I find this strangely tempting/attractive too, if only because I wish there were more fat people in politics. If obesity wasn’t a barrier to success for one guy, then maybe people would take us fatties more seriously in general.
Wow. Well put. Surprisingly I’m with you on pretty much everything you wrote, here. At first blush I was TOTALLY against the idea of voting for Jeb Bush after the experience we had with his blissfully ignorant brother, but I think I could be open to voting for him for Prez, and yes, I’m with you on Hillary - I don’t care for her tactics (it was HER campaign, after all, that was the first one to question Barack Obama’s citizenship) and at least as important for me is the fact that I don’t like dynasties, or anything resembling them, in U.S. politics. (Which should preclude me from wanting to vote for another BUSH any time soon, as well, but I think your points about Jeb are well-taken) If there is ever to be a female POTUS I’d much rather see Elizabeth Warren run than Hillary. But back to the question at hand - there is so much CRAZY going on with the Repubs these days that it really is hard for me to come up with anybody claiming to be from that side of the aisle that I’d be willing to vote for. Chris Christie, maybe? (Not that I’m a HUGE fan but I liked how he comported himself when that huge storm hit N.J. a little while back and the President came by to offer aid). Other than those two I really can’t think of anybody else with and (R) next to his or her name that I’d seriously consider. Not right now.
Sadly, I think you make some sound points, here. As much as I’d like to TOTALLY believe in the Democrats it’s not like they’re without flaws. But the Repubs are so thoroughly repugnant to me that it will take something pretty extraordinary for me to vote for any of them any time soon. But I think you’re absolutely right - it’s not good to have only one viable political party - then you risk becoming like China or North Korea in that regard. Definitely not a good thing. But the Repubs, as you or somebody else stated, need to transition into something positive from their current “Party of No!” stance otherwise I really think they might go the way of the Whig Party.
Well put!!
Some idiot supporters, every campaign has them, yes - but to blame *her or her campaign *is beyond what the facts can support.
That assertion is often made on this board, but is never explained. How about you being the first to tell us what constitutes a “dynasty” in a democratic republic with regular elections, and why we voters should be restricted from supporting an experienced and qualified candidate solely on the basis of who their relatives are?
We DON’T have one viable party between the Democrats and the Republicans. The oligarchs own them BOTH. We, speaking of the Great Unwashed, the American People, etc. have ZERO viable parties.
Well, I can’t speak (or type) for anybody else on this but having members of the same family serve as president (or whatever) in closely-served terms smacks too much of something like royalty, to me. And the people who left England all those decades ago were, I think, trying to get away from all that (and all of what it entailed). I find it a little difficult to believe that in this country of, what - over 300 million citizens, now? - that we can’t find candidates for president from more than just a small handful of “clans.” For me it’s mostly just a “gut reaction” type of thing but I’m not interested. More to the point - Hillary’s polarizing in her own way. If she WERE to become president I’m not sure the current crop of GOP’ers would be any more willing to work with her than they are the current POTUS and, to me, that says a LOT.
Off topic, but can you expand on this a bit or provide a reference? Admittedly I wasn’t around at the time and my source material is mostly a biography that may have been a little too admiring of the man.
I’m not sure I agree with that. Yeah, there’s too much $$$ in U.S. politics and it serves both sides, I won’t dispute that. As to the viability of each party - I guess that’s up to the electorate of this country to decide. But if you’re suggesting to me (and to everyone else) that the two parties are the “same” just because they both benefit from various cash cows, well, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on that count.
Furthermore, the Republican Party was far more ideologically diverse at the time. The term RINO didn’t even exist then: it was coined during the 1990s.
To place all your hopes on a single great man is crushingly naive. During the 1950s, 1960s and even 1970s not only was there a moderate wing of the Republican Party, there was a liberal wing. To govern you need a base of support. Huntsman never got his bump in the polls because while he was a staunch conservative he was far too neuro-typical for the Republican primary base.
I’m saying they are the same because they both benefit from the SAME cash cows, those on Wall Street. Of course they will differ on social issues that Wall Street types don’t care much about, like abortion and gay marriage. But on economic issues, the Democrats and Republicans are as one.
Seen any real action on wealth inequality from the Democrats? You won’t. Jobs for the middle class? You won’t. Hell, I doubt they will make any serious efforts on raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour … and that’s a MARGINAL issue to the Wall Street boys. (They’d really rather not, but it’s no big deal to them.)
While I’ll grant that Hillary Clinton, for instance, is a highly competent person, do you really think that she’s one of the 100 most competent people in the nation? That would be quite a remarkable coincidence, wouldn’t it, if one of the most competent women in the country just happened to be married to one of the most competent men? She might not have gotten her Senate seat just because she was married to Bill Clinton, but that was a very large part of it, large enough that she wouldn’t have stood a chance without that connection.
Likewise for all the other political families, like the Bushes or the Kennedys or the Romneys. They made it in politics not just by their own achievements, but by who they were related to. If we truly voted for the best people for the job, without any regard at all for family, we’d never see anywhere near as many politicians related to other politicians.
Irrelevant. Why would you think she should not be considered solely on the basis that her husband used to have the job?
In fact, you go on to say that she is probably *not *qualified even without that consideration. You’re on very thin ice with that one. You go on to claim that Bill’s political career was all his own doing, that she just rode along. Isn’t the opposite just as likely, and isn’t it even more likely that they’ve always been partners in the endeavor? You do not seem to acknowledge that ambitious women, up through her generation and to a large degree even later, have always had to pursue more indirect means to power and influence as public servants than men have, and that one such indirect means is marriage.
Debatable. Yes, her experience as a key member of a highly successful Presidential administration, experience she might not have had otherwise, was generally seen as an excellent credential for the Senate and, later, for the State Department. No shit. But you discount that solely because she happened to be *married *to Bill too.
Do you not think it possible that the exposure and experience and connections and sets of favors owed/owing etc. that come from living that life are actually assets?
For me to even consider a Republican, it would take a lot of things which, if fulfilled, may as well make them a Democrat.
They cannot be willfully ignorant of facts. I can accept a disagreement in opinion, as much as it annoys me, because many things still have sides that are difficult to prove one way or another through cold, hard facts. But given the science we have now, and the ease it is to verify that science, anyone who willingly disregards it is completely out of consideration for me. Therefore, for me to even consider a Republican, he would have to agree to the following:
-
Gays are that way biologically and its not a lifestyle choice
-
Global warming is real and being caused by humans
-
The Earth is 4.6 billion years old
-
Evolution is real and humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor
-
Tax cuts on the rich should take much less of a priority than tax cuts for the poor and middle class
Find me a Republican that believes all of those things WITHOUT caveats and I might vote for him
Serious question. Let’s say that the Republicans implode and that the Greens or any other party rise to fill the gap. How long before the oligarchs control that new party? Less than ten minutes or less than five minutes?
I’ll try to pull a few books off the shelves that I can cite for better authority when I get some time.
I have no idea who the 100 most competent people in the country in terms of being President are and neither do you or anybody else. All we can work with are the facts at hand. She does have more high level experience in fields that a President must be competent in than almost anyone else. And she wants to be President.
Which is a very, very, very big deal. There aren’t 100 people in the country with any kind of serious qualifications who are willing to put themselves through the ordeal that is running for President in this day and age. Finding anybody with any competence who wants to do so is becoming harder every year.
People hate politics and politicians. I believe strongly that the reason we’re seeing so many families with multiple candidates (besides sheer observation bias) is that politicians’ families are disproportionately inclined to view politics as a good thing and an honorable profession and a public service. Which, by the by, it is. You can’t scream loudly and hatefully at politicians and at the same time expect every one of the best people to subject themselves to the ignominy, not to mention the ridiculously low wages. It would be exceptionally weird if politicians’ children didn’t go into the family profession, just as it would be weird for any other profession.
This talk of dynasties is utter absurdity. Even the Bushes aren’t very close as a family. And they don’t really get much of a boost from the family name because of gossip fatigue. The public gets tired of the name Bush, or Clinton, or Kennedy after a while and it becomes harder, not easier for one to get elected.
I have never been a huge Hillary supporter. I’ve even predicted that she won’t wind up being the candidate. I’m fatigued too; I don’t want to hear another word about the Clintons’ past. But is she personally and individually qualified to be President? Hell yeah.
After some thought, Michael Bloomberg is all I came up with - but he technically left the party in 2007 and was an Independent running on a Republican ticket. There are still many, many things he does I disagree with, and his wealth gives him one seriously screwed up worldview, but I also think that his policies have helped NYC to an enormous degree. As for the rest of them, pardon me while I gag . . .
On Eisenhower/McCarthy relations, a quick and undoubtedly oversimplified summary.
Eisenhower held off from any attacks on McCarthy throughout his first year as President. In fact, during the campaign he stated that “I’m not going in any manner or means to indulge in personalities,” meaning specifically that he wouldn’t attack McCarthy. After a speech in June 1953 in which he seemed to attack him without mentioning his name when McCarthy made remarks that Communist books in libraries should be burned, he quickly retreated and not only stated that “I never talk personalities” but also implied that those books shouldn’t be in libraries. He knocked down aides who wanted him to attack McCarthy but listened to Nixon - that’s an amazingly rare thing in itself - who argued otherwise. For Pete’s sake, J. Edgar Hoover stopped feeding McCarthy secret FBI information before Eisenhower did anything.
It wasn’t until McCarthy attacked Eisenhower’s beloved Army that he thought he went too far. Eisenhower still did not make a direct attack until May 1954, a month after the famed Army/McCarthy hearings started. Of course, it was the hearings and the Army’s counsel Joseph Welch that brought McCarthy down.
Although people like to say that Eisenhower somehow silently maneuvered McCarthy’s destruction, I see no evidence of that. Eisenhower did next to nothing to stop McCarthy or even mitigate his damage. At most he did one interesting thing that at the time stunned even his supporters: he invented what we now call “executive privilege” to prevent top aides from giving testimony to Congress when subpoenaed. Again, this was in May 1954.
I’m just supplying this to back up my earlier assertion. I really don’t want to have to parse the McCarthy era in continued off-topic argument. I feel dirty just to dig up this much.
While your statement is accurate to the degree that it is a tautology, it has zero relevance to the post that you quoted as its preamble.
I don’t think a whole lot of the 100 most competent people in the nation are serving in the Senate.
(For the record, I think HRC was a carpetbagger and I voted for her primary opponent.)
To respond to some well argued posts regarding “its an administration” not a person that I’m voting for, firstly, a solid point.
Secondly, okay… I might be speaking more hypothetically than I let on.
Pretend the Democrats have a majority in both houses, which won’t happen again for a while.
Now, which Republican would actually lead the country properly?