Disclosure of Presidential Health
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/22/04 - 12:00 Post subject:
| Sahara wrote: |
I think that the prez is obliged to provide cliff notes. Personally, the types of statements I would find perfectly acceptable are (not a comprehensive list)...
"I'm overall healthy"
"I have a serious medical condition that will be treated"
"I have a medical condition that is immediately life threatening"
If it is a condition that would cause intellectual incapacity, I'd want to know what it is. Otherwise the precise medical condition doesn't concern me that much once the person is already in office. That's just me. |
Thanks for clarifying. I think I agree with the cliff notes part especially.
| Quote: | | I think that the non-obligatory nature of candidates is moot. It's good marketing to disclose that information but should not be a requirement. You know how it goes, if a candidate doesn't supply this info they would/do get crucified by the opponent and/or media. |
True, and I think that's why I lean toward disagreement on the non-obligatory issue. For that reason.....if a candidate doesn't disclose, someone's going to dig it up anyway and then they look like they're trying to hide something, which the spin doctors and hysterics on the "other side" will blow out of proportion. But also, my concern is, just using a hypothetical Kerry for example: if John Kerry had a life threatening medical condition or even one serious enough that it could, under certain conditions, render him incapacitated, I would definitely want to take that into consideration as part of my decision to vote for him or not. With Clinton, he could have had the heart stuff that caused the bypass cooking for years, which he likely did, but he wasn't in imminent danger of being unable to fulfill his duties when he was elected. Anything that changes after they are in office, I guess we and they just have to deal with. But my gut feeling is that I'd want to know if the guy I am putting my faith in had something that he knew would make him unable to do his job.
Does any of that make sense? I think I just confused myself....
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 12:04 Post subject:
Genie, i completely agree with that. For example, if Cheney had not been open about his heart history (and had been running for pres, not veep), and it came out later that he had this troubled history, that would be a big strike against him. We typically don't vote because of who the veep is and at that point we'd have to consider if the running mate is someone we'd want in office.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 12:08 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | Genie, i completely agree with that. For example, if Cheney had not been open about his heart history (and had been running for pres, not veep), and it came out later that he had this troubled history, that would be a big strike against him. We typically don't vote because of who the veep is and at that point we'd have to consider if the running mate is someone we'd want in office. |
I think that's what I had in mind using the Kerry hypothetical. I know a lot of people don't like Bush, but from what I've read from his opponents, they like Cheney less. If Bush had been the one with the heart condition, and not disclosed it, I think that would have made a big difference, whereas if people knew there was a good chance that because Bush was ill, Cheney would eventually become Prez, it could have swayed the vote against them from the get-go. Had that been the case I mean.
We probably should consider the VP more than we do, as a voting body, I mean, but I guess a lot of people never consider what would happen if there was another JFK, you know?
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 12:24 Post subject:
Cheney brings us back to FDR. When he made his last run in 1944, his heart was failing rapidly. His doctors had concerns whether he could survive the campaign. While there are few photos, and only one brief film footage of him in braces, some people knew about FDR's polio. The press did not report on it as a favor to him (and wartime considerations as well - being presented to the world as an invalid would not have done much for the morale of the Allies). Nobody knew of his weak ticker, save those in the immediately family. And, as it turns out, his heart gave out less than three months after his inaugurtation.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 12:35 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
We probably should consider the VP more than we do, as a voting body, I mean, but I guess a lot of people never consider what would happen if there was another JFK, you know? |
We should, but that's tough. What happens if you really like your candidate and he is very popular, but the VP candidate isn't so impressive. You think your candidate will do a fantastic job and hope like hell that nothing happens to him.
But something does. A JFK or an FDR, and he is succeeded by the VP.
I think i'd have a hard time not voting for a candidate i really liked because i'm worried about the possibility that the VP may become POTUS.
Besides unless the VP once ran for POTUS, we never really get to find out what his (or her) views are. The VP has to (or should) support the platform of the POTUS.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 12:48 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: |
We should, but that's tough. What happens if you really like your candidate and he is very popular, but the VP candidate isn't so impressive. You think your candidate will do a fantastic job and hope like hell that nothing happens to him.
But something does. A JFK or an FDR, and he is succeeded by the VP.
I think i'd have a hard time not voting for a candidate i really liked because i'm worried about the possibility that the VP may become POTUS.
Besides unless the VP once ran for POTUS, we never really get to find out what his (or her) views are. The VP has to (or should) support the platform of the POTUS. |
You make a good point there. Where does the paranoia end? I would hope that they worked as a team and if the VP did become POTUS that he wouldn't do an abrupt about face and follow his own agenda, or become more of a political puppet for his party than the President might be suspected to be, that type of thing. I guess I was thinking of that because I like John Edwards but I can't stand John Kerry. I'm not sure about Cheney. I kinda like him more than Bush, a gut feeling mostly, I don't have a lot of plausible data as to why.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 12:56 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
You make a good point there. Where does the paranoia end? I would hope that they worked as a team and if the VP did become POTUS that he wouldn't do an abrupt about face and follow his own agenda, or become more of a political puppet for his party than the President might be suspected to be, that type of thing. I guess I was thinking of that because I like John Edwards but I can't stand John Kerry. I'm not sure about Cheney. I kinda like him more than Bush, a gut feeling mostly, I don't have a lot of plausible data as to why. |
I would hope that the President chooses a VP that has a similar political agenda and not just because the VP can help deliver Florida.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 16:18 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
Where does the paranoia end? |
It will end when these people quit following me around.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 16:24 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
It will end when these people quit following me around. |
Whatever you do.....
Don't.go.to.sleep 
|
|
|
|
|
thegman
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 3088
Location: 12 yards out.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 23:59 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
Reagan's Alzheimer's should have been disclosed.
|
He wasn't diagnosed with Alzheimer's until he was out of office.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/24/04 - 12:12 Post subject:
| thegman wrote: |
He wasn't diagnosed with Alzheimer's until he was out of office. |
That's true, but I think it's fair to say there were indications of it while he was still in office.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
