The Art of Being Presidential

Adam Weinberg

Goldwater Republican
I think if there's something this campaign has shown, it's the value of defining yourself and really trying to get the voters to feel comfortable with your candidate as President. In this sense, it's a very long job interview and we sort of get to see the candidates molded by different pressures as they would be in office. Campaigning and governing are not that different in many ways.

We've come from the point where Obama was "risky" or "not ready to be President" or had Jeremiah Wright type associations that cast doubt on him with working class whites, to the point where most people feel that he's credibly ready to be President in a very, very difficult time. And through it, while Obama has been resilient to criticism, he has not fundmentally changed what his campaign was about. It was a consistent strategy.

Meanwhile, with McCain, this campaign actually diminished the public's perception of him as prepared to be a President of the United States, which in many circles was considered a given for years. And what, when it comes down to it, was McCain running on most of this time?

Everything is too little too late. It often seems his campaign will employ a tactic that may have worked earlier in the campaign, but that no longer applies today. McCain wasted everyone's time on the Bill Ayers and ACORN subject yesterday. Not only do most people take offense for that waste of their time, but none of the people who matter in the voting equation care about this. Not to mention it is further indicative of his inconsistency and poor timing. The time to cast doubts on Barack Obama the man is long gone. There is no credible argument that people don't know who Barack Obama is. Most of us know more about Barack Obama than we do about our neighbors, even if we came to the campaign later.

It has been a strange and confusing campaign on McCain's part. Everything that he needed to address about his own weaknesses, that extreme partisans will foolishly say he tackled in last night's debate, he is too late to really change. People don't think he has the temperment. People don't think he's that different from Bush. These are all things that needed to be understood by the public the time of the convention, if not earlier. And they needed to be addressed consistently. Not as token mentions against the incumbent President.

Perhaps at the beginning to even have the sitting President's endorsement was unwise and seemingly useless even with his own party. Many other Republican candidates who could form substantive disagreements with Bush would not have sought his endorsement.

I remember very specifically after the slaughter of the 2006 primaries that a certain Arizona Senator did the rounds on the cable shows. His makeup was perfect, he looked ten years younger, and he calmly explained that the reform principles had been abandoned and they needed to be recovered by elected leaders for the sake of the country and its future. It might not be "Yes We Can", but it could have been useful to at least stay on that message and really work all of its angles.

As I've said in the past, the Republicans were nearly destined to lose this election, but they did have a better shot with McCain than probably any of the candidates. Electorally, not ideologically of course.

But if there's anyone who blew his fighting chance, it was McCain by failing to at least continue to make a good go at "Playing the President", which seemed to end somewhere around the convention. John McCain had an advantage for being a moderate and facing an inexperienced and non-traditional candidate and his inconsistency prevented voters from being able to really trust him with the problems of the country.

I don't think I've seen McCain look Presidential in quite a long time relative to the many events that occur in a major Presidential campaign. And I think it's nearly impossible at this point that he would have anywhere in his reach the chance to actually become President.
 
Well, I don't think that Obama is Mavericky enough, don'tyaknow.
 
Oh. And the Bailout.

He should have gone against the bailout. It would have given him weeks to state why he would be superior to Obama on economic issues.

Suspending his campaign, accomplishing nothing in Washington, and then taking on the position of his opponent who was already in the lead was a completely meaninless thing to do.
 
Suspending his campaign, accomplishing nothing in Washington, and then taking on the position of his opponent who was already in the lead was a completely meaninless thing to do.

ubetchathere.

there's a hockeymom in alaska who will be reminded of her bid for power every time she watches the toilet flush.
 
Oh the Mavericky goodness!
Well, bless your heart. Yewbetcha now! What we'll do is just look at it outside the box, talk to Joe Sixpack, and figure out what a maverick would do and then, you know, we'll do that.
 
I think if there's something this campaign has shown, it's the value of defining yourself and really trying to get the voters to feel comfortable with your candidate as President. In this sense, it's a very long job interview and we sort of get to see the candidates molded by different pressures as they would be in office. Campaigning and governing are not that different in many ways.

