An Egghead For The Oval Office

tania this is the first race with no incumbent in 80 years making this the first election in ages where truly anything can happen

it's not that it's dull other times but enjoy this excitement while it lasts.

Certainly one of the most exciting in recent times. Also one of the most important. You picked a good time to turn 18.

But it's still way too early. Most European countries limit the length of time during which one can campaign or fundraise. Limiting the "election cycle" like that, in addition to encouraging those now running to spend more time on their actual duties, would be good for the country. Right now, we're really just making the cost of campaigning more expensive, making money more important, increasing corruption in politics.

I agree that this campaign started ridiculously early. But I think there's a reason for it: we have a president with a 75% DISapproval rating. If we couldn't start looking forward to his last day in office, we'd have nothing to look forward to at all. The early campaigns are frustrating and a bad precedent, but they're keeping us from nose-diving into a national depression (emotional or otherwise).

Tania,
I remember when I first turned 18 and got the chance to vote for the first time. I was excited too. I still feel great each time I do. It hasn't always been exciting and has sometimes been nerve wracking (2000 and 2004 for example), but it's always felt good.

Enjoy the opportunity and make sure to make an educated choice.

Dear Tania,

I am glad you are old enough to vote. And that you take pride in the fact.

Please vote responsibly. Use your own head and not that stuff on TV. The stuff on there does not make you a good voter. It makes you a clone.

Now that you have the right... vote your conscience. And never look back. Not even at me.

You'll know what is right.

Your friend,

Mikie

Paxil: thoughts on getting them to run??

Gore isn't going to get in the race. He's got an issue that's important to him, and it takes all his time to keep it in the spotlight. Being president would dilute that. He can do more from the outside.

Here's what's going to happen: Fred Thompson, major conservative, is going to enter as a Republican as soon as Giuliani (inevitably) implodes. At that point, Bloomberg is going to enter as an Independent, running against Thompson and Clinton. He's going to steal votes from Thompson. And depending on what happens in the world between now and the elections, that will either put Clinton in the White House or keep everyone from gaining an electoral majority, in which case it's thrown to congress, with the House picking the president and the Senate picking the Vice. The House will pick Clinton and the Senate will pick Bloomberg.

I don't think the Senate can pick someone for Vice unless that person has actually run for that office... I don't think they can pick someone who ran for president as the new Vice.

I could be wrong...

@Mom-

I think, actually, they could. Check out an article about it here
.

I'm going to agree with Mom From Long Island on this one. There are two separate electoral college ballots, one for President, one for Vice, and according to the Twelfth Amendment, the House picks from the people on the Presidential ballots and the Senate from the top two VP vote-getters.

From the 12th Amendment:

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President...

What would be interesting is that, in a 3 way race thrown to Congress, at least one candidate vying for the presidency in the House wouldn't have his running mate eligible in the Senate.

Go Tania! You sure were paying attention in that Civics class, yes!

OMG, I looked it up on Wikipedia!! lol

Paxil: thoughts on getting them to run??

Here's a thought.

You may be both right and wrong, rudianyc-2.

Darwin was probably close to dead on when it applies to the natural world operating in closed system.

Problem is, humans leverage technology to deviate from ‘natural selection'—just think about how pharmacology has radically reshaped which humans live & die or the effects of human agriculture or animal husbandry (breeding) on biodiversity.

Humans step into the system and disrupt the equilibrium. And as a result the natural order of nature, that would proceed with natural selection stumbles and humans usurp the role of nature in guiding selection.

If we used our reasoning abilities (yes, Gore's book is right) to maintain a better public forum for debate, we would have a better pool of candidates, policies and culture. In the case of a democracy, we need the technological meddling of human reason to improve on natural selection.

Otherwise we just end up with the prettiest, most charismatic, vicious, power hungry and power deluded personalities on stage raising their hands to mentally juvenile true or false questions. Show me your pearly whites, Sen. Clinton and R.Guilliani, let me see your smooth shine, Obama and Thompson.

no they don't they proved that when they voted for bush over gore

bainphysics,

That was Gore's election to lose. He blew it when he kept Clinton at arm's length. So America was faced with the question: "Do I vote for a possible idiot or a known idiot" -- and of course, we usually go with what we know.

After GW Bush, we could elect a garden snail it would seem like an egghead.

I was hoping for a drunken monkey.

no they don't they proved that when they voted for bush over gore

When did that happen? In 2k they voted Gore over Bush but it didn't count.

American culture seems to have always had a decidedly anti-intellectual flavor. Think about it: "eggheads." Do you want to be one? Not quite as flashy as "Men of Gold" now is it?

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

@jblossom,

Having worked for Biden many moons ago, I can pretty safely say that he's not dumb. He's just got a really big ego that doesn't censor anything that comes out of his mouth. I actually think he'd make a good VP because he has a lot of experience in foreign relations and because the veep is the head of the Senate, which is where he belongs.

