STORM2K

I'm NOT looking for a specific person past, present or future. This is more to show that we may have more in common than what we currently believe.

I'll go first -

1) Honesty.
2) Strength of Character.
3) A strong leader that has the respect of his peers and the people.
3) Sympathetic to the needs of those that are less fortunate.
4) Not afraid to make difficult decisions and stands by them.
5) An advocate of the environment.
6) Human rights activist.
7) Is not a divider, but rather someone who respects the opinions of all.

Those are some of my thoughts. What are yours?

He needs to be confident enough in who he is that he can "speak to the people" without a script.

He needs to be humble in spite of his great power.

He needs to let his ethical and moral convictions steer his decisions in a way that respects opinions of others without necessarily having to compromise his own conviction.

all good qualities. while this may seem silly, it really isnt. are most voters looking for transparent qualites? we have to eliminate women, since so far none have been the candidate of either party. when was the last time a bald or short man was the nominee of either major party? there is no reason that they wouldnt possess every objective quality to be pres.

one quality i would look for is a candidate with a positve, uplifting vision for the future.

I look for resolve in the face of adversity; courage to do what needs doing, no matter who's "protesting"; strong on defense, in basic beliefs (and not afraid to share them), and a healthy dose of BACKBONE.

Only one of the two candidates meets my criterion, IMHO.

I guess to put it plainly. I look for someone who will be fair to everyone and not just listen to the popular opinion. I look for someone who will protect us and insure that protection for future generations. I look for someone who will make compromises when neccessary. I look for someone who will lead and not follow. I look for someone who Is Honest, Unbiased and true

Intelligence is hugely important due to the nature of the job. I would love to see honesty and strenth of character, and a love of God is hugely imp. to me.

Intelligence is the number one priority in my opinion. Things like character, honesty, etc. are important and should not be overlooked, but someone who has those traits but is not overly intelligent is not likely to get my vote. What I don't like to see in a President is someone who is flashy and showy and speaks well, but really doesn't do much; i.e., someone who looks great giving press conferences on the decisions that all his underlings are making because he is incapable.

I guess it's a preference of function over form; in the case of Bill Clinton, I understand the concern over his scandal because it could have been indicative of a general dishonesty problem (that could have bled over into national affairs), BUT the adultery incident by itself had no bearing on the operation of the country and wouldn't have bothered me much -- I couldn't care less who the President is screwing around with so long as he's running the country well AND his dishonesty towards his wife does not carry over into dishonesty in politics/national affairs (I'm sure there are many here who disagree on this point). My bigger problem with Clinton was/is his lack of sincerity and the fake aura surrounding him... he was clearly in office for power and fame alone, and didn't give a rat's arse about the "issues" he took positions on.

As far as Bush, he definitely doesn't fit the "flashy/speaks well" category I mentioned, but he also doesn't seem very intelligent nor capable of making decisions independently. The one thing I will say about him is that he stands firm on certain issues, particularly ones influenced by his religious beliefs (such as gay marriage), but seeing as I completely disagree with his position on such issues it wouldn't help sway my vote much!

Brettjrob, people don't graduate from Yale and Harvard business school being dumb....

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and he grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. After graduating, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father's successful 1988 presidential campaign, he assembled the group of partners that purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989.

mf_dolphin wrote:Brettjrob, people don't graduate from Yale and Harvard business school being dumb....

Right, of course, that is only because their grades in high school were good enough to be accepted.

I feel that someone (like myself), being intelligent, may not do well in college after the grades in high school are shown to the college I could of applied for.

All very good qualities and it seems like we're all looking for the same type of man/woman to run the country.

Helen- I understand where you are coming from with regards to people looking at superficial qualities instead of inside a person.

Anyone else care to add?

very true, steph. . i still say a positve vision is very important

rainstorm wrote:very true, steph. . i still say a positve vision is very important

Yes it is!

I like your list Steph, and agree 100% on your choices for 1-3. Since this post was "qualities" specific, then there is no need to mention "policies"....however..I need to ask you with all honesty.....do you think our former leader exhibited any of the qualities you and I both agree to in choices 1-3? Not trying to go "off'topic" here, but I have to admit...my eyebrows did a salute when I read your list.

j wrote:I like your list Steph, and agree 100% on your choices for 1-3. Since this post was "qualities" specific, then there is no need to mention "policies"....however..I need to ask you with all honesty.....do you think our former leader exhibited any of the qualities you and I both agree to in choices 1-3? Not trying to go "off'topic" here, but I have to admit...my eyebrows did a salute when I read your list.

I think our former leader had #3 - definately towards the beginning and especially with the people (majority). As time went on, #1 & #2 showed that he was lacking in it. The thing is, I didn't really care what he did "behind closed doors", and I'm sure there's alot of dirt that can be dug up on both sides.

