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

[crweeks64]

xoxoxoBruce, Maybe in today's world. Teddy Roosevelt and FDR did not shy away from service and neither did their family members. Maybe if we could get somebody like them. As you said in an earlier post though-why would anyone of quality want to serve as President?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

xoxoxoBruce, Maybe in today's world. Teddy Roosevelt and FDR did not shy away from service and neither did their family members. Maybe if we could get somebody like them. As you said in an earlier post though-why would anyone of quality want to serve as President?

Their ilk still exists but couldn't get on the ticket, no less elected. Nobody gets elected who isn't bought and paid for.

Bad attitude? Yeah, but I still vote in every election, even the local races where the same names are on both sides of the ballot.

[crweeks64]

xoxoxoBruce, I don't think it is a bad attitude and I am glad you vote in every election. I do too. We all should.

[Undertoad]

a requirement to have worked in something not related to politics for at least 5 years

Fok yeah. Make it 10.

And to me, lawyerin' and solicitin' don't count. Get us some civil engineers, who actually know what it takes to build and maintain. Get us some artists, who actually know what it takes to inspire and create.

[Griff]

I like that bit as well but won't oppose prostitutes running...

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And to me, lawyerin' and solicitin' don't count. Get us some civil engineers, who actually know what it takes to build and maintain.

Agreed.

But I'm with xoxoxoBruce, who in their right minds would want to go into politics?

[crweeks64]

infinite monkey, I wasn't bitching, I was raising what I thought to be legitimate questions. Most people answered. I appreciate that because I don't pretend to have the answer. Their responses have given me something to think about which is good. I think xoxoxoBruce raised an interesting point when he queried (paraphrasing) why would anyone of quality bother to run? Some of the other responses raised military experience or real world experience as prerequisites. For me it comes down to someone of high character, a reasonable world view and a unique style for acting to face our toughest problems. That is not up to me or you to decide but the electorate. The reason I raised the questions is because I can't think of anybody right now but God help us if we get Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush by default. By the way what on earth does my view on Ebola have to do with this?

[tw]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

I think xoxoxoBruce raised an interesting point when he queried (paraphrasing) why would anyone of quality bother to run? Some of the other responses raised military experience or real world experience as prerequisites.

History contradicts many assumptions. Maybe half the good leaders had no background or experience to suggest same. Truman entered office without any reason to believe he could lead. Kennedy entered office with a Senate history that implied a terrible leader.

History also demonstrates another fact. Nobody should be considered until after the Iowa caucuses and Super Bowl. Since many if not most who are nominated remain mostly unknown before then. Chances are the great leaders will remain unknown to most until after February 2015. Any discussion about presidential material before then is mostly wasted speculation.

One final point. Facts (such as his 1999 auto-biography "A Charge to Keep ") made bluntly obvious that George Jr was be a terrible leader. His is almost unreadable. Why did America elect him president - twice? The question begs another. What are people using for facts to identify a 'good' leader?

[Spexxvet]

The whole family thing is not unprecedented. John Quincy Adams was John Adams' son. The Roosevelts were cousins. On one hand, I want the best qualified candidate, on the other, I don't like the dynasty aspect.

Elizabeth Warren / Bernie Sanders '16!

[crweeks64]

tw, I guess I am hoping that people will start the thinking now and evolve to the best possible position when crunch time begins although your point is well taken. Bush twice? Some would argue he didn't really win the first time. I'm past that, it is not my fight. Bush was admittedly tough to explain. Some say the same about Obama as to why twice. Clearly he seems smart enough to be President. I think his issue is a failure to lead or act decisively. As far as facts, that may be the point, we don't base our decision on facts but rather the themes the campaigns craft. We need to do a better job to see through the morass.

[tw]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

Some say the same about Obama as to why twice. Clearly he seems smart enough to be President. I think his issue is a failure to lead or act decisively.

A bad and indecisive leader will justify 'big dic' actions for the most ridiculous reasons. Inventing wars cause lesser educated Americans to support such weak leaders. Only great leaders, for example, would keep us out of Libya, get us out of Afghanistan when even our Generals wanted another tens years of deployment, stopped destruction of so many world treaties (ie nuclear non-proliferation treaty), did everything necessary to avert what should have been (and without any doubt) another Great Depression, repatriate so many innocent prisoners in Guantanamo, acted successfully and with proper responses to Egypt, stopped the destructive American manned space program for the Ares, Orion, and Constellation, and actually executed a very dangerous mission to get bin Laden. Let's not forget how many times George Jr refused to get bin Laden especially in Tora Bora because he had a 'big dic' mentality and no balls. George Jr was the classic example of indecisive - until he finally stood up to Cheney in his last year.

To say Obama has been indecisive is propaganda from wacko extremists such as Limbaugh. At what event was he indecisive? Any asshole like Limbaugh will get credibility by making cheapshots. Because so many of us believe a cheapshot artist rather than a logical presentation. So many will believe an insult rather than ask for hard and supporting facts. Wackos are easily identified. They smear rather than say why with perspective - the numbers. Fact time. Where is this indecision that Limbaugh et al invented and so many then believe?

Superior leader - ie Roosevelt - were great because they stayed out of war until then necessary events justified it. Great leaders show restraint as Truman did with MacAurthur. Great leaders did as Kennedy showed repeatedly during the Cuban Missile Crisis by, for example, pulling his blockade closer to Cuba to give Khrushchev time to conceded. He even demonstrated restraint by rejecting war recommendations from all his advisers. Restraint we now know resulted in all of us living today.

In each case, mentally deficient cheap shot artists attacked that leader as indecisive. Restraint always looks indecisive to many educated by propaganda. Exactly where was he indecisive. Post every example with reasons why that is indecision.

