Does the Constitution permit President Obama to run for POTUS again?

Perotista said:

Yeah, but the VP has to resign or die ala Agnew. Then the president nominates the new VP candidate which must be confirmed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. I suppose that does fall under an appointment. An appointment with the House approval via a majority vote. That's how Ford became Nixon's VP and how Rockefeller became Ford's.

Click to expand...

I think that's about as likely a scenario as anything else I've seen put forward.

Hey - While I think of it.... have you read Battle for the Marble Palace by Michael Bobelian? It's about the Fortas nomination for Chief Justice in '68. I know you're a student of the time period, and I highly enjoyed it - and as a Georgian I wanted to ask you about a pet theory of mine... what about if, instead of nominating Fortas, LBJ nominated Griffin Bell to replace Warren? There's no way Dick Russell could have or would have opposed Bell for the spot, and Bell was young enough at the time to have been Chief Justice right up until the end of the Clinton Administration. Plus, it would have opened up a spot on the 5th Circuit for Al Lawrence on the 5th Circuit (the final split between Johnson and Russell was caused by Johnson dragging his feet on giving Lawrence a seat on Georgia's Southern District, despite promising Russell he would). In one stroke, Johnson could have made amends with Russell and gotten a 30-year Chief Justice who would have reflected his views.

Cordelier said:

I think that's about as likely a scenario as anything else I've seen put forward.

Hey - While I think of it.... have you read Battle for the Marble Palace by Michael Bobelian? It's about the Fortas nomination for Chief Justice in '68. I know you're a student of the time period, and I highly enjoyed it - and as a Georgian I wanted to ask you about a pet theory of mine... what about if, instead of nominating Fortas, LBJ nominated Griffin Bell to replace Warren? There's no way Dick Russell could have or would have opposed Bell for the spot, and Bell was young enough at the time to have been Chief Justice right up until the end of the Clinton Administration. Plus, it would have opened up a spot on the 5th Circuit for Al Lawrence on the 5th Circuit (the final split between Johnson and Russell was caused by Johnson dragging his feet on giving Lawrence a seat on Georgia's Southern District, despite promising Russell he would). In one stroke, Johnson could have made amends with Russell and gotten a 30-year Chief Justice who would have reflected his views.

Click to expand...

No, I never read the book. In fact in 1968 I was stationed in Bangkok Thailand with the Army of all places. Bell was an interesting character. He probably would have made a good Chief Justice. Richard Russell was very pro defense and looked after the farmer. Being born and raised on a farm and later as a military man, Russell was an icon.

I don't think LBJ could have ever made amends with Russell. Then I always viewed their split as being over civil rights and not Lawrence. Russell died while I was still in Southeast Asia, leaving Laos for Vietnam. Bell I remember as Carter's AG. Not much from anything earlier in his life. So I can't really say.

queenmandy85 said:

Does the US Constitution allow a two term President to run again after a four year absence? I remember in early 1963, an American commentator speculating that JFK would win in 1964 and then RFK would win in 1968 and JFK running again in 1972.
In my country, our Head of State is in office for life and the Head of Government can run as many times as he / she wants as long as they can secure the support of their party.

Click to expand...

The republicans got term limits passed because Roosevelt won his third term.

Perotista said:

No, I never read the book. In fact in 1968 I was stationed in Bangkok Thailand with the Army of all places. Bell was an interesting character. He probably would have made a good Chief Justice. Richard Russell was very pro defense and looked after the farmer. Being born and raised on a farm and later as a military man, Russell was an icon.

I don't think LBJ could have ever made amends with Russell. Then I always viewed their split as being over civil rights and not Lawrence. Russell died while I was still in Southeast Asia, leaving Laos for Vietnam. Bell I remember as Carter's AG. Not much from anything earlier in his life. So I can't really say.

Click to expand...

I'm a big admirer of Bell - I consider him probably the best Chief Justice we've never had. He wasn't the most brilliant opinion writer, wasn't the most innovative legal thinker... but he was a consummate deal maker. He had a great eye for the middle way that satisfied all sides. He cut his teeth as Gov. Vandiver's Chief of Staff before Kennedy named him to the 5th Circuit in '61... and probably his most high-profile case was the role he played in deciding the '66 Georgia Gubernatorial Election, when Bo Callaway edged out Lester Maddox in the popular vote, but fell short a majority. The Georgia Constitution said that in such a case, the legislature should decide the winner, which would have handed the election to Maddox. Bell felt this was an unconstitutional infringement of the will of the voters and that there should have been a run-off... but the Supreme Court overruled him and Maddox became Governor. But I guess you know all of that.

Bell's biggest priority was fighting public corruption... and when you think of all the cases that came up in the 70's - including Watergate - I think he would have been a powerful voice on that front. He could have also used his skill set to smooth off some of the rough edges for a lot of the socially contentious issues that had to be decided. I definitely think it would have made a lot of the Civil Rights decisions more palatable to the South if the medicine were being delivered by one of their own sons.

Cordelier said:

I'm a big admirer of Bell - I consider him probably the best Chief Justice we've never had. He wasn't the most brilliant opinion writer, wasn't the most innovative legal thinker... but he was a consummate deal maker. He had a great eye for the middle way that satisfied all sides. He cut his teeth as Gov. Vandiver's Chief of Staff before Kennedy named him to the 5th Circuit in '61... and probably his most high-profile case was the role he played in deciding the '66 Georgia Gubernatorial Election, when Bo Callaway edged out Lester Maddox in the popular vote, but fell short a majority. The Georgia Constitution said that in such a case, the legislature should decide the winner, which would have handed the election to Maddox. Bell felt this was an unconstitutional infringement of the will of the voters and that there should have been a run-off... but the Supreme Court overruled him and Maddox became Governor. But I guess you know all of that.

Bell's biggest priority was fighting public corruption... and when you think of all the cases that came up in the 70's - including Watergate - I think he would have been a powerful voice on that front. He could have also used his skill set to smooth off some of the rough edges for a lot of the socially contentious issues that had to be decided. I definitely think it would have made a lot of the Civil Rights decisions more palatable to the South if the medicine were being delivered by one of their own sons.

Click to expand...

Very well could have been. We southern boys get our hackles up when something is forced on us from the outside. That much is true. The fight from outside to force Georgia to take the stars and bars from our state flag failed in the late 90's. Then in 2003 our Governor Held a referendum on it and changing the flag passed with something like 75% of the vote.

We had a good Governor when all that civil rights stuff was going on, Jimmy Carter. We didn't have near the problem other southern states did. It surprised me Jimmy didn't make a better president.

Perotista said:

Very well could have been. We southern boys get our hackles up when something is forced on us from the outside. That much is true. The fight from outside to force Georgia to take the stars and bars from our state flag failed in the late 90's. Then in 2003 our Governor Held a referendum on it and changing the flag passed with something like 75% of the vote.

We had a good Governor when all that civil rights stuff was going on, Jimmy Carter. We didn't have near the problem other southern states did. It surprised me Jimmy didn't make a better president.

Click to expand...

Carter was too much of an outsider. And he was too self-righteous. He came into office with big post-Watergate majorities in both Houses and he expected that Congress would be as compliant as the Georgia Legislature. It doesn't work that way. If anything, it takes more skill to handle a big majority than it does a small one (but less than it does a minority). If he didn't need the Democratic establishment behind him to get elected, then why did he need them to govern? Plus, I think he was too loyal to his people... and I'm not just talking about Bert Lance - Hamilton Jordan didn't have any business being Chief of Staff - he was way out of his league. I think Jody Powell was in over his head as well. The White House isn't the best place to try to learn on the job.

Plus, Carter was just too darn nice... he wasn't enough of a bastard to be an effective President. He should never have left that whole Vance-Brzezinski feud fester for as long as it did. He ought to have knocked their heads together and gotten them working on the same page. And his economic policies were all over the map - when you get into the Oval Office, pick an economic course and then stick to it... the economy will adapt to whatever course you choose so long as there's a steady hand on the tiller. It only has problems when you start zig-zagging back and forth and all of the uncertainty that comes with it.

