In your opinion would it ever be possible to have a Presidential candidate who is loved by a majority of both political parties at the same time? If so how and why? If not why not?

It Depends. The biggest question is majority of the overall ruling party, or majority of the politicians of each half of the party?

If there were some sort of catastrophe worse than 9/11 and the President not only handled it well, but unexpectedly well by some unexpected (but neither nefarious nor suspicisous) means that enhanced people's respect for him/her, then (s)he might garner considerable support of the rank-and-file of both halves. Overall, very unlikely. If this were to come to pass for a Republican, the Dem leadership would do everything in their power to undermine him/her and play down the accomplishment, and visible or not, their hatred and jealousy would be off the charts. If this were to come to pass for a Democrat, the Republican leadership would behave somewhat better since they don't have character assassination down to an art like the Dems, but I doubt their behavior would be anything to write home about.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

This is a question that interests me, TP.

It is interesting, I think, that past leaders do not seem to be viewed through the same partisan scope as contemporary leaders. This is especially so in the United States, I believe. It seems to me a lot of Americans (and non-Americans) would be fond of many of the past Presidents, and it seems their party affiliation does not matter so much in retrospect. Of course, in their own time, the divide might have been on a par with present politics.

It seems to me there is room for a great deal of reforms in the governance of democratic nations such as ours.

In terms of your specific question, I have been thinking for some times along the line that the leader of a nation should stand above party politics, which would mean that he or she should not be affiliated to a party. This does not mean that he or she would necessarily be loved by all. I’m just thinking that it might be an option for electing leaders that can more broadly represent the American public as a whole, and be more able to muster support from both parties on key issues of national importance. I say the US because that’s what your Op question addresses, but I think the same in terms of Australian and other democratic nations.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

I don't believe it would be possible.

Sometimes, just listing a name with a particular letter after it is sufficient to rile the hand-wringing hate-mongers in each party...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Arguably, Senator McCain came awfully close to achieving this back in 2000. Reagan's first election also drew upon strong support from Democrats. Likewise with Clinton's victories - both dependent upon support from Republicans.

But I think the primary system pretty much functions to prevent this kind of candidate from getting to the general.

Suffice it to say that a 'so-called bipartisan' candidate is not in the interests of either established party.

Well, I think Reagan and Clinton came pretty close. The Democrats allowed themselves to like Reagan while Clinton was admired in private by many moderate Republicans who weren't really allowed to say so. I think that's why Clinton's post presidency has turned him into a rock star; the personal indiscretions fade when people consider that the 90's are where many people would like to be again.

I think it's more difficult in these times. I'm accused of America bashing all the time, and I'm really harsh these days, but it's not out of nowhere. It isn't false partisan outrage. I feel the American government these last 7 years has really let down the people, but at the same time, we live in an age of instant gratification where people allow themselves to be hoodwinked by their leaders. If a politician came along who really touched a nerve on a prescient issue, both sides might rally around that candidate, if only on that one particular issue. I would have to say that maybe Ron Paul or even Barack Obama are the two current possibilities from either party. Ron Paul is dangerous to his party elites right now for his purely traditional Republican stance on the war and foreign policy. When he gets going and you look at the other candidates, even though they deride him afterwards, when they're listening to him they look like they're learning a thing or two: he forces them to think.

And Obama, although lagging in the polls right now, as much higher favorables than Hillary Clinton; people just like him. They project a lot of hope and change for the future when they see his face.

President Kennedy comes to mind...

I doubt it would be possible. There are too many who marginalize based on the letter D or R after a name.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Is it possible? It's already happened.

Truman had an approval rating of over 85% which means the majority of repubs and dems loved how he was doing at that point in time. It just happened to co-incide with the last war we won... WWII.

Even Bush had almost the whole country behind him for a brief time.... but that's not the way his terms will end.

But I can see it happening again. It may even happen with the next president. What it will take is sudden great times for the country as a whole. Things can go north as quickly as they've gone south.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

Because a president cannot be the protector of the USA and also be willing to surrender it to a foreign nation.

It is a complete contradiction.

One side (Conservatives)wants the USA to remain independent and safe, while the other (Liberals) wants to squabble over which foreign country we should surrender to.

__________________

Absolutely not, I think that the majority of politicians today are only interested in the aquisition and maintaining of their power. In fact, I was thinking along your line the other day and asked myself, "Is there any issue that the two sides agree on". I cannot think of any.

Too much as stake for these politicians....if one side is for something, the other side will come out on the other side without thinking.

__________________

Kennedy was most beloved after his death.
The Life magazine cover story scheduled to run the last week in November 1963 was "Kennedy could Lose", the GOP had succeeded in eroding enough support by criticizing his every move that his re-election in 1964 was questionable.
The story was replaced by the assassination story and never ran.

But in 1964, Johnson took 44 states, as Barry Goldwater, the GOP candidate was a hard core conservative who alienated many in the Republican party, and Johnson was seen as Kennedy's heir, and got a huge amount of legislation passed that Kennedy was unable to.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I don't think it's possible, not any more anyway. The divides are too great and too angry to do that. I figure if Jesus Christ himself were elected president, the opposing party would find some way to trash the guy regardless of what he did.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

The surest way of which I know to identify a G.O.P. candidate to be avoided at any cost is one that either has the admiration of the left or doesn't instill enough fear in their political operatives.

This rules out McCain and Huckabee as far as I am concerned.

Similarly, you lefties better hope that HRC doesn't get the nod cuz the G.O.P. could run Nixon's corpse against her in the general election and emerge victorious.

Lest we forget the net result of Goldwater's efforts, long term, was the success of modern (read: Reagan) conservatism.

Yes, as the old joke goes...the Democrats would see Jesus walk on water and put out a press release stating, only, "Christ Cannot Swim".

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

Maybe the closest was Dwight Eisenhower, he could have run in either party, and secured the nomination.
It would take a really popular guy who wasn't a politician, and was so popular that he didn't have to toe the party line, and could run as a leader, without getting into the political dogma.
That's either a military leader, who wins a string of brilliant victories (none currently available), or a business leader whose success transcends party bickering (Michael Bloomberg in his own mind).

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address