Can someone explain to me why ANYONE would want to be a Governor NOW?

Yes, I know it has for a while now been a stepping stone to the Presidency. And of course I get the whole ambition thing.

But here's the deal: governors have a really rough time. Since they can't print money, they are in a terrible position, as the Chief Executive in their state, in an economic downturn. They end up alienating friends and foes alike when budgets get cut and people are out of jobs. They don't get a chance to start new programs because there is no money. And if they have to raise taxes to deliver the necessary services they must deliver, the people get pissed. Of course, they're pissed when their necessary services are cut back, too, so the Guv has a No Win situation.

I'm really not understanding why anybody is eager to take on this job at this time...:shrug:

if the going gets tough.

Well done. :D

She left a terrible job to cash in on her fame/notariety. And to get the hell out of Alaska...

Perhaps this was mutually beneficial to all. Especially since according to the new "Sarah from Alaska" book she had rather disparaging things to say about the state after the campaign -- "mama grizzly protecting her cubs indeed." Pfft...




News flash, Sarah -- we don't WANT you back. Stay away -- as far away as possible. And STFU while you're at it.

out of the state and into every Neiman Marcus store in the country...

Yes, she and Todd are no prizes for Alaska, that's for damn sure. I'm glad for you that she did leave. Ijust wish she had done it earlier, for everybody's sake...:hi:

:shrug:

Newly unemployed in Orlando..

:P

Ambition is a curious thing. I wondered about this same thing for the presidential last year. You end with glory or being named the goat.

all eaten up for a while, I think. I'm not really sure why anyone has unrecced this thread though. That's really puzzling.

It's like "Ew, governing a state is all hard work and no glory. Yucky, there's all these tough decisions to be made and everyone isn't going to love whoever tries to solve community problems."

It's antithetical to the whole notion of a self governing people in a democratic society. Rank irresponsibility OPs are gonna get unrec'd. People dodging the duties of a citizenship is inherently offensive.

the people of their state.

The problem there is not with their motivation which, I agree with you is an honorable and responsible act in a democratic society. The problem is that you can end up not really being able to do that. Yes, I would honor someone so motivated for at least trying. My question is about the difficulty in being an effective governor when you are hamstrung by wrenching economic reality.

So I salute you, and I thank you, for pointing out the public service reason for wanting to be a state governor. I had hoped I would get to hear from folks what they think and I'm glad you stepped up and told me why you Unrecc'ed this post. :hi:

are community-minded and have the good of their locality at heart, I think they're rare. Most, I'm pretty sure, have other motives for running for statewide or national office. Perhaps your experience is different.

Republican party machine in Waterbury. He was an antichoice Congressman and then ran for Governor (becoming miraculously prochoice b/c CT is so heavily prochoice) and then proceeded to enrich himself on the public dime. He has served his time and is now out promoting business in Waterbury or something.

I guess you aspire to being the Governor so you can get a free hot tub for your vacation house but it does seem like overkill...

country. I don't think we'd like many of our sitting governors if we really knew their motivations for seeking office. My father always said that anyone who wanted high office probably shouldn't be allowed to hold it. I think he was probably right in most cases.

My father, who would have been an excellent elected leader, also thought all elected offices should be filled by lottery, from among those qualified for the position. He made a pretty good case for it.

early Renaissance, the days of the Florentine Republic (the Trecento). They actually changed out their leaders (the Signoria) every few months or so and drew names out of a bag! They were motivated very strongly both by civic duty and promoting the glory of God. They insisted that the art that was produced there had to be "magnificent" for both of those reasons. And they surely did succeed! Of course, as the Medici became stronger and stronger, that ideal was cast off eventually...

If they don't explain their Unrec, then they are simply cowards...

The frivolous nature of your post might not actually warrant being responded to. It's not cowardice when the rhinoceros doesn't swat the fly.

I'd like you to think a bit harder about my question. Most people want to be successful in what they do. What I was pointing out was that with the deck stacked so heavily against success in a job you care about, would you not hesitate before taking it on? Would you not give a LOT of thought to that? I think I would, and I worked my entire life in nonprofit organizations serving people in society. Nobody has ever said I was "frivolous."

Did you even think before posting this question? :banghead:

the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Despite the best intentions, I have seen governors fail in good faith. (I would incude mayors as well, BTW) Perhaps it takes just extraordinary people to be governors in horrible economic times because they can cope with the crushing disappointment and disapproval that often comes with the job. That, and the possibility that you can work extremely hard to improve the lot of the people of the state only to see all you have worked for come to naught. I would find that to be a truly spirit crushing situation.

would you say then "Who in their right mind would want to step up and try putting out that thing?" Of course not. And governing with reduced state tax revenues and growing needs for state programs is very much like putting out a fire.

I teach American history and know this for a fact: we are not a nation of quitters. We are, on several occasions, a nation of people with crappy a/o unworkable ideas--Hoover's tariff war launched at the start of the Depression and Bush's tax cut just when the country was starting to pay down the debt are two excellent examples of that. But even when we try something dumb, we try, we fail, and we move on to other solutions.

you would be more effective fighting it on the outside than rushing in to certain doom. So to me it isn't a question of whether or not, just how, you would solve the problem or put out the fire.

You gave examples of Presidents. I think the president at least has the power to print money. As a governor, you are dependent on getting the money from the federal government as well as from the people of your state (and of course at one time, the bond market but maybe we shouldn't go there right now or maybe we could...). Even with the best of intentions, if you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, failure can be a crushing experience, esp. for those who had their heart set on doing the kind of admirable service that you have described.

Perhaps you have said it best: "But even when we try something dumb, we try, we fail, and we move on to other solutions." I think what you are saying is that failure can lead to learning how to do things better. I'd like to think that because it gives me a certain amount of comfort. I like to think, for instance, that I helped change and improve lives in my life's work and I was also motivated by wanting a better life for my kids (and now my grandkids).