What is the problem with voting for a person from Congress vs.

a governor vs. anyone else? I do not get it! Hell, an actor was President. I'd love to hear valid arguments why there's a problem.

before being the president. They seem to have better chances. IMO

He kind of belies that thought.

the lt. Governor has all the duties, the Governor is basically a figurehead. the position as a whole is weak, and with all the interesting stuff on the lt. Gov, it's even harder to get experience.

in a strong governor situation, like New York, she wouldn't have been as overpowered.

it manifested itself in churches in TX.

since she's been covering Texas politics for a couple of decades, I believe this:

Texas has what is known in political science circles as "the weak-governor system." You may think this is just a Texas brag, but our weak-governor system is a lot weaker than anybody else's. that would be a direct quote from Shrub. if you have a good reason not to believe her on this, please let me know.

TX, so chat me up!

so he can't have had THAT much power, you know? :)

They spread church mantras about how evil Ann was. It was wrong, it sucked, but it happened. That's how this admin worked and works, but ehhh, fuck them now.

six week campaign smear, calling her everything but a white person and the idiots here fell for it. His 'born again' crap was a ploy to get the religious nut cases to vote for him. I read that just before his bid for Gov, he was put into rehab. to dry out! I can believe that.

The thing about Texas government is that no one person has much power, but they all have the ability to exercise power. No one person is required to do much, so if we get a bozo like Bush, he can't screw things up on his own. But several people have the ability to become strong leaders. Ann Richards used the governorship to influence legislation, and to influence the business climate. She had the authority to call for investigations, or to negotiate limits with the insurance industry, or to negotiate with businesses to move to Texas. That's one way she had the Texas economy turned around even before the Clinton recovery began.

The governor, the Lt Governor, the House speaker, the Supreme Court, and even the railroad and agricultural commissioners have a lot of of influence, and can be strong leaders in the state, but they have few outright requirements, and they have little power over other offices. So each officeholder can do as much as his or her ability allows, but if they are useless, they don't screw anything up.

It's a nice system, usually. The problem right now is that it's all in the hands of a corrupt party and so no one investigates anyone else. That's happened under the Democrats of old, too, it's not just a party thing. The ultimate watchdogs are the people, and right now the people are watching television instead of their government.

and those are basically powers of pursuasion. but you can get by without any skills whatsoever.

Amazing how you said it in far fewer words than me! :-)

and that is the end of that.

so it all works out. you provide the content, I'll write the headlines and get all the credit, k? :beer:

:beer:

You are way more aware than I am, or I can't be bothered to read, but I think we agree, and if we don't, oh, well. Thanks and keep it up, or not.

Governors are Chief Executives. Senators are compromisers, not leaders. And too often they are forced to take positions on votes than can be turned against them in a larger campaign.

it's not to say that they can't be Presidents, but it's very rare (last sitting senator elected? JFK) governing is dirty business, and in our soundbite culture, compromise is too easily translated into weakness.

I don't usually like senators unless they've had some executive experience before. Being president is very different from being a senator. It's closer to what a governor does. The whole mentality is different. As a Senator, you compromise, work with others, deal votes, and do a lot of other communal type things that presidents or governors don't do. Executives have to stick by standards, and know how to fight for an issue, and they have to know how to get something done even if it isn't exactly what they would like done. They have to have a more clear vision of what they want to accomplish, and judge each compromise and concession by whether it gets them closer to that goal or not. And they have to manage a large staff of managers and other executives. It's not a skill a person just knows, it's one they have to learn.

As for voting records or what the Repubs will use to smear a candidate, the Repubs will smear anyone, and they don't need anything to do it with, they'll just make stuff up. We shouldn't worry about what candidate can be smeared, we should worry about what candidate has the political experience and the personality to handle the smears. These guys would smear Jesus if he ran. Heck, they smear him anyway.

Having said all that, I'd still support Hillary or Kerry. Hillary was very active in the governor's mansion and the White House, so she knows more about being an executive than most of the other candidates combined. And Kerry's military experience shows me he has leadership skills.

Just my two cents.

people who have been in D.C. a long time.

Good points about compromise and such going with the territory of working on the Hill. Sometimes VERY tough choices have to be faced about what you will barter to get something which may be more important to the folks back home.

And considering how much unrelated crap gets attatched to bills, one ends up facing a voting record which taken out of the context of what all was added to a piece of legislation, can really look bad.

Besides, we need EVERY DEM who has a save seat to stay put while we bust our humps to get more DEMS elected to Congress. (With the exception of the DINO Joe)

I loved Kerry. As far as Hillary, I think the right wants to push her forward because she's a woman: their initial reaction is to support her, because they don't think she has a chance.
I'm not saying she doesn't, but it seems many people are too 'on board' with her.

They are the ones smearing her. They are more afraid of her than any other candidate, rightly or wrongly. She has the biggest name and the biggest donors list. She's the last person they want to face.

Please enlighten me.:)

Think about it. Hillary is the first female frontrunner in our nation's history. That generates a lot of interest. She's a Clinton, and most Democrats look fondly back at Bill Clinton. She's in New York, which is a media center. She's got the most money, so she's obviously the most economically viable candidate. She has the most recognizable name of any of the candidates in either party. She has a certain charisma that not everyone likes, but still makes her highly visible.

There are a lot of reasons people are interested in her. My Republican neighbors (who hate Bush so much they now say they aren't Republicans any more) want to vote for her. Aside from political wonks like us around here, she's the name most people will recognize most.

And she's running. The media pretends they are just speculating, but they know who has the exploratory committees, and who is laying the groundwork to start up a campaign. They try to pretend it's all "buzz" because the candidate hasn't announced yet, and because the candidate can still back out. But they know who is seriously planning a run. No one just wakes up one day and decides to start a campaign. The groundwork is laid years before, and the media knows who is laying the groundwork. Back in 98 they were calling W the frontrunner, and people were complaining that Bush had not even said he was running yet. But Bush had already formed a foreign policy team and an economic team and was busy learning as much as his drunken little brain could hold in preparation for the run. I'm sure Hillary has made concrete steps towards running, and that's why they are talking about her. She could still decide not to run, of course.

The interest is there, even if a lot of DUers dislike her for various reasons. We aren't the whole party. Most voters don't have a tenth of the awareness we have around here.

wonderful things from a very bright woman, but I don't see it. We have to lose the current loser in a really big way. IMHO. I don't have a clue who might win the primaries, but I still think Sen. Kerry is a man who ran rings around the intellect of the blivet, won every debate, went to Viet Nam, law school, did his duty, what was not to like?

simply by smearing her. I think there is a section of the GOP that wants Senator Clinton to run, they think she'd be easy to beat. They've been demonizing her since 1992, so it's easy to keep going.

It's hard to smear her, because they've already used everything on her and she's survived. The Republicans want someone new, with less money, to run, so they can smear them cheaper and have everyone become shocked and outraged at how horrible a person they are, rather than yawn and say "Yeah, you guys keep saying that, but she doesn't seem so bad."

she looks scared of them. and if she does, they have her denying it and then changing her mind. so it's a no win, they think. we know better.

Senators and Congress members do.
Complicated situations get cherry picked for ammunition and spun out of context.
You saw this technique used against Kerry in the 04 election.

some sort of experience personally. I like to have something to look at.

the last senator actually elected to the presidency was JFK . . . before him, you have to go way back to the early 20th century . . .

people generally don't like (i.e. hate) politicians, particularly Washington politicians . . . they're a little more comfortable with local (i.e. state) pols, but not by much . . .

a REALLY strong candidate would be someone from outside politics -- a Bill Moyers or a Robert Redford or a Bobby Kennedy, for example . . . not them specifically, maybe, but someone who:

- is well known
- is charismatic
- has an impeccable reputation for integrity
- is progressive (and an strong environmentalist)

and, most importantly . . .

- can communicate progressive ideas and programs (and why they make sense) in ways the average voter can easily understand . . .

find me that candidate, and s/he has my vote . . .