Wanted: Experienced executive to directly manage continental scale organization with very significant global assets ranging from law enforcement to scientific research to organizational defense. Executive must demonstrate competence in all of the following areas: Faithfully abide by and execute the organization’s laws; hire and when needed fire department managers; manage and grow organization’s standing against competitors worldwide, some of which foster longstanding policies of intent to destroy our organization; calibrate economic policy to foster growth in industry not directly controlled by organization; defend organization from all enemies, foreign and domestic; calibrate needs of the economy with stewardship of the environment; manage international relationships, which range from client states to strong allies to neutrals to mortal enemies, and some who pretend to be one but may actually be another; manage domestic relationships with members of executive’s allied club while tending to relationship with executive’s club’s opposite; communicate to the organization’s owners, of which there are approximately 307 million, in a manner that fosters optimism, pride, and belief in the organization’s long-term health and stability. And other duties as assigned, and as they arise, which often happens at 3 am and other inconvenient times not of the executive’s choosing. Hours: 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Location: While the executive will reside at quarters furnished by the organization in our capital, the responsibilities of the job will travel with the successful applicant for as long as he or she remains in the job. Salary: $400,000 annually, with a generous benefits and retirement package.
So, who wants the job? Or more importantly, who is qualified for it?
Let’s review a few resumes from a slate of applicants currently seeking the job.
Applicant One: Logical and organized, founder and former executive of investment capital group that boasted a 70% success rate. Stepped into crisis at Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002 and turned what appeared to be a sure disaster into a great success. Governed 14th most populous state, with decidedly mixed results: Raised taxes, which tends to harm the economy, and instituted a health care program that mandates individuals purchase insurance. Program was intended to lower health insurance costs, but has not achieved that goal as costs have continued to increase. Program also infringes on individual liberties, a violation of one of the applicant’s primary duties. Appointed questionable figures to positions of power. Strong communication skills, no matter which side of a question he happens to weigh in on strongly at the moment.
Based on the above, applicant is Qualified. But will bear monitoring if placed in the job, as he may take the organization in unexpected directions.
Applicant Two: Currently elected to Congress. Has two points on executive experience, but not of large organizations. Has run successful family medical practice. Has also published low circulation newsletter that he now claims he did not manage closely despite the fact that it was published under his name and he controlled all staffing. That claim may be related to the fact that said newsletter engaged in racist rhetoric and conspiracy theories. High voiced but passionate, and inspires a passionate following. Questionable understanding of organization’s recent history.
Based on the above, applicant is Not Qualified due to lack of experience managing large organizations, and suspect judgement in other areas.
Applicant Three: Former congressman and speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Led his party to capture Congress for the first time in a generation, then led successful effort to balance budget and reform welfare. Has founded and managed several Washington-based think-tanks, some of which proffered policies he now disowns. Served as “historian” to troubled housing lender. Troubled personal life, appears in job interview to be mercurial in temperament.
Based on the above, applicant is Qualified, but will need to be watched carefully in the job. May not play well with others.
Applicant Four: Former two-term governor of medium sized state. Successful business leader. Former ambassador to China. Despite these qualifications, appears more focused on being “cool” and “hip” and insulting the voters than running a campaign focused on his accomplishments and plans. Fair communications skills, but questionable judgement on priorities.
Based on the above, applicant meets the minimum standards of executive experience and is therefore Qualified. But a little odd, and may be applying for the job just to fill up his free time.
Your synopsis above makes it very clear why we need to start to focus and stay focused on records and performance.
yeah…sorta after the fact with Obama..infact, we still don’t know anything about him. But, at the rate we are going, he will be reelected.
Can y’all hear the thud of those jackboots comin’ our way??…
Interesting, but I don’t recall the question of “qualified to be president” ever coming up for democrats. For example, did it ever come up for John Edwards? So until it gets applied evenly, I find the entire concept just another example of media bias. I’m not saying that’s the purpose in this particular author’s article, but I’d just as soon do away with it.
