Raving Conservative


Thursday, November 10, 2005

Why on Earth Would I want to be President?

There are three reasons people go into politics. The first two suck, but are the most common, and then there is the third.

1- Power. Let’s face it. Power is alluring as all get out. There are people who crave it, need it as if they are not complete without it. It’s like a drug knowing you hold the fate of others in your hands. In truth, they really aren’t complete without it. They become amazingly miserable really fast when it’s gone. One has only to look at the high suicide rate among military retirees who reached the top ranks on the enlisted and officer sides to see evidence of this.

2- Money. There is still money in politics. For some they seek to make their fortunes through the high salaries politicians draw, others through bribes, kickbacks, and graft, and others through a combination.

Before I go any further I just want to share a quote from one of my favorite authors.

“Three things drive people: power, sex, and money. Power is sexy, sex is powerful, and money will buy you both.
Robert Heinlein

So true for so many. So sad really. Just look at President Clinton for evidence of this.

3- To make a difference. This is where I fall. I look at this country, my home that I love, and I see so much that is wrong and so much that could be made better. It is my dream to bring America to greater heights of glory, power, peace, prosperity, harmony, and tranquility. I want to preserve what is good while replacing what is bad and fixing what is faulty. I want to do it for my family and myself, of course, but also for everyone living in the US, and all who dream of living here. There are few legacies for a life that I can think of that are better than leading a country to greatness even the most optimistic never hoped to see. I know this dream is unlikely to happen, but it is mine and I will work for it. I AM working for it.

I know. The most common rebuttal to this is that the dreamer is really just selfishly trying to be remembered by history. Personally, I couldn’t care less. I am a man like any other, and as such am as forgettable as everyone else no matter what I do. How many Presidents, no matter how great, are commonly known anyway? Most people would be hard pressed to name five from before their time.

Being President is indeed a thankless job subject to much cruelty and unfair criticism. But I am willing to subject myself to that if it means I can do a great service for my country. The only true uncertainty here is; will the American people choose me, of all people, to do this? I would consider it a great honor if they did.


  • Well one things for certain. You ARE a dreamer.
    But then everyone needs a dream.

    In my humble opinion the lure of the presidency is not money, or sex, it's power. The power to control and manipulate.

    I do believe there are the few and the rare who seek the presidency for reasons such as yours. Men like John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Regan to name a few. All three already had the power and the money. The served because they had a dream of making our country a better place. Yes, they all three made mistakes (some bigger than others) but they were all honorable men. We haven't seen the likes of them in many a year. I do believe that George Bush Sr. was and is a good man. I believe he always did what "he" believed was best for the people.
    Bill Clinton was a great man who allowed his weakness for the opposite sex to besmirch his legacy. George Jr. is a weak man who allows those around him to control events and make decision he should be making. He is loyal to a fault.
    We have seen great Presidents and I hope we will again one day. Who knows maybe YOU will be one of them.
    However it is important to remember as you make your journey to the White House that both liberals and conservatives are citizens of this country. To be a great president you must rise above those who think either party is a nuisance, and unnecessay. You must learn to listen not only with your ear, but with your heart as well.
    In order to maintain a democracy we must have two equal parties. Otherwise we become nothing more than the communist our parents so bravely fought.

    By Blogger wanda, at 11:05 PM  

  • We lived about seventeen years in the great state of Nevada, Las Vegas to be exact. We had of course, Harry Reid as our illustrious Senator who grew up poor in the small town of Searchlight Nevada, and had spent most of his adult life in service to the state (never heard him do a speech that didn't include those two statements). Now Harry became a multi-millionaire in the process so one has to wonder if it was service to the State of Nevada, or service to Harry Reid. Too often the power, money and prestige become the number two focal point of their "public" service. The number one focal point is pleasing enough constituents to get re-elected each time. Number three seems to be to have their name attached to some worthless piece of legislation that costs us taxpayers more money and reduces our freedoms at the same time.

    By Blogger Fish, at 5:47 AM  

  • I hope your dream comes true, Daniel. I really do.

    I asked you on one of your previous posts why would anyone want to be president, so thanks for posting this. The reason I asked that question was because it is such a thankless job. You are damned if you do, damned if you don't and there isn't any middle ground. At least there doesn't seem to be.

    Wanda said: "In order to maintain a democracy we must have two equal parties. Otherwise we become nothing more than the communist our parents so bravely fought."

    Very true.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 7:58 AM  

  • Clinton acknowleged this year that he took advantage of the 19-year-old intern "because I could".

    He had the power to corrupt the secret Service, pardon his bag man Marc Rich,
    and escaped being tossed from office, which he richly deserved.

    He had to power to mysteriously cause 50 of his associates to assume room temperature or occupy a jail cell when it seemed certain they would rat him out, both in Ark and DC.

    And that is why we can never again have another morally vague person running the White House. IE: Hillary, Shumer, Kerry, and their ilk.

    Persons who defend such activity and vote for such morons are just as guilty as the guilty party.


