Presidential Qualities

Very cute lines. Speaking of UFO's, there have been polls that indicate people believe in them, you know, so just because you guys think your guys are winning the elections, don't mean nothin. Seems ignorance is widely prevalant. I heard that a fifth of the British teenagers believe Sir Winston Churchill was a fictional character, while many think Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur and Eleanor Rigby were real, a survey shows.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/04/nhistory104.xml

Asherman, good to see you. Good timing on this post, especially, given the increased time window of campaign afforded the American public which allows greater in depth examination of the candidates standing for their respective party's nomination, if one is so inclined. But, shouldn't we be? Is it too much to ask of Americans to be more involved in this decision? Too much to ask when so much is at stake?

Using Asherman's criteria only one candidate now standing pops out for me, but even there I have some reservations. These revolve around his responsibility for McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform", but even given this he seems to realize this bill's unintended consequences--perhaps he will recognize the wisdom of the founders and work to change this "reform". If doubtful, witness Sen. McCain's turn-around on his opposition to Bush Tax cuts.

Asherman's Presidential imperatives can be distilled down to three responsibilities:

1. Defense of the U.S. Constitution
2. Defining and pursuit of America's National Interests
3. Guaranteeing the continuance of Americans' "Happiness"

The first legitimizes his existence the second continues it. This is not taken in the concept of his personal power but reflects his responsibility to the American people that the third promise is kept. Happiness is in quotes and refers not to constant partying but the Declaration of Independence implication that U.S. citizens will be free to, well, pursue it, "It" being defined by each individual within the context of family, commerce, and the law.

This concept of power residing in the individual was what was so revolutionary at its time. Even the Articles of Confederation recognized the sovereignty of the states and not the individual as the base of its legitimacy.

I must emphasize that the first and foremost object of foreign diplomacy should be America's National Interests, call it what you want, damn it or praise it. If we don't perform due diligence here we may as well start to learn a new language If the Islamic extremist have their way we won't even have that to worry about. Additionally, it is not necessary or even helpful to try to understand why those whose reason for living (or self destruction) hate us.


Asherman wrote:

But this is the Madisonian wisdom of the founders, the respect and protection of minority opinion. This is why Sen. Obama's Rodney King like "Why can't we all just get along?" bipartisan message seems unpromising if not just plain unrealistic. Bipartisanship only appears when both parties see there is only one course of action or are forced into an existentialistic decision by outside forces, economic or foreign.


America became a great country because the individual was recognized all the way down the line. Within lawful context, individual freedoms are rightfully balanced with individual responsibility. One could make the argument that there has been a slow erosion of both. We should protect the former and promote the latter and keep our democratic meritocracy.


JM

It looks as though Romney, a very competent guy, is insufficiently nutty to get the Rep nomination. McC is more in tune with the likes of GWB, Reagan, Nixon, Agnew, and Quayle. Wow, what is it with the conservative mind?

GWB is really underappreciated. He is gracious enough to leave us with massive budget and trade deficits, a decrease in healthcare coverage, a war with no end in sight, and continued tax cuts for his fat-cat cronies.

The independents and so called moderates have put McCain where he is today, Advocate, not conservative voters.

James Morrison, one big correction, a president cannot guarantee anyone's happiness, but he should try to preserve the right to pursue it, thats the extent of what he can do. There are no gurantees and no constitutional rights in regard to that. This may seem like a trivial point, but some politicians believe its the government's fault if they don't succeed.

It was mostly the right that put McCain forward. After all, much of the moderate and independent people went Dem in the primaries.

I a" notorious" Gandhi supporter
and the famouse Jew Karl marx upholder
have no fear to expose the compassionate, congenial, corporate-controlled co-runners( Co-Runnuner means civilion without civil/moral scruples).

Preach not sermons to me of which I have enough education.
Pour forth your critical views so that i can refurbish my language.

Advocate, Ramafuchs...

Please don't high-jack the thread with your partisan comments.

So far, most of the comments have been, as requested, directed to a discussion of what qualities we as voters look for in our quest for the next President of the United States. It shouldn't matter for the purposes of this discussion how the current candidates "stack-up" to those desirable qualities. It's fair to say, I think that no candidate will ever be found who has every one of the desirable qualities. Why should we expect any politician to be more perfect than we are ourselves?

I began the thread with the qualities that seem to me important in selecting a President for the United States. Thats not an exhaustive listing, and not every person posting here is expected to agree with the qualities I've listed. A2K participants tend to be a politically zealous lot, so what we are looking for here is to discover what we each think are the most important qualities in a U.S. President.

I don't suppose that we can avoid some reference, compare and contrast to the current field of candidates, but let's at least try to keep that to a minimum and used only to illustrate our points.

Libs and conservatives would have different views on this issue. Thus, partisanship is unavoidable.

Asherman, please try to summarize a bit. You are a bit long-winded, which brings on boredom.

Advocate,

This forum is brimming over with threads where partisanship is the order of the day. This thread seeks to rise above that to discuss merely the qualities we would like to have in any President of the United States. The current contest is mostly irrelevant to the topic and discussion.

That there will be a wide range of desirable qualities is expected, and both liberals and conservatives are welcome to list and argue for their particular list of ideal qualities.

Either list the qualities you personally would like to see in a President, directly discuss other's lists in a civil manner, or to somewhere else to beat your partisan drum. Is that clear and succinct enough for you?

If you are bored by my efforts to clearly present my ideas and the rational behind them, don't read them. Personally, I place more value on comments that reflect the personal beliefs rather than cut-and-paste jobs, or unsupported partisan diatribes. Your personal hatreds have been shared with us repeatedly, so that is boring to me and I seldom read your contributions any more. Why not try and change your approach for a little while and just give us your own thoughts on what ideal qualities a President should have?

Sorry
This thread is about Presidential qualities.
I had tried to express my views. NOn-Violence and social justice( I had mentioned Gandhi and Karl Marx)
You are not alone in this world who seek qualities which are rare products now-a-days.
My appologies are there If I had degraded your thread with my banal comments which was unintentional.
Let me follow your threads without my comments.
Regards
Rama

Ramafuchs,

I apologize if I misunderstood your comments.

That a U.S. President be dedicated to non-violence would disqualify him/her from Office, since one of the President's primary responsibilities is to be the Commander-in-Chief of the all U.S. military forces. While non-violence may be admirable quality in many, it would be inappropriate to a U.S. President.

A candidate who did not value "social justice", would probably never gain enough support to appear on our political horizon. The problem is what is meant by"social justice"? This is a term that can mean almost anything a candidate wants it to mean. For instance, one candidate might support almost draconian enforcement of our borders against illegal entry, and claim his position is based on"social justice". The opponent could also argue that a wide open border represents "social justice".

You seem to associate "social justice" primarily with Karl Marx. I seem to remember you proudly declaring that you remain a dedicated Communist. Do you intend the Marxist axiom, "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs", as "social justice"? If so, then desiring Presidential candidates to be Communists, would also be a disqualifying quality or trait. Why? Because the President of the United States is sworn to up hold the Constitution, and that Constitution is decidedly NOT-Marxist. For a Presidential candidate to be a Marxist, would undermine the very system they seek to exploit.

I read your above response with rapt attention.
I will follow the views of others .
Accept my thanks and i also uphold the supine, sublime value of qualities.
Respects.
Rama

Asherman
I don't know who had said this.

Some are born great.
Some achieve greatness by dint of hard work
while
for some others greatness is thrust upon them.

Are you of the opinion that the Amercan Presidents belongs to the middle class?
( I mean they achieve quality and greatness thro hard work!)

Let me stick to the word "quality"
and let me beg you the definition of the word "quality"

Asherman:


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

I couldn't help but notice that you started this thread in the "Politics" forum. Politics is all about partisanship.

BTW, I respond in kind. Perhaps I shouldn't do this, but so be it.

Ramafuchs,

I don't believe anyone is born great. Greatness is something achieved in life. Hard work, initiative, etc. are all certainly components of greatness, but luck is also a factor. Those who are worthy of greatness have certain qualities gained through the choices they made in life and the character they develop from facing adversity. Even with all those sterling qualities, without good fortune a worthy may never come to public notice. Others with lessor character, competence, and capability may rise to great heights in the world yet never be great.

The following definition is pretty good. The text in light olive isn't really relevant to our discussion. Of the blue text, that which I've underlined is most on point.

quality[noun]

Etymology:Date: 14th century

1 a: peculiar and essential character: nature b: an inherent feature, or property c: capacity or role

2 a: degree of excellence: grade b: superiority in kind

3 a: social status: rank b: aristocracy

4 a: a distinguishing attribute, characteristic, acquired skill, or accomplishment
[/u]
5: the character in a logical proposition of being affirmative or negative

6: vividness of hue

7 a: timbre b: the identifying character of a vowel sound determined chiefly by the resonance of the vocal chambers in uttering it

8: the attribute of an elementary sensation that makes it fundamentally unlike any other sensation

Synonyms: quality, property, character, attribute mean an intelligible feature by which a thing may be identified. Quality is a general term applicable to any trait or characteristic whether individual or generic. Property implies a characteristic that belongs to a thing's essential nature and may be used to describe a type or species. Character applies to a peculiar and distinctive quality of a thing or a class. attribute implies a quality ascribed to a thing or a being.

Greatness is something achieved in life.
Hard work, initiative, etc. are all certainly components of greatness.

Thanks a lot.
Let me not repudiate your views though, mine is different from that of yours.
Quality is rarely a product which one should seek elsewhere.

Quality of American President is dismal if not despicable.

Ask Nelson Mandela( One dollor President)

Should i mention some more quality PRESIDENT?

No Ramafuchs. The question here is specific. What do your regard as ideal qualities for a U.S. President to possess? You've suggested the non-violence of Mahatma, and the social justice of Karl Marx. Those may be acceptable qualities for some national leaders, but they are antithetical to the Constitutional system of the United States. I really doubt that any candidate whose primary goal would be to replace the Constitution with a communist system would do well in our system. Gus Hall, a Communist, ran for U.S. President many times and was basically a running joke.

If you think of other "ideal qualities" for us to look for in our quest for a Presidential leader, let us know.

BTW, "quality" is one of the essentials one looks for in every selection we make. For instance, you may choose to buy a pair of shoes that are inexpensive, but of low quality. Or you might choose a very good quality of shoes that are more costly. Which is better? The answer, of course is subjective and dependent upon what result you desire. Personally, I always choose the very best quality I can afford, and I give my political support to that candidate with the best qualities I can discover. The qualities I look for in a Presidential candidate are listed at the head of this thread.

Advocate...

"Either list the qualities you personally would like to see in a President, directly discuss other's lists in a civil manner, or go somewhere else to beat your partisan drum. Is that clear and succinct enough for you?"[/size]

Quality I seek elsewhere and entertainment I look USA's selction of the next occupant of WH.

I am extremely sorry sir that i had made some remarks which are not so congenial.
let me be a critical Gandhi or karl marx( if not both)

Look, Ramafuchs, we all understand that you hold the United States and its government in contempt. As a Communist, that's understandable, but not relevant to the topic under discussion. What I'm trying to encourage here is a discussion primarily among Americans about how we choose which of the contending candidates to support. Whether one regards Gandhi and Marx as heroes isn't relevant. Whether you approve or disapprove of ANY U.S. President isn't relevant.

What qualities in a candidate for the US Presidency would persuade and induce you to support him/her?