What qualities do you look for in a President?

[Bruce]

What do you look for? Is it the campaign promises? Character? Loyalty to his political party? Looks? Morality?

For me, it's all about charisma. I know that every politician is going to say anything and everything it takes to get the most votes, and it's a pure gamble if they actually keep their promises. I don't really care much about what's going on in his personal life. I'm not so much concerned about which political party he belongs to because he's not the only person in the government making decisions.

I want a president that appears to truly believe in the ideals that the United States of America stands for (whether he actually does or not, we'll never really know). I want a good public speaker that appears to speak from the heart and not from the teleprompter. I want someone with enough charisma that he can walk into a room and quickly earn the respect of most of the people that are present. In my view, the president is the face and the voice of America and he should make me feel proud to be an American. Everything else is just politics.

What do you look for in a president?

[shemp]

big hooters

[epepke]

Originally posted by Bruce
For me, it's all about charisma. I know that every politician is going to say anything and everything it takes to get the most votes, and it's a pure gamble if they actually keep their promises.

No kidding now, that's a decent criterion.

I've always wondered about people who talk about policies and the like. Come on, people! Do you actually need someone to engrave "THESE ARE LIES" on your retina with a laser?

However, mere charisma doesn't do it for me. I also look for the following:

Non-Incumbency Since they mostly do damage, to a zeroth approximation someone who has just come into power can do less damage than someone who knows the ropes.

Fecklessness I think that Gerald Ford has been our greatest president in living memory. No person I have met can remember a thing he did, because he didn't do anything. This is good. He also fell over on camera a lot, which was entertaining. There were two assasination attempts on him, one by Squeaky Fromme, who was too stupid to hold a firearm, and one by some woman in a severe suit and a bun.

Note that fecklessness is not quite the same thing as stupidity. George W. Bush is stupid but not feckless. Jimmy Carter was feckless but not stupid.

[Nasarius]

Since in the end there are only two viable choices for President, I go for the one whose views are closest to mine. Simple as that. Or I get pissed off and vote Green :)

[peptoabysmal]

Uh, one who can't play a note on a saxophone?

[plindboe]

Charisma?!!! That's just absurd. That makes you a perfect target for manipulation. Your future president will be the most powerful man in the world, and he will have a huge impact on your country and the rest of the world. This isn't a miss pageant contest.

Look at his political career, what harm or benefit he have been where he have been governor, and judge, by that, whether he will be a good president or not.

[epepke]

Originally posted by plindboe
Charisma?!!! That's just absurd. That makes you a perfect target for manipulation. Your future president will be the most powerful man in the world, and he will have a huge impact on your country and the rest of the world. This isn't a miss pageant contest.

Look at his political career, what harm or benefit he have been where he have been governor, and judge, by that, whether he will be a good president or not.

Looking for charisma makes one a target for manipulation?

And, like, believing the fantasy that how someone acts as a judge or governor really has anything to do with how they will act as President doesn't, exactly how?

[corplinx]

I look at who his likely picks for cabinet posts would be. Now that Bush has picked Cheney for VP, not I also look at the VP the candidate has in mind.

With Bush Sr., Clinton, and Reagan; you had placeholder VPs. Bush has a VP who functions both as a mentor and top advisor.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by epepke
Looking for charisma makes one a target for manipulation?


Indeed. It's just about putting on a good show then, and nothing else. He simply needs to be a good actor, and there he have your vote.

Read a little about psychopaths on this site:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/psychopath.htm

Check out the list at the bottom, about how to recognize one.

A psychopath would have it easy, if charisma was the main thing all voters care about. Look at the bottom of the site, where you'll find clues about how a psychopath acts.


Originally posted by epepke
And, like, believing the fantasy that how someone acts as a judge or governor really has anything to do with how they will act as President doesn't, exactly how?

It's the best you can do, to study their past political accomplishments.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by epepke
And, like, believing the fantasy that how someone acts as a judge or governor really has anything to do with how they will act as President doesn't, exactly how?

