[Morthoron]

My, so much to reply to!

Originally Posted by Mansun

Saruman was a power deriving freak, not a capable politician. If you used his policies, you are looking at another Hitler situation. Therefore, the thread question asks if Gandalf is the best candidate to take the top job in politics on grounds of ability alone, not by who is obssessed by politics. Gandalf was a far more astitute policy maker and governor of the free people.

You ignored the context of my post, utterly failing to see what I was getting at. Your opening statement in your first post was:

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gandalf is the ultimate politician in the LOTR.

I disagreed, claiming Saruman was far more politically savvy than Gandalf, particularly from a Machiavellian point of view. That Gandalf was on the winning side does not denote that he was more accomplished politically. Gandalf was treated with mistrust in the Shire, and he certainly didn't win any points in his interactions with Denethor. Saruman and Gandalf's mission was an agenda set forth by the Valar. Gandalf chose to stick with his mission (which was apolitical on a personal level), while Saruman chose a political route to personal power.

You seem to ignore the facts regarding Saruman and his abilities, labelling him as a 'freak' (which was unnecessary) rather than acknowledging that he was revered and respected as a leader for thousands of years in the 3rd Age. That he was, in the meantime, trying to get the Ring and betray the White Council, outwitting Gandalf, poisoning Theoden, having the Gondorions gladly hand him the keys to Orthanc, deluding the Dunlenders, double-crossing Sauron and taking control of the Shire (which could be chapters right out of Machiavelli's The Prince), were all part of a political process to power (selfish and evil , certainly, but savvy nonetheless).

Your second and third statements in your opening post:

Originally Posted by Mansun

Would you vote for him as a President? Did he have the all round capabilities to govern a nation such as the US?

I answered quite simply and to the point (excuse me for quoting myself):

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Gandalf neither sought personal aggrandizement nor office for himself. He was not interested in taking down roots and he certainly did not seek dominion over others (which is why he forsook the use of the Ring). His role was to make or restore leaders, not become one, and when his task was finished he left for good (something no politician in history, not even the good ones, has done). If chosen, he would not run; if elected, he would not serve. He was a missionary or ambassador of the Valar, not a politician by definition.

Gandalf was not a politician. Gandalf did not seek power. Gandalf would not be a king or president or rajah or prime minister. Again, he was a missionary for the Valar, and public office would be anathema to him as that would be a personal goal and not part of his mission; therefore, he did not have the capabilities necessary to run a government. It would be just as silly to claim, as Durelin humorously intimated, that Tom Bombadil would be a great president; neither Gandalf nor Bombadil were interested in wielding such power, and certainly would decline the offer. Therefore, the premise does not work. You might as well have said Jesus would be a good president -- it would be equally unfounded, given that it was not Jesus's mission to claim earthly power (render unto Caesar and all that).

Originally Posted by Mansun

In my book, anyone who abandons the forces of Good for orcs is weak and is a freak.

Your attempts at character judgement have nothing to do with political ability. Stalin was very politically astute, and I don't believe anyone would put a white cowboy hat on his head. He held off Hitler with a cynical alliance until his own forces were up to speed, and that breathing space certainly saved Russia from defeat when they finally went to war against Germany. Then, just as cynically, Stalin joined "The Good Guys", won the war against Germany, and then proceeded to grab half of Europe for himself. Goodness is relative in politics (as you can see, Stalin was both a bad guy and a good guy, depending on the political situation).

Originally Posted by Mansun

I agree with the above, except the highlighted bit. Using any means necessary in politics leads to extremism and tensions within a state. I prefer perception, not deception. as fundamental in politics.

Again, your statement is relative, and is not necessarily consistent with political fact. For instance, Abraham Lincoln, who many consider the greatest U.S. president, precipitated the most costly war in U.S. history with 620,000 dead soldiers (not to mention uncounted civilian deaths). He is still hated in many southern states to this day. Certainly in hindsight one would say he did the right thing; however, at the time he was villified almost as roundly in the north as he was in the south.

In WWII FDR, Churchill and even the Pope were aware for years that the Jews were being annihilated by the Germans, but nothing was done by the allies because it did not fit into their battle plans. There was neither an outcry, nor protest. Does this then make them accomplices with the Nazis? FDR sanctioned putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps (many were U.S. born citizens); yet surprisingly, no Italian-Americans or German-Americans were treated in the same manner. Do you not find that despicable?

Is extremism from whom you consider "good guys" okay, while it is wrong in those you consider "bad guys"?

Originally Posted by Mansun

As the chief in all matters concerned with the Ring, and as Steward of Middle Earth, Gandalf the White ultimately was in charge of governing Middle Earth as a whole in the war against Sauron.

No, there was never a point where Tolkien referred to Gandalf as "Steward of Middle-earth", and he certainly was not "in charge of governing Middle-earth as a whole" ever. You seem to ignore Aragorn, Theoden, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn, Thranduil, Dain and Brand.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Now, don't get me wrong... I think Gandalf is, when pressed into it, an excellent leader, but as far his actual examples of leadership go, they are very much limited to advisory capacities or else to ad hoc inspiring.

Formendacil understands Gandalf's concept of leadership. It is not to govern or lead in a political sense, it is as a mentor to kings and a missionary from the Valar. As I stated previously, when Gandalf's mission was completed, he left, and no politician in the history of the world quit when he was at the pinnacle of power.

So, no, Gandalf would not be a good president, because he would never be a president.