Is there anything wrong with a Presidential candidate campaigning with his cabinet?

[ThePresence]

This is all hypothetical obviously.
Is there anything wrong or undemocratic with a candidate stating, for example: "I don't feel a President has to know everything about everything, I feel that a president has to manage a great team around him who knows their stuff". And he says who he would name for each cabinet position and they campaign with him. Can that work?

 

[DerekP]

I would go for it. When you get that high up in power, the most important choice you have to make is who to put in charge of what part of the government. And that has been Bush's monumental mistake (well, one of...), that being cronyism. It's important to have someone that understands that you can't just know every detail about a system this big. But you had better be able to trust the people underneath you to run their pieces of it.

On the flip side, it could be dangerous politically, as that gives attackers a whole rack of people to find dirt on, all of which will stick to you and your team.

 

[dahunan]

I don't think the president or anyone CURRENTLY being paid with taxpayer dollars should be allowed to stump for anyone...

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I don't think the president or anyone CURRENTLY being paid with taxpayer dollars should be allowed to stump for anyone...

I don't mean a sitting president.
I mean a presidential candidate.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dahunan
I don't think the president or anyone CURRENTLY being paid with taxpayer dollars should be allowed to stump for anyone...

I don't mean a sitting president.
I mean a presidential candidate.

I think it would make the candidate weaker.. because if one person he chose had some undiscovered dirty laundry/skeletons then it take the whole team down

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
This is all hypothetical obviously.
Is there anything wrong or undemocratic with a candidate stating, for example: "I don't feel a President has to know everything about everything, I feel that a president has to manage a great team around him who knows their stuff". And he says who he would name for each cabinet position and they campaign with him. Can that work?

I think the problem is I would question the competency of someone that knew very little about a particular topic.

People say stuff like 'know everything about everything' or 'progress has been less rapid than expected' or 'things haven't been perfect' all the time. But those are truthiness excuses for inadequacy.

What they are really saying 'I know very little about most things' or 'progress has been slow to nonexistent' or 'things have often been downright bad.'

It would certainly be 'interesting' to see the type of people a prospective President considers competent to perform Cabinet duties. But as such people received closer scrutiny, they would invariably create no less than three problems: 1) highlight the deficiencies in the Presidential candidate's CV, 2) draw attention away from the broad agenda/personality traits that lead people to vote for someone, and 3) create confusion as to who is actually running for President.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dahunan
I don't think the president or anyone CURRENTLY being paid with taxpayer dollars should be allowed to stump for anyone...

I don't mean a sitting president.
I mean a presidential candidate.

I think it would make the candidate weaker.. because if one person he chose had some undiscovered dirty laundry/skeletons then it take the whole team down

Sure, that's possible, but the flip side can make him much stronger.
He can have people with him who are great at their respective jobs but weak at the others, and still be very strong as a team.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DerekP

On the flip side, it could be dangerous politically, as that gives attackers a whole rack of people to find dirt on, all of which will stick to you and your team.

Yeah, agree with teh above.


Also agree with OP that it might be a good idea to campaign with a "team". However, as a practical matter I don't think it could be at the primary level. It would just be complicated. I doubt manner potential cabinet level polititions would want to tie their fortunes to someone who hadn't even won a primary.

It would also be just too much work at this time, all those potential cabinet members would have to be vetted, have background checks etc.

So, hypothetically interesting/OK, but just not practical.

Fern

 

[CycloWizard]

I think the biggest problem in US politics is exemplified in this thread. Everyone (or most at least) agrees that this is how people SHOULD campaign for the presidency. Let us know up front who will be in charge of what so we know where you're coming from and what you stand for. The funny (and sad) thing is that everyone seems to realize that this is how it should be. Instead, we toss this aside because we are so used to the games of dirty politics rather than worrying about the issues. See the second quote in my sig.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I think the biggest problem in US politics is exemplified in this thread. Everyone (or most at least) agrees that this is how people SHOULD campaign for the presidency. Let us know up front who will be in charge of what so we know where you're coming from and what you stand for. The funny (and sad) thing is that everyone seems to realize that this is how it should be. Instead, we toss this aside because we are so used to the games of dirty politics rather than worrying about the issues. See the second quote in my sig.

So what recourse will the people have when more than a few 'future' Cabinet members decide they want a different position? What if they totally disavow and say it was just the equivalent of a 'political' contribution for their favored candidate?

It would quickly become just another way of misleading the public . . . just not quite the magnitude of an actual lie . . . say like Bush43 on mercury or carbon dioxide. Anybody remember, 'returning honor and dignity to the White House'?

It's a worthless concept b/c it has no more value than anything else the candidate 'promises'.

Most pols come with some kind of track record. Everybody with a clue knew Bush would come with a PNAC crowd (largely Bush41 retreads), Texans, and extractive industry supporters.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

It would be interesting to see what team they were planning on installing into office if they won. I think it would tell us more about the candidates than they really would want us to know.

