Skip to comments.How not to choose a president
Posted on 08/04/2014 5:38:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Basically, the way we do it now.
Lets get this out of the way right off the bat: It doesnt bother me that I did not become president of the United States after trying to do so. Im having the best time of my life hosting my radio show, running this web site, speaking at events across the country and generally enjoying life.
So Im good.
But the country is not doing nearly so well, and that has a lot to do with the fact that the president we did select should have been clearly recognized as not up to the task. And yet the majority of those who voted didnt recognize that (although it seems a majority does now). Why is that?
I think its because the criteria we use in determining who should be our president makes little sense, and has little to do with the actual job the chief executive is responsible for doing.
As the chief executive of the federal government, the president is responsible for faithfully executing the laws, for responsibly budgeting and overseeing the use of the Treasurys resources, of leading and managing a team of high-level executives, of working with Congress on proposed legislation, and of serving as commander in chief of the Armed Forces.
Obviously it matters what the presidents political philosophies are, but that sinks almost into irrelevance if he or she cannot competently perform the functions I listed above.
With that in mind, lets consider the dynamics that led to the matchup we saw in 2012. In the Republican primary race, we had a series of people rise to the top and then fall back. Rick Santorum was the choice of social conservatives. Ron Paul was the choice of libertarians. Newt Gingrich was the choice of those who saw themselves as more intellectual and spoiling for a fight with the Democrats. For a while, I was the choice of a grassroots group that liked my business experience and my 9-9-9 plan.
Eventually we settled on Mitt Romney after all of the above fell by the wayside for one reason or another, in spite of the fact that there really wasnt a group rabidly supporting him. He was just the last person standing, which is sort of ironic because Mitts background was about as strong as anyones with respect to the qualifications I outlined above. (And for the record, I think he would have been a very good president.)
But we werent talking about any of those things during the campaign. We were talking about who got off what zinger in a debate, or who committed a gaffe, or who was rated as more conservative by this or that interest group, or who was put on the defense by a real or imagined scandal. We really never talked about who was ready for the exceedingly difficult executive challenges of the presidency. The political press wasnt interested in that question, and the candidates (often at the behest of their campaign strategists) choose to stay on point talking about other things.
Meanwhile, the Democrats were perfectly happy with President Obama not because he was running the government skillfully but because he was looking out for their political interests. They had chosen him four years earlier in what became little more than a pandering contest over whether we would make history by electing a black man or a woman. Obama was able to give inspiring speeches, I guess, and he still thinks thats a governing strategy. No one else seems to think its working very well.
Lost in all this is any thought about who is actually capable of leading of performing the executive functions inherent to the office. Prior to becoming president, Obama had never held any executive position whatsoever. If he had been applying for an executive job at any company, he would have been laughed out of the interview room as hopelessly unqualified. Yet he was able to get himself elected president of the United States once and then again.
That can only have happened because the way we choose presidents makes no sense whatsoever. We reward political performance, not executive achievement, when we choose the top executive for our nation. Then we are troubled when the president looks more like a politician giving a performance than like a serious executive who knows how to lead and get things done.
If someone wanted to write a book titled, How Not to Choose a President, it could actually be a pretty short book. All it would have to say is: The way we do it now.
The way “we” choose the pres. is to let the people do it. Yes, Herman is right, the US voter is an unimaginably ignorant pig-dog piece of filth, and they get the kenyan they deserve.
“But we werent talking about any of those things during the campaign. We were talking about who got off what zinger in a debate, or who committed a gaffe,
Well... once the voting public has been successfully dummied down by decades of BS ‘public education’, THAT is about ALL they are capable of doing in the choice of a President.
Obama was incumbent POTUS with no primary challengers 2012, that gave him a huge advantage right there.
The group of GOP candidates (losers) all fell for Chris Wallace's trap on taxes and spending cuts, all said they would turn down $10 in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases while claiming that spending was killing the economy. Obama couldn't buy negative advertising like that.
Besides, since Cain says that Romney would have made a fine POTUS his editorial lacks a purpose,Romney got it.
Another item: Congress has proven time and time again that it is not a good factory to produce Presidents.
Dole, McCain, Kerry, to name a few.
Senators are not hired for leadership; they are there to offer an opinion and attempt to persuade others to accept such. They can be wrong 99% of the time (like Teddy Kennedy was) so they do not have to be accountable for their actions.
Governors, on the other hand, have proven leadership skills as they must lead an entire state, and are accountable for their actions.
Like Gov. Palin, the attack on conservatives
was led by Romney and his surrogates.
The way you constructed your sentence it can be taken two or three different ways. Not sure what you mean.
The only president of whom I’m aware with fewer “qualifications” of this type than Obama when entering office was ... A. Lincoln. He had zero executive background of any type, with the exception of running a business into the ground when he was young.
Opinions vary, especially on this forum, about the man and his actions in office. But it is simply not possible to argue that he wasn’t a highly effective executive and leader, arguably the most effective in our history.
The problem with Cain’s argument is that there is a much more imprtant qualification for a President than his ability to effectively lead and execute. It’s the direction he intends to lead us in. A more politically astute and effective version of Obama would be a negative for the country, not a positive.
Another problem is that we aren’t a corporate Board hiring a CEO. The board sets the direction the company should go, and the CEO’s job is to implement their policies. The Board can fire him whenever it chooses.
The President is hired to both set a path and break trail down it. He is effectively unfireable for his term. The business metaphor has some serious flaws.
And speaking of the debates, remember that inane debate in which Stephanopolous(sp?) brought up the issue of whether states can ban contraception. Which in retrospect appears to have been the start of the liberals charging that the GOP had a “war on women”.
If I recall correctly, the candidates were declining to answer the question, saying it was irrelevant, but Stephanopolous kept asking follow up questions about it. If I recall correctly, the crowd started to boo Stephanopolous because he kept at it, and wouldn’t let that line of questioning go.
The Framers knew that the average man on the street was very capable of identifying someone to represent him in the House.
They also knew that as constituencies grew large, the people would succumb to demagogues and make bad choices.
Unfortunately, we not only have enormous House districts, but also elected senators, whose prominent talent is conspicuous talent to get elected.
And worst of all, we are moving toward outright popular presidential elections.
The people shouldn’t have anything to remotely do with electing senators or presidents. Democracy kills and it is killing our republic.
Couldn’t agree more: there should a leadership qualification test for anyone considering or being considered for a run for the Presidency.
Just like any other position of high responsibility, track record counts.
Further, we should develop a system separate from the political parties to identify potential leaders. We have tens of thousands of serious and successful leaders out there. We should never end up with just Mitt and Obie as our only choices.
The Republicans are the masters of the Ugly Truths. The Democrats are masters of the Pretty Suits.
You can see which one wins.
How not to choose a president
By relying on affirmative action and on-the-job training.
Correct on all counts. Direct election of the pres and senate was never intended.
“Democracy soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was yet a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Adams or Madison, I think, and I might have a word or two wrong.
I would say the question by Wallace on taxes was relevant to the race, but a question like that's(what the states can ban) only purpose is to cause trouble.
Obama made an issue of the Obamacare birth control mandate in 2012 knowing many in the GOP, like Akin, couldn't resist that baited trap.
The nation and the world were vastly different places in1860 when Lincoln was elected. So that comparison is not apt. However, I agree with you regarding the importance of a candidate’s ideology. All his decisions are filtered through that lens, and all his actions are the results of those decisions.
The America-hating radical collectivism of a barack obama is clear in his coddling of our enemies, his “you didn’t build that” rhetoric, and his manipulation of class differences to incite strife. Couple those dangerous ideas with his gross incompetence and you have an America teetering on the brink of disaster.
I bet it's even higher than that