Be nice to Delaware and it's senator!

Biden is outspoken and strong - which can make him sound more like a Republican candidate than a Democrat. There is a great New Yorker article on him from the last election cycle that expounds on this point, if anyone can find it. It cites a comment that a waitress from the Charcoal Pit (a Delaware late-night-high-school-crowd institution), regarding the choice between Kerry and Bush. The gist was, that even though she was a Democrat generally and agreed more with Kerry on issues, he just sounded indecisive, while Bush, no matter what he was saying, sounded strong. That is what many Americans want - someone who sounds strong, no matter what they are saying.

Sorry to have offended, Delawareans, I'll take your word that there are some smarts there. I don't know that Biden uses them that effectively. I hear what you're saying about Kerry, but Biden comes off like his handlers have told him to go out there and bite the heads off of some puppies to prove his manliness. It's really not very appealing. Frankly Hillary does a better job of pulling off the macho thing more effectively. Nobody's going to mess with her. Obama's getting a little tripped up in his compassion rhetoric - in danger of becoming a Kerry. And Edwards is downright impressive at times, but may be too skewed towards a pro-labor stance to avoid heavy flak in the general election from the Republican mudslingers.

But ANY of these are at least in the ballpark of reality-based policies. Lord help us if any of the Flat Earth Society get in again.

But it worked for Wilson and Clinton. (Nixon, too ... but when you're crazy it doesn't count!)

But it worked for Wilson and Clinton. (Nixon, too ... but when you're crazy it doesn't count!)

These are excellent examples.

Wilson was definitely high IQ book smart. A professor. A reader. But he also has blinded by that intelligence and took some serious mistaken decisions that damaged parts of our democracy.

Nixon was possibly a genius. But an evil genius it seems. He applied his smarts to corrupt purposes, pursuing power above public service.

Clinton was a political genius, leveraging astonishing charisma and presence to accomplish political goals. I do not know one way or the other whether he was intelligent in distinction.

When I read this article, I agreed with the desire for an intelligent president. I do not want the average joe running the show. But I also do not want someone to smart to see their own faults, or too smart to have real people skills in a foreign policy setting. Smart is only part of the package.

But in my opinion, Gore balances smart against self-reflection very well. The loss of the election forced him to that point of deep examination. And I think he has weathered that storm for the best.

As far as the current candidates, I see a lot of cunning (political smarts) and charisma (sociable smarts) but note much of any true intelligence that can metabolize factual evidence, balance blind-spots in their personality and lead with a vision that values everyone in this country not just an ideological base.

Well said, oxa.

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, if that helps at all.

Or Ron Paul.

Ron Paul? Another Republican from Texas? No thanks, I've had enough of this one.

Right, because all Republicans from Texas are exactly the same. Just like all users who post on newsvine, right?

And Bush is not republican. Just because he says he is, doesnt mean he is.

BlaiseP, those are excellent thoughts and sentiments - and well put. But when I look around, I don't see any Lincolns. Did you have anybody in mind when you wrote the above? Just curious.

BlaiseP is describing Mike Gravel... IMO.

http://www.gravel08.us

ES

I think he's describing Bloomberg, IMHO. But since Bloomberg isn't officially in the race, perhaps you're right.

BlaiseP - want to let us know if you had someone in mind?

Bloomberg has no standing outside of NY.

Im still favorable towards Ron Paul.

@FL Independent

Whether or not Bloomberg could win is debatable, but "no standing outside of NY"??? Please. Everyone in the South knows who he is because of the Virginia gun control issues. Everyone in the West knows who he is because he works with Schwarzenegger on the economy. That leaves the Midwest, which is where all the blogs that speculate on his presidential run are coming from. Wake up.

*Bloomberg* has no standing outside of New York.

I think Fl Independent is speaking about people who know only one thing about Bloomberg—he is wealthy beyond the average American's comprehension.

For me that triggers a personal bias that I struggle to set aside. I do not know much about Bloomberg, though if he enters the race and survives the narrowing of the field I will certainly take the time to read up on him.

Additionally, I have been trained by the behavior of generations of businessmen not to trust their motives. I want a leader, yes, but I want a leader from altruism not capitalization. A the goals of a country are not purely economic but rather a balance of economy, equality and ecology (and not just in the nature sense).

Business leaders are skilled at economic leadership, no doubt about it, but are they skilled in protecting minority needs, dissenting opinions? Protecting public commons in both the physical world (i.e. water, forests, air but also spectrum, network neutrality, broadcast rights), and the world of ideas (i.e. creative works, intellectual freedom, scientific research)?

Is Bloomberg equipped only to be a business leader or a leader of the free world in all the varied capacities that entails. Can he step beyond economy to be just, merciful, honest and intelligent in the other roles a President assumes? Can he respect the purposeful frustrations that our Constitution imposes on power in ever branch of government in order to protect against abuse?

