General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat qualities should we look for in the next President??
Should it be a person that is very cooperative and can work with the other side in a bi-partisan way? Or should it be a fighter that can persuade the people to his side?
Should it be a Bill Clinton-type that can triangulate the issues to get legislation passed? Or should it be an LBJ-type that can bust their nuts to get their cooperation?
Or perhaps a different personality altogether?
Does it make a difference what type of President we have if we don't have the Congress to pass legislation?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I would like to see DLC types flushed.
Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #1)
Adam051188 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)They can't be a corporate shill. They will, of course, because those are the only ones allowed into the club but that is #1 on my qualification list. If they don't meet that, I look for someone who does fit the criteria.
polichick
(37,152 posts)...so we'll get the third corporate Dem in a row and not much will change.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Dare I say we have the "different" type already.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)RKP5637
(67,089 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)1awake
(1,494 posts)Protect and Defend the Constitution.
doc03
(35,300 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Sadly, someone who tells the public the truth will never be elected.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Jimmy Carter? Although that culminated in losing re-election.
Once in a while, we're ready for the truth.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The Depression happened so quickly people didn't have time to become acclimated to the slide in living standards, we have been on a slow motion economic downward slide for the 99% since the early 70's and the change is not rapid enough for a lot of people to notice.
Roosevelt could tell the truth partially because he was a .01%er and partially because the truth was painfully evident to most of the population and partially because the vast 1%er propaganda machine had not yet reached anything like the level we see today and most people weren't convinced of something completely opposite from reality.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)He fought like a sonofabitch for the 99%, and it worked: in his first term alone, unemployment fell by 40% and GDP grew 8% per year. *That* turned everyone into Democrats.
If Democrats want to end the Republicans, we need *results*. Not sucking less than the other guys.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I have a hard time imagining a presidential candidate these days saying that the welcomes the hate of the 1%.
There's at least one major area of public policy where it's blatantly obvious Obama is knowingly and deliberately lying and has been for years.
Either that or he thinks his life prospects would have been positively effected by being arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for his illegal drug use as a young man.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I'll bet she actually relishes it!
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)We shall see come 2016, of everyone I'm familiar with I think Warren is the superior candidate for me which certainly doesn't make me think she is anything remotely resembling a shoo-in.
I'll be downright flabbergasted if she doesn't get the Kookinich treatment from all the Very Serious People.
LuvNewcastle
(16,838 posts)their efforts on health insurance after the 2008 elections. Obama's slogan was "Change," which is exactly what the people wanted and why they voted for him. They wanted things changed right then, not several years later. They should have focused on changes that would show results right away, like a jobs bill. They also should have passed a much larger stimulus bill.
Immediate change would have built up support for other things that would have taken longer to take effect. The entire negotiating process of the ACA could have been much different if the Democrats had built up support from the public as a result of successful programs already seeing results.
The Democrats made a terrible error when they chose to go the route they did after the 2008 election, and it might be a long time before we have another chance like that to build grassroots support for the Democratic Party.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Results beget trust which begets more results.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)No war, yet. Not even a hint of it, really.
The war helped later on, economically. It was basically the greatest stimulus act ever passed. I'm not rooting for more wars, but large stimulus acts do work.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)months before any primary elections are held, you can safely assume they're in Corporate America's pocket-- no matter what they say on the campaign trail.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)2. Gusto
3. Smart
4. Tough as nails
I din't put "Liberal" on the list because 1 + 3 guarantee it, anyway.
flvegan
(64,406 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)For any who missed this:
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)I like this person.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Including Warren (who I think is best for what that's worth)
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)It may have been propaganda, but I thought she's worth about 15 million
UTUSN
(70,649 posts)It's been SO sweet over most of my life to sniff about so many of my NOBLE losers, what might have been if only this paragon had won. Finally, I've had to face the reality of this system, that ONLY winning will work, even if the winner is not my or anybody's ideal it's a matter of 1) just about any Dem is better than any Rethug, and 2) even a mediocre Dem will have an impact on who knows what policy decision besides the thousands of nominations, especially the courts, that will shape decades to come.
