We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our site. Click here to find out more. Allow cookies
x
LOG IN HERE
Username
Password

arrow Register here

Forgotten password?

THE CHATTER BOX

 
 †
† 
  The Chatter Box : Blathering On
 †
 †
† 
 
Messages 1 2 3 

President of the United States, Who Wants the Job? by tucsonmike on 22 March 2008 6:32am
 
I posted this on my blog (http://tucsonmike.wordpress.com), but decided to post it here as well.

I am not enamored of any of the three major candidates:

I thought of this, because I am reading the Economist articles about the election. Obama, his minister and the Chicago businessman on trial. Mr. Obama has shown his judgment is lacking. Am I being too harsh? I would want certain things in my judgment questioned.

Mistakes are a great teacher; donít get me wrong. I enjoy learning from certain mistakes. You have to be open to the lesson, though. Why was Mr. Obama not denouncing his minister before it came out? I also realized something else. I am looking for real solutions. Mr. Obama is all over the map. Reminds me of what the Italian journalist Luigi Barzini said about the early days of Mussolini. Mussoliniís ideas were all over the place, so he ended up getting almost everyone.

Mrs. Clinton, seems hard and mean. I think she will do whatever the polls say, but that is not leadership. You have to be willing to do unpopular things sometimes. Some messes also come out of nowhere. I think she wants the job so badly, she will do whatever people want.

John McCain is my Senator. I like him. I am not sure I want him as President. He does have a rotten temper and he would be our oldest elected President at 72.

Frankly, I have to agree with a letter to an editor I saw from a man in his 70ís who said he would not run for a job like that because executive decision making abilities tail off. I would like to see 60 be the maximum age. There is another reason for this. The Commander in Chief needs to be able to decide about sending their own kids off to war, (Roosevelt and Eisenhower did and members of the British monarchy do it).

We should still vote for President, but think of it this way. How about a thorough vetting process, even an examination? It is the toughest executive job on earth. I am not even sure how you would do this, but a panel of people should vet the potential candidates. Almost like a more complicated version of the Roman Republic. Look at what a modern President has to know. There is still room for shades of political thought, because we are not all going to agree on everything. Having said that, let us at least make sure we have a pool of competent people running.

The vetting process would look for some skills to dominate over others depending on the period in history. This leads to my next point.

Who REALLY wants the job now? You go in for the interview and are told, you have to deal with the war in Iraq, terrorism and we may be headed for a major recession. Tell me, if this were a job interview, would you still take the job?
 
Re: President of the United States, Who Wants the Job? by Lady April on 22 March 2008 7:04am
 
No matter who is running in any race, when it comes down to it we pick them apart for defects because we can. So we are never really happy no matter who become the top 2 contenders. I am just happy to know that Bush will be gone from office.
It's a bitch job but someone has to do it. I guess if it came down to me taking the job I would. But as it is it is a far cry for me this life.
 
Re: President of the United States, Who Wants the Job? by kazzzz on 22 March 2008 11:40am
 
Mike Mike Mike...

I nominated you ages ago and we all voted for you ....REMEMBER Sir?
 
Re: President of the United States, Who Wants the Job? by geordiegirl on 22 March 2008 3:52pm
 
Great post, Mike. Never any shortage of candidates, unfortunately, ego playing such a big part in these things, I guess...I like your idea of a vetting panel, but who would you have? Evdn the Supreme Court (I think?) have political affiliations?

McCain was in London on Thursday: at Downing St. with G. Brown. he was very endearing actually: diplospeak about 'I absolutely honour the contribution the British have made to the war [in Iraq] and especially that of the brave young soldiers there'. I wished a bit I'd have been outside D.Street for his photocall, I could've yelled' Hey! I know someone in Arizona & you're his senator & he LIKES you for that'!
 
Re: President of the United States, Who Wants the Job? by tucsonmike on 22 March 2008 8:39pm
 
LOL Karen. I had in mind various foreign policy experts, education experts etc to help with the vetting process.
Linda, you just hit the nail on the head. These guys have huge egos!
 
Re: President of the United States, Who Wants the Job? by kazzzz on 26 March 2008 2:37pm
 
Mike you should be Foreign Minister for Mastering the Toast :)
 
Re: President of the United States, Who Wants the Job? by Spursfan on 26 March 2008 2:48pm
 
...or Toasting the Master? ;-)
 
Re: President of the United States, Who Wants the Job? by MMMmmm... on 26 March 2008 10:42pm
 
Dear Mike and all who would be potential US voters (and all those abroad who are interested too),

Please try to open your mind more about Hillary Clinton. I have watched her whole career - she is a good woman whose passion is public service. First the Republicans tried to demonize the Clintons (because the many Republican strategists love nothing more than trying to use character assassination against their opponents - even Jimmy Carter ). They love to say the Clintons will do anything to win. But this is a device/tactic/strategy - the Republicans are truly the ones who will do anything to win - and you can see this manifested by the Bush Administration and all of the underhanded and destructive ways they have abused power for their own interests. They are the the ones who used whatever devices and means to do whatever they wanted. (Until it became too big of a disaster.)

Bush portraying himself as "a compassionate conservative," then look at Iraq, look at Guantanamo, look at the torture techniques.

Personal marital affairs aside, the first Clinton administration was the most socio-economically successful we have ever had. They brought us out of recession and deficit and into record surpluses and prosperity. Unlike, Bush, they are dedicated and intelligent - they worked so hard, and that is why they accomplished so much. Back then the White House may have been a bit of a pressure-cooker where tempers occasionally flared, but there are few jobs in the world with as much pressure, intensity, and complexity as governing the US. Bush's temper doesn't flare because in a way - he doesn't care as much or deeply. He's not as committed. He does what he thinks is best, and goes play golf.

Now the Obama campaign (which I have lost most of my previous respect for because of their uttermost hypocrisy and duplicity) is trying to use the same Republican attacks on Hillary, saying "She will say anything" to win, and trying to make *every single thing* she says or does excessively negative.

This is a strategy - she is a good woman. Even this "sniper fire" story has been overplayed to a ridiculous degree. She told the story more accurately in her book - recently she has been through so much and sleep deprived - and I think the way the press treats her, there's probably a part of her that feels like she's under sniper fire all the time. Anyway she wasn't trying to say she was more qualified because she had ducked her head from sniper fire. And there was sniper fire in the hills around the airport. I have proof - it was a war zone - the visit on the tarmac was cut shorter than it was originally supposed to be. It was not a 'lie' - but a memory exaggerated by time lapse and a lack of sleep.

She could have said "Happy Easter," and they would have said: "Well, clearly, she's trying to change the subject, because she's behind in the math." Or "Clearly, she's just positioning herself to look more favorable to the American people, by saying, 'Happy Easter.' She had to change the subject." And they would try to make it into the most diabollically base version of "Happy Easter," that ever existed.

She can't even say she would have gotten up and left - or that she wouldn't have stayed with Obama's pastor, without them saying "She's attacking him," and "slamming" him. Someone asked her a question - what would she have done if she had known her pastor said such things and she answered it.

This is just important to me - our country has such substantial problems, and I believe much of it is because the focus gets stuck on the stupidest, most superficial things. I saw through Bush - but he got elected because he was more likeable than Gore and Kerry, and the press loved him - because he was funny and charming to them.

The Clintons are extremely intelligent and dedicated. Hillary is such a hard worker. Bill's administration did have very high approval ratings because of all the good they accomplished, and people loved the Clintons around the world.

Once again, they are being demonized by opponents - but once again - it is just a strategy. We have to see through the spin, and as a country we need to get our priorities straight.

Do we want our most knowledgable, dedicated, competent leaders to govern our country? Or not?

Are we always going to fall for the spin when their opponents try to systematically demonize and destroy them?

The Clintons have only raised legitimate questions about Barak's experience - they did not go to South Carolina and "become racist," duh - that would be dumb. One of Hillary's top advisors is African-American. They are not racist. They have been smeared with everything in the book.

Gore and Kerry both would have governed the country much more intelligently than Bush. (But the press didn't like them - and they portrayed them accordingly.)

And while Barack may (hopefully) have a promising future - he truly has so little experience, and I think that with what Rev. Wright said - he could never win against McCain.

Hillary is the candidate who is most qualified and would govern our country much more intelligently and effectively than McCain or Barack at his time.

These issues are just very important to me - our country needs to see through the negativity that is the real manipulation and distortion.

What thinkest those of you who want to weigh in?
 
Re: President of the United States, Who Wants the Job? by Miss-M on 26 March 2008 11:51pm
 
I vote for Harry Connick Jr!
 
Re: President of the United States, Who Wants the Job? by mrsthing on 27 March 2008 1:05am
 
Monty Python for President! (Hey, they're finally old enough. ;-) )

John Cleese was on Hannity and Combs (I'm spelling that wrong, I think) on FOX awhile back moderating responses from a sampling of the general public to both Republican and Democratic debates. He had some interesting input, but was mostly playing devil's advocate to keep the discussion going.

The more I hear, the more confused I become. I, too, am relieved that Bush will be out of office. But he's leaving a helluva mess behind him, and I wonder if anyone can put it right, let alone an aging senator, a woman much of the country hates, or a young man who doesn't have a lot of political experience. Whoever we get has to have a fair amount of support in Congress or nothing she or he wants to do will get done. Hillary seems to be more seasoned and clever about dealing with people, but maybe a fresh face not jaded by years in politics would be better? I'm just not sure about McCain. I didn't like the last geezer president we had, but McCain is a different person. He's certainly a relief from the Clinton-Obama drama.

I think that, come the election, I'll flip a coin.
 
Messages 1 2 3 




  Reply to this post:
 
 
  Username 
 
 
  Password 
 
 
 
 
  Register here
 

INSTRUCTIONS

Select a discussion theme.
Register (or log in if you have not yet done so).

To start a new discussion topic:

Write the name of the topic in the 'Subject' box.
Type your message in the larger box to contribute.
Click 'Submit'.

To join a discussion topic:

Click on the discussion topic of your choice.
Type your message in the larger box to contribute.
Click 'Submit'.

To edit your message:

You can edit a message at any time after posting it as long as you're signed in.
Click on the 'Edit your message' link above the message.
Make your desired changes.
Click 'Submit'.

If you find you don't want to change the message after all, click on 'Return without changes'.

To set a chatmark:

Register (or log in if you have not yet done so).
Click on the "Set chatmark" link on the Chatter Box pages. This will set the time at which you have logged in.
Click on the "Go to chatmark" link to see all messages posted since you set your chatmark.

You can set your chatmark at any time and as often as you like.