I do not know. Bloomberg is an entirely new proposition to me. So supports, and detractors, you tell me.

Bloomberg has no standing outside of *New York*.

But there is something to be said for the reality distortion field of New York. I don't mean that as an insult. Honestly. But NY is such a unique place with a massive collective ego. It sees itself as the seat of business, culture and politics and in many cases these statements are true—to a degree.

But to Americans in other parts of the country, that NY ego is off putting. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guilliani both give off that vibe in my opinion. And that is why some of the smaller candidates who stand at the fringe of the media coverage but at the core of American (Constitutional, Founding Fathers, Historical) values appeal to me more than any politician or businessman from New York.

New York is a great state, and NYC is a great city. They have contributed excellence to the world and our nation over the decades. But their are lots of great states and great contributors. And there are already (too?) many NY voices declaring, ‘Pick Me! Pick Me!'

There are too many candidates, too few parties, too few differences, and too much money in this race already. So what do an additional candidate, like Bloomberg, have to offer and how will he cut through the dissonant noise of the crowd?

eSantiago-
Gravel? The man wants to institute a regressive sales tax that will penalize poor Americans by making them pay a greater share of their income for goods and services then richer Americans. That's a bad idea.

Worse yet, he wants to institute National Initiatives to let Americans "vote directly on issues." An even worse idea. As a resident of one of the states that do that, I see first hand how the initiative system is often used to stall government, take away services and keep progress from happening. It simply allows the lobbyists to target the everyday (and often uneducated/lazy) American with their lies and humongous budgets as opposed to representatives and senators. They tend to end up selling false ideas and not the real bill.

What is it about Gravel you like?

So what do an additional candidate, like Bloomberg, have to offer and how will he cut through the dissonant noise of the crowd?

I'm a NY'er and I didn't vote for Bloomberg either time he ran for mayor, and it was precisely because of the concerns listed above by Oxa. But he's passed my test with regard to being able to manage a bank account and the social responsibilities that are incumbent upon a mayor.

Rather than drone on and on, maybe a good way to approach this is to take a quick look at some websites. For example, if you go to front-runner Giuliani's website, the first things you spot isa photo album of him, a place to contribute, and a place to purchase mugs, hats and shirts that say "Rudy '08." The section on "Issues" is only one page, with a short paragraph on a dozen buzz words.

Then flip over to the Hillary Clinton site. The lead column has a place to contribute, to raise money, to plan a Hillary event, or visit the "Hillary Store" where you can purchase mugs, hats, bumper stickers and "kid packs" that all say "Hillary '08." She also has an "Issues" page that covers very vague issues like "strengthening our democracy."

Finally, pop over to Bloomberg's official website. The first things you see are hyper links to these terms:

Improve Schools
Reform Health Care
Keep Illegal Guns off our Streets
Build Affordable Housing
Strengthen our Economy
Protect our Environment
Reduce Poverty

Perhaps I'm biased - I'm sure I am - but I think you can put to rest any doubt that Bloomberg wouldn't be able to keep the national debate on target and focused on issues that matter to everyday people.

I did not say no one knows who he is, I said he has no standing. But I would bet the majority of average people have no idea who he is. Most people dont really pay attention to this stuff. I live in the south and many people dont know who Bloomberg is, much less anything about him.

@rightofkhan

You assume much for those issues. Since many people cant name the vice president (unbelievably), why would you think they would know the mayor of NY? And the majority of people are not following Virginia's gun control issues or his work on the economy. I pay attention to the media and politics avidly and I am not very familiar with Arnie and Bloombergs work on the economy. So if someone who does care and pay attention isnt aware (we all cant be aware of everything), do you really think people who pay no attention are going to know?

@PolitiChris
I know you are kidding. You point to a story in a foreign newspaper, and because 1 foreign newspaper writes about the Mayor of one of the most internationally known cities that means all Americans are aware of him? Thats a bit of faulty logic to say the least.

But he's passed my test with regard to being able to manage a bank account and the social responsibilities that are incumbent upon a mayor.

Fair enough.

…take a quick look at some websites.

Thanks for providing that analysis. The websites of politicians are, to generalize, brand marketing / public relations tools more than genuine platforms for issue based discussion.

But I would agree that the specific and detailed information provided by Bloomberg's website does suggest a more diligent approach to public discussion over charisma and brand polishing.

Here are the links I believe jjerrypipe was referring too:

• Rudy Guilliani
• Hillary Clinton
• Mike Bloomberg

Time for me to go have a read and see how deep those topics on Bloomberg's site are truly discussed.

Regressive? He wants to do away with the income tax, Ron Paul wants to do the same thing. The progressive sales tax is the "Fair Tax" law in the house right now.

