for independence in part to rid ourselves of royalty.
But Americans’ fascination with the first family is very much like the British obsession with the Queen and her family.
The fact that we treat the president and his family as celebrities unfortunately attracts the attentions of deranged people such as John Hinckley and makes the chief executive even more of a target than he already is.
Presidents certainly deserve protection. The tragedy as Grover Cleveland pointed out in 1901, is that they need it.

By: Margant

Margant — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:44:36 +0000

What kind of history do you teach at Friends’ Central?
Why did we fight the American Rev. if not, in part, to rid ourselves of royalty?
How many presidents have to be shot, shot at or killed for them to merit protection?
People tried to call the Kennedys “royal”, but after they died that wore thin.
Having the public interested in their lives does not constitute a person’s being royal.
My husband and I are currently watching the History Channel series on the Am. Rev., maybe you should try it.

By: gcalder

gcalder — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:27:18 +0000

Interesting point of view.
I tend to be more forgiving of the person in WH. The job has become so unmanageable that I’m amazed any sane person would seek it.
It’s reached the point at which the people who do want it are suspect and the people I would like to see in the Oval Office wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole.

By: Gardner

Gardner — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:21:55 +0000

I have gotten to the point when I really do see any man as just a man in spite of his position; some do rise above and some are exposed for being far less than depicted and far less than they think of themselves. I understand your article was more about the issue of security for presidents and that was interesting.

By: gcalder

gcalder — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 01:08:40 +0000

Point – That it’s always good to be aware of how things got to be this way, especially if we want to think about changing them.
Maybe the presidency needs to be redefined. Maybe we need to explore ways that we might separate the executive functions of the position from the first family’s celebrity.

By: gcalder

gcalder — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 01:06:54 +0000

Many thanks for the note.
My point is that the public seems to be fascinated by any occupant of the WH.
As has been the case for quite a number of past presidents, the state of the economy in ’08 probably had more of an impact on his being elected than anything else.

By: Gardner

Gardner — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:56:36 +0000

Mr. Calder,
Sorry, but I do not agree that there is much interesting in the man in the WH except that it is amazing that 52% of the voters fell for his empty story, his fabrications, the machinations of David Axlerod and voted for him.
That is truly amazing!
There is nothing genuine, admirable, honest nor honorable about the man himself that I have noticed.
Other presidents, perhaps…

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:53:23 +0000

When I read the title,I thought they were referring to the media as the palace guard

By: Phillysgr8

Phillysgr8 — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:52:23 +0000

And your point is?