Our political and corporate strategies have become far to centered on “management” while ignoring “leadership”. Contrary to what many of today’s “managers” and hangers on seem to believe, the two are not the same thing.
The brutal fact is, if “qualifications” are the determining factor, there is only one job in the world that is a suitable place to become “qualified” for POTUS, and I for one don’t want the individual currently in that place (or a republican version of him) to win another term.
Good post, thanks! Waiting for the avalanche of Paulistas protesting your assessment.
Your article is completely, utterly wrong!
The last time I checked the federal government isn’t a business, you see, a business exists solely to grow and increase revenue. It’s pretty obvious the government has been “managed” like a business for way too long.
As the CinC of the military, neither is particularly well qualified although at least one has been in it. As the chief guardian of the Constitution, there is simply no way a self proclaimed “progressive” who is “proud of Massachusetts gun laws” (which trample on the 2nd amendment), and also thinks government mandated insurance is a good deal is in no way qualified, except as a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
Your analogy is as weak and pandering as the candidate it’s designed to support.
Sorry,there is nothing in this job posting that describes the organization as a business. And all of the requirements listed would be desirable in any executive position, business or otherwise, although I agree with another commenter that leadership is not stressed enough. The problem is not that government has been managed too much, but that it has been mismanaged by executives and legislators with inadequate resumes.
The only politician of national prominence who is actually qualified for the job is Allen West. If the GOP elites actually want to do what’s best for the country they will camp outside his door on bent knee and beg him to be the nominee.
So, why don’t you get his name added to the list of applicants? By the way, if if and but are candy and nut, we would all have a Merry Christmas. I thought the article, while not being any kind of an endorsement, was a decent synopsis. I enjoyed reading it, although I was a little dismayed by the charitable description of the incumbent.
Allen West?? This is incredible. The man achieved a rank no higher than Lt. Colonel and has no experience in politics or government, or business or law or any institution related to government other than his mid-level career in the Army, and one year – one year – as a freshman congressman. I do approve of his conservative positions and his refreshing candor, and one day he may be qualified for the presidency. I daresay he isn’t running because he is intelligent enough to know he isn’t ready. Please reread this article and pay attention to its contents.
Obama’s election as president does not disprove the argument that a person with 1 year legislative experience is not QUALIFIED to be president. *Qualification* and *ability to win* are two separate things.
The fact that Obama only had one year as senator before declaring proves the point. A person with only several years of legislative experience is simply not QUALIFIED to be president (even if by hook or crook they win the election). They do not have the skills they need to have to do the job well.
Look into why he left the military. It’s leadership and character we need, not pin stripe suits and the ability to tell anyone, anywhere, whatever they want to hear.
If you want to put Obama lite in the WH and pretend you’ve made a difference go for it, self delusion seems to have overtaken the GOP just like the other side.
You know what, your most qualified person is not applying for the job.
Ha!-great angle, from the perspective of the wanted ads.
With the price scale our paper uses this would be an expensive ad. The tax payers would scream…
I’m not a Paulista. I only decided that I liked him about 3 weeks ago.
However, this article does kind of have a stench to it. 80% of the resume description for Ron Paul is on the newsletters. If we’re being honest, we might talk about how Lew Rockwell and Rothbard chose to pander to a questionable crowd in the 80′s. Ron Paul was ‘the’ Austrian/Libertarian political figure at the time and is essentially still. Moreover, the rhetoric is at least as tame as the National Review of the era.
Drat, now I seem to be caught in the mire. The point is that the newsletter business is a matter of how ‘fringe’ Austrian economics libertarianism is. The Rothbard period was a low point. But then again, arguably this brand of policy is in the pure Jeffersonian tradition.
Some people reject that tradition, half of America did when Thomas Jefferson first began it. Wilson and FDR and Teddy Roosevelt did too. But so did George W. Bush and Nixon. Not Calvin Coolidge. Not Harding.
There has to be a President. Otherwise Congress will use the country as it’s personal estate – running the military and agencies for its own purposes – be they corrupt or at least excessively ideological.
There has to be a President so that one man can bear full accountability as the final executor of the power of the Union of the States. The job of the President is not to ‘manage’ anything. The worst job Ron Paul could do is veto lots of stuff, which would require – gasp – 2/3 of Congress to get things approved.
He doesn’t need to get mired in the details of a budget – only demand that it be balanced and not excessive in the light of the welfare of the American people who elected him.
Our country is doomed if we absolutely need competent managers for the government to function properly. Our government shouldn’t be so big that it can’t survive more than a little incompetence. I think any conservative would agree – which brings me back to that stench I noticed.
This newsletter thing is worth paying attention to, it highlights that – at a minimum – Paul has been part of a movement that has been at the fringe. But let me ask – might it be a good idea to someday “end the fed”? If you think ‘yes’ or ‘maybe’ you are part of that fringe, which is actually rapidly becoming mainstream THIS generation, THIS cycle – thanks to 2008.
But, I admit the newsletter might mean more than that. It’s worth a discussion – but does not warrant the incessant name calling and attacks.
This obsession with the newsletter stinks of Alinsky. Harder than much of what the MSM is usually up to.
I know most conservatives have strong personal feelings against Paul because of his foreign policy views, but the attitude of the ‘pajamas’ media (from hot air to PJ media, and all the radio guys, even Beck) is very bizarre.
It’s really weird to hear all the phony enthusiasm from Beck for Santorum – a very inferior candidate.
Frankly, and I personally like Sarah Palin, but Palin is not that experienced either. A couple of bumpy years running a distant and sparsely populated state – proving herself to be behind the curve on a few issues – she doesn’t seem all that ‘qualified’ herself. I would vote for her over Obama (and Newt and Mitt), but she wouldn’t pass your silly test.
And PJ Media has been pouring out the love for Palin. But Paul is rejected very very harshly. It makes me all paranoid – is there a PJournolist?
It’s as if the new right media has fallen into that temptation of the left – because you have power and influence in media, you abandon your objectivity when your core values are threatened.
Hey – opinions are fine – but opinions are worthless unless they are substantiated by facts. When I know that you know better – that’s when you’ve gone too far.
When you have to demonize – and your best argument is “well they started it” – then you are wrong. Reason talked about the newsletters, and others responded Fine. But this sideways implication of racism and kookiness is demagoguery. Conservatives need to come together.
Paul WILL have a lot of delegates, so let’s get used to his ideas and his folks and see what happens. You have every right to ignore the intransigent Paulistas. But I’m not one, I just jumped into the boat.
I am one of the few people I know that actually has never tried Marijuana. They disgust me – that is – most other people I know. But boy am I glad they care about their stupid issue, because they have been the relentless 10% that have brought Paul to center stage.
Nationally televised speech on Austrian economic principles!!! Incredible!!! Personal accountability is the great foundation of both morality and a just society. It’s only possible with freedom. It’s truly a good cause.
But I feel like PJMedia, Hot Air, and many of you commenters are letting us all down. The best attitude for Paul would be “Curious but skeptical”. Unfortunately, politics has become an internet flame war in 2012.
ZSorenson – I too have recently decided that Paul is my primary candidate for very similar reasons. I am very pro-military and I have no problems merging that with his positions. We could certainly use a breather. Maybe that is why the active duty soldiers donate to his campaign more than all the other candidates combined.
I am not a Paulbot, Paultard or any other name our “conservative” friends want to call me. I really am a small central government conservative who believes in state rights and in the general election will have no problem voting for the most conservative candidate who can beat Obama. I will not vote for Paul if he runs as a third party candidate as I do not want to dilute the conservative vote against Obama.
And I really thought the left was the party of name calling and the Republican paryt was the “big house” that could support some differing views as long as it pointed in a small g direction.
All these people at PJM and Hot Air (Conservative sites) saying all these terrible things about Ron Paul! They must be the problem! It can’t possibly be Ron Paul that is the problem!
Paul is a Libertarian running as a Republican. Libertarians have some valid ideas, but they tend to be wacky zealots. Paul comes across as the crazy Uncle, because he IS the crazy Uncle. He is so busy ranting about his particular bogeymen, that one cannot have a rational conversation with him. He just starts saying things that are so inexact or factually incorrect, because he is so desperate to convince us. He often contradicts himself, like in the recent debate when he stated that he does not believe in using absolutes. As Santorum immediately pointed out, the guy uses absolutes all the time. That is what zealots do, use absolutes.
Paul is not 80% right and 20% wrong. He is 80% right and 20% crazy, and THAT is what bothers us. The Ronulans focus only on the things they like about him, and ignore the things that should cause them real concern. It is the same thing the Obama supporters did, ignoring Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright and all the other clues Obama was offering.
Do the writings in Paul’s name matter? Yes. Whether he wrote them himself, or someone else did. It was HIS newsletter, and he had the final responsibility for it, one way or another. It is seriously disturbing stuff. It is just more evidence of his unstable mind, the mind of a zealot. Would YOU have allowed such things to be printed in your name? Would you have issued a retraction, at least?
Instead of Paul simply claiming they were ghostwritten, he should have taken responsibility. He should have said that he did not properly oversee the newsletter and should apologize for the contents. People can accept that. Sure, it would be a knock on his managerial style, but people can be very forgiving.
The newsletter was his. He owns it. He should own it. The scary part is that he doesn’t own up. People are not very forgiving of folks who do not own up to things. The newsletter issue is NOT insignificant. It is a look into his very personal belief system, and it is ugly.
I accept some of what Paul has to say as being valid. That does not mean I must accept ALL he has to say! I reject the really ugly parts, and him with them. One has to look at the good and the bad. Still, should he become the nominee, I will vote for him, and then pray he dies of old age on inauguration day, so his VP can be sworn in.
You say you only started to like him 3 weeks ago? Well, you sound well on your way to be a full-throated Paulbot. You really drank that Kool-Aid.
Isn’t it interesting that we have to talk about what Paul says and not what he accomplished?
Your tone is incredibly condescending. You argument, though, is well reasoned and I do know there are the annoying pot-smoking ‘ronulans’ out there to argue with, so I can overlook the tone.
However, I resent the ‘deep-throated’ comment. I hate vulgar rhetoric like that (I hate how mainstream ‘in-bed’ has become, as if we’ve given up trying to treat life like something other than a giant sexual metaphor).
I’m ‘drinking the kool-aid’ because I’ve spent the last two years reading about Hayek, and Woodrow Wilson, about Wendall Wilkie and the REAL New Deal. I was behind the curve but I’m catching up.
There’s a grand course to history that is unraveling before our eyes. The extent of the economic crisis we face coming up is beyond historic comparison. The Rothbardians were ahead of that curve. While their ideas may have been out of place in the 70′s or 80′s, their contention that we’d inevitably face a reckoning was accurate and that time is about now.
These libertarian – I should say Austrian – thinkers represent a set of ideas that are very resonant with many founding fathers like Jefferson and Tom Paine. America was founded on enlightenment ideals. These ideals did not favor the networks of power in certain areas – Germany of chief notice, whose intellectuals rejected them – and America imported Germany’s post-enlightenment philosophy to found our modern Academic system. We later turned back to Britain, back to empire, and reintegrated ourselves into her global order thanks to JP Morgan and Woodrow Wilson et al. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just influential men with opinions that affected history in a manner that turned America away from its original character.
Libertarianism is much more about turning America back to its roots than creating some radical crazy future. It’s astounding how far from our roots we have strayed. And that’s the key – Jefferson alive today would sound just as crazy as Ron Paul, truthfully.
When people have marginal ideas, they are excluded from the common discourse. The right – considered ‘crazy’ and ‘racist’ and ‘ignorant’ by the left – KNOWS this. This is why PJ Media was founded. Only by bringing the ideas themselves back into the discourse can you make use of them to change the status quo. We are desperately in need of a new status quo.
Forgetting Ron Paul, you surely must believe that the status quo, when compared to America’s founding principles, is what’s crazy and not the other way around?
