Is it important that our President have good character?

[Cheyenne]

The Whopper
WALL STREET JOURNAL

Maybe if this Presidential thing doesn't work out for Al Gore,he can get a job doing Burger King commercials for The
Whopper. In Tuesday night's debate, the Father of the
Internet claimed he'd visited a Texas disaster site with the
head of FEMA, the federal emergency agency. This turns out
to be flatly false, which the Gore campaign had to admit
immediately and which the Vice President himself had to
admit yesterday on "Good Morning America."

If Governor Bush had made a similar mistake, the air would be full of talk about a serious and perhaps fatal "gaffe." This was after all a debate for the highest of stakes, and at some level of consciousness Mr. Gore must have known he was not on the FEMA trip.

Yet even Mr. Gore's admission was like something out of
"Alice Through the Looking-Glass": "I was there in Texas. I
think James Lee went to the same fires. . . . If James Lee was there before or after, then, I got that wrong then. But it was basically a compliment to the way our FEMA team had
handled things." In truth, according to published reports then in the Texas press, Al Gore was in town for a fund-raiser at the home of the former head of the Texas trial lawyers.

Mr. Gore's problem here goes beyond the tall tales told even
by beloved politicians. The campaign has arrived at the
moment when his carelessly untruthful trait, well known to
beat reporters covering him, must now come to the surface as
an issue of serious concern.

The reason why was put bluntly this past April by Kathleen
Hall Jamieson, dean of Penn's Annenberg School. Interviewed
in the Boston Globe, she said: " The question is, is there a
basic personality flaw there that will make it more difficult for him to be President?" This question deserves an answer before Election Day.

Mr. Gore's story in the debate about the girl who has to stand in class at Sarasota High School is also fundamentally untrue.
He asserted: "They can't squeeze another desk in for her, so
she has to stand during class. I want the federal government,consistent with local control and new accountability, to make improvement of our schools the number one priority so Kailey will have a desk and can sit down in a classroom where she can learn."

In fact, Sarasota High is one of the most lavishly supported
schools imaginable. Its principal went on the radio yesterday morning to refute Mr. Gore: "That was probably one of the first days of school when we were in the process of leveling classes. And, she did have an opportunity to use a lab stool,which was also available in the classroom. But we were refurbishing that classroom and in the back of that picture, if you look carefully, you can see probably about $100,000 worth of new lab equipment that was waiting to be unpacked, which is one of the reasons the room looked as crowded as it did."

And just two weeks ago the incident came to light of Mr. Gore in August claiming falsely, on behalf of his Medicare
prescription drug benefit, that his own mother-in-law paid
more for the drug Lodine than does the Gores' family dog. The example in fact comes from a Democratic policy study.

What Mr. Gore is engaged in here lies somewhere between
propaganda and compulsion. It is a twisting and violation of
the truth that reflects a degree of cynicism about what one
can get away with just now in American politics. This was
nowhere evident in the Democratic campaigns of such past
candidates as Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis or Jimmy
Carter. Our political culture is now heir to the Clinton and
Gore years.

Some of the most serious people in U.S. public life have tried recently to make the rest of us face up to the problem of Mr. Gore's credibility.

Bill Bradley, in his own struggles with Mr. Gore's
misrepresentations during the primaries, asked: "Why should
we believe you will tell the truth as President if you don't tell the truth as a candidate?"

FBI Director Louis Freeh, in a memo to the Attorney General
on Mr. Gore's possible fund-raising violations, wrote: "His
own exculpatory statements must not be given undue weight."
Robert Conrad, the prosecutor who most recently led the
Justice Department's campaign task force, recommended that
the Vice President be investigated for perjury.

Insofar as Mr. Gore seems willing to make preposterous
statements before a federal prosecutor as well as on TV
before tens of millions of Americans, one must wonder what
he'd attempt with the likes of Jiang Zemin or Vladimir Putin. Is there any inconsistency here in raising such a question?