We've come from the point where Obama was "risky" or "not ready to be President" or had Jeremiah Wright type associations that cast doubt on him with working class whites, to the point where most people feel that he's credibly ready to be President in a very, very difficult time. And through it, while Obama has been resilient to criticism, he has not fundmentally changed what his campaign was about. It was a consistent strategy.

Meanwhile, with McCain, this campaign actually diminished the public's perception of him as prepared to be a President of the United States, which in many circles was considered a given for years. And what, when it comes down to it, was McCain running on most of this time?

Everything is too little too late. It often seems his campaign will employ a tactic that may have worked earlier in the campaign, but that no longer applies today. McCain wasted everyone's time on the Bill Ayers and ACORN subject yesterday. Not only do most people take offense for that waste of their time, but none of the people who matter in the voting equation care about this. Not to mention it is further indicative of his inconsistency and poor timing. The time to cast doubts on Barack Obama the man is long gone. There is no credible argument that people don't know who Barack Obama is. Most of us know more about Barack Obama than we do about our neighbors, even if we came to the campaign later.

It has been a strange and confusing campaign on McCain's part. Everything that he needed to address about his own weaknesses, that extreme partisans will foolishly say he tackled in last night's debate, he is too late to really change. People don't think he has the temperment. People don't think he's that different from Bush. These are all things that needed to be understood by the public the time of the convention, if not earlier. And they needed to be addressed consistently. Not as token mentions against the incumbent President.

Perhaps at the beginning to even have the sitting President's endorsement was unwise and seemingly useless even with his own party. Many other Republican candidates who could form substantive disagreements with Bush would not have sought his endorsement.

I remember very specifically after the slaughter of the 2006 primaries that a certain Arizona Senator did the rounds on the cable shows. His makeup was perfect, he looked ten years younger, and he calmly explained that the reform principles had been abandoned and they needed to be recovered by elected leaders for the sake of the country and its future. It might not be "Yes We Can", but it could have been useful to at least stay on that message and really work all of its angles.

As I've said in the past, the Republicans were nearly destined to lose this election, but they did have a better shot with McCain than probably any of the candidates. Electorally, not ideologically of course.

But if there's anyone who blew his fighting chance, it was McCain by failing to at least continue to make a good go at "Playing the President", which seemed to end somewhere around the convention. John McCain had an advantage for being a moderate and facing an inexperienced and non-traditional candidate and his inconsistency prevented voters from being able to really trust him with the problems of the country.

I don't think I've seen McCain look Presidential in quite a long time relative to the many events that occur in a major Presidential campaign. And I think it's nearly impossible at this point that he would have anywhere in his reach the chance to actually become President.
Some interesting thoughts. I know people personally who decide who to vote for based on how "presidential" they come across. Being a history buff, it's something that unsettles me.
There are many leaders in history who came across being strong but were disastrous, Richard the Lionheart for instance or on the other end people who looked weak like Fabius Maximus who turned out to save their country.

Obama is a fantastic public speaker, he also has an extremely Liberal voting record and no history of cutting anything. With a $10.5 trillion debt and climbing should we judge people on the superficial or their actions?
 
I think we should judge them on how maverickly they can maverick their way onto the national scene, because mavericks can work so much better with the other party than people who are not so mavericky. Bless their souls.
 
Some interesting thoughts. I know people personally who decide who to vote for based on how "presidential" they come across. Being a history buff, it's something that unsettles me.
There are many leaders in history who came across being strong but were disastrous, Richard the Lionheart for instance or on the other end people who looked weak like Fabius Maximus who turned out to save their country.

Obama is a fantastic public speaker, he also has an extremely Liberal voting record and no history of cutting anything. With a $10.5 trillion debt and climbing should we judge people on the superficial or their actions?

Lulz dano. You are talking about a "liberal voting record" to an American. Even if he had the most liberal voting record in the senate, that wouldn't make him very different at all than the person who had the most conservative. Besides, of course, common sense things like global warming and abortion.
 
Some interesting thoughts. I know people personally who decide who to vote for based on how "presidential" they come across. Being a history buff, it's something that unsettles me.
There are many leaders in history who came across being strong but were disastrous, Richard the Lionheart for instance or on the other end people who looked weak like Fabius Maximus who turned out to save their country.

Obama is a fantastic public speaker, he also has an extremely Liberal voting record and no history of cutting anything. With a $10.5 trillion debt and climbing should we judge people on the superficial or their actions?

Appearances are a dangerous thing to make leadership judgements on, I agree.

But developing the ability to control your message over a long period of time has a lot to do with how focused you are on achieving your goals and communicating those goals to other people to address their concerns and win their support. If McCain will govern as he has campaigned, he may be an ineffective President. I know "effective" is not always what we want from government when it's doing the wrong thing, but it is worth considering.
 
Some interesting thoughts. I know people personally who decide who to vote for based on how "presidential" they come across. Being a history buff, it's something that unsettles me.
There are many leaders in history who came across being strong but were disastrous, Richard the Lionheart for instance or on the other end people who looked weak like Fabius Maximus who turned out to save their country.

Obama is a fantastic public speaker, he also has an extremely Liberal voting record and no history of cutting anything. With a $10.5 trillion debt and climbing should we judge people on the superficial or their actions?

You're either a hipocrit or blithering idiot or both. Why did you fail to place Bush with King Dick? And if your such a history buff why are you parroting the right wing talking heads who said the exact same thing about Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc, etc,

So using your historical standard. Should we vote for a party based on their past actions? In the last 16 years we had one party, as a moderate political party, that brought us 8 years of historical peacetime prosperity, advanced our technology and industry, balanced the budget, reduced the deficit and turned it into surplusses.

That was followed by 8 years of right wing extremism which has us bogged down in an immoral war, has bungled the war on terrorism and let OBL walk free, turned a surpluss into record deficits, more than doubled the national debt by 5 trillions dollars, stood by and triped on it's on feet while a great city drowned, became an extreme divisive force and help precipitate the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression because it was asleep at the wheel while a few greedy corporations devastated our financial institutions.

McCain deserves to be judged by the American people for the past history of the political party he represents which for 8 years has represented political extremism and incompetent governance. He supported most of what his party has done over the last 8 years and the American public should and is holding him accountable for his past actions.

You're just another right wing partisan hack and we've heard enough of your kind in the last 8 years. The American public is fed up with you. Go away. You're day is done!
 
Really good Adam. Your observations also carry a bit more weight for me because I know you are not a follower of Obama. That you can come from your political beliefs and still say that Obama has proven himself in this campaign and has shown he does possess the capacity to be a leader, carries much more weight than some of the OTHERS on this board that are blatant hacks for their candidate.
 
Really good Adam. Your observations also carry a bit more weight for me because I know you are not a follower of Obama. That you can come from your political beliefs and still say that Obama has proven himself in this campaign and has shown he does possess the capacity to be a leader, carries much more weight than some of the OTHERS on this board that are blatant hacks for their candidate.

Here here.
 
Appearances are a dangerous thing to make leadership judgements on, I agree.

But developing the ability to control your message over a long period of time has a lot to do with how focused you are on achieving your goals and communicating those goals to other people to address their concerns and win their support. If McCain will govern as he has campaigned, he may be an ineffective President. I know "effective" is not always what we want from government when it's doing the wrong thing, but it is worth considering.

Unless the problem is ineffective and/or inept government.
 
It is one thing to be effective in government when you are carrying out administration with the right priorities, but it's a different situation when you're effective with the wrong ones.

I think the Bush Administration has been effective in carrying out several of its stated goals. And for years, the opposition was ineffective in making them pay for it.
 
It is one thing to be effective in government when you are carrying out administration with the right priorities, but it's a different situation when you're effective with the wrong ones.

I think the Bush Administration has been effective in carrying out several of its stated goals. And for years, the opposition was ineffective in making them pay for it.

That's quite true in the political sense.
 
You're either a hipocrit or blithering idiot or both. Why did you fail to place Bush with King Dick?
He's not a bad choice, but perhaps not as bad a choice. At least Bush didn't bleed the country white in taxes.

