Author Topic: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?  (Read 5836 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« on: January 03, 2008, 04:55:10 AM »
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?
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2008, 07:31:30 AM »
Constitution of the United States, Article 2, Section 1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Those are the only qualifications called for in the Constitution. All else is personal preference.

"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2008, 07:54:28 AM »
<<What qualifies a person to be President?>>

Harry Truman once said something to the effect that it was just a job and that any number of competent executives could do it.  (sorry, I don't have the exact quote)

However, I have to respectfully disagree with HST.  IMHO, the following qualifications are absolute necessities for a President today:
6.  Folksy, down-to-earth manner;
5.  Excellent dentist;
4.  Great team of writers;
3.  Dozens of billionaire backers
2. approval of the Zionist Lobby; and of course, No. 1 . . .
1.  Great hair.

Although, strictly speaking, the approval of the National Security community isn't necessary to get oneself elected, it IS necessary to keep one from getting assassinated while in office.

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2008, 10:40:35 AM »
Constitution of the United States, Article 2, Section 1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Those are the only qualifications called for in the Constitution. All else is personal preference.

Yes, I realize that.  But I was talking about personal preference.  In other words, if you were a Human Resources type screening applicants, what would you look for?  I mean, I meet the requirements spelled out in Art II, but nobody would vote for me. Of course, political stance and personal charisma are going to be important to most voters, but I'm just talking about what a person may have done or not done to prepare themselves for the Presidency (irrespective of the politics).
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2008, 10:42:22 AM »
1.  Great hair.

Guess that leaves Rudy out . . .

Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2008, 12:03:43 PM »
Rudy is dead in the water.  But only us cognoscenti will ever know the real reason why.

The_Professor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2008, 12:17:01 PM »
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 am honestly surprised at you!

I watched Letterman chiefly becuase he has come back with WGA writers, fully negotiated. Leno and Co. coming back with our writers is basically a scab action. Personally, I fully support the WGA since they have gotten the shaft for many yeyars now while the fat cat producers and directors get rich. Over the past few years, I find my Repuiblican leanings are less and less as I see management act more and more selfish, etc. Perhaps in a decade or so, at this rate of evolution anywat, I will consistently vote Democratic, ya never know.

As a famous writer recently said:
"> > As to this coming labor action, when you go into the store next and
> > buy a DVD and a book, look at the two of them and know that the author
> > of the book gets a full twelve to fifteen percent of the price...and
> > the author of the DVD gets, *at most* four cents per DVD, and most of
> > the time literally and absolutely *nothing* for it...and ask yourself,
> > "Why the difference?"
http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-17692

***************************
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide."
                                 -- Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2008, 12:21:18 PM »
Some of our most effective Presidents have been trained in the Law and I agree that this is an advantage , I don't think it is crucial. A President can have a staff of lawyers, including specialists ,in the offices down the hall.

The crucial quality of a president is inspiration ,for himself and for the people he leads.

Any other quality can be hired and or deligated.

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2008, 12:29:53 PM »
Quote
...but nobody would vote for me.

I probably would. You have honesty, intelligence and common sense. For the rest, you get advisors.

Quote
As to this coming labor action, when you go into the store next and buy a DVD and a book, look at the two of them and know that the author of the book gets a full twelve to fifteen percent of the price...and the author of the DVD gets, *at most* four cents per DVD, and most of the time literally and absolutely *nothing* for it...and ask yourself, "Why the difference?"

One was smart enough to sign a better contract.

Umm, probably on his own, and without a union.
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2008, 12:59:03 PM »
Quote
As to this coming labor action, when you go into the store next and buy a DVD and a book, look at the two of them and know that the author of the book gets a full twelve to fifteen percent of the price...and the author of the DVD gets, *at most* four cents per DVD, and most of the time literally and absolutely *nothing* for it...and ask yourself, "Why the difference?"

One was smart enough to sign a better contract.

Umm, probably on his own, and without a union.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unions have very little to do with this. The media executives do not give a rat's ass for the creative people who make the products they sell. There is a much greater degree of respect between the publishers and the authors. The only way that the TV and movie writers are going to get anything from DVD's and internet based broadcast is by banding together, and the only way to do this is by forming a union.

What media execs want is everything is "work for hire" They pay you once and sell your work thousands of times. The money they pay you does not even come from the customers, but from sponsors.

They have little but contempt for us, the viewing public, either. That is why they are feeding is more and more asshole quiz show and reality show crap.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2008, 01:21:59 PM »
Last time I looked, no one was telling them they couldn't strike out on their own and try writing books. They choose the job they are doing. They can cry and whine and piss and moan all they want, but their choice basically remains to either do something else, or stay where they are and try to change the system. If it was so unfair, why did they take the jobs to begin with?
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2008, 01:41:40 PM »
Quote
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?

I don't think it matters between a Senator and a Governor. One will have executive experience whereas one will have experience dealing with the United States Congress, both of those could prove very useful as POTUS. It is important to remember that different states run very differently and Governor's are not the same across the board. At the same token there are numerous styles of Senators - for example, an Alaskan Senator lives on pork projects as Alaska is a huge recipient of federal dollars in ratio with tax revenue received from that state - so that would lend an Alaskan Senators candidacy to be much different than say a Minnesota Senator.

I'd be very wary of the succesful businessman routine. I'd be afraid of the corporatist policies that might entail especially concerning labor laws, unions, and the environment.

Quote
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?

No to all. Trotsky led the Red Army against the White Russians, backed by the United States, Britain, and Imperial Japan when he had no military experience and he was able to defeat them. Of course that is an obscure example and no president will personally lead the troops. I'd want any president to realise his limitations regardless of his military background.

Quote
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?

A President needs to be educated and intelligent, but not necessarily have degrees to prove it. He or she needs to understand the world and have worldly knowledge. The individual needs to understand the world beyond the United States and the narrow perception of most Americans.   

Quote
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?

I don't think a minimum time is necessary, but preferable. A mayor is not top on my list, but I certainly wouldn't rule out such a candidate off hand. Yes, a one-term Senator could run and I would certainly look at him or her.

Quote
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 have no problem with someone who has used drugs or alcohol in the past. Same with an affair or divorce.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8008
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2008, 02:12:05 PM »
I believe no one person can do it.
the very reason we have a 4 year terms.
if by some reason we didn`t like george`s performance .
we`ll wait and get somebody else
no one president does it completely right.
and it`ll always be a work in progress.
but my preference would be very unpopular
I`d want a truely reformed ex-con as president.
somebody who know enough to never truely trust people to get the job done ,but with enough sense to make those decisions anyway.
as a civil servant I`ve seen way too many people say this or that should happen,but just freeze up and only complain.
with an ex-con at least he`ll be more likely to spot something stupid.
I`ve seen alot of bonehead decisions by regular politians.
ex. open a auditing dept with zero man hours and expect it to incure 2 million dollars in fines.
for some reason the zero manhours is still not understood .
response is still " make it work"



Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2008, 08:43:53 PM »
   Speaking on Mitt..... "I have a little trouble being objective about him."

Pooch,
Why do you have a little trouble being objective about him?


Is this evidence that religion can not really hide from under the skirt of politics?

I find the statement to be a bit off mark for someone who is politically savvy, Poochie.

Do you have strong feelings about his politics?

Just a curious pup. Cyn


Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: What qualifies a person to be President of the United States?
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2008, 09:18:26 PM »
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.



« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 09:21:51 PM by Cynthia »