DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Stray Pooch on January 03, 2008, 04:55:10 AM
-
I'd be interested in the opinions of members off this forum on the basic question of Presidential qualification.
I was watching the Huckster on Leno tonight (plays a mean bass, btw). It was good to get a chance to see him for more than thirty seconds in front of a Christmas tree. I was glad to see him stick up for the fair tax, which is a big issue for me. But I didn't buy his tapdance on the "Now you see it, now you won't" anti-Romney ad. I'm watching this stuff with my youngest daughter, who votes for the first time next year. I have been trying to get her informed for the time when she has to pick a candidate (and, to a lesser extent, a party). The discussions we have been having for the past year or so on the subject have me thinking. As Huckabee is running (intentionally or not) as the ABM candidate (Anybody But Morm-, er, Mitt) I have a little trouble being objective about him. But he seemed like a typical politician. He's likeable enough and presents well on TV (an all-important trait these days). He is, like Romney, Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, a former governor. That's a good thing. I think an Executive office in one's background is a better qualification for the Presidency than a legislative one. So to my question:
What qualifies a person to be President?
All other things being equal, would you rather see a former Governor or a former Senator? How about a person with NO political office, but a history of business success in his/her past?
Should a Commander-in-Chief have previous military experience? Would Reserve Component experience be sufficient, or would you rather see a former full-time soldier? Would a war hero be more likely to get your vote than someone else?
What sort of education (in terms of field of study) would the POTUS need? Should s/he have studied law, political science, business, or would an English major do? Is a bachelor's degree sufficient, or should someone have a Master's or higher? How about someone who had only High School? Could you vote for an otherwise intelligent person who had not finished High School?
Should there be a minumum amount of time spent in public service prior to running for President? Can a person who has been Senator for one term run? How about a person who has been Mayor of a major city for several terms?
Do they need a special background investigation? Could we vote for someone who has a police record? What about someone who has had an affair or a divorce? If they used drugs recreationally in the past, or if they are a recovering alcoholic, can they still run?
I realize that many of these questions have a "it depends" sort of answer, but again I am saying "all other things being equal." What I am looking for is your idea of a well-qualified candidate - regardless of political views.
IMO, a Presidential candidate should be educated in law, or at least have a good working knowledge of the subject. Ours is a nation of law, and a failure to understand how the Constitution works and how law is applied is a major shortcoming to me. It is like trying to be a computer tech without studying electronics. Sure, an intelligent person can still get some things right, but eventually they would be over their head. Similarly, someone without AT LEAST a bachelor's degree (preferably higher) has no business in the Oval Office. I would consider a previous Governor better than a previous legislator, simply because an Executive has experience working with legislative bodies, making deals and negotiating with the opposition. Being a Congressman or Senator is not a bad qualification, but it does not have quite the direct correlation that a governorship does. I would not vote for a person who had no prior elected office. The romantic idea of someone "fresh" stepping into the most powerful position in the world is a pipedream. It would be like asking a champion race car driver to pilot a 747. In a pinch, I might hand over the cockpit to someone who had only flown a Cessna before, but never someone who has no experience in the air, even if they were great on the track. I would prefer someone with at least a little military experience. Leading men in battle, or showing great courage under fire would influence me favorably. Just as law is at the core of our government, the ability to wisely use military force and forces is central to the office of the POTUS. It would not necessarily have to be as an officer, or even as a full-time combat soldier. But at least some reserve time would be, I think, an essential element of experience. Finally, I do not expect my leaders to be perfect, but I do expect them to be of decent character. I would have a problem with someone who had a history of infidelity, moral weakness or a criminal record. Of course, much of that would depend on the circumstances, and one incident of drug experimentation or a DUI arrest in youth wouldn't throw me too much. Even a criminal conviction could be acceptable in some cases. Martin Luther King Jr. had jail time, but I wouldn't hold it against him. In fact, it would be a selling point under such circumstances.
Again, I am not saying that all of these qualifications are required to get my vote, just that this is how my ideal candidate would look. Any opinions?
-
Constitution of the United States, Article 2, Section 1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Those are the only qualifications called for in the Constitution. All else is personal preference.
-
<<What qualifies a person to be President?>>
Harry Truman once said something to the effect that it was just a job and that any number of competent executives could do it. (sorry, I don't have the exact quote)
However, I have to respectfully disagree with HST. IMHO, the following qualifications are absolute necessities for a President today:
6. Folksy, down-to-earth manner;
5. Excellent dentist;
4. Great team of writers;
3. Dozens of billionaire backers
2. approval of the Zionist Lobby; and of course, No. 1 . . .
1. Great hair.
Although, strictly speaking, the approval of the National Security community isn't necessary to get oneself elected, it IS necessary to keep one from getting assassinated while in office.
-
Constitution of the United States, Article 2, Section 1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Those are the only qualifications called for in the Constitution. All else is personal preference.
Yes, I realize that. But I was talking about personal preference. In other words, if you were a Human Resources type screening applicants, what would you look for? I mean, I meet the requirements spelled out in Art II, but nobody would vote for me. Of course, political stance and personal charisma are going to be important to most voters, but I'm just talking about what a person may have done or not done to prepare themselves for the Presidency (irrespective of the politics).
-
1. Great hair.
Guess that leaves Rudy out . . .
-
Rudy is dead in the water. But only us cognoscenti will ever know the real reason why.
-
I'd be interested in the opinions of members off this forum on the basic question of Presidential qualification.
I was watching the Huckster on Leno tonight (plays a mean bass, btw). It was good to get a chance to see him for more than thirty seconds in front of a Christmas tree. I was glad to see him stick up for the fair tax, which is a big issue for me. But I didn't buy his tapdance on the "Now you see it, now you won't" anti-Romney ad. I'm watching this stuff with my youngest daughter, who votes for the first time next year. I have been trying to get her informed for the time when she has to pick a candidate (and, to a lesser extent, a party). The discussions we have been having for the past year or so on the subject have me thinking. As Huckabee is running (intentionally or not) as the ABM candidate (Anybody But Morm-, er, Mitt) I have a little trouble being objective about him. But he seemed like a typical politician. He's likeable enough and presents well on TV (an all-important trait these days). He is, like Romney, Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, a former governor. That's a good thing. I think an Executive office in one's background is a better qualification for the Presidency than a legislative one. So to my question:
What qualifies a person to be President?
