Competent Republicans?

[StringJunky]

This is where I chuck a hand grenade amongst the SFN milieu and scarper.

 

Past and present, ignoring personal affiliation, who do you consider to have, or had, the intelligence, knowledge, pragmatism and integrity to steer the good ship America through a term or two but aren't or weren't President.

 

I nominate Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell. They strike me as having all the prior qualities. Bear in mind I'm not American, so I could be way off in assessment but long-distance they looked good.

 

Like I said earlier, political leadership is about steering ones country through ensuing events; political ideology and dreams for ones party very rarely realise... this is where pragmatism comes in.

 

What say you and why? I'd like you to focus on the individuals and not their affiliation... and not your own either.

Edited January 31, 2016 by StringJunky

[overtone]

I nominate Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell. They strike me as having all the prior qualities

Signing on with W and Cheney is proof of unsound judgment - unless simple personal advancement in power and money was one's original goal, in which case it may have been a calculated risk.

 

Rice seems to have had a crush of some kind on W, or at least respected him to the point of being a bit starry-eyed about the frat boy and his strutting incompetence, or possibly faking that? Either way, not a recommendation. Oil company execs in general don't have governing skills - big oil's a brutal game; it's like promoting your non-commissioned officers to high command.

 

Colin Powell was one of the military officers involved in the My Lai coverup and Vietnam war disinformation generally, and his career has followed that path ever since - from Iran-Contra to the sanctions against Iraq, he's been carrying water and fronting "integrity" for the scum of the earth his whole political life. His failure to do anything about the chickenhawks' establishment of Gitmo and Bagram and Abu Ghraib and the rest, for example (directly in his wheelhouse, his area of expertise and connections) was completely in character. He does have some visible independence of mind, so he might have broken out a bit and made a sort of ok President once he got above that crowd he was in, but it's not the way to bet.

 

Nobody in the W&Cheney administration would make a likely candidate, except maybe one of those who resigned quietly early on. There were a couple.

 

As far as finding those of sound judgment and integrity both among the upper echelons of the Republican Party - nah. Gingrich cleaned house back in the early 90s, got rid of anyone who survived Reagan and Bush with their souls undamaged. And then came W.

 

It's not easy to give full credit to just how foul that administration was, or its allies in Congress. There's nobody left fit to govern in that entire Party, at least on the national level.

 

A Republican of integrity and sound judgment in governance would have to come from the ranks of the unknown, local.

Edited January 31, 2016 by overtone

[Willie71]

I think it's easier to try to find Republicans who sometimes do the right thing. I nominate Nikki Haley (sp.) she called for the removal of the confederate flag, and called Trump out on Xenophobia. Don't know much else about her. Kasich talks in complete sentences, doesn't appear to have had a stroke, and didn't bankrupt his state.nhe is ok with gay marriage too. I can see why republicans think he's a socialist/communist.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Willie71

[iNow]

Past and present, ignoring personal affiliation, who do you consider to have, or had, the intelligence, knowledge, pragmatism and integrity to steer the good ship America through a term or two but aren't or weren't President.

Definitely Jon Huntsman.

Edited January 31, 2016 by iNow

[StringJunky]

Definitely Jon Huntsman.

Just Wikied him. Yes, he seems to have the required attributes nicely balanced.... even if he is obscenely rich!

[overtone]

 

 

Definitely Jon Huntsman.

Comes under this heading, in my categories:

 

Nobody in the W&Cheney administration would make a likely candidate, except maybe one of those who resigned quietly early on. There were a couple.

Huntsman was one of them.

 

 

A Republican of integrity and sound judgment in governance would have to come from the ranks of the unknown, local. The sound judgment part is where the questions lie - he's a flat taxer, gave the nominating speech for Palin, etc.

 

But for him to be on the sidelines while the likes of Cruz and Rubio strut center stage is revealing of the Party involved.

[Bells]

Definitely Jon Huntsman.

But the Republican voters would not want him.

 

They have veered hard right and someone even mildly sane, would be considered to be a progressive.

 

At times I wonder what Republican voters would say if they actually got what they asked for and had Trump or Cruz as President. I suspect the honeymoon period would be very short once the fruits of their labour came to fruition and all the benefits they currently enjoy disappeared.

[EdEarl]

Sound judgment is a matter of perspective. The US Republicans and capitalists have gradually over time allied to take control of that party. IMO this group, the powerful politicians and very rich, lack empathy, as evinced by their opposition to social services, and love wealth, as evinced by their affection for big business. It concerns me that the US government is now similar that of Nazi Germany.

