September 27, 2004
What Do I Want Out of a President?
People want more than just negative stuff. I guess the extent I can be positive, when my candidate is a challenger, is to make my audience aware of what I see as the qualities I like in a president. And so, Let me share with you my ideas of those ideals, those exemplary qualities I seek.
First, I want a president who seems wiser and more mature than I am myself. Second, I want a president who has broader intellectual experience than just what he hears from his advisors, who himself has the experience, or at least the education to discern things for himself. Third, I want a president willing to listen to those advisors who are not favorites or yes-men. Fourth, I want a president who is willing to scrap his view of things and rebuild from square one, if his current picture of the world is not bearing out.
I want a president who is prepared to deal with the failure of his plans, who isn't so committed to them as to try and force their success when it doesn't come naturally. I want a president who doesn't wuss out halfway through getting tough with the enemy. I want a president whose approach to diplomacy doesn't end when the other people don't give him exactly what he wants.
I want a president who doesn't revise his description of his original cause for action when those motivating factors turn out not to exist. I want a president willing to take a hit on having made a mistake, whose belief in himself and confidence in his actions are tempered by an understanding of his own fallibility.
I don't mind that Kerry's a politician. I've long since given up on the idea of politics being a purifiable profession. It's too human, too fraught with the inevitable differences of opinion and viewpoint. But I want my politicians not to be phobic about being human beings, about who they are and what their status is in life. Kerry doesn't claim to be what he's not- working class. He enjoys his wealth, has his fun.
In the end, I won't vote for Kerry out of desperation. I'll vote for him because he is the closest of either of the two candidates to what I want in a President. I'm sick of choosing presidents in a fashion enslaved to mere image. I want a man in that office capable of thinking for himself, and not getting himself in trouble by doing that. Kerry seems to be the guy with the intelligence to do that.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at September 27, 2004 11:14 PMWell, it seems like the first three on your list definitely describe Bush.
As for the fourth, that certainly seems to describe Kerry. He has sure scrapped everything and started from scrath a number of times. Personally, I prefer a president who has the principles to knows what he wants to do and DO it without being overwhelmed by every setback (especially when one of the setbacks is nothing but the partisan attacks of domestic poltical enemies).
Posted by: Martin at September 27, 2004 11:21 PMMartin,
Thanks for the laugh.
SD,
I want a president that understands the simple fact that America can not “Rule The World.” No, America must lead the international community to a better way of living while respecting the different cultures and customs of each nation.
I want a president that knows how to use brut deadly force when necessary to prove a point.
I want a president that understands that the Middle East problems can not be left alone and the role of America is not to take sides on the debate, but to force the two sides to talk about the differences and work out a solution.
But, must of all I want a president that can multi-task on the issues that face this nation and work to build a more prefect nation, ensure domestic tranquility, and provide for the common defense of our nation. In plain English, uphold his constitutional dutys.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 28, 2004 12:31 AMStephen:
With all due respect, it appears to me that you crafted your list with your specific vision of Kerry’s qualifications in mind. You pretend that the list was formed prior, and Kerry just happens to match to your list. While you see him in that light, many see him far differently.
I want a president who is unafraid to make decisions. I want a President who doesn’t straddle both sides of an issue, while waiting for the political winds to tell him which position has the most political benefit.
I want a President who is resolute enough to follow through on tough decisions, and who won’t cave in at the first signs of difficulty.
I want a President who believes consistently in the valor of our military men and women, and who wont waver in that belief. I want a President who, when given authority, has the courage to act upon it, rather than do nothing about it and then comnplain when others are forced to deal with the consequences.
John Kerry could have played a vital role in revamping our intelligence gathering capabilities in the decade before 9-11. But he missed over 75% of the public Senate Intelligence Meetings. He then has had the gall to complain about intelligence failures, and even more gall to suggest that he could improve our intelligence gathering. The question is: Mr. Kerry, you had 10 years to do something about it—where were you?
John Kerry says he is against the death penalty, but supports executing people if the crime rises to a high enough level. John Kerry says life begins at conception, but supports the right of those who want to end that life. These are not complicated issues, but Kerry’s tortured logic makes them appear as such.
John Kerry is a fine political speaker, but when he is finished, one wonders where he stands. George Bush is not the most articulate man, but when he speaks, everyone knows his position. And this is why George Bush deserves to be President.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 28, 2004 01:23 AMThanks Stephen. I’m seeing some inspirational writing over here.
It’s kind of sad the Bush fans are coming back with the predictable, “you’re really describing Bush” and “that’s not the way the conservative media describes Kerry” responses.
I want a president who is unafraid to make decisions.
Any idiot can make a decision. The trick is to consistently make the correct decisions.
Bush is not all that wise a man. Does alienating the UN and the European powers now seem so wise to you, now that your president is in the begging and pleading line for help?
As for broad intellectual experience, since when has Bush made that a trademark of his behavior? You guys don’t even like to say that he’s capable of nuance. And really, he was taught foreign policy by the same people he employs to execute it now. As for listening to people other than his favorites and his yes men, you should read The Price of Loyalty or Worse Than Watergate
As for experience, or education, I’m sorry, you picked a MBA for president who could run a company on his own.
As I said, I don’t mind a president who’s something of a politician. What I mind is a fellow who tries to hide what he is. Bush is a long time political partisan. If you remember, he went AWOL in order to run a political campaign. He’s the one who reached out to evangelical voters on behalf of his father in 1988. He’s run some admittedly effective campaigns in the past, and he’s proven more than adept at going back on promises, and completely reversing himself, not just on technicalities for appropriations bills, but on the actual creation of the Homeland Security Department, of the 9/11 Commission. And yet he tries to fix himself as the North Star of integrity. He’s a politician, just like Kerry. He should admit to that. That and a thousand other things. I mean, your president has to be responsible for something. At this point, Dan Rather has apologized more than Bush has in his entire term.
Bush’s favorite philosopher once said to Take the log out of your eye before you try taking the speck out of somebody else’s. You shouldn’t be blinded by your own error trying to call us on ours.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2004 02:22 AMJoe-
Part of it is a wishlist for Kerry, but for the most part, it is what I miss in a president. Long before Kerry became the obvious front runner, I believed these things missing.
I want a president who’s decisiveness is balanced by patience and wisdom Any idiot can be unafraid to make a decision. It takes the best to be able to comfortably wield the power of the office.
I want a President who is resolute enough to follow through on tough decisions, and who won’t cave in at the first signs of difficulty.
You can’t be speaking about the president, because he committed troops to an attack on Fallujah, then drew them back halfway through it, the mission unfinished. Same thing in Najaf. Bush says many bold things, but he doesn’t act them out.
I want a President who believes consistently in the valor of our military men and women, and who wont waver in that belief. I want a President who, when given authority, has the courage to act upon it, rather than do nothing about it and then comnplain when others are forced to deal with the consequences.
I want a president who honors the valor and the courage of his soldiers by giving them the strategies, the logisitical support, and the international cooperation to do the job right, and by not putting their lives on the line for the theories of a minority faction in the defense establishment. I want a president who when he is given authority uses it as the law prescribes for him to do, and who doesn’t hide behind moved goalposts and nuanced redefinitions of mission in order to hide from the consequences of his actions.
He then has had the gall to complain about intelligence failures, and even more gall to suggest that he could improve our intelligence gathering.
And Bush supporters have the gall to suggest that with intelligence failures under his watch killing thousands of Americans that Kerry’s simple plea that Bush follow the blueprint laid out by the bi-partisan 9/11 commission constitutes gall itself. They also neglect that Bush is Oh for Two on the wisdom of his decisions regarding the intelligence failures.
One, he sunk counterterrorism as a priority, two, he turned his administration’s fixation on finishing his father’s job into a priority from day one. And it still is.
You repeat the flip-flop line over and again, not seeing that Bush’s positions aren’t inconsistent, they just don’t present themselves for easy categorization.
In real life decisions are not black and white. That is why Bush doesn’t deserve to be president. He won’t let the truth get in the way of his story.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2004 02:50 AMStephen:
I want a president who is prepared to deal with the failure of his plans, who isn’t so committed to them as to try and force their success when it doesn’t come naturally.
You can’t be speaking about the president, because he committed troops to an attack on Fallujah, then drew them back halfway through it, the mission unfinished. Same thing in Najaf.
