CDZ What do We Want in a President?

[Ellison]

The 'we' in the question is vague. People support widely different policies and thus will want widely different things. I wish people voted more on their policy preferences than personal preferences, but I can only control who I support. What I want in a president is someone that closely matches my policy preferences. That will always trump any personal element about them. It is all well and good to have a lovely person for president, but it does me no good if I disagree with all of their policies.

Isn't your reliance on "policy" at odds with the Constitutional authority and duties of the President? Other than submitting a proposed budget to Congress each year, the President is supposed to carry out the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

Policy "debates" during the Presidential election cycle are little more than free air time for candidates to throw sound bites at unsophisticated voters. As such, their principal value is as a gauge of the extent to which a candidate is willing to pander to his/her audience.

Are you saying that when you look at history the president does not have much of an impact on policy? The White House has quite a strong influence on policy. That will not change regardless if someone likes it or not. The 'first hundred days' tradition did not appear out of thin air. I can understand why you think presidents shouldn't be important to policy but, in reality, they do.

Important in defining policy within the confines of the law, which they do not define, yes. As for the 'first hundred days' tradition, it's no more than an attempt to jump start the term of that President; as well as set the tone, and type of their agenda. It really is just that simple. It has been, and will continue to be, rare that a President will exact lasting, substantial change during the first one hundred days in office.

Yes, many fail the hundred days. But you just mentioned the keyword: agenda. The president's agenda is very important for the policy changes that will happen in the term. The amount of influence a president maintains over his own party within Congress is important to the policymaking process. When presidential candidates state their policy preferences (or, rather, list them on their website and vaguely allude to them on the campaign trail), it is them trying to convince those paying attention as to what the agenda will be.

I fail to understand what any of this has to do with JWoodie's post.

The OP asked what we want in a president. I said policies. A discussion ensued (with the OP). What is the problem?

 

[oldsoul]

Isn't your reliance on "policy" at odds with the Constitutional authority and duties of the President? Other than submitting a proposed budget to Congress each year, the President is supposed to carry out the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

Policy "debates" during the Presidential election cycle are little more than free air time for candidates to throw sound bites at unsophisticated voters. As such, their principal value is as a gauge of the extent to which a candidate is willing to pander to his/her audience.

Are you saying that when you look at history the president does not have much of an impact on policy? The White House has quite a strong influence on policy. That will not change regardless if someone likes it or not. The 'first hundred days' tradition did not appear out of thin air. I can understand why you think presidents shouldn't be important to policy but, in reality, they do.

Important in defining policy within the confines of the law, which they do not define, yes. As for the 'first hundred days' tradition, it's no more than an attempt to jump start the term of that President; as well as set the tone, and type of their agenda. It really is just that simple. It has been, and will continue to be, rare that a President will exact lasting, substantial change during the first one hundred days in office.

Yes, many fail the hundred days. But you just mentioned the keyword: agenda. The president's agenda is very important for the policy changes that will happen in the term. The amount of influence a president maintains over his own party within Congress is important to the policymaking process. When presidential candidates state their policy preferences (or, rather, list them on their website and vaguely allude to them on the campaign trail), it is them trying to convince those paying attention as to what the agenda will be.

I fail to understand what any of this has to do with JWoodie's post.

The OP asked what we want in a president. I said policies. A discussion ensued (with the OP). What is the problem?

In looking back at the discussion, I noticed that there doesn"t seem to be a logical link between JWoodie's last post and your response to it. Am I missing something?

 

[Ellison]

Are you saying that when you look at history the president does not have much of an impact on policy? The White House has quite a strong influence on policy. That will not change regardless if someone likes it or not. The 'first hundred days' tradition did not appear out of thin air. I can understand why you think presidents shouldn't be important to policy but, in reality, they do.

Important in defining policy within the confines of the law, which they do not define, yes. As for the 'first hundred days' tradition, it's no more than an attempt to jump start the term of that President; as well as set the tone, and type of their agenda. It really is just that simple. It has been, and will continue to be, rare that a President will exact lasting, substantial change during the first one hundred days in office.

Yes, many fail the hundred days. But you just mentioned the keyword: agenda. The president's agenda is very important for the policy changes that will happen in the term. The amount of influence a president maintains over his own party within Congress is important to the policymaking process. When presidential candidates state their policy preferences (or, rather, list them on their website and vaguely allude to them on the campaign trail), it is them trying to convince those paying attention as to what the agenda will be.

I fail to understand what any of this has to do with JWoodie's post.

The OP asked what we want in a president. I said policies. A discussion ensued (with the OP). What is the problem?

In looking back at the discussion, I noticed that there doesn"t seem to be a logical link between JWoodie's last post and your response to it. Am I missing something?

Oh, I see what you mean. Apologies, I misunderstood your question.

He stated that it is important to define policy within the confined of law. I replied that the president's agenda does indeed have a strong impact on policy. Meaning, when using a strict definition of 'policy,' the president does indeed have a strong impact through his agenda and as leader of his party.

 

[oldsoul]

Important in defining policy within the confines of the law, which they do not define, yes. As for the 'first hundred days' tradition, it's no more than an attempt to jump start the term of that President; as well as set the tone, and type of their agenda. It really is just that simple. It has been, and will continue to be, rare that a President will exact lasting, substantial change during the first one hundred days in office.

Yes, many fail the hundred days. But you just mentioned the keyword: agenda. The president's agenda is very important for the policy changes that will happen in the term. The amount of influence a president maintains over his own party within Congress is important to the policymaking process. When presidential candidates state their policy preferences (or, rather, list them on their website and vaguely allude to them on the campaign trail), it is them trying to convince those paying attention as to what the agenda will be.

I fail to understand what any of this has to do with JWoodie's post.

The OP asked what we want in a president. I said policies. A discussion ensued (with the OP). What is the problem?

In looking back at the discussion, I noticed that there doesn"t seem to be a logical link between JWoodie's last post and your response to it. Am I missing something?

Oh, I see what you mean. Apologies, I misunderstood your question.

He stated that it is important to define policy within the confined of law. I replied that the president's agenda does indeed have a strong impact on policy. Meaning, when using a strict definition of 'policy,' the president does indeed have a strong impact through his agenda and as leader of his party.

That is not how I understood it. This is what I was refering too.

Isn't your reliance on "policy" at odds with the Constitutional authority and duties of the President?

 

[Ellison]

Yes, many fail the hundred days. But you just mentioned the keyword: agenda. The president's agenda is very important for the policy changes that will happen in the term. The amount of influence a president maintains over his own party within Congress is important to the policymaking process. When presidential candidates state their policy preferences (or, rather, list them on their website and vaguely allude to them on the campaign trail), it is them trying to convince those paying attention as to what the agenda will be.

I fail to understand what any of this has to do with JWoodie's post.

The OP asked what we want in a president. I said policies. A discussion ensued (with the OP). What is the problem?

In looking back at the discussion, I noticed that there doesn"t seem to be a logical link between JWoodie's last post and your response to it. Am I missing something?

Oh, I see what you mean. Apologies, I misunderstood your question.

He stated that it is important to define policy within the confined of law. I replied that the president's agenda does indeed have a strong impact on policy. Meaning, when using a strict definition of 'policy,' the president does indeed have a strong impact through his agenda and as leader of his party.

That is not how I understood it. This is what I was refering too.

Isn't your reliance on "policy" at odds with the Constitutional authority and duties of the President?

My point regarding the technical duties of the president is that they are far less relevant than what a president actually does. The White House has a strong impact on policymaking regardless of whether the president should theoretically just be an executive and commander-in-chief. Whether or not the president is theoretically have a strong impact on policy, the fact remains that he does.

 

[FA_Q2]

For once honesty would be nice...

That's not an option.

Only because the electorate does not wish it at this time.

I hope that someday this will change.

 

[FA_Q2]

The 'we' in the question is vague. People support widely different policies and thus will want widely different things. I wish people voted more on their policy preferences than personal preferences, but I can only control who I support. What I want in a president is someone that closely matches my policy preferences. That will always trump any personal element about them. It is all well and good to have a lovely person for president, but it does me no good if I disagree with all of their policies.

Isn't your reliance on "policy" at odds with the Constitutional authority and duties of the President? Other than submitting a proposed budget to Congress each year, the President is supposed to carry out the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

Policy "debates" during the Presidential election cycle are little more than free air time for candidates to throw sound bites at unsophisticated voters. As such, their principal value is as a gauge of the extent to which a candidate is willing to pander to his/her audience.

So you don't think that a presidents policies do not matter?

It certainly is NOT at odds with the constitution. The president has many powers not the least of which is the ability to reject law the congress has passed with the veto. You had better bet that the presidents policy is not simply a distraction but very important.

 

[320 Years of History]

Here is what I want.
A person who:

1. Is grounded in the Constitution.
2. Has a PROVEN record of abiding by/defending the Constitution.
3. I beleive will take the Presidential Oath seriously.
4. Is able and willing to unite our country.
5. Understands that our country was founded as a union of states, and will act accordingly.
6. Will be tough when needed, and soft when warranted when dealing with foreign issues.
7. As Harry S. Truman had on his desk, "Walk softly, and carry a BIG stick". (emphasis mine)
8. Is willing to make the hard choices, no matter what the consequences (political, personal, ect.).
9. Knows when, and how to let their voice be heard, and when to shut-up, sit-down, and listen.
10. Is a proud American, and will fight for her rights, and interests in the world.

While not the perfect canidate, Ted Cruz seems to fit the bill better than anyone else. It's not really even close. A Cruz, Rubio ticket... wow, how could you go wrong with that?

