(Advertisement)

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: What Writer Wants In A President

Posted: February 16, 2012 at 3:30 a.m.

As I watch the debates that will determine our next president, I marvel at the choices we are stuck with. I consider myself to be as American as the next guy. I served my country as a young man. Here is a list of qualities I want in a leader and I don’t think I am alone.

This story is only available from the archives. Click here to contact the online desk.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 02/16/2012

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

COMMENTARY: What Happened To Term Limits?

If democracy is supposed to represent the will of the people, then the people ought to be asking what happened to term limits. Read »

Next Story »

HOW WE SEE IT: Springdale District Earns Priz...

Gifted, talented — and now $3,000 richer. Read »

Comments

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Please read our comment policy.

Can't argue with any of this. Right on!!

Posted by: arkietraveler

February 16, 2012 at 6:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Looks like Dan is just another Obama supporter, going on and on about the president's finer qualities.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 16, 2012 at 9:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I agree with freethinker. Obama certainly has more of these qualities than any other candidates that are running.

Posted by: selph

February 16, 2012 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Does Dan Kilgore know what he really wants?
1. Not only a leader who is religious but one who has a particular religious attitude. Many of the founders were Christian Deists who probably wouldn't qualify as believing in an "awesome God."
DEISM: movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.

Posted by: Coralie

February 16, 2012 at 2:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

2. Kilgore wants a leader who won't bow to some thug leader of another country. In other words, he wants a president unlike all the presidents of the past 60 years, who have made a point of supporting various authoritarian governments because of their fear of "socialism" or democratic rule in those countries, which might interfere with American plans..

Posted by: Coralie

February 16, 2012 at 2:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

3. Kilgore doesn't want a leader who apologizes for military actions. Not clear whether he means apology as the actions occur or afterwards, but it would help to give an example of a president actually apologizing.
A lot of military actions SHOULD be apologized for, including the "Banana Wars" of the first part of the 20th century, the War in the Philippines in 1898, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq War, etc.
Sorry I will not live to see the day when the U.S. president apologizes for American mistakes and atrocities.

Posted by: Coralie

February 16, 2012 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

6. Kilgore wants a president who overpowers Congress. Like so many others, he doesn't understand checks and balances or just doesn't care. He wants a strong leader.
Granted, Congress is a mostly dysfunctional bunch of corrupt millionaires, but it isn't the president's job to tell them off.

Posted by: Coralie

February 16, 2012 at 2:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

8. Kilgore wants a president who will help veterans and elderly (forget about children or the unemployed) instead of sending money to other countries.
He probably thinks like so many Americans do that foreign aid takes up 25% of the budget instead of the true amount which is about 1%.
8. It particular galls Kilgore that this money is sent to PAGAN countries. By this I suppose he means non-Christian, however that is not the dictionary meaning of pagan. Jews and Muslims are not pagans.

Posted by: Coralie

February 16, 2012 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

to selph and Coralie: if you could for just once take your blinders off, set aside the "my daddy, grandpa, great-grandpa.... was a democrat and I'll die a democrat" philosophy and research for yourselves the 'atrocities' this current president has poured out on our heads, along with the FACT that in the first 4 months of this year, we're paying more in INTEREST than the ENTIRE 2007 deficit was, then maybe, just maybe, you could begin to look at politics, economics and life in general through untainted, logical eyes and see the truths before you. By the way, your 'daddy, grandpa, great-grandpa' 's would most likely NOT be democrats today. Democrats DID used to hold Constitutional conservative values and the Republicans were the liberal thinkers. Those tables began turning during Reconstruction. Study your history. Foreign aid should not equal even 1% of our budget in a time when we OWE $15,363,726,890,654 at this very second. The US needs to concentrate on paying our OWN bills.

Posted by: glorygrace

February 17, 2012 at 11:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

GloryG: "we're paying more in INTEREST than the ENTIRE 2007 deficit was,">>

This seems to be a little tidbit you've picked up and think is profound for some reason. Perhaps you heard it on the Fox Box. Here are the government interest expenditures for debt outstanding for the following years (rounded to billion):

2011.....$454B
2010.....$413B
2009.....$383B
2008.....$451B
2007.....$429B
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/re...

Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. A great deal of it, if not most of it, is paid to ourselves.

As this WSJ article noted about the 2007 deficit in October of 2007:

“While somewhat lower than estimates issued at the beginning of the year, the 2007 deficit announced today by the Congressional Budget Office is no cause for celebration,” said House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D., S.C.)
CBO has estimated that if the U.S. maintains a military presence in Iraq and if Congress doesn’t allow the tax cuts enacted in President George W. Bush’s first term to expire, then recent improvements in the deficit will be reversed, pushing it up to to roughly $300 billion by 2012."
– By John Godfrey http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/1...

That was right except the numbers turned out far worse due to the country's horrible experiment with letting conservatives have power.

D.
----------------
“At the end of my husband’s Administration, the forecast was for a 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. Today, just two and a half years into the Bush era, we’re looking at a $4 trillion deficit.”
--Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 7/32/03

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 17, 2012 at 11:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

glorygrace--

If you could for just once take your blinders off and research for yourself....

RE "the 'atrocities' this current president has poured out on our heads"
Please do list them. (The interest on the debt does not count as an atrocity.)

RE "the FACT that in the first 4 months of this year, we're paying more in INTEREST than the ENTIRE 2007 deficit was"
While that may be a FACT-- The deficit in fiscal 2007 was about $161 billion; interest on the debt for fiscal 2012 is about $169.2 billion-- it is irrelevant and misleading. The INTEREST we're paying is on the entire national debt, not the deficit. But if you wish to try to use that as evidence for Bush and against Obama, I will point out that the interest paid on the debt in 2007 was $430 billion; the deficit in 2000 was -$86.4 billion-- that is, a surplus. Further, the interest paid on the debt in 2011 was $454.4 billion; the interest paid in 2008 was $451.2 billion, so it appears that Obama can't really be blamed for much of the interest on the debt.

Surely a fine, upstanding Christian business owner such as yourself would hate to bear false witness, and I hope you will note the distinction, as you've already posted this false comparison twice.

RE "Democrats DID used to hold Constitutional conservative values and the Republicans were the liberal thinkers."
Thank you. I'm impressed that you understand and admit this; most conservatives won't. The next step will be to understand that liberalism creates a better society than conservatism does.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 17, 2012 at 12:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Since when do televised debates between a sweater-vest-wearing-mackerel-snapper, a fat adulterer, and a pasty faced Mormon "determine our next president"?

I think I'll wait til November to see who's elected, just like the Constitution says, Dan.

Posted by: GeneralJackTRipper

February 18, 2012 at 3:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

glorygrace, you make a LOT of assumptions. My Daddy, 2 grandpas, and 4 great-grandpas were none of them Southerners, and I don't know what party most of them voted for.
A couple of great-grandpas weren't even Americans.
For the first half of the 20th century the South voted solidly Democratic, but Northern Democrats were not so conservative.
***
I do agree with you that we shouldn't send foreign aid to Israel--which is the largest recipient of U.S. aid--because it uses it to expand settlements. Also we shouldn't be sending military aid to other countries, just fomenting more conflict, and we shouldn't be supporting private companies like Bechtel in the guise of foreign aid.

Posted by: Coralie

February 19, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.