I have never worked for Newmont because I am not their “preferred type”. They get a quizzical look on their face when I am in the room talking to them, like “Where are her keepers?” I based my assessment of this highly-generalized and terribly stereo-typed character based on guys I worked with who went over to them and found a happy home there. Those “preferred type” of guys I worked with had nice hair-cuts and didn’t do very much core logging or mapping or drafting sections. They liked to write reports. I am not saying everyone at Newmont is like that, but the guys I knew who went there are like that. And no, they would not like to work with me for reasons known to other people (like my huzbun) who keep that to themselves so I don’t get all hurt and self conscious… I do all right and I stay out of those offices for the most part (unless the office is in a really remote region of the world and I am there to teach some kind of software to guys who have bones in their nose – I am the perfect candidate for that kind of corporate representation….)

Ummm, anyone remember mining in here? Huh? The MINING industry?? That’s OK, we are here to provide the forum, the electricity, the infrastructure, the platform and the ambiance whether or not anyone realizes where all the comes from…

Like Mark, I’m disturbed by the amount of money spent on campaigns. I have a very simple solution for campaign finance reform: ban radio and TV advertising for both candidates and ballot issues. That is where nearly all the millions of dollars go in a campaign. The ads are virtually always deceptive (for various reasons, among which it is nearly impossible to address any significnt issue in 30 seconds), and therefore have no value in assisting voters to choose a candidate.

I heartily agree with Dave on almost all points. I too love your writing, remember the killer rabbit and the weak president, and I agree that Reagan was a very strong president. When he died I told my three young blessings that his changes to the tax code and free enterprise were responsible for much of the economic worth of our great country and his view of America’s defense and role in the world brought freedom to millions.

As much as I like Iacocca as a business leader I would like him even better if he had not asked for and received a federal bailout for Chrysler. The coming bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can be traced to previous bad ideas such as that. While we are on the Government Sponsored Entities, can’t we all agree to the pending legislation (blocked by Reid and Pelosi) which would prohibit these entities from bribing (I mean lobbying and contributing to) Congress?

Iacocca is right that Bush should have immediately landed in D.C. and I think he should have walked the length of the Washington Mall while the cameras rolled. Regarding his slam on faith, like most of our leaders, Iacocca has no understanding of, or respect for, people of faith which I resent.

I am happy to resolve Mark’s dilemma and volunteer to be the National Director of Personnel. The caliber of the candidates would improve because I would exclude people who started running for president as soon as anyone heard of them, everyone connected with a well known political machine and those with no serious job experience. I would also exclude everyone that does not have a plan for what they want to accomplish. Trust me, that criteria would exclude people on both sides.

I agree with Mark that you should interview each of the acceptable candidates for hours on live TV and that we need rational regular people (which naturally excludes judges and politicians) to redraw all of the election districts so that everyone in a district actually live in the same general area. I would add that we need actual debates. I had more heated and productive debates with classmates in high school than we require for testing the future leader of the free world!

Where are your hard core liberal friends? I don’t see comments from any of them so to get the ball rolling I want to propose that they read “Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works.” by Newt Gingrich. I have not always liked or agreed with Gingrich but I found a great deal of ideas in his book that I agreed with. Anyone with a comparable liberal book with new ideas is welcome to suggest it.

Oh, I have ideas for a personnel director and I’m certainly not giving in to entropy, despite Newton’s law. But out of the 120 million people who actually bother to vote, there are likely a few conflicting ideas on qualifications for mega personnel director, just as there are for president, congress, mayor, sheriff and dog catcher.

Sure, I would love to see more candidates that inspire me. I would love to see a rational redistricting plan (what is meant by “rational” is also the subject of much debate) for the election of representatives. I’d love to see a thoughtful solution for making voting more accessible and more encouraging to those who don’t vote. I’m disturbed by the amount of money spent on campaigning. I’m not hung up on who to hire for mega personnel director, but I don’t get to choose.

It’s an imperfect process that we have to choose a leader, but it seems to me that the more restrictive the effort to control the selection of who can run for office, the more we invite the prospect of tyranny. I would rather spend my efforts on giving support to candidates I like, to writing congress on issues important to me and on supporting policy organizations that I believe are worthwhile.

Now, “evenhanded” is my way to weasel out of stating my own opinion about our past presidents. Wikipedia has an entry on the historical ranking of presidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents). It’s mildly interesting reading. Perhaps someone should look at the consensus of the top 10 and bottom 10 presidents, determine how they got elected and make recommendations for changes in our election process to give us a better shot at selecting a top 10 versus a bottom 10. Do you think it would help?

I appreciate your contribution and respectfully offer this response. If you get hung up on who to hire for Mega-Personnel Director, then you are already giving in to the viscous slime of entropy that keeps our masses at home inert in front of their HD televisions sets.

All it takes to have a good idea is to unplug for a while, say, two hours. Go outside. Watch the sky for weather changes and think about things like alternative energy, Lee Iacocca, taxes, 12B-muckers, China, and little animals. That’s what I do.

The process will reveal itself. Be receptive. Remember your thoughts and go home to make dinner. The next day, act. Do something in a forward motion based on your insight the day before. That momentum is how inspiration becomes doctrine. And that is how we will lead ourselves to a better state of managing our country.

Now, what does “evenhanded” mean? Is that something Cool Hand Luke inspired? Is that like Even-keeled? Because that is very Libra…

“Help, help, I’m being repressed!” Thanks, Dave, for the MP flashback.

Michele, I agree that our method of electing presidents proves frustrating, but I can’t see a better way. I like the corporate analogy of submitting resumes to the personnel director, but we hit the first bump there — who picks the occupant of that position? Ultimately, the act of deciding the criteria of acceptable candidates would be subject to the same influences of persuasion and charisma that we have now — in short, a personality contest. I also believe that the game resets to zero once the person is in office. The job of president is so huge that it significantly shapes even the most massive of egos that hold the position.

All that said, I do agree that we can improve the process by which we select and elect candidates. I’d like to start by having all presidential hopefuls interviewed by you, Michele. Not only would it provide entertainment, but it would ensure that the slate of candidates tends toward a warped sense of humor — and that would do more for the country than any other process improvement.

Being maddeningly evenhanded, I don’t have a list of terrible political opinions for our recent presidents. This disqualifies me as either a politician or pundit. I’m fine with that. I’ll simply remain in the party I’m in, The Cheerful Pessimists.

You couldn’t vote for me becasue I cry when people get mad at me. You want a president who cries when people get mad at them? It would look so ridiculous even the Canadians would start to get testy with us. That and I need a lot of personal time to myself. I don’t even like my dogs to pressure me for a walk.

Mark Stuhmer | July

I love the way you write, and I heartily agree with your premise. I’ve often said that anyone who wants to be President should be automatically disqualified. I have my own theory about why the process is so messed up: the skill sets required to conduct a campaign and to govern justly seem to be mutually exclusive.

I must register a few of my own counter-terrible political opinions:

1. I do indeed remember the Carter-rabbit incident. He had the incredibly bad luck of being in office when “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” came out. By the way, this is one of the top five movies of all time, in my opinion.
2. Though many attempts have been made to besmirch the good name of George Washington, none of them have stood up to true historical scrutiny. Unfortunately, people remember the accusations, not the fact that they turned out not to be true. In my book, George Washington was one of the greatest men of his or any era.
3. I have a close friend, whom I would trust with my very life, who served as Military Assistant to the President under Ronald Reagan. This is the guy in uniform whom you always see with the President, the guy who carries the “football.” According to this man, Ronald Reagan was one of the sanest men to ever occupy the White House. A lot of people in politics have [at least] two personas - the one that they think will make everyone like them, and the one they use to get their way once in office. Ronald Reagan had one and only one persona. He was the same
person to everyone. He knew the names of the children and grandchildren of all the Secret Service people, and always asked about their welfare. Remember when he was first elected, and all the “experts” said he would blow up the world? Just for the record, it never happened. By the way, your point about the threats still being there is dead on, but seems to be forgotten by most.
4. Clinton was not crucified because he had a sex drive, but because he was a compulsive liar.

Anyway, I wish your process was already in place, because if it were, I’d probably be voting for YOU come November!