The newsletters only tell me that Paul has been at the margins for many decades. In 2002, when Alan Greenspan was still our savior, the conservative and non-crazy Rick Santorum kept voting for spending, the status quo, and eventually supported TARP – was he right? Was the crazy uncle warning about the Fed wrong? This is the crucial paradigm shift.
Santorum has a shady record as a lawyer, Romney maybe did unpleasant things as at Bain and was puddy as governor, Newt has moral transgressions and thinks FDR was an amazing president. But with Paul, all I see is a guy who knew things were wrong, said so, and was marginalized. So 30 years ago as THE libertarian politician, he gave his name to a marginal newsletter. And for this reason his ‘unqualified’ as per the article. That’s my complaint. I can definitely get over the other guys’ transgressions personally, I just think Paul is being unfairly marginalized in comparison.
It’s as if he is considered marginal just because he has been marginal. This is a common social behavior. “Why is Paul unelectable?” “Because he is historically marginal”.
The marginality is not a defect of Paul’s, it’s a defect of the status quo. So you are right to recognize the argument that it’s ‘all of you’ and not ‘him’. The economic crisis is the proof.
But, as an old guy who understandably has had to work for years at the margins, who has relied on bad information, weird supporters, and questionable allies – because he wasn’t on board with the status quo – is he a perfect pick for President? No.
However, in our times of crisis, his ideas have been vindicated and I think we do need him.
Mind you, he is a constitutionalist. Congress will continue to make the laws. I doubt Paul will pull troops out of bases without Congress’ consent (but I do support Paul’s position on this, I only mean to say there’s no reason to abjectly fear his Presidency). More than anything else a Paul Presidency will do 3 things:
1) Entrench support for Tea Party ideals in the White House, complementing the Tea Party’s inevitable 2012 victory for Republicans in Congress.
2) Provide Paul with the power to challenge the status quo. That doesn’t mean callously overthrow it in a night. It means audit the Fed. It means hold biased scientists accountable, etc. The status quo won’t be thrown away, but it will be forced to defend itself.
3) Provide a national platform for significant, and crucial ideas, that the left has for so long marginalized.
And fourthly perhaps, restore the proper role of the Presidency. It’s just symbolic, but Paul would only accept a the national mean salary as President. I also think he would encourage Congress to set policy, and stay out of the way like Coolidge. In fact, he’d probably do most of his work as a leader – educating people – rather than as an administrator.
The sheer glory of such a possibility is sort of irresistible. But I did resist it. I bought into the social argument that we must ignored marginal people. I justified it mostly based on Paul’s foreign policy views. 3, maybe 4 weeks now, ago I finally crossed that bridge. I can’t not support Paul anymore. He’s credible in the context of the present.
We shouldn’t stop debating his credentials, but Paul is put in this special box because he is ‘crazy’. In reality, it’s the good things he brings to the table that put him in that special box more than the bad.
ZSorenson:
How can anyone give you any credibility when you misread “full-throated” for “deep-throated” and criticize the writer for his comment YOU misread?
And it wasn’t even a typo!
Agenda much?
In doing my homework on RP, I came across this article, I recommend you read it and check out the links. If Soros has influence on defense cuts, alarm bells should be ringing loudly- please read about the Sustainable Defense Task Force and the people involved.
http://biggovernment.com/tloudon/2012/01/08/blinded-by-the-left-how-marxists-wrote-ron-pauls-defense-cuts-plan/
It’s a truism that no presidential candidate has presidential experience going into the job. However we, the employers, do expect a modicum of executive experience in management, especially in the area of projects, crises, personnel, and budgets. It seems Mr. Obama had none of this going in, but in the case of hiring the wrong candidate, we expect that person, if he has impressed us with his acumen, to be able to quickly learn on the job. Apparently, Mr. Obama can’t do that either.
Time to do what any ongoing successful enterprise (e.g., the United States) would do and let him go in favor of a better qualified candidate. Mark it up to a learning experience.
