President-elect in '08

I think there are several reasons. Some do just want power (i'm thinking of Hillary here). Others probably just want the prestige - you can't remember who was in charge of what 200 years ago except for the president (Jefferson). Yet others do it for more altruistic reasons - they see something that is clearly broke and they want to fix it. They look at the options, and they don't see anyone they think that has the strength, the stamina, or the will power to stand up and fix the problems Bush has created. So this type of person will run solely to fix the problems. And when his term(s) are finished and he's done what he can to fix the nation, he'll take after some of the great leaders in history - George Washington, the Roman General Cincinnatus, etc - and retire, only to come back out if his country needs him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 26 2007, 10:13 AM) [snapback]381071[/snapback]</div>

A lot of people want it and for various reasons:
those seeking power --- Hillary
those doing it to maintain the system - Edwards
those doing it based on new found popularity - Obama Hussein Barak
those doing it for Country - Rudy
those doing it because they are expected to - McCain

p.s. - the country is not in dire straights - a strong economy, no terror attacks since 9/11 on HOME soil, constitutionally granted rights intact, etc, etc. Where is the direness here?

And if you posit the country is in such dire straights - maybe a person who wants to become President wants to fix it?

Amazing how this country and this way of governance seems to self balance and self correct and move forward over the past quarter millenium - why do you think it would stop all of a sudden?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 26 2007, 09:27 AM) [snapback]381080[/snapback]</div>

First - strong economy has been debunked over and over again - everytime you bring it up, it pretty much just makes people ignore any other argument you may be posing.

Second - how many foreign terrorist attacks were there on HOME soil prior to 9/11?

Third - which rights would those be? since 9/11 the government has encroached on our freedoms and attempted to circumvent an individuals right to unlawful search and seizure by tapping people without prior judicial approval and by attempting to open peoples mail.

Fourth - your republican bias is abundantly clear in your post. Democrats are painted as "bad" people, while the republicans are the ones doing it for altruistic reasons... riiiiiiight. Good luck trying to prove that one.

As for moving forward... well, we were, until Bush stepped in. He unilaterally decided that it was time for America to start enforcing policy around the world, to defy UN intentions, and to alienate our allies. Lots of progress there.

 

OK, if Dr. Poodle is going to ignore all the arguments against the lies he keeps spewing, he's now back on my ignore list. He was there before; I forgot why I took him off in the first place.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 26 2007, 07:27 AM) [snapback]381080[/snapback]</div>

Doberman you are a sad and pathetic little man. I just finished a very polite response to your request that people not call you a dog. Then in the very next thread you inflamitorily list Barak's full name (but no other) as a way to incite. You know, I was wrong in my last post in (sort of ) defending you. You are as others have said. An insult to the canine species. A mutt of indeterminate parentage has more dignity than you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 26 2007, 07:13 AM) [snapback]381071[/snapback]</div>

Say it long and loud enough and the sheeple, on the left anyway, will believe it. :lol:

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 26 2007, 11:54 AM) [snapback]381202[/snapback]</div>

and if the president says it long enough and loud enough the sheeple on the right will believe it.

"Victory in Iraq!"
"Good Economy"
"Balanced Budget"

need i go on?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 26 2007, 09:54 AM) [snapback]381202[/snapback]</div>

Are yew calling the lamb black?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 26 2007, 07:13 AM) [snapback]381071[/snapback]</div>

Politics is an all-consuming passion. Regardless of a person's motives for making it his/her career, it becomes an end in itself, and it becomes a career that is difficult to abandon as long as one is rising. Appointed officials may often go back and forth between politcs and business, but elected officials seldom retire unless forced.

I knew a man who entered city politics in Grand Forks, North Dakota. He was young and idealistic in the beginning, but with the passage of years he realized that one man could not make a difference. But by the time he understood this, he felt he was too old to change careers. And this was small-city politics. How much harder for a politician of national prominance to resist the calls of his supporters to take a shot at the highest office in the land!

And they always think they can make a diference. Whether it's Obama, believing he can reverse the deterioration of civil rights and the living standards of the poor, or Clinton, believing that she can make a difference in health care and women's rights, or Bush, believing that he can overthrow the separation of church and state, and establish Christianity as the official national religion while playing cowboy, they all believe they can make some difference, and the calls of their supporters to run is more powerful than any misgivings they might feel regarding the daunting task they face. And the lust for power is strong, or they'd never have entered the dog-eat-dog world of poliitcs in the first place.

I once thought it would be cool to run for the state legislature in North Dakota. But as soon as I realized what's really involved in campaigning for office, even in a rural district in a rural state, I said the heck with that. And before I moved here, I was on the campaign committee of a friend, and now I'd never even consider politics. It takes a particular kind of person.

Douglass Adams said that nobody who wants to be president should ever be permitted to be. Basically, I agree with that. The personality qualities needed to get elected are incompatible with the characteristics needed to be a good president.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 26 2007, 08:13 AM) [snapback]381071[/snapback]</div>

It's really the ideal job. There's nothing better than taking on a managerial position in an organization that is really screwed up. It's hard not to be looked on as a hero as you redevelop the situation back to some semblance of sanity and beyond. What is hard is taking over a department/organization/country/whatever that is working well. To follow in the footsteps of a good leader is hard. In following the footsteps of George W. Bush it'll be awfully hard NOT to be recognized as a really good leader by comparison.

 

Given the fact that you will be criticized by all and disparaged by all and, even if you are loved for awhile, ONE mistake even would get you crucified, I have to ask, "who would want their name smeared in the mud?" and become a national leader (or any leader). Oh, I know, someone who already has his name smeared and won't miss a thing.

Colin Powell is one who knows it would never be worth it.

I firmly believe we wil always have the gov't WE deserve.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 26 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]381164[/snapback]</div>

No only does Obama get the attack of the ONLY one with their full name used, but he can't even get it right.

The guys FIRST name is Barak. His LAST name is Obama. If you're going to smear the guy, can you at least get his name in the right order?

Then there's Hillary. The woman is referred to by her first name. A little not so subtle backslap there. The men get the respect of being identified with their last names in a business-like manner. But the little woman gets her first name and the black guy gets the "serial killer three name treatment" just so you can keep shoving HUSSEIN in everyone's face. Real subtle there. I suppose you refer to Hillary by her first name so as not to confuse her with her husband Bill, whose last name is also Clinton. Because none of us knows that Bill Clinton CAN'T RUN FOR PRESIDENT and Hillary is the one that's running.

Ah, Rudy. Rudy is also referred to by his first name. Why? Is it because Giuliani sounds too ethnic and in order to make him more "white", use his first name instead? Why isn't he Giuliani along with McCain and Edwards?

Which brings us back to why isn't it just Obama? Is there ANOTHER Obama running for President?

DbermanMD...you are such a racist bigot. And you don't seem to get a clue how black this paints the entire Republican party. You are the incentive poster child for why people should register and vote Democrat. Go buy the Help! Mom! books and read them to your grandkids. You are the market that nazi propaganda is aimed at.

You're an affront to the Medical profession as well. I still can't believe such a card carrying bigot can have a viable practice. I realize the AMA doesn't regulate the politics of it's members. But I find it hard to believe such a racist bigot as yourself can remain impartial when treating patients. I cannot believe it does not impact your treatment of patients. That maybe you don't pay as close attention when they talk. Or dismiss some complaints. Or get careless. I suspect in your practice that if any blacks or "liberals" see you as patients, they would not get the same treatment as the white Republicans. I truly believe this NeoCon mindset of yours makes you a bad doctor.

I'm with MarinJohn. I used to own a Doberman/Labrador mix and I would never insult the memory of my sweet puppy by associating his breed with you. In fact, it would be an insult to all dogs.

 

Oh my. Let's see, the original question was not "who is the biggest bastard" but "why would anyone want to run for President when the country has so many problems." And I'll give you the right answer, without insulting anyone.

Because they honestly, truly believe they can make a difference for the country. They love the United States, and have chosen to try and make a difference. They feel the call even more strongly now if they think the country is on the wrong path, or is in danger of going down the wrong path if the wrong person gets it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 26 2007, 03:09 PM) [snapback]381390[/snapback]</div>

Wow. Talk about drinking the KoolAid. How about a little decency. I think you're reading a bit much into things here and going a bit far in your attack. Which for you Godiva, though I don't always agree with you, I must say seems a bit out of character.

Anyway, my answer - every 4 years the country is in dire straits, depending on which party you support. Let's face it, for politicians there is always a crisis and they (whoever they are) are the only ones who can solve it. It's gotta be an ego thing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 26 2007, 07:13 AM) [snapback]381071[/snapback]</div>

I think he wanted it really bad but finally realized the country didn't want him so he would be the best person to ask? . . .

[attachmentid=6345]
http://www.townhall.com/funnies/2007/01/27/

Wildkow

p.s. fshagen agreed, but I think the aspect of power is an incentive and more often than not the two are co-joined Jeckel & Hyde twins.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 26 2007, 10:44 PM) [snapback]381574[/snapback]</div>

In our system, the power attraction isn't "absolute" because no one person has all the power, so I think the core motivation still has to be that they really think they can make a difference. Its not like they are running for dictator; they are running for a "first among equals" position that has the same range and limits of power as other high constitutional offices (Chief Justice, Speaker of the House, Majority Leader in the Senate).

There may be some "achievement" goals wrapped up in it, in the same way a runner wants to be the fastest, or a sports team wants to win the championship. But even then, they are doing it for altruistic reasons.

Oh, and Godiva, "Obama" is called that because "Barak" is hard to remember, and Hillary is called Hillary because one of the 20th century's smartest politicians had the same last name. It isn't some evil anti-black or woman thing (in most cases). No one even cares that Hillary is black and Obama is a woman (or something like that.)

Did you hear that polling among the "black community" shows Senator Clinton out in front of Sen. Obama? Bill Clinton was called "the first black president" by some, and I think that loyalty is translating to the Senator. I think that speaks volumes about our assumptions (at least mine; I had assumed a viable black candidate would automatically garner the majority of the black vote. I'm delighted to be proven wrong).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 26 2007, 09:55 AM) [snapback]381203[/snapback]</div>

You must if you want the sheeple to believe the lefts lies that those are not his intentions or the facts.

Wildkow