And if your such a history buff why are you parroting the right wing talking heads who said the exact same thing about Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc, etc,
How did they save their country? By supporting spending increases and bloating debt?

So using your historical standard. Should we vote for a party based on their past actions? In the last 16 years we had one party, as a moderate political party, that brought us 8 years of historical peacetime prosperity,
You forget that the Repubs had control over the senate and house for the BEST 6 of those 8 years and brough prosperity with cutting government. While Clinton sort of ruins your peacetime redemption with Kosovo, Haiti, etc...

advanced our technology and industry,
This part is laughable, by what? The left's contempt for machines and automation because it ended many unionized jobs in manufacturing? Remember that? It was capitalism and declining government that brought this.

That was followed by 8 years of right wing extremism which has us bogged down in an immoral war,
Mmm, one Obama says he would have opposed if he was in the senate at the time, yet one which every other Democrat with moderation or presidential ambitions seems to have voted for.

has bungled the war on terrorism
I prefer the Libertarian line of it not being a war that can be won in any sort of tangible measurable terms.

and let OBL walk free,
This is BS, Afghanistan was invaded and an attempt to capture him. Do you support Obama's and Biden's plan to go into (nuclear) Pakistan to try and POSSIBLY find him?

turned a surpluss into record deficits,
First there has never been a surplus, not in terms of decreasing debt to the penny.
Second, might I ask over the last 8 years what Democrats have done to decrease the deficit? Besides Iraq, I've heard them criticize Repubs over "not doing enough" (ie: not spending enough) on any other issue of the day (Pill Bill, Education, Healthcare, SS, collegecare, etc...)

more than doubled the national debt by 5 trillions dollars,
An exxageration and again my point above.

stood by and triped on it's on feet while a great city drowned,
BS again, the government was equipped to handle disasters for driving trucks with aid.
It really didn't matter who was president, no one has the power to make trucks move through water.

became an extreme divisive force
I'm sorry but Bush passed Kennedy's largest ever education spending increase with it tacked on to NCLB. He passed the left's idea of a Pill Bill, he has signed arts increases, agreed to Sarbanes-Oxley, unemployment insurance increases. He has vetoed virtually nothing and by his numbers of vetoes alone he has been bipartisan. Fume as you might, your hate for him does not equate to divisiveness in action.

and help precipitate the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression because it was asleep at the wheel while a few greedy corporations devastated our financial institutions.
Yeah, greed. It's funny because when I was young all the lefties used to say that banks were greedy because they didn't give out loans easily enough, now you call them that for giving out too many easy loans. Perhaps they can't win.
Government backing was at the heart of this issue with government backed entities like Fannie and Freddie being the worst. What incentive do those institutions have to give out good loans when they know government will step in to bail them out?
Further government regulation like the Community Reinvestment Act contributed to the problem by implictly forcing institutions to give out more bad loans.

All deregulation did was increase competition and allow ease of MORE loans, not specifically more BAD loans. The root cause of that was the above 2 problems, especially the first.
Also a Fed that both parties supported that kept interest rates low and encouraged borrowing.

McCain deserves to be judged by the American people for the past history of the political party he represents which for 8 years has represented political extremism and incompetent governance. He supported most of what his party has done over the last 8 years and the American public should and is holding him accountable for his past actions.
I judge people as individuals, not what party they represent. I'd prefer a Conservative Democrat over a Liberal Republican anyday.
McCain has some good points like his fight against pork, actual free market support for healthcare with allowing competition between providers across states and moving away from the more regulation policies of the past that have proven to do nothing but make healthcare worse.

You're just another right wing partisan hack and we've heard enough of your kind in the last 8 years. The American public is fed up with you. Go away. You're day is done!
No they are fed up with overspending and war, they are quite happy with economic Conservatism.
 
He's not a bad choice, but perhaps not as bad a choice. At least Bush didn't bleed the country white in taxes.

Well thanks for proving my point about your being a blythering idiot. 70% of the nations or more dissapproves of Bush because of his borrow and spend drunken wrecklesness has added 5 trillion dollars of debt. Boy What a moron! LOL
 
Back
Top