Minimum Standards for President

I want to know three things about a presidential candidate:

1. Who is going to advise you (including your vice president)?
2. What is your proposed budget?
3. Who would you nominate to the Supreme Court?

The current model of president picking is a lot like buying insurance. An insurance company will only give you details about what is covered in the policy AFTER you buy it. WTF?

Presidential campaigns are like that. Why do I have to wait until AFTER a candidate is nominated to find out what sort of goober he or she would pick as a running mate? Why do I have to wait until AFTER the president is elected to find out that the only way to pay for all of the campaign promises is to eliminate education? Why do I have to wait to find out who is in the cabinet, or who would be nominated to the Supreme Court?

I realize all of these choices need to be carefully vetted. I can live with some imperfection in the system if, for example, a proposed cabinet member turns down the job, or has a skeleton in the closet. But knowing the proposed choices would tell me a lot more than I know now.

As I said in an earlier post, any candidate who supports corn ethanol is unqualified to lead the country. By that standard, we don’t have any qualified candidates for president. But the bar should be higher than that. If we don’t know who will advise them, how they plan to pay the bills, and who they would nominate for the Supreme Court, they haven’t given us the minimum information needed to support them.

Comments

[Tamara]

I'm also from South Africa, and as was pointed out by someone earlier, our next likely president is Jacob Zuma, who was recently on trial for a bunch of crimes, including rape, corruption, fraud and other national pastimes. We know what he's like then, but it hasn't seemed to stop people from wanting to vote him into power. Go figure!

So maybe it's destiny - whether you know what the guy's gonna do or not, we're condemned to having a bunch of morons, or at least criminals, in power anyway!

[Nanda]

I feel American Presidential candidates go through 3 phases.

1. Primary: At this time they will spin ( or lie? ) their positions to suit their party voters. Example: Democrats will position themselves more to left than they really are.

2. Presidential election: Now their speeches will be more towards the center. This is because, they know that 90% of their party will vote for them. Whoever captures the middle or "undecided" voters will win the election.

3. As president: The voted candidate will now face reality. What he/she thought could do is not practical. So, they will "spin" away from their before mentioned positions...

So, the voter really cant trust what a candidate says at any point in their career as it will always be modified for that situation. Its just the way it is and will always be in a democracy.

[Joao Andre]

To become a president you don't need to be the best candidate. Like in any other competition you have to be the best in winning the election, no matter WTF you have to do. Undestand ??
P.S. How could you elect G.bush in 2004 when he already was a completely failure??? Unbelievable!! And don't say you are not guilty cause you voted democrats. Besides that you should convince other people that Bush was a mental job. Undestand???

[JEB]

they can't do it your way becasue politicians are supposed to hedge and not reveal answers but try to sound like they are telling you something. If any of them reveal specifics they are automatically eliminated by unwritten rule.

[Tom]

Have you ever wondered about the role the media plays in forming our perceptions of the candidates?

Once upon a time, they were concerned about reporting the news.

Now, tid bits of news are wrapped & prepped for ratings for more rating points, for more expensive commercials..

The factual reporting does not seem to matter so much any more.

[Stephen]

There's a few things I think that you just overstate

1) The Vice-President isn't really "chosen" by the president canidate, but by their party. 9 out of 10 cases, the answer would be "Whoever comes in a close second to me in the primaries"

2) You have a "general" idea of how budgets are going to go already. Democrats will have more public programs, Republicans will have higher military spending and tax breaks to businesses, and Libertarians will donate money towards Scientology (j/k, but its not like they'll win anyway). Few if any people would read "page 14 paragraph 6" of detailed budget analysis of 10 canidates in either party.

3) See point 2. I'm going to guess "Like minded individuals whom remind me of myself" would be the answer. Or at least "People that are like minded to the current state of my party"

[Steve]

There is a minimum requirement for President, spelled out in
Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

"[to]... faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

None of the current candidates meets this requirement.

[GG]

You can get insurance policy information before you buy it (I just went through this). It's just really, really difficult and confusing. Even the people selling the insurance are unprepared to give you this information or adequately answer your questions.

[taoteli]

Ever wonder what the universe is made of? If it is made of something, then that must be made of something and so on for ever. So the only logical answer is its made of nothing!

[patti]

Patti says:
LOL to JT..... Hey JT.. you keep saying, " I guarantee I would hate you in real life."
I LMAO! … "IN REAL LIFE" … How can THAT be a guarantee? First, you need to stop fantasizing about ME and my statements and then you need to "GET ..A REAL LIFE"... for yourself.

Talk about a picnic table,
Ya know, You have enough holes in your head, JT, that a whole army could screw you!

I suggest you get yourself a tongue ring and put a leash on it. THERE ARE leash LAWS ..YA KNOW!

OH YEAH, so tell me, just what do you guys do when you don't like a channel on TV? Do you piss and moan about it? Do you take the station away from others?
I do believe that you have a Napoleon complex. Maybe that is why you are not .. EVER going to be "in real life" . Or maybe you are a jackass who is braying.
It is pretty pathetic that you "hate" based on someone's format when they blog and that you don't like their humor.
PATHETIC! But then again, I SHOULD forgive you. You are not of THIS WORLD or a member of "real life"

BTW if this hurts your feelings.. just suck your thumb.... AFTER you remove it from your DUMB-ASS!
NOW THAT .... IS … FUNNY!!

[Joshua Ungerleider]

Scott, get a better insurance agent, you can get that information before you buy a policy.

On point though, you know the VP nominee, you may not have names of appointees, but you must know that Bush was going to nominate conservative ones, and that Obama or Clinton will probably nominate liberal ones. And I'm pretty sure they give some sort of budget on the websites now, which of course mean nothing.

But I do agree with you, I tend not to vote for people who just say things that "sound good."

I wish more people kept track of their representatives voting record, and public stances. Its not a crazy amount of research, and you can see how many people smile for the camera, then vote the opposite anyway.

[Chad]

Scott,

What do you care, you're not voting anyway ;-)

[Jon Z]

I heard someone once say "Politics is primarily Hollywood for ugly people".

Once I came to realize that most politicians are just actors playing a part, it becomes easier to stomach the lies, half-truths, and blatant stupidity. What they say in public and what they do in public have as much in common as ducks and accordians.

Just remember everyone...Hollywood for ugly people!

JZ

[Pierre, Switzerland]

True.
But on the other hand, it is an attribute of politicos of all stripes to sell bullshit to us, campaign on false promises etc. That's the case in most developed countries.

Why do they do that ? Well, because they can.

The electorate will not punish them when they totally screw things up: we're too busy watching TV and sipping soda, and they know that.

[cliff]

"It even one-ups one of the best and briefest jokes ever conceived:

Q: Why does a dog lick his b*lls.

A: Because he can."

Close, but the real answer is "Because he can't make a fist."

[kevin-montpellier]

hi Scott,

I'm sure I'm not the first one to send it to you, but... New York Times today on Cognitive Dissonance. Enjoy!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

[Mark]

At least with insurance you get 28 days to get a full refund.

Try that with your congress...

[Joe Blow]

For you ...

once again the poor AMA will lose out ... to mud.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=abTk9IWZiw9g&refer=science

[Sachin]

I agree with ur Minimum Standards for President, but it may be in practically infeasible when u factor in the possibility of a collation government where it is bit difficult to predicate which party get which portfolio………..

[Jonathan Adams]

I live in South Africa. Jacob Zuma, the newly elected president of the currently ruling ANC party(and thus next in line for president of SA if ANC wins again) is most famous for his public statement that you wont get AIDS if you take a shower after having unprotected sex.

What were you saying about setting a bar too high? I forget.

[wernman]

Running Mate: Disagree. The best choice is often the candidate they beat in the primary.

I agree with your other two criteria, but you missed the most important one? How will they defend the country? We take our security for granted -- we need to stop living in the pre-9/11 fantasy world...

[Krasimir]

Off topic: nice strip today. Did you write it while reading Influence?

[Iain]

Jerry said:

However, since our society runs on "people voting themselves bread and circuses" (complements of Robert Heinlein), it isn't a rational society focused on the "good of the many outweighing the good of the few or the one" (courtesy of Star Trek)
---
I thought the complement of Robert Heinlein (or rather one of his books, as he is now brown bread) would be a good dose of LSD or something. Sorry to be pedantic.

[Simon Jester]

Scott,

I think you'll find that the Libertarian candidates aren't supportive of corn ethanol.

[Nitin Goyal]

Interesting to see you use the word goober for a candidate's mate. In Hindi, "gober" (pronounced go ber) is cow dung (or as you better know bull shit). To add, gober has many uses like:
- Lighting the hearth
- Strengthening the walls
- Fertilizer

[Desi Arisandy]

My name is Desi.
I'm a student of Ganesha University of Education Indonesia.
I would like to make my final project about paragraph components used in blog. I'm interested in your blog, I would like to ask your permit to use yours as my subject of my project. Thank you Mr. Adams.

[Alsadius]

The problem with that plan is that most voters don't want to hear the answers to those questions. Oh, sure, if you ask the then they're all for it, but as soon as you actually give an answer, they're all over you. Post a budget worth $2.6 trillion, and the first thing you'll hear is a complaint over a $5000 donation to a skate park in the complainer's neighbourhood, or how too much funding for third-world disease prevention is going to Equatorial Guinea instead of Guinea-Bissau.

There's too many issues people will reflexively vote against, and not enough who are willing to get past the narrow-issue disqualifications to the point where submitting a budget will please them. Oh, sure, if you can manage to get elected on it then they'll love you for following through, but the first election is the killer(incumbents have absurd re-election ratios, as a rule), and it's the first election where answering your questions is a good way to lose.

It's not their fault, it's ours.

[bdc]

I may be stupid (or at least less than perfectly informed on the US political system, given I am an Aussie) but aren't each of the questions you raise as criteria (except the VP) subject to Senate confirmation (for Cabinet postings, many high but non-Cabinet level positions and the US Supreme Court) and Congressional approval (for the Budget)...???
If this is the case (and I'm pretty sure it is) then what the President may want to do in each of these areas is less important than what the President CAN do given the need for approval by Senate/Congress.
So the answers to your questions may not actually have any resemblance to what actually occurs and so are less than ideal as selection criteria.

[Muppet]

I was going to ask why you bother to pay attention considering you don't vote, but maybe this year, you'll change your mind. I think the Main Stream Media (MSM) selects our president considering the 'scandals' that have been looped over and over again lately. Hopefully, though the public isn't that stupid and is checking everything out that they can.

[Steve_e]

C'mon guys! You voted in a guy to control the largest arsenal of atomic weapons in history when can't he even say "nuclear", and you're worried about corny fuel?

Thanks to Iraq there are now about ten times as many suicide bombers in the world as 10 years ago and thanks to the uncaring attitude to his own back yard the sub prime mortgage crash is about to wipe out homes for a whole heap of people who didn't even get to vote (they don't live in America, and have never been there).

How about a more basic test? How many things has the candidate screwed up prior to this election? How many stupid risks have they taken without weighing up the longer term consequences?

Best of luck. We in the outside world wait with trepidation for the next incarnation of "the leader of the free world".

[JT]

Oh, happy day....

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/1376/ohhappydayzb2.gif

And I'll re-post from April 4: OK, I'll say it...Patti is really annoying-every post. It's so stupid to have a "posting style". Why the fuck would you start every post with a declaration like "Patti says; or Patti shouts!... I guarantee I would hate you in real life.

[Robert Hamilton]

Scott, If I were a candidate, I would not answer questions from non-voters. If the questions you listed could be answered, you would just use the information to create more excuses to not vote. You have zero cred on this topic (since you don't vote) yet you continue to blog about it. You can end the hypocrisy by getting registered to vote, and then actually vote. Am I wrong?

[Rob]

Scott, please stop sending this ridiculous message that McCain supports ethanol. That point has been disproven in your prior post on the matter.

[Pete Valle]

Scott, you should run for president. Really.

[badben]

i just wanted to say that we all enjoy patti and her posts.i hope she stays and keeps us laughing. isn't she the same patti who posted many years ago? we missed her fun stories.i don't usually post since we aren't supposed to be fooling around here at work. but, i can tell you that we don't mind her leads into her posts, in fact we look for them. hey patti we love you. you go girl!

[Chubby Mike]

I think your proposal puts "the cart before the horse". The candidate cannot choose his VP early because it often ends up being one the people that they are runnuing against in the primaries. You cannot say whom you will choose for the Supreme Court because you have to ask that person first privately if they will do it...no one will say yes to someone who isn't president yet. The cabinet choices are going to have the same problems. The process of choosing a president in this country takes far to long and costs to much money.

[mwgwc]

I do agree with you Scott but you don't actually have the right to b*tch about candidates. I think it's a privilege, not a right and as such has to be earned.
It's easy though, all you have to do is go to the polling station and cancel out someone else's lame vote on election day. I think everyone should stop thinking of an election as picking the best man for the job and realized it's really about eliminating the most blatant a**hole. There's always some candidate that's worth voting against. After you vote, you get to complain all you want.

[TN]

Scott,

Do you interpret McCain's response from this link

"When oil is $15 a barrel, ethanol does not make sense. When oil is $60-plus a barrel, then ethanol does make sense."

as support for ethanol subsidies? Could he have just be referring to ethanol production in general?

[Roby Bang]

"Does your I.Q. exceed your shoe size?"
~~jerry w.

"Suppose you were an idiot. Or suppose you were a member of Congress. But then again, I repeat myself."
~~Mark Twain

As said by the old school Adams himself, intellegence is irrelevent in American government.

[burt]

hahahahrahahahahah u said WTF. thats common =P

[Tony]

"The current model of president picking is a lot like buying insurance. An insurance company will only give you details about what is covered in the policy AFTER you buy it. WTF?"

I don't understand this statement!? Are you saying that in the US you take out an insurance policy AND THEN find out what it covers? How on earth does that work? And if picking your president IS in any way similar to this, then no wonder "monkey-boy" got in!

Come on guys, sort yourselves out . . . . . otherwise the rest of the world may get the idea that you are a bunch of clueless losers :-)

[Dewey]

The candidates can't answer who will be VP, cabinet members, or any other rank(ing) members of the new administration until the campaign bribes oops, contributions, have been added up.

