Today's news says Thompson will run and will announce on the 4th of July. Word. I like him. I think he's cool. But I don't think he's qualified to be POTUS and I don't think Americans will elect a bald guy with cancer. Too bad. He's very cool.:cool:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4243.html

we elected a cripple before why not a bald cancer victom

Because this is 2007 and Americans are very appearance-conscious. Our president represents us in the world. Romney is the most presidential but his Mormonism may keep him from the nom. I dunno...

Romney reminds me of Governor Zoolander of Texas (Rick Perry), smooth operator, "handsome," but a bit weird, and a Mormon on top of that, and Governor of the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts on top of that, these will hurt him alot.

Because this is 2007 and Americans are very appearance-conscious. Our president represents us in the world. Romney is the most presidential but his Mormonism may keep him from the nom. I dunno...

For once I agree with Sandy. The sad fact is, take a look at every presidential election you can remember. The better looking man has allways won. When Bob Dole ran both Republicans and Democrats degraded him by saying he's to old. And since he has cancer? That's curtains for Mr. Thompson.

God save us from another goddamn actor.

Today's news says Thompson will run and will announce on the 4th of July. Word. I like him. I think he's cool. But I don't think he's qualified to be POTUS and I don't think Americans will elect a bald guy with cancer. Too bad. He's very cool.:cool:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4243.html

what is POTUS?

Yeah, like Hillary or Obama.

President Of The United States

what is POTUS?

President Of The United States

President Of The United States

right thanks.

I don't see why he doesn't have the appearance of a president as he's played one a few times on television. Of course, a couple nukes got snuck through the Canadian border on his watch.. :P

http://www.lastbestchance.org/

- N

why i'd want Thompson to be POTUS:

1 - he's the best communicator out there. and that is good not only because it will fix the image that the world has that the US is run by an imbacile, but also because when his policies get attacked he will be able to explain and defend them much more successfully than that bumbling dyslexic Bush. both to the world and to the American people

2 - he doesn't sound like a politician. the opinions he gives seem to come straight from his heart, and do not sound spun even a little. this makes him seem like an honest guy... actually, an honest politician, which is practically non-existent nowadays. he is the most trustworthy guy out there. and i don't believe it's just an illusion.

3 - he's right on on 90% of the issues (according to my meter, and it seems, with most of the conservative blogosphere)... at least ideologically he is.

4 - he's been a very popular senator which has been elected and re-elected by huge margins. that should tell you something about the electorate being happy with the way he did his work (keeping political promisses, making his constituency better, etc.)

5 - he can unite the right and stop the divisions (at least that's what most conservatives believe. i agree)

i donno much about Romney. to me he looks like the conservative version of John Edwards. as for Rudy, he's good too, but he wouldn't do for point #5 because he is the most socially liberal of the Republican bunch. he'd be a pretty good choice too i guess, but not as good as Thompson

EDIT:
as for the non-factor factors:
- his cancer is not an issue as it's not malignant and has absolutely zero symptoms
- he is only 64 (only 4 yrs older than Bill Clinton), and has recently fathered a child. that would indicate a pretty good health

I like Fred. I think he's great. I just don't think Americans will elect a bald guy with any kind of cancer. They are too image-conscious.

To answer these points:

1. He certainly can communicate, but the ability to deliver a line is not the same thing as possessing substance and being a good leader. I also don't think "smoothness" in front of a camera and excellent word choice "will fix the image that the world has that the US is run by an imbecile," because the world will think what it wants until the US has a president that is as far to the left of the political spectrum as they are. Remember, Reagan was called the "Great Communicator" and loved by Americans, but people overseas didn't particularly like him...

2. I haven't heard enough from Thompson to assess how he sounds, but one should always be weary of the politician who "doesn't sound like a politician," in my opinion. Again, being able to deliver a line well doesn't denote honesty or substance, it's just being able to deliver a line...

3. I'm not terribly familiar with his voting record, but if he's voted in-step with the Republicans in recent years, then he probably will have a problem with the base, who are fed up with overspending and the enlargement of government.

4. Being a popular senator and getting elected by large margins tells you nothing about how the national electorate will respond to him, it only speaks to the feelings of the people in his state, feelings that are largely influence by "pork." And remember Ted Kennedy gets reelected by large margins, but he could never be president...