All other things being equal, would you rather see a former Governor or a former Senator? How about a person with NO political office, but a history of business success in his/her past?
Should a Commander-in-Chief have previous military experience? Would Reserve Component experience be sufficient, or would you rather see a former full-time soldier? Would a war hero be more likely to get your vote than someone else?
What sort of education (in terms of field of study) would the POTUS need? Should s/he have studied law, political science, business, or would an English major do? Is a bachelor's degree sufficient, or should someone have a Master's or higher? How about someone who had only High School? Could you vote for an otherwise intelligent person who had not finished High School?
Should there be a minumum amount of time spent in public service prior to running for President? Can a person who has been Senator for one term run? How about a person who has been Mayor of a major city for several terms?
Do they need a special background investigation? Could we vote for someone who has a police record? What about someone who has had an affair or a divorce? If they used drugs recreationally in the past, or if they are a recovering alcoholic, can they still run?
I realize that many of these questions have a "it depends" sort of answer, but again I am saying "all other things being equal." What I am looking for is your idea of a well-qualified candidate - regardless of political views.
IMO, a Presidential candidate should be educated in law, or at least have a good working knowledge of the subject. Ours is a nation of law, and a failure to understand how the Constitution works and how law is applied is a major shortcoming to me. It is like trying to be a computer tech without studying electronics. Sure, an intelligent person can still get some things right, but eventually they would be over their head. Similarly, someone without AT LEAST a bachelor's degree (preferably higher) has no business in the Oval Office. I would consider a previous Governor better than a previous legislator, simply because an Executive has experience working with legislative bodies, making deals and negotiating with the opposition. Being a Congressman or Senator is not a bad qualification, but it does not have quite the direct correlation that a governorship does. I would not vote for a person who had no prior elected office. The romantic idea of someone "fresh" stepping into the most powerful position in the world is a pipedream. It would be like asking a champion race car driver to pilot a 747. In a pinch, I might hand over the cockpit to someone who had only flown a Cessna before, but never someone who has no experience in the air, even if they were great on the track. I would prefer someone with at least a little military experience. Leading men in battle, or showing great courage under fire would influence me favorably. Just as law is at the core of our government, the ability to wisely use military force and forces is central to the office of the POTUS. It would not necessarily have to be as an officer, or even as a full-time combat soldier. But at least some reserve time would be, I think, an essential element of experience. Finally, I do not expect my leaders to be perfect, but I do expect them to be of decent character. I would have a problem with someone who had a history of infidelity, moral weakness or a criminal record. Of course, much of that would depend on the circumstances, and one incident of drug experimentation or a DUI arrest in youth wouldn't throw me too much. Even a criminal conviction could be acceptable in some cases. Martin Luther King Jr. had jail time, but I wouldn't hold it against him. In fact, it would be a selling point under such circumstances.
Again, I am not saying that all of these qualifications are required to get my vote, just that this is how my ideal candidate would look. Any opinions?
Pooch, I am honestly surprised at you!
I watched Letterman chiefly becuase he has come back with WGA writers, fully negotiated. Leno and Co. coming back with our writers is basically a scab action. Personally, I fully support the WGA since they have gotten the shaft for many yeyars now while the fat cat producers and directors get rich. Over the past few years, I find my Repuiblican leanings are less and less as I see management act more and more selfish, etc. Perhaps in a decade or so, at this rate of evolution anywat, I will consistently vote Democratic, ya never know.
As a famous writer recently said:
"> > As to this coming labor action, when you go into the store next and
> > buy a DVD and a book, look at the two of them and know that the author
> > of the book gets a full twelve to fifteen percent of the price...and
> > the author of the DVD gets, *at most* four cents per DVD, and most of
> > the time literally and absolutely *nothing* for it...and ask yourself,
> > "Why the difference?"
http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-17692
-
Some of our most effective Presidents have been trained in the Law and I agree that this is an advantage , I don't think it is crucial. A President can have a staff of lawyers, including specialists ,in the offices down the hall.
The crucial quality of a president is inspiration ,for himself and for the people he leads.
Any other quality can be hired and or deligated.
-
...but nobody would vote for me.
I probably would. You have honesty, intelligence and common sense. For the rest, you get advisors.
As to this coming labor action, when you go into the store next and buy a DVD and a book, look at the two of them and know that the author of the book gets a full twelve to fifteen percent of the price...and the author of the DVD gets, *at most* four cents per DVD, and most of the time literally and absolutely *nothing* for it...and ask yourself, "Why the difference?"
One was smart enough to sign a better contract.
Umm, probably on his own, and without a union.
-
Quote
As to this coming labor action, when you go into the store next and buy a DVD and a book, look at the two of them and know that the author of the book gets a full twelve to fifteen percent of the price...and the author of the DVD gets, *at most* four cents per DVD, and most of the time literally and absolutely *nothing* for it...and ask yourself, "Why the difference?"
One was smart enough to sign a better contract.
Umm, probably on his own, and without a union.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unions have very little to do with this. The media executives do not give a rat's ass for the creative people who make the products they sell. There is a much greater degree of respect between the publishers and the authors. The only way that the TV and movie writers are going to get anything from DVD's and internet based broadcast is by banding together, and the only way to do this is by forming a union.
What media execs want is everything is "work for hire" They pay you once and sell your work thousands of times. The money they pay you does not even come from the customers, but from sponsors.
They have little but contempt for us, the viewing public, either. That is why they are feeding is more and more asshole quiz show and reality show crap.
-
Last time I looked, no one was telling them they couldn't strike out on their own and try writing books. They choose the job they are doing. They can cry and whine and piss and moan all they want, but their choice basically remains to either do something else, or stay where they are and try to change the system. If it was so unfair, why did they take the jobs to begin with?
-
All other things being equal, would you rather see a former Governor or a former Senator? How about a person with NO political office, but a history of business success in his/her past?
I don't think it matters between a Senator and a Governor. One will have executive experience whereas one will have experience dealing with the United States Congress, both of those could prove very useful as POTUS. It is important to remember that different states run very differently and Governor's are not the same across the board. At the same token there are numerous styles of Senators - for example, an Alaskan Senator lives on pork projects as Alaska is a huge recipient of federal dollars in ratio with tax revenue received from that state - so that would lend an Alaskan Senators candidacy to be much different than say a Minnesota Senator.
I'd be very wary of the succesful businessman routine. I'd be afraid of the corporatist policies that might entail especially concerning labor laws, unions, and the environment.
Should a Commander-in-Chief have previous military experience? Would Reserve Component experience be sufficient, or would you rather see a former full-time soldier? Would a war hero be more likely to get your vote than someone else?
No to all. Trotsky led the Red Army against the White Russians, backed by the United States, Britain, and Imperial Japan when he had no military experience and he was able to defeat them. Of course that is an obscure example and no president will personally lead the troops. I'd want any president to realise his limitations regardless of his military background.
What sort of education (in terms of field of study) would the POTUS need? Should s/he have studied law, political science, business, or would an English major do? Is a bachelor's degree sufficient, or should someone have a Master's or higher? How about someone who had only High School? Could you vote for an otherwise intelligent person who had not finished High School?
A President needs to be educated and intelligent, but not necessarily have degrees to prove it. He or she needs to understand the world and have worldly knowledge. The individual needs to understand the world beyond the United States and the narrow perception of most Americans.
Should there be a minumum amount of time spent in public service prior to running for President? Can a person who has been Senator for one term run? How about a person who has been Mayor of a major city for several terms?
I don't think a minimum time is necessary, but preferable. A mayor is not top on my list, but I certainly wouldn't rule out such a candidate off hand. Yes, a one-term Senator could run and I would certainly look at him or her.
Do they need a special background investigation? Could we vote for someone who has a police record? What about someone who has had an affair or a divorce? If they used drugs recreationally in the past, or if they are a recovering alcoholic, can they still run?
I have no problem with someone who has used drugs or alcohol in the past. Same with an affair or divorce.
-
I believe no one person can do it.
the very reason we have a 4 year terms.
if by some reason we didn`t like george`s performance .
we`ll wait and get somebody else
no one president does it completely right.
and it`ll always be a work in progress.
but my preference would be very unpopular
I`d want a truely reformed ex-con as president.
somebody who know enough to never truely trust people to get the job done ,but with enough sense to make those decisions anyway.
as a civil servant I`ve seen way too many people say this or that should happen,but just freeze up and only complain.
with an ex-con at least he`ll be more likely to spot something stupid.
I`ve seen alot of bonehead decisions by regular politians.
ex. open a auditing dept with zero man hours and expect it to incure 2 million dollars in fines.
for some reason the zero manhours is still not understood .
response is still " make it work"
-
Speaking on Mitt..... "I have a little trouble being objective about him."
Pooch,
Why do you have a little trouble being objective about him?
Is this evidence that religion can not really hide from under the skirt of politics?
I find the statement to be a bit off mark for someone who is politically savvy, Poochie.
Do you have strong feelings about his politics?
Just a curious pup. Cyn
-
I'd be interested in the opinions of members off this forum on the basic question of Presidential qualification.
I was watching the Huckster on Leno tonight (plays a mean bass, btw). It was good to get a chance to see him for more than thirty seconds in front of a Christmas tree. I was glad to see him stick up for the fair tax, which is a big issue for me. But I didn't buy his tapdance on the "Now you see it, now you won't" anti-Romney ad. I'm watching this stuff with my youngest daughter, who votes for the first time next year. I have been trying to get her informed for the time when she has to pick a candidate (and, to a lesser extent, a party). The discussions we have been having for the past year or so on the subject have me thinking. As Huckabee is running (intentionally or not) as the ABM candidate (Anybody But Morm-, er, Mitt) I have a little trouble being objective about him. But he seemed like a typical politician. He's likeable enough and presents well on TV (an all-important trait these days). He is, like Romney, Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, a former governor. That's a good thing. I think an Executive office in one's background is a better qualification for the Presidency than a legislative one. So to my question:
What qualifies a person to be President?
All other things being equal, would you rather see a former Governor or a former Senator? How about a person with NO political office, but a history of business success in his/her past?
Should a Commander-in-Chief have previous military experience? Would Reserve Component experience be sufficient, or would you rather see a former full-time soldier? Would a war hero be more likely to get your vote than someone else?
What sort of education (in terms of field of study) would the POTUS need? Should s/he have studied law, political science, business, or would an English major do? Is a bachelor's degree sufficient, or should someone have a Master's or higher? How about someone who had only High School? Could you vote for an otherwise intelligent person who had not finished High School?
Should there be a minumum amount of time spent in public service prior to running for President? Can a person who has been Senator for one term run? How about a person who has been Mayor of a major city for several terms?
Do they need a special background investigation? Could we vote for someone who has a police record? What about someone who has had an affair or a divorce? If they used drugs recreationally in the past, or if they are a recovering alcoholic, can they still run?
I realize that many of these questions have a "it depends" sort of answer, but again I am saying "all other things being equal." What I am looking for is your idea of a well-qualified candidate - regardless of political views.
IMO, a Presidential candidate should be educated in law, or at least have a good working knowledge of the subject. Ours is a nation of law, and a failure to understand how the Constitution works and how law is applied is a major shortcoming to me. It is like trying to be a computer tech without studying electronics. Sure, an intelligent person can still get some things right, but eventually they would be over their head. Similarly, someone without AT LEAST a bachelor's degree (preferably higher) has no business in the Oval Office. I would consider a previous Governor better than a previous legislator, simply because an Executive has experience working with legislative bodies, making deals and negotiating with the opposition. Being a Congressman or Senator is not a bad qualification, but it does not have quite the direct correlation that a governorship does. I would not vote for a person who had no prior elected office. The romantic idea of someone "fresh" stepping into the most powerful position in the world is a pipedream. It would be like asking a champion race car driver to pilot a 747. In a pinch, I might hand over the cockpit to someone who had only flown a Cessna before, but never someone who has no experience in the air, even if they were great on the track. I would prefer someone with at least a little military experience. Leading men in battle, or showing great courage under fire would influence me favorably. Just as law is at the core of our government, the ability to wisely use military force and forces is central to the office of the POTUS. It would not necessarily have to be as an officer, or even as a full-time combat soldier. But at least some reserve time would be, I think, an essential element of experience. Finally, I do not expect my leaders to be perfect, but I do expect them to be of decent character. I would have a problem with someone who had a history of infidelity, moral weakness or a criminal record. Of course, much of that would depend on the circumstances, and one incident of drug experimentation or a DUI arrest in youth wouldn't throw me too much. Even a criminal conviction could be acceptable in some cases. Martin Luther King Jr. had jail time, but I wouldn't hold it against him. In fact, it would be a selling point under such circumstances.
Again, I am not saying that all of these qualifications are required to get my vote, just that this is how my ideal candidate would look. Any opinions?
Pooch,
I think you ask the question that, when it comes down to it, most parents and some teachers want answers for the youth in any generation.
Reagan--an actor and governor
Ike-military and married in a time when fidelity size fits most
Roosevelt - FD- inventor of programs that brought those on knees to standing ovations
Teddy R- can we thank him for the State Parks?
Lincoln- now THERE was a leader in a time of turmoil
oops going a bit backwards....
let's see....
Nixon- bad timing for a soul who wanted to win even when he had already won the game.....crooked as the day is short.
Ford- religious values, could probably play "pick up sticks" reeeally well
Clinton-- a pig, an addict, a slimeball....but there are those who say he did a pretty good job.
Bush- gotta love his willingness to call a war won when chaplins are walking up steps to knock on doors with bad news!
Being adept at swimming with sharks is the only qualifying element I would require of today's politician.
The world at large is a stake holder this time around, imo...more so than ever! We need our kudos back.
So, if the individual is dumber than dirt, or sexier than trash, or able to leap through a war before it starts........
Look at those who have had successes in teh job in the past. ooops....subjective thinking, as in more ways than one, they ALL have had successes...and failures, depending on the circumstances of the day.
Of course, education has to be there, but intelligence is not easily assessed.
Battle scars have only helped Eisenhower.
I would think that we need to start asking the question...how can we all help the system succeed after a leader has been selected.
Will it eventually take a village to raise a nation?
Who knows......now the new question of the day is, what would a president have to have in order to pick up pieces from the broken jars of the past administration. Bush is Bush. He's done a good job in some ways. He has taken a leap into the world with a heart of gold. I really do believe that.
HE's not smart......arrogant at worst.
But, he's a leader in our world today.
Perhaps a woman CAN make a difference. I would rather see someone like Rice in the job.
-
rice would be very interesting
seriously smart
and not particularly liked at all.
so she`ll have no problem doing anything unpopular.
if you notice no one is actually in her league.
I`ve always thought she`s been holding back.
-
Why is Condie Rice not liked?
-
Many blacks shoot their own -- their own success stories, that is, unless they are liberals.
-
liberal is inaccurate
it`s more like people they cannot relate to.
her look and mannerism just not acceptable.
the liberal tag is way off
african americans only lean towrad liberal agenda only because it`s to thier advantage.
until conservatives actually do somethuing helpful,the vote are gonna be tough to get.
it`s kinda bad since being anti-gay and anti-immagrant should be a vote getter on all counts
-
Pooch,
Why do you have a little trouble being objective about him?
Is this evidence that religion can not really hide from under the skirt of politics?
I'm not sure what you mean by "hide from under the skirts of politics." I assume you are trying to suggest that we cannot separate religion and politics. If so, I agree. That is not my problem at all with Huckabee. It's because of the bigotry of Evangelical Christians who refuse to vote for a Latter Day Saint simply because of his religious faith. Huckabee would not be a viable candidate without those voters. I have no problem admitting to my lack of objectivity - and trying to address it. Since Evangelicals find it "Christian" to practice religious bigotry, I have difficulty taking Huckabee seriously. Again, that may not be HIS fault, but rather the fault of those anti-Mormon voters. If Huckabee is taking advantage of this dynamic, well, that's politics. But because many of his voters are choosing him over Romney JUST because of religion, I cannot help but look at him with some skepticism.
I find the statement to be a bit off mark for someone who is politically savvy, Poochie.
Acknowleding difficulty in taking seriously a politician indicates a lack of political savvy? If that's your premise, I disagree with it. If I correctly interpret your previous metaphor and you think I am trying to say that religion and politics aren't related, then I do agree with you but I am not guilty the charge (as I don't believe that to be the case). If you are simply suggesting that my acknowledging my own prejudices toward the man is not politically savvy, I think that's apples and oranges. The ability to recognize where one's prejudices may come into play is something I consider to be a mark of maturity. It is true that a politically savvy person would steer clear of such admissions, since they may be used against him, but I would prefer honestly to politically astute statements. Of course, that's easy to say when one is not running for office.
Do you have strong feelings about his politics?
Well, that depends. I certainly appreciate his moral values, though they are in line with Mitt Romney's and a large portion of the Republican party. I'm glad he is giving the Fair Tax a fair shake (pun intended). But I find that inconsistent with his previous "Tax Hike Mike" reputation. Still, people can change. I find his stunt with the anti-Romney commercial to be cynical political ploy that backfired, and THAT makes me suspect him of a darker side. But, again, he's a politician. OTOH I was impressed with his Christmas ad. We need more people unafraid to invoke the name of Christ or at least remember that Christmas isn't pronounced "Hol-i-day." My biggest problem with Huckabee as a candidate is that he is splitting the conservative vote (so far). Social conservatives - especially Evangelicals - are likely to vote for him (except the ones voting for Romney who are not blinded by religious bigotry). OTOH, fiscal conservatives are less likely to do so. If Romney were not LDS he would be a very strong contender. Consider that Huckster got 37% of the votes in Iowa and Romney 25. That's more than half the vote between them from people attracted to "values" candidates. Guliani and McCain have very little chance against Hillary or Barrack Obama, and I am not sure that Romney would either. But Huckabee has very little chance outside of extremely conservative Bible Belt states - and Romney would be a strong candidate in those states were it not for his faith.
Just a curious pup. Cyn
Well, though it has been established that curiosity can be fatal to felines, there is no evidence of a threat to canine health. :D
-
Cynthia, it turns out I missed something in your last post. You said "Speaking of Mitt . . ." I was actually speaking of Huckabee when I said I had a little trouble being objective about "him." If you thought that I was saying I had trouble being objective about Mitt, that was not my claim. Sometimes I use so many words in one sentence it is hard to figure out what the heck I'm talking about! As to being objective about Mitt, well him sharing my faith IS a selling point, but I have also watched him for many years. He very nearly defeated Ted Kennedy for the Massachusetts Senate seat several years ago. Then he took over the Salt Lake Olympics and didn't do half bad. Finally, he somehow managed to get elected Governor in one of the most Blue states in America. The interesting thing is that Mitt's Mormonism was a subject that Massachusetts voters and media rejected as an issue from the start. I was surprised, and rather happy, to see that.
I was very impressed when Romney ordered all of the state employees to issue marriage licenses to gays when the SJC ruled in favor of gay marriage. Obviously, I disapproved of the ruling (as Mitt would have, being LDS) but Mitt was obligated to enforce that law until and unless it could be overturned legally. That reminded me of our Virginia governor, Tim Kaine (Dem), who signed death warrants as governor even though he was (as a matter of his faith) morally opposed to the death penalty. I appreciate when candidates can see the importance of keeping their PERSONAL religious beliefs separate from their OFFICIAL duties. So while my vote may be influenced by Mitt's faith, it is certainly not the deciding factor. Harry Reid is LDS and I wouldn't vote for him if her offered me Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream (and there isn't much I wouldn't do for THAT!)
Pooch,
I think you ask the question that, when it comes down to it, most parents and some teachers want answers for the youth in any generation.
I sometimes wonder, Cynthia. I think a lot of parents, teachers and other leaders would rather vote for - and have their children ultimately vote for - the party candidate or the "cool" candidate, irrespective of qualifications. My goal is to teach my kids to THINK, rather than vote blindly for a party or candidate. I realize that risks them voting against what I believe, but I would rather them vote against me honestly after becoming informed than vote with me just because I think it's right.
Being adept at swimming with sharks is the only qualifying element I would require of today's politician.
I wish that were not true, but it is.
I would think that we need to start asking the question...how can we all help the system succeed after a leader has been selected.
OMG! You mean support our leaders? How last generation! You are, of course, correct. When I was in Key Club WAY back in HS, we had an understanding. We would fight against each other until the issue or candidate was voted on but then once the decision was made GET WITH THE PROGRAM. We had the same rule in the Army. Tell the Commander why you object to his plan and offer alternative solutions but once the Old Man made a decision EVERYBODY gets behind it to make it work. The problem with our country today is that campaigns are perpetual, politics trumps patriotism and power is best served by polarization. We aren't like the Palestinians and Israelis, but we could stumble along that path without too much of a push. I used to have supreme confidence in the ability of the Constitution to protect us from a meltdown, but I sometimes worry about that.
-
Pooch,
I spent a great deal of time earlier today replying to your post.....and CLicK....PUSH THE wrong button...and it was gone!
Darn....and I had a lot to say.
So, here is it in a nutshell.
First of all, I have to say that I enjoy reading your posts after all these years. They are eloquent, and rich with personal expressions worth the read,indeed.
We all have our prejudices with regard to any given subject. My thought with your post, was .......that it seemed to me that you were making a broad decision about a given candidate based on his choice of religion, alone! Well, now I see that I was right and wrong.
Heck, we all make similar choices with regard to electing a president. Does that person meet our personal need? Most of the time...as you have pointed out. But, I have to agree that Huckabee collected more votes in the caucus based on religion..and I see that as fact.
Sad, but true.
You remind us that it is a mature action to be honest about bias. True, and I also feel that it is important that we choose a candidate based on what he or she promises to offer the "kingdom". But, will the candidate walk the talk....talk the walk?
What has each candidate to say about; economics, jobs, education, war, etc?
It's frustrating to see that voters line up in a corner based on religion.
I was pleased to see that you provided a resume' of sorts of Romney. Thank you for that.
One reason why I enjoy your posts. You offer details that are relevant.
More later,
Cindy
-
Pooch,
I spent a great deal of time earlier today replying to your post.....and CLicK....PUSH THE wrong button...and it was gone!
Darn....and I had a lot to say.
I have SO done that a million times, and with the normal length of my diatribes, you can imagine how frustrating that is! I have gotten so I will cut and paste my entire post before clicking the "post" button in case I have a gitch.
First of all, I have to say that I enjoy reading your posts after all these years. They are eloquent, and rich with personal expressions worth the read,indeed.
Thank you for that. I have been told that one of my teaching skills is providing a unique personal perspective on things and that is so gratifying because it's nice to be able to pawn off egocentricity as a positive trait! :D
We all have our prejudices with regard to any given subject. My thought with your post, was .......that it seemed to me that you were making a broad decision about a given candidate based on his choice of religion, alone! Well, now I see that I was right and wrong.
Heck, we all make similar choices with regard to electing a president. Does that person meet our personal need? Most of the time...as you have pointed out. But, I have to agree that Huckabee collected more votes in the caucus based on religion..and I see that as fact.
Sad, but true.
Well, I am thinking more of those who were anti-LDS than religion in general. Frankly, I think the fact that a candidate speaking boldy about his Christianity is considered a big deal is the really sad thing. Huckabee gets credit for courage, if nothing else.
You remind us that it is a mature action to be honest about bias. True, and I also feel that it is important that we choose a candidate based on what he or she promises to offer the "kingdom". But, will the candidate walk the talk....talk the walk?
More likely they will "toe the line." That's onoe of the things that makes me admire a person like Tim Kaine (a Democrat for whom I voted) who has the integrity to make the tough choices when faced with moral dilemmas like the death penalty. "Profiles in Courage" it turns out, was a pretty good book.
I was pleased to see that you provided a resume' of sorts of Romney. Thank you for that.
One reason why I enjoy your posts. You offer details that are relevant.
With all this verbage SOMETHING has to be relevant!
Thanks!
-
Perhaps a woman CAN make a difference. I would rather see someone like Rice in the job.
========================================================
Yeah, that's the ticket, Condoleeza Rice is so utterly competent.
The National Security Adviser who presideded over the worst breech of national security in US history.
The expert in sovietology who solved the crisis in Palestine/Israel.
