And some of you wonder why I call them...

[danjarch]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

Absolutely right. Personally, I never said I wanted some regular guy in positions like that. I want a truly extraordinary person in positions of extraordinary power and influence, both in politics as well as daily life - corporate heads and so forth.

The greatest leader Canada has had in my lifetime was Trudeau. He was arrogant, patrician, brilliant, infuriating, ruthless, cynical etc. etc. but he had GREATNESS. During one campaign he was advised by his manager that "even the people who hate you think you're the best person to run the country". He was truly special.

Churchill, FDR, JFK etc. were not "of the common people" and they probably weren't very nice people either but they had greatness. That is what I want in my leaders. I don't want some guy who'd be good to have a beer with.

Looking around, I don't see any. We have a bunch of Millard Fillmore's running things. Maybe we only get the great ones when we REALLY need them.

As an aside, a friend of mine who lives in Montreal, also an admirer of Trudeau, saw him with a group at a table in a bar once. He approached him to shake his hand and express his admiration. He said to him "your face will be on the Canadian currency one day". Trudeau responded "Oh - do you think I look like a Queen?" THAT kind of "common touch" I can go with but he still wasn't anything like a "regular guy".

You skip over the part where those men were picked back before the entire country had grown up watching TV. We've come to expect people to say just the right thing and get every thing done by next weeks episode. All while looking great, being a saint and teaching us a fuzzy moral lesson.

Take some of those past great leaders, you've got borderline alcoholics, sexists, racists, anti Semitics and out right a$$ holes. Just stop and think about how Churchill would do in a modern campaign with all the gotcha journalists following him. It just wouldn't happen.

Even when you weren't watching TV, such as when you were in history class, I'm guessing they didn't bother mentioning that a lot of those great leaders also made their fortunes from government. Such as how George Washington made money printing the early American bonds, or how Benjamin Franklin also made lots of money printing for the American government. Of course after Paul Revere was done helping create this great country, he then made some good money minting coins.

Perry is a good example of the modern fantasy land Americans live in. He's been a very successful governor of the second largest state in America. It's long been a know fact that he sucks at debating. It's not like he or Obama is going to debate the Iranians into abandoning their nuclear ambitions.

Newt is another good example. He's currently being grilled for accepting money from Freddie mac, and the press can't stop talking about his baggage. They never seem to talk about how he was a major part of why we ran a surplus for a few years. He also has a good point about debating Obama in a Lincoln, Douglas style debate.

These modern debates where the candidates are lead around like bulls with rings and given only a minute or two to make a point has as much to with the dumbing down of America as anything. It would be better to let the candidates to expound on their plans and their points and then have a smaller question and answer portion at the end where the audience can ask questions to clarify those positions.

[bwalker42]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

Anyone who hasn't drawn a blank while speaking publicly hasn't done much public speaking. When you get tired, your mind isn't as efficient. He's undoubtedly tired. Since every human being is susceptible to such things, any suggestion that it disqualifies him as President means that no human being could meet your standard for a President. Perhaps he should revert to only speaking with the aid of a teleprompter, like our current President. He's never at a loss for words, because someone has already written them and typed them for him.

Now that I think about it, it might be a good thing for us to hear what the actual President thinks about things, instead of hearing what his writers think about things.

I felt the human-ness in it and it made me wanna vote for him. I concur with your second paragraph, but I believe we do hear from him. He thinks it's most important to serve the bankers who hired him at our expense, so he repeats what they want us to think. Brainwash
With everything I have been seeing, I believe that this is the generation that will witness the second coming of Christ. (According to the scriptures I have been studying.)

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by danjarch

You skip over the part where those men were picked back before the entire country had grown up watching TV. We've come to expect people to say just the right thing and get every thing done by next weeks episode. All while looking great, being a saint and teaching us a fuzzy moral lesson.

Take some of those past great leaders, you've got borderline alcoholics, sexists, racists, anti Semitics and out right a$$ holes. Just stop and think about how Churchill would do in a modern campaign with all the gotcha journalists following him. It just wouldn't happen.

Even when you weren't watching TV, such as when you were in history class, I'm guessing they didn't bother mentioning that a lot of those great leaders also made their fortunes from government. Such as how George Washington made money printing the early American bonds, or how Benjamin Franklin also made lots of money printing for the American government. Of course after Paul Revere was done helping create this great country, he then made some good money minting coins.

Perry is a good example of the modern fantasy land Americans live in. He's been a very successful governor of the second largest state in America. It's long been a know fact that he sucks at debating. It's not like he or Obama is going to debate the Iranians into abandoning their nuclear ambitions.

Newt is another good example. He's currently being grilled for accepting money from Freddie mac, and the press can't stop talking about his baggage. They never seem to talk about how he was a major part of why we ran a surplus for a few years. He also has a good point about debating Obama in a Lincoln, Douglas style debate.

These modern debates where the candidates are lead around like bulls with rings and given only a minute or two to make a point has as much to with the dumbing down of America as anything. It would be better to let the candidates to expound on their plans and their points and then have a smaller question and answer portion at the end where the audience can ask questions to clarify those positions.

You're right in many ways but I differ with you on some of your points.

I DID say "they probably weren't very nice people". I have no illusions about the kind of person who seeks great power or high office. I wouldn't want someone like FDR amongst my friends - he was an incredibly treacherous, manipulative user but he was GREAT and that was what was needed. Churchill the same. His personal and family life was a shambles but he also had greatness.

As to the higher moral standard expected nowadays, that is very true. JFK's philandering would not be kept quiet now and would probably be regarded the same way the morality (or lack thereof) of people like Gingrich is.

As to the "insider trading" of Washington, Franklin etc - that was a different time. They probably were among the few or only options available to get those jobs done back then. I doubt there were a lot of choices available for getting high quality, large job printing done or coins minted in those days. They were also providing something of substance in return, not just accepting financial contributions under the table like now.

Having said that however, your point is accurate - politicians are held to a near impossible standard in many ways now. Not cheating on your wife while she is undergoing cancer treatment isn't a very high bar though.

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

Not cheating on your wife while she is undergoing cancer treatment isn't a very high bar though.

wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a multi-year political witchunt and hypocritically cheating on your wife while she is undergoing cancer treatment isn't a very high bar though

Fixed... If's he was "just" a douchebag it would be a low bar, but the guy is burrowing underground.

[Alibaba]

[The Clown Brigade.
looks like 4 more years for Obama.. Unless The GOP obstrutiion of the
Economy is successful in the next 12 months.

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by Alibaba

looks like 4 more years for Obama...

Have ya read the WSJ lately, 4 more yrs of the sh*tbucket is looking a little bleak

When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.

He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

that from two dem polsters

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by poopdeckpappy

that from two dem polsters

That is sounding more & more like a reasonable alternative - Clinton has done a pretty good job as S of S.

We've had father & son alternating in the job, why not husband & wife?

Another point in her favour - first black President followed by the first female President would be an interesting social statement. She could probably form a better advisory team than he has as well.

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

That is sounding more & more like a reasonable alternative - Clinton has done a pretty good job as S of S.

We've had father & son alternating in the job, why not husband & wife?

Another point in her favour - first black President followed by the first female President would be an interesting social statement. She could probably form a better advisory team than he has as well.

I couldn't agree more with Ms Clinton, and she's be a better leader...but she doesn't want the job. Obama is a one term president, and I had that feeling not long after he was in the job. Now the question is who on the Republican side can beat him?

[Dirtboy]

I couldn't agree more with Ms Clinton, and she's be a better leader

Really? What happened to her healthcare program?

Now the question is who on the Republican side can beat him?

Good question as the smart ones are staying out of the race. They know they couldn't do any better than Mr. Obama has and they don't want the same kind of hand off Mr. Obama got.

looks like 4 more years for Obama.. Because The GOP obstrutiion of the
Economy will be successful in the next 12 months.

Fixed it for ya. I think they've steped on their hoo hoo's pleanty already.

DB

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by Dirtboy

Really? What happened to her healthcare program?

Nothing happened with her attempt, but I give her credit for trying to do something about it, even though I didn't think it was her job as a First Lady. She has vastly more experience than Obama, and a decent mentor in her husband, so I think she is more qualified to lead...but it's moot point since she doesn't want the job.

Originally Posted by Dirtboy

Good question as the smart ones are staying out of the race. They know they couldn't do any better than Mr. Obama has and they don't want the same kind of hand off Mr. Obama got.

I disagree I think a couple could do as good or better, but with everything time will tell how this all works out.

DB [/QUOTE]