Many former presidents, understanding the import and honor of their office, have had rules that one cannot be in the Oval office without a jacket. Obama, in one of his first acts as president, has overturned that rule. What do you think?
I think it's laudable to not feel bound by dogmas or tradition. But when one so eagerly and willfully casts aside a symbol of dignity, honor, and legacy in order to appear more casual, I really start to worry.
No jacket = no problem. Maybe he just needed some extra arm mobility for all those executive orders he's been signing?
Now, I'm not an Obama fan. There are so many other valid concerns (like this) to be worried about than whether or not he wears a jacket in the Oval Office. Come on Jeff, not wearing a jacket? That's insignificant, a non-issue.
I never said it was a problem, as I have not yet decided. However, I agree with the first poster in that "when one so eagerly and willfully casts aside a symbol of dignity, honor, and legacy in order to appear more casual, I really start to worry." It is not just a jacket. It is that clothes mean something. It is about the office. One of the radio folks a long time ago talked about honoring the office, and said that Reagan would never take his jacket off in the Oval office, whereas Clinton was willing to take off much more than his jacket. It is an approach to the presidency.
Many former presidents, understanding the import and honor of their office, have had rules that one cannot be in the Oval office without a jacket. Obama, in one of his first acts as president, has overturned that rule. What do you think?
5 comments:
I think it's laudable to not feel bound by dogmas or tradition. But when one so eagerly and willfully casts aside a symbol of dignity, honor, and legacy in order to appear more casual, I really start to worry.
Any news yet if Bush stole half the fiurniture and vandalized the keyboards like Clinton did when he left?
two words: pop star.
No jacket = no problem. Maybe he just needed some extra arm mobility for all those executive orders he's been signing?
Now, I'm not an Obama fan. There are so many other valid concerns (like this) to be worried about than whether or not he wears a jacket in the Oval Office. Come on Jeff, not wearing a jacket? That's insignificant, a non-issue.
I never said it was a problem, as I have not yet decided. However, I agree with the first poster in that "when one so eagerly and willfully casts aside a symbol of dignity, honor, and legacy in order to appear more casual, I really start to worry." It is not just a jacket. It is that clothes mean something. It is about the office. One of the radio folks a long time ago talked about honoring the office, and said that Reagan would never take his jacket off in the Oval office, whereas Clinton was willing to take off much more than his jacket. It is an approach to the presidency.
Post a Comment