Write in primary for write in candidate.

[VoiceofReason]

Being fed up with both parties I have been wondering about write in candidates so I thought I would hold a primary here. Give me your opinions and suggestions.

Candidate must not have held or run for public office under any established political party.

Candidate must not be anti-gun.

Candidate must be an American citizen by birth, be honest, have no criminal record and have a genuine love for this country.

Above all, candidate must have a strong sense of right and wrong plus have the courage and ability to do what is best for this country in spite of the media or political pressure.

Let me know who you think would be a good write in candidate and why.

[VoiceofReason]

OK, I will start.

Gary Sinise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Sinise" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[seamusTX]

Candidate must not have held or run for public office under any established political party.

If you're talking about the presidency of the U.S., without looking it up, I think only Washington and Eisenhower would meet that standard. Even Sam Houston held multiple offices in the U.S. before he was President of the Republic of Texas.

I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but no one wants to be a surgeon's first patient or a lawyer's first case to take to court. Why, exactly, would you want the President of the U.S. to have no experience?

It's worth thinking about the fictional movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Jimmy Stewart was waltzed around like a fool by the experienced politicians, until one of them had a sudden case of guilty conscience. I wouldn't bet on that happening these days.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

OK, if it HAD to be someone with no legislative/government experience, I would nominate economist Thomas Sowell (who, BTW, was a pistol instructor in the Marine Corps). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell.

But, seamusTX's point is very true. Who want's to be a lawyer's first client or a surgeon's first patient? As much as I am generally furious with the political class, I do think that it would be better to elect someone who has experience in both dealing with politicians, and deep experience in leadership, who also has a deep understanding of international relations, particularly with regards to ongoing issues in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of the middle east. Who is that person? I nominate General David Petreaus.....the closest thing to an Eisenhower this country currently has. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

[2farnorth]

Being fed up with both parties I have been wondering about write in candidates so I thought I would hold a primary here. Give me your opinions and suggestions.

Candidate must not have held or run for public office under any established political party.

Candidate must not be anti-gun.

Candidate must be an American citizen by birth, be honest, have no criminal record and have a genuine love for this country.

Above all, candidate must have a strong sense of right and wrong plus have the courage and ability to do what is best for this country in spite of the media or political pressure.

Let me know who you think would be a good write in candidate and why.

Sounds to me like you are describing Ross Perot. But he may be a little to old now.

[seamusTX]

I nominate General David Petreaus.....the closest thing to an Eisenhower this country currently has.

Of course military officers are not elected, but at the rank of major, colonel, or above they are very much politicians. They spend quite a bit of time dealing with congressional committees and the civilian sector of the Department of Defense.

Also military officers while wearing the uniform rarely reveal their political leanings. There have been some surprises when they retired and got into politics. I don't often hear Colin Powell's name mentioned these days.

- Jim

[VoiceofReason]

How well have the “experienced” politicians done for this country since Ronald Reagan? Most “experienced” politicians get to the presidency by selling their principals for votes.

They become experts at back room deals on legislation.

Perry did not stand up for Arizona on the illegal immigration issue probably because he knew it would cost him the Hispanic vote should he run for president.

As to “Who want's to be a lawyer's first client or a surgeon's first patient?”, I would not want to be a lawyer's 5000th client if he wanted me to plead guilty to a crime I didn’t commit to keep his record looking good (image).

I would not want to be a surgeon's 50,000th patient if he was practicing medicine and doing surgery only for the money (money).

Image and money are the primary concern for most established politicians.

I don’t think we could do much worse than what we have now with a president and a few congressmen that put right and wrong above all else.

On another note; I was thinking how wild it would be if we had
Jay Anthony Dobyns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Dobyns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; as president and he appointed Vince Cefalu as Director of the ATF.

[seamusTX]

The political system in the U.S. at the state and federal levels does not permit tyranny of the majority. The default condition is gridlock. There is a reason for that. When a significant fraction of the population is excluded from the political process, civil wars and terrorism are the results.

The President of the United States really does not have a great deal of practical power. All the money that he can spend on his official duties is allocated by Congress (albeit in one-year cycles), and all his appointments and treaty negotiations have to be approved by the Senate.

Negotiation is an essential skill for anyone in a leadership position.

- Jim

[G26ster]

The political system in the U.S. at the state and federal levels does not permit tyranny of the majority. The default condition is gridlock. There is a reason for that. When a significant fraction of the population is excluded from the political process, civil wars and terrorism are the results.

The President of the United States really does not have a great deal of practical power. All the money that he can spend on his official duties is allocated by Congress (albeit in one-year cycles), and all his appointments and treaty negotiations have to be approved by the Senate.

Negotiation is an essential skill for anyone in a leadership position.

- Jim

I agree with your premise, but if the ramming through of the health care bill wasn't "tyranny of the majority," then what was it?

[seamusTX]

P.S.: Neither Congress nor the President can "run the economy." GDP growth and employment/unemployment have gone up and down regardless of the party in power, tax policies, and fiscal policies (tight money, loose credit, etc.).

If you take a long view of history, from the eighteenth century to the 1930s, the American economy (even before there was a U.S. federal government) was a roller-coaster of booms, busts, panics, and fiscal crises. In some cases the federal government had to be bailed out by private parties like J.P. Morgan. Personal or corporate bankruptcy used to be a situation that compelled people to commit suicide or go to the territories and change their name.

For all the rhetoric from my esteemed representative Ron Paul and others, the Federal Reserve Bank and other fiscal policies have stabilized the economy. As bad as it is now, we don't have "Hoovervilles" or homeless Okies looking for a place to go as in The Grapes of Wrath.