[mr tom]

The UK is no better.

We have more than two parties and ours are actually different, too, but when it boils down to it, it's still a question of working out who you can't possibly bring yourself to vote for, realising that leaves nobody on the list and either:
voting for somebody who'll never get elected so your vote does no harm
voting for somebody who might get elected to get rid of the current fools
being hugely irresponsible and not voting on the basis that none are worth electing

What a great set of choices.

[quantum_flux]

How would you answer those questions Scott?

[vasco]

-

Great article...

:D
Like it!

-------------
http://href.hu/x/2sv1

[chaz]

http://allintense.blogspot.com/

[Brian]

Whooaa. Not so fast. It depends what state they are in. In Iowa, yes, they support corn ethanol. In Michigan ... not so much. So maybe that should be another standard: they have to be the same candidate no matter where they are. And now that we've completely cleared the field ...

[Michael]

I think I would like to add the sentiment of Oliver's questions (though not those exact wordings) and something to dertermine general intelligence. But, since we will likely never get the candidates to answer ANY of these, we are stuck with the political parties...here and in many other countries. It may be time to overhaul our political/government system but that sort of change doesn't happen easily (if at all).

[Arby]

The problem here is everyone is looking for logic and reason. Ain’t gonn’a happen, not while self-interest, selfishness and the “I gott’a get mine” mind-set rules in this country. Tax payers don’t mind higher taxes as long as it is someone else that is taxed. Regulating spending is verboten, except in their special interest case.

Deals and compromises adversely effecting constituents start being made by new congress members the day they win their election. Campaign promises are so much hot air. Nepotism, favoritism, spoils, patronage and pure payback have always been politics as usual in this country and it always will be.

Democracy is messy. But as they say, it s all we got and just hope who we elect has the character not to incinerate us all

[Sam Davis]

A major part of the reason we don't find out more about presidential candidates before one ends up in the White House is that we don't demand, loudly enough, to know more. And even when presidential candidates are occasionally called on the carpet over a particular policy proposal, the really hard questions, such as "How will this be paid for?", and "Why should the government be doing this at all?", are never asked.

In a country where 25% of adults believe all animals and plants have always had the forms they have now, and another 20% think the sun revolves around the earth, it's easy to see why we don't ask the hard questions.

We don't know what the hard questions are. Our misconceptions help prevent us from knowing.

The main misconception is that the president should be a democratically-annointed national savior. So, we are only concerned about qualities that a good savior would likely have, and the scrutiny of the candidates, such as it is, flows from that premise.

So, we don't care how the program will be paid for, because our national savior will magically make the money appear out of thin air. We don't care whether the government should be doing it or not because, gosh, the savior is running the government and it should dry all our tears and heal all our pains.

The really hard questions would prevent the nonsense we have now and disqualify almost all currently active politicians.

[E]

Scott,

A billion dollars.

This will be roughly, the cost of the election this time around... [insert flushing sound here].

I share the frustration. I love America, think we do quite a few things right. But you Have to believe that there is a better way to find a good President.

[Jan]

Looks like Scott has become a comic character:
http://www.creators.com/comics/speed-bump/17646.html

(ok, it's not him, but there are some similarities)

[Mark Thorson]

If it was done your way, real
leaders would never get
elected. If you forced them
to disclose their entire
agenda, everyone would find
something in there to object
to.

Major policy initiatives that
require developing public
opinion AFTER election would
never occur. Who would have
voted for Bush if they knew
he planned to invade Iraq?

We are facing some major
crises that will require real
leadership, such as bringing
greenhouse gas emissions under
control. This will require
policy initiatives that will
be deeply unpopular, such as
heavy taxes on energy
consumption. The kind of
leader we need to solve this
problem will never get elected
if he tells you in advance
what he's going to do.

[lulu]

I have campaign fatigue already. It is getting harder and harder to discern the BS from the truth from EVERY candidate. I think if you asked each person running, they would fit their answer to the person asking the question or the region in which the election was taking place. I cannot believe in anything any politician says. The only modern president I have sincere respect for is Jimmy Carter.

I would like to see a candidate I could truly support but am afraid that will not happen again in my life.

[Heather]

So you're not so much interested in the candidate as in the "entire package." Not a bad way to do it.

[patti]

Patti says: Yeah, they should have to give us full disclosure concerning the cabinet and vice presidency. It is ridiculous that we always have to "wait and see" whom they will bring along for the ride. My guess is that they are afraid of making a mistake that will cost them the presidency.
Geesh. They are already AFRAID of making choices. If a candidate cannot decide who they respect and trust and who they believe is best suited for any given job, they shouldn't be president. Each candidate has had plenty of time to decide and give us their selections.
Let's face it, the party really makes the decision and that is based on nothing other than who might balance the ticket to please the oh-so-fickle-public.
I hate the ratings updates.
Think about it.

