We don't need another Bush or Clinton in the White House

[crweeks64]

Is our Country so lacking in qualified Presidential candidates that we have Clinton as "heir apparent" and the possibility of a third Bush desiring the White House? Can't we find a Governor who has had to balance a budget and lead a state (but not another Bush)? Haven't we had enough of former Senators? Regardless of party or ideology one might ask Senator Obama, Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry and Senator Hagel, how has that worked for you?

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

Is our Country so lacking in qualified Presidential candidates that we have Clinton as "heir apparent" and the possibility of a third Bush desiring the White House? Can't we find a Governor who has had to balance a budget and lead a state (but not another Bush)? Haven't we had enough of former Senators? Regardless of party or ideology one might ask Senator Obama, Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry and Senator Hagel, how has that worked for you?

Crazy alert! Are you sure you're a citizen of this Country? (I only capitalized the C because you did.)

You sound like Ms Palin (or themerc) with 'how has that worked for you?'

Please say something pertinent or shut the hell up

[crweeks64]

Infinite Monkey you are priceless. Typical liberal response to go completely ad hominem (resorting to name calling) rather than answer the questions or add anything productive to the post. Good luck with Hillary in 2016.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

Infinite Monkey you are priceless. Typical liberal response to go completely ad hominem (resorting to name calling) rather than answer the questions or add anything productive to the post. Good luck with Hillary in 2016.

Eh, when you go trolling that's what you get. Yes, I'm priceless.

Thanks for noticing!

Now, what are your answers to the problems, aside from bitching about leadership? How is your non-productive shilling working out for you? What do you think about Ebola? So transparent.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Now, what are your answers to the problems[?]

[/crickets]

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

Is our Country so lacking in qualified Presidential candidates that we have Clinton as "heir apparent" and the possibility of a third Bush desiring the White House?

No, there are plenty of them, but since when would a competent leader/administrator want the job? Used to be the two parties were trying to do what they thought best for the country. But now that half are rooting for the country to fail, why would someone want their lives, and the lives of everyone they ever knew put under a microscope, just to take a can't win job for 10% of what they'd make on Wall street?
So now any candidate who could stand the scrutiny is a carbon copy of dry toast, or has been sent to bench W. Hardly an inspiring leader.

Oh Noes, the President is boffing three secretaries, drinking 100 proof toddies, and rolling fat ones in the rose garden.
Gee, sounds like a kick-ass-take-names leader. (sounds like Putin ) I don't give a shit about his hobbies, tell me whether he's doing what we hired him to do.

[crweeks64]

xoxoxoBruce, Thank you for some illuminating commentary. It is nice to get a response that explains rather than attacks. For the record, I think that is precisely the point and I appreciate your insights. Thanks!

[lumberjim]

Chris Christie maybe.

[crweeks64]

lumberJim, I am not so sure about Chris Christie but I respect the fact that you were the only one to throw out a name. I thank you for that.

[glatt]

Mark Warner is a Senator now, which is a strike against him, but I remember him as a very good governor in Va. He was a businessman before that. His businesses were very lucrative, but were not your typical nuts and bolts business. He used political connections and knowledge gained while a staffer on Capitol Hill to get into telecom. You can read about him on wikipedia if you want details.

He doesn't have the charisma a presidential candidate usually has, but he's smart and knows how to organize stuff. Plus, he really was a good Governor. Balanced the state budget and took care of all the basic needs in the state. Didn't do any controversial political crap like so many politicians do now.

If he got a good foreign policy person to be a trusted secretary of state, I think he would make a good president.

[crweeks64]

glatt, I have seen him in action. He may have the appeal to fit the bill. Did he have any military background? I seem to think he may have had a son or other relative in the military. Any real world (business or other non-political) experience? I am not a partisan. I just want someone to do the job effectively and someone able to navigate Congress yet not be from Congress. I think I could overlook his Senatorial status if he has stood up to Reid. I think he did with regard to ISIS and Hamas. Interesting pick.

[crweeks64]

