Who is QUALIFIED to be the President?
One has been and will continue to talk about nothing but "Hope" and "The Future" but only in those terms as it means something different to everyone. He has a few years of experience in the legislature. Another one talks about "Experience" like being in a legislature for 2 more years than the other means anything in being The Boss. Or maybe because her husband held that position before? (I guess that makes Joan qualified to run a software development department because I did 8 years ago?) Another one is qualified to be Commander in Chief because he was a POW? Or because he has served on the armed services committee? How will he be as the Chief Executive? I wish there was a better "career path" for President. Too bad we can't require they run a cabinet level Federal agency or be Governor of a large state before they could be elected President. Or require they be Vice President first, and be Constitutionally charged with running the civilian side of the Federal Government. For those in the US, how do you value experience as part of a candidates qualifications? Not just "Yes, I think experience is important" but more like "Ideally, this is the kind of experience I'd like my candidate to have." By your own criteria, is any current candidate qualified? If you were the major stockholder of Google or Microsoft or General Motors, and wanted to have the most qualified candidate as CEO, is any candidate worthy? |
|
|
| *sigh*
I know. I've been feeling the same way. I really HATE how the media hones in on certain candidates, for whatever reason, so they end up getting the most airtime, hence the most name recognition, and end up being the main contenders. Have you seen that Obama commercial where it's all 60's style I'm for change...I HATE that commercial. It's trying too hard to show what you THINK people are wanting and seeing you as. Trying to bring about the essence of the 60s where people wanted nothing to do with the establishment. I don't think that a candidate needs to have a million years of experience, but I think that experience is necessary in a job like this. You can't be 'all change' and nothing else. I've felt for several elections that the country has sold itself short in terms of candidates (at least since I started voting with the last Clinton admin). It's really frustrating to vote for someone when you don't like ANY of the choices. I don't have any realistic suggestions though on how to change this (except maybe ban them from campaigning so early and banning the media from all politics!) |
| Current candidate? No....
I wish Condoleezza Rice ran for President. She'd have my vote, and then Americans can have their first female, and first African-American.  |
| It's called OTJT....on the job training. Frightening isn't it? |
| I was recently watching an interview on 60 minutes with an FBI agent who was the sole interrogator of Saddam Hussein during his days of detainment, until his death. The goal was for this agent to be Hussein's confidant, as he spent many hours a day with him. One of the things which struck me was how Hussein mocked the term limits on the US presidency. After 4-8 years, you are finally learning how to be a president. |
| I wasn't a huge fan of Mitt Romney's positions, but I did feel that he had some very credible experience in business, government and public affairs. I also think that Rudy Giuliani has the right experience for the President's office - running the City of NY is more of a challenge than running most states, plus he had federal government experience as well. But the most important qualification to me is the ability to make tough realistic decisions, and stand by those decisions no matter how your party or the lobbyists try to influence you. If that is the qualification, no "politician" will meet the criteria.
Being born to a wealthy political family (Bush, Gore, Kerry) does not in and of itself make you qualified. Being First Lady does not make you qualified. |
Bailey's Mom wrote: I wasn't a huge fan of Mitt Romney's positions, but I did feel that he had some very credible experience in business, government and public affairs. I also think that Rudy Giuliani has the right experience for the President's office - running the City of NY is more of a challenge than running most states, plus he had federal government experience as well. But the most important qualification to me is the ability to make tough realistic decisions, and stand by those decisions no matter how your party or the lobbyists try to influence you. If that is the qualification, no "politician" will meet the criteria.
Being born to a wealthy political family (Bush, Gore, Kerry) does not in and of itself make you qualified. Being First Lady does not make you qualified. Hillary was not JUST a First Lady...she was very involved in the government during her husband's administration...so don't short change her experience by saying she was "Just a First Lady." |
 |
| I agree with Sue about Hillary. I do not think Hillary has any qualifications to be President (let alone Senator). She was involved in her First Lady stuff, but I don't believe she ever had anything to do with the presidency. If she had, she would have known what Bill was doing in his office.
The whole way she handled the Lewinsky situation, by sticking by his side, made me sick to my stomach. When your husband makes you the laughing stock of the country, how can you stick by his side? I'll tell you why, because they had a business partnership. That is all that it's ever been. I would bet my life that they haven't shared a bed in years. Their whole marriage is a sham. I find her views to be very socialistic and as a person I have no respect for her. So for me to vote for her, just because I would like a woman president, would be going against everything I stand for. She is a liar and a proven liar. I do not trust her and would NEVER trust her to run our country. Did anyone notice when Bill started campaigning for her that she dropped in the polls? I think he needs to do more campaigning. 
