What makes a good candidate for president?

[wmw999 2,554]

I'm not asking for who people like, or who they hate, or who they think will be elected. Just information on what kinds of attributes you look for in a candidate.

• Experience? If so, what kind, because a sitting president can run no more than 1/2 the time
  
• Intelligence?
  
• Ability to compromise? Unwillingness to compromise?
  
• Personal values (e.g. religion)
  
• Ability to engage in politics (or lack thereof).
  
• What else?
  

Just curious. I'll post mine in a later post, but they're sure not set in concrete.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SpeedRacer 1]

Here is the most important issue for most American voters.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[wmw999 2,554]

For me, someone has to agree with at least some of my views (which really aren't as liberal as some folks probably think).

There are few absolutes -- it's all a balancing act. Personal integrity is good (McCain wins big on this one), but the ability to get a coalition going to actually effect change, and the ability to compromise to actually effect change, can be seen as directly opposed to integrity by some. But, ya know, if all you do is stamp your foot and say "no compromise" then not a whole lot will get done.

So I think that having a good master plan that I can agree at least in part with, with realistic milestones and ways to re-evaluate and change if it turns out not to have been the best one -- those are good. A willingness to work with people they disagree with is a strong plus in my book. I don't have to agree with the whole thing, but if it generally moves in a direction that's better than where we are now, fine.

And generally showing respect for others, whether it's their co-workers or constituents, is another strong plus, along with taking the job seriously enough to respect it as well.

Vapid rhetoric is a minus. Of course, my definition of vapid rhetoric is probably different from some folks'.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[pop 0]

Quote

Here is the most important issue for most American voters.

Thank you! That was hilarious!!!!

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[billvon 3,080]

Experience. Running a successful business is good. Experience in more local governments is good. Peace corps - good. Experience outside the US - good. Attorney experience - not so good. (Not that there aren't good lawyers, but I don't think that's the best experience for that sort of a leader.)

Intelligence. Definitely important. Can he express himself intelligently in writing and in speech? Anticipate outcomes of his actions? Predict other's reactions? That's critical.

Personal values/religion. Not as important, as long as it does not affect his performance in his job (i.e. he doesn't support christianity to the detriment of other religions, or engage in holy wars.)

Politics. Less important. I'd rather see someone who is worse at playing politics and is more straightforward, even if it means he's less effective getting his agenda pushed through. We've had enough of that.

[livendive 8]

Intelligence, integrity, respect for others, and an open mind are crucial. Unfortunately, most politicians are lacking at least two or three of them, and many are lacking all four.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

What I'm looking for is leadership. But we don't see very much of that right now. This was one of the bigger failings of Bill Clinton, who liked to send out trial balloons by the dozen and retreated if they didn't go well, starting with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell fiasco. He also did poorly against the GOP minority in the Senate, and of course worse when the GOP took power in 1994.

Our current guy does a bit better in that sense, though he had the political capital of 2001 to make things happen. Unfortunately, stubborn leadership becomes a vice pretty early on. He won't admit to a mistake, so it becomes a bigger one.

Consistency is next, and this one is failed by most (McCain and Hillary Clinton in particular)

Those are the most important for personal values.

Inate skills - the person must be experienced with running a large organization, or at least being an active participant. That may disqualify a House Member, and may include longer term Senators. (I drop Obama quickly here) But I think the governors and CEOs have a leg up here. They have more experience dealing with bureaucratic resistance. Carter was probably the last guy who went in with ideals rather than political savvy and it didn't work well.

Intelligence is needed, but hard to measure. Going to an Ivy league isn't proof of it. (see Shrub) Reagan's educational background was marginal, but he projected force and competence. You may have strongly disagreed with his policy decisions, but that's a different concern.

In the end you're looking for someone to represent your country without embarassing you. In 2000 we got the choice of a swarmy smartass and a guy playing dumb. Lord knows what choice we're getting this year.

[nerdgirl 0]

From my perspective (owned purely as that, with all my inherent biases & background), I value and look for in a candidate (roughly in order of importance to me & subject to additions):

+ Leadership capability to execute, implement, & oversee the following:

+ Foreign & defense policy
-- Primary component: approach and basis, e.g., non-unilateral,
-- Secondary: commitment to strong, civilian-controlled (both important) national defense (with minimal ‘voodoo’ RDTE),
-- Tertiary: choice of advisors – both military *and* civil,
-- Quaternary: commitment to SSTR, i.e., DoD 3000.5, including executable and implementable strategies for a civilian-based SSTR (i.e, neither USAID nor Blackwater-esque PMCs),
-- Quinary: value of military service and executable strategies to widen and strengthen the military officer corps, e.g., Rep Duncan Hunter’s call for JROTC to be offered in San Francisco schools, strengthened ROTC in American Universities, and increased recruiting options – the widening of the civil-military divide (civilians vs the ‘warrior’ class) does not benefit the US,
-- Senary: personal direct experience.

+ Strong commitment to human rights and strong renunciation of any kind of torture as part of US policy, along with extraordinary rendition … for me, this is a critical moral & integrity issue/indicator.

+ Commitment to balance of power across the 3 branches of government (in accord with the US Constitution) and effective oversight

+ Pro-choice … for me, this is a critical indicator of valuing civil liberties and belief in (translation of rhetoric into action regarding) a woman’s autonomy (unlike the radical Islamist model). A candidate’s individual, personal perspective for himself/herself is not a particularly important indicator to me; supporting the maintenance of each American woman’s right to have autonomy over her body is important.

+ Valuing education
-- Commitment to strong public primary & secondary education system,
-- Executable strategies to enable greater opportunities for higher education, (while not trying to artificially force this as a path for all Americans),
-- Executable strategies to maintain the prominence & caliber of US higher education system, particularly as global leader of generator of ideas (technical & non-technical).

+ Attention to US critical infrastructure, e.g., transportation, electrical grid.
-- Executable & economically efficient strategies to enable the private marketplace to address these areas.

+ Ability to form effective coalitions and to work with others, particularly those of different views.

+ Valuing tradition and progress … and neither dogmatically.

+ Intelligence … both personal -- not ‘brainiac’/book smarts but slightly to significantly above average intelligence -- and intelligence in the people with whom the candidate brings into the WH & Executive branch. Ability to think on one’s feet.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[shropshire 0]

Someone who doesn't really want to be one!! but does it out of a sense of duty and respect for their country and people.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[nerdgirl 0]

Another one:

+ Commitment to an intelligence community that is robust, technically competent, and HUMINT capable with effective oversight and minimizing stovepipes. More like Dept of State's INR model (especially under Tom Finger's leadership) + good HUMINT.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,080]

Good list, but I fear most people stopped reading at "quinary."

[Nightingale 0]

* Experience? If so, what kind, because a sitting president can run no more than 1/2 the time

A president should have enough experience to understand how government works. I don't know that experience with politics is a must, but an understanding of it is.

* Intelligence?

Intelligent enough to know he doesn't know everything and isn't automatically right about everything because he's president.

* Ability to compromise? Unwillingness to compromise?

He'd have to be able to compromise to get people of differing opinions to work together, but have an unwillingness to compromise on our constitutional rights.


* Personal values (e.g. religion)

He'd have to be able to place the constitution above personal values. I don't care where a president stands personally on religion and such, just that he recognizes that as president, his responsibility is first to uphold the constitution.

* Ability to engage in politics (or lack thereof).

He'd have to have the ability to be a diplomat, or at least hire and listen to some good ones... diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell, convincing them that it was their idea, and to pay for their own ticket.

* What else?

The president would need to recognize that more government interference and regulation equals less personal freedom, choice and responsibility.

[ryoder 1,590]

Someone who actually believes in the Constitution. That would be a refreshing change from what we have now. The only current candidates who have made it clear they really believe in it, are Gravel, Paul, and Kucinich.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 2,113]

Honesty.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Good list,

Thanks.

Quote

but I fear most people stopped reading at "quinary."

Perhaps ... I'd like to think otherwise tho'.
VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Good list, but I fear most people stopped reading at "quinary."

Well of course we stopped at "quinary"! We had to go look it up!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Good list, but I fear most people stopped reading at "quinary."

I was about to comment on obfuscatory sesquipedalianism again. Thanks for rendering it unnecessary.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,080]

>Perhaps ... I'd like to think otherwise tho'

Heck, I think most people got to tertiary and wondered why you were talking about parachutes.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I was about to comment on obfuscatory sesquipedalianism again.

What do you call a dinosaur with a big vocabulary?







A Thesaurus.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[lawrocket 3]

Experience is somewhat overrated. I dont' think a jhob can prepare you for being a POTUS other than being a POTUS. I compare it to football - there are some fine coordinators out there, like Norv Turner, who just can't seem to cut it as a head coach.

Intelligence? Average is fine - so long as the POTUS is smart enough to know his limitations. Reagan did that, and surrounding himself with smart people that had the same core beliefs and then delegated. Well, delegated a little too much, but he WAS a figurehead.

ANy president that is unwilling to compromise would be a failure. Any PERSON who is unwilling to compromise on things is, by nature, extreme.

I find personal values to be more important than stated values. Anyone blabbing his or her mouth about other people's failings and telling others how to live (whether this stated morality comes from the Republican Platform (Bible-based), or from the Democratic Platform (Manifesto-based) I will take issue. Dont' tell me about preserving the sanctity of marriage. Don't tell me about spreading the wealth for thos eless fortunate. A "fortunate" person is merely one who can get paid by another person for a good or service. I am making myself "fortunate" by doing so. Other "fortunate" people can be of service to me, and I will hire them.

How about a person who says how he will do things. Remember the movie "Dave?" He proposed a bold and sweeping jobs program that was supposed to be awesome. It was classic politics - he didn't say HOW it would be done. Just that everyone should have a job. Rah rah...

Above all, in the words of Malcolm X, is a person who can "talk right down to earth in a language we can all understand."

I see TWO people on the national scene who are "good" candidates, in my book. One is Ron Paul. He says it, and he means it.

The second is Obama - the guy says the unpopular truth, and tells it like it is.

These are candidates with integrity. They say it like they think it and hope they'll get elected. They are not saying what they say to be carefully tailored to get elected. They are sayign what they actually plan to do.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Someone who doesn't really want to be one!! but does it out of a sense of duty and respect for their country and people.

I like this type of altruism the best. But there's a catch 22 to this. There is a lifetime amount of work and dedication involved just to get nominated that no one will do for others. You have to really want it and persue the candidacy by yourself.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

What troubles me the most is that there's an all too often realized risk of actually believing and living the images one seems to have to project about themselves to get into the office.

The only images I'd prescribe people maintain for themselves, consequently believing and living them (the POTUS included,) would be having a sense of humor about life and being reasonable. These two things really go a long way.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I see TWO people on the national scene who are "good" candidates, in my book. One is Ron Paul. He says it, and he means it.

The second is Obama - the guy says the unpopular truth, and tells it like it is.

These are candidates with integrity. They say it like they think it and hope they'll get elected. They are not saying what they say to be carefully tailored to get elected. They are sayign what they actually plan to do.

What he said, and I tip my hat to the same two candidates.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)