tw, First, I hope you are not linking me to Rush Limbaugh who I have never even listened to because I believe he may well be the biggest fraud ever. I detest his style and approach. Second, the Presidents you listed were all active. They enjoyed the Presidency and tried many and varied approaches in the domestic and foreign affairs areas. I think you can argue that Obama exercises restraint (that would be kind) but even his most ardent supporters (of which you certainly may be one of them) have a difficult time describing him as decisive. Also, you totally ignored the first part of my description i.e. lack of leadership. You create a straw man and then ask me to knock it down. I hope you have some time. Syria- he laid down a red line (use of chemical weapons) then balked when they crossed it. Then sought the Congress to weigh in and help him out and when they didn't get involved had Kerry broker a deal they now tout as a huge success except Kerry Himself said recently he would not be surprised to learn that Asad is stilling using chemical weapons (research it -don't take my word for it. Additionally, do we all remember when the administration was crowing that early on in the revolution that Asad was not long for the job? That was 160,000 civilian deaths ago. (do you like that number?) Ukraine- told Russia you better not invade Crimea or else! Ooops, I guess not. Told Russia, well we are really serious this time you better leave Ukraine alone or else! Has failed to do anything to push back against Russia's violations of international law against a country that should probably have been in NATO (reference your own recent comments on Turkey for the mind blowing implications of that) Promises to aid Ukraine and has done nothing (at least overtly) to back that up. Issues sanctions against Russia that have accomplished nothing and Europe half heartedly supports because they need Russian energy. Iraq- Specifically walks away from a status of forces agreement and leaves no significant American presence against all advisors, military and civilian, and now wonders why we are in the current mess with ISIS. Afghanistan- the one war he calls legitimate- was going to possibly leave without a status of forces but now probably (even him) has the audacity for which to walk away. Spoke about a surge of forces to end the war while telegraphing exactly when that end would be regardless of the surge. What were our brave men and women of the military to think about that? ISIS- aside from the above only acted against them when beheadings began and public opinion polls soared against his Foreign Policy (or more correctly lack there of) and demanded action. Promises to arm the Kurds and use them (and others) as our boots on the ground and hasn't given any weapons or assistance and now a Kurd city, Kobani, may fall to which I will predict massive atrocities by ISIS against the conquered foe whose only mistake was to rely upon action by this feckless President. He issues air strikes against ISIS and they are getting stronger or at least no signs of weakening. Oh yeah, and orders 3500 troops to West Africa to help in the fight against Ebola instead. Enough of Foreign affairs I hope that even you can concede me at least a point or two. Domestically: I think it is a stretch to say that we were heading towards another Great Depression, even so we didn't get there. Roosevelt did everything and anything to deal with the economic crisis he faced. He acted vigorously and swiftly. I do believe he is one of the greatest Presidents of all time. Although never mentioned and always conveniently forgotten, OBAMA HAD A MAJORITY OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE FOR HIS FIRST TWO YEARS. Thus Obamacare, which even he was calling the Affordable Care Act during its disastrous launch and roll out. I believe he is back to calling it Obamacare again. I won't include that as inaction. That was definitely action regardless of whether one likes it or not. The point is that while the democrats were ramming Obamacare through without any republican support they lost the opportunity to do so much more with regard to jobs and the economy during that same period of time. The Obama administration must share some of that blame. Let's forget that Obama spent more time blaming the Bush administration for al the ills that had befallen us. I don't remember Roosevelt laying blame when he took office, rather he acted. Two years after Obama won the Presidency the republicans take control of ONE HALF of Congress. Ever since, Obama has been blaming them for his failure to act domestically. Indulge me a bit further, after all you wanted "facts" and "numbers". The debt crisis- The President had the power of the Presidency and the Senate but all he has down is kicked this can down the road and blamed the House for blocking his efforts. We had a debt commission he "commissioned" and he wouldn't follow their recommendations. He has continued to speak, but not act, about the dangers of failing to follow his policies. Take the fight to Congress, use the will of the people to get something done. The silence (or should I say inaction) is deafening. The Fed- The one area where he can attempt to exert a modicum of pressure he has laid off like he is there lap dog. Instead of quantitative easing which just floods the economy with more and more lower value dollars he should be working to strengthen the value of the dollar by dealing with the debt and deficit, making the economy more job friendly (and not low paying or minimum wage jobs) and encouraging manufacturing not strangling it with EPA regulations. Keystone pipeline- why in the world can't he just get this done? We can argue over how many jobs it will create but even the unions are for it for Pete's sake! Act! Please! Immigration- "act (yes, finally) or I will!" er maybe not until after the midterm, if at all. What? I thought we were going to finally do that "act" thing. I apologize for the length (which I assume you will call a rant) but you asked for facts and numbers which I have attempted to supply. tw, I respect your opinion which is why I even attempted this in the first place. Be fair and concede me a point or two if nothing else. Regardless, I am always of the opinion to "respectfully" agree to disagree. As always we may have to wait for history to run its course and by then where will we be? It is at least fun to debate in the meantime.

[Gravdigr]

I think one of the eligibility requirements for being elected POTUS should be former military service.

Perhaps one wouldn't be so quick to spend lives, if their own life used to be one of those lives.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

I think one of the eligibility requirements for being elected POTUS should be former military service.

Perhaps one wouldn't be so quick to spend lives, if their own life used to be one of those lives.

I don't agree. If anything there's the risk that they will be far more resigned to the loss of soldiers' lives as the cost of war. Every single general has to learn how to send men to fight knowing the chances are some will die. It is a fundamental part of their role. It has to be.

What I think wuld be good - and this goes for politics and leadership in the Uk also - would be a requirement to have worked in something not related to politics for at least 5 years.

Soooo many of the current generation of politicians have essentially been working in, or attached to politics, at a local or national level, their entire working lives. Speaking for the Uk - the days of conservative politicians coming up through business and industry and labour politicians coming up through trades and working organisations are long gone. They go from school to college, to university to a job in an MPs office, or working for one of the parties - they go do a year of internship in a company maybe - but mostly that's a company that will give them an in to politics.

Time was, prominent politicians on the conservative side had experience running businesses, or law firms, and prominent politicians on the labour side had worked in industry and risen up through trades unions - with a bit of crossover between the two. They had experience of how business actually works, of how the world of working people actually functions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

I think one of the eligibility requirements for being elected POTUS should be former military service.

Perhaps one wouldn't be so quick to spend lives, if their own life used to be one of those lives.

OK, but nothing above Corporal, not even Sergeant. The politicians don't want to send voters, and voters children, off to war. It's the military contractors and the Pentagon brass who want war. The easiest way for brass to get brassier from the safety of their office, is wartime. They are a hammer so every problem becomes a nail.
Even Bush was against it, but Cheney, Mr Halliburton, was running the show.