Toward the debate's end Mr. Bush remarked: "I don't know
the man well, but I've been disappointed about how he and his administration have conducted the fund-raising affairs. You know, going to a Buddhist temple and then claiming it wasn't a fund-raiser is just not my view of responsibility."

Afterward, several network pundits asserted that Mr. Bush
made a mistake in raising this issue. What planet can these
journalists be living on? It was surely Mr. Bush's finest
moment. Mr. Gore's compulsion to untruthfulness can be no
one's view of responsibility. Once again, the issue is
Presidential character. How many times do we have to fumble
it?

 

[BushIsm]

From the New York Times baby:


Rewarding the Wealthiest

If all the contentious issues in their debate Tuesday night, none underscored the
differences between Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush more than
taxes. Repeating himself relentlessly, Mr. Gore asserted that the Texas governor's
proposed tax cuts would award more money to the wealthiest 1 percent of
taxpayers than the amounts Mr. Bush would set aside for education, health and
defense combined. Mr. Bush accused the vice president of using "fuzzy numbers,"
but never refuted the basic charge. In fact, Mr. Gore's formula was on target,
illustrating a stark choice between the two candidates' approaches on the tax
issue.

Mr. Bush likes to defend his proposals as lowering tax rates for everyone, not just
those who seize the narrowly crafted incentives offered by Mr. Gore. He has a
point. In order to take advantage of the Gore tax cuts, taxpayers would have to
tap into credits or deductions for child care, health insurance, college tuition, care
of disabled relatives and other needs. A working-class family without these
expenses might get little or no tax relief. It is legitimate to raise a question whether
Mr. Gore's approach would further complicate an already complex tax code.

But there are issues beyond simplicity. Among other steps, the Bush tax proposals
would lower the marginal tax rates in all brackets, double the child tax credit and
repeal the so-called "death tax" on estates — a change that would benefit primarily
the richest American families. Taken together, the Bush tax proposals would award
42.6 percent of the tax reductions to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers,
according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal-leaning research group that bases its
projections on figures from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint
Committee on Taxation.

Bush supporters emphasize the middle-class beneficiaries of the tax cut. They also
argue that since the wealthiest pay most of the taxes, it is not unjust for them to
get most of the benefit. But according to the Treasury Department, the wealthiest
1 percent of taxpayers account for 14.8 percent of total income and 20.1 percent
of tax revenues. To give them 42.6 percent of a $1.3 trillion tax cut over 10 years
makes no sense — unless the goal is to comfort the already comfortable. To oppose
that idea is not just populism. It is common sense.

Contrary to Mr. Bush's claims, these are not "fuzzy" numbers. They illuminate the
desire by most Americans for a fair-minded tax code that taxes those most able to
pay at higher rates, without reducing the incentive for the rich to increase their
wealth. That principle of progressivity has been around since the income tax was
first enacted during the Civil War. It is a precept that lies at the core of a just
society, as most of its members would understand it.

Mr. Gore may continue to hammer at this point, and be accused of waging class
warfare. But he has astutely sensed that public fervor for tax cuts, so prevalent in
the 1980's, has given way to broader concerns with equity and fiscal responsibility.
There can be no more important goal for a society than to reward its burdens and
benefits in a recognizably fair way. Mr. Bush's tax proposals do not meet that test.

 

[Cheyenne]

Hey, BushIsm "BABY", did you read the question? I asked if you thought character was important for our President to have. I didn't ask which tax plan you liked better.

Please address my thread's question- is character important?

 

[Whispersecret]

I'd rather have a President who did things openly, so they could be refuted or argued against, than one who hid things and lied.