What the Hell has Cpondoleeza actually accomplished in office that makes anyone beileve that she is a remotely competent?
Allbright was a woman and she managed to outperform Condoleeza in every aspect of the Secretary of State job. Condoleeza is just a tad better looking, and less dumpy. And she excels at shoe-shopping and piano-playing, at least for a politician.
-
Well, Pooch....I learned the hard way to type on Microsoft word if the posts are going to be in-depth...and my original one surely was.....the labor intensive effort finding its way into the wind LOL..... ruined me wee day yesta'day! I will have to use caution when writing in the wind.....from now on.
Thank you for that. I have been told that one of my teaching skills is providing a unique personal perspective on things and that is so gratifying because it's nice to be able to pawn off egocentricity as a positive trait!
How's the poetry writing progessing? Weren't you writing and publishing last we heard? I enjoyed reading your poetry in the old DHS.
Well, I am thinking more of those who were anti-LDS than religion in general. Frankly, I think the fact that a candidate speaking boldy about his Christianity is considered a big deal is the really sad thing. Huckabee gets credit for courage, if nothing else.
That's how I feel. The fact that a candidate holds the bold religion card at all these days is not only a sad thing, but it seems, a method of winning more votes. So now we see that not only will religion play in the hand, one's particular religious faith plays a role, as well. In my opinion, Mormons have a closer family bond than most faiths.....as I grew up around Mormons in my childhood. The values within the Mormon faith seem to reflect the very essence of what this country needs. But, you would know more about that. I realize that Mormons tend to knock on doors, but I can't imagine that Romney would promote anything crossing the line of church and state.
His innate core values ....seems to me...would be a refreshing element in a leader.
With all this verbage SOMETHING has to be relevant!
...not only relevant, but informative.... t'would be nice to read such details about presidential candidates from their own horses mouth! ::)
-
Perhaps a woman CAN make a difference. I would rather see someone like Rice in the job.
========================================================
Yeah, that's the ticket, Condoleeza Rice is so utterly competent.
The National Security Adviser who presideded over the worst breech of national security in US history.
The expert in sovietology who solved the crisis in Palestine/Israel.
What the Hell has Cpondoleeza actually accomplished in office that makes anyone beileve that she is a remotely competent?
Allbright was a woman and she managed to outperform Condoleeza in every aspect of the Secretary of State job. Condoleeza is just a tad better looking, and less dumpy. And she excels at shoe-shopping and piano-playing, at least for a politician.
Intelligent and a savior. ...well, maybe.
http://www.nathanielturner.com/secretarycondoleezzaricepresident.htm
-
Why is Condie Rice not liked?
======================
I can't answer for anyone else, but I don't dislike her... I just regard her as misguided (for supporting Juniorbush's stupid war) and deceitful (for blathereing about mushroom clouds) and supremely incompetent (for doing nothing to prevent 9-11, which as National Security Chief, was her job).
She will never be elected to anything.
There might be a book or two in her, but I imagine she'll pass her days at some rightwing university (Pepperdine?) or some rightwing foundation (Cato? National Enterprise Institute?)
Stick a fork in her.
She's done.
-
Why is Condie Rice not liked?
======================
I can't answer for anyone else, but I don't dislike her... I just regard her as misguided (for supporting Juniorbush's stupid war) and deceitful (for blathereing about mushroom clouds) and supremely incompetent (for doing nothing to prevent 9-11, which as National Security Chief, was her job).
She will never be elected to anything.
There might be a book or two in her, but I imagine she'll pass her days at some rightwing university (Pepperdine?) or some rightwing foundation (Cato? National Enterprise Institute?)
Stick a fork in her.
She's done.
Rice is the protege of Brent Skowcroft, who was advisor to Herbert Walker.
Skowcroft shares offices with Eagleburgher and Kissinger, or did.
-
rice would be very interesting
seriously smart
and not particularly liked at all.
so she`ll have no problem doing anything unpopular.
if you notice no one is actually in her league.
I`ve always thought she`s been holding back.
=====================================
Hey, if she is not particularly liked at all, how does she get to be president?
Nixon hated the American people, but dwespite this, some people actually liked the old bugger.
I don't think she has a league, and I can't imagine what she might be holding back.
She once referred to Juniorbush as her "husband".
That was weird.
-
Condi Rice's plan for restructuring American Foreign policy has worked well so far! My sister and brother-in-law both work indirectly for Condi Rice. They have seen first hand that working with other countries to help them build a stronger infrastructure, has made a significant impact on decreasing foreign nations' dependence on American hand-outs and assistance. In 2000-2001 my sister traveled to Russia to help secure their Nuclear sites.
I see the idea of TD as a step in the right direction.
They are both American Presence Posts (APPs), and my brother-in-law currently travels to Egypt, Indonesia and elsewhere. APPs are operated by one diplomat who lives and works outside of the embassy, representing America in other key regional population centers.
I take back my statement.....I actually believe that Condi Rice is "too good" for the job as president. She has offered a great deal of knowledge and support in her foreign policies.
Transformational Diplomacy
I would define the objective of transformational diplomacy this way: To work with our many partners around the world to build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people -- and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system?Transformational diplomacy is rooted in partnership, not paternalism -- in doing things with other people, not for them. We seek to use America?s diplomatic power to help foreign citizens to better their own lives, and to build their own nations, and to transform their own futures?Now, to advance transformational diplomacy all around the world, we in the State Department must rise to answer a new historic calling. We must begin to lay new diplomatic foundations to secure a future of freedom for all people. Like the great changes of the past, the new efforts we undertake today will not be completed tomorrow. Transforming the State Department is the work of a generation. But it is urgent work that cannot be deferred.
-- Secretary Rice, January 18, 2006
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/59306.htm
-
Condoleezza Rice
By Armstrong Williams
......................................................
.................
...
Since Rice became Secretary of State in January 2005, she has undertaken several major initiatives to reform and restructure the department, as well as US diplomacy as a whole. Arguably her most substantial initiative has been dubbed "Transformational Diplomacy," a goal which she described as a process to ?work with partners around the world to build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.? Besides her work restructuring America?s state department, Rice has had great success overseas.
In North Korea, for example, where threats of nuclear proliferation seem ever-present, Rice has kept her cool and continually urged North Korean leaders to actively participate in the six-party talks with the US and five other countries. She also, according to senior administration officials, bypassed layers of government policy review that had prevented a past agreement. In the last two weeks, Rice became ?cautiously optimistic that we may be able to begin, again, to implement the joint statement of 2005 toward the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.? Rice however isn?t without her critics when it comes to North Korea. Hardliners from the right are criticizing Rice?s diplomatic approach, and lawmakers from the left are upset the current deal is similar to one they could have gotten four years ago. Despite the bickering, it will soon become clear that Rice?s approach is the only path to progress in this case. Without her steady hand and head, this sort of agreement would never have been possible with North Korea.
Despite the unsuccessful war in Iraq and the troubled times in Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, North Korea, and several other countries, Rice has become the most trusted popular member of the Bush Administration. She is arguably the most talked about, respected, and admired woman in the world. And she is certainly the most powerful woman on the globe today. The road Rice has traveled is an inspiration to all people - American or otherwise.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ArmstrongWilliams/2007/02/26/condoleezza_rice
-
I'll concur with Mr. Williams & Miss Cynthia on this one
-
Condi Rice has more intelligence and integrity let alone capability to lead a country than Hillary Clinton, of her hubby Bill any day ,Sirs....makes me crazy when I hear such bias based ignorance when it comes to analyzing someone like her. Let's just look at her as a "leader" instead of coupling her with any administration. Who the heck cares if there are issues within the arena that is politics. She has done a hell of lot, and I for one, have seen it first hand.
And yet, we spend more time venting about RichPo than discussing the pros and cons of an individual such as she.
???
-
liberal is inaccurate
it`s more like people they cannot relate to.
her look and mannerism just not acceptable.
the liberal tag is way off
african americans only lean towrad liberal agenda only because it`s to thier advantage.
until conservatives actually do somethuing helpful,the vote are gonna be tough to get.
it`s kinda bad since being anti-gay and anti-immagrant should be a vote getter on all counts
until conservatives actually do somethuing helpful,
Like what?
-
Yeah, that's the ticket, Condoleeza Rice is so utterly competent.
The National Security Adviser who presideded over the worst breech of national security in US history.
The expert in sovietology who solved the crisis in Palestine/Israel.
What the Hell has Cpondoleeza actually accomplished in office that makes anyone beileve that she is a remotely competent?
Allbright was a woman and she managed to outperform Condoleeza in every aspect of the Secretary of State job. Condoleeza is just a tad better looking, and less dumpy. And she excels at shoe-shopping and piano-playing, at least for a politician.
Incompetent?
I don't like many things about the Bush administration in general, and Rice is a part of this administration, but she certainly isn't incompetent. She is a brilliant woman.
-
Condi Rice has more intelligence and integrity let alone capability to lead a country than Hillary Clinton, of her hubby Bill any day ,Sirs....makes me crazy when I hear such bias based ignorance when it comes to analyzing someone like her. Let's just look at her as a "leader" instead of coupling her with any administration. Who the heck cares if there are issues within the arena that is politics. She has done a hell of lot, and I for one, have seen it first hand.
And yet, we spend more time venting about RichPo than discussing the pros and cons of an individual such as she. ???
That's because she's a woman, and a minority, and it rankles the living snot out of so many on the left that she can be that, as well as brilliant, talented, and conservative leaning.
For the record on Rich, I'll be up front, as much as Rich's response technique even irritated me, and his response to Terra was obviously uncalled for, I did vote not to ban, simply because, as Terra does, Rich has an exceedingly short fuse. Terra, knowing that, knew it wouldn't take many buttons to set him off, and accomplished precisely that, setting him off. If Terra were someone that didn't know Rich, that'd be 1 thing. Terra's pulled some vile bits in the past, but still can present her side with some substantial passion.....just like Rich. Yea, Rich let Terra goad him into being a jerk, but Terra knew that she could, and had no problem going in to do precisely that. As such, I voted no ban, since in these debate forums, I know them both, all too well.
-
Rice is clearly incompetent. She helped monger a useless war, has presided over a drastic decline in respect for the US abroad, and once more: the was National Security Adviser who did nothing -zip, zilch, bupkiss, niente, rien, nada- to prevent 9-11.
Perhaps she is brilliant. But she is not by any definition brilliant in the field of diplomacy. She is a walking train wreck at that.
-
until conservatives actually do somethuing helpful,
Like what?
actually both sides hasn`t done much nowadays
but conservatives pretty much say they`re is no problems and the answer to all problems is personal responsibility.
at least liberals try to help.
ex .affirmative action
ironic part is I`m a conservative
but I`ll admit we're a cold bunch of S.O.B.`s
I true find both sides too polar to be effective anymore
both refusing to think the answer might be a mix of both
-
Terra's pulled some vile bits in the past, but still can present her side with some substantial passion.....just like Rich. Yea, Rich let Terra goad him into being a jerk, but Terra knew that she could, and had no problem going in to do precisely that. As such, I voted no ban, since in these debate forums, I know them both, all too well.
Yes, all so true.
Ingredients for a fuel fire, albeit smaller than a bomb and larger than a bonfire? Who knows....but the blame is with need for both individuals to 'act out' in general. That's why I voted for a "stay away". Tempers can't always be tempered in a forum such as this. I know Terra's vile bits. She has stung many in the past.
Perhaps they need to join a message board to discuss such things like "Girls Gone Mild"......to discuss dress codes for young women in America. :-X
-
National Security Adviser who did nothing -zip, zilch, bupkiss, niente, rien, nada- to prevent 9-11.
Xavier,
How could she have helped prevent 9-11?
Why didn't Clinton pay more attention to the pre 9-11 shenanigans during his stay in office?
Train wreck?
How about the fact that Clinton was playing around in the O- office during his stay in office, instead of focusing on terrorism threats?
He was sitting on his butt while traveling on the train while it blindly crashed into the station!....thousands were killed! Talk about a train wreck.
They never made it....YOU blame Condi Rice?
-
ironic part is I`m a conservative
but I`ll admit we're a cold bunch of S.O.B.`s
I true find both sides too polar to be effective anymore
both refusing to think the answer might be a mix of both
I agree with this, Kimmie. I don't always agree with Bush. I really believe that politics needs to change to include more of a mix in terms of discussion, compromise.....instead of such divisive polarization.