 

 

1. Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.

 

2. I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.

 

3; By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.

4. How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

 

Four quotes by Adolf Hitler

1. The GOP’s 2016 Budgets And Its Long Range Inhumanity

 

2.  Racism and Cruelty: What’s Behind the GOP’s Healthcare Agenda?

 

3. 10 Biggest Lies and Distortions From the GOP Debate

 

4. Brains and Eggs

A politician will not tell people they seek votes from people who don't evaluate politicians and their actions, i.e., think for themselves. Brains and Eggs is an example of how politicians entice voters into irrational beliefs.

 

Perhaps one should characterize the GOP as being shrewd instead of competent.

[overtone]

 

 

At times I wonder what Republican voters would say if they actually got what they asked for and had Trump or Cruz as President.

We've seen that, with W&Cheney. They re-elected them - with a bigger vote.

 

It's hard for outsiders to realize just how insulated from reality - what happened six months ago in the real world, let alone six years - the Republican voter in the US actually is.

 

Two thirds of them think Obama was probably born in Kenya and is a secret Muslim. That's not a joke, it's an example.

[EdEarl]

Flint Michigan has lead in their water. Apparently the Republican governor and others knew, and did nothing, allowing thousands of children to be lead contaminated because doing something is a social program, and against the GOP mandate. I saw reports yesterday that the GOP controlled legislature passed a bill to make oral and anal sex illegal. However, they seem resolute in their opposition to fixing the problem. Too old to move out of the US; Scandinavia seems nice, but cold.

[Phi for All]

I saw reports yesterday that the GOP controlled legislature passed a bill to make oral and anal sex illegal.

 

It's part of the Republican "small government that keeps its nose out of your personal business" platform. And if history tells us anything, you can bet someone who had a hand in writing this bill is having anal sex right now.

[Ten oz]

During the GOP primary in 2012 Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich made a fairly clear admission that helps explain part of the currently GOP's problem. When linked to having having pushed for a Healthcare manadate, which is one of the main elements of the ACA (Obamacare), Newt basically explained that is was just BS meant to block Bill Clinton's healthcare plan.

 

"It’s now clear that the mandate, I think, is clearly unconstitutional. But, it started as a conservative effort to stop HillaryCare in the 1990s.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/newt-gingrichs-changing-stance-on-health-care-mandates-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/09/gIQAVl0lkO_blog.html

 

I bring that moment up because, in my opinion, it is a prime explain of how many political debates are purely obstructionist. That their most senior members will create and present policy they do not support purely for argument sake. Problem is everyone doesn't follow politics closely; everyone can't separate what is real from what is just obstructionist talking points. As a result much of what was meant of hyperbole to distract voters has become actual platform beliefs. Establishment Republcans currently have a very tough time comminucating what the party standards.

 

Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41 all raised taxes and Eisenhower had some of the highest tax rates this country has ever had. The party has not traditionally been anti any and all taxes. That current position is a distortion that evolved from those who took hyperbole talking point too seriously. We see this on issue after issue. Reagan gave amnesty and Bush 43 pushed for a guest worker program but today building a wall and deporting people is all a huge portion of the party is willing to here.

 

Compentent Republicans are stuck in a terrible place. Run honest on the issues like John Huntsman did and get laughed out of politics or pander to uniformed voters as Mitt Romeny did and lose.

[iNow]

Good point about the issues of obstruction.

 

Quick point, though: Newt Gingrich was lying. Interesting spin to suggest that they only introduced the individual mandate as a way to block Hillary-care, but the premiere republican think tank Heritage Foundation published it as a serious attempt to expand health coverage before the 1990s, specifically in 1989: http://americablog.com/2013/10/original-1989-document-heritage-foundation-created-obamacares-individual-mandate.html

[Ten oz]

Good point about the issues of obstruction.

 

Quick point, though: Newt Gingrich was lying. Interesting spin to suggest that they only introduced the individual mandate as a way to block Hillary-care, but the premiere republican think tank Heritage Foundation published it as a serious attempt to expand health coverage before the 1990s, specifically in 1989: http://americablog.com/2013/10/original-1989-document-heritage-foundation-created-obamacares-individual-mandate.html

The link I provided does explain that history plus outlines the way Newt spun on the issue nurmerous times. I think it is still a good example of how lost the GOP get in their own spin.

[StringJunky]

 

It's part of the Republican "small government that keeps its nose out of your personal business" platform. And if history tells us anything, you can bet someone who had a hand in writing this bill is having anal sex right now.

One could verify this by a surprise compulsory search of said politicians pockets for poppers!

[EdEarl]

I'd like Google glass to have a Watsonish lie detection system that tells the wearer whenever someone has lied. It would change politics.

 

Politicians might make them illegal, and a black market would develop, or politicians who.lie would have short careers.

Edited February 11, 2016 by EdEarl

[tar]

I second the Kasich nomination.

 

He worked with Clinton to get the only budget surpluses we have seen.

And I nominate either of the Koch brothers. They are capable and trustworthy, socially responsible, build great stuff that improves our quality of life, and employ 60,000 tax payers.

 

And I do this, to make a point. Their names have come up as examples of income inequality, and a pact with congress to block carbon emission laws that do not come with tax credits to pay the cost of the required changes. This has engendered a half truth, that they are global warming deniers. They can see the graph as well as anybody. They can see the storms and the polar vortex and ice cap melting same as anyone. What we are going to do about it, though, is a public responsibility. Unfunded mandates are unconstitutional. You cannot in time of war billet troops in a citizen's farmhouse, without paying for the food and lodging.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited February 11, 2016 by tar

[overtone]

"Knowing" when politicians have made false statements would change nothing, among the voting base of the Republican Party in the US. One must care, and also comprehend the nature of "false" vs "true" as the distinction applies to statements made by public officials who represent oneself.

 

There's something going on in the psychology of the American public that reminds one of what Bertrand Russell called the "Sunday Truth". It's specific to politics - call it the "campaign truth".

 

Look at this, for example:

 

And I nominate either of the Koch brothers. They are capable and trustworthy, socially responsible, build great stuff that improves our quality of life, and employ 60,000 tax payers.

That poster will freely toggle between 1) complaining about politicians being corrupt and failing to represent the interests of the citizens they represent, and 2) celebrating the Koch brothers - who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars corrupting American politics - as "socially responsible".

 

And it's not because they lack exposure to facts, or the distinction between "false" and "true" in the statements of American politicians.

Edited February 11, 2016 by overtone

[tar]

We only have 120,000,000 people in this country of 316,000,000 that are employed. Some of the rest are old, some are young, some are disabled, but the rest of us, have to pull our weight, and make the place work.

 

If a person is not in one of the categories of people that deserve our help, then they are in the category of people that are providing help for others. Doing something of value, that someone else will pay them for. Being there. Having a skill. Knowing something. Having talent. Taking responsibility. Taking risk. Do something that someone else finds valuable and you help three times. You help them. You get paid, so you can eat. You pay taxes, so we can do, as a nation, everything we want to do. Around the world, and to support our neighbors in trouble, here at home.

 

Capable and trustworthy is a requirement for a CEO. Corporate boards vet the leaders of their firms, very carefully. Ethics and social responsibility is a must for a corporate leader in this country. Many of these individuals, vetted by the boards, are excellent material for leadership of this country.

[StringJunky]

....Capable and trustworthy is a requirement for a CEO. Corporate boards vet the leaders of their firms, very carefully. Ethics and social responsibility is a must for a corporate leader in this country. Many of these individuals, vetted by the boards, are excellent material for leadership of this country.

I was idealistic and naive once. Gilead, Valeant, - Drug prices; Google, Apple et al -endemic tax "efficiencies"; Volkswagen; device manipulation etc. The corporate rot is coming at us like pent up diarrhoea.... the emerging list is getting very long.

[Ten oz]

We only have 120,000,000 people in this country of 316,000,000 that are employed. Some of the rest are old, some are young, some are disabled, but the rest of us, have to pull our weight, and make the place work.

 

If a person is not in one of the categories of people that deserve our help, then they are in the category of people that are providing help for others. Doing something of value, that someone else will pay them for. Being there. Having a skill. Knowing something. Having talent. Taking responsibility. Taking risk. Do something that someone else finds valuable and you help three times. You help them. You get paid, so you can eat. You pay taxes, so we can do, as a nation, everything we want to do. Around the world, and to support our neighbors in trouble, here at home.

 

Capable and trustworthy is a requirement for a CEO. Corporate boards vet the leaders of their firms, very carefully. Ethics and social responsibility is a must for a corporate leader in this country. Many of these individuals, vetted by the boards, are excellent material for leadership of this country.

Here is a view of the labor force participation rate in this country going back to the 1940's. Please tell me where the bar should be and in you opinion and why it should be there.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

[tar]

not trump by the way

 

he is suited for reality TV, and can fire up a crowd, but I don't want him as my representative to the world

 

Great Britain does not even want him in their country. That would be highly problematic for him to be in charge of the U.S. Embassy there.

ten oz,

 

Looking at the chart, I would say that single income families became two income families and then a combination of factors slowed the economy, took many of our jobs overseas and our workforce aged.

