WL>Yes, Mike, and I think some political experience at these
WL>levels -- and even the state and local governments -- is
WL>important for anyone who aspires to the highest national
WL>offices.  I just don't want politicians who "homestead" in
WL>one office for decades at a time, or anyone who spends an
WL>entire working life as a politician.
 
        I agree withthat sentiment.  Those who have spent decades in
political office very much tend to lose track to what it's like out
here in the real world.  Career politicians are experts at compromise,
they have to be to be what they are, but they are generally totally
ineffectual at digging in their heels over a principle and taking a
tough stand.  The moment the polls slump they sway ends like a horse
trying to run on ice and start peddeling the other way. 
WL>In all honesty, Ike was a politician-of-sorts when he was
WL>in the Army; it goes with every position of power, including
WL>in business, and is a good way for aspiring "real"
WL>politicians to learn how to get things done without ruffling
WL>feathers unnecessarily.  (I'm not opposed to ruffling
WL>feathers when it _is_ necessary.)  Same goes for the other
WL>names you mentioned, although Powell is probably the most
WL>accomplished at it.  
 
        True, but military leaders also have to demonstrate leadership
and use reason in their judgements.  Legislators only have to be good
at making people believe they are doing something.  If a General fails
to perform the results become obvious.  
WL>Incumbent Senators have a built-in advantage, since their
WL>six-year terms sometimes allow them to run for the
WL>presidency without having to simultaneously defend their
WL>current office.  Governors who are elected in "off" years
WL>also have this advantage -- Clinton in 1992, for instance.
WL>This makes it extra-tough for outsiders to get anywhere,
WL>since even an unsuccessful presidential candidate will
WL>usually retain all his/her popularity back home and will,
WL>in fact, often enjoy an increase in popularity.  
 
      Senators though, with the exception of JFK, haven't really been
that sucessful getting elected president on their own.  FDR wasn't a
Senator when he was elected.  Truman came via the Vice-Presidency.
Eisenhower, of course, was a former military leader.  JFK was a Senator
when elected.  LBJ was a senator, but came via the Vice-Presidency.
Nixon was an ex-senator, but many years removed.  Ford came via
appointment to the Oval Office, but was formerly a representative.
Carter was a former governor as was Reagan.  Bush was a career
bureaucrat that came via the Vice-Presidency, and Clinton was a
governor.  
      Actually senators running for the Presidency direct from the
Senate have been pretty unsucessful even when nominated.  Stevenson,
Goldwater, McGovern, and Dole, among others, all failed to win the
presidency, and by notably negative margins.  
      The Senate appears to be more of an inside track tot he
Vice-Presidency than the presidency but even then, former
Vice-Presidents such as Nixon(1960), Humphery, Mondale, and Ford all
failed to win when they tried to move up a notch. 
      Governors seem to have a much better track record overall as far
as getting both nominations and getting elected president.  Nixon,
Carter, Reagan, and Clinton all came this route in recent times.  My
money then, for 2000, would have to lie on at least one Governor
getting a nomination and lean towards a Governor actually being
elected.
      Since former VP's tend to fade in general elections, except Bush
as an exception in his first run, I would suspect a strong Republican
governor would be the strongest contender for the presidency in 2000
and, if Gore is nominated, which itself is beginning to appear
unlikely, would probably win.  Of the Governor's currently with their
hats in the ring, or at least close to it, I really think Bush is, by
far, the most likely to be the next president.
 
      Then again, last time around, I had put my money on Gramm at this
point.  Shows how little I know.
WL>Perhaps in such a case he'd be willing to take the VP slot.
WL>After all, Bush's dad did exactly that and it worked out
WL>pretty well for him.  The Vice-President's job has become
WL>much more important over the past twenty years or so, and
WL>a wise leader always wants an intelligent, capable
WL>second-in-command.  Wonder how Bush and Forbes would get
WL>along?
 
    The personalities are definately different.  It would be
unquestionably an "odd couple" relationship.  Then still, so was the
Reagan-Bush relationship.
     I really can't see Bush Jr. taking a back seat like Bush Sr. did.
Bush Sr. was a former representative who spent a great deal of his life
working in various bureaucratic roles for other administrations.  He
made a good VP because he was accustomed to being in the back seat.
     Bush Jr. is a different cat.  Only party name and family name tie
the two together.  Bush Jr. took the governorship from a sitting
governor in Texas that was well known and popular.  He kicked Ann
Richard's behind.  His father failed in both attempts, dismally, to win
the governorship.  As Governor Bush has been active, agressive, and
outspoken.  He's just not VP material in my opinion just as he couldn't
be a Senator or a representative.  His personality and style is fitted
for a governorship or a presidency.   He's not the back seat type.
WL>He isn't a polished speechmaker or ad-libber...but maybe
WL>that isn't such a bad thing.  I seem to recall reading
WL>somewhere that Abe Lincoln wasn't much of a public speaker
WL>early in his political career.  The country, myself
WL>included, pays too much attention to what people say (and
WL>how they say it) rather than what they actually do (or
WL>intend to do).  
 
      You are right about what ought to be, unfortunately, it ain't.
Those running for office impress people by their speech and public
impression.  After the Dole campaign I would think Republicans would be
accutely aware of this.  Dole, before a public audience, was smoked by
Slick Willie and it hurt him.  Perot was definately hurt by his VP
choice the first time around as well. 
       It's not appealing to me, but without backing into the
presidency, the ticket is going to have to have people with that
personal appeal if it's going to be a serious run for the presidency.
Otherwise, like last time around, I get the feeling we are just going
through the motions with no expectation of winning from the start.
WL>How about that -- I agreed with you before I realized you
WL>had already expressed the same thought!  I hadn't
WL>considered the regional-balance angle, though.
 
     I think it's still a factor, though not as big as it once was. 
Gore is from Tennessee and Clinton from Arkansas.  That's not exactly a
regionally balanced ticket for much beyond the Mississippi Valley
Siding Salesman Association.  
WL>Good point, worth bearing in mind.  Clinton, especially,
WL>surprised me...but maybe that's because I live in the
WL>state next-door to him, and never saw anything about his
WL>governance that made me give him a second thought.
 
         Texas is next door too and I really didn't consider hiom a
serious contender.  Think back to 1992 though.  Was it really a year
the Democrats actually planned to win?   Bush was riding a high tide
after Desert Storm and during the primary season looked unbeatable.
Major contenders balked at entering the primaries and Clintons biggest
opponent was Mr. Moonbeam, Jerry Brown of California.
         I really believe Clinton's nomination was a "throw down" must
as Dole's was last time.  With incumbent presidents riding a tide of
high popularity, the Democrats nominated Clinton because he was
"exp[endable", not expecting him to win against Bush.  Dole's
nomination was a retirement party for an aging patriarch. Election, as
with Clinton, was neven considered very likely.
 
                 continue later....
 
                                                  /\/\ike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------