Too bad the C. in C. position isn’t a commercial position; Obama would have been fired long ago.
He’s no better than the average disgruntled Post Office clerk working the window. He got the job through the same EEO programs.
Who is qualified to be president? In a perfect world, I’d see Sarah Palin as president with Allen West as her Vice President. Could you imagine, just imagine, how they would shake up Washington and the Republican elites? Well, I can dream, can’t I?
That’s the “dream team”. Nice to fantasize about now that we have the “nightmare team” running OUR government now.
Terrific Bryan! Many thanks!
E-mailed one of our major pundits requesting he address the issue of factors to use in assessing our candidates and picking one to vote for. Am personally heavily into related effective experience, conservative bona fides and demonstrable record confirming them. I get the impression the pundit was amused, but he hasn’t touched on it directly. Although, he did get very touchy today on the capitalism discussions that are going on.
This is a great start! All too many (including one of your own) do not seem to be doing sufficient analysis to warrant their decision to hire… you’re definitely onto an important topic.
I got a kick out of that, BP. Nice angle.
Next?
Personal Ads? Heterosexual male seeks…
“Middle aged Hindu professional seeks svelte Blonde, with a penchant for fast sportscars.”
I actually read that once.
I always thought that the People were supposed to be the Leaders.. the President is just supposed to be a ‘by the book’ administrator’
maybe I’m wrong
Like Washington you mean? Yea, you’re pretty much wrong.
I guess Lincoln was an administrator and the Gettysburg Address was merely a memorandum from the administrator in chief.
What?
Yes there is a lot of administering to be done as president, but FDR, as bad as he was, knew enough to understand that there are times when one has to step forward as a leader.
Pearl Harbor led to the Infamy speech.
9/11 led to ‘pretty soon they’ll hear from all of us!’
Not sure I follow you.
“The principles of wealth creation transcend time, people, and place. Governments which deliberately subvert them by denouncing God, smothering faith, destroying freedom, and confiscating wealth have impoverished their people.”
~ U.S. President Ronald Wilson Reagan ~
Huntsman former governor of a ‘medium sized state’ and ‘qualified?’ Utah has less than half the population of the average state, and Huntsman has less than half the integrity and principles of the average candidate. Move on.
I’ve used this example a few times when the issue of “qualifications” for the Presidency come up.
A Candidate For President
Our candidate abandoned formal schooling at age 16, but soon found a critical government patronage job through family connections.
Having made sufficient funds to being investing in land, he quit the job after two years for a vacation in the Bahamas, where it is likely he caught a disease that rendered him impotent.
Returning home, he again took advantage of his connections to secure a militia commission. When war broke the majority of his command and staff assignments ended in disaster, except for one minor independent campaign that included multiple massacres, for which he received sufficient praise to completely overshadow his previous record.
With the return of peace he sought out and married a rich widow, using her wealth to attain a seat in the state legislature, and becoming a noted socialite. He never held or sought any higher office during this time, and seemed quite content to use his wealth and connections for his own satisfaction.
Despite this he was returned to active duty with high rank. His record continued to be spotty, with multiple defeats to his record, before the United States was finally victorious.
Is this person qualified to be President of the United States?
Would you vote for him today, knowing just how bad this record could be twisted?
With the current cast of characters, I have to go with Mitt Romney. Newt seems to place a lot of emphasis on his ability to debate. Balderdash!. Debate should not be a criterion on which a president is judged. Romney is definitely pro-America which we don’t have in our current oval office resider. His wife doesn’t appear to have a chip on her shoulder, always looks nice and doesn’t seem to feel that she has to correct any failings of the American people. She has not been dealt a great hand either but gives life her best shot. The Romney kids have done well and appear to have feelings for their parents. They have had a dog and thought of him as part of the family. The dog probably enjoyed his trip on the roof….just a full body version of riding with his head out the window.
I forgot to mention; i don’t know why anyone would want the job. CEOs can have virtuaqlly the same perks and a lot more freedom. Someone should attach a value to the housing, Air Foerce one, limos etc.