He was also too focused on micro-managing everything. He would have been better served to pick out a few areas he wanted to focus on and just let everyone else handle their own areas with minimal supervision. The same goes with legislation - he had this big list of legislation he wanted Congress to pass and he just dumped it all on them without any prioritization or sense of timing and it just ended up clogging the works.

Rich2018 said:

The 12th amendment came before the 22nd amendment and there was written to determine the requirements of someone seeking election as vice president.

"...in 1947 ...Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.

However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once...."


Could Barack Obama Serve as Vice President?

Click to expand...

I am well aware of the purpose of the 12th amendment. I was, however, only pretty sure that 12 came before 22, so thanks for clearing that one up. The 22nd could have changed how the 12th worked, but it didn't. If a person is not elected to the office of president, the only way to get there is to succeed. Since the VP succeeds the president, you would have to hold that office first in order to take the president's spot. But a person who is ineligible to hold the office of president cannot hold the office of vice-president. The only way you could MAYBE get around this is the incredibly unlikely scenario in which a former two-term president left office, was elected to the House of Representatives, was then elected Speaker of the House, and then happened to be holding that title when the president and vice-president were both simultaneously killed.

MAYBE.

Cordelier said:

Carter was too much of an outsider. And he was too self-righteous. He came into office with big post-Watergate majorities in both Houses and he expected that Congress would be as compliant as the Georgia Legislature. It doesn't work that way. If anything, it takes more skill to handle a big majority than it does a small one (but less than it does a minority). If he didn't need the Democratic establishment behind him to get elected, then why did he need them to govern? Plus, I think he was too loyal to his people... and I'm not just talking about Bert Lance - Hamilton Jordan didn't have any business being Chief of Staff - he was way out of his league. I think Jody Powell was in over his head as well. The White House isn't the best place to try to learn on the job.

Plus, Carter was just too darn nice... he wasn't enough of a bastard to be an effective President. He should never have left that whole Vance-Brzezinski feud fester for as long as it did. He ought to have knocked their heads together and gotten them working on the same page. And his economic policies were all over the map - when you get into the Oval Office, pick an economic course and then stick to it... the economy will adapt to whatever course you choose so long as there's a steady hand on the tiller. It only has problems when you start zig-zagging back and forth and all of the uncertainty that comes with it.

He was also too focused on micro-managing everything. He would have been better served to pick out a few areas he wanted to focus on and just let everyone else handle their own areas with minimal supervision. The same goes with legislation - he had this big list of legislation he wanted Congress to pass and he just dumped it all on them without any prioritization or sense of timing and it just ended up clogging the works.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. A president does have to have a SOB streak in him at times. I've always said Jimmy had a lot more problems with the Democrats in congress than the Republicans. Also he became president when congress was trying to regain some lost power and their mood was not to let the president dictate things to them. To knock the office of the presidency down a couple of notches.

I do think by most it is acknowledged that Carter was one of our worst presidents, but the best ex-president this nation has had. At least that is the way I look at him.

Interesting question.

Because President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected four times, the Constitution was changed so that no one could ever have more than two terms.

A wise decision.

Too bad that there are no term limits for the House of Reps, the Senate, and the Supreme Court.

I am guessing that President Obama could not run again for president. Such a move would seem to run counter to the intention of the amended Constitution. This is not Russia where Mr. Putin and his prime minister alternate in those positions.

Furthermore, President Obama is presumably too smart to want to run again. He is now considered a historic figure. He wants to keep it that way, I assume.

Grizzly Adams said:

... I was, however, only pretty sure that 12 came before 22, so thanks for clearing that one up....

Click to expand...

No problem, it seemed for a moment you had forgotten.

...a person who is ineligible to hold the office of president cannot hold the office of vice-president....

Click to expand...

The 22nd Amendment doesn't prevent anyone from serving as president, it prevent someone standing for election more than twice.

It didn't happen because he refused the nomination and almost certainly would have lost anyway, but president Johnson, had he stood for election and won, would have served three times as president

...the only way you could MAYBE get around this is the incredibly unlikely scenario in which a former two-term president left office, was elected to the House of Representatives, was then elected Speaker of the House, and then happened to be holding that title when the president and vice-president were both simultaneously killed....

