Qualifications for being POTUS

[eisely]

While the position of any candidate on the issues of the day are obviously important, the ability of a candidate to function as an elected executive is also important. I have suggested that governors have probably the best background, yet Jimmy Carter, a former governor of Georgia, was one of the worst presidents this country ever had.

 

To the extent that a candidate had to deal with challenges in prior positions, we should evaluate how the candidate dealt with those challenges. Coming back to the management of natural disasters, it is obvious that both Mayor Nagin of New Orleans and Governor Blanco of Louisiana totally failed in their responsibilities in dealing with hurrricane Katrina. This is not to excuse the failures on the part of the feds, but the first and deadliest failures were at the local and state levels. Would anyone seriously consider Blanco as a viable presidential candidate based on her performance? I would hope not, even if I agreed with her 100% on all the issues of the day.

[packsaddle]

Might as well face it, folks, with the libertarian kooks siphoning off votes to Paul and the Christian loonytoons charging off for a third party, we are probably going to have a POTUS from New York, one way or the other.

Me, I am just sorry Fred Thompson hasn't shown better so far. I had real hopes for him. Actor, Senator, great TV series, great looks (if you're a Vogon). All the qualifications I need. But if he doesn't go the distance, I'm still hoping McCain can come back.

Romney can kiss off the South, given what I'm hearing from the Christians in this region and I doubt the Republicans can win without the South. This is the kind of religion-on-religion stuff that I've heard for decades regarding Unitarians (understandably) but now redirected toward the Mormons. Faith sure hasn't brought many of us together in politics.

 

In the final analysis the Republicans have championed a lot of issues. After this administration, and given that they had the whole cookie jar for 6 years, they failed on most of those things...miserably. The only thing that really drives them has nothing to do with qualifications, really. The only clear issue they have left is opposition to abortion and they don't have a candidate who can be trusted to carry that banner. And I'm so sorry for them, every last one of those small men clawing at each other to get to the top of a hill of their own dung.

They stuck themselves in that tangled web and now they are screaming in tiny little voices, "help meeee, heeelp meeee".

 

Edited part: drat those double quotes.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

Whatever the faults of Jimmy Carter as a president, he has been one of the best ex-presidents the country has ever had. I don''t always agree with his statement, especially some recent ones, but he didnt prostitute himself as an ex-president racking up speaking engagement revenue that was of itself obscene.

 

Given we have people that can''t abide women in the BSA, do you think there are enough voters who can forgive the New York senator''s sex and Husband?

[eisely]

OGE, I have to totally disagree with you about Carter. When he first left the presidency and confined himself to Habitat for Humanity I thought he was setting a wonderful example and I myself felt that he was our best ex president at that time.

 

His more recent behavior qualifies him as our worst ex president ever as he actively works against the interests of the US. Like any other citizen he has a right to his opinion, but up until Carter and Clinton, our ex presidents of both parties have had the good sense and graciousness to not criticize their successors, particularly in front of foreign audiences. Carter''s biases against Israel are so obvious and profound that several members of his own board of directors of his foundation in Atlanta quit in protest rather than continue to lend their good names to Carter''s activities. Carter''s intervention in the nuclear issue with North Korea in the mid 90''s made that situation much worse and more dangerous rather than better. Carter should just shut up and go fishing.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I myself am so eager to see George W. Bush as an ex-president, I actively support him being awarded that status early.

[eisely]

OGE,

 

Responding to your second point, I don''t know if the US is ready for a woman president or not. Since WWII there have been at least two elected female leaders of democracies, namely Margaret Thatcher and Gold Meir, who were quite effective. It is important to note that both of these women ran and gained office on their own merits. If I were required to place a bet on who will be the next president, I would bet on Hillary Clinton, not because I agree with her or think she is demonstrably competent as an executive, but just because she is in the best position to win. But that election is well over a year in the future and anything can happen in the meantime.

 

When one considers people like Madam Ceasescu in Romania or the various spouses of presidents in Argentina, the idea of a spouse gaining power just by being a spouse is scary.

[packsaddle]

Wow! Great point! Just think about Imelda Marcos....and all those shoes...shudder!

[acco40]

Female heads of state - Peron (Argentina), Finnbogadottir (Iceland), Prammer (Austria), Barbara (Malta), Aquino & Arroyo (Phillipines), Sukarnoputri (Indonesia), Burjanadze (Georgia), Pintasligo (Portugal), Micic (Serbia), Chamorro (Nicaraqua), Patil & Ghandhi (India), Itzik & Meir (Israel), Robinson & McAleese (Ireland), Bhutto (Pakistan), Jeria (Chile), Dreifuss (Switzerland), Vike-Freiberga (Latvia), Halonen (Finland), & San Marino has had multiple female heads of state.

 

Granted, not all were elected but most were. The above list is not by any means exhaustive. Does Edith Wilson, "POTUS" in everything but name for 18 months count?(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Lisabob]

How about Angela Merkel in Germany, arguably one of the more powerful German chancellors in a good long time?

 

But no, I don''t think Clinton can win. And while the gender issue is part of it, I think her last name is the bigger issue. Actually I like some of her ideas (though not others) but she''d be such a lightening rod and I''m so sick of that style of politics, that at least half the time I''d prefer to see her drop out of the race for the good of the country. Except...I''m not sure the other candidates (from either party) would do a better job than she would, if elected. But really, I wish both the Clintons and the Bushes would take a self-imposed moratorium from national politics for a while so we can get on with governing instead of focusing on how much one side can''t stomach the other.

[eisely]

Concerning Edith Wilson, I think that experience, along with Eisenhower''s heart attacks late in his presidency, helped lead to the idea of the XXVth amendment.

 

I recognize many but by no means all of the names of female heads of state in the prior posts. I think the jury is still out on Merkel. Indeed, unless there is an active election, we ought to reserve such judgments until the person is out of office.

 

Peron''s widow was another person I had in mind in my snarky comment about spouses of heads of state. She was a disaster for Argentina.

[GernBlansten]

Always the eternal optimist, I think America''s future is bright. Any of the candidates from either party will easily be able to out perform the current guy. Not one of them could do worse.