The national ballot initiative is a GOOD thing, yes lobbyists have large budgets... and yes, they can control small communities by aggressive marketing... but on a national level, the cost would outweigh the benefit of TRYING to market to the majority of a 300 million person voter pool. Not all Americans are lazy, and despite being fundamentally uneducated, they all THINK they have a grasp on politics. That's enough to start us in the right direction, toward making every person a lawmaker makes them have the responsibility and right to participate IF they want to, otherwise legislators like Congress (in the national ballot initiative) still have the responsibility of managing the money and business of government.

Gravel stands for making the War in Iraq illegal, a felony for the President to keep US troops there against the will of the people.

He stands for a national public health-care program, similar to that of most European nations.

He wants to get America off fossil fuels by 2020 (I think that was the year) by gathering up scientists and finding a solution to our energy problems

He's a good guy, and has America's best at heart.

ES

I like Gravel as well. Him and Ron Paul and are a different breed. And frankly I believe thats what we need. We dont need more of these cookie cutter politicians, which the rest of the field on both sides are (for the most part).

Quite true, Blaise. We all know that Lincoln's cabinet included strong Democratic anti-Southerners like Edwin Stanton and, of course, southern Democrats like his vice president Andrew Johnson. This "war cabinet" was chosen by Lincoln with a longer view to achieving balance in the postwar era. IMHO, Bush should have formed a similar war cabinet in the wake of 9/11 or absent that reached out to the Democrats instead of making everything into a political football. What Gene Robinson doesn't seem to understand is that intellect, in and of itself, means little in politics. By most measures the three most intelligent presidents of the modern era were Hoover, Nixon and Carter and all three were miserable failures. OTOH, Oliver Wendell Holmes once said of FDR, "A third-rate mind but a first-rate temperament" -- or something to that effect.

Groucho?

Hmm… Groucho Marx.

Cigars, Acting, Comedic jabs at politicians.

Thompson.

Cigars, Acting, Comedic jabs at politicians.

Hmm…

If only he had a mustache. Well, that and three oddly named buddies all running as a collective vice president.

Great analogy!

If only he had a mustache.

and a sense of humor.

Fred Thompson sure thinks he is hilarious (video).

The active resentment of intellectuals may do this country in yet.

And why is that? Is it a perceived threat that intelligence will undermine religious values?

Cassandra:

Bill Clinton's smartest move was to downplay and almost cover up the fact that he was a Rhodes scholar and to talk as though he were a bit of a rube. That's what got him into the White House.

Unfortunately, Americans may have become accustomed to voting for the intelligent man who charismatically plays the part of a rube. And as a result voted for a true rube with smarts that only apply to economic, business minded, pursuit of power and wealth.

Cassandra:

The active resentment of intellectuals may do this country in yet.

Has it not already? There are those who say the decline has been in process for decades. ‘Nemesis', ‘Assault on Reason’—empire falls and all that jazz.

Jack Richter:

And why is that? Is it a perceived threat that intelligence will undermine religious values?

No, it is the known threat that weak faith is easily undermined by dogma that pits faith against reason and fanatical ideologies against reasoned discourse. There is true faith, strong, robust, that does not need to fear reason and thrives along side just, intelligent reasoned thought and discussion.

Our culture, American culture, once pursued that balance of virtuous reason and faith. In the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the founding of American democracy. It was a noble pursuit in the face of fear and false-fear leveraging weak faith to suppress and oppress reason.

It is a battle that democracy fights against the abuse of power continuously in all fields of endeavor. It is not resentment of intellectuals so much as fear of truth that weighs down this country and drags it toward danger. It is time for the equilibrium of reason and faith to be restored, unless it should snap violently in empire, decadence and spectacle.

I do not want to wait 100, 200, 500-years in torment and oppression for a new revolution of reason, in balance with true faith, to restore equilibrium. May our nation find that path sooner rather than later. May this field of candidates, who jockey for MSM position, find a more virtuous path and a more reasoned electorate.

(Goodness, that was a rant and a half. Thanks for reading.)

That must explain why the three presidents of the modern era considered the "smartest" are also generally considered its worst -- Hoover, Nixon and Carter.

It might be said an Intellectual is unsuited to the job of POTUS. Idealists have led this country into more trouble than Pragmatists.

I'm a consultant. Corporations pay me obscene sums of money to walk into their buildings and tell them things they already know, to do things they know how to do. More than half my job consists of nodding gravely, taking notes, and searching about for the elderly black lady in some little cubicle in the back of the accounting department who actually does know everything. From her I learn the rules, and get an accurate map to all the land mines in the landscape.

Politics is the art of the possible. Idealists and Intellectuals are always maundering on about what Might Be. Sound leadership understands the limitations and works within them, a skill seldom mastered by the Intellectuals.

But America does love the clarion call of Throw Out the Rascals, old Ronald Reagan made hay by calling the Government the Enemy. The secret to a good executive, be he in the Oval Office or an officer in the field, is knowing the limits, and creatively using the limited assets and personnel at his disposal. He generally surrounds himself with people smarter than himself, and builds a corps of faithful subordinates. He relies on their judgment calls, listens to dissenting opinions, builds unity of purpose.

Sun Tzu says: We are not fit to lead an army on the march unless we are familiar with the face of the country--its mountains and forests, its pitfalls and precipices, its marshes and swamps. We shall be unable to turn natural advantage to account unless we make use of local guides.

What about an "intellectual pragmatist"? Mike Gravel and/or Ron Paul?

http://www.gravel08.us

ES

Intelligence is superior; superior is alien; alien is threatening. People reject that which threatens them. Still (sigh!) one can dream of a day when the American public might rise of above its entrenched worship of the bovine and elect someone who isn't a … cretin incapable of [reason] …

There is the idea of human perfection and then there is the pursuit of human perfection.

If only the mediocre in us all would recognize that to which we aspire. Acknowledge that collective aspiration and elect representatives of those best aspirations. We hold common values, no matter what divisive slander of reason the MSM slathers us with daily.

Those common values—common aspiration, hopes, dreams—should guide our action in voting with a reasoned hope for officials who strive toward our common hopes.

We need not find a massive intellect, a genius of science, industry or culture. We need to find an intellect of common reason, better judgement and balance. Someone who strives beyond their mediocrity and the mediocre in us all. Someone who strives with a wise eye on their short comings, able to side step their pitfalls because of experience falling in pits in the past.

We need to accept the humanity of candidates and not demand a spit-shined, varnished, media presence crafted to appear perfect. A candidate should be one of us, acknowledging their mediocrity, but striving beyond for the collective good with the support of common will.

But you do want someone who is a real person and able to communicate in realistic terms. Bush is overly simplistic but yet cant communicate even the simplest of ideas very well. And they dont want someone like John Kerry who speaks verbosely, sounding intellectual, but actually saying nothing.

They want a real straight talker, someone who will be honest, give real assessments with real solutions, and not speak only in generalities. Someone who doesnt just beat the drum on their 4 talking points to make their side (dems or repubs) look good. They need to remember there is only 1 side, American. They need actually care about the country and put that first, above their personal desires and definitely and most importantly, above their party's needs/greed/desires.

They need actually care about the country and put that first, above their personal desires and definitely and most importantly, above their party's needs/greed/desires.

exactly!! none of them actually do it. Anyone in public office should realize that they serve the people and not particular corporations or political parties, etc.

You right!

Who's Dr. Paul?

Ron Paul graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine. He served our country as an Air Force flight surgeon before going into private practice as a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology. Dr. Paul is a refreshingly straightforward and principled member of Congress and a leading advocate for freedom. Largely ignored by the mainstream media (even after outpolling most of the other candidates post-debates), Dr. Paul has an ever-growing grassroots support system. Unlike the slick and polished Rudy McRomney candidates who will tell you what they think you want to hear, Dr. Paul proudly and openly works and votes for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. Former Treasury Secretary William Simon, said that Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

As you might guess, Dr. Paul's limited-government ideals have not been popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president. Congressman Paul's consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, "Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers' ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are." Another colleague observed, "There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few."

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

I spent 30 years voting the Democratic party line. No more. I now vote for the best candidate for the job – regardless of party affiliation. I urge you to step outside the political party box and research the individual candidates.

Dr. Paul believes our foreign policies in the Middle East contributed to the terrorist's hatred of America. He believes our military presence in the middle east for the past 50 years contributes to the hatred of America by many of the middle east's Muslims, and costs the tax payers vast sums of money. Unless we hunt down the terrorists responsible and disengage from the Middle East, Dr. Paul believes we could face more attacks such as the one against New York City on 9/11.

His views are reflected by numerous others, included the 9/11 Commission Report, and former CIA analyst who specialized in Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, Michael Scheuer.

Dr. Paul advocates a policy of non-intervention. He believes in free and open trade and diplomacy with the rest of the world, but not in forceful military intervention into the affairs of other countries. With our troops scattered all across the globe in the Middle East, Germany, Korea, Japan and other countries, Dr. Paul believes bringing them home would greatly strengthen our national defense, our borders, and save our tax payers their hard-earned wealth.

Dr. Paul believes our unpopular military interventions have isolated us diplomatically from the rest of the world.

Dr. Paul believes the defense of America should be our military's primary purpose, not nation-building in other countries or policing the world. Unfortunately, the 20th centuries most totalitarian dictators in countries like China and Russia were not met with military resistance from any country. Instead, China and Russia were opened up by trade and the lure of capitalism - not guns and bombs.

The more I read about Ron Paul, the more I want him and Mike Gravel to link up to totally take the White House.

Any chance we Americans could convince Mike Gravel and Ron Paul to pair up to get a comprehensive '08 ticket made? Kind of like a "yin/yan" ballot?

I know that many progressives like myself find his stance on Iraq and the Patriot Act to be refreshing for a member of the GOP, but a lot of his view are pretty hard to swallow. Here's some info on Doc Paul that doesn't present him in the most favourable light:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/04/taking-a-closer-look-at-ron-paul/

Jesus...how long do you have to be around NV to get links to work?