Btw, you misunderstood the judge thing. I used it as a verb, not as a noun. It have surpassed the 60 minutes now though, so I can't edit the post to make it more clear. :(

[Bruce]

Originally posted by epepke

Non-Incumbency Since they mostly do damage, to a zeroth approximation someone who has just come into power can do less damage than someone who knows the ropes.


This is probably why Arnold Swartzanegger and Jesse Ventura are so popular.

[Dorian Gray]

I look for candidates that don't lie or mislead, or barring that, ones that don't like sex. That's why I voted for Mother Teresa, and why I will continue to do so.

[Chaos]

If it was at all possible, I´d vote for someone who doesn´t want the job, but who is still conscientious (sp?) enough to do it well while he is stuck in it. That is, someone who will not always have one eye fixed on the latest polls. Someone who is not fixed on being re-elected whatever the cost.

[Globert]

A Democrat who could be endorsed by the NRA. one who would let sunset Brady, Patriot, and get the campaign finance snooker repealed.





edit for grammar

[EdipisReks]

opposable thumbs.

[epepke]

Originally posted by plindboe
Indeed. It's just about putting on a good show then, and nothing else. He simply needs to be a good actor, and there he have your vote.

And what's so wrong with that?

If it's a choice between a President who puts on a good show, and one who runs the economy into the ground whilst borrowing a hundred billion dollars to invade a country because the leader once wanted to take a pop at his dad, I'll take the show.

Read a little about psychopaths on this site:

Ah, you probably mean sociopaths, or in modern parlance, people who have an Axis II diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder from Cluster B. I'm pretty good at recognizing sociopaths. They're also skilled liars and butt-coverers.

That's why I included fecklessness in my list. Whatever sociopaths may be, they aren't feckless. They do it because it works.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Chaos
If it was at all possible, I´d vote for someone who doesn´t want the job, but who is still conscientious (sp?) enough to do it well while he is stuck in it. That is, someone who will not always have one eye fixed on the latest polls. Someone who is not fixed on being re-elected whatever the cost.

That was a running theme of the Pogo comic strip, the Douglas Adams books, and one story by (I think) Arthur C. Clarke in which being President was like jury duty.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by epepke
And what's so wrong with that?


If the person is running for president, and not for some theatre play, then he should have other qualifications than being a good actor.


Originally posted by epepke
If it's a choice between a President who puts on a good show, and one who runs the economy into the ground whilst borrowing a hundred billion dollars to invade a country because the leader once wanted to take a pop at his dad, I'll take the show.


Such a choice is never apparent. The 'good show' thing is part of the election while the rest is the consequences. The current president puts on a good cowboy show, and that's why he is the president. The rest of the world is suffering from the consequences this day.


Originally posted by epepke
Ah, you probably mean sociopaths, or in modern parlance, people who have an Axis II diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder from Cluster B. I'm pretty good at recognizing sociopaths. They're also skilled liars and butt-coverers.

Actually "psychopath" and "sociopath" are interchangeable, though many people think there is a difference.

[Zep]

One who actually has a brain with grey matter connected to the rest of his body. That excludes some people who seem to operate on the reptillian cortex alone.

Seriously, a US president should command respect outside the USA, even if you disagree with him inside. Much as you may approve or dislike it, the POTUS is almost as influential outside the USA as inside. So a nincompoop or a dunce in that office who stuffs up US foreign diplomacy is NOT a good thing, and sours international relationships very rapidly.

[fishbob]

Shemp - the most disappointed voter in America.

Looking for fecklessness sounds a bit cynical to me.

Looking for grey matter sounds hopeless.

Looking for charisma is looking for style over substance.

Looking for morality in a seasoned politician is looking only at the surface.

I look most favorably at the candidate that speaks directly, with some specific information, and displays knowledge. Grandiose policy statements are wasted sound waves

[Bruce]

At the risk of sounding shallow, I think appearance plays a small role in deciding a president. Imagine yourself walking through the hall of presidents in Washington DC, gazing upon the images of past presidents:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/gw1.gif
Washington - Regal, stoic

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/al16.jpg
Lincoln - Thoughtful, brilliant

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/rr40.gif
Reagen - Grandfatherly, kind

http://www.zombi.dk/images/allbush/002a.jpg
Bush - ..................... well, a picture is worth a thousand words.

[Doubt]

I look for the person who will screw up the least.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Doubt
I look for the person who will screw up the least.

How come that guy never gets elected?

[epepke]

Originally posted by plindboe


If the person is running for president, and not for some theatre play, then he should have other qualifications than being a good actor.

Well, let me explain some more. Unlike nearly everybody else, I believe that the office of the Presidency has too much power. It is almost as if the legislature is an appendage of the Predidency. Consider the PATRIOT act and how Congress was not given anything remotely like a chance to read the bill before voting on it.

The Executive branch is supposed to execute the laws passed by Congress, not to ram laws through Congress. The purpose of the President is to inspire people in the country and give a basic direction. These are the skills of an actor.

Such a choice is never apparent. The 'good show' thing is part of the election while the rest is the consequences. The current president puts on a good cowboy show, and that's why he is the president. The rest of the world is suffering from the consequences this day.

The choice was apparent in the 2000 election. I clearly remenber George W. doing some fairly serious saber-rattling with respect to Iraq whilst campaigning.

I think George W. Bush could have made a fairly decent President but for the people in his cabinet. The power of the appointed cabinet is part of what I consider to be the excessive power of the Executive branch.

[/b]Actually "psychopath" and "sociopath" are interchangeable, though many people think there is a difference. [/B]

The main difference is in the connotations: "psychopath" is more of a criminal term, and "sociopath" is more of an old-fashioned clinical term. Yes, the underlying disorder is the same, but effectively, "psychopath" is more likely to be used for someone with a violent criminal record.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by epepke
Well, let me explain some more. Unlike nearly everybody else, I believe that the office of the Presidency has too much power. It is almost as if the legislature is an appendage of the Predidency. Consider the PATRIOT act and how Congress was not given anything remotely like a chance to read the bill before voting on it.

The Executive branch is supposed to execute the laws passed by Congress, not to ram laws through Congress. The purpose of the President is to inspire people in the country and give a basic direction. These are the skills of an actor.

Sure, I agree, so you aren't the only one. But the president you vote for will still have that power no matter what amount of power you believe he should have. He will not be like a European royal virtually without power, who works just to inspire people, but he will gain actual power over the entire world, and therefore more than a mere actor is required.


Originally posted by epepke
The choice was apparent in the 2000 election. I clearly remenber George W. doing some fairly serious saber-rattling with respect to Iraq whilst campaigning.

I think George W. Bush could have made a fairly decent President but for the people in his cabinet. The power of the appointed cabinet is part of what I consider to be the excessive power of the Executive branch.

Bush wouldn't have won if he hadn't put on the charismatic cowboy show. Gore lost because he was a stiff and boring, even though he would most probably have been a much better president


Originally posted by epepke
The main difference is in the connotations: "psychopath" is more of a criminal term, and "sociopath" is more of an old-fashioned clinical term. Yes, the underlying disorder is the same, but effectively, "psychopath" is more likely to be used for someone with a violent criminal record.

Most people might have the wrong idea by the term "psychopath" because of the many Hollywood movies that abuse it. But that doesn't change the actual clinical meaning of the word. The fact is that psychopath and sociopath are clinically used for exactly the same disorder.


The reason I reacted so strongly at the beginning in this thread, is because the American president will be the most powerful man in the world, and will start wars and negociate peace throughout the planet. But even though he will have such a tremendous influence on world history, we non-americans in the rest of the world will have no say in who will become the next president, so it can be frightening to watch the election, especially when we hear the often silly reasons Americans have for putting a man in such an influencial position. One day a complete maniac with severe delusions will be put in that position, and we can wave the world goodbye.

[Lemastre]

Anybody who can beat George Bush. This means by enough votes that the courts can't hand the presidency to Bush again.

[Zep]

Washington looked regal and stoic because his false teeth did not fit him and so they hurt all the time. I imagine anyone would look equally pained but try to hide it!

