In comments to yesterday's post, I was asked who I'd tap for the Chief Executive job, having rejected Senator Cruz?
Good question.
I'd want someone who was serious about the job. And not so set on making his mark on History or The World or Progress. We elect these smiling bastards on the premise that they're some kind of savior. They run campaigns as Men On Horseback, promising to "usher in a new day."
I don't want a "new day." I don't much want the "old days" back, either. I sure don't care to see any Great Leaders: when you get a large-enough crop of them at same time, they foul up the whole world. I just want the President (and Congress, and the Supremes) to do their jobs in a way that doesn't have me (or any other honest person) looking over my shoulder, wondering if it's time to head for the hills. I want 'em to do their jobs in a way that minimizes the opportunities for people to go for one another's throats. When metaphorical fires break out, I want 'em to put metaphorical water on them, not gasoline.
I want to see -- just once! -- a competent Chief Executive, someone who appoints the various Directors and Cabinet members on the basis of ability, not on how much money they donated, how stalwart a partisan they are or even plain chumship. I want a President who'll hold 'em to account and send them packing if they screw up.
I don't care if he or she is any good at giving speeches. I don't care if the rest of the world loves them or hates them. I don't care about the President's age, ugliness, gender, ethnic background, marital status or religion. I'm hoping not for a hawk or a dove but for someone who is slow to anger and measured but decisive in action, who acts only when action is truly necessary.
I'd like another Calvin Coolidge.
I'm not gonna get one.
Voting in Presidential elections is a thing I do with great reluctance and after much deliberation. They're all pompous, ego-driven fools and I'm reduced to trying to do the least harm with my vote. I can usually vote for the Libertarian Party candidate with a clear conscience.
The job's available on 20 Jan 17. Are you available to start then? Shall we assume you'll continue your campaign of "No"?
ReplyDelete- Drifter
"Of course the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you--if you don't play, you can't win."
ReplyDeleteI've always felt that voting was important because of the men and women who fought for the ideals of liberty (and each other) down through the many years.
ReplyDeleteBut it gets harder and harder to go to the polls. The monster that our government has become is run by the agencies and departments, not the prez, not congress and not the court. No matter what law, judgment, presidential order or act of God comes their way, they'll just create more regulations and enforce them as if they were law with the SWAT teams the congress-critters gave them the power to create.
I seriously hurt inside for my kids and my soon to be born grandkids...this country can only feed the ever growing beast for so long. Then it'll all collapse. Until then, I don't think any person or party will be able to get it under control. I'd be very happy to be wrong...
Well, in another "Heinlein Guide to Voting" paraphrase, there's ALWAYS Someone/Something to Vote AGAINST!
ReplyDeleteAnd I am NOT Voting for Chris Christie! That Corrupt RINO Anti-Gunner is nothing but "Capone Wannabe!" Anybody who DELIBERATELY decides to Block one of the Busiest Roads in America for PAYBACK because some Local Politician didn't support him in his Election, THEN throws his Underlings under the Bus when he gets caught is a Scumbag!
And if it comes down to Hillary and Christie in November 2016, I will break my Long-Standing Rule about "Wasting Votes" and go Third Party!
But I can also Predict that if Both of them get the Nomination for their Party, Ammo Prices will be going up that Summer like a Rocket to the Moon!
I find nothing to disagree with in these comments.
ReplyDeleteCoolidge would have had the great depression wrapped up by the end of his term, if he had ran again, and not allowed Hoover to try to fix it with Keynesian rot.
ReplyDeleteHoover didn't figure out that Keynesianism was a form of voodoo until after 1935, from his memoirs.
My idea is to institute a draft, wherein everyone will be called to serve, with few exceptions:
ReplyDeleteBobbie, you've been chosen to serve as President of the US for the next 4 years.
Kristophr, you're the representative for your district in the State legislature.
Jim, You're up for US Senator for your state.
There would be few exceptions to opt out, and only one term would be served. Your pay would be whatever you're making when called up.
One of my friends objected, telling me that there are some really stupid people out there. I simply sat him in front of my computer and called up the Hank Johnson YouTube video on Guam tipping over. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA
Well, I'm at least in the 99th percentile of cynics, but I would support john Kasich. He is a well spoken adult, who has done good things in Ohio, understands how Congress works, was one of the architects of "Clinton's" balanced budget, is not a lawyer, is not Ivy League, has the gift of gab and common touch (host on Fox's Heartland)and at least "I" thinks he is honest.
ReplyDeleteI know a lot of haters don't like him because he took the Obamacare Medicaid handout, but jeebus, nobody is 100% ideologically pure.
MY DAD for President!!
ReplyDeleteI've taken to writing in my Dad's name for President when there isn't anyone worth voting for (and face it, there usually isn't).
Would he be a good President? Probably not, although he doesn't want the job... which in my book makes him more qualified than anyone who is actually running. But with only me voting for him, there is little danger of him getting the job, so it's OK.
s
My Dad would make a great president. Of course he's dead, which I think is an excellent prerequisite for holding any office of the public trust.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Jim Dunmyer - I doubt we can do much worse with a draft.
ReplyDeleteI would add two things:
a) A housing and food stipend (for Congress, at least). Living in/around DC is bloody expensive. At my current salary, it would drive me into bankruptcy within 6 months if I got drafted, and I'm not that bad off.
b) It would be unreasonable to expect an employer to hold someone's position for 2-6 years. Extend the base pay for up to 1 year after the person's term, to allow them time to find a new job.
Jake,
ReplyDeletePut them in dorms.
Feed and house them the same as an Amy private. PT optional but recommended.
ReplyDeleteDetails need to be worked out on my proposal, but I like F.C.'s thought of dorms.
ReplyDeleteThe idea is to make the jobs temporary and for no cost to be incurred by the draftee, but for them to not come out better off financially than when they entered the job.
Dorms could work, but I think some accommodations would need to be made for families. But that's not an issue if you design the dorms right.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I kind of like the idea of congress having to find a short-term home in or near DC on a specified budget, and having to live next door to the people their decisions will effect.
Jake,
ReplyDeleteYou don't want their families with them. Families should stay at home and sessions should be short, with legislators going home for extended periods in between. The full-time legislature is more trouble than it's worth; the leadership can always call a meeting via WebEx if they're in recess.
In fact, why isn't it done that way now? This is the 21st Century, after all.
If an unemployed bum gets drafted, does he get no pay.
ReplyDeleteThis could be amusing: "The Senator from the cardboard box under the RR bridge is recognized!" ( As the chairman holds his nose ).