A Quote by David Brooks

I think the presidency is a bad way to measure the effective campaign finance, because in the presidency, there is so much publicity, there's so much money floating around. — © David Brooks
I think the presidency is a bad way to measure the effective campaign finance, because in the presidency, there is so much publicity, there's so much money floating around.
If I could get an honest answer, I would ask Trump. "How much money would you want in order to leave the presidency?" Because I think he would have a number, strangely enough. Then we'd know how much to launch the Kickstarter for.
I am very glad as well that it is a presidency built on a campaign that emphasized ideas. I hope it will be a presidency that will enable everybody to be part of and proud of.
The only way to tyrantproof the presidency is not to elect tyrants to the presidency.
I think people are exaggerating the fears of a Donald Trump presidency because they're coming off a campaign where they're very disappointed.
The presidency of the United States is a very unique elected position. So if anything merits a longer vetting process, the presidency does to some extent. In general our election cycles are too long, but this job is so consequential that I don't think it's a bad thing to give people more time to get to know you.
There is the apocalyptic influence in the Trumpean presidency: The world is destroyed in order to be purified and renewed in the ideal way that is projected by a Steve Bannon. And there is a sense of that when Trump says we'll make America great again, because he says it's been destroyed, he will remake it. So there is an apocalyptic suggestion, but I don't think it's at the very heart of his presidency.
The problem with every American candidate regarding the presidency, I am not talking only about this campaign or elections, but generally, that they say something during the campaign and they do the opposite after the campaign.
We have a country to turn around. This week you will nominate the most experienced executive to seek the presidency in 60 years in Mitt Romney. He has no illusions about what makes America great, and he doesn't confuse the presidency with celebrity, or loftiness with leadership.
There is no basis to say I'm being coy about running for president. If I chose to explore the presidency, I wouldn't do it in a backward way. I'll say, 'I'm exploring the presidency.'
We didn't make much progress on the country's agenda. And in my view it's because the Senate basically hadn't done much of anything, with a couple of exceptions, for the last four years [of Barack Obama's presidency]. And that's going to change.
The thing about looking back over Clinton's presidency, and probably anybody's presidency, is that when you look back, the events all line up in a way that makes sense. At the time, you don't know where it's going.
I think Trump's presidency represents a completely different model than what we're used to. And I think to your point, yes, he is a great communicator, you know? He uses Twitter to great effect. I just wish he could stick more to the truth, because it's a very effective way of communicating directly with the American people.
I think the presidency is much too serious a thing to just play politics with.
Eventually, Nixon ran a very centrist presidency, not a Goldwater conservative presidency.
To me, the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency were not prizes to be won, but a duty to be done.
Technology has had more of an impact on the presidency and how the presidency communicates than anything.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!