The man is not perfect, no one is saying that. He has some stances on religion I dont like either. But overall, I like him much better than the others and he is pretty upfront with his views, as opposed to the others and what they tell you vs what they really believe and more importantly, what they do.

Thomas Mendip,

I hope that as you “gracelessly” age you find graceful support for your weary soul.

Jblossom said “America is in many ways an anti-intellectual country…” And it always has been, apparently, since its inception.

I disagree with your despair that America has been anti-intellectual since its founding.

Many of the founding fathers, who I assume you will agree were pro-intellectual, were clear advocates of reason and structured our government so as to reward the intellect of the individual citizen over the power/violence of the monarch.

Our democracy was born in the Enlightenment, a period of significant intellectual thought. Our early presidents, several members of the body that wrote the Constitution in fact, embraced and embodied the reasoned intellect as the primary organ of democracy.

But alas, there have certainly been elected officials and citizens alike who have raged against reason, leveraging faith into fanaticism through the power of fear. There have been extended moments in our history of blind faith in an ideology igniting hatred that consumed all reasoned discourse.

Yet there have always been those who embraced reason, acknowledged the utility, the necessity, of intellect to soften emotions and stabilize faith in order to promote public discourse and the common good.

I hope as you faint on your sofa, a cold glass of iced tea pressed to your forehead, suffering the indignities of televised debates and sophomoric newsviners, that you find some glimpse of hope out the corner of your eye.

I'd rather a president who knew that he didn't know everything, knew that he couldn't solve every problem, knew that he couldn't please every person, than some egghead know-it-all who I'm sure would try to fix many a problem with great intentions, but disastrous consequences.

I guess our definitions of intelligent are widely different. I dont know any highly intelligent people that believe anything you describe. You seem to think that being smart automatically leads to egotism, arrogance and hubris.

Basically, I'd take someone wise over an egghead any day.

We need both. What is a true disaster is when we have a President who never admits a mistake, has very little intellecutal curiousity and surrounds himself with partisan ideologues and then sets about ridding the government of those who are perceived as politically loyal enough without regard to ability.

What is trully disassterous is when we have a self proclaimd "decider" and "war President who thinks he can do no wrong and derides those who disagree as eggheads. Thats what President Bush has been. As noted early on the his former Secrtary of Treasury and former head of faith based initiatives - this White House has little use for intelligence it already has its agenda and the job of those around the President are to be yes men and sell the policy not make it better.

Arrogance and intelligence are two different things that you really shouldnt assume come together.

Besides, the first rule of great leadership is to surround yourself with people smarter than you.

Thats certainly a nice start. Obviously intelligence alone doesnt define a good advisor as you point out yourself. The wrong people hardly help. For example, Karl Rove may be smarter than Bush but having a partisan political operative as an advisor as hardlly helped. If all of these smart people are yes men that wont help much either. Nor will it help if they have their own agenda. Rumsfeld and Cheney are very bright people.

Of course, you have to listen. The Bush administration has wise people in the cabinent, he just tended to ignore those he didnt want to hear. Powell, Whitman and Paul O'Neil are probably smarter than Bush but they didnt have the political influence of others.

A good leader should be both smart and wise. Smart enough to make informed decisions and wise enough to know his limitations.

I dont understand the lovefest with Gore. Why do you think hed be any better now than he was the first time he ran? Whats so appealling about him. Hes doing the same thing with global warming that Bush does with terror. You think the war on terror will never end, the war on global warming would never end either. I dont trust him on being able to deal with it sensibly and rationally.

Just that he's been not only right but prescient on some major issues.

@FL Independent, So we know where you stand:

Do you think the “War on Terror" is a legitimate and pressing concern to deal with?

Do you think the “Climate Crisis" is a legitimate and pressing concern to deal with?

In both cases, the ability to achieve success comes from the definition of goals.

The “War on Terror" is a battle against a methodology for intimidating authority/communities into social action. Permanent success comes from either permanently suppressing violence. Impossible. Or permanently suppressing or yielding to every minority view that appears. Again, impossible. Technically, you could succeed by killing everyone who dissents, ever, but then humankind would be extinct.

The “Climate Crisis" has been defined as anthropogenic change to environment that may result in an unstoppable escalating chain reaction. Permanent success in this case would require scientifically measuring the current state, determining a scientifically measurable goal and then pursuing scientifically calculated methods of reaching that goal. Once achieved, acceptable stability of the climate would require a continually guarded approach to the design, execution and evaluation of human activity.

In both cases the problem, is theoretically perpetual. However, with Terror, social oppression is more likely and almost necessary as dictated by the goals and the dictator who pursues them. In the other, Climate, economic constraint is perpetually required. And though the greedy will have to be more inventive to make a buck within an ecologically motivated economy, the genius of business will still find a way to consolidated wealth such that economic oppression is not an outcome of concern.