Lincoln was thoughtful and brilliant, but I understand he was also a manic depressive, prone to bouts of "meloncholy" in office. Not the least of his problems was his own wife and son, not to mention a civil war.

Reagan was certainly grandfatherly. In fact, great-great-great-grandfatherly. I'm sure everyone noticed when his hair suddenly went gray immediately after he left office, having stayed resolutely black in the preceding 8 years! :)

Bush - ..................... well, a picture is absolutely worth a thousand words. So true.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Zep
Washington looked regal and stoic because his false teeth did not fit him and so they hurt all the time.

I wouldn't have voted for him then, my only citerion is that the candidate should have really nice white shiny teeth

[Zep]

Originally posted by The Don


I wouldn't have voted for him then, my only citerion is that the candidate should have really nice white shiny teeth So, Jimmy Carter?? :)

[Lazarus]

When it comes to voting for an executive, I've become very cynical in my old age. After, on several occasions, regretting that the person I voted for actually won, I've learned to vote for the person that I feel will do the least harm.


Posted by Epepke:
That was a running theme of the Pogo comic strip, the Douglas Adams books, and one story by (I think) Arthur C. Clarke in which being President was like jury duty. Interesting. I seem to remember first coming across this notion being introduced by Thomas Moore in 'Utopia.' I wonder if this idea actually goes back further in time, say to the Greeks, perhaps...Or, even earlier? Anyone have any insight here?

[The Don]

Originally posted by Zep
So, Jimmy Carter?? :)

Nah, yellow horse teeth. I say Donny Osmond for President! :D

[Kodiak]

A narrow constitutional constructionist;

Sufficient character to do the job the way he thinks it should be done regardless of whether or not those acts are considered "right", "good", "correct" by the public or the press, and to stand by his decisions;

Balance state's rights and federalism;

Resists international appeasement and is willing to use military action, or its threatened use, as a political/diplomatic tool;

Unwilling to surrender aspects of sovereignty to international groups like the UN or the World Court;

Advocates means-testing of social, medical, and environmental programs;

Pro death penalty only in murder cases that confirm guilt with DNA:

Legalize gay marriage;

Decriminalize marijuana;

Pro-choice

[Crossbow]

My main concern for presidential candidates is, Do they really want the job?

What bothered me the most about the first Bush when he ran for re-election, and later by Dole when ran in 1996, was that neither of them seemed to really want to be the President.

While I did have fairly high regard for Dole, I could not support him since he did not want the job.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by The Don


Nah, yellow horse teeth. I say Donny Osmond for President! :D

How about this guy:

http://www.americanphoto.co.jp/pages/eiga/MA/Previews/Plans-15811.jpg

[Random]

If we are veering into the field of fictional characters, I would like to make a few suggestions:

-Havelock Vetinari: Makes it automatically to the top of my list just for one quote. “Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to make progress.”
-Mr. Spock: Does anyone really believe Kirk would have gotten the Enterprise through season one without him?
-The president we thought we would get when we voted for Clinton: A well though out fictional character who would introduce universal heath care, get homosexuals into the military, and restore integrity to a scandal ridden white house.
-Sparky the Penguin: The wisecracking penguin who would clean up Washington. He keeps running, but doesn’t get very far.
-Cthulhu: Hey, at least we would know what to expect.

[crimresearch]

It seems like a lot of the criteria that people would use to guide their voting are based on intrinsic factors that none of us can possibly be in a position to know.
Character? Honesty? Intelligence? What someone would do in a future situation?

Geeez, people are married for decades, and then find out that they never really knew their most intimate partner all that time.
People are elevated to positions of trust by dint of screening and competition, and suddenly turn out to be venal and/or incompetent.

And we flatter ourselves that we are insightful enough to select a nation's leader based on looking at pictures and a few agit prop sound bites? A lot of voters do more rigorous research in selecting a sports team to root for, than they do before voting.

OK, but don't be surprised if we wind up with exactly the government we deserve...Oh, wait!...

Paul Nunis

[shanek]

How about respect and commitment to the Constitution and the founding principles of this country? That's something we haven't seen in a Republocrat or Demopublican candidate for a really long time...