5. I don't think the right has ever been divided, at least the right in power has not. The republicans on the Hill have all worked well with each other and all voted in-step. The problems is their work and their votes have alienated them from their base back home, a base which the republicans are sorely out of touch with, given the results of the 2006 elections...

I like Fred. I think he's great. I just don't think Americans will elect a bald guy with any kind of cancer. They are too image-conscious.

You're absolutely right. I don't know if he's the guy for the job, but he'll never get the chance to prove that he is, because Americans won't let him. He isn't related to a former president, he isn't married to a former president, and he isn't good-looking.

I wonder how many truly great presidents we've missed out on because of this?

The American presidency has largely been a game of "insiders" for 60 or 70 years. I'd argue that one has to go back to someone like Truman or Eisenhower to truly find someone who was on the fringes of politics and wasn't "in the right club," so to speak...

Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were career politicians. So was Ford. I suppose one could argue Carter, Clinton and Reagan weren't obvious insiders, but Bush certainly is...

Well, to a degree, being an established politician isn't a bad thing. Should the highest office in the nation be given to someone as their first job in politics? I'm not sure about that.

But there are plenty of worthwhile candidates who are established politicians. The difference comes when we talk about connections outside of politics, and the contributions given. The candidates who actually want to make change don't get the support of big business, and therefore don't get the media coverage, and don't get the vote.

I wouldn't argue with any of that, though I would point out Eisenhower was never a politician before he was elected president and I think he did a pretty good job.

To me leadership, which Ike obviously had, is more important than political experience, as the president isn't really the person who does the nuts and bolts work of government. That's the legislature's job. Unfortunately, there seems to be a dearth of leadership in this year's field, precisely because most of them are insiders, and as such, have had to play it safe in order to survive political life, advance in their party and attract donors.

Because this is 2007 and Americans are very appearance-conscious. Our president represents us in the world. Romney is the most presidential but his Mormonism may keep him from the nom. I dunno...

and that is a huge problem american voters don't seem to care about important issues they just like good looking people

Because this is 2007 and Americans are very appearance-conscious. Our president represents us in the world. Romney is the most presidential but his Mormonism may keep him from the nom. I dunno...
Bull shit.

Americans are Americans.

How we appear to others doesn't make us less than American.

How we appear to non-Americans defines their own desperate search for a successfully competitive cultural identity.

Flies needing shit to say they smell something shitty.

Can't tell the good shit from their own sorry messings.

I wouldn't argue with any of that, though I would point out Eisenhower was never a politician before he was elected president

Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that the only good candidate was one who has held prominant political office in the past. What I meant was that it just seems, to me, that such an important position is a tremendous undertaking, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a man or woman who could handle the job without having some sort of history of enduring political pressure.

That isn't to say that viable people aren't out there--you just pointed out a great example in Eisenhower. But I think where America needs to start is within the political ring, and try to find a politician who isn't connected to big business, and actually has some desire to change the nation. I know in today's society (or any time period, really) it's almost impossible to know if a person really means everything they say during their campaign, but I think that's where a politican's track record comes into play. (voting history, and things of that nature)

I think the ideal situation would be for Americans to be able to choose between the best candidates, rather than the ones who have taken the most campaign contributions. The media does not cover what a politican's plan for a certain issue is unless it's homeland security, or war, and that's a big part of the problem. The only thing we ever seem to know about these candidates (at least in the Presidential races) is where they stand on foreign policy, and where they stand on social security. And honestly, the media does not make the details of this information readily available, so all we really know is that "Candidate X's position is unpopular" or something to that effect.

People are sheep. They hear "That's unpopular", and they immediate turn on that candidate.

So yeah, a non-politician would be nice...definately a change from the current system. But one thing about non-politicans is that they would probably be businessmen (typically, non-politicians who run for office are company heads--Ross Perot, and even G.W. when he ran for governor of Texas) and that could lead to just as much corruption as a career in politics.

We haven't elected an unattractive candidate for years. And no balding ones for even more years.

Bush is attractive? Bush Sr. was attractive??

I think W is adorable.

http://www.foundersofamerica.com/BI_07.htm

Another indication of the poverty of conservative civil life, focusing on appearance rather than issues.

Well, I think the voters are liberal and conservative. It's not just one or the other who are picking the presidents...

This all goes back to the famous Kennedy/Nixon debates, where Tricky Dick beat up on JFK logically and rhetorically, but voters who were polled said they thought Kennedy was the winner...