GOP Presidential Candidates - Managers and Populists

[HockeyGod]

I just read an interesting article that categorizes the potential Republican candidates for the 2012 presidential race. They are divided into managers and populists. Now, with the caveat that I'm a hard core Democrat, I find myself preferring the managers. However, I would love for a populist to run. They are totally polarizing and would just empower the Democrat base.

The full article:

http://nationaljournal.com/magazine/populists-versus-managers-in-the-gop-race-20101216?page=1

[Callie Del Noire]

I really DO NOT want Palin to run. She strikes me as a female version of Dan Quayle. Pretty but not really skilled for the job

I do find it interesting that many of the two term presidents tend to be executives, such as Govenors though.

[Jude]

To their supporters, the populists represent a cultural statement: Who they are is more important than what they will do. For the managers, that equation is reversed: Their biggest selling point is their agenda, not their identity.

This is very true from what I've seen, and it's an incredibly dangerous idea based on the arrogance of the average individual.  White collar Republicans (on the whole) seem so convinced that the proper course for this country is a matter of "common sense" and that if we got a "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" type of character in power, everything would be fine.

The stupidity of that belief is stunning:  we face real problems of great complexity and difficulty, that's why they haven't been solved, not because Washington is "so out of touch with mainstream America."  Sure, it feels good to deny that reality and pretend that if only "one of us" got elected everything would be resolved, but that belittles the importance of experience, knowledge, and nuance in the crafting of public policy.

America is a gigantic, diverse, and intricate country.  It might be tempting to elect a "know-nothing" candidate on the basis of personal hubris, but this country needs to wake up and realize that to be a successful political actually requires exceptional individuals, not exemplary common men.

[HockeyGod]

I don't feel that a know-nothing should ever be elected...um...then again we did have Bush for 8 years and he really didn't know that much - it's good to know a "C" student can be President I guess...though if you don't have a connected daddy I guess it won't happen.

Anywho...I WANT Palin to run. She is so polarizing I highly doubt she could be elected.

[Oniya]

I don't feel that a know-nothing should ever be elected...um...then again we did have Bush for 8 years and he really didn't know that much - it's good to know a "C" student can be President I guess...though if you don't have a connected daddy I guess it won't happen.

Anywho...I WANT Palin to run. She is so polarizing I highly doubt she could be elected.

I saw her new campaign slogan on her TLC show the other night:  'Don't retreat, just reload.' 

[Trieste]

What, you mean she's abandoned "Drill, baby, drill"? Hm. 

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't feel that a know-nothing should ever be elected...um...then again we did have Bush for 8 years and he really didn't know that much - it's good to know a "C" student can be President I guess...though if you don't have a connected daddy I guess it won't happen.

Anywho...I WANT Palin to run. She is so polarizing I highly doubt she could be elected.

Not even as a joke please. She makes me itch, and when she speaks my reflux kicks in. I wish she would just vanish.

[Sure]

I'm curious, where do you think Obama falls on this scale?

Palin... I'm caught between the Bush lesson (No, he's not actually that stupid, no matter what people say) and the fact... well, it's Palin.

My spellcheck doesn't recognize Palin. That makes me happy, for some reason.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm curious, where do you think Obama falls on this scale?

Palin... I'm caught between the Bush lesson (No, he's not actually that stupid, no matter what people say) and the fact... well, it's Palin.

My spellcheck doesn't recognize Palin. That makes me happy, for some reason.

I will again restate my comment that most 'effective' presidents seem to have been executives before they took the Oval Office. I think Bush II was a lot smarter than folks give him credit for, though a lot of his smarts/wits was in choosing effective people to run (most) of his departments/ect. (For some reason the horse breeder who mishandled New Orleans comes across as an exception).

They weren't always the most moral/ethical bunch of folks granted (Carl Rove comes to mind for some reason).

And other examples of 'Prior executives' include folks like Presidents Clinton, Bush (I), Carter, Nixon, Regan, Eisenhower and more. Typically the 'executives' tend to be the two termers (with the exceptions of President Carter and Bush (I) on the list above)

[Sure]

I will again restate my comment that most 'effective' presidents seem to have been executives before they took the Oval Office. I think Bush II was a lot smarter than folks give him credit for, though a lot of his smarts/wits was in choosing effective people to run (most) of his departments/ect. (For some reason the horse breeder who mishandled New Orleans comes across as an exception).

They weren't always the most moral/ethical bunch of folks granted (Carl Rove comes to mind for some reason).

And other examples of 'Prior executives' include folks like Presidents Clinton, Bush (I), Carter, Nixon, Regan, Eisenhower and more. Typically the 'executives' tend to be the two termers (with the exceptions of President Carter and Bush (I) on the list above)

With all due respect to your theory (which seems like a good one to me) Governor Palin of Alaska? Regardless, it makes sense.

[Callie Del Noire]

With all due respect to your theory (which seems like a good one to me) Governor Palin of Alaska? Regardless, it makes sense.

Which is why I break out in itches at the mention of her name. HOWEVER, I think you could add a Caveat to my prior statement.

SUCCESSFUL Executives. How does that sound? She definitely wasn't successful, since she was all but run out of office?

[HockeyGod]

I'm curious, where do you think Obama falls on this scale?

Obama is failing in one regard and it's an unfortunate failure. There is a grassroots swell of "common ground for common good." He's trying to make situations win-win which in a perfect world would be best for our country. In the reality of politics it is unfortunate. He's a moderate that is attempting to bring together both sides of the aisle and it just isn't working well.

Palin... I'm caught between the Bush lesson (No, he's not actually that stupid, no matter what people say) and the fact... well, it's Palin.

President Bush was in my opinion one of the more unintelligent presidents. My definition is not using the traditional IQ (though again...still questionable). I remember reading that he's a very likable guy - the kind of guy you go out and drink a beer with at the end of the day. In fact, he was shocked at how much he was hated by people. That is what makes him stupid. He abdicated his responsibility to lead the entire U.S. and instead focused on policies only supported by an extremist agenda - torture, war (x2), and isolationism.  That makes him stupid.

My spellcheck doesn't recognize Palin. That makes me happy, for some reason.

That made me smile.

[Callie Del Noire]

Obama is failing in one regard and it's an unfortunate failure. There is a grassroots swell of "common ground for common good." He's trying to make situations win-win which in a perfect world would be best for our country. In the reality of politics it is unfortunate. He's a moderate that is attempting to bring together both sides of the aisle and it just isn't working well.

I actually respect him for trying to build cooperation. Too many folks today are insistent on not cooperating and staying divisive.  I don't like his politics too much but he's willing to sit down talk things out.  I actually like the fact that some countries have to cooperate to get enough votes to build a government. We, the US, are becoming more and more divisive. 

[Remiel]

I actually respect him for trying to build cooperation. Too many folks today are insistent on not cooperating and staying divisive.  I don't like his politics too much but he's willing to sit down talk things out.  I actually like the fact that some countries have to cooperate to get enough votes to build a government. We, the US, are becoming more and more divisive.

+1

Nothing to add to that, really.  I respect Obama for that--to a large extent, he's pissing off a portion of his own party because he's doing what he believes (and what I believe as well) is right for the country.  We would never have passed the SMART treaty (and would never have repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell) without this sort of bipartisan cooperation.

[Callie Del Noire]

Too be brutally honest, I don't see any relevant people stepping up. The upper structure of the party has cut off the next generation of candidates quite effectively (I saw a lot of that when my brother tried to get nominated). The folks in charge don't want to 'step aside' to let younger candidates to step up and take charge. They are entrenched and determined to get their way.

Hence, you get folks like <shudder> Sarah Palin.

[Remiel]

Too be brutally honest, I don't see any relevant people stepping up. The upper structure of the party has cut off the next generation of candidates quite effectively (I saw a lot of that when my brother tried to get nominated). The folks in charge don't want to 'step aside' to let younger candidates to step up and take charge. They are entrenched and determined to get their way.

And that's going to ultimately hurt the party, I think.  Remember Ron Paul?  The Religious/Social Right was positively aghast at his nomination, and did everything they could to marginalize him, while he enjoyed huge grassroots-level support.

I'm not particularly a Ron Paul supporter, but I'm just using him as an example.  IMHO, we are going to need a more moderate candidate--a "manager", to use the terminology of the article--to stand a viable shot at taking back the presidency after the Bush Jr. fiasco.    There will always be elements who idolize people like Sarah Palin--who choose ideology over efficacy at every turn--but those kinds of candidates will never be effective leaders.  The best leaders are those who know how to compromise, who can pick their battles.

[Callie Del Noire]

And that's going to ultimately hurt the party, I think.  Remember Ron Paul?  The Religious/Social Right was positively aghast at his nomination, and did everything they could to marginalize him, while he enjoyed huge grassroots-level support.

I'm not particularly a Ron Paul supporter, but I'm just using him as an example.  IMHO, we are going to need a more moderate candidate--a "manager", to use the terminology of the article--to stand a viable shot at taking back the presidency after the Bush Jr. fiasco.    There will always be elements who idolize people like Sarah Palin--who choose ideology over efficacy at every turn--but those kinds of candidates will never be effective leaders.  The best leaders are those who know how to compromise, who can pick their battles.

I imagine what could have happened if he had been brought into the primary process. One plus would have been NO SARAH PALIN. The party platform would have been a broader base of what the republicans (moderate and conservative) would have thought were relevant. That could have only done good for the process in my opionion.

Almost everyone of the candidates that will get a majority of the national party support are 'already rans' who never got too far. Most of the people who could do better are governors and such who don't have nation wide recognition (yet) and will have to fight for it. Since none of them have shown up in the media at this point, we'll not see that sort of candidate be effective till 2016 when the President is a lame duck. The race had started by this time when the last set of elections started up.