Our current leader has #1 (I'm assuming that he REALLY BELIEVED that WMD's did/still do exist - I'm more skeptical of his Administration), & #2. As far as the third one goes, since we are currently looking at a polarized nation, he has half of the people and also half of his peers that respect him.

President Bush does AT THE VERY LEAST stand by his decisions - I think that Bill Clinton did as well. That's honorable regardless of whether time proves them to be right or wrong.

hmmmm....ok...you answered me fair and square but I coudn't disagree with you more (even though you were careful to qualify with "majority"). with regards to having the respect of his peers and the people.

Lordy....the man was impeached!

I think you are right in that he had respect toward the beginning. All Presidents deserve and should garner the respect of the people until they themselves have destroyed that.

j wrote:hmmmm....ok...you answered me fair and square but I coudn't disagree with you more (even though you were careful to qualify with "majority"). with regards to having the respect of his peers and the people.

Lordy....the man was impeached!

I think you are right in that he had respect toward the beginning. All Presidents deserve and should garner the respect of the people until they themselves have destroyed that.

The reasons behind the impeachment were due to the fact that he was caught with "his pants down" literally and it had nothing to do with running the country. In my eyes, it had everything to do with embarrassing the President.

Stephanie wrote:

j wrote:hmmmm....ok...you answered me fair and square but I coudn't disagree with you more (even though you were careful to qualify with "majority"). with regards to having the respect of his peers and the people.

Lordy....the man was impeached!

I think you are right in that he had respect toward the beginning. All Presidents deserve and should garner the respect of the people until they themselves have destroyed that.

The reasons behind the impeachment were due to the fact that he was caught with "his pants down" literally and it had nothing to do with running the country. In my eyes, it had everything to do with embarrassing the President.

No! It had to do with lying in court. He committed perjury, thereby obstructing the judicial process and denied a citizen there fair day in court. That is why the judge in the case sanctioned Pres. Clinton after he left office and then recccomended and got, his disbarrment from the State of Arkansas National Bar Assoc. The "sex" thing was used to trivialize they destruction of one of the basic expectations when one is called in court. The expectation that one can be compelled to tell the truth.

The ONLY reason why he was in court was because of the "sex" thing. No, he shouldn't have lied but I don't think that $40 billion in tax dollars were well spent just have someone in court to state whether they did or did not have relations with an intern. Was that a matter of national security? NO. Did he steal from the citizens? NO! The "sex thing" wasn't used to "trivialize they destruction of one of the basic expectations when one is called in court" - it was made as a part of the case and that was the ONLY THING THEY HAD.

Again....he was impeached due to perjury. THIS is not even open for debate. It's what he did!

Question...if we had found out in Court, that Mr Clinton had sex with Monika's little sister just for some variety, would we have been obligated to overlook that too because he was doing such a great job with the country??

I'm being sarcastic..yes..but only to illustrate a point..that being whatever Clinton did was considered ok as long as the economy was doing well by the majority of Democrats. If it involves the moral integrity of the person..who cares?...as long as it doesn't effect me. Me me ........mememememememememem!

Still in dabate of #3 here. It must just be where I live because I don't think I know a solitary person who holds any respect for our former President. He is still, to this day the butt of jokes, and critizism.

There's plenty of disrespect...very little R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Stephanie wrote:The ONLY reason why he was in court was because of the "sex" thing. No, he shouldn't have lied but I don't think that $40 billion in tax dollars were well spent just have someone in court to state whether they did or did not have relations with an intern. Was that a matter of national security? NO. Did he steal from the citizens? NO! The "sex thing" wasn't used to "trivialize they destruction of one of the basic expectations when one is called in court" - it was made as a part of the case and that was the ONLY THING THEY HAD.

No again. He was in court because he was accused of sexual harasssing a state employee. The judge decided there was enough evidence to let it go to trial. It was a matter of our court system! He stole the woman right to a fair and balanced trial. He lied to a judge in court....

Perjury is lying or making verifiable false statements under oath in a court of law.

Perjury is a crime because the witness has sworn to tell the truth, and for the credibility of the court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. Statements of interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not deliberately.

The perjury led to Lewinsky, not the other way around. The debate about the Independant Prosecutor law mat be debated, but under the circumstances, he had no choice but to pursue it.

Nixon deserved to be removed, but...he did not break in to the Watergate Hotel. He lied about what he knew and covered it up using the Power of his office. Pres. Clinton did the same, he lied and then used his office to undercut the Special Prosecutor and the court system.

If sexual harassment doesn't "hurt" anybody, then why did we have Anita Hill crowned the Joan of Arc of our time and Judge Clarence Thomas dragged through the mud? Why did I go through an annual training on Harassment when I worked for Publix Supermarkets? Why was Arnodl dragged through the California mud? Is it only a thing of convenience?