-
I'll concur with Mr. Williams & Miss Cynthia on this one.
Well, thank you, Sirs. :)
-
Rice is a smart, accomplished and ambitious upwardly mobile academic, far from brilliant, who landed a job as policy adviser to the President and moved from there to Cabinet status. Very few people have the peculiar mix of brains, talent and career instincts that are required to follow that particular path to the top.
IHMO, what she lacks to be President is the ability to schmooze with, understand and manipulate the politicians, particularly Congress, in a leadership role. She's not one of them - - she's never run for public office and failing that, she's never held a top-level military command. Either would have done it for her, (although possibly as she's a woman, the military command, largely symbolic anyway, might still have failed to produce the desired effect) or at least been a step in the right direction, but the lack of both is fatal to her chances.
-
Rice's greatest asset is articulation.
As in her capacity for . . .
The only other pol I can think of offhand whose greatest asset is articulation is Alan Keyes. Oh, and Newt.
I would call Rice brilliant. However, you can brilliant and not be articulate.
In fact, I would wager that of all the brilliant people, few are articulate.
A person with great articulation is really fairly rare.
You can be brilliant and without moral fiber.
And, as Rice has illustrated, you can be articulate and without moral fiber.
Both Rice and Colin Powell were used by the Bush family, just as a matter of daily course. All they did was what they were told, and as a matter of daily course, with their asses hanging way out, the Bushes went fishing, leaving them to twist in the wind.
Power doesn't need brilliance or articulation.
But often it seems to need ruthless.
-
Clear and precise articulation is also an art. Good for her.
You have added just one more reason why she is extremely capable. Thank you.
-
Xavier,
How could she have helped prevent 9-11?
She had information that an attack was coming. Hitler had plans for suicidal attacks with aircraft on Manhattan skyscrapers.
She was NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, and yet she did not advise. She did doodly-squat. It happened on her watch, and she blew it, bigtime.
As for Clinton, it didn't happen on his watch, so forget ranting about him.
She is an expert on the USSR. Putting her in a secretary of state was like hiring a horsecar conductor as chauffeur.
She wasn't qualified, she still isn't (though more than Juniorbush and Cheney are qualified for the jobs they have: they are utterly, unimaginably incompetent),
Colin Powell was competent and well-trained to be Secretary of State, and he knew what to do, but he was never listened to.
As for her being "articulate", no, she is not a great deliverer of speeches, and the ones she delivers she does not write, anyway. If you want an articulate Black person, I'd go with James Earl Jones or Morgan Freeman.
She will return to academia, write a book or two (with the help of a ghostwriter), or perhaps get some cushy job at a rightwing thinktank. She will not stick around to spit in the soup and crap in the punchbowl like Henry (the Thing that Will Not Die) Kissinger, and that's a good thing.
It's all over for Rice.
-
As for Clinton, it didn't happen on his watch, so forget ranting about him.
XO,
Ranting about him? Ha!
He's the weakest link in this scenario in terms of IT happening. IT(9-11) happened, Xavier because of many factors,and yet you continue to rant that 'IT' was on the shoulders of Condoleezza Rice.
IT happened because Clinton was not "competent" enough to pay closer attention. My god, he was the leader and buck stopper.....for 8 years.
Hail to Condi...She'll have the grace, intelligence and class to prevail a hell of a lot longer than Clinton ever will in terms of competence.
Write on...Condi. Her legacy in terms of "leadership" far outweighs most......and her contributions towards a positive approach for helping other countries will last longer. Her legacy will never "be over".....
Clinton, on the other hand was a player with his head in the ............sand.
It's not over for him...his legacy will forever be tarnished because he failed to take the lead when he had many a chance to do so.
-
Xavier,
How could she have helped prevent 9-11?
She had information that an attack was coming. Hitler had plans for suicidal attacks with aircraft on Manhattan skyscrapers.
She was NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, and yet she did not advise. She did doodly-squat. It happened on her watch, and she blew it, bigtime.
As for Clinton, it didn't happen on his watch, so forget ranting about him.
She is an expert on the USSR. Putting her in a secretary of state was like hiring a horsecar conductor as chauffeur.
She wasn't qualified, she still isn't (though more than Juniorbush and Cheney are qualified for the jobs they have: they are utterly, unimaginably incompetent),
Colin Powell was competent and well-trained to be Secretary of State, and he knew what to do, but he was never listened to.
As for her being "articulate", no, she is not a great deliverer of speeches, and the ones she delivers she does not write, anyway. If you want an articulate Black person, I'd go with James Earl Jones or Morgan Freeman.
She will return to academia, write a book or two (with the help of a ghostwriter), or perhaps get some cushy job at a rightwing thinktank. She will not stick around to spit in the soup and crap in the punchbowl like Henry (the Thing that Will Not Die) Kissinger, and that's a good thing.
It's all over for Rice.
A furthur word on "articulate" seems to be that you can assign the word only to those with whom you agree, by your lights.
That is wrong.
It is as neutral to good or bad as "brilliant."
In denying that Rice is "articulate" you fail to give the devil her due, by my lights. I have watched her being interviewed and wondered at her ability to respond with a sound, immediate sophisticated flow of articulation. Beyond the ability to express yourself to issue, defining "articulate" has to include the concept of "on your feet" as well. This would be especially true in politics, as it is in aplomb of counsel in the courtroom. This is not exactly the same thing as making a good speech. The Latin source of the word is "be jointed, forming a joint or joints."
I have always assumed you to be a good teacher, but sometimes I wonder how objective you would be come grade time.
Consider Alan Keyes debating Morgan Freeman. Despite the fact that they share a great deal in agreement in politics, I cannot see Freeman able to keep up at all in a LIVE debate.
Keyes and what he slithers for are despicable, but his articulation factor, like Rice's, shines.
-
Would like to consider Keyes and many more viable aspects of the issue, but I have to go back to work tomorrow morning and I won't be able to reply for a while.....
Deep in lesson planning and hoop jumping for NCLB......trust me it takes a village to run the machines around here. . especially with such a poor "State" of affairs here in NM.
But, I'll keep in touch.
T'was fun.
Cynthia