How can we get somebody ELSE to run for President in '08?

Question

Joe Lieberman? Wowie, you trying to make me sick?

Colin Powell? Sorry, he lost all credibility and he KNOWS that. That's why he got out.

I'm not asking you to regurgitate people who already lost out on the option of running.

I'm seriously asking HOW can we, the American people who are not satisfied with those already in the running, HOW can WE get another person to run?

November 2008 is still a long way off!

Hey, to "3030gal" - No, I won't run. Politics ties your hands. Well-informed, active citizens are this country's BEST weapon.

To Jeremie: So...."no good person would ever get involved in such a thing?" Dear God. Can this be true?

To Concerned Citizen: I think that may just be the pearl of wisdom here. That politicians "only have to be good at one thing."

Folks!
THIS IS YOUR TIME.
This is your life, right now, today. Do we really accept that we just have to accept it?

And to the guy who says, "How many do you want?"

I WANT ONE GOOD ONE.

TO WASHINGTON IRVING: You say, "whereas CEO's and the such need not develop any other skills than that of flattery and loyalty to capital. " and I just want to cry. You are quite skillful in your choice of words. Your post is powerful - thank you.

AGAIN to Washington Irving: I just have to add this about Hillary Clinton and her "being on the board" at WalMart:
WalMart has not ALWAYS been the evil monster that they are today. When Sam Walton started his business, the whole IDEA of WalMart was "Made in America."
Clearly, the legacy of Sam Walton was buried with him. Today? it's all about the highest salaries for CEOs possible.

Answer 1

Blue, in other countries there is a constant movement from the professions into and out of political office. I cannot say that in any country I know of that this is the overwhelming practice, but that it is nonetheless a crucial aspect of a healthy body politic.
In the US, it appears that the vast majority of elected officials are either political careerists or executives from private industries. The difference between electing your leaders from among the professions (doctors, engineers, architects, etc) rather than from among the corporate elite is that professionals are men trained in problem solving who must have some amount of practical knowledge and professional merit whereas CEO's and the such need not develop any other skills than that of flattery and loyalty to capital.
Not to say no other elements play into US and other countries' politics. In the US, actors and military men also have a peculiar weight, and while the former are naturally lackeys of corporate interests (Men like Reagan, Schwarzenegger, etc, cannot be expected to make decisions of state), the latter tend to be skilled administrators as well prepared as any professional. (once again, working for a corporation is not a profession, it is more akin to prostitution than anything).
In the US, politics are considered to be dirty and therefore only the dirties individual become involved, generally as representatives of corporations. Yet not all countries work this way. In other countries syndicalists are often familiar enough to enter politics and defend the interests of workers. Professors become presidents in other countries, I remember my own country had a pediatrician (who was very corrupt, it must be noted) as president.
If you truly wish to live in a democratic society, it is imperative that your administrative bodies be filled by representatives of your professionals and workers rather than CEOs (H. Clinton was on the board of Walmart for about a decade), actors (Do you believe a man like Fred Thompson has ideas of his own or that he spouts whatever his corporate backers whisper?) and career politicians (whoever expected Nixon, Kennedy or Obama to tell the truth? How does it feel to be that gullible?).
If democracy is what you want, the socialist and libertarian parties are fine, thank you. Voting for losing parties is not trashing your vote, I don;t know how Americans got that into your heads. The less support the fascists have while in office, the less damage they can do. But it is not enough not to vote, since that allows elected officials to claim implicit support. You have to actually vote for what you believe in.
Anyhow, if I were an American I would have been writing in Nader since he first tackled GM and the corporate world with his Raiders. He seems to be about the only decent and capable politician in the US. If I were in SF, Cindy Sheehan would have my vote, what a courageous woman with a principled stance can do to the stale corporate bureaucrats I do not know, but I know it would be pleasing.

That is for the new, the candidates who should be there. As for the old, I have to tell you, were I a Rep or a Dem my card would have already been destroyed in some prominent way as protest against the betrayal of both parties' constituencies.

This country needs active citizens as you said.... it also needs real choices. Americans ought to unstick to the tube and start making their own choices or they can look forward to a corporate future (brought to you by Walmart, it seems).

Answer 2

I would run. Simply put though, the amount of money need to get elected far exceeds the average mans grasp. It makes no difference how strong the grass roots run, you would never be able to get an average Joe into the white house.
The burn of it is that most elected into the position have little experience in the finite duties of the office.
Maybe a nice website and a mass drive spawned on the Internet might actually pose a small threat to the big parties. They would then easily pick apart any candidate that tried, and throw the remains to the wolves.
The old saying goes that you cant find a good person to vote for because a good person would never get involved in such a thing.

Answer 3

I once saw a Non Sequitur cartoon with the caption, "Why our best and brightest don't run for office". There was a huge bear with a spear lying on the ground in front of him and he clearly had just eaten the owner of the spear. Some distance away, a primitive man with a spear was shouting, "Time to elect a new leader!" I think that's a very good metaphor for the problem. Nobody with the intelligence to do a good job wants the position.

In one of my high school social studies classes, the teacher explained it very succinctly by saying that politicians only have to be good at one thing, and that's getting elected.

Answer 4

Colbert is a wicked satirist and like Pat Paulsen, in a previous generation, is pretending to run for the presidency to make a point. That all the candidates are jokers and tricksters and probably no more qualified to run than Colbert. I remember Pat Paulsen running and he actually got alot of write in votes at the time, shows you the more things change , the more they stay the same.

Answer 5

Joe Lieberman is insulted by the way his Democrat party treated him, so he won't run. Too bad, since lots of Republicans would have felt at ease in voting for him. I would have.

Answer 6

Why don't you run?
They don't give us much to choose from, if we vote for the wrong person we get bashed, if we don't vote at all were not supposed to have an opinion.

Answer 7

good grief.how many do you want to chose from?
there's so many now that those phony debates get nothing done.
you want maybe 20 or 30 people?

Answer 8

If you figure that out, try it on Colin Powell.

Answer 9

They have to decide to run and announce it. It's as simple as that.