Click to expand...

So you're saying that should Trump be impeached, new President Pence couldn't appoint George W Bush as VP ?
Because he could

...MAYBE.

Click to expand...

What if the VP resigns and the president appoints a replacement, then the president resigns ?

Could it happen ?

Perotista said:

Yeah, I agree. A president does have to have a SOB streak in him at times. I've always said Jimmy had a lot more problems with the Democrats in congress than the Republicans. Also he became president when congress was trying to regain some lost power and their mood was not to let the president dictate things to them. To knock the office of the presidency down a couple of notches.

I do think by most it is acknowledged that Carter was one of our worst presidents, but the best ex-president this nation has had. At least that is the way I look at him.

Click to expand...

Even so, though, a President has the advantage in dealing with Congress in that the initiative belongs to him. He has the bully pulpit. He can gauge of the mood of Congress and act accordingly to choose the right line to take that will get him the most votes. Carter's problem was that he didn't care about that - he thought playing the game and cutting deals was beneath him. Russell Long pretty much bent over backwards to try and get a deal with him on the energy program, but Carter wouldn't budge. Sticking to your guns is all well and good if you've got the leadership ability it takes to get people to suspend their disbelief and get behind you... but if you don't - and I think only 2 (Reagan & Clinton) out of the last 10 Presidents did - then it just makes you ineffectual.

Iron_Merc said:

You gotta remember - Obama was born in Kenya and became president.

Click to expand...

Okay that's it, I'm done! :lamo

Cordelier said:

Even so, though, a President has the advantage in dealing with Congress in that the initiative belongs to him. He has the bully pulpit. He can gauge of the mood of Congress and act accordingly to choose the right line to take that will get him the most votes. Carter's problem was that he didn't care about that - he thought playing the game and cutting deals was beneath him. Russell Long pretty much bent over backwards to try and get a deal with him on the energy program, but Carter wouldn't budge. Sticking to your guns is all well and good if you've got the leadership ability it takes to get people to suspend their disbelief and get behind you... but if you don't - and I think only 2 (Reagan & Clinton) out of the last 10 Presidents did - then it just makes you ineffectual.

Click to expand...

There was a quality in FDR, Reagan and Bill Clinton that allowed all three of them to connect with the people.

Perotista said:

Believe it or not, Reagan tried to convince Ford to run as his VP back in 1980. Ford wouldn't have anything to do with it. Reagan called it the Dream Team.

Click to expand...

Was he opposed to HGW Bush because of something to do with his membership in the CFR?
I heard rumors that he was opposed to Bush as a running mate and that was one of the things that washed up on shore but I never knew if that accusation had any credibility or not.
Yes, Bush WAS CFR but I did not know if Reagan was hostile to the CFR or not.

The story goes that Reagan was told to either accept Bush or kiss his chances of Prezzy bye bye.
The story continues (again, this is just one of many tales I heard told) that Bush's team had equal emnity for Reagan, and that the whole Hinckley business was a failed assassination attempt by Team GHW Bush.

One thing's for sure, Reagan definitely was not the same after the shooting. I don't mean physically, I mean mentally.
He was a changed man after his first hundred days.
I'll never forget the one time I saw him preparing for a speech in the early days of the big back yard sat dishes.
The networks just ran unencrypted raw feeds a lot of the time in the runup to press conferences.

I was tuned in and the podium was empty, and crew were scurrying about adjusting camera angles, diddling with the audio, etc.
Finally SS led Reagan to the lectern, and he just stood there, behaving like he was in some sort of daze.
He looked physically slumped and tired, and he stared vacantly up at the ceiling, and he even began picking his nose for a few moments, then back to the empty vacant staring.
I swear to you it was like he didn't know where he was.

Then suddenly we hear "Ten seconds Mister President!" from a member of the crew...and it was as if a switch got flicked on.
Reagan suddenly seemed to "inflate", almost like the inflatable "autopilot" in the movie "Airplane!"