[RPK]

The Vice-Presidential candidate can be figured out with relatively little effort, make a game out of it. You can plce bets with your friends. Obviously it will be a prominant person in the candidate's party. And it will be the person who will be most able to help the candidate get elected. This means it will be someone from a different, (usually large), state. Often in a different area of the country. That's enough of a head start, you can run with it from there...

The budget comes from the House of Representatives, so ask your Member about it, rather than the candidate for President. Until the President gets a line-item veto, (which might be unconstitutional), his proposals are meaningless and his only choice is to accept or reject the whole thing. And if (s)he vetoes it, it could be overridden.

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it's an ideologial chess match between the President and the Senate. The nominee has to be able to please the President's supporters and still get approved by the Senate. If the President and the majority of the Senate are of different parties, this can get messy. Hard to tell up front who a candidate will be able to choose if and when the time comes.

I want to know what the candidates will do about Medicare and Social Security. Unfunded obligations for these two massive entitlement programs are estimated at $53 TRILLION!
They will both go negative within the potential second term of the next president. These two programs, if left to their own devices, will bankrupt the country in short order. Don't count on the 'trust funds'. These are made up of Treasury notes, which are fancy IOU's from the government. Congress has been using these trust funds to finance deficit spending for generations, but soon they will have to pay back that money with interest so that SS and Medicare can meet their obligations. Where will that money come from? That's what I want to know...

[David Lai]

So True.

The president is definately going to spend alot of time delegating, we outta know if he's delegating to the people we can trust.

[steve]

Politicians balance what they say to first, avoid alienating the undecided and next reassuring their base. You can get a good idea of a candidates principles/integrity/judgment on how they run their campaign.

[Howabominable]

Even if the people they plan to have as advisers/Supreme Court Justices don't end up getting the job, at least we would know the type of person the candidate is planning on taking advice from, etc.

Of course, it's not like it matters. Bush looked like a good choice for president 8 years ago and look where it's got us.

[rita mae]

Tax season. I am soooooooooo crabby. I need a clone to help me get this work done.

Now I join all the rest who have said in the past..........

You don't vote anyway, so what's the big deal? I say let's undress them and vote for the guy with the longest widest penis. Guess that leaves Hillary out (or maybe not). BWAHAHAHAHA

I said "penis" and you know everyone was waiting for that.

Rita Mae

[Shashwat]

The big question is how much funding they recieve from big business, and obviously their voting records in other public offices. From that you can see whether they are being hypocrites when they are talking about combating "special interests". If they are in bed with big bussines, filled with strategic dreams of empire, and have a lack of ethics then they will invade foreign countries. While the democrats might not invade Iran if they win, they will be sure to be the cheerleaders if McCain wins. Come to think of it, Iran would be invaded in the ending hours of the Bush legacy.

[Dave]

You’ve discovered a whole new level in the political process, a slew of Supreme Court running mates. Its just one step from electing Supreme Court judges directly and I’ve always felt that if there was anyone well equipped to pick a Supreme Court justice it is the population at large.

Of course the politicians might lie.

Perhaps one week before the election both Party candidates and any third party candidates could appear on the Fox Network’s “The Moment of Truth,” where they have to hook themselves up to a lie detector and answer yes or no to questions like.

“Will you really fill the first vacant seat on the Supreme Court with Scott Adams?”
“No really, Scott Adams?”
“Is it true that you receive foreign policy advice from your childhood dog whom you've had stuffed and now keep next to your bed?” etc…

[Greg]

It reminds me of the joke about the politician who is given the choice about going to heaven or hell: http://flickabooger.com/archive/2008/04/01/politician-joke.aspx

[D. Mented]

Those would be my top questions, too.
Budget- not quite so much, though, because the president only approves or vetos how congerss spends the money, so more of a budget policy than a proposed budget.
I also like to look at a candidate's general voting record.
I'm not really bothered by Obama's votes of "present"; many bills are 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' types that have something very good - like funds for research into a promising new treatment for PTSD to help our damaged veterans, and something very bad, like funds to develop the ocean front of a landlocked state. If you vote no, you voted against helping our veterans. If you vote yes, you voted for some outrageous pork. If you vote present, you sent a message to the crafters of bill and riders to come up with something a little better.
My problem with Obama is from question number one; he has surrounded himself with very bad people. He's not even in the whitehouse yet and they're already doing damage (like the one who went to Canada and said "don't worry about his stand against NAFTA; that's just campaign talk...He's really on board with the "one continent one country" thing) This suggests he has poor judgement about the people he's working with; that might affect both advisors and supreme court nominees.
Clinton would probably be working with the same people as her husband.
I don't think you'd need to worry about Nader's advisors - he just does what he wants no matter what anybody says...Lucky for us, that brought us the consumer information and consumer protection laws we rely on today.
D. Mented

[Joselito Peidabala]

Well, i would certainly go for the candidate whose advisor would be Chuck Norris...