In the two above statements from your posts, you take Bush to task on two diametrically opposed arguments. You first claim he is too stubborn to ever change his strategies in the light of new information. Your second claim blames Bush for having changed his strategies in the light of new information. So which of these two opposing arguments do you prefer to stand by.
I’m sure that as a supporter of John Kerry, you will be able to find some middle ground that allows you to defend both opposing arguments at the same time.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 28, 2004 08:01 AMI don’t have to reconcile such apparent contradictions because such half-hearted, half-committed measures are representative of Bush’s approach to the war as a whole.
And I never said that he pulled our troops because of new information. I think he pulled them because the death tolls to take the city would be a political liability. There’s no policy for Bush but politics.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2004 09:42 AMSD: You just eliminated kerry, Bush and nader. Who should we vote for?
Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2004 09:43 AMStephen:
I sometimes fear you will stop at nothing in your attempts to justify your arguments. I did not, then, expect such a completely dismissive unwillingness to address the contradictions in your own statements.
You add another contradiction in your position by claiming that Bush makes “half hearted, half committed measures”. You’ve previously taken Bush to task for being too aggressive and now you take him to task for being too passive. Again, which is it?
I know that it has become “in vogue” for Democrats to play both sides of the fence these days, following in the footsteps of their candidate. But really, it only leads to confusion. Is Bush an evil genius or a stupid dolt— the left claims both. Is Bush too dogmatic or is he a flip-flopper? The left claims both. How can he be as dumb as they say, yet still be a great debater, as Terry McAuliffe has stated?
Its time to pick a direction, rather than meandering in the grassy knoll between the highway. You can choose whichever direction you please, but taking two steps forward followed by two steps backwards leaves you in the same old place. Its kinda like betting $5 bucks on each of two football teams who are playing each other—while you dont ever really lose, you NEVER win.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 28, 2004 04:49 PMJoe-
That’s not contradiction, it’s modification.
Bush is consistent in not living up to his promises, his claims, his duties. He will boldly proclaim them, proclaim his virtues, but then, he will fall short. That’s my opinion of him, my position. As far as his strategy goes, it seems Bush is trying to outwait the insurgents, while our soldiers die and more territory falls under enemy control. Do you honestly think the insurgents will give up then, having continued long beyond the handover and the capture of Saddam?
Do you think it was a wise idea to commit to Fallujah, but not follow through all the way? I mean, your people carp in such a paranoid fashion about what people here say on the media sending mixed messages, but how about the messages sent by our allowing the looters to run riot, or by the withdrawal from Fallujah and Najaf? Actions speak louder than words, and Bush’s inconsistency on the Battlefield have wrought more damage than any strong position taken with in the American political system and the media possibly could have.
I know my position. I am for the War’s successful conclusion. I believe Bush was wrong for allowing his fixation on Iraq and that of his advisors get in the way of a balanced, critically thought out examination of which way the war on terror should go next. I believe he was wrong in alienating the European powers so openly and so brazenly. I believe he was wrong for not making the planning Iraq more intense, comprehensive and prepared for contingencies beyond the best case scenario.
I believe he has great political insincts, but unfortunately a contempt for the average person’s right to know, and his necessity to explain his actions as an elected leader. He is balanced between the impulses of a political dogmatist and a political survivalist, which means he’ll hold openly hardline positions, then contradict himself if it hurts him too much at the polls. What makes this worse is that usually, when he contradicts himself, he works his usual damage on what he revises. That’s where you get these environmental bills that gut regulations, but have names like “Healthy Forests”.
And I guess that gets to the heart of it. Too me, Bush is a hardliner in moderate’s clothing, a person so extreme in their opinions that they are willing to go to great lengths of deceit with the public to get their wishes. That’s what disgusts and offends me the most about him.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2004 06:33 PMSo, why is jobagodonuts commenting on the Left side to gum up any discussion with such constant total opposing views? The Right side awaits.
Posted by: Alex at September 28, 2004 09:54 PMAnd I never said that he pulled our troops because of new information. I think he pulled them because the death tolls to take the city would be a political liability. There’s no policy for Bush but politics.
That’s pretty obvious. When Bush’s poll numbers started plummeting after the Marines suffered a few casualties in Fallujah, Bush turned to jelly and called them off.
That’s the same reason the new offensive to retake the “no-go” zones doesn’t start until after the election.
I hope the next president decides to work on
education,the economy,social secureity,healthcare
and unemployment.And also the jail and prison and
prison system.
The next president needs to work on,education,healthcare,social security,homeland
security,unemployment,medicare&medicade,and the jail&prison system & also the economy.
Trish!
Posted by: Trish at September 29, 2004 03:59 PMI want a president with a concious. I want a president with the courage to do what is right for all people, especially the people in america.
I want a president who doesn’t represent special interest groups and doesn’t commit mass murder to satisfy the good old boys that are ruining this country.
I believe a house divided cannot stand. As long as the republicans blame the democrats and vice versa, and this immature pyschological game continues we are lost.
I want a nuetral non partisan leader to protect all people, especially americans, and mother nature.
I want people to stop watching the news. I want people to turn it off. i want people to demand the truth. I want a revolution. I want a movement.
thankyou again oprah for all you do!!!!!
I WANT ALL THE LAZY SPOILED BLIND AMERICANS IDIOTS THAT THINK THEY ARE SO SMART TO GET UP OFF THERE ASSES AND VOTE. TO PAY ATTENTION TO HOW THEY LIVE, WHAT THEY CONSUME, AND WHERE IT ALL BEGINS AND ENDS.
OUR CURRENT LEADERS have ABSOLUTELY NO CONCIOUS.
NO ONE WHO WAGES WAR FOR THE SAKE OF PROFITEERING COULD POSSIBLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONSEQUENSES OF THESE CHOICES.
HMMMM.
CONSUMERS HAVE THE POWER. VOTERS HAVE THE POWER. LETS NOT LOOSE THAT.
YOU THINK WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN RUSSIA, OR KOSOVO, OR ANYWHERE ELSE CANNOT HAPPEN HERE. THINK AGAIN.And it doesn’t take long. 20 years, 60 years, 4 years……
Like Cameron Dias said- we are all alone. America stands all alone on this planet now, thanks to our arrogant, ruthless, greedy leader and his peers. It appears the rest of the world agrees that America may be the REAL TERRORISTS.
Land of the proud the brave the free…. I think not. We are not only apathedic, but pathedic.
May God help us all.
I have to admit I didn’t read all of the comments responding to Mr. Daugherty’s essay- perhaps my response will be redundant.
On this I am sure we can all agree regardless of our political affiliation, gender, socioeconomic level, profession, educational background, marital status, sexual orientation, or religious association:
We want a FAIR MINDED LEADER who represents his/her country and his/her countrymen and women with the realization his/her personal views and experiences are not worthy of becoming this country’s social norm, or worse - law.
I believe Mr. Kerry would put into place and maintain all measures to protect this country from foriegn threats.
I believe Mr. Kerry would be interested and active in supporting a brisk and growing economy.
I believe Mr. Kerry would work to educate any person who wishes to be educated.
I believe Mr. Kerry would protect our civil liberties from further erosion under the guise of safety and security.
I believe Mr. Kerry would do many things to return this country to some form of happiness vs. nourish fear, mistrust, and scapegoating.
Perhaps I am way wrong and Mr. Kerry would have an absolute horror of a term! I am, however, very willing to take that
chance. Naming Mr. Bush as Secretary of State in the Kerry administration might be a nice bit of justice. He could be charged with “mucking the stall” he has singlehandedly created in Iraq and making nice with our allies he has so thoughtlessly alienated, ignored, and devalued. He has treated his citizens with the same indifference.
Shucks, Tina. I’m thinking you might be on to something here. Maybe Oprah or Cameron Diaz should be president. Damn those LAZY SPOILED BLIND AMERICANS IDIOTS who refuse to turn off the news! If they weren’t so stupid, they’d know to rely on celebs like Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore for political analysis. And our leaders? Damn them to hell also. They are simply arrogant and greedy, and could learn a thing or two from the aforementioned celebs as well.
Bush and Cheney have to invade countries to make themselves rich. Cameron Diaz knows that all you have to do is give ‘em a great smile, and money will come. Bush and Cheney are like, so stupid or something.
Oprah would make a fantastic president because she would give every American citizen a free Pontiac, even if they didn’t want one. It would just be a right we would have as Americans. She could also suggest plenty of fun books(but not the sad ones). Stedman would be the First Gentleman Friend. I think it would be fun and I couldn’t imagine her getting us into gross wars and stuff. Here’s hoping for an Oprah/Diaz ticket in ‘08!!
Posted by: Bird Jenkins at September 30, 2004 01:19 AMNaming Mr. Bush as Secretary of State in the Kerry administration might be a nice bit of justice.
LOL! If I didn’t think it would give him more opportunity to give America a black eye, I’d say that was a great idea. :)
tina, I admire the sheer guts it took to quote Cameron Diaz here. You go, girl! I also think the first half of your post was spot on. Thanks!
How about a president:
Who is not an elitest.
Who knows what is like to work at least 40hrs a week but only takes home half of what they earn.
Who knows how to balance a checkbook.
Who will not raise taxes to pay for more uneeded govt. spending.
Who understands national defense does not mean fighting other peoples wars.
Who will quit sending billions of tax dollars to other countries while we still need it at home.
Who will not bow down to the U.N.
Who still believes in “country” and not “the party”
Amy: Your fair minded leader description is exactly why I could never vote for kerry. A country under kerry will be far worse than the one we have under Bush. I will not vote for Bush, but I will vote against kerry.
Your “I believe” list is your opinion and I respect that. But I am alittle confused at how you could think any of them would be any different under kerry.
One good thing though: At least half of the people still believe in a country that is still the land of the proud, brave and free. Just look at all the red states!
Posted by: kctim at September 30, 2004 10:48 AMBlue or Red, kctim, we all live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Knowing what I know, I wouldn’t want to live in any country where one could not choose one’s own political path. I’ve known people on both sides of the aisle, and known both sides of it from personal experience. As frustrating as the debate can get, they are much less frustrating than the violence, strife and injustices that would come of a nation without such choices available.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2004 12:37 PM… I pity you americans … the so called most powerful country in the world is having to choose amongst an immature and incapable man vs a selfish and desperate man to lead them…
… If only this was a choice between Al Gore vs. John McCain … ah!!! … what a race that would’ve been.
Posted by: Dean Jone at September 30, 2004 03:43 PMThank you KCTIM for your words. I find myself agreeing very much with you - you articulated in detail what I intended to state in concept. Kerry IS an elitest - I just don’t get the impression he has fascist leanings. For me, the election is a contest of perception of who is the lesser of the evils. Bush is a proven “evil” to me. Kerry, as I said, might end up having a horrific administration but not out of stubborness and arrogance. Mitch Albom wrote a piece regarding stubborness as a questionably admirable quality printed 9/26/04 and read in the Detroit Free Press. If you haven’t seen it you may find it worthy of a few minutes of your time.
I just finished watching the debate as I am sure you have. I feel more favorably toward Kerry - he was much more well spoken than I anticipated. Wow. When I read that I think I must have had exceptionally low expectations to hope for no more than
complete sentences and nicely combed hair!
Anyway, thank you for your response.
Peace, AG
Posted by: Amy Gregory at September 30, 2004 11:43 PM“I want a president who is prepared to deal with the failure of his plans, who isn’t so committed to them as to try and force their success when it doesn’t come naturally. (((I want a president who doesn’t wuss out halfway through getting tough with the enemy)). I want a president whose approach to diplomacy doesn’t end when the other people don’t give him exactly what he wants.”
well hello???????? THIS guy wrote this and the he says he will vote for KERRY… AM i blind or is he blind because IT SEEMS TO me that it is KERRY WHO IS A WUSS, wanting to RUN AWAY FROM IRAQ and NEGOTIATE with TERRORISTS.. YOU DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS it is just stupid.. AND I BELIEVE That BUSH is the stronger one… KERRY IS A WUSS, he wants to use diplomacy with everybody, his thinking is soooooo girly…
Posted by: Greg at October 13, 2004 06:29 PMoh yeah and this person writes that ” I want a president whose approach to diplomacy doesn’t end when the other people don’t give him exactly what he wants.”
you are like KERRY (FLIP FLOPing) maybe it was KERRY who wrote this post) your sentence contradicts with your sentence before, where you write you don`t want a WUSS for a president… USING diplomacy when somebody spits on you is being a WUSS…
Posted by: greg at October 13, 2004 06:33 PM