Only FASTER!
President Ronald Reagan seemed to "click on". His eyes brightened and he took on an erect posture.
And then, THE ACTOR "did his lines".

Watching him go suddenly from a deflated befuddled and dumbstruck old man picking his nose to an erect professional actor delivering his lines with slick polish was perhaps one of the more frightening things I've ever witnessed on TV and it was the first time I began to truly wonder if all presidents are just "actors" who get handled and told what to say and do.

I certainly became a lot more skeptical of Reagan's accolades.
It was the day I finally realized that HE really WAS just an actor.
And the real president was perhaps George H.W. Bush, a professional whose entire family had practiced statecraft for better or worse, for decades.

Perotista said:

There was a quality in FDR, Reagan and Bill Clinton that allowed all three of them to connect with the people.

Click to expand...

It's the same quality 1st Sgt. Welsh (Sean Penn's character) in The Thin Red Line had. I want to say "empathy", but it's more than that. I don't even think there's a word in the English language for it. It's the ability to care about your people, but not too much, if that makes sense. I do know that every NCO who's worth a damn has it - you need to care about your people more than yourself, but you also need to be able to send them to their deaths. Willingly. That's an awful lot of suspension of disbelief.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Was he opposed to HGW Bush because of something to do with his membership in the CFR?
I heard rumors that he was opposed to Bush as a running mate and that was one of the things that washed up on shore but I never knew if that accusation had any credibility or not.
Yes, Bush WAS CFR but I did not know if Reagan was hostile to the CFR or not.

The story goes that Reagan was told to either accept Bush or kiss his chances of Prezzy bye bye.
The story continues (again, this is just one of many tales I heard told) that Bush's team had equal emnity for Reagan, and that the whole Hinckley business was a failed assassination attempt by Team GHW Bush.

One thing's for sure, Reagan definitely was not the same after the shooting. I don't mean physically, I mean mentally.
He was a changed man after his first hundred days.
I'll never forget the one time I saw him preparing for a speech in the early days of the big back yard sat dishes.
The networks just ran unencrypted raw feeds a lot of the time in the runup to press conferences.

I was tuned in and the podium was empty, and crew were scurrying about adjusting camera angles, diddling with the audio, etc.
Finally SS led Reagan to the lectern, and he just stood there, behaving like he was in some sort of daze.
He looked physically slumped and tired, and he stared vacantly up at the ceiling, and he even began picking his nose for a few moments, then back to the empty vacant staring.
I swear to you it was like he didn't know where he was.

Then suddenly we hear "Ten seconds Mister President!" from a member of the crew...and it was as if a switch got flicked on.
Reagan suddenly seemed to "inflate", almost like the inflatable "autopilot" in the movie "Airplane!"


Only FASTER!
President Ronald Reagan seemed to "click on". His eyes brightened and he took on an erect posture.
And then, THE ACTOR "did his lines".

Watching him go suddenly from a deflated befuddled and dumbstruck old man picking his nose to an erect professional actor delivering his lines with slick polish was perhaps one of the more frightening things I've ever witnessed on TV and it was the first time I began to truly wonder if all presidents are just "actors" who get handled and told what to say and do.

I certainly became a lot more skeptical of Reagan's accolades.
It was the day I finally realized that HE really WAS just an actor.
And the real president was perhaps George H.W. Bush, a professional whose entire family had practiced statecraft for better or worse, for decades.

Click to expand...

Reagan was a natural. The thing about being a natural at whatever you're a natural at is that you don't know where it comes from. You can go to that place in your brain it comes from and just do whatever it is you're good at. Just like Ted Williams hitting a curveball. Someone watching him from the outside is going to be awed by that... maybe even intimidated by it, but to him it's just natural.

You're a camera guy... I don't know whether you feel like you're a natural at doing that or not, but do you ever find yourself getting in a groove and shooting some footage so incredible that you can't believe you managed to get it? Without thinking, without planning it, without even working at it? You just watch it afterwards and sit back and can't believe you actually managed to get that.

swing_voter said:

The republicans got term limits passed because Roosevelt won his third term.

