V, I have to agree with you. Powell would have been an excellent choice. I also like Christie form NJ. He seems like an actual leader not just a poll watcher and vote buyer. It is hard to imagine that in a nation of 330 million people this is the best we can do.
I know almost nothing about Christie, but the glimpses I've had of him have given me a good first impression. One president who gets a lot of knocks, but was one of the people best prepared for the job, with a lifetime of genuine achievement in both government and business, was George H.W. Bush. _____________________ Each party should find a nominating process that brings forward the very best they have to offer- then let the people decide- instead of having this "last man standing", "candidate we find the least objectionable" process producing the nominee.
I don't know enough about either one to have an opinion. All I know is that they are considered to be up and coming stars, but that's about it. What I would love to see is someone run who is not a career politician. For once it would be nice to see just an average person run who hasn't sold their soul to the nearest drug company or labor union.
You probably didn't mean this quite the way it reads. We wouldn't put just an average person in the position of manager of a professional team, or head of our Army, or CEO of a major corporation, either. All these positions require demonstrated knowledge, vision, an ability to communicate and lead, etc. No less so the office of president. We really should insist on the best, and our political process does not often put forward a person who is truly ready for the job. I would consider Mayor Bloomberg to be one such person, but he's not in this race, either.
Christie seems very capable. I thought his own assessment of himself, that he was not ready yet, was interesting. Rudy Guiliani may have done well against the current field.
V, what I mean is someone who has some modicrum of common sense. Career politicians don't know or understand how the real world works. To them life is a simplistic matter of passing some ill thought out legislation and the world will suddenly be a better place. Our record with Ivy Leaguers has not been good. Maybe someone who went to Podunk U but had to work their way up from nothing would be a better choice than the coddled clowns we seem to be electing. My son was a very good hockey goalie. He went on to become an All American hockey player in college. When he started out he was pretty bad but he worked and worked and then worked some more to perfect his craft. When people ask me how come he was such a good player they are usually surprised at my response. I just tell them that he got so good because he wasn't very talented. We would see the kids who were superstars at 7 start dropping through the ranks until they couldn't even make a travel team by the time they were teens. The reason was that they didn't have to work for what they got. The kids who were successful were the ones who had to work and not take things for granted. The person who worked to get where they are in the life is the one that should be in the White House. They are the type of people who understand what it takes to get people motivated and to keep them motivated. They are the ones that understand the problems that the average American (and Canadian) has to deal with on a day to day basis.
I just can't imagine this struggling representative of the middle class being president of the United States. Maybe Harry Truman came close to the ideal you are imagining. Frankly, I'd prefer someone of real accomplishment, prior to taking the office (i.e., Colin Powell, or George H.W. Bush). Is their life likely to have been better/easier than ours? That's hard to say, but I'd like somebody who is better than me in that office, not somebody no better than me. My wife used to say, "When George W Bush talks, he sounds just like me," (and she didn't mean it as a compliment). We should aim higher in our leaders. We're not looking for "everyman" in this job, there's far too much at stake; but, we seem to be getting offered even less than that, in some of these candidates.
Chris Christie just vetoed a same-sex marriage bill... Why does homophobia run so deep amongst most Republicans?
Could it be because that's what the bible says and so many people vote according to their religious views with scant regard for any other issue? Crazy in this day and age imho. Take religion out of it and it might be a whole new ball game.