    By Blogger Phantom_Driver, USNR, Ret., at 8:58 AM  

  • "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."
    --Henry Kissinger

    driver: "Persons who defend such activity and vote for such morons are just as guilty as the guilty party."

    That's an interesting statement to make about the party that wasn't just caught red-handed leaking classified information about secret CIA prisons to support its opposition to a ban on torture. Morally vague, indeed . . .

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 9:46 AM  

  • Catastrophile,
    nobody voted for Scotter Libby. By "party" Phantom is referring to individuals, not political parties.


    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 11:08 AM  

  • daniel,
    i'd so totally vote for you, you make such sense! yeah, there might be some stuff i don't agree with, but, there's stuff EVERY politician believes in that i don't agree with! all i know is that it would take way more guts than i've got to do it, so...you've got my vote!
    BoUnCeS!! LibbY!

    By Blogger Libby, at 11:31 AM  

  • Daniel -- I'm actually talking about the "black sites" leak, which (according to Trent Lott) was revealed by Dick Cheney as he was trying to convince Reep Senators to exempt the CIA from a torture ban.

    Dick Cheney. Leaking secrets. In defense of torture.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 11:38 AM  

  • Phantom Driver, Monica was 22 and a college graduate at the time of her 'encounter' with Clinton. So if he admitted he took advantage of a 19 year old, there must be another one out there.

    Monica was no naive waif that the big bad president took advantage of. She'd had SEVERAL previous 'affairs' with other married men. She had a 'very' active sex life. And it was she who relentlessly pursued a interaction between herself and the president. Almost any man would find the excitement of a much younger woman pursuing him a 'turn on'. Even a chubbo such as Monica.
    Men make mistakes, and there is NO doubt or question that Clinton made a HUGE one in allowing himself to become involved with Lewinski. But had it remained what it should have been, a private affair between a man and his wife , there would have been no need for an investigation and subsiquently no lying would have been necessary.
    Do you honestly believe that Clinton was the first president to ever have sex in the White House, with someone not his wife? Do I need to provide you with a list of those we KNOW about? Not to mention the ones we don't.
    Clinton's weakness was chubby twenty-something young women. Bush's appears to be chubby middle-aged bald guys, and elderly women. *shivers*
    I think I prefer the former.
    I might also point out that at the height of 'Monicagate'(undoubtably Clinton's lowest point) Clinton's approval ratings never dropped below the mid 40's. In fact even Bush's best figures have never been as high as Clinton's average.

    By Blogger wanda, at 12:25 PM  

  • Ahhh, drivel from the mouths of shills.

    Cheney's been indicted and convicted of nothing.

    Clinton was IMPEACHED. (Note how they don't want to talk about that).

    (Big ol Grin)

    By Blogger Phantom_Driver, USNR, Ret., at 12:26 PM  

  • I'm bored with talking about Slick Willy because he's pretty much done all the damage he can possibly do to the Republic. There's really nothing left to talk about.

    But while you're rooting through old garbage, maybe you should go back to the Reagan administration and figure out why on Earth you allowed the people who armed Iran -- and provided Saddam with intelligence and equipment while he was gassing people to death -- back into the White House.

    See, these amoral, truth-bending, torturing, warmongering, Constitution-shredding, idolatrous, hypocritical Reeps, they pose a clear and present danger. Today.

    I find it interesting you'd rather keep whining about the 1990s than what's happening to our country right now.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 1:01 PM  

  • "ut had it remained what it should have been, a private affair between a man and his wife"

    Nothing is private when you are the President.

    "In fact even Bush's best figures have never been as high as Clinton's average."

    Bush's best figures stand at 85% approval. Clinton's average is 52%. This according to surveys I am familiar with.

    "why on Earth you allowed the people who armed Iran-- and provided Saddam with intelligence and equipment while he was gassing people to death -- back into the White House."

    The Us has a habit of arming and aiding the enemies of its enemies. We aided many of our enemies in the interests of defeating a greater evil, the SOviet Union, and aided others in order to take down other enemies worse than them. It's part of the problem with politics that goes back throughout history. Personally, I don't like the idea of aiding any of our nemies for any reason. If two of our enemies go to war I think it is strategically better to let them beat themselves into near oblivion, then we have the option of going and mopping them both up at their weakest.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 1:10 PM  

  • I'm sure lots of Iraqis find that logic comforting -- as the lying swindler Chalabi is being toasted by DC Reeps as the man on the fast track to become the next "enemy of our enemies" in Iraq.

    We're all familiar with the concept of a vicious circle, I trust?

    As glad as I might be to see Saddam brought to trial for his crimes, the fact remains that men like Cheney and Rumsfeld should be right beside him in the dock.

    This may sound inflammatory, but when you look at the record, it's appaling what these men have been allowed to get away with. They're criminals, pure and simple, and I don't understand how anybody can believe any of the nonsense they spout about liberation and self-determination.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 2:58 PM  

  • Well, now you have gone into philosphical differences.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 3:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares