Presidential Qualifications. What Should a "Qualified" Presidential Candidate Look Like?

Snidely Whiplash
What are the Constitutional, personal and professional qualifications for one to be the President of the United States? First there are the Constitutional ones...the office seeker must be at least 35 years of age and be a natural born American, as well as having lived in the US for at least 14 years. But what of the personal and professional aspects?

First I think we need someone we can believe in. Demagogues are out, as we can see how a demagogue does as POTUS with our current Pretender-in-Chief. Nice rhetoric is just that. I'd rather have an honest and smart hick than an Ivy League glam candidate. Fancy talkers are just that. Hell, believe it or not, but I can string words together, especially in person. I have been told I am quite a magnetic speaker, causing folks to sit up and take notice and I don't know anyone who thinks I should be POTUS, so clever talking isn't a qualification.

Clearly an honest person with an open book as a history is a better candidate than one like out current POTUS who is as Churchill said of the USSR, is "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." Old Winny was one smart feller for sure. Is it necessary for a potential POTUS to have a long history as a legislator or politician? Obama had a damned short history and we were assured he was more than qualified, right? Joke was on us.

I believe leadership is far more important than is some long history of political service. Those who have proven they can lead are the best for POTUS. A military leader is a great choice as would likely a business leader be. What we don't need is a glib talker who looks good in front of a camera. We need one who has actually successfully led something. Leading in business or on the battlefield are similar and good qualifications.

Oftentimes we see POTUS come from the ranks of governors, and rightly so. A governor is nothing but a CEO, just like the president. Both are "Chief Executive Officers." A CEO of business is accountable to a proven bottom line and their stockholders, so they have a proven record of success. A state's CEO, the governor, is accountable too. As the saying goes, all politics are local, thus the success of a governor is a good indicator as to their ability to lead. Glib talkers are just that - talkers! Community organizers are talkers and rabble rousers, but they are not leaders.

Next let's look at the Senate versus House of Representatives member who runs for POTUS. For some bizarre reason the debating club of the Senate is seen as more fertile ground for felling presidential timber. Horse hockey! In the Senate one is only accountable to their constituents every 6 years, whereas in the House, where human memory's shorter span serves better, we find one who must be accountable every 2 years. The Senate is seen as a body where the office holder should not be held so accountable. They are allegedly given more leeway in debate thus they are less expected to actually do something short of chatting and ruminating. The informed and knowledgeable voter knows the Senate is a debating club charged with little real legislative authority.

Lastly I believe we need a POTUS who is in love with the US Constitution as written, ratified and amended, and not one who believes or has ever uttered the phrase "the Constitution is a living document." We need a president who will firmly resist all the "one world, one government" nonsense of globalism. We need a POTUS who likes American culture and does not believe we need to be more "culturally diverse." How can any nation be more culturally diverse than is the current US, the melting pot of the world?

So what might we conclude? That our current Big Cheese is an empty suit is a given. Perhaps most important, maybe next round citizens will put on their thinking caps before they back a glam fool for POTUS? Too much to hope for? After all, the amorphous "hopey change" just sounds so forward thinking, right? Perhaps one should grow up and act like one's parents actually taught one how to wipe their rears without puncturing their own rectums. I don't believe we'll be fooled again. This time round if one votes for the current leader they do so knowing full well the truth about this man, his ineptness and the historically un-American direction he and his wish to lead this nation.

Published by Snidely Whiplash

Nuthin' of note.  View profile

3 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Michele Starkey5/1/2011

    If there is a "change" coming in the next presidential election, I would hope that we elect someone who stands with the majority of Americans and gets the country back on track so that we can move ahead. Just a hope (and a prayer!) cheers :)

  • Snidely Whiplash5/1/2011

    Well Lorraine, Obama is SOLID. SOLIDLY a progressive. Is he sober? I have never seen him drunk so perhaps. But I believe your use of sober was more the "sober thought process" as opposed to the sober versus drunk, no? Clearly in that context Obama isn't sober at all. Stable? Mentally or as in "consistently the same?" He's consistently un-American, so maybe he is stable - actually as I believe he's a horses' ass, he should live in a stable! As for SMART, not so much. The guy stammers his way thru every public speaking without his mobile brains (teleprompters) to tell him what to say. Frankly I am a much better extemporaneous speaker than he has ever shown himself to be and as I wrote in this piece, no one thinks I should be POTUS.

  • Lorraine Yapps Cohen5/1/2011

    Business experience or military leadership would do quite well. I suggested the s-characteristics of solid, sober, stable, and smart. I laughed when an AC contributor said she recognized these in Obama.

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.