A subset implied in the above: Somebody with the common touch. Somebody who can relate to ordinary people and vice versa. Somebody with the basic skills of a carnival barker. Somebody who cuts the b.s. and talks some smack. Somebody who can project a sense of fairness to most people, not to niches.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)UTUSN
(70,649 posts)In general, it has become a personality venue, without that much effect in the built-in gridlock. It takes an FDR, HST, LBJ to handle it. But we can't wait 30 yrs for an LBJ to geek himself up the ladder while mastering all the intricacies of the rules and how to get around the rules.
So on the personality thing, having a beer ain't it. More like what Adlai said, "Talk sense to the American people." (But Adlai is one of my "nobel losers" not what I want: a WINNER).
It's a matter of SKILLS. I detest RAYGUN, but he started off (literally?) as a carnival barker, was a sportscaster, then got the best finishing school: the movie studio's training. Even a grade D movie actor had the basic skills. "If you can fake sincerity..."
Back to the Personality President, I just about don't believe that the person holding the title is doing that much decision-making, more like the beast of the machinery narrowing the policy options, even selecting the option, then shoving the President in front of the cameras.
It would help that the President, not actually doing all that work, would spend it meditating on what it means to be human and then project it.
UTUSN
(70,649 posts)mold him into Elizabeth WARREN.
Part of what's wrong, besides just about the entire governmental structure, is the endless election cycles. And this is not new: The Roman church debated, in its first centuries, whether to elect a pope every four years and the consensus was that, no, this would result in neverending campaigning and electioneering, and who can argue with that today?
Mexico has a one-time, six year term, no haggling for a second term.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Any sane person would run screaming from the pressures of that job, Atlas Shrugged indeed.
Considering the other side and the limitations inherent in our system Obama has done a good job in some areas, I just wish he hadn't gone the wrong way on a number of things that are vitally important to the 99%.
UTUSN
(70,649 posts)What we need is for OUR AGENDA to be furthered, even if in TINY bits, and not for us to spend whatever precious time in office expending our energy in defending a particular office holder INSTEAD of the AGENDA.
How much OBAMA has done or not for me is more of an issue of, at least he hasn't totally given over the agenda for his own sake.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
CK_John
(10,005 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)A united Congress is the most powerful institution in the government.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)kentuck
(111,056 posts)Congress.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)it does not make a difference what type of president you have but it's not the fault of congress
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)1) A true leader. A true leader is a leader of the 100%. He/she frames issues such that a broad majority will at least consider his/her opinion. He/she remembers 100% of the people need a leader not just his/her base.
2) Steadfast. Is not guided by polls, focus groups, or lobbyists. This person stakes out a position and is hard to move off it, and will only be moved off it, because a superior position has been found.
3) Thinks in, and acts for, the long term and not the next election cycle.
4) Country above Party.
Never happen.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)who will go to the floor with everything he or she's got to accomplish restoring and expanding economic and social justice.
And give me Democrats in Congress who will help.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)over another corporate neo-liberal Democrat, or another "compromiser."
Unless we can find a good replacement in Congress, I don't know if we can afford to lose any of our best from the Senate or the House. Warren would be good. So would Grayson. There are others.
I'm not picky. I want a strong, never-give-up NON-NEOLIBERAL lefty/liberal for president. I don't care which one. Just give me one. And fill Congress with more.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)uponit7771
(90,304 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)he fought. Obama does not fight.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)----- --- -- - ------ -- ------ --------- -----. -'- ------ ---- ------- --- ------ ------- --- --------- ----- -- --- -.-. ----------.
* * R E D A C T E D * *
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)....and cosnervative bashers don't know how US gov works
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)fight for the people of this country.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)measures. Explains why I will never vote Republican. Some of them may be intelligent (at least in a crafty, rat-fucking kind of way), but none of them have much compassion or empathy. And 'humility'? Fugedd-aboud-it.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)which would, of course, be recognized as a wholly owned subsidiary an emotionally and intellectually evolved human being, for starts.