The only real upset I see at this point is if there is a MAJOR blow out in the White House that let's Hilary Clinton bow out of her position and have a chance to run for the Oval Office. Don't see it happening though.

[Oniya]

Don't you mean 2012?  There's no guarantee that Obama will win nomination for a second term, although if he does last until 2016, it'll be a guarantee that we'll have a new Democrat in the offing.

[Callie Del Noire]

Don't you mean 2012?  There's no guarantee that Obama will win nomination for a second term, although if he does last until 2016, it'll be a guarantee that we'll have a new Democrat in the offing.

Last election, by this time we had (then) Senator Obama and Clinton stumping, and several others making their moves as well. So far the only person who is working to keep themselves in the media is Sarah Palin (SHUDDER)

I imagine that the President will start stumping soon and the rest of the crowd will start making noises.

[Oniya]

I must make a better effort at checking my caffeine levels before coming in here.  After posting, I realized what year it was now. *facepalm*

[Callie Del Noire]

I must make a better effort at checking my caffeine levels before coming in here.  After posting, I realized what year it was now. *facepalm*

No need Oniya..it's January... you don't have to sweat the year till Febuary! (Had to rewrite my rent check for that reason!)

[OldSchoolGamer]

Before we get too concerned about who will be President of the U.S., do bear in mind the POTUS these days is merely a corporate front man.  The warm body in the Oval Office may or may not change, but the policies will remain the same: making the rich richer, and stringing everyone else along.  If any President were to disobey corporate orders, he or she would suffer a major scandal or an "accident."

The only way we're going to see any fundamental, meaningful change is through a bottom-up revolution (or, if things get bad enough, a military putsch).  Otherwise, the POTUS will follow corporate orders, nothing more.

[Callie Del Noire]

Before we get too concerned about who will be President of the U.S., do bear in mind the POTUS these days is merely a corporate front man.  The warm body in the Oval Office may or may not change, but the policies will remain the same: making the rich richer, and stringing everyone else along.  If any President were to disobey corporate orders, he or she would suffer a major scandal or an "accident."

The only way we're going to see any fundamental, meaningful change is through a bottom-up revolution (or, if things get bad enough, a military putsch).  Otherwise, the POTUS will follow corporate orders, nothing more.

With that sort of 'why bother' attitude, no wonder we can't get things done. Too many people these days are all 'I can't do anything' or 'my vote doesn't count'. I had SIX workers in my squadron who did that.. and ALL of them were from south florida. (Two of them were from contested areas of Dade County) This was in the wake of the 2004 election. No one is 'irrelevant' in the political process.

Once you've decided that you aren't and look for ways to circumvent it, you're not part of the process, you're an opponent to it. Don't think we're to the point where armed insurrection is needed.

I notice a LACK of enthusiasm about taking the hard choices in a lot of folks I talking with. Reforming the process takes time, money and effort. One of the things that I really DESPISE about the talking heads is barely 2 years into a presidency there is a lot of complaint of progress. The President is not the total authority, he has to work with Congress and the voters to get things done. That takes time.

Once laws are implemented it takes time to build a structure to enforce the law. That takes time. Change in the economy, for example, don't occur instantly. It took a LONG time and three different presidents to reduce the deficit that our last President rebuilt. That's TWO Decades of diverse policy actions and changes. A LOT of time.

Anyone that expects things to change instantly with the wave a magic wand isn't realistic. President Obama moved quickly to institute a policy in the White House to reduce the role of lobbyists when he took office (A two year 'stand off' period between leaving the White House staff position and joining the firms.. and the 'stand aside' rule for people in policy making in areas they had worked in the past with)

[Zeitgeist]

You know, the beauty of the system is that no one remains in power long, 4 or 8 years at the most, and congress is perhaps even more volatile of late. A good president, from whichever party, needs to be mourner-in-chief, financier-in-chief, command-in-chief, and so on. And as we've seen events out of his or her control will shape their tenure as president more so than they might imagine. We've seen that time, and time again haven't we?

Personally I think a stalwart Libertarian for 8 years would do this country some good.

[Callie Del Noire]

You know, the beauty of the system is that no one remains in power long, 4 or 8 years at the most, and congress is perhaps even more volatile of late. A good president, from whichever party, needs to be mourner-in-chief, financier-in-chief, command-in-chief, and so on. And as we've seen events out of his or her control will shape their tenure as president more so than they might imagine. We've seen that time, and time again haven't we?

Personally I think a stalwart Libertarian for 8 years would do this country some good.

I've long thought that a good way to both eliminate the 'lame duck' presidencies would be to allow for 'broken' terms. In all federal offices. IE. You serve two full terms (maybe 4 as a rep) and then have to sit some time out. It allows good leaders to work their way back in, cycles in new blood and breaks the 'incumbent' advantage for folks.  Because, while I have had reps and senators that I didn't like they did what they thought best for their people.

A good example was Senator Helms stepping down from the Military committee to get onto the Joint Agricultural Panel when he was in office. It benefited his constituatnts.