Here's what I've had on my mind lately. We can thank the stellar "candidates" running for office in 2008 for illustrating just how bad we have it in the United States. There's days that seem to carry some glimmer of hope in them and others that just seem to expose the utter idiocy of the people who have managed to take positions of "leadership" in the United States.
Any candidate should/must exhibit, in no particular order, the following characteristics: self-government; humility; fidelity; honesty; conviction; leadership; faith; wisdom; courage; and commonality.
For a man who fails to exhibit the dual graces of self-sufficiency and self-restraint; or the man who places himself above others in his mind; or the man who is unfaithful in his heart; or the man who is dishonest with himself or others; or the man who can't stand up for a principle; or a man who can't inspire other men; or a man with no beliefs; or a man who isn't smart enough to know that he doesn't know everything; or the man who shrinks in the face of challenges; or the man who cannot relate to his fellow man, no, none of these men are fit to govern others.
Sadly, I see a little bit of the above in every candidate. Recognize some of these things in Rudy? McCain? Even my current favorite, Romney? Yes to all of them.
Beyond that, then there's more principles, like the one nearest and dearest to my heart, balanced government. Which to me, is just another way of saying a proper reverence to the construction of the Constitution and the intentions of those who created it.
Beyond that, then there's real issues - these are the things that people talk about in coffee shops and around the water cooler. We need to seal our border and begin immediate deportation of every illegal alien in our prison system. After that's done, INS must begin rounding up the law breakers that just haven't been caught yet. Those illegally here should be deported immediately as well, and anyone employing them should be fined for being an accessory to a crime. Concurrently, federal public aid should be abolished immediately and forevermore; if states elect to provide public aid, let that be their business. As the open borders "Economism" (see more here) philosophy teaches us, there's lots of jobs that the illegals are doing that are going to need to be filled. So let's get the "under-employed" employed, shall we?
What else, what else? Oh yeah, a War Czar? I'll devote another entire post to what a conservative candidate would say - and do - on national security and foreign affairs.
All right, I know. Go take a bath or something and calm down. Not a bad idea. But hit me with challenges, I'm ready for 'em, and I think I've got better answers than the frauds who are lining up and taking cash while selling America down the river.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Well, hmmm...
y'know, it seems to me that if a man exhibited all those characteristics you've carefully laid out then the idea of "balanced government" might come as naturally to him as, well, dipping his cookies in his milk. Or something?
Essentially I think you've just outlined (and very well I might add) the leading characteristics which define a "balanced" individual, er, leader. Hence, an understanding of balanced government (or an ability to understand it) would just be a natural result of his internal character...which someone probably molded and shaped during his formidable years. This is not to say that he'd necessarily define it or reduce it under that specific head of course - we ain't managed to get the term in Webster's yet.
My favorite, upon a first and second reading, is the one requiring enough smarts to know he don't know everything. In the world of politics this is a truly rare commodity, or animal... Oh, 90 percent of politicians will tell ya they don't know everything. Then they turn right around and act as if they do. ...Indeed, when we manage to find such an individual with this (and these) specific qualification(s), then we oughta put him on some informal endangered species list and do all in our power to protect him in his life, liberty, health...and natural habitat. And speaking of natural habitats...Where's ours?
Do tell -who'd you have in mind?
Well, D, I think my point might be this (other than just blowing off steam): the characteristics I described aren't of some mythical superman/leader, but of a lot of hard-working regular folks like you. Or Hargis. Or Mom. Or me (well... except I need to work on the humility thing and not thinking I've got all the answers). See what I mean?
Rhetorical question: if Lincoln was running today, would he have any chance in the world at rising to the Presidency? He embodied all or most of those characteristics, but would he have any chance at all as a low-level state official and country lawyer?
I do agree that, as you say, one thing (balanced government) may follow the other (possessing those traits). Cause-effect, right?
Our natural habitat? Good question. We might need a time machine.
Happy Friday to all-
-AH
Mr. Hamilton,
At the risk of putting your foot in your mouth for you considering your most recent post regarding civics requirements, you are not eligible at this time to run for potus.
A presidential candidate must be at least 35 years of age.
Thank you kindly for including me in your list. I hope I'm never "unbalanced" enough to want that office.
I might be willing to help you railroad Mr. Webster or Mr. Hargis into running though. lol
Mom,
I'll be 35 in August, for the record, and I thought one had to be 36 to serve in the office, but I'll double check that. I would be of the correct age upon election day in November 2008, however. ;)
Heck, I'll take anyone who conforms to the "job requirements" as I laid them out. By the way, am I missing anything important? I did that list pretty quickly, so I might have missed something critical...
-AH
P.S. Tell you what. If 300,000 people visit this site and send me an e-mail asking me to run between now and November 2007, I'll drop the anonymity and create a website for myself as a write-in candidate in 2008. IF AND ONLY IF: I can enlist the help of my fellow Patriots to assist in the "campaign" and those people will join me in Washington when we win. ;)
P.P.S. In other words, if I'm going to risk totally screwing up this nice little life I've created for myself, I'm not doing it alone.
P.P.P.S. But look, Samuel even just the other day mentioned bringing back the Alien and Sedition Act, so just be aware of what you'd be getting, folks.
Article II, para. 5, U.S. Constitution:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
Mom, you needn't railroad me into running...as far and as fast as I can from the job.
If'n ya need some help with Hargis, let me know. LOL
President Hamilton's Chief of Staff suits me just fine, sir.
And here I had hoped you might be my "Mars."
I'd serve any of you gents in any capacity I could, for the record!
-AH
Sorry about the time lapse there, I was visiting family out of town.
Yes I would help you campaign Mr. Hamilton. I don't think I want to live in D.C. though.
What makes you think it would be you supporting me, and not the other way around, hmm? ;)
-AH
And I quote:
"P.S. Tell you what. If 300,000 people visit this site and send me an e-mail asking me to run between now and November 2007, I'll drop the anonymity and create a website for myself as a write-in candidate in 2008."~The Monarchist
I would be running with Mr. Webster-away from that horrible thankless job. (At any rate it would take a lot more than 300,000 e-mails to convince me to take it.;) )
Although, if this country was so devoid of sensible, principled men to lead it, then my sense of duty would compel me...I suppose.
Thankfully we have a few candidates and candidates in waiting to spare me from such a fate.
Post a Comment