croghan27 said:
Would you rule out John McCain and Ron Paul? Paul is ideologically driven rather than practically; has spent his life in the government he seems to despise. McCain is notable for what he had not done rather than what he has.
On the 'other' side JFK was a Senator - is that enough ... Johnson just about ran the government for quite a while during WWII so he had loads of experience - perhaps that is why he was a much more effective President than his predecessor.
Certainly training and experience are as important in government as anything, but cannot be used to exclude anyone and still maintain adherence to democratic principles.
I'll try (again) to get us back on topic with this response.
I think both McCain and Paul serve the public well in their current capacities - we need a variety of opinions and the occasional compromise.
As for JFK - opinions vary as to his performance in dealing with the Russian leader, the Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban missle crisis. I think the Russians under-estimated him initially - because of his inexperience.
Kennedy was competitive and (IMO) responsible for making the moon shot possible. I'm not certain the civil rights movement would have been as emotion driven on campus if Kennedy was not assassinated, nor do I think the "British Invasion" would have been so important and eventful? IMO the Beatle's filled a void in the hearts of many after a 3(?) month mourning period. IMO - the distrust of all things Government and the anti-war movement were validated after JFK was killed (followed by Oswald - questions remained and doubt set in). As for Vietnam, we'll never know for sure what Kennedy would have done - opinions vary. I do think Kennedy was better equipped to deal with the social issues of the day better than Johnson or Nixon. I also think Kennedy would have focused more on growing the economy.
Johnson was a very capable politician - no argument.
I think a better comparison might be Bill Clinton to President Obama. Both are educated and intelligent. They are both lawyers. They are both Democrats and entered office with a liberal agenda including healthcare - and some of the same staff - which helped Obama become functional faster. Clinton served 4 (?) terms as a Governor. Obama served 2 (?) years in the Senate. IMO - Clinton was better prepared for the job.
Regardless of the person elected or their political affiliations, when elected President, they represent everyone and need to hit the ground running. Every President surely enters office with some type of plan or agenda or wish list or ideals - or they wouldn't be elected. Likewise, every President has a learning curve - nothing can prepare a person for every challenge of the job.
In the context of this thread - regardless of a Presidents wish list - reality will prevail. In the real world - feeding people is more important than supplying them with internet access - that requires expensive equipment to utilize and substantial support to maintain. If you take a step back now - the safety of the 82 million people of Egypt was more important than an interruption of internet access - wasn't it? Now the problem is their economy - high unemployment. Unless everyone involved in the operation of the internet is willing to work for free - the 82 million people fo Egypt will need to find a way to pay for access and participation - won't they?
Terrific!
Do they also have to waive admission? I must be missing something?