- Jim

[seamusTX]

I agree with your premise, but if the ramming through of the health care bill wasn't "tyranny of the majority," then what was it?

It's not an accomplished fact yet. Parts of the health care bill were held unconstitutional yesterday by the 11th Circuit Court. Probably it will go the Supreme Court.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

I nominate General David Petreaus.....the closest thing to an Eisenhower this country currently has.

Of course military officers are not elected, but at the rank of major, colonel, or above they are very much politicians. They spend quite a bit of time dealing with congressional committees and the civilian sector of the Department of Defense.

Also military officers while wearing the uniform rarely reveal their political leanings. There have been some surprises when they retired and got into politics. I don't often hear Colin Powell's name mentioned these days.

- Jim

I agree with you in general....no pun intended. One cannot be a 4 star general officer in a post requiring Senate confirmation without having at least a finely tuned understanding of politics—whether one has any personal political ambitions or not. But I've been a follower of General Petraeus's for several years now, and I have great respect for his abilities.

Like most field grade officers, he holds his political views close to his vest. It is beyond credulity to assume that he has none. However, Bob Dole urged Petraeus back in 2009 to consider a presidential run as a republican (SOURCE). On the other hand, Max Fisher at The Atlantic Monthly thinks that Petraeus is a big government liberal because of his actions in "nation building" in Iraq (SOURCE):

If we're going to play Washington's favorite parlor game, we might as well ask the inevitable question: Would Petraeus really run as a Republican? Testifying Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he articulated policy positions on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Bagram detention facility that sounded like planks of the Democratic, not Republican, platform. That's just the beginning of his surprisingly liberal politics:

• Says "the time has come" to consider repealing don't ask, don't tell.
• Opposes sending Guantanamo detainees to the Bagram facility in Afghanistan.
• Supports closing the prison at Guantanamo.
• Opposes "enhanced interrogation" methods like waterboarding.
• Condemns Israel's behavior in the Palestinian conflict as undermining U.S. regional interests.
• Soft on drugs: Has made combating Afghanistan's massive opium trade a low priority.
• Soft on crime: Supports reconciling with Taliban leaders and backed Sunni militias in Iraq's Sunni Awakening.
• Worst of all, he's a big-government liberal: His strategy in Iraq relied on numerous population-centric strategies that are called counterinsurgency when deployed inside a war zone but, if implemented in the U.S., would be called social welfare programs on the scale of FDR's Works Progress Administration or Johnson's Great Society. Petraeus uses government resources to put unemployed locals to work on massive infrastructure projects, he works hard to secure fair political representation for aggrieved minorities, and he builds strong, public social services like hospitals and schools. President Reagan's edict, "government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem," doesn't seem to hold for Petraeus in Iraq. Would it hold for Petraeus in Washington?

Of course, some of the general's Democratic policies could simply reflect that the president is a Democrat and Petraeus respects the chain of command. But it's worth considering that this potential one-day Republican presidential hopeful might be hopeful, and he could even be presidential, but he doesn't look so Republican.

My answer to Fisher is: there is a huge difference between nation-building in a war torn country in your capacity as the top military officer on the ground and at the behest of presidents who are big-government presidents, and the exercise of one's own political philosophy.

I think that integrity counts as much as anything else in a president. Obama has none. Petraeus is the embodiment of it. I suspect that Petraeus is probably not a hard-core rock-ribbed conservative. However, he is one person who, if he were president, I would not worry about our national security or bungling our foreign relations.

Anyway, I could think of others, but I like Petraeus. He's a leader. That is something we have lacked in the White House, going back to Reagan.

[G26ster]

I agree with your premise, but if the ramming through of the health care bill wasn't "tyranny of the majority," then what was it?

It's not an accomplished fact yet. Parts of the health care bill were held unconstitutional yesterday by the 11th Circuit Court. Probably it will go the Supreme Court.

- Jim

Then only one more appointee by the POTUS would have made the "tyranny of the majority" complete. Guess we got lucky we still have a chance at stopping the law.

[seamusTX]

It often happens that a swing vote on the Supreme Court makes a huge difference in history. That said, whatever one Congress does can be undone by the next, until the program becomes established and popular—if it does.

TAM: I consider General Petraeus thoroughly admirable. I don't know whether he would be willing to run and serve as President or how he would govern.

I sometimes think anyone willing to run for office should automatically be excluded as a candidate, but I can't think of what else to do. When the ancient Roman electorate lived in one town and all knew each other, they nominated people who did not campaign for office. That's what VoiceofReason is asking for, but I think that is impractical in a country the size and complexity of the U.S.

I'll also point out that most contested elections have margins in the 54-44% range or closer (with some votes going to third-party candidates). That means nearly half the electorate does not favor the winner. Only a few presidential elections have had margins as wide as 60-40. One was Nixon in 1972 (60.7-37.5%, to be exact).

- Jim

[VoiceofReason]

P.S.: Neither Congress nor the President can "run the economy." GDP growth and employment/unemployment have gone up and down regardless of the party in power, tax policies, and fiscal policies (tight money, loose credit, etc.).

If you take a long view of history, from the eighteenth century to the 1930s, the American economy (even before there was a U.S. federal government) was a roller-coaster of booms, busts, panics, and fiscal crises. In some cases the federal government had to be bailed out by private parties like J.P. Morgan. Personal or corporate bankruptcy used to be a situation that compelled people to commit suicide or go to the territories and change their name.

For all the rhetoric from my esteemed representative Ron Paul and others, the Federal Reserve Bank and other fiscal policies have stabilized the economy. As bad as it is now, we don't have "Hoovervilles" or homeless Okies looking for a place to go as in The Grapes of Wrath yet.

- Jim

There, fixed it for you.