In other words, ain't going to happen. Too many dangers involved for the candidate. Hell, look what happened to Pelosi after taking office. She made all these promises to put certain people in power and had to back down and she wasn't even worried about reelection.

Can you imagine the political hay that would be raised if one of the candidates so presumed they would win that they were willing to put forward their team ahead of time?

 

[1EZduzit]

You vote for the ticket, Pres and VP.

In the case of a sitting president, you know who your getting and the challangers have all their political options open as to who they decide to appoint to their cabinet.

In short, if you run on a ticket with good old "so and so" as the Sec of Def, then how do you fire him if he mucks it up??

 

[DerekP]

Well, maybe it doesn't have to be specific people that a candidate names, but they could outline what their criteria will be for selection. At this point, I'd be happy with a statement to not appoint people with tight Big Industry connections to oversee the Interior... or Arabian Horse Association managers to oversee FEMA.

 

[Craig234]

They do this, occassionally. Similarly, Bush made a big point of how he was being 'taught foreign policy' by people like Henry Kissinger (a reason not to vote for him IMO).

One reason not to do it is that people typically don't commit to positions that early; what if the candidate doesn't win? It's be ok for some, but not for others.

And it also ties the president's hands for things that change by the transition. For example, wasn't John Ashcorft's losing the Senate race a factor in his appointment?

What we need instead is better exposure of the things such as Bush telling the Neocons he'd give them anything they want to get an endorsement.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So what recourse will the people have when more than a few 'future' Cabinet members decide they want a different position? What if they totally disavow and say it was just the equivalent of a 'political' contribution for their favored candidate?

It would quickly become just another way of misleading the public . . . just not quite the magnitude of an actual lie . . . say like Bush43 on mercury or carbon dioxide. Anybody remember, 'returning honor and dignity to the White House'?

It's a worthless concept b/c it has no more value than anything else the candidate 'promises'.

Most pols come with some kind of track record. Everybody with a clue knew Bush would come with a PNAC crowd (largely Bush41 retreads), Texans, and extractive industry supporters.

The worst-case scenario you describe is essentially what we have now, which implies that if we implemented this system, things would be equal to or better than the current system.

 

[ThePresence]

I was not suggesting this as an idea to fix the system.
I just think a guy would have a good chance of winning an election if he did this.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So what recourse will the people have when more than a few 'future' Cabinet members decide they want a different position? What if they totally disavow and say it was just the equivalent of a 'political' contribution for their favored candidate?

It would quickly become just another way of misleading the public . . . just not quite the magnitude of an actual lie . . . say like Bush43 on mercury or carbon dioxide. Anybody remember, 'returning honor and dignity to the White House'?

It's a worthless concept b/c it has no more value than anything else the candidate 'promises'.

Most pols come with some kind of track record. Everybody with a clue knew Bush would come with a PNAC crowd (largely Bush41 retreads), Texans, and extractive industry supporters.

The worst-case scenario you describe is essentially what we have now, which implies that if we implemented this system, things would be equal to or better than the current system.

That's not how logic works. You don't know worst case scenario until you see ALL the scenarios. Regardless, a QUALITY candidate will select QUALITY people to work in their administration. Bush quality candidates are just as likely to parade around a Colin Powell and take none of their advice as they are to SAY they would select people like Colin Powell . . . and then take none of their advice.

Dick Cheney looked like a reasonable guy during debates . . . then we got the Sith Lord. Bush clearly wasn't the brightest bulb in the room but could we really predict he would FUBAR nearly everything?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
That's not how logic works.

Yes, it is actually. If presidential candidate A makes campaign promises {y}, then breaks all {y}. This is, virtually by definition, the worst-case scenario of any elected government since the government is not doing anything that got them elected.

As a corollary, A proposes cabinet members {x}. The combination of A's promises and {x} together make {y}. If the president proposes {y} and breaks {y}, then he has also broken {x}. Thus, the second case is simply a special case of the first and reduces to the first if A breaks all {y}. If, instead, only some of {x} are broken, then we are better off than we would have been otherwise.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Dick Cheney looked like a reasonable guy during debates . . . then we got the Sith Lord. Bush clearly wasn't the brightest bulb in the room but could we really predict he would FUBAR nearly everything?

Short answer..... YES and YES!!

 

[ProfJohn]

I think the candidates do campaign with future cabinet members, they just say who is going to hold what position.
But normally the campaign manager becomes the chief of staff or so and then the others on the campaign fall into various roles.
Then they add a few governors and other people and you have a cabinet.

 

[piasabird]

I don't think the president or anyone CURRENTLY being paid with taxpayer dollars should be allowed to stump for anyone...

Does this mean Kerry should have resigned before he ran for president?

Does this mean Hillary Clinton should resign to run for president?