[Jason]

quite impossible unless all candidates had to do it. Candidate slates would be interesting and perhaps it would prevent us from over examining each person, "hi, Bob Smith ate paste in 1st grade, do we really want him in charge of the DEA?"

[Bloodboiler]

>1. Who is going to advise you (including your vice president)?
My vise president would be Jesus, and Stephen Hawking, Dr Phil and Oprah would be my advisers. I'm confident that I will get all of them to join up.

>2. What is your proposed budget?
About 100 dollars, if nothing unforeseen happens.

>3. Who would you nominate to the Supreme Court?
God, obviously, is the only one who can judge, but Judge Judy will be his stand in.

And the difference to current system was what?

[grenacia]

Part of why the VPs aren't picked at the start of the race is that VPs are often people who were originally running for president - they can't be a VP until they've given up on that. Plus there's no way of knowing whether they'll accept the presidential candidate's offer to be VP. And candidate often want to keep such negotiations private. Otherwise it can get politically nasty, like what's been happening with Hillary saying she'd like to share the ticket with Obama.

[Danial, Prince of Pieces]

It's all blather of course, unless you go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f4lQs0HOu8

[jakesdad]

it's time for a woman president:

Laura Roslyn in '08! we know who her cabinet will be (bonus - competent secretary of defense) and who better to take the "red phone" call?

Roslyn/Zarek '08!!!

[Håkon]

Did I see you on a tennis match the other day - on TV? Davydenko vs Roddick, I think it was. (BTW, I miss the philosophical posts.)

[Dave Handelsman]

I like the proposed questions, but they're all based on what happens after the election. I think the President needs to have the right character to be a successful leader, recognizing that she or he will run into untold political obstacles after they're elected.

My questions would be:

1. What do you call your friends? Clever nicknames like Scooter and Brownie won't get my vote.

2. When's the last time you shopped for something like the majority of Americans? Buying a baseball team doesn't count. Neither does buying anything from Halliburton.

3. What type of school do your kids go to? Is it an overpriced prep school, or a public school? If security has become an issue, did they ever go to public school?

4. In a time of crisis, who would you call to determine what to do next? It can't be the future VP, or the Secretary of anything. Who would you call right now?

Here's one last thought. If aliens from an advanced civilization landed, and said "take me to your leader", which candidate would I take them to, or would I find someone else that I had more confidence in?

[disembodied consciousness]

Don't you know the answer to this question by now? No politician will say any more about their future actions than absolutely required, because each decision will piss off some fraction of the electorate. Over the course of a four year term, a president is certain to piss of each and every voter at least one time. Of course, by then it's too late. But if you piss off each voter at least once while you are still a candidate, well, who's going to vote for you?

So, you and the media are stuck superimoising your hallucination of what each candidate might be like over each candidate, and picking the most attractive hallucination. The only thing crazier than this concept is that concensus hallucinations are pretty accurate!

Is there any humor to be mined in the concept that a hallucination may accurately predict the future if it is shared by enough people?

[lskd]

I think choosing the president based on psychology is about all the information someone needs. Then you will know if the people or budget policies they will choose will be goobers and duds, respectively, or not. Because, after all, as you imply you're not electing someone who can run the government, you're electing someone who can nominate people to run the government.

A crazier person will choose crazier people and policies (to my perception, to theirs it is perfectly sane). A saner person (notice I do not say sane) will choose saner people and policies...who in turn will choose saner people and policies, and so on. It makes sense. That's all I need to know about a candidate. Of course... knowing who they will choose beforehand gives you the opportunity to evaluate the sanity of their chosen...which can be worked backward to determine sanity of the chooser, which is precisely why it is riskier to name nominations before getting elected.

Bear in mind, this points directly to the voter. A saner voter will 'nominate' a saner presidential candidate, who will nominate a saner Supreme Court justice...etc.

--Anything on evolutionary psychology will help. For example, David Buss' Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind
--The best workplace bullying site I have found: http://bullyingbosses.com/employess/index.html

[Cheryl Kopec]

Scott, I have to say I love your newsletters and cartoons -- they're brilliant. But I have to agree with Jonathan Kamens above, in that some of these questions simply have no answers at this point. The choice of running mate is extremely important, and that decision is still in the process of being made. A zillion factors must go into it, and a careful vetting process must take place. I wouldn't trust a candidate who simply picked a name out of a hat, without the party's consensus.

Similarly, like Jonathan mentioned, there's no way to know when a Supreme Court slot will open and who will be available to fill it at that time. I'd be leery of asking questions nobody can answer right now. I'm more concerned with the candidate's overall philosophy, policies, and record, which give me the clearest picture of how he will make those delicate choices.

Lastly, Barack Obama has the highest lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters out of all the candidates in this race, Republican or Democrat, current or former. I trust that he truly cares about our environment and will make the best possible decisions based on the research and technology available at the time.

Sincerely,

~~SSG Cheryl Kopec, Pierce County Veterans for Obama

[Steven]

Honestly I would just be happy with 2- the budget.

[Dave]

Why can't a candidate come out and say they are going to choose person "A" as their running mate?

There is no way I'm voting for Hillary, but the choice between McCain and Obama is going to come down to their running mate for me. (Especially for McCain. Let's face it, he's probably going to be using a Rascal scooter in the oval office before his term is done.

[Sondra]

Here, here!

[Mike]

I think you still are doing better than the UK. ALL of our politicians are corrupt, that is just the way the system is set up.

For example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/03/nexpenses103.xml

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/40275/You-have-to-pay-Brown-s-TV-Licence-Revealed-The-full-scandal-of-MP-s-Expenses

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512560&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source

I guess we ain't as bad as Zimbabwe yet??? Maybe because you are on the gravy train whether you are in power or not.

[Fuji]

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/04/05/0405chimp.html

[Real Live Girl]

I agree with all that too. It would be nice to know who the candidate would like to ask to be VP, in the cabinet, and on the Supreme Court before making a decision in your state's primary. Then before election day, getting the rest of the details - like showing the math on the budget.

But no, we get vague generalities because most people would rather get a real or virtual hug from a politician than facts and figures. The lowest common denominator sucks ass.

[HannahsDad]

These questions would be effective on any normal person, but politicians aren't normal - they're adept at answering the question they wish you'd asked, instead of answering your actual question. And they lie. So maybe we could avoid asking their opinions about how good they'd be...

…Why not give them aptitude tests that would evaluate keys parts of their job: an IQ test (albeit with a soft target of, say 110), a 'work ethic' test, and an integrity test, etc. I'd also like to see them playing some sport, cooking a meal on a budget, fixing an electrical plug and drawing a picture. Let's see what they're really made of.

[dsg]

Hi Scott,

Those sound like pretty good criteria for choosing a president.

My criteria is much simpler. In MA, as with a couple of other states (MI especially) you can be pretty certain which way your state is going to vote. Unless my candidate is going to win, I won't cast a presidential vote. If nothing of local interest is on the ballot I won't even show up. I wonder if voting in NH or FL is more fun?

I have a question for you. If a candidate had all the responses you were looking for, would you go and cast a vote?

Thanks for the post,
dsg

[Jim]

You might have noticed the phenomenon of political parties

[Jerry]

Scott, I am sure you realize that in a completely rational world nobody would support corn ethanol because they would read the studies (or at least hear about them on the news) that show how bad corn ethanol is long term. However, since our society runs on "people voting themselves bread and circuses" (complements of Robert Heinlein), it isn't a rational society focused on the "good of the many outweighing the good of the few or the one" (courtesy of Star Trek). It's really more about "I want more money/power/sex". This is really the way we are wired and is the natural result of evolution.

Many affects from this can be seen in politics - for example the riders on bills, the "pork barrel" spending, even the way politicians campaign on different issues in different areas - it is all around "what's in it for me" to the individual voter. To get back to corn - the Midwest grows corn. (At least when we aren't paying them to not grow corn - which is a pretty sweet way to make money.) So, they want to maximize their profits. You can't do that when growing more corn pushes the price down due to overabundance. So they would like more markets. Legislated markets where we are REQUIRED to buy the product is every industry's holy grail. So the politicians support corn ethanol to get the votes of the corn growing regions. They support "no oil drilling offshore of California" to get the vote from CA. They support whatever in the heck will get them votes (or perceived votes) whether it is ridiculous or not. So, if you look at all the facts - it makes sense for the candidates to support silly crap - including corn ethanol.

[Joe]

I don't understand why you need any of this information. It will not help you to make any decisions. If you had all this information, how would your Election Day be any different? Based on what I have already learned about you, here is how your Election Day will go if you do not have answers to any of your questions:

Wake up
Shower, Get Dressed, Fluff, etc
Cross the street to go to work
Pet the cat
Drink a soda
Draw a comic
Write a blog
Grab some lunch
Make some calls, write some e-mail
Go play tennis
Go out to dinner
Come home and watch the election results
Go to bed

Now, let's assume you have answers to all of your questions. Here is how your Election Day will go:

Wake up
Shower, Get Dressed, Fluff, etc
Cross the street to go to work
Pet the cat
Drink a soda
Draw a comic
Write a blog
Grab some lunch
Make some calls, write some e-mail
Go play tennis
Go out to dinner
Come home and watch the election results
Go to bed

You see, we all have a limited capacity for the acquisition, organization, and long-term storage of information. Your quest to acquire information should be optimized to focus on that which will guide your actions and/or decisions in the future. Seeking to acquire information which will not alter any of your future actions or decisions is a waste of time and resources. I would have thought an intelligent man such as yourself could find a way to be much more efficient in this regard.

