Well, the NH primary was discouraging. Clinton won and Guiliani wasn't buried by Ron Paul so the dread Clinton-Guiliani race is still a possibility.
If that occurs we need an independent ticket and I have a better idea than Mike Bloomberg.
The 2008 Dream Team
President - Colin Powell, VP - Bill Bradley
They announce the following choices for their cabinet.
Secretary of Defense - John McCain
Secretary of State - Al Gore
Secretary of Treasury - Mike Bloomfield
Attorney General - John Edwards
Head of Homeland Security - Mitt Romney
Head of EPA - Ralph Nadar
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Monday, December 31, 2007
Mrs Robinson
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon,
Going to the candidates debate ...
A presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani would give us a choice between two candidates completely unqualified to be president based on their experience and personal integrity. This would be the ultimate "lessor of two evils" election. Maybe our worst option since Nixon-Kennedy.
Here's a look at some of the other possible elections.
The polar opposite of this would be a race between two "nice" guys - Obama vs. Huckabee. They also lack experience but at least we would not have to listen to Hillary and Rudy shriek at each other for months.
If somehow Iraq becomes the central issue and we want to elect a president that actually has some ideas regarding Irag and some foreign policy experience then the choice could be McCain vs. Biden. Both of these candidates at least thought about what to do next in Iraq.
If the election becomes a choice between management and leadership skills and experience then Mitt Romney becomes the obvious Republican choice. For the Dems the choice is less obvious. If you were an investor in a Fortune 500 company which one of the Democratic candidates would you want to run that company? The answer may be Bill Richardson or perhaps John Edwards.
If each party was most concerned about electability then they would each choice a white, male, Protestant that was either a sitting president, governor, former vice president or war hero and was not from the north-east. Did you know that there since World War 2 we have elected only one senator, only one North-Easterner and only one person who was not a Protestant? All three exceptions were JFK, 1960.
This 'electability' eliminates all of the Senators and Guiliani. It also eliminates Romney. That leaves Bill Richardson vs. Mick Huckabee. I could live with that choice.
Going to the candidates debate ...
A presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani would give us a choice between two candidates completely unqualified to be president based on their experience and personal integrity. This would be the ultimate "lessor of two evils" election. Maybe our worst option since Nixon-Kennedy.
Here's a look at some of the other possible elections.
The polar opposite of this would be a race between two "nice" guys - Obama vs. Huckabee. They also lack experience but at least we would not have to listen to Hillary and Rudy shriek at each other for months.
If somehow Iraq becomes the central issue and we want to elect a president that actually has some ideas regarding Irag and some foreign policy experience then the choice could be McCain vs. Biden. Both of these candidates at least thought about what to do next in Iraq.
If the election becomes a choice between management and leadership skills and experience then Mitt Romney becomes the obvious Republican choice. For the Dems the choice is less obvious. If you were an investor in a Fortune 500 company which one of the Democratic candidates would you want to run that company? The answer may be Bill Richardson or perhaps John Edwards.
If each party was most concerned about electability then they would each choice a white, male, Protestant that was either a sitting president, governor, former vice president or war hero and was not from the north-east. Did you know that there since World War 2 we have elected only one senator, only one North-Easterner and only one person who was not a Protestant? All three exceptions were JFK, 1960.
This 'electability' eliminates all of the Senators and Guiliani. It also eliminates Romney. That leaves Bill Richardson vs. Mick Huckabee. I could live with that choice.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Don't Let Me Down: Presidents and Character
This started with a dialog on where I stand on issues and how my views compare to the current presidential candidates. My answers to the questions on issues suggested that I was a Populist-Liberal and that none of the candidates agreed with me on the majority of the issues presented.
I made a comment that issues were not the only factor in deciding who to support and maybe less important then management and leadership skills, experience and character. And that raised the issue of character.
Is it important? And, can we make judgements about the character of the candidates?
I think the answer is sometimes and I'd like to look at some examples.
On the positive side I think it was reasonable based on the evidence to favorably judge the character of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. I think we knew enough about them when they ran for President. Both men served with integrity and honesty.
On the other side I think it was reasonable based on the evidence to suspect the characters of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. In 1968 we knew Nixon was mean-spirited, quick to anger, ruthless and overly ambitious. In 1992 we had strong evidence that Clinton was personally dishonest in his relationships. Basically both men were liars.
Interesting parallel - Nixon and Clinton. There may be a book here. In contrast to the men of high character mentioned above they were re-elected! But in their second term Nixon's ruthlessness and ambition led to his forced resignation and Clinton became only the second president in our history that was impeached by Congress. Now, I know that Clinton supporters think that his lying under oath to a grand jury was not impeachable in accordance with the constitution. That may be so. But it was a disgrace related to his basic character faults. So both Presidencies were spoiled by their respective character faults.
Infamous quotes:
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton.
"I am not a crook." - Richard Nixon
Nicknames:
Tricky Dick
Slick Willie
Last Nixon-Clinton parallel. Despite the second term failures both men have followers to this day who think that on balance they were good presidents! The idea that anyone could consider Nixon a good President baffles me. For Clinton we need more evidence. For example, how much focus of terrorism was lost due to the impeachment.
So for me, character matters. Agreed sometimes it is hard to judge but when you have evidence it should be a factor.
I made a comment that issues were not the only factor in deciding who to support and maybe less important then management and leadership skills, experience and character. And that raised the issue of character.
Is it important? And, can we make judgements about the character of the candidates?
I think the answer is sometimes and I'd like to look at some examples.
On the positive side I think it was reasonable based on the evidence to favorably judge the character of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. I think we knew enough about them when they ran for President. Both men served with integrity and honesty.
On the other side I think it was reasonable based on the evidence to suspect the characters of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. In 1968 we knew Nixon was mean-spirited, quick to anger, ruthless and overly ambitious. In 1992 we had strong evidence that Clinton was personally dishonest in his relationships. Basically both men were liars.
Interesting parallel - Nixon and Clinton. There may be a book here. In contrast to the men of high character mentioned above they were re-elected! But in their second term Nixon's ruthlessness and ambition led to his forced resignation and Clinton became only the second president in our history that was impeached by Congress. Now, I know that Clinton supporters think that his lying under oath to a grand jury was not impeachable in accordance with the constitution. That may be so. But it was a disgrace related to his basic character faults. So both Presidencies were spoiled by their respective character faults.
Infamous quotes:
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton.
"I am not a crook." - Richard Nixon
Nicknames:
Tricky Dick
Slick Willie
Last Nixon-Clinton parallel. Despite the second term failures both men have followers to this day who think that on balance they were good presidents! The idea that anyone could consider Nixon a good President baffles me. For Clinton we need more evidence. For example, how much focus of terrorism was lost due to the impeachment.
So for me, character matters. Agreed sometimes it is hard to judge but when you have evidence it should be a factor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
