Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Fewer ducks than estimates indicate.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                           

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

Security Briefings for Likely Presidential Candidates

 Get the other possible winner in the loop
 
(0) 		  [vote for,
against]

Let's face it, in 6 months, we may, or may not, have a new president. Certainly, we are down to 2 candidates, and each of them will recieve around 50 million votes each.

At this point, it would be prudent to start giving both candidates equal security briefings. As an added bonus, perhaps once a week these two candidates should be briefed in THE SAME ROOM, so the public doesn't have to see their ugly mugs out on the campaign trail as often.

—Madai, Jul 12 2004

CIA Briefings of Presidential Candidates http://www.gwu.edu/...al%20Candidates.htm
Much history on the topic. Started by Truman. [waugsqueke, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]

[link]






       I understand it has long been practice to brief presidents elect on security, etc.
—DrCurry, Jul 12 2004
   

       Yes, the president ELECT, i.e., he's already been elected. I am thinking that in these times, it would be wise to start the briefings before the candidate is even elected. It's not like John Kerry's going to be a security risk.
—Madai, Jul 12 2004
   

       In the UK the leader of the opposition is given security briefings, but he is generally an established parliamentary figure once he has become the leader of the second largest party. Knowing MPs, numbered in their hundreds, is easier than knowing the far larger number of American political and business elite whom could mount a credible presidental election bid.   

       Besides too regular briefings could be a poison challice to an opposition candidate as he could be too easily accused of leaking secure information, even when these claims are groundless.
—Aristotle, Jul 12 2004
   

       Far larger numbers? I'm only talking about 2 people tops, once every four years.   

       In America the last time we had a "credible presidential election" bid from a third party candidate was a LONG time ago. Perot didn't carry a a single state, nor Nader. Strom Thurmond won states, but not nearly enough.   

       Indeed, the only third party candidate worth briefing this last century would have been Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.
—Madai, Jul 12 2004
   

       Yes, at the end of the selection process for the two main political parties there are generally only two credible American presidental candidates, but at the start the net can be cast far wider than just the established members of a single legislative body.
—Aristotle, Jul 12 2004
   

       That's why I'm thinking the briefings should start right around July of the election year. That's half a year to keep a candidate up to speed for, and by then, the field of likely winners is much smaller.
—Madai, Jul 12 2004
   

       Invention or advocacy?
—bristolz, Jul 12 2004
   

       I thought the advocacy MFD was intended to curtail ideas already suggested and widely discussed outside the HB. This idea arguably extends an existing institution in a novel way. But it's highly specific to current US politics, which decidedly limits its broader appeal. Let the croissants decide it, I would think.
—DrCurry, Jul 12 2004
   

       I would say invention, although it is coming dangerously close to having been baked in some countries, including the UK.
—Aristotle, Jul 12 2004
   

       //i.e., he's already been elected//
It is perhaps worth noting that the U.S. national elections occur roughly 11 weeks before the new president takes office. Isn't that enough time to brief the heck out of the electee?
—krelnik, Jul 12 2004
   

       I want to know what they tell them about the Roswell Incident
—theircompetitor, Jul 12 2004
   

       Probably baked.The current President will already be up to speed, and the possible newcomer will no doubt be brought up to speed on any security issues.By they way,what would be the subject of these briefings?The candidates own security or that of the country?Certain issues of the country's security policies could not be discussed until a person had actually been elected president.
—python, Jul 12 2004
   

       I believe this is done to a certain degree. I'll try to find some evidence for it.
—waugsqueke, Jul 12 2004
   

       You can't just start telling candidates stuff like "if he's the VP we'll have US troops in the streets of Tel Aviv in 3 years" and not come across as influencing the campaign or eventual outcome of the year-end election. Bone.
—dpsyplc, Jul 12 2004
   

       What country are we talking about?
—gnomethang, Jul 12 2004
   

       Why, Peru of course.   

       As I thought, this is quite baked - evidence found, see link. Truman started the practice.   

       "Harry Truman entered the Oval Office in April 1945 almost wholly ignorant of intelligence matters. His determination that no future president should take office as uninformed as he had been is partly responsible for the intelligence briefing offered to all presidential candidates since 1952."
—waugsqueke, Jul 12 2004
   

       I just heard on the news that Kerry was in fact offered a briefing on the recent Ridge statement.
—theircompetitor, Jul 12 2004
   

       Hahahaha. You almost had me there.
—jutta, Jul 13 2004
   

       My sides are hurting......please stop.....
—normzone, Jul 13 2004
   

       Congratulations all around for keeping faces straight this long. Would there be some way to have the incumbent attend these briefings?
—Fussass, Jul 14 2004
   
      
[annotate]
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle