Next Us President

[RedScare]

I like Fred, actually. He's pretty good at leaving out the religious rhetoric and is more convincing than perhaps any other candidate than Ron Paul in that he intends to curtail government spending. That'd be a pretty decent kind of change as far as I'm concerned.

You know, there's a great way to curtail government spending...quit blowing $200 Billion a year in Iraq. I haven't heard a single Republican candidate...most of all, Fred...recommend that. Republicans are no different than Democrats. They only give their welfare to corporations and Billionaires, rather than the poor.

...except Ron Paul.

[liammclaren]

LOL! So true. I saw Fred Thompson calling himself an agent of change. Huh? Change of what? Apparently, from "T for Texas" to "T for Tennessee".

That is pretty rich. He's Bush all over again.

...except Ron Paul.

...yep

[RedScare]

He's Bush all over again.

Up to and including the laziness. In fact, Fred may actually beat Bush's record for vacations. Would he even wake up from his nap for the inauguration?

[TheNiche]

You know, there's a great way to curtail government spending...quit blowing $200 Billion a year in Iraq. I haven't heard a single Republican candidate...most of all, Fred...recommend that. Republicans are no different than Democrats. They only give their welfare to corporations and Billionaires, rather than the poor.

Our long-term military presence in Iraq could've been avoided, but the time to do so was before we toppled their government and broke their country. Any candidate that doesn't intend to take responsibility for our nation's prior actions is either dishonest or delusional.

Both parties have a history of supporting special interests. This is probably another area where Ron Paul comes out on top, but the next best person to put a stop to it would seem to be Thompson.

Up to and including the laziness. In fact, Fred may actually beat Bush's record for vacations. Would he even wake up from his nap for the inauguration?

Thompson has probably the most Type B personality of all the current candidates. Good!

I'd very much appreciate having a low key presidency.

[westguy]

I'd very much appreciate having a low key presidency.

The ones who let everything get past them are the ones with the most disastrous presidencies (Buchanan, Harding, etc.)

[TheNiche]

The ones who let everything get past them are the ones with the most disastrous presidencies (Buchanan, Harding, etc.)

Low key doesn't mean lacking vigilance. No sweeping changes or government overhauls, no wars, no aggressive economic policy one way or the other. Just a good solid four years of quietly trimming fat.

We ought to better manage the problems we already have rather than creating new ones.

[liammclaren]

The ones who let everything get past them are the ones with the most disastrous presidencies (Buchanan, Harding, etc.)

If you call presiding over the greatest period of economic prosperity in American history and keeping us out of stupid foreign wars a disaster, then yes, I suppose Harding was a disaster.

[TheNiche]

If you call presiding over the greatest period of economic prosperity in American history and keeping us out of stupid foreign wars a disaster, then yes, I suppose Harding was a disaster.

Harding's administration probably tops the list for presidential corruption.

He was also an isolationist; I wouldn't figure that you of all posters would favor government limitations on free trade.

[liammclaren]

Harding probably tops the list for presidential corruption.

Probably not at the top of the list, but certainly close to the winner, Wilson. But at least Harding didn't do everything within his power to get us into a world war.

[TheNiche]

Probably not at the top of the list, but certainly close to the winner, Wilson. But at least Harding didn't do everything within his power to get us into a world war.

Wilson was probably among the most educated, yet completely incompetent, presidents we've ever had. I'm not a fan.

[liammclaren]

Wilson was probably among the most educated, yet completely incompetent, presidents we've ever had. I'm not a fan.

Hey that's fine. I'm just saying if the 20s were the results of Harding's competence, then I'm all for more of it. Just depends on how you define it. By the standards of almost all mainstream historians, the most "competent" presidencies in history were the ones that presided over the largest expansions of federal power. Of that I'm certainly no fan.

[TheNiche]

Hey that's fine. I'm just saying if the 20s were the results of Harding's competence, then I'm all for more of it. Just depends on how you define it. By the standards of almost all mainstream historians, the most "competent" presidencies in history were the ones that expanded federal power the most. Of that I'm not a fan.

We're mostly on the same page, I think, but if you step back and look at the correlation between presidencies and the economy, there are three conclusions that become immediately apparent. One is that policy effects take some time to be felt, oftentimes many years, so that usually, you only see the full outcomes many years down the line. Another is that a president is most effective in years two and three, meaning that policy implementation occurs such that the long-term consequences of a newly-elected politician are further delayed. The last is to recognize that a President may be able to block new legislation quite effectively, but is by himself nearly impotent at originating it...and this no matter how much of an autocratic figurehead role the presidency may be portrayed as in the media.

So it is arguable whether a president really has historically had such enormous influence over policy as is commonly thought. With few exceptions, I think that it'd be more correct to say that the president and economic well-being are symptomatic of a broader political environment than it is to say that the level of economic well-being is a symptom of a president.

[liammclaren]

With few exceptions, I think that it'd be more correct to say that the president and economic well-being are symptomatic of a broader political environment than it is to say that the level of economic well-being is a symptom of a president.

I would certainly agree with that, and I would even take it a step further by saying that with regard to many aspects of not just economic but both foreign and domestic policy, the president is in some ways merely a public face for those to whom he's beholden, be they special interests, corporations, etc.