Obama’s “fully loaded figure” could be calculated, but you’ll never see it. Suffice it to say , the POTUS is the most expensive position in the world. The Obama’s are showing how extravagant the job can be also.
There are two essential characteristics of a person seeking the Presidency.
They must possess a trait that General Grant exhibited in combat, the 2 AM courage. When the phone rings, are they are equal to the decision making? The second characteristic is the ability to communicate their governing philosophy, to all Americans, thereby uniting our society. President Obama lacks both, thus we are a deeply divided society. President Bush failed in unifying our nation with his war policy. This may no longer be possible in our society.
A prime purpose any nation is to survive. Picking a President to assure this goal, is the prime responsibility of every voter. The crucial question is: will our nation exist in a few years? Recognizable in its present form and substance?
It is seared into my memory that when Germany was in the depression, with high unemployment, they elected Hitler, and waived their constitutional rights in one day. The next day he decreed that no one could own a weapon, and all media fell under state control. It took 65 million murders to reverse that election, and those nations did not possess thousands of thermonuclear weapons.
Hitler was a superb, charismatic communicator. His philosophy was to kill his opponents. The Germans followed him into hell.
Look at our candidates. Are we that stupid?
Major disqualifier for Applicant #1: While in business, ran up debts for companies he controlled with no intention to repay. Stiffed bank depositors and bond holders in those companies of millions.
I have no problem with shutting down businesses and firing people, but the habit Bain Capital had of using acquired companies to run up unpayable debt in order to generate fees for Bain is, while legal, fundamentally dishonest.
Who can be trusted to do this job requirement?
“preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”
None of the above really. Which means we’re looking at an epic fail state in progress.
It has been said that those who have a burning desire to have power, to be, and are prepared to run the gauntlet to become President aren’t the people who should become President—that that hunger for power and burning desire they have, and that acceptance of the running the gauntlet show that they are not those best qualified to become President, and that those who do not have that desire and refuse to run that gauntlet are the people who would likely be better Presidents, and I think that this view of things has some merit.
The fact of the matter is that politics today has become, increasingly and perhaps more so than in the past, a blood sport, and it is not only the candidate who runs that gauntlet and takes the beatings these days, it is increasingly their family as well—see Sarah Palin.
Some people just don’t think that the game is worth the candle, and because of this people who might have made very good Presidents just refuse to run.
Some would say that this running the gauntlet is the perfect filter to weed out those who are not strong, tough, or wily enough to be good Presidents but, you must admit, it takes a peculiar turn of mind to voluntarily put yourself through this ordeal.
In this context, I might also point out that a similar gauntlet has to be run by those who are nominated for high level positions in our governmen–those that require Senate confirmation.
Just one of the basic requirements is to fill out a 40+ page application/questionnaire that delves into every aspect of your history and life–education and job history, relatives, friends, and acquaintances, assets, financial history, transactions, and credit history, any publications written or public statements you might have made, any organizations you have belonged to or currently belong to, etc., etc., and you are also asked–point blank–if there might be anything that could be embarrassing in you past or current history and life.
And then the fun begins, with Senate staffers–sometimes very zealously sometimes pro forma, depending on the current political climate and who you are and represent in terms of positions–rummaging through you life and turning over rocks looking for any nasty things beneath, and interpreting things as they will; you could sail through the nomination and confirmation process, or you could end up being crucified and damaged permanently, and for this reason a lot of otherwise good candidates just refuse to go through this ordeal.
This close scrutiny is what Obama has avoided by his ex-Constitutional appointments of the Czars, who I suspect would, almost to a man, never have survived this vetting process had their views, actions, and associations been exposed and become widely known and subject to comment and debate.
In a word..WE ARE SCREWED..Obama wins by losing.
Yea. Who knew the POTUS went to the most qualified EEO candidate.
The Republicans don’t have one.
This article specifically outlines why Obama is categorically unqualified, in the first sentence.
The title of this story alone made me shout out: the current sitting President is NOT qualified for this job title!