Click to expand...

Fourth

Cordelier said:

Reagan was a natural. The thing about being a natural at whatever you're a natural at is that you don't know where it comes from. You can go to that place in your brain it comes from and just do whatever it is you're good at. Just like Ted Williams hitting a curveball. Someone watching him from the outside is going to be awed by that... maybe even intimidated by it, but to him it's just natural.

You're a camera guy... I don't know whether you feel like you're a natural at doing that or not, but do you ever find yourself getting in a groove and shooting some footage so incredible that you can't believe you managed to get it? Without thinking, without planning it, without even working at it? You just watch it afterwards and sit back and can't believe you actually managed to get that.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that same groove used to happen when I played piano and organ professionally in a moderately successful band a lifetime ago, too.
Yes...the groove. And when Reagan heard "Ten seconds, Mister President", you could clearly see that he was hitting his groove.

The moment he straightened up and "turned on" his actor persona, I found myself thinking the very thing you described.

"Oh yeah, the old actor still has enough of his acting chops that he can 'act presidential' and 'sound like The Great Communicator'.
I get it now."

It was the dull, disoriented nosepicker persona that I found frightening.
To me, it felt like I had secretly glimpsed the reality, pulled the curtain back.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Yes, and that same groove used to happen when I played piano and organ professionally in a moderately successful band a lifetime ago, too.
Yes...the groove. And when Reagan heard "Ten seconds, Mister President", you could clearly see that he was hitting his groove.

The moment he straightened up and "turned on" his actor persona, I found myself thinking the very thing you described.

"Oh yeah, the old actor still has enough of his acting chops that he can 'act presidential' and 'sound like The Great Communicator'.
I get it now."

It was the dull, disoriented nosepicker persona that I found frightening.
To me, it felt like I had secretly glimpsed the reality, pulled the curtain back.

Click to expand...

Different people have different ways of getting into the zone. Have you ever watched Roger Deakins get ready for a shoot? I'd be willing to bet he has a pretty blank look too... and then he produces genius. There's nothing else around him.... it's all tuned out.

Cordelier said:

Different people have different ways of getting into the zone. Have you ever watched Roger Deakins get ready for a shoot? I'd be willing to bet he has a pretty blank look too... and then he produces genius. There's nothing else around him.... it's all tuned out.

Click to expand...

You probably had to be tuned in...I wish I could remember the exact date and nature of Reagan's appearance.
It didn't look or feel like Reagan was "preparing to get into the zone" but YES, I DO understand what you're getting at anyway.

To me, it was more like Reagan possessed the ability to just flick it on and off like a switch.
No meditation, no prep, no gazing into the Heavens in Deakins-like introspection, just CLICK and he was ON.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Was he opposed to HGW Bush because of something to do with his membership in the CFR?
I heard rumors that he was opposed to Bush as a running mate and that was one of the things that washed up on shore but I never knew if that accusation had any credibility or not.
Yes, Bush WAS CFR but I did not know if Reagan was hostile to the CFR or not.

The story goes that Reagan was told to either accept Bush or kiss his chances of Prezzy bye bye.
The story continues (again, this is just one of many tales I heard told) that Bush's team had equal emnity for Reagan, and that the whole Hinckley business was a failed assassination attempt by Team GHW Bush.

One thing's for sure, Reagan definitely was not the same after the shooting. I don't mean physically, I mean mentally.
He was a changed man after his first hundred days.
I'll never forget the one time I saw him preparing for a speech in the early days of the big back yard sat dishes.
The networks just ran unencrypted raw feeds a lot of the time in the runup to press conferences.

I was tuned in and the podium was empty, and crew were scurrying about adjusting camera angles, diddling with the audio, etc.
Finally SS led Reagan to the lectern, and he just stood there, behaving like he was in some sort of daze.
He looked physically slumped and tired, and he stared vacantly up at the ceiling, and he even began picking his nose for a few moments, then back to the empty vacant staring.
I swear to you it was like he didn't know where he was.

Then suddenly we hear "Ten seconds Mister President!" from a member of the crew...and it was as if a switch got flicked on.
Reagan suddenly seemed to "inflate", almost like the inflatable "autopilot" in the movie "Airplane!"

Only FASTER!
President Ronald Reagan seemed to "click on". His eyes brightened and he took on an erect posture.
And then, THE ACTOR "did his lines".

Watching him go suddenly from a deflated befuddled and dumbstruck old man picking his nose to an erect professional actor delivering his lines with slick polish was perhaps one of the more frightening things I've ever witnessed on TV and it was the first time I began to truly wonder if all presidents are just "actors" who get handled and told what to say and do.

I certainly became a lot more skeptical of Reagan's accolades.
It was the day I finally realized that HE really WAS just an actor.
And the real president was perhaps George H.W. Bush, a professional whose entire family had practiced statecraft for better or worse, for decades.

Click to expand...

Reagan/Ford, the dream team. Geographical balance ticket, west coast/midwest. Ford could provide tons of Washington experience something Reagan lacked. In the end, Ford wanted a co-presidency, something Reagan turned down. Then he turned to G.H.W. Bush who had finished second in the 1980 Republican Primaries. The idea was to have a united Republican Party. What better way to unite the party than make you main challenger your VP?

JFK had done this with LBJ back in 1960. From the books I read, I would say Reagan was fully in charge for his whole first time. He did delegate, he tell someone this is what I want, he left it to that someone to do it. How, Reagan didn't care and never inquired. I do think his Alzheimer begin to show during his second term. Especially his last year.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

You probably had to be tuned in...I wish I could remember the exact date and nature of Reagan's appearance.
It didn't look or feel like Reagan was "preparing to get into the zone" but YES, I DO understand what you're getting at anyway.

To me, it was more like Reagan possessed the ability to just flick it on and off like a switch.
No meditation, no prep, no gazing into the Heavens in Deakins-like introspection, just CLICK and he was ON.

Click to expand...

*L* Actors are a different kind of person... you would be too if you made your living pretending to be other people. Politics is just show business for ugly people.

Cordelier said:

It's the same quality 1st Sgt. Welsh (Sean Penn's character) in The Thin Red Line had. I want to say "empathy", but it's more than that. I don't even think there's a word in the English language for it. It's the ability to care about your people, but not too much, if that makes sense. I do know that every NCO who's worth a damn has it - you need to care about your people more than yourself, but you also need to be able to send them to their deaths. Willingly. That's an awful lot of suspension of disbelief.

Click to expand...

You may have it on it. Yes, it more than empathy and more than charisma. Reagan and Bill Clinton had charisma up the ying yang. They had a believably about them. You're right, I don't think there is any one word in the English language that could describe it.

Perotista said:

Reagan/Ford, the dream team. Geographical balance ticket, west coast/midwest. Ford could provide tons of Washington experience something Reagan lacked. In the end, Ford wanted a co-presidency, something Reagan turned down. Then he turned to G.H.W. Bush who had finished second in the 1980 Republican Primaries. The idea was to have a united Republican Party. What better way to unite the party than make you main challenger your VP?

JFK had done this with LBJ back in 1960. From the books I read, I would say Reagan was fully in charge for his whole first time. He did delegate, he tell someone this is what I want, he left it to that someone to do it. How, Reagan didn't care and never inquired. I do think his Alzheimer begin to show during his second term. Especially his last year.

Click to expand...

The thing about Reagan, though, was the loyalty he inspired.... most of his inner circle would walk through fire for him. I don't think that would have been the case if he was truly the "empty vessel" he's sometimes made out to be. Same thing goes for George W. Bush (although not to the same extent).

Perotista said:

You may have it on it. Yes, it more than empathy and more than charisma. Reagan and Bill Clinton had charisma up the ying yang. They had a believably about them. You're right, I don't think there is any one word in the English language that could describe it.

Click to expand...

Not for nothing, Perotista... but don't you think it's about time we had ourselves a grizzled former Platoon Daddy become President? I'd love to see one of these kids coming back from Afghanistan or Iraq who served a 10-year hitch and then rode the GI Bill to a degree take a run for the job one of these days.