>…his belief in God has no bearing on his role as President…
>He is physically incapable of expressing falsehoods.
I think the premise is already logically impossible. As I understand it, this man has a conviction that there is a God whose service is the overwhelmingly important good work in this life, and he proposes to take a political position of tremendous power and influence and completely ignore any such service. Would this not be hypocritical and dishonest already?
In any case, I think being very honest is enough of a liability that it would make being elected President very unlikely, though technically possible. I think Jimmy Carter came the closest within the last half century, and did so because people were so disgusted with Nixon. So his level of honesty and the country’s level of disgust at that time represent about as big a window as comes along every half-century.
You do understand that automatic weapons are essentially banned* and that the NRA has no interest in changing that, correct? And that background checks are the national standard and the NRA is not interested in changing that either, right? So the pointless and ineffective waiting period is the only thing the NRA might oppose.
No new automatics are allowed on the market, the cutoff was 20 years ago or so and any remaining legal automatic weapon grandfathered in is thus a rather pricey collectors item rather than a criminals preferred tool of destruction
Nowadays, you need A LOT OF $$$ - period… Which is sad because who needs to spend $1 billion in convincing the American people?
Each candidate should be allocate a specific amount to run for President. No over-spending. Maybe then we’ll see a change in the election’s strategies and hopefully less stupid commercial saying “John Kerry is a coward” - “GWB is an idiot” (sorry for the pleonasm…)
Anyone who is in a position to run for President has sold his or her ass so many times to so many people that no one has a fucking clue who holds the deed.
Of course it is possible, in the sense that enough electoral votes could be physically awarded to a person who has a habit of telling the truth. Hypothetically. It can and will happen if The 1% agree that having such a man as president is desirable to their interests. Call me when this happens.
From what I remember, the initial public response to the speech was generally favorable. Unfortunately, shortly afterward, Carter completely overhauled his cabinet. That move wiped out whatever positive momentum the speech had generated and made a lot of people believe that Carter had no idea of what was doing. In any case, since Carter ended up being soundly defeated by Reagan the following year, conventional wisdom now has it that the “malaise” (or “crisis of confidence”) speech was a huge political gaffe that all but destroyed his chances for re-election.
Would someone tell me why I should applaud a politician who states categorically that he won’t do any of the things I want him to do, just because he’s “honest”?
If I’m at a restaurant, I’d rather have a phony waiter who smiles at me and brings me what I want rather than an “honest” waiter who won’t smile (“that would be phony- I don’t really like you”) and brings me the dishes he thinks I SHOULD want.
In the same way, I’d sooner vote for a panderer who’ll do what I want for cynical reasons than an “honest” man who’ll act in ways I can’t support.
Voters aren’t going to vote for a candidate who sounds negative.
So, let’s stipulate that you are in favor of a flat tax.
A brutally honest and candid candidate (err?) might say “I agree that the current tax code needs to be reworked. However, I really dont think that such a sweeping change in the tax code is really in the cards right now.”
His opponent might say " I agree that the current tax code needs to be reworked. I promise that I will do all I can to study the issue and implement much needed reform as the number one priority of my tenure in office."
The second guy will probably get the vote, because he “sounds” like he would be more aggressive about the issue.
Let’s look at it this way: George H.W. Bush was undoubtedly pro-abortion once upon a time, but he did an about-face and turned against abortion because he realized he had to pander to the Religious Right.
On the other side of the spectrum, Al Gore and Dick Gephardt are among the formerly anti-abortion Democrats who changed positions once they realized a pro-lifer couldn’t possibly get the Democratic nomination.
If you’re a liberal who supports abortion rights, should you favor the “honest” Henry Hyde (who’s adamantly against abortion, always has been, always will be, and has never once pretended to be anything else) or should you favor Al Gore, who’s a panderer and a flip-flopper on the issue?
The answer is obvious: the phony who currently supports your position is preferable to the honest man who doesn’t.
An honest man will ultimately have to tell Americans what they don’t what to hear, good luck after that. The internal desire for selfdelusion is bottomless.
Like him or not, this man has been very clear about his opinions, has used the same rhetoric in front of Google employees and Values Voter Debate watchers alike, and does not seem to be hypocritical or waver from his (ridiculous) positions. I think he’d fit your description well, and no, he cannot ever get elected to be president of the U.S.
Oh, yeah. The guy that claimed he didn’t know who the heck David Marston was.
…Until it came out that he had previously ordered Griffin Bell to told him to hurry up and find a replacement for Marston.
… … Perhaps because Marston, a US Attorney, was investigating corruption of federal officials and targeting Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman Joshua Eilberg, who called Carter to demand that Marston be fired.
“Oh, THAT David Marston!”
Yeah, Carter was pure as the driven snow. :rolleyes:
And by the way – the similarities between Carter/Bell and Bush/Gonzales as to the circumstances surrounding firing a US Attorney are remarkable, eh? But that’s off topic. Suffice to say that Carter does not deserve that honorific.
So far as I’m aware, William Henry Harrison did not tell a major lie during his term of office.
See, I think I agree, but I’m not 100% sure. I think the stiffy that a lot of Democrats used to have for McCain came from the image he had as being an honest and honorable man. I may not have agreed with his politics, but dammit, he seemed like his opinions were his own and damn the special interest groups.
I think it was when he started pandering more (agents of intolerance were suddenly hunky-dory individuals), that he lost his support. He may have eventually realized that he couldn’t win without pandering to the people pulling the purse strings.
This all gets to my ultimate question of whether campaign finance reform is truly the most important issue. Because you and I can have wonderful debate about any issue, and it’s all moot because the ultimate decision will go to whichever group spends the most money to influence. Debate means nothing as long as bribery is essentially legal.
“If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their hookers and still vote against them the next morning you don’t belong in politics”.”
–Jesse Unruh, on lobbyists
California Treasurer (1974-87)
California State Assemblyman (1955-70, as Speaker, 1961–69)
Oh, and let’s not forget his more famous quote: “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.”
First of all how manyhumans are totally honest? Not many, I’d say. Second: most of our presidents have been decent men, with some moral standards. Take FDR-he lied to get the USA into WWII, lied about the causes of the depression, and tried to pack the Supreme Court. He could play fast and loose with the truth-and eventually pushed japan into war with us. But did he try to do the best he could? i’d say yes. Or take GWB-in his stunted little mind, he thinks he is doing the right thing-but I see no capability of reasoning or judgement. Or JFK-a man who inspired a lot of young minds-but a dreadful failure as a president. Had JFK not bee assassinated, his administration would rank as one of the worst. Really evil, corrupt presidents are rare. I’d say that Andrew Jackson was such a man.
