Qualities of a Good President

Valerie raised an interesting question in another thread, but it wasn't quite appropriate for that thread.
Here is the dialogue:

People here wouldn't know a good president if one bit 'em in the ass. Originally Posted by Doove

Is there such a thing?

I mean really, we all differ in what we think makes a "good" president, no one is ever going to agree 100%...

So I have to ask (everyone)... all labels aside (conservative, liberal, indy), what are the 3 most important things you look for in a leader? Originally Posted by Valerie

I have to say, Val brings up a good question.

Nuff said.

I was about to start a thread about it, as I didn't want to hijack the other lol!..Seems you beat me to it

@MA

Lincoln I am impressed with...but so is Obama (at least he quotes him often enough).

1) Is a leader that can inspire the people
2) Has a grounded, consistent point of view -- some might call it a moral compass
3) Is a statesman -- able to rise above the bickering to bring opposing sides together and forge consensus.

(Oh yeah, for Doove -- isn't a fucking Communist. )

I'll go with George "Avoid Foreign Entanglements", sort of for Ronnie "Amnesty", not so much for Abe "Hell let's just invade 'em, burn their homes and suspend habeas corpus so we can deport the blacks".

1) Is a leader that can inspire the people
2) Has a grounded, consistent point of view -- some might call it a moral compass
3) Is a statesman -- able to rise above the bickering to bring opposing sides together and forge consensus.

(Oh yeah, for Doove -- isn't a fucking Communist. ) Originally Posted by pjorourke

I think that's a pretty good list, PJ (except I think if a fucking Communist becomes President, there's too much power for him/her to stay a Communist).

I would add one more. I'm reading Tuchman's "The Guns of August." (Thanks to the recommendation on this Board.) She describes Churchill as the only Englishman who knew without a doubt what needed to be done, and what steps had to be taken, long before the rest of the British officials. Churchill kept the fleet nearby. Churchill didn't allow the fleet to disburse as planned after games. Churchill instinctively knew all this.

And, I would say this concept needs to be added to your list. The ability to "see" into the future and take that decisive action that is necessary.

I think that's a pretty good list, PJ (except I think if a fucking Communist becomes President, there's too much power for him/her to stay a Communist).

I would add one more. I'm reading Tuchman's "The Guns of August." (Thanks to the recommendation on this Board.) She describes Churchill as the only Englishman who knew without a doubt what needed to be done, and what steps had to be taken, long before the rest of the British officials. Churchill kept the fleet nearby. Churchill didn't allow the fleet to disburse as planned after games. Churchill instinctively knew all this.

And, I would say this concept needs to be added to your list. The ability to "see" into the future and take that decisive action that is necessary. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

An excellent book that should be re-read often (I'm overdue). Somewhere else I once read Churchill quoted asking someone (US diplomat perhaps), "What would America do if, say, the Lusitania, were sunk"? He was definitely a pragmatist. It's alarming how quickly he was thrown over after the second war for the socialists (after having just defeated a bunch of socialists).

The central point of "Guns of August" that I took away was that despite the Europeans believing their tightly interwoven economic interests would prevent war, they didn't. I've pointed this out to others vis a vie the PRC and get laughed at. But the precedent is there (and, I suppose, it would then be possible to renege on a lot of T-bills).

3) Is a statesman -- able to rise above the bickering to bring opposing sides together and forge consensus.

(Oh yeah, for Doove -- isn't a fucking Communist. ) Originally Posted by pjorourke

Or a birther.

Or a birther. Originally Posted by Doove

I could go along with that.

@ CT & Iaintliein

I agree, Churchill was the leader for his time. Considering his mother, Lady Randolph Churchill, was an American, can anyone tell me why he was not considered a natural born American citizen? He and his mother met all of the requirements.




President John F. Kennedy's remarks on the conferring on honorary U.S.A. citizenship upon Sir Winston Churchill, given at the White House, 9 April 1963.


We meet to honor a man whose honor requires no meeting -- for he is the most honored and honorable man to walk the stage of human history in the time in which we live.

Whenever and wherever tyranny threatened, he has always championed liberty.

Facing firmly toward the future, he has never forgotten the past.

Serving six monarchs of his native Great Britain, he has served all men's freedom and dignity.

In the dark days and darker nights when Britain stood alone -- and most men save Englishmen despaired of England's life -- he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. The incandescent quality of his words illuminated the courage of his countrymen.

Given unlimited powers by his citizens, he was ever vigilant to protect their rights.

Indifferent himself to danger, he wept over the sorrows of others.

A child of the House of Commons, he became in time its father.

Accustomed to the hardships of battle, he has no distaste for pleasure.

Now his stately Ship of Life, having weathered the severest storms of a troubled century, is anchored in tranquil waters, proof that courage and faith and the zest for freedom are truly indestructible. The record of his triumphant passage will inspire free hearts for all time.

By adding his name to our rolls, we mean to honor him -- but his acceptance honors us far more. For no statement or proclamation can enrich his name -- the name Sir Winston Churchill is already legend.

@IBH

I almost went to bed without reading this. Glad I did not.

@IBH

I almost went to bed without reading this. Glad I did not. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Or a birther. Originally Posted by Doove

I could go along with that. Originally Posted by pjorourke

So much for your poll.

Or a birther. Originally Posted by Doove

Not to hijack PJ's thread but...

Who's job is it to vet the candidates and do they have auditable evidence that they've been properly vetted?