English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I know many intelligent ordinary men that would do much better than what we have experienced these last 25 to 30 years. No one will come forward but the same type of man we have been seeing. All lifetime politicians I think it's about time to put one of us, a regular man or woman in the office. Someone who really knows what it's like working for a living. Someone who isn't part of the problem, someone who knows form experience what it's like to house feed and cloth a family thru what sometimes has been tough times.. Since I see no one else thinking of doing this Send me email and I give you name to write in.... Jim

2006-09-12 07:22:18 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Civic Participation

All I have seen here is money this and money that. You can do with your vote what you wish but I refuse to vote for a money man or a party man. American needs some common sense and I will do my little bit to give her some... Jim

2006-09-14 08:39:10 · update #1

22 answers

Good question, with the popularity of the internet today, you would think that a regular Joe could run a successful campaign for president. Might be tough to get on the ballot though.

2006-09-12 07:24:27 · answer #1 · answered by babalu2 5 · 0 0

I agree. Whether Bush 1 or 2, Kerry, Gore, Michael Do-tax-us, Reagan, Mondale, what have you - they are all a bunch of little snots that normal people would beat up.

Clinton was the most regular guy and did the best as far as normal presidential operations go. Reagan was the least snottiest of the rest and also was fantastic.

Personally, I'm sick of these eff-ing brats eff-ing up the country, but they are the choices we get stuck with, sadly. This place should not be an aristocracy or passed on from family to family like some craphole south american dump.

2006-09-12 07:27:44 · answer #2 · answered by Dip Shït 2 · 1 0

While you may have a point, the funding usually comes from entities that have deep pockets and want someone that represents their special interests.

Usually Humanitarian Ideals tend to be in opposition to big business where Capitalism that thrives on money is suits the select few that have the Financial Vision to be successful.

In order to be successful in business, it does take a certain amount of Self-Oriented Values in order to be stingy with money vs. those on the other end of the spectrum who are congenial and where money isn't important.

That's where we get into the Psychology of how the Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer. Venture Capitalists, who see the bigger picture when it comes to financing politicians, are doing so for the success of their own business more than for what is in the best interest of the people or society.

They will up to a point, but not to where it starts really cutting into their profit margin. For corporate types that have learned the lesson of getting the most bang for their buck and with few moral incentives or penalties for failing to look after the best interests of the people, lobbyists and special interest groups will continue to dip into the government to pass legislature that benefits them.

If such a Humanitarian Candidate were to manifest, the individual would need to be able to act independently without the support of businesses or special interest groups that would be able to attach political puppet strings in order to influence the decisions of such an individual.

2006-09-12 07:37:21 · answer #3 · answered by "IRonIC" by Alanis 3 · 0 0

1. The average american just can't afford to pay for a campaign. Getting you name out take money and I know I can't afford the adds and flyers and travel and everything that come along with elections. However I do agree that would be the best type of person for the job, someone who has actually been there and knows what life is like for the average american and not just the rich upperclass.

2. People will vote for names they know....average Joe just does not have that...

2006-09-12 07:44:49 · answer #4 · answered by yetti 5 · 0 0

Sadly government in this country is money-based. That is one reason the "elite" as you refer to them, run. The other reason is that "intelligent ordinary men" by the very nature of their intelligence don't want any part of what political corruption is about as it would wound their soul. Oh, by the way, I couldn't agree with you more. A REAL person in the White House would be a God send! The problem really lies in the mentalities of the voters, not whether an average guy ran-those who voted for and re-elected Bush are too fear-based to vote for anyone REAL.

2006-09-12 07:26:46 · answer #5 · answered by birdy 3 · 0 1

Clinton was not from a privileged background. His mother was a nurse, his father was a traveling salesman who died before he was born. His abusive and alcoholic step father was a car salesman and later a car dealer, who gambled and beat Clinton's mother, I believe. His maternal grandparents owned a grocery store. He did well in school and became a law professor, but probably did not consider himself professonal class until he went to law school.

Reagan came from a modest background. His father was an alcoholic and was not a good provider. He was very nearsighted for example, but did not get glasses for several years.

Carter's father was a peanut farmer, but I don't think he was terribly rich. He probably had an upper middle class background. In any event, he grew up in a small town and knew many people of modest background growing up and at church.

Gerald Ford's father was dead and he was raised by his mother and stepfather, middle class in the midwest.

Richard Nixon was not well off either. He had a bad father, an alcoholic. His mother was a Quaker, a very good and principled woman.

Johnson was dirt poor growing up in TX during the dust bowl and great depression. He taught underprivileged kids for a while.

So it's really the majority of post world war II presidents who were not rich or privileged by birth. They were men of ability who raised their own status and had relatively good jobs before they entered public life. They may have seemed elitist, I suppose, but I believe all of these men remembered where they came from.
---
I disagree and think we had pretty good presidents until 6 years ago. The economy was in good shape, working people were doing well and most had health care benefits, insurance and pensions, and other than Vietnam, there were no protracted wars.

2006-09-12 07:23:35 · answer #6 · answered by TxSup 5 · 1 1

An ordinary person who might do a good job will
need millions of dollars for campaigning, hiring a campaign staff and treasurer and buying television time to get his message to the people.
He will also need political favors or payoffs to get the support of the other politicians to support him. NO ORDINARY MAN can do that!

2006-09-12 07:29:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Jim ... I wish you were right in your observation when you say that "No one will come forward ...." But, they do, and they are knocked down by people who want a pretty-boy. Average men, and women, do not stand a chance against the two political machines. I know, I have tried (still am for that matter).

2006-09-12 07:27:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

unfortunately the most important criteria, to become a president
Is MONEY--
money brings influence -- influence brings money.
to get to the top of the pile you need to be very wealthy and influential indeed.
Sadly there are, but a few wealthy people with the expertise and philanthropy to run a country to perfection

If such a gem should make an appearance ,
would we recognise him/her
and would we vote him / her into office.
>^,,^<

2006-09-12 07:41:26 · answer #9 · answered by sweet-cookie 6 · 0 0

They dont have to have that background ala Clinton has some1 else noted but by the time they run for president you have to be a millionare. I suppose the thinking behind that is if you cant manage your own finances to increase your wealth , how can you run a country. Now conventional wisdom will refute that given all the uneven socioeconomic factors involved in careers, running for any political office and so on but thats my take on it.

2006-09-12 07:43:27 · answer #10 · answered by rolla_jay510 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers