How to Get Elected President

I wouldn’t want to be president. I worry enough about being assassinated for what I write on this blog. There’s no point in making it worse. But that doesn’t stop me from thinking about how I would run my campaign.

If I ran for president, I’d have to get past the country’s distaste for atheists. That’s a big problem. I would handle it by manipulating the media with a sound bite so catchy the pundits would have no choice but to repeat it until it started to sound sensible. I’d hold a press conference and say that ONLY an atheist should be president, in the same way you want a eunuch to guard your harem. (That’s the sound bite. It’s like catnip for pundits.)

I would suggest that a truly religious president might try to convert your children to his religion, either overtly or by example. In this election alone, you have a Mormon, a Baptist or two, and if Bloomberg enters, a Jew. Moreover, a scary percentage of the South believes Obama is a Muslim. I’d play the fear card.

After my eunuch sound bite got everyone’s attention, I would soften the message to “Only an atheist can guarantee religious freedom for all by favoring none.” That argument makes no sense whatsoever, but it would be persuasive nonetheless.

Next, I would promise to maintain all social benefits for anyone who is already over sixty. That would guarantee me the senior citizen vote. Obviously it is not a campaign promise I would have much chance of keeping, but that’s a problem for later. And I would portray all the other candidates as a risk to senior citizens.

Younger voters might have a problem with my complete lack of political experience. I would deal with that by announcing in advance my picks for cabinet, Vice President, Chief of Staff, and other key positions. I would simply pick the most popular and/or qualified people in the world, such as Oprah, Colin Powell, and Warren Buffet. All of those people would immediately denounce me and deny interest in the jobs, obviously. But I would tell the voters they are only saying that because I am not yet the president. When the president asks someone to serve the country, they tend to say yes. And if any of them do eventually say no, for now they are a good example of who I would pick for those sorts of jobs. I would point out that the other candidates will be appointing worthless political cronies, as always.

I would promise that my approach to social issues would mirror the majority opinion. Unlike the other candidates, I would not try to hold your family hostage to my personal views. I would argue that a president’s role in social issues is to guarantee the minority doesn’t oppress the majority, not to impose my own biases. If someone has a pet social issue, I would tell them to convince the majority of the country, not me.

For international issues, I would promise to follow the advice of the most qualified experts in each field. And I would dismiss any specific policy questions as “hypothetical questions” that only an idiot would answer. I would portray the other candidates as either liars or reckless for not naming their future advisors in advance, and not committing to listening to people who know more than they do.

Do I have your vote?

Comments

[Samuel Skinner]

Hitler was a theist- we think he was a catholic, but we can't be sure if he really believed. He did believe in divine providece though; I'd put the man down as a heretical christian.

No, the example people use is Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. If you want to sound sophisticated mention Robspierre and add in North Korea and Cuba. We here at the EAC are dedicated to providing this arguement to Christians everywhere... so we can later rip it to shreads.

[Alan]

If it comes down to Billary and McCain, I will write your name in.

[Alan]

Of course, I will.

[kidpurple]

Well here it is - before today you would have my vote.

After today I'm kinda mad that you tease with the idea of a candidate who would bring some common sense and a sense of humor to the job. I also like your reasoning about only an atheist should be elected - makes sense to me. So now I'm mad and you've lost my vote.

Of course if you were to actually run I'd see that you weren't just teasing - and I'd have to vote for you. It would be a glorious 4 years - or however long it would take for impeachment to get the better of you!

[Jim Guess]

Who cares. You Americans are crazy anyway.
How much money is being spent on your elections?.
Any sane Nation would be bored to tears by the length of time it takes in order to elect your President.
Take one Political party away and you would a Dictatorship.
In fact America claims to be a Democracy, but if your Leader doesn't agree with Policy, he just says no, and thats the end of the matter.
You may not be aware, but with Satellite TV, where most news is sent around the world, your Ambassador is seen as one O'Reilly, a Fox news one eyed spiteful Nationalist, who uses the terminology left wing in order to denigrate people who do not agree with his views.
"Why don't they like us" is often asked. There may be many reasons. Mine being your inability to think for yourselves in regard to religion.
You are a laughing stock when poles shows the majority think the world was made in 7 days, and take the bible as being actually literal etc.etc.
I won't go into how long it took to make up your mind to assist Great Britain when they were nearly invaded by Germany in WW11

[Dan Walter]

I find it funny that people will ridicule Bush without knowing what he knows. Most people only have to decide whether or not to go to work. That is your biggest decision for the day! No one will be judging your actions 200 years from now. In fact, you will soon be forgotten.

I don't agree with everything President Bush does or has done. I don't know all the facts behind those decisions. Neither did the people in Abe Lincoln's time have all the facts to judge him when he was faced with enormous decisions. Decisions so many Americans take for granted today.

[Dan Walter]

Hitler was an atheist .. not a very attractive fellow. Without a belief in God, or a Higher Power, there would be far fewer atheists in the world today. Why? Because the vast majority of Believers who have put away their "teeth and claw" no longer believe in killing each other. Atheists ought to rejoice there are Believers and stop trying to shout them down! Those same people they ridicule today would have been their worst nightmare in days gone by. How many people have changed their ways once they've become Believers we will never know. But you can see it reflected in every face. We all have the potential to do horrible things to one another. I'm for anything that tames the beast within us.

[high.on.markers]

Would you consider becoming a Canadian citizen and leading our country? We are currently being led by a man who could be the identical twin of a guy I went to high school with who hired two other guys to go and kill his mother and grandmother(not making this up). Please, please, please.

If you like, you can be the leader of the ABTB party (anybody but these bozos) I'm trying to get going. It's non-denominational, non-partisan, but, I'm afraid, anti-moron.

[John Reedy]

I was going to vote for you until I found out that Obama's not Muslim. Maybe I'll vote for that non-terrorist after all.

http://awritersblock.com

[MikeBert in Phoenix]

Yes. You'd have my vote, Scott. Why?

Because after all the stupidity and tap-dancing that you'd have to do to get elected, I know that you'd throw all of that crap out and do whatever made the most sense to the smartest people when you got in office.

Elect smart people for a change. ADAMS/HAWKING '08!

(Yes, THAT Hawking. Since he's native-born British, though, that might disqualify him for VP. His health problems certainly aren't any worse than our current Veep, who might collapse at any moment.)

[Tormod]

"The christians don't believe mohammed was a prophet of god, but both have the same prophet. According to both religious texts, they were brothers in the distant past, one of which became the Jew, the other became the Arab. One side begat christianity, the other islam."

Actually, they're not.
The confusion happens because Mohammed didn't have the brains or education to know that "Christ" was a title instead of a last name.
The quran states explicitly what should qualify has a prophet. Jesus does not qualify.

About the same confusion that was the origin of the "virgin birth". Except that the latter was a problem in translation of the word "young woman", whereas the former was a problem with the source.
----

I'd welcome an atheist president just to make sure that the religious rhetoric didn't survive from the podium and into the lobby.
I don't think that the one would be Scott. Imagine him on C-Span asking the press room why they didn't see the humor brilliance of him giving a presentation about why Iraq should be occupied by dolphins and kangaroos with hoola hoops.

I think Scott gives fun angles on reality, but none that should be attempted by the worlds biggest superpower. It's like voting on Dr Evil for office just for the comedy.

[kamal]

My vote? Shoot, I'd vote for you.

[Pierre]

Well, I'd vote for you without hesitation.
Unfortunately, it looks like the vast majority of voters are induhviduals, so any chance of having a sane, reasonable and coherant leader has been lost, yet again.
The fact that the last 8 fears have been under the auspices of a moron and his dangerous paymasters and have led to Eternal war and the Fatherland Security march-into-fascism doesn't give me much hope that a savior such as you could ever make it into the Oral Office.
What could they do with someone who works on logic and reason ???
I guess we'll just have to compromise with whatever tool Diebold picks for us.
Judging by some of the induhvidual's comments here, as usual, I'm seeing McCain/Liebermann and nuclear war on the very near horizon.
"Some day, children, all this collossal FUBAR will be yours..."

[Mr. Right]

Mr. Adams that was genius. The eunuchs thing...it makes perfect sense. I'll vote for you or any other eunuchs out there.

this was sooo de.licio.us'd by me.

[Steven McDaniel]

"[ Um, you are cheerfully conflating being allowed to mention God at school (which is an issue of freedom of speech) with the intense brainwashing techniques imposed by cults on their adherents.
Posted by: Steven McDaniel ]
So what are these brainwashing techniques? Repetition, repetition, repetition. Interspersed with denigration, censure and embarrasment from those in authority. With some positive reinforcement from both the group and the heads for giving the right answers.
Right?
So how's that different from school assembly? NOTE: In the UK we have assembly whatever religion you are and you can't skip it."
Posted by: Mark

UMMMM...Mark, I lived in the UK for about 30 years, many of which were spent attending Assemblies at school, when I was not a believer, as I am now. I survived their 'brainwashing.' The days of 'Mr Brocklehurst' in Jane Eyre were 2 centuries ago! And I know through my experience with English prison ministry and drug counseling at UK schools that you are NOT allowed to proselytise in the schools, although, yes, you can, to quote you, 'mention God'. (Stalin forbid!) Mark, Mark, please one day visit this planet and find someone fully conscious to explain the difference between UK school assemblies and Sun Myung Moon's brainwashing techniques. Although, come to think of it, your technique of argue, argue, argue could be a pretty effective tool to wear the verbal adversary down. My head is swimming, and some of your points are seeming pretty cogent to me....

[Ken]

How could you possibly run the country if you cannot run a restaurant? I know, I know, honesty hurts...

[Linda Leisz]

Well you have my vote, as always. How could it get any worse? ;)

[Andrew]

Scott Adams,

I have long stated that I will vote first for the president who isn't bullshitting me.

According to this post, that person isn't you.

-Andrew

[Mark]

[ Um, you are cheerfully conflating being allowed to mention God at school (which is an issue of freedom of speech) with the intense brainwashing techniques imposed by cults on their adherents.

Posted by: Steven McDaniel ]

So what are these brainwashing techniques? Repetition, repetition, repetition. Interspersed with denigration, censure and embarrasment from those in authority. With some positive reinforcement from both the group and the heads for giving the right answers.

Right?

So how's that different from school assembly? NOTE: In the UK we have assembly whatever religion you are and you can't skip it.

[Noclue]

Clearly you do not intend to be a good president, and that will show through too much. You aren't lying nearly well enough to beat even a novice politician, much less the practiced liars and theives that run for president.

To be president you need to be a great man (or woman), plus a great liar, plus have great hair. Three strikes and you are out!

[Erasmus]

Another area to hit any of your opponents in any American election with is "the commie card". This is the inference that your opponent sympathises with the far left (even more disliked than the athiests (often considered to be the same thing!)). Any moderate statement your opponent makes can usually be twisted by you claiming that he/she sounds like a card carrying commie. E.G. (Your opponent) : "I send my kids to state school", (You) : "He sends his kids to state school? What is he? Some sort of card carrying commie?"
Once tarred with the commie brush, your opponent will find it impossible to shake off (especially as they will be asked about it in every interview, and you will keep reinforcing it every time you attack them).
Is it a dirty tactic? Probably, but the republicans have been using it (subtly)for over a 100 years!
Another thing, why is a card carrying commie any worse than a normal commie?
Big question :- Would you go for presidency if you had the power, but somebody else was the figurehead (someone with better hair who looked good in public, and who would be the one in line for assasination)?

Erasmus

[Steven McDaniel]

"..It's already happening in California. In 2004, Californians passed Prop 63, a 1 percent tax on millionaires to expand mental health programs. And this year, they're talking about raising the millionaire tax another 1 percent to help fund the state univerisity system..." Ron Gee

What scares me is that a state like California is engaged in a mental health program. That's about like the clowns running the circus.

[Steven McDaniel]

"..What has God got to do with learning? Even if he exists, and is your God, it doesn't change that 1+1=2 and a is for apple.
So why must it be mentioned? Isn't that brainwashing? We don't like the moonies because they did this sort of thing.
And atheists are only hostile to other religions trying to force them to be not atheists.
Oh, and Stalin studied for the priesthood. Maybe we should ban priesthood if we're going to use him as an atheist that killed lots of people..." Mark

Before I venture a rejoinder here, Mark, I am assuming that 1) You are presenting what you consider to be a serious argument, and 2) You have actually visited this planet. So here goes: Um, you are cheerfully conflating being allowed to mention God at school (which is an issue of freedom of speech) with the intense brainwashing techniques imposed by cults on their adherents. Then you still try to convince me atheists are not hostile to (other) religions. And, um, you are trying to use the example that Stalin studying for the priesthood could be cited as justifiably as his atheism as an influence contributing to his mass murders of millions (in the name of atheism). Actually, that's as logical as saying that we could also blame his mustache. You know darn well that Pol Pot, Enva Hoxa, Fidel Castro, Chairman Mao and Mao Tse Tung, all of whom also murdered their multiplied millions in the name of atheist philosophy, did not study for the priesthood. In view of the historical fact of the mass murders in the 20th century alone, by atheists all over the planet (more than all the religiously motivated murders through all of history), I resent you still trying to tell me that they are not hostile to (other) religions. Assuming you're not just throwing this crap out there just to see what sticks to the wall, you'd better stop arguing long enough to think/take a breath, Mark, because, frankly, none of your reasoning here is making the remotest bit of sense, and you are too intelligent for that not to annoy me.

[Mark]

"I'd get it if he went from Protestant to Catholic, but Christian to Muslim is a gaping wide stretch.

Posted by: Lisa "

It's actually a VERY SMALL difference between christian and muslim faiths.

The christians don't believe mohammed was a prophet of god, but both have the same prophet. According to both religious texts, they were brothers in the distant past, one of which became the Jew, the other became the Arab. One side begat christianity, the other islam.

Much of their core beliefs are the same, it's just that the christians have the apostles and their old testament and the muslims have mohammed and their old testament.

Reading the quran, the muslim faith has far far fewer inconsistencies and mentions that being nice to people is important more often than the christian bible does.

It's still batshit insane when you try and work it all out. It's just that the christian faith is made up from more disparate stories and is completely cookoo batshit bursar insane. E.g. Leviticus.

[ShaunL]

President, pah! You need to set your sights higher. What you really want to be is some unspecified dark suited “aide” with an earpiece and slick hair, who always appears two steps behind the president. The sort of person who leans into the microphone during the presidential Q&A and quietly but firmly says “By arse-hat, the President of course means that he holds the Qilbekistan foreign minister in the highest regard.”

Failing that, just go for the benign dictator schtick, but don’t let on until you’re elected.