[sexobon]

Do you pronounce your username crws64?

[sexobon]

REYHANLI, Turkey — The U.S.-led air war in Syria has gotten off to a rocky start, with even the Syrian rebel groups closest to the United States turning against it, U.S. ally Turkey refusing to contribute and the plight of a beleaguered Kurdish town exposing the limitations of the strategy.

Yes, it's a crying shame Obama blundered into drawing a line in the sand for Assad. Then to save face he had to negotiate a back door deal to not lead a prosecution effort against Assad for crimes against humanity in exchange for Assad turning over most of his chemical weapons. Everyone knew he was going to keep some by obfuscating searches for them, a strategy that worked well for Hussein and his alleged WMD until we put boots on the ground. Assad is only turning in previously withheld WMD now because he's afraid ISIS will get them. With Obama is in bed with Assad, the Syrian rebels we could have trained to combat ISIS are becoming disaffected. They want Assad out as much as they want ISIS out; but, Obama won't use air power against his bedfellow Assad even though he'll use it against ISIS ... IN SYRIA!

The Turks have become disenchanted with Obama for the same reason and withdrawn their support. In Iraq the Kurds are losing ground because Obama failed to unite regional indigenous boots on the ground on the Syrian front to draw ISIS away from Kurdish held territory.

All this stemming from Obama's refusal to send even humanitarian support to the Syrian people early in their struggle because he was worried about his popularity polls if his actions even hinted at the possibility of future military engagement on another front. Instead of holding regional leaders responsible, Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he's willing to plea bargain their failures and offenses away as long as he gets something in return that makes him look good on the domestic front. But then what can you expect from him - HE'S A LAWYER.

Too many Americans are brainwashed by liberal propaganda that because Obama got elected as an underdog that he must walk on water, that everything he does must be genius, that any failures MUST be attributable to someone else; unless of course, they can spin those failures into some modicum of success (as in every cloud has a silver lining). THEN they'll give Obama and only Obama full credit for it. Once even otherwise intelligent people succumb to HERO WORSHIP their minds become skewed, as if they were on drugs, and everything they say becomes suspect.

[crweeks64]

tw, you got it half right, he does not engage Congress at all (or anybody else for that matter).
You keep talking about Rush and raising that straw man line of reasoning. Few Americans want "America to fail" except the FAR left.
As Lloyd Benson said to Dan Quale, "I knew John F. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy was a friend, You are no John F. Kennedy". I didn't know John F. Kennedy but Obama is certainly no John F. Kennedy.
Cantor was a mainstream republican who worked closely with Boehner and who was defeated in the republican primary by a tea party-like challenger.
You are half right again, he doesn't work well with anyone.
He should be congratulated for pulling the string on Bin Laden but he has undermined that in every single thing he has done since then with regard to dealing with terrorists or Islamic Extremists. (Except for the use of drones- again kudos to him)
The Assad red line? Seriously? After Assad crossed that red line Obama denied making the statement. Rather he indicated it was Congress' red line set many years before. Then after he failed to secure Congressional bye-in he and Kerry were forced to take a deal concocted by Russia (talk about the fox watching the hen house) that Assad would voluntarily give up his chemical weapons stockpiles (plural on purpose). Besides some chemical weapons stockpiles still exist (also discussed in other posts).
Lastly, he wanted the job, and those who voted for him expect him to get results and lead no matter with whom he has to negotiate. He is the President of the United States not President "of those who will work with him in good faith".

[tw]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

You are half right again, he doesn't work well with anyone.

Obama works fine with other nations. Syrian Red Line is a perfect example of international leadership that even got Russia to reverse its position in only days. Listed were so many countries recruited to successfully remove Assad's biochemical weapons. So how is that not working with anyone?

To call Cantor anything but an extremist is disingenuous. He has been a perfect example of what extremists were told to do bluntly by Limbaugh. Limbaugh said in January 2009, "I Hope Obama Fails. Somebody's gotta say it." That became a Tea Party mantra.

Once Cantor discovered Boehmer was having secret meetings with Obama to solve our debt crisis, then Cantor did everything he could to obstruct it. He eventually got himself into those meetings. Multiple Democrats and Republicans agreed. Only person who should not be in those meetings was Cantor. Cantor, a classic extremists, works for what Limbaugh demanded - failure of America.

Meanwhile, those who want America to succeed also successfully fixed this economy. Failure became a Republican Party policy to vote in lockstep against virtually every proposal by President Obama to ease a recession inherited from the previous administration. We know what Obama got done was tremendously successful in saving this economy from another 1929 Recession. We also know that other nations (ie Europe), who instead used austerity, have suffered significantly lower growth and economic stagnation.

Somehow Obama does not work well with anyone? Then how did we avoid 40% unemployment? Why did we so successfully recover from massive fiscal irresponsibility? Clearly our economy is now tanking?. The dollar has achieved new highs due to an American economy that is now doing better than Europe and Japan.

Nobody can work with extremists whose agenda is America's failure. Tea party obstruction set new standards for intransigence in a “do nothing” Congress. Due to extremists, House nastiness achieved new highs. Even Republican Senators have been critical repeatedly of Tea Party antics by extreme right wingers such as Eric Cantor.

Anyone in denial of the tremendous success in a Syrian Red Line solution must be listening to Limbaugh lobotomy rhetoric. That solution was stunning, immediate, and completely successful. Wacko extremists hate success. Even the economy has successfully recovered from Cheney’s “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter” policies. How can that be when Obama is such as failure?

Again, the Syrian Solution was a spectacular success by even getting the Russians to cooperate. However extremists need hate and failure to achieve power. So extremists must deny that obvious success.