 

[teresafannin]

I am still waiting to hear of any President who had a truly good character. It all depends on the definition of character & the time frame. There has been a lot of fuss in recent years about Thomas Jefferson's relationship & children with Sally Hemmings, JFK was a major slut puppy, when FDR died, he was not with his wife & children, the stories continue on & on. I am not defending what Clinton did, but I don't think he is a whole lot different than most of our Presidents, it is just reported more. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think if they saw the modern press corps & the feeding frenzy that erupts around "celebrity types." Why do we feel the need to know every little personal detail about someone who the majority of us will never meet? I don't give a shit about Clinton's women. I don't think anyone was raped & if you are stupid enough to get involved with a married man, you deserve what you get. Most of these women would be total nobodies if not for the fact they had some kind of sex with the President. They have all made money from their escapades & as someone who works hard for a living, I think they are a disgrace. They have had their 15 minutes of fame, now go away. Call me crazy, but I want to be known for my accomplishments, not for whom I slept with.

 

[BushIsm]

Character? You honestly think Bush has more "character" than Albert Gore? Bush, the ex-cocaine addict? The man who failed to serve his last 2 years of duty, whose military records mysteriously disappeared? The man who went on and on about running a "clean campaign" then character assassinates Gore instead of focusing on the issues? Come on, honey. Wake up. Turn off Rush and think for a moment. You're not electing a best friend or a husband. You're electing a President. The American people expect politicians to lie. Both candidates have lied. Only Bush's intelligence and knowledge of world affairs has been questioned, even by fellow Republicans.

I know you found my little article on tax cuts boring, but that's what matters. The issues. Not the juicy little gossip that the Republican party wants to spread around. Gore knows his stuff. He speaks well. He's loyal to his family. If you can show me where he's wrong on the issues, I'll happily debate you, but this "character" crap is akin to church social gossip. Who can lead us? That's the question. Gore can, Bush can't. His policies are flawed. Period.

 

[CreamyLady]

A politician has to be all things to all people. That very facility indicates a lack of character in other professions.

Therefore, to have character would automatically tend to disqualify one for the job.

Personally, I think they are all so full of it they are squeaking, and I'm going to have to force myself to the polls. I'll go, but under protest!

 

[Whispersecret]

I'm with you, TF.

Oh, and I DO expect presidents to lie. Everyone lies. Oh, fuck it. I'm too tired to work up a proper response here. Nevermind what I said before. I'm going to bed.

[Edited by whispersecret on 10-05-2000 at 11:29 PM]

 

[Ezzy]

Presidents to have...

good character.

Wow that takes you back a few years, are you sure the world is ready for this?

EZ http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/sleep.gif

 

[insideShiraz]

So, uh, Cheyenne...

Are you saying I shouldn't vote for Gore? heheh...

I think Bush sucks, too.

If I could've picked a candidate to vote for, I'd have chosen Jack Kemp...I just think he'd be a good representative of the U.S. of A.

 

[libra-2]

Presidents to have good character?

So why should America be any different to other countries? Politicians are ALL liars, cheats and two faced scum who try to fool everybody all of the time. They succeed most of the time, more of them should have the Milosevic treatment.

 

[R Nitelight]

Presidential Character

No. Only that he plays one on TV.

 

[Ambrosious]

It is a popularity contest. After Al frenched Tipper at the Democratic Nat. Convention, 17% of women voters who had previously stated that they would vote for Bush changed their minds. Then Bush went on Oprah and talked about his wife being his biggest influence and how she was his reason for being and 11% of the women switched back. Should our President have good character? How about voters? They need the character.

 

[Cheyenne]

Character? You honestly think Bush has more "character" than Albert Gore?

Gee, you really do read well. You read things that aren't even there! Go back and read the question and my post again and please quote the section where I say "Bush has more character than Albert Gore." I'd be voting for McCain if he were still in the running. I think he has character.

Come on, honey. Wake up. Turn off Rush and think for a moment. You're not electing a best friend or a husband. You're electing a President.

I'm not your "honey" now, nor will I ever be. I don't suffer fools very well. And I don't listen to Rush, I call him "Rush Limbo" on purpose just to irritate a few of my friends. His mega dittos people make me want to barf. Hey, any chance "BushIsm" is really FlamingoBlue in disguise? Your "best friend or husband" comment reminds me of something Blue would say for some reason..... (Do the research on recent threads, you'll figure it out.)

