Hopefully this won’t turn into a GD, It’s more of a poll on presedential prefferences.
Inspired by yesterdays debate, but not exatcly about it. How do most people feel about passionate presedents. I read in posts around here about how Bush looked ready to go off. Plus people talk about Cheney telling what’s his face to fuck off. And alot of people attribute Dean’s downfall to aftermath from the scream. McCain’s biggest drawback four years ago was supposedly his temper etc.
Do most people really think that is such a big deal? I personally want a president who isn’t afraid to tell people to fuck off, or say "shut up, I gotta say this. Dean’s scream was a little over-the-top and dumb sounding, but more of a ‘get some good-natured ball-busting at the bar’ dumb than a ‘you’re not possible qualified to be president’ dumb.
Now I don’t want a president given to Khruschevian Shoe banging exihibitions, but show me you care. I think Reagan as an ex-actor was the recent master of balancing obvious passion with I’m-still-in-control-ness.
Would a president who tells people to fuck off, or occasionally loses his temper in public alter your perception positive or negative, everything else being equal?
I never understood why everyone made such a big deal of Dean’s scream. Of all the Democratic candidates, he was my favorite. Nor do I see anything wrong with Cheney’s remark, as the Senate was not in session.
Whether a president is passionate doesn’t really matter to me, so long as his emotions don’t interfere with his judgement.
FTR, I’m a libertarian who’s voting for Kerry and Bush seemed fine during the second debate.
Negatively. Passionate is one thing, but a President has to meet and negotiate with a lot of people- including people he doesn’t like and people who piss him off royally. If he flies off the handle like that, it affects his ability to do his job.
Cheney’s comment didn’t break Senate rules, but I’m sorry, that’s just not appropriate. And I’m not a guy who’s big on decorum most of the time. Cheney doesn’t seem like a guy who is prone to stuff like that either.
Certainly some politicians have gotten into political trouble from the opposite: absence of passion! Gore was thought by many to be wooden and lacking in vigor and excitement, and poor Michael Dukakis was once described by a pro-Democratic journalist—after the “what if your wife was raped” question—as “a mineral to Bush’s vegetable”.
But there’s a major difference between having stong feelings (and expressing them emphatically) and being out of control. Bush often looks ready to start stomping his feet or go around kicking things.
After seeing a film of it, my history class was once asked by our teacher “Did he pound the table with his left shoe or his right shoe?” After re-watching the film, we got the answer – he used neither of his shoes – they were both still on his feet. Kruschev had carried along an extra shoe in a briefcase so he’d have one ready to do his table-pounding!
Which, in my mind, changes the whole incident to appear to be a pre-planned, staged performance, rather than a sudden, passionate anger at the US comments.
But all people seem to remember is Kruschev pounding the table with a shoe.
No, I want a thinker. I shudder to think of what would have happened had W been in JFK’s shoes in October 1962. Except for a massive incoming missile attack, there’s always time for sober reflection. “Sober” and “reflective” are not words I would associate with the incumbent.
Passionate about Good Things (Carter) is great. Passionate about Bad Things (Nixon, Bush II) is an abomination.
I also would like to echo that Dean got shafted by the media over his Iowa speech. Standard “inspire the troops” stuff. A very positive thing IMHO.
1972: The media jumps on Muskie and Nixon gets to run against his choice: McGovern.
2004: The media jumps on Dean and Bush II gets to run against his choice: Kerry.
Do I presume the other contender is a “mild mannered professor” type? There are a whole bunch of traits that may be the alternate to the type that blows his top unpredictably –
[ul]
[li] The guy who blows his top predictably[/li][li] An anxious type who’s always agonizing over how each action will look[/li][li] A cold near-mechanical type who seems to not EVER care how any action will look[/li][li] A “don’t worry be happy” type who’ll probably light up a spliff after being told the missiles are coming in [/li][li] etc., etc.[/li][/ul]
“Passionate” does not have to mean hot-tempered. You want someone who is passionate about what he believes in, and is full of vigor in its pursuit, and enjoys life, but is in control and in command of himself and only gets agitated when the situation really calls for it.
Because if you can’t keep your shorts on when some Minority Whip or Party Chairman is being pissy at you, God knows what you’ll do when someone interrupts your photo op with news that we are being bombed, that someone hacked Windows so that it has irretrievably crashed every last computer in the government, or that the Supreme Court has cleared people to marry their horses.
I suppose I prefer cold and rational over passionate, but what really scare me are people who are righteous.
Righteousness cannot be questioned, reasoned with, or debated. It never changes its mind, never admits mistakes, never compromises never heeds dissenting views, and never considers the possibility that it could be mistaken.
Some of the most dangerous people I’ve met are the ones who are absolutely certain that they are Right, because the minute you disagree with them, you are Wrong. And anything is fair game when dealing with someone who is Wrong.