Chris12 wrote:The gipper?
Shane Bikman wrote:Gerald Ford aka The Gipper. lol
Reidy wrote:Some mix between David Palmer in 24 and Jed Bartlett in the West Wing.
Kyle wrote:
And really, Stalin? One of the world's worst dictatorial mass-murderers who ever lived?
Shane Bikman wrote:Been thinking about this for awhile and figured I should say what I honestly believe are the traits necessary for one to be a successful president.
1) Doing what you feel is the right thing to do to stop war even in the face of international outcry.
2) Do not be afraid to help out even the most hopeless cause. Charity is the pure love of Christ.
3) Never let yourself be forced into saying things you know you will never follow through on.
4) Having a Cabinet made from the poor and the middle class instead of only the wealthy.
5) Going out of your way literally to make even your country's enemies rethink that perhaps they have wasted too much propaganda on the wrong ideas about you.
6) Not being afraid to get your hands dirty to help out at a disaster relief site.
7) Never going back on your word.Totally hardworking even during the holidays until you are forced to relax for your own health.
Yes I am very certain these traits are hard to come by in the current world but I think they are a step in the right direction.
Kyle wrote:The Gipper was Ronald Reagan, named for a movie role he had when he played Knute Rockne, legendary football coach at Notre Dame back in the early days of college football. The real Gipper was George Gipp, a player who played for Notre Dame back around World War I.
Anyway, on to the actual question...
It's a little difficult to answer this, because different issues come up in different times. Some issues, like national security and the economy, will always be there, but others are time-period specific. So on that, I'll give a few qualities, which are all necessarily vague:
-The president needs to be a leader. I figure this one is fairly self-explanatory for the most part.
-The president needs to know to listen to the right people. This one was hard for me to explain, and probably harder to do in reality. Bad advice taken by presidents has gotten this country in a lot of trouble (see Bush's advisers). That said, the president cannot do his/her job alone. That's why the Cabinet exists.
-I like the one about critically analyzing decisions, so I'll steal that one.
-The president needs to know when to step back. This one is going to be extremely difficult to ever see again, because so many people these days think the government can/should fix every little problem we have and seem to think the president can do anything. But there are times the president, and the government in general, need to step away from a problem.
And really, Stalin? One of the world's worst dictatorial mass-murderers who ever lived?
Jason Toddman wrote:Yep. I remember that clearly; I was in my 20s at the time. He had resolve, and that's vital in a President. It's one of the things I liked most about him, and one of the reasons why I *still* like him! Love him or hate him, he got shit done!!!
drawscore wrote:Jason Toddman wrote:Yep. I remember that clearly; I was in my 20s at the time. He had resolve, and that's vital in a President. It's one of the things I liked most about him, and one of the reasons why I *still* like him! Love him or hate him, he got shit done!!!
True. And very much unlike the current White House occupant. The Keystone pipeline? Obama doesn't want to make a decision on it until after the election. Bunker buster bombs for Israel? Yes, but after the election. In fact, Obama is pressuring Israel to refrain from attacking Iran until 2013.
With Obama, it's "Kick the can down the road, and either blame Bush, or let someone else worry about it."
Drawscore
Jason Toddman wrote:I might point out that you're playing the same blame game with Obama that you say I've been playing with Bush.
And in both cases it's really been a LOT more complicated than that.
The blame can be spread around quite liberally - not just to Congress but our entire system of government - and even to the voters who let it happen (that is, every one of us 18 years or older). Our two-party political system is becoming a failure, with the two political parties becoming so wide apart that no one can get anything done. I think that until we establish a multi-party system and can get some Moderates back into government who understand the fine art of compromise (which means understanding when things need to be balanced; it does NOT mean a lack of conviction for one's beliefs), things will continue to stagnate until the whole system collapses from its own weight. It's happened to other countries; and unfortunately there's absolutely NO reason why it can't happen to the USA too!
Kyle wrote: You'd need a complete overhaul of the American political system for 3 or more major parties to work out.
drawscore wrote:I think we're stuck with the two party system. If we ran three or more candidates for president, and none got the 270 electoral votes needed for election, the election of the president is tossed into the House of Representatives. Each state delegation has one vote, and it takes 26 votes to win the presidency. Since most of the representatives are either Republican or Democrat, the third party candidate has the same chance as a snowball in hell. I'm not sure what the provisions are, if the state delegations wind up tied at 25 each.