Eventually there will be a female canidate worthy of a vote. But people....please don't vote for her just because you would like to see a woman in the White House. Especially those of you that are interested in Woman's Lib. If Hillary was for woman's lib, she would have left that cheating husband years ago. I also agree about Rudy Guiliani. I think he was the most qualified for the Presidency. He has screwed up in his marriages, but has been honest about it. Unlike the Clintons. I respect his honesty. I have followed his career for many years. He screwed up with his campaign for preseident though and should have been more active with the New Hampshire and Iowa cauces. If he was still in the race, he would have gotten my vote. I am done with my post.... sorry if I upset anyone. But remember, this is just my opinion... you don't need to agree with me. |
 I am glad I live in Germany, I don't have to make the choice and hope for the best. |
|
| I disagree with about everything Elissa posted and Elissa and I are very good friend and we respect each other's points of view.
Do not vote for someone because they are African American, a Woman, A Vet...look at their issues, and their records. Pick the person who you feel is more relative to what is important to you weither it is the war, universal health care, taxes, jobs ect. We all know that whoever is elected President has a very big job ahead of them. Peace  |
| Political threads always turn ugly. Each one of us have our own idea of what qualifications are necessary to be president. That is because we each have our own individual agenda depending on what particular issue we think is the "most important".
I am a die hard Democrat but I think all the candidates individually are honorable and well meaning people. Who is the"best" ? Are any of us really "qualified" to say? If you saw the movie "Charlie Wilson War" you realize that who the President is makes very little difference. |
Pepsi's Mommy wrote: The whole way she handled the Lewinsky situation, by sticking by his side, made me sick to my stomach. When your husband makes you the laughing stock of the country, how can you stick by his side?
I'll tell you why, because they had a business partnership. That is all that it's ever been. I would bet my life that they haven't shared a bed in years. Their whole marriage is a sham. Maybe (since we have no possible way of knowing anything in the world about their marriage and all opinions on this are strictly guesses), but just maybe she believes in marriage and seeing marriage through the rough times? That whole "for better or for worse" thing? It would take a MUCH stronger person to weather that horror and stick it through than to just take the easy way and kick him out. |
| Sorry, but I don't see what someone does or doesn't do in their bedroom has to do with their ability to be president. Part of the problem with our political process is that instead of looking at qualifications and abilities we focus on issues that have nothing to do with managing our country.
Everyone loves to trash Bill Clinton for his personal morals (which I am not by the way defending) but the fact remains that he was an excellent statesmen and well thought of throughout the world. If we didn't focus so much on personal issues we might see more clearly those qualifications in a candidate that would make them a good leader. But this (and other elections) won't be about that, it will turn into a mud slinging contest that turns the focus onto past personal history rather than leadership ability. I am, by the way, a HUGE Hilary supporter but will not turn to bashing the other candidates to support my own. |
Tasker's Mom wrote: If you saw the movie "Charlie Wilson War" you realize that who the President is makes very little difference.
Exactly, it's the "team" that runs the shots. That is why I feel that it is very important for the presidential candidate to be a true leader/motivator. I feel that our country is so divided right now. Blue states/red states, this is so sad to me. Can't we all get along?
One of the bigger issues for me also is foreign policy. I truly hope that our new president can soften some of the hatred towards the US. |
| Did everyone watch 60 minutes last night? Two things struck me in the interviews........... Barack Obama admitted that his policies were very closely aligned to those of Hilary Clinton AND that the only thing he had ever run in his life was the Harvard Law Review. I had to laugh. |
Quote: Can't we all get along?
Famous words of Rodney King
Actually politics is very emotional and always has been. This campaign is nothing. Read your US history. No, not the stuff taught in schools, but the in depth stuff. It is the bantering back and forth that allows all voices to be heard....or used to. No one party, no one person has all the answers. As for Hillary, I still want to know how those Top Secret FBI files ended up in her closet? What were she/he/they planning? |
| http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/
Here is an interesting site which briefly states all Candidates "stand" on certain issues. It doesn't go into depth but give a place to start from. Of course, the is some CNN bias  |
| At least in the US you get a choice.
In the UK we have been dumped with our prime minister after Tony Blair left! You have a fairer sysytem than we do! |
Vicki & George wrote: At least in the US you get a choice.
In the UK we have been dumped with our prime minister after Tony Blair left! You have a fairer sysytem than we do! Yeah, but you get to have a queen! |
barney1 wrote: Vicki & George wrote: At least in the US you get a choice. In the UK we have been dumped with our prime minister after Tony Blair left! You have a fairer sysytem than we do! Yeah, but you get to have a queen! LOL |
Tasker's Mom wrote: Did everyone watch 60 minutes last night? Two things struck me in the interviews........... Barack Obama admitted that his policies were very closely aligned to those of Hilary Clinton AND that the only thing he had ever run in his life was the Harvard Law Review. I had to laugh.
After reading YOUR comments here, I went and watched 60 minutes on my DVR. I found both of their interviews very interesting...Barack Obama said a lot of nothing, which he has been able to get away with for some time now. He says he wants change, but never says where or how. Hillary's interview was very interesting. |
| I think it is frightening that people are chosing him just because he "isn't" Hillary. The Dems have really gotten themselves in a pickle with this one. They would have been better off throwing more support behind John Edwards than pushing this guy who is not only pretty new to Washington but admittedly has very little experience.
People are falling for the "Rock Star" image. I do understand the "anti" Clinton sentiment but it's scarey to think they would vote for anyonejust to prevent a Clinton in the Whitehouse. Check out the policy pages, the policies are identical. I was glad to see that in the interviews each one was respectful of the other which leads me to believe they are still viewing the other as potential VP material. It will be interesting to see what the coming months bring. Which brings me to another issue....... WHY are the primaries held so far in advance of the actual Convention? A lot can happen between now and August. SO does that mean that as a party the Primaries are really insignificant or is it the Convention insignificant???? Once the primaries are over, any day now, what exactly is the point of all the politicing that goes on between now and August? You can't change the outcome of the Primaries, you may be able to sway the "super delegates" but a mojority of them have already declared sides. So, other than wasting a HUGE amount of money, WHAT IS THE POINT??????????? |
| I usually like to choose my candidate based on who will be the best to impersonate on Saturday Night Live. |
ButtersStotch wrote: I usually like to choose my candidate based on who will be the best to impersonate on Saturday Night Live.
|
I believe the Senate and House make the rules and the President decides which he will go with and signs the bills. Special interests run the Senators. So I think experience doesn't really matter. I could probably do a better job than those running.  |
barney1 wrote: Vicki & George wrote: At least in the US you get a choice. In the UK we have been dumped with our prime minister after Tony Blair left! You have a fairer sysytem than we do! Yeah, but you get to have a queen! And cute young Princes |
Bailey's Mom wrote: barney1 wrote: Vicki & George wrote: At least in the US you get a choice. In the UK we have been dumped with our prime minister after Tony Blair left! You have a fairer sysytem than we do! Yeah, but you get to have a queen! And cute young Princes *sigh* I"ll take Prince Harry any day! I don't care if he's a party boy! Since this is a fantasy, I'll just say that when he's mine he'll be so enamored of me that he'll never look at another woman |
barney1 wrote: Yeah, but you get to have a queen! We have Larry Craig... |
| Larry Craig is no queen--in any sense, nor is he even the only gay legislator.
Seriously, Senate and Congressional seats can be a valuable training ground for the presidency. Membership on key committees gives expertise in specific areas: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energ, Interior, Labor, Foreign Relations, etc. |
barney1 wrote: *sigh* I"ll take Prince Harry any day! I don't care if he's a party boy!
Maybe it's because he's the party boy? I think he's adorable too. |
tgir wrote: Larry Craig is no queen--in any sense, nor is he even the only gay legislator. It was a topical joke. Substitute another politician's name of choice if you prefer.
Seriously, Senate and Congressional seats can be a valuable training ground for the presidency. Membership on key committees gives expertise in specific areas: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energ, Interior, Labor, Foreign Relations, etc. As I am from Massachusetts, I am fully aware there are many openly gay legislators, like Barney Frank and Gerry Studds |
| Since the president is the Head of our military I feel that one qualificatiton should be that they have served in the military as an active duty, high ranking officer, and not just a Washington behind a desk officer.
Most of the time these officers are the ones with the know how, but the President and others get in their way because they have the power to play war behind a desk, and then pass down orders. I don't know if its true, but I heard Obama refused to recite the Pledge of Allegance to the flag. If that's true, he should NOT even be a candidate! How can one rule a country, yet not pledge to its flag and what it stands for! Hilary - thats a joke. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I KNOW I won't vote for either of them. So far, my vote will be cast for someone supported by the Minute Men organization. At least I'd know (maybe) where they stand on some issues, which I think would resolve alot of other issues. jmop |
mouthypf wrote: I don't know if its true, but I heard Obama refused to recite the Pledge of Allegance to the flag. If that's true, he should NOT even be a candidate! How can one rule a country, yet not pledge to its flag and what it stands for!
It is not true. Easy as a google search to find plenty of information on that. It's been debunked for months. |
mouthypf wrote: I don't know if its true, but I heard Obama refused to recite the Pledge of Allegance to the flag. If that's true, he should NOT even be a candidate! How can one rule a country, yet not pledge to its flag and what it stands for!
Hilary - thats a joke. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I KNOW I won't vote for either of them. You could always go Republican. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|