[Jonathan Kamens]

1. There are articles all over the media and the blogosphere about who each candidate's closest advisers are. This information is not difficult to find out. You can bet that many of the members of the President's cabinet will be chosen from the people serving as his/her advisers during the campaign.

As for the Vice President, the candidate can't tell you who his or her pick will be for Vice President because that doesn't really get settled until very close to the convention, and sometimes not even until the convention itself.

2. I don't know about the other candidates, but Obama has detailed information on his Web site about what his programs will cost and how he proposes to pay for them.

3. You can't expect a candidate to tell you who he's going to nominate to the Supreme Court, because he has no way of knowing when an opening will become available or who the best candidates for the Court will be when that happens. However, you can get a pretty darn good idea of what kind of people a candidate will nominate. For example, you can be pretty sure that McCain will nominate a justice who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. He's *told* you he'll do that.

Finally, concerning your statement, "As I said in an earlier post, any candidate who supports corn ethanol is unqualified to lead the country. By that standard, we don’t have any qualified candidates for president," as I explained in a comment on that blog entry, Obama advocates cellulosic ethanol, not ethanol made from food crops, so he seems to pass your test. Why keep saying that there are no candidates who do?

[Leslie]

I know what you mean. I'm getting really tired of voting for the lesser of evils. Unfortunately, as Nixon says in a Futurama episode, most voters are "drunk and stupid." They buy rhetoric, and ignore substance. That scares me a little about Obama, actually. He's too good a speaker.

Here's my question: Would you rather vote for someone who you disagree with but feel confident you know what they'll do, or vote for someone who sounds agreeable enough, but it's anyone's guess what path they'll take?

[AC]

Why should they? If those people said just one thing wrong that can be proven, then they stupid for having them for a friend. Oh wait, if the media likes you, then you can have a mentor who dislikes the US and that can fade into the background.

These people have been running for the office of President for far too friggin' long. The amount of money is mind boggling to me. I could support my current modest lifestyle on the INTEREST of 5% on 1% of what has been raised from just ONE of the candidates.

I don't want to vote for any of the 3. It won't matter anyway as each of them will back off on any campaign promises once they get into office. They will still have to deal with the children in Congress that are currently more worried about baseball, acting like they care about gas prices and passing bills that they have no idea how we can pay for to make happen.

If I could run my household like the government, I would be able to do what I wanted and then let my bank worry about how to fund my checking account.

Do you see what our elected idiots ... err ... officials are doing with our financial markets? They are turning more of it over to an entity (Federal reserve) that states on there website ...

"It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms"

This is nothing new obviously, yet we are about to give them MORE power. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. If the magic creation of new money does not show you this, I am not sure what will.

[Slap D. Monkey]

Excellent point, Scott. This was my exact thought on 1 April when the bio-fuel article in Time was discussed. I wrote:

"As far as candidates being incompetent goes, I believe in the old saying:

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, try to legislate it."

Politicans have been voicing opinions on issues of which they have no knowledge for years. You should never vote for a candidate based upon what you believe that candidate thinks because he/she doesn't think. Base your vote on what his/her advisors think. There is a reason candidates have science advisors. Very few politicians could make a sound argument one way or the other on science-based issues (former Senator Bill Frist comes to mind as an exception - he is a cardiac surgeon turned politician)."

Wow! I can't believe it. Scott agrees with me on something. I'd like to thank all the little people who made this happen. You know who you are . . .

[me]

Hmmmm... They call us "a young democracy" but in my country (Croatia), those things are some of the main issues discussed in the campaign. The party which declines to discuss these issues loses credibility immediately.
On the other hand, it is questionable if they "walk the talk" when they win elections - which is probably why in "old democracies" nobody bothers as they know that everything you say in the campaign doesn't count anyway.

[printing]

fdsfdsfdsfsdfds sadfkjfdshfkjda fdskjhfdsahjgsad fdghsdfjhgfd fsdhgfdsajhg aLKSADBDSF

[jerry w.]

My question:

Do you have a pulse?

Is your body temperature above ambient?

Does your I.Q. exceed your shoe size?

O.K., a yes answer to all of the above gets you into my primaries.

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

[Oliver]

On Ethanol, I think you should recall that McCain ran against subsidies (in Iowa, no less), and that killing ethanol subsidies effectively kills corn ethanol.

[Do you recall that he changed his mind? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/12/512797.aspx -- Scott]

[Diana W]

I'd add the following:

1. What is your criteria for invading a foreign country? (And are there any already on your to-do list?)

2. What is your plan for stopping illegal aliens from invading our country?