I'd be interested in the opinions of members off this forum on the basic question of Presidential qualification.
I was watching the Huckster on Leno tonight (plays a mean bass, btw). It was good to get a chance to see him for more than thirty seconds in front of a Christmas tree. I was glad to see him stick up for the fair tax, which is a big issue for me. But I didn't buy his tapdance on the "Now you see it, now you won't" anti-Romney ad. I'm watching this stuff with my youngest daughter, who votes for the first time next year. I have been trying to get her informed for the time when she has to pick a candidate (and, to a lesser extent, a party). The discussions we have been having for the past year or so on the subject have me thinking. As Huckabee is running (intentionally or not) as the ABM candidate (Anybody But Morm-, er, Mitt) I have a little trouble being objective about him. But he seemed like a typical politician. He's likeable enough and presents well on TV (an all-important trait these days). He is, like Romney, Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, a former governor. That's a good thing. I think an Executive office in one's background is a better qualification for the Presidency than a legislative one. So to my question:
What qualifies a person to be President?
All other things being equal, would you rather see a former Governor or a former Senator? How about a person with NO political office, but a history of business success in his/her past?
Should a Commander-in-Chief have previous military experience? Would Reserve Component experience be sufficient, or would you rather see a former full-time soldier? Would a war hero be more likely to get your vote than someone else?
What sort of education (in terms of field of study) would the POTUS need? Should s/he have studied law, political science, business, or would an English major do? Is a bachelor's degree sufficient, or should someone have a Master's or higher? How about someone who had only High School? Could you vote for an otherwise intelligent person who had not finished High School?
Should there be a minumum amount of time spent in public service prior to running for President? Can a person who has been Senator for one term run? How about a person who has been Mayor of a major city for several terms?
Do they need a special background investigation? Could we vote for someone who has a police record? What about someone who has had an affair or a divorce? If they used drugs recreationally in the past, or if they are a recovering alcoholic, can they still run?
I realize that many of these questions have a "it depends" sort of answer, but again I am saying "all other things being equal." What I am looking for is your idea of a well-qualified candidate - regardless of political views.
IMO, a Presidential candidate should be educated in law, or at least have a good working knowledge of the subject. Ours is a nation of law, and a failure to understand how the Constitution works and how law is applied is a major shortcoming to me. It is like trying to be a computer tech without studying electronics. Sure, an intelligent person can still get some things right, but eventually they would be over their head. Similarly, someone without AT LEAST a bachelor's degree (preferably higher) has no business in the Oval Office. I would consider a previous Governor better than a previous legislator, simply because an Executive has experience working with legislative bodies, making deals and negotiating with the opposition. Being a Congressman or Senator is not a bad qualification, but it does not have quite the direct correlation that a governorship does. I would not vote for a person who had no prior elected office. The romantic idea of someone "fresh" stepping into the most powerful position in the world is a pipedream. It would be like asking a champion race car driver to pilot a 747. In a pinch, I might hand over the cockpit to someone who had only flown a Cessna before, but never someone who has no experience in the air, even if they were great on the track. I would prefer someone with at least a little military experience. Leading men in battle, or showing great courage under fire would influence me favorably. Just as law is at the core of our government, the ability to wisely use military force and forces is central to the office of the POTUS. It would not necessarily have to be as an officer, or even as a full-time combat soldier. But at least some reserve time would be, I think, an essential element of experience. Finally, I do not expect my leaders to be perfect, but I do expect them to be of decent character. I would have a problem with someone who had a history of infidelity, moral weakness or a criminal record. Of course, much of that would depend on the circumstances, and one incident of drug experimentation or a DUI arrest in youth wouldn't throw me too much. Even a criminal conviction could be acceptable in some cases. Martin Luther King Jr. had jail time, but I wouldn't hold it against him. In fact, it would be a selling point under such circumstances.
Again, I am not saying that all of these qualifications are required to get my vote, just that this is how my ideal candidate would look. Any opinions?
Pooch,
I think you ask the question that, when it comes down to it, most parents and some teachers want answers for the youth in any generation.
Reagan--an actor and governor
Ike-military and married in a time when fidelity size fits most
Roosevelt - FD- inventor of programs that brought those on knees to standing ovations
Teddy R- can we thank him for the State Parks?
Lincoln- now THERE was a leader in a time of turmoil
oops going a bit backwards....
let's see....
Nixon- bad timing for a soul who wanted to win even when he had already won the game.....crooked as the day is short.
Ford- religious values, could probably play "pick up sticks" reeeally well
Clinton-- a pig, an addict, a slimeball....but there are those who say he did a pretty good job.
Bush- gotta love his willingness to call a war won when chaplins are walking up steps to knock on doors with bad news!
Being adept at swimming with sharks is the only qualifying element I would require of today's politician.
The world at large is a stake holder this time around, imo...more so than ever! We need our kudos back.
So, if the individual is dumber than dirt, or sexier than trash, or able to leap through a war before it starts........
Look at those who have had successes in teh job in the past. ooops....subjective thinking, as in more ways than one, they ALL have had successes...and failures, depending on the circumstances of the day.
Of course, education has to be there, but intelligence is not easily assessed.
Battle scars have only helped Eisenhower.
I would think that we need to start asking the question...how can we all help the system succeed after a leader has been selected.
Will it eventually take a village to raise a nation?
Who knows......now the new question of the day is, what would a president have to have in order to pick up pieces from the broken jars of the past administration. Bush is Bush. He's done a good job in some ways. He has taken a leap into the world with a heart of gold. I really do believe that.
HE's not smart......arrogant at worst.
But, he's a leader in our world today.
Perhaps a woman CAN make a difference. I would rather see someone like Rice in the job.