What's In A President?

[Mercy me]

I look for someone who has the courage of his convictions. The ability ito compromise is fine except that there has to be a place where a line is drawn. Abortion is an obvious example because the result is so clear. However, this principle applies across the board for me.

I have to have a leader whom I respect. If you do not stand for anything then you are just drifting in the current. That is why so many politicians are not respected. They will say anything to anyone to get what they want at that time. That is not the definition of leader. Leaders can bend and sway but they remain rooted in core beliefs.

[Socrates]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1202892' date='Feb 22 2007, 11:30 PM']Sorry Socrates, but if you think anything is done in American politics without compromise, then you are either way too naive or you have an idealism that will probably never be effective on this contenant. Now, I agree with what you said about the dignity of human life being the number 1 priority. Any policies that move us in that direction would be benificial. It would be great to vote in a candidate that was totally against abortion, euthenasia, etc. There are candidates like this, but they aren't in the front runners.

Leadership, as I understand it, isn't a totalitarian grip on your colleagues and subordinates. Leadership as I understand it is the ability to facilitate positive development in and through a group. It's very difficult in politics, because usually about 50% of the people you work with have contrary agendas. Does that mean you can't compromise with them? Absolutely not. I have opinions on economics, foreign policy, tax reform, etc., but I am willing to make compromises on those issues, [i]especially if I can improve right-to-life issues[/i].

Compromise doesn't entail compromising one's values. If you think that's what I meant, I guess you didn't read the part about integrity.[/quote]
I realize that politics involves compromising to some degree, but my point was that I think one who truly stands up for his principles (if they be good, true principles) is more of a leader than one who is simply skilled at "cutting deals" and getting along with his colleagues. Such men often lack strong principles, or are willing to forsake them for the sake of cutting a deal and being popular with everybody. Of course, if someone is incapable of getting anything past oppostion, then he will not be effective as a political leader.

My point is I think a lot of times when Democrats complain about lack of this kind of "leadership" ability, what they really mean is an unwillingless to role over to their agenda. We all want "leaders" who will do just what we tell them, of course.

And in current politics, I think in general there is not enough willingness to stand up for principle, rather than too much of it.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1203726' date='Feb 23 2007, 09:26 PM']I look for someone who has the courage of his convictions. The ability ito compromise is fine except that there has to be a place where a line is drawn. Abortion is an obvious example because the result is so clear. However, this principle applies across the board for me.

I have to have a leader whom I respect. If you do not stand for anything then you are just drifting in the current. That is why so many politicians are not respected. They will say anything to anyone to get what they want at that time. That is not the definition of leader. Leaders can bend and sway but they remain rooted in core beliefs.[/quote]

I like this understanding of leadership. :

[Mercy me]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1203893' date='Feb 24 2007, 11:27 AM']I like this understanding of leadership. :[/quote]

Thanks

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1203488' date='Feb 23 2007, 04:19 PM']

Sure! In 20 years, when you're old enough to run for president, I'll vote for you.

As long as you retain your hotness, that is.

:[/quote]

Oh I will. I'll also be the hotness President ever.

[XIX]

1) Anti-abortion (I will vote for Homer Simpson before I vote for a pro-abortion candidate like Hilary or Kerry. And no, I am not exaggerating.)
2) Pro-life on other issues (ESCR, cloning, euthanasia, death penalty, etc.)
3) In line with Church teaching on other moral issues, willing to keep religion in the public (as per the first amendment, "freedom of religion")
4) Pro-social justice (especially ending global poverty)--but that's sorta with #3
5) Pro-environment
7) Fiscal conservative domestically...
6) But still against "Big Oil"
8) Stance on the war


In that order. Roughly.

i can't think of any candidate who is 100% with me on all of this stuff

Edited February 25, 2007 by XIX

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='XIX' post='1204241' date='Feb 24 2007, 10:27 PM']1) Anti-abortion (I will vote for Homer Simpson before I vote for a pro-abortion candidate like Hilary or Kerry. And no, I am not exaggerating.)
2) Pro-life on other issues (ESCR, cloning, euthanasia, death penalty, etc.)
3) In line with Church teaching on other moral issues, willing to keep religion in the public (as per the first amendment, "freedom of religion")
4) Pro-social justice (especially ending global poverty)--but that's sorta with #3
5) Pro-environment
7) Fiscal conservative domestically...
6) But still against "Big Oil"
8) Stance on the war
In that order. Roughly.

i can't think of any candidate who is 100% with me on all of this stuff [/quote]

I'm with you. I always feel like my values and beliefs force me to say things like "The only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat." No candidate ever seems to be ideal.

[Socrates]

[quote name='XIX' post='1204241' date='Feb 24 2007, 11:27 PM']1) Anti-abortion (I will vote for Homer Simpson before I vote for a pro-abortion candidate like Hilary or Kerry. And no, I am not exaggerating.)
2) Pro-life on other issues (ESCR, cloning, euthanasia, death penalty, etc.)
3) In line with Church teaching on other moral issues, willing to keep religion in the public (as per the first amendment, "freedom of religion")
4) Pro-social justice (especially ending global poverty)--but that's sorta with #3
5) Pro-environment
7) Fiscal conservative domestically...
6) But still against "Big Oil"
8) Stance on the war
In that order. Roughly.

i can't think of any candidate who is 100% with me on all of this stuff [/quote]
I'd agree for the most part, with several reservations.
I don't consider the death penalty to be an issue on par with abortion and euthanasia. I'm pro-death penalty, but would not necessarily oppose a candidate opposed to it, so long as his other positions were sound.

As regards "pro-social justice" and "pro-environment," these are simply labels, and one must look instead at the individual policies being proposed, and whether their benefits would indeed outweigh the costs.
Just because a program or legislation claims to help the poor or the environment doesn't mean it is good.
For example, would a proposed environmental measure really benefit the environment, or would it instead cost billions, increase poverty, and have little certain benefit to the environment?
Would a program really help alleviate third world poverty, or would it in practice mostly throw money at corrupt regimes and do little to actually help the poor rise out of their poverty?

And being "against big oil" is another largely empty slogan. Should the goal be to punish "big oil" or to actually help make more energy available?

Many of these issues are not so cut-and-dry as liberals make them to be.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1205067' date='Feb 26 2007, 09:37 PM']I'd agree for the most part, with several reservations.
I don't consider the death penalty to be an issue on par with abortion and euthanasia. I'm pro-death penalty, but would not necessarily oppose a candidate opposed to it, so long as his other positions were sound.

As regards "pro-social justice" and "pro-environment," these are simply labels, and one must look instead at the individual policies being proposed, and whether their benefits would indeed outweigh the costs.
Just because a program or legislation claims to help the poor or the environment doesn't mean it is good.
For example, would a proposed environmental measure really benefit the environment, or would it instead cost billions, increase poverty, and have little certain benefit to the environment?
Would a program really help alleviate third world poverty, or would it in practice mostly throw money at corrupt regimes and do little to actually help the poor rise out of their poverty?

And being "against big oil" is another largely empty slogan. Should the goal be to punish "big oil" or to actually help make more energy available?

Many of these issues are not so cut-and-dry as liberals make them to be.[/quote]

Socrates, I'm not questioning the validity of your argument, here. Generally, I agree with you, but there is one question that persists in my mind. How do you decide when a policy being promoted is legitimate or illegitimate? For example, if a candidate were promoting a universal health care system of some sort, where do you go to get your information as whether said health care system is good or bad. Do you examine the policy, look into the sources of funding, the amount of spending projected, etc? Do you listen to informed individuals that give detailed accounts of how and why said policy is economically sustainable or not sustainable? Or do you listen to news agencies that bring experts in to discuss issues? Or do you form your opinions in some other ways? I'm not saying one way is better than another. Im simply curious as to how you form your political judgments.

[Socrates]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1205348' date='Feb 27 2007, 02:50 PM']Socrates, I'm not questioning the validity of your argument, here. Generally, I agree with you, but there is one question that persists in my mind. How do you decide when a policy being promoted is legitimate or illegitimate? For example, if a candidate were promoting a universal health care system of some sort, where do you go to get your information as whether said health care system is good or bad. Do you examine the policy, look into the sources of funding, the amount of spending projected, etc? Do you listen to informed individuals that give detailed accounts of how and why said policy is economically sustainable or not sustainable? Or do you listen to news agencies that bring experts in to discuss issues? Or do you form your opinions in some other ways? I'm not saying one way is better than another. Im simply curious as to how you form your political judgments.[/quote]
Basically, the best thing is to read up, and be well-informed on the issue (which often means going beyond "mainstream" media coverage). Also, I look at whether a policy goes with or against certain principles. For example, I believe in subsidiarity, and know that government beaurocracy is incompetent at handling most issues. I don't claim to have all the answers for everything, and I relaize that others may be just as well-informed, and come to different conclusions.

My main point is people should actually try to be informed, rather than simply going by whether a policy claims to be "pro-environment" or "pro-social justice."
I do have a beef with liberal Catholics who claim that Catholics are morally bound to support socialistic and "progressive" government programs and political causes, and even try to put these issues on par morally with abortion and euthanasia.

Other than abortion and euthanasia, most issues are not so morally clear-cut, and Catholics can have different ideas of how best to promote the common good.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Socrates

[The Joey-O]

Despite my general agreement with all that's been said thus far, I still say policy issues is a difficult means of measurement for the President.

Presidents don't legislate.

They can have great influence on legislation by declaring whether or not they are going to sign something given certain conditions and they can introduce legislation. However, they do not have direct say over the most important parts: the committee formation of the bill, the deliberation within the house and senate and the voting on the bill (which if it reaches a 2/3 majority, it usually doesn't even need his approval).

However, the President, if he can manage his influence well, can, indeed, have a very strong effect on whether or not a bill is passed.

So, if we like candidates A and B, because they support the same values and policies that we do. A has had a successful term as an executive on the state level or in business. B has only been a legislator. I think that candidate A would be better (given all else equal). This is not to say that being a legislator is bad, but it isn't the same type of leadership experience that being an executive brings (there of course obvious exceptions: the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House and, to some small degree, those who are the heads of committees).

Often, the President can't predict what's coming down the road in the way of legislation for the next four years. So, knowing his values, his stance on bigger issues (although this can be vague), if the candidate has a record of excellent leadership (which includes both ability to influence the people he works with along his agenda and integrity), then he is a strong candidate. If his values, agenda, etc. is also in line with yours, then it would make sense that you should vote for him. If not, then you should work against his getting elected.

For a real life example: Mitt Romney has had a lot of very successful leadership. He's maintained and grown many corporations as an executive. He economically saved Salt Lace City's Winter Olympics when he took over as the executive leader (which genuinely seemed to be doomed to being an economic disaster). And, as governer of Massechusettes (sp), he turned around Massechusette's economy, he aided the formation of excellent health care reform and he did all this in a state who's legislator was openly antagonistic to him (at least in the beginning). Now, if you're values include as a high priority, fiscal conservatism, then he would be a good candidate.

John Edwards, on the other hand, has had experience as a trial lawyer, an associate at a law-firm, a senator and a senior advisor for an investment group. All of these positions have some degree of leadership, but not the kind of leadership that comes from being in the executive chair of some organization. He may be the best candidate for you, if you think he's the only one expressing your values, but it is very apparent that his leadership experience is weak.

**Disclaimer** As I have said before, the most important thing for me is pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-euthenasia, etc. I would vote for a politician who upheld those positions before anybody else (especially if he has legislative experience voting on something akin to a ban on abortion or executive experience where he successfully supported and helped bring about something akin to a ban on abortion).

[N/A Gone]

I usually get a list from you (dear Dr. Fluff) and then I go look them up on websites you would give toes for and then I get sad and vote for Stewie..Like I did last time..

[FullTruth]

I look for the following things in the people I vote for.

1.) Convictions and Character.
2.) Economic Stance - Get rid of reliance on Loans from 'National', International and World Banks.
3.) Political Stance - Removal of the nation from the UN and all treaties.
4.) Social Stance - Less Cameras, more Civil Liberties, and allowing Prayer and the Bible back into the School System.

[N/A Gone]

I thought you were anti-gov't

[FullTruth]

I'm not Anti-Government.

I'm anti-NWO. There's a major difference.

When the Bible says the Government is going to be on the shoulders of the Christ during the 1,000 year rule of Christ, I see we do need government, but it should be on God's shoulder, not man's.

We need leadership, but our leadership is far from Godly and I oppose them. So when I do vote, I try to vote with my concious as who is the best candidate for the Job.

The Next Canidate I vote for has to be for all those things, and unfortunately I won't find one.