Terrorism is a cyclical concern, a cycle of violence like child abuse, that needs to be dealt with now, and then prevented in the future through diplomacy & equality in local, national and international interactions.

Climate is a cyclical concern only in so much as we are diligent in our self-control; our respect for the dangers of our personal and collective appetites. If we can maintain an ecological respect in our individual and community economies, then the threat will dissolve into equilibrium.

Terror must be dealt with without perpetuating the cycle of violence. Climate change must be dealt with before it escalates beyond recoverable equilibrium.

I want to vote for someone who can recognize the difference in scale between these too contemporary threats. Terror can be dealt with, and then managed, through equality of human relationship, but Climate Change will require more aggressive leadership to avoid the point of no return.

Some one who can deal in a reasoned way, thoughtful, diligent, reserved, in both these areas would service the human community better. And that is why people speak of Gore rather than those politicians who endorse torture, seek advice from oil companies and encourage extreme views that perpetuate extreme violence rather than reasoned dialogue.

You may view my opinion as having drunk the kool-aid of the climate crisis, but do not misunderstand my views on terror—it is something to be resolved—but not as urgently.

PS—These are not mutually exclusive issues, and every politician should be able to address them simultaneously.

I dont find Gore to be rational or level headed on these issues at all. Great, lets tax people for their carbon footprint. Where does that get us? It gets the government more money but doesnt do anything to clean the environment.

Regardless of the climate change and whatever is the major cause of it and if we can do anything about it, we should still be doing things to make ourselves leave less of an impact. We should get off fossil fuels, produce less garbage, etc. Should we do it a breakneck speed without any real thought as to the consequences? No.

For the 'War on Terror', it would be impossible to fight against this mindset without some violence. When faced with someone bent on your destruction the only way to deal with them is to destroy them. However, there are plenty in the world who might fall on the terrorists side but are not the violent extremists. These we can win over by acting in ways that keep in step with the rhetoric we preach.

It sounds like you are more for Ron Paul or Mike Gravel than Gore.

And theres one more war which is stupid and futile to fight that needs ending, and thats the war on drugs.

Great, lets tax people for their carbon footprint. Where does that get us?

That puts a financial burden on environment destruction. Unfortunately, that's all some folks seem to understand. The money in their pocket is more important to them than an inhabitable planet.

Should we do it a breakneck speed without any real thought as to the consequences?

Why not? That's how we got into this predicament.

For the 'War on Terror', it would be impossible to fight against this mindset without some violence. When faced with someone bent on your destruction the only way to deal with them is to destroy them.

As with any problem the most efficacious solution is to identify the root cause and rectify it at the source. Why are these terrorists "bent on our destruction"? We're generally a peace loving benevolent nation. There shouldn't be any reason for anyone to hate us, especially for our freedoms. If anything, it would seem, they should envy us and try to emulate us.

Why not? That's how we got into this predicament.

2 wrongs dont make a right. It would be stupid to continue to make the same mistakes, just in the opposite direction.

That puts a financial burden on environment destruction. Unfortunately, that's all some folks seem to understand. The money in their pocket is more important to them than an inhabitable planet.

Thats overly simplistic and short sighted. It can detract from us spending time, effort, and money towards methods that are more effective and have better chances for success. Again, better planning upfront leads to better results.

As with any problem the most efficacious solution is to identify the root cause and rectify it at the source. Why are these terrorists "bent on our destruction"? We're generally a peace loving benevolent nation. There shouldn't be any reason for anyone to hate us, especially for our freedoms. If anything, it would seem, they should envy us and try to emulate us.

Yes that is true. However, even by addressing the source that does not guarantee alleviation of those that hate us. Some wont care if we change. Once a life has momentum like this, it can be very hard to change. Just look at career criminals and addicts. Its very hard to change direction in their lives.

As for how we are perceived, et al, yes we espouse many high ideals and great ideas, however, our actions outside this country, things you dont really get to see or hear about, often leave much to be desired. Every day we (the US) does things that the population would not be happy about if they knew (and sometimes they know but are just lazy and dont stand up against it).

2 wrongs dont make a right. It would be stupid to continue to make the same mistakes, just in the opposite direction.

Sorry, I should have put the sarcasm tag on that one.

Thats overly simplistic and short sighted. It can detract from us spending time, effort, and money towards methods that are more effective and have better chances for success. Again, better planning upfront leads to better results.

Not really. If we hit people in the pocket book they will at least give the problem some attention. It may not be the best or most complete solution but it is a start.

Career criminals and addicts are more of an end product of society than a root cause. Here we would have to determine what factors contribute to people falling into these roles, the same with terrorists. I don't recall anyone claiming to want these positions when asked, "what do you want to be when you grow up?", therefore, there must be a flaw in our system. If we can identify and correct these flaws we can build a better system, a better society, and a better world.

This falls in line with my philosophy of fixing the problem instead of the blame and the Christian tenant of hating the sin but loving the sinner. I don't fault an addict for his addiction, there but for the grace of GOD go I. I could have very easily became an addict, growing up in a drug infested community, but I was determined not to and was able to stay off the junk. My best friend from my childhood is a drug dealer and another childhood friend of mine is a burglar. I don't know why these guys went this route and I ended up doing relatively okay.

We all still make choices. Regardless of how unappealing some of these choices are, we all make them.

And again, Id rather spent an extra 5 minutes (figuratively) looking at the problem and finding solutions than rushing to just get something out there. It wastes too much resources and often times does just enough to alleviate the pressure of actually fixing something which only becomes worse later on.

If we hit people in the pocket book they will at least give the problem some attention. It may not be the best or most complete solution but it is a start.

Yes, but you just give more money to government who are the last people who should be given more money. Once you start giving it to them, they dont like to stop taking it. In fact, they usually ask for more. I dont want to create another government (life and money sucking) bureaucracy, which has no real purpose and no accountability. It would need a definite and finite structure as to what was being charged and what was being done with that money. If its not geared to use that money towards actually fixing the problem, since that is the whole purpose of this in the first place, then I wouldnt want it.

Good luck with that.

Id rather spent an extra 5 minutes (figuratively) looking at the problem and finding solutions than rushing to just get something out there. It wastes too much resources and often times does just enough to alleviate the pressure of actually fixing something which only becomes worse later on.

The idea of carbon caps and carbon trading dovetails with your desire to find a good solution before taking action. How? It provides the incentive for an organization to initiate that problem-solving process. It creates a mechanism in the market to provoke change in an environmentally appropriate direction. To date, the overwhelming majority of organizations have little attempt to improve their environmental impact for altruistic or even ecological reasons.

Companies who point to “green” behavior, may in fact be improving some portion of their operation, but the motivation is profit margin. They may decide to reduce packaging for a product, in order to save money, and increasing the profit margin on the product. Their brand/marketing/public relations staff, in search of "green" actions to promote to consumers will then announce the motive as “green”.

Unfortunately, the packing, while reducing waste in the consumers home, and saving the company money, does not address the cost of building a product with a cradle-to-grave rather than cradle-to-cradle (video) mentality. It does not address the enormous carbon waste generated by manufacturing overseas or in distant states and then shipping a product to stores.

In the end, yes, some small positive action may have been taken, but not on the scale that will impact the momentum of climate change. The product itself (materials) and the business model that plans its manufacture, fulfillment and distribution all have to change in order to have a net positive impact on the environment.

The motivations to radically change the mentality of corporations to include another major concern (ecology) into the existing concerns (economics and labor) requires major motivation. This is the same reason that government had to step in with regulation to motivate companies to incorporate concerns about equality into their labor practices (child labor, work conditions, fair compensation).

The speed at which this change needs to occur is a relative measurement. FL Independent, you seem concerned that it will be too rapid, in a way that will endanger the economy. ( Correct ? ) Is it possible to agree that rapid commitment to the goal of climate change, with staged milestones for companies to meet would be alright when combined with a carbon trading mechanism?

A company that finds the time line to aggressive for their business model or products to adapt would be enabled to effectively slow their transition through the purchase of carbon shares. It enables them to commit to the thoughtful, diligent process you are requesting, while introducing the motivation they require to change behavior through clear market driven economics.

Companies make decisions for economic reasons (and so they should in a capitalist economy). But in order to provoke them to take a more expensive route that respects human rights or the environment requires a company to see those routes as more economically viable. The must become effectively cheaper. When companies, for decades and perhaps centuries, have operated with out environmental constraint, regulation rather with cautious patience, rather than bottomless patience alone, is what is required to turn the enormous ship that is industry.

Yes, but you just give more money to government … Once you start giving it to them, they don't like to stop taking it. In fact, they usually ask for more. I don't want to create another government … bureaucracy, which has no real purpose and no accountability.

This is a legitimate concern, but you are assuming that the government has to tax the corporations in order to motivate them. A market driven mechanism, carbon trading, like the stock market, can provide the motivation without creating any government bureaucracy that collects funds. There may end up being a federal organization like the SEC, that keeps track of company carbon report to ensure the are not lying about their emissions and matching carbon offsets. But it would not be a federal department that collects taxes.

Additionally, the whole point of the federal regulation should be accountability to society. Yes, government struggles with holding itself accountable, and lobbyist succeed in undermining government measures to hold industry accountable, but these are failures in the management and policy of government, not failures of regulation as motivation itself. Government reform and regulatory motivation for industrial stewardship of the environment are to completely different topics. They interact, but the failings of one are not the failings of the other.

That will teach me to read the article first, thanks for putting me right, I am sure you can write good articles as well as seed good ones like Eugene Robinson's

Thanks