 

I am thinking the proper numbers should be up near the top of the chart. We should develop industries that make renewable energy equipment, and use it, and sell it to the rest of the world. I think we should use our natural resources of shale oil and natural gas to fuel this industry, until it can sustain itself. Sell our corn and livestock and trees to the world. Mine our hills for the resources we and others need.

 

I am not sure what you are asking. Do you think the chart somehow indicates something else?

 

Regards, TAR

ten oz,

 

do you have any Republican candidates for nomination?

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

Capable and trustworthy is a requirement for a CEO. Corporate boards vet the leaders of their firms, very carefully. Ethics and social responsibility is a must for a corporate leader in this country. Many of these individuals, vetted by the boards, are excellent material for leadership of this country.

A lot of upper echelon executives are amoral, even sociopathic.

 

The tobacco, agribusiness, financial, and petrochemical industry CEO behavior proves that.

 

CEO compensation, relative to employee compensation, has risen by an order of magnitude and more in a couple of decades. CEO performance has not risen during that time. That is proof that the boards involved are not vetting those guys, and that no ethical principles are constraining CEO behavior in general.

 

In the US CEOs in general pay lower tax rates than their midlevel employees, or the average citizens, pay.

 

 

Looking at the chart, I would say that single income families became two income families and then a combination of factors slowed the economy, took many of our jobs overseas and our workforce aged.

A combination of what factors? Do you remember? It wasn't that long ago.

Edited February 11, 2016 by overtone

[iNow]

I second the Kasich nomination. (snip) Unfunded mandates are unconstitutional. You cannot in time of war billet troops in a citizen's farmhouse, without paying for the food and lodging.

Kasich's idea of the need for a balanced budget amendment to our constitution (an idea shared by a large number of far-right citizens) is fundamentally dangerous, even though to the only topically informed it sounds reasonable on the surface.

 

http://www.cbpp.org/research/constitutional-balanced-budget-amendment-poses-serious-risks

Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment Poses Serious Risks: Would Likely Make Recessions Longer and Deeper, Could Harm Social Security and Military and Civil Service Retirement

(snip)

Establishing a balanced budget amendment in the Constitution would be exceedingly unwise. It would likely exact a heavy toll on the economy and on American businesses and workers in the years ahead and would likely make recessions more frequent and more severe. It involves far more fiscal restraint than is necessary for prudent budgeting. It also would undercut the design of Social Security, deposit insurance, and all other government guarantees. It is notably more restrictive than the behavior of the most prudent states or families. And it raises troubling questions about enforcement, including the risk that the courts or the President might be empowered to make major, unilateral budget decisions, undermining the checks and balances that have been a hallmark of our nation since its founding. It is not a course the nation should follow.

[tar]

iNow,

 

Judgement is still allowed.

 

We are 11 and more trillion in debt. We already allow ourselves to spend more in an emergency. Even during our few years under Clinton, where we had surpluses, our national debt was extraordinarily high and just running a surplus does not address debt, and future promises.

 

Perhaps it would be wise to ask the president to pay off old debt and secure social promises already made, before launching programs that would add trillions more to our debt. These are decisions, like family decisions, that choose one course of action over another. To a certain extent, since we are a large and diverse and affluent country, we can do more than one thing at a time, and our credit is good. We never default on our promises. But we have made a lot of them already. My reference to McGovern, was to point out that what I wanted McGovern to do, that was rejected by the party, at the time, was later accomplished. In today's climate, against the rich, against wall street, against business, a basic fact of reality is being missed and missed badly. We accomplished these goals, 20 years ago, and now have different issues. Hillary, replaying her speeches from 8 years ago, against Bush, are no longer sound arguments against Obama. Sanders, using the same argument I used ringing doorbells in New Hampshire 40 years ago, does not have as valid an argument. The effort to reduce the tax burden of the poor and increase the tax burden of the rich has already been successful. Socialism was radical in my day. Now it is mainstream policy of the Democratic party. Sanders may play better up next to Canada. Perhaps he will play well in black areas, were the old lines are still drawn, and the blacks are disenfranchised, and locked out of the inner circles of power. But where the battle for equality is already won, and the KKK is already marginalized, and the political goals of the million man march and the black panthers is already won, in the hearts and minds of the populace, continuing the talk of revolution, is just stupid and scary. As in the call to kill police officers, and jail CEOs. Really? This is progress? Progress toward what?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited February 11, 2016 by tar