Wow!!!....without criticizing what you want, for you are entitled to want what you want, and I respect that; however, I am surprised about the dearth of objective traits listed. About the only person can credibly measure whether any given President meets the expectations you identified is you, and for some of them the President him-/herself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The better question is what we don't want – we don't want a conservative ideologue who will appoint judges to the Federal courts and justices to the Supreme Court hostile to settled, accepted privacy rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights jurisprudence.

 

[jwoodie]

What do we want in our next President? Someone who makes nice speeches while other countries take advantage of us? Don't we need someone who will be respected as a hard bargainer who puts America's interests first? Which candidates are capable of this?

I am more interested in a candidate's approach to problems than "policy" soundbites that have been run through focus groups to determine their appeal to the lowest common denominator. As to a "first 100 days" agenda, which candidate has ever laid this out (other than promising to cancel Executive Orders) prior to the election? Wouldn't it depend to a large degree on the composition of the new Congress?

 

[320 Years of History]

What do we want in our next President? Someone who makes nice speeches while other countries take advantage of us? Don't we need someone who will be respected as a hard bargainer who puts America's interests first? Which candidates are capable of this?

I am more interested in a candidate's approach to problems than "policy" soundbites that have been run through focus groups to determine their appeal to the lowest common denominator. As to a "first 100 days" agenda, which candidate has ever laid this out (other than promising to cancel Executive Orders) prior to the election? Wouldn't it depend to a large degree on the composition of the new Congress?

The life of every man is a diary in which he means to write one story, and writes another; and his humblest hour is when he compares the volume as it is with what he vowed to make it.
― J.M. Barrie, The Little Minister​

Apparently some have taken a stab at articulating their first 100 days plan.

As for achieving their 100 day plans, it will depend on many things. Plans are just that, the outcome of planning. The thing one can count on re: plans is that very shortly after putting them into action, they quite likely will have to be modified. A key importance of having a plan is the process one goes through to create it; that process prepares one to know what must be done when the plan no longer holds up.

In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.
― Dwight D. Eisenhower​

 

[oldsoul]

Here is what I want.
A person who:

1. Is grounded in the Constitution.
2. Has a PROVEN record of abiding by/defending the Constitution.
3. I beleive will take the Presidential Oath seriously.
4. Is able and willing to unite our country.
5. Understands that our country was founded as a union of states, and will act accordingly.
6. Will be tough when needed, and soft when warranted when dealing with foreign issues.
7. As Harry S. Truman had on his desk, "Walk softly, and carry a BIG stick". (emphasis mine)
8. Is willing to make the hard choices, no matter what the consequences (political, personal, ect.).
9. Knows when, and how to let their voice be heard, and when to shut-up, sit-down, and listen.
10. Is a proud American, and will fight for her rights, and interests in the world.

While not the perfect canidate, Ted Cruz seems to fit the bill better than anyone else. It's not really even close. A Cruz, Rubio ticket... wow, how could you go wrong with that?

Wow!!!....without criticizing what you want, for you are entitled to want what you want, and I respect that; however, I am surprised about the dearth of objective traits listed. About the only person can credibly measure whether any given President meets the expectations you identified is you, and for some of them the President him-/herself.

It is an important office, and carries broad responsibilities. The ideal canidate needs to possess a very broad range of skills/capacities to fullfull those responsibilities. Much like a CEO of a major corporation, they need to have a base of knowledge that spans the entire scope of the responsibilities of their position. Now, I am not saying they need to be an expert in any of them, but they need to have a high level of understanding of all of them. For them to be an expert, in my opinion, they would nessicarily be lacking in other areas, that is why their advisors are so imoprtant as well. The advisors should be the experts in their respective areas. This is why I beleive that Ted Cruz is not the ideal. He is, in my estimation, an expert on the U.S. Constitution (see his record), therefore, it stands to reason that he is lacking in other areas.

Do I ever expect to find the ideal? No, that is the nature of an ideal, it is nearly unattainable. I do measure all canidates against my ideal to discern who is the closest.

 

[oldsoul]

The better question is what we don't want – we don't want a conservative ideologue who will appoint judges to the Federal courts and justices to the Supreme Court hostile to settled, accepted privacy rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights jurisprudence.

I would broaden your statement to include ALL ideaologues. We need a leader, someone who can see the big picture of what is best for our country in the long run. We do not need someone who will attempt to impose their will, rather push the will of "We The People". Unless, of course, thet is not in the best interests of the country. Let's face it, "we the people" do not, by design and nessecity, have all of the information. Therefore, it is impossible to determine if a particular President is taking the correct path at the time. That is only possible with the passage of time, therefore it is the job of historians to determine whether a particular President "did the right thing". That does not mean that we cannot have an opinion, just that history will bear out the truth.