The American people expect politicians to lie. Both candidates have lied.

Nope, I expect honesty from everyone in life. Maybe that's why I'm always disappointed.

I know you found my little article on tax cuts boring, but that's what matters.

Ohh... am I supposed to be the silly little woman who can't possibly be interested in anything as complicated as tax plans? Hey BushIsm, here's a news flash for you. I've been a CPA for 20 years- how about you? Do you understand the tax code? Think Gore's tax plan will make it any easier for you to understand? The article on tax "cuts" wasn't boring to me, it just wasn't on topic for this thread. You want to debate tax policy, start another thread. This one is to debate "character." Feel free, however, to post anything you want related to the character of any of the candidates.

Who can lead us? That's the question.

Nope, the question was about character. Read it again.

 

[Cheyenne]

Should our President have good character? How about voters? They need the character.

Amen to that. But how do you get people interested in the issues of the election so that they aren't swayed by something as stupid as a candidate kissing his wife?

 

[Expertise]

Something other than the construct of spin doctors...

I think most of us would settle for SOME charachter. Lets walk before we run.

 

[Mustang Sally]

The media plays such a hugely important role in how we perceive things like "character" in a public figure. Of course none of the past presidents were saints. But the press did not report so much on the presidential sex life. Maybe that was because past presidents have been more discreet, or maybe because journalism has changed. Maybe both. (I'd like to point out that Canadian journalists still maintain a certain amount of respect for politicians. No one would dream of asking Jean if he wears boxers or briefs.)

It is wrong to treat politicians like celebrities, and that's exactly what we do. Then again, it's wrong of politicians to act like celebrities, and Clinton certainly does that.

I rather like what R Nitelight said:
No (it's not important the president have character). Only that he plays one (a man with character) on TV.

 

[RonG]

I'm of the opinion that we elect presidents under the same precept that The Vatican selects popes - you take an imperfect man and hope the grandeur and sense of history make his official magisterium impeccable. We hope that our presidents get the sense of "Wow, Lincoln was here" and thinks of something other than "What a great place to pick up chicks!"

So, I think we all understand the process forces less than ideal people to the top and wish to hell they become better folks once they are there.

 

[Cheyenne]

Hey, BushIsm, did you give up so easily? Or are you still busy trying to understand that tax plan of Gore's?

 

[forgetunome]

Heaven's Clocks

Hillary Clinton died and went to heaven. As she stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates she saw a huge wall of clocks behind him.

She asked, "What are all those clocks?"

St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move."

"Oh," said Hillary, "who's clock is that?"

"That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved indicating that she never told a lie."

"Who's clock is that?" "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have only moved twice telling us that Abe only told 2 lies in his entire life."

"Where's Bill's clock?" Hillary asked

"Bill's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan."

I thought the joke fit the subject.

 

[GuyJD]

POINT IN QUESTION

Think about it..........Minnesota has a governor who was a professional wrestler several years before going into politics. And Washington D.C. had a mayor who was videotaped smoking crack with a hooker. And yet, he has been re-elected.
I guess in the eye of the voters, character doesn't mean shit in politics. Maybe one day, we may get to elect an FBI most wanted as a Governor or President.

 

[coaster]

character...integrity

Jimmy Carter was a person of integrity yet he wasn't perceived as presidential. The corrupting influences of the office bring out the tiniest blemishes. Character is the most important quality of man. As Mark Twain once stated "man has all the charcteristics of a dog, except for loyality." I want a leader that I can follow!!!

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Cheyenne
Hey, BushIsm "BABY", did you read the question?

Cheyenne, if he'd read the question, maybe he'd think he would have to come up with his own answer. It seems he couldn't do that; all he could do was regurgitate the TASS News Agency (NY Times).

Originally posted by BushIsm
Rewarding the Wealthiest

If all the contentious issues in their debate Tuesday night, none underscored the differences between Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush more than taxes. Repeating himself relentlessly, Mr. Gore asserted that the Texas governor's proposed tax cuts would award more money to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers than the amounts Mr. Bush would set aside for education, health and defense combined.

