Do you think John Stewart/Colbert could run this country?
 

Obviously it would never happen. But given the chance, do you think they could be good leaders?

It's obviously the reason the movie "Man of the Year" was made, but the whole sideplot with the voting system made it so they didn't have to show what his policies would have been. I mean you would have a leader free from any monitary obligations to any parties. There would be no corruption and we could finally have a charismatic leader. Maybe thats enough to make up for the complete lack of political experience?

Any thoughts?

How would they be free from monitary obligations? In order for them to run they would need money from somewhere. It may not come from the 2 big parties but you can be it would come from somewhere. How would their be no corruption?

I doubt they could run the country successfully, but then again what president in my lifetime hasn't made monumental mistakes? Could they do better than Bush? Obviously. Could they do better than Clinton? Maybe. Could they do better than Reagen and Bush 1? Probably.

Man of the Year wasn't that bad, but it made clear the implications of having someone go from entertainer to work leader (not unlike the Reagen administration).

I mean in terms of Bush's ties to the Oil Industry. They definitely wouldn't have too many friends in places that typically have had a hand in political decision making in the past (Big Tobacco, etc). They would be free to do what was moral/ethical, instead of what your investor wanted.

If they did, they would have to make fun of themselves.

Yeah, I think they'd do a decent job. The fact is that "experience in politics" is not actually something you want in your leaders. Sure, you want diplomacy but never politics.

Anyone can lead a country. Thats why the president has armies of counselors, study groups, intelligence agencies, research agencies, etc. The president doesn't need to know much of anything. He just needs to be an honest, reasonable person with a good cultural background. So a lack of political experience is a complete non-issue when it comes to leading (getting elected is, of course, another story).

We don't know much about Stewart or Colbert as men. We know them as figures, characters and whatnot, so its a bit difficult to judge how well they would actually do for their people. However, based on the persona they choose to portray, I think they'd do a very good job. Stewart seems like a very reasonable and open-minded guy.

PS: I'm not saying that extensive preparation in economics, religious, sociological or in any other academic area wouldn't help out. I'm just saying its not a requisite and they don't necessarily make a good leader.

They know what it takes, I'm just not sure they have the will to do so.

Stewart or Colbert? God no... BUT the deeper question of a president from completly outside the machine? Sure. Would actully be ideal but its called a machine for a reason. Will never happen..

CptA, currently being IN the government myself I can say you couldn't be more wrong in my opinion.

Now I'm not saying the president needs to be involved intimately with every lobbyist out there, but a President not having any political experience would be like putting a homeless man in charge of an ER. There is WAY too much riding on a president that we would want to hand it to someone with no experience.

Seaver you say you're in the government, in what way?

And I disagree with you on an outside being able to run "the machine" . CptAJ is right, no matter who is our leader, they would have an army of advisors and experts backing them to ensure they made they had all the right information to make their decision. An outsider coupled with the information monster behind them and I'd say you have an incredibly effective government. maybe its not that simple but we've already seen the best canidates 'the machine' could come up with, and they're all worthless carbon copies in my opinion. To take a quote from man of the year, whats wrong with a presidential canidate that could "shake things up a bit"

If I were elected, I'd hire on Host, Roachboy, Pan, Elphaba, and a dozen other TFP members, along with a few of my favorite professors to be my advisors. (I'd also ask Giant Hamburger to be our ambassador to the Netherlands.) Why? I trust them not only to be smart, but to call me on my bullshit. I can become a bit of an obsessed crusader and have a Christ complex, which would lead me to concentrate too much on one problem and possibly ignore others. A good president can take everything in at once and make a thousand good decisions before lunch.

I'm fairly certain that Stewart or Colbert would also be smart enough not to bring yes men with them. Bush was not smart enough to avoid that trap, and he'll probably be judged harshly by history.

probably.......

I'm a legislative aid in the Texas Legislature. Basically I do everything from legislative research, constituent liaison(ing?), clerical duties, scheduling, etc. etc. etc.

The reason my experience is that average-joe can't do it is because I'm pretty certain average-joe is an idiot. For example, I just answered my 25th call in 2 months from people saying they want their State Representative to vote our troops out of Iraq.

As for an intelligent off-the-streets guy, very few people know the procedures and respects that are involved in government. Most of the Representatives which are currently elected worked themselves as aids, they know other Reps from when they worked in similar offices, and they know intimately many of the issues because they dealt with the research on them earlier on. For example, the Rep. whom I work for was a legislative aid, and did the research for the current Trans-Texas Corridor which is currently being voted on. This massive building project has been in planning since the late '80s, and many of the Reps. currently have done the research themselves and know first-hand more knowledge of the project than many self-proclaimed experts.