Got a news flash for you, genius, those are the people who earned it, the people from whom it was STOLEN, so why shouldn't they get it back?

A few figures from about 1995 (sorry I don't have more current figures) from the government's own tax records:

10% of Americans have an annual income of $69,000 or more and pay 59% of the taxes.
25% of Americans have an annual income of $43,000 or more and pay 80% of the taxes.
50% of Americans have an annual income of $22,000 or more and pay 95.2% of the taxes.

The graduated income tax system ("from each according to his ability") and the social welfare system ("to each according to his need") are right out of the Communist Manifesto. So considering your support of Gore and his proposals, I guess that identifies your political affiliation pretty succinctly.

And Gore's Targeted Tax Cuts are targeted so precisely that virtually no one is in the Target Area. His whole intent is to present the image of cutting taxes but construct such a labyrinthine mechanism that so few qualify that there are no real cuts. His only motivation is to expand government and the ensuing increases in waste and abuse.

Originally posted by BushIsm
Character? You honestly think Bush has more "character" than Albert Gore? Bush, the ex-cocaine addict?

Addict? Seems you admire and flatter Gore's talent for embellishment in the sincerest form!

Originally posted by BushIsm
The man who went on and on about running a "clean campaign" then character assassinates Gore instead of focusing on the issues?

Perhaps in your finite wisdom you can answer this question, the answer to which has eluded me for so long: Why is it when you tell the truth about Clinton or Gore, it's character assassination? But when they distort, quote out of context or outright lie, that's just good campaigning? Or is this one of those small things that only a small mind can understand?

Originally posted by Ambrosious
After Al frenched Tipper […], 17% of women voters … changed their minds. Then Bush went on Oprah and talked about his wife being his biggest influence and how she was his reason for being and 11% of the women switched back.

Sounds like a good reason to rethink suffrage, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Expertise
I think most of us would settle for SOME charachter.[sic] Lets walk before we run.

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

Originally posted by coaster
Jimmy Carter was a person of integrity yet he wasn't perceived as presidential. The corrupting influences of the office bring out the tiniest blemishes. Character is the most important quality of man. As Mark Twain once stated "man has all the charcteristics of a dog, except for loyality." I want a leader that I can follow!!!

There's a reason Carter was not perceived as Presidential: he was/is inept, incompetent, bumbling and totally uninspiring as well as being a statist (like Gore) who thought/thinks the government was/is the answer to all our problems. He had no vision, no confidence and no message except more government (sound familiar, Gore fans?). These people seem to have such a driving need or desire to run (or is it ruin) other people's lives and when in that position demonstrate themselves to be incompetent at best (Carter) and criminal at worst (Clinton/Gore) and seem to invariably demonstrate that they can't adequately manage their own lives. At least Carter at some point in his life earned a living. That's not a claim to which Algore can make credible claim having grown up in a hotel suite in Washington, DC!

To be a leader, one must have a presence which inspires confidence at best and at least does not dispel or depress confidence. For my evaluation of the three candidates, Harry Browne inspires confidence, Bush does not dispel but neither does he inspire and Gore/Kazinski frightens me.

P. S. For an interesting poll result, try http://www.msnbc.com/news/419965.asp


[Edited by Unclebill on 10-11-2000 at 09:34 PM]

 

[insideShiraz]

Ron, I'm gonna read that again....

Wut do you think of...(Who sang Ol' Man River)?...

 

[Gaucho]

It's impossible to discuss the quality of Al Gore's character because he has none. Simply put, he is the most nakedly sociopathic individual ever to vie for the presidency and the fact that so few people seem to realize the true depth of his contempt for the American people is frightening, to say the least. Time and again, he has demonstrated that he will say or do anything in order to advance his agenda or get elected. And the arrogance that he displays in these little "stories" of his - always meant to explain complicated issues in human terms to those of us who just don't get it - is mind numbing.

Throw him out. Make him work for a living like the rest of us.