Presidential Qualifications

[Wild Cobra]

I would like to know if anyone knows what qualifications senator Clinton, senator Obama, senator Edwards, senator McCain, or Representative Paul have for becoming president.

OK, the fit the constitutional criteria for age and citizenship. However, what have they done in life to prepare then for an executive position?

Have any of them been in an executive position before?

Have any of them been successful in business as an owner or CEO?

Have any of them been successful in any private sector job that shows the qualities of a leader?

This may not matter to many of you, but it is a real question that merits an answer to many of us.

If you were the owner of a chain of stores, would you higher someone who never managed a single store, to be the regional manager of several stores?

I am not aware of any of those people being qualified. I may be wrong, can someone convince me? Sure, I left out a few candidates, but I feel I picked the top tier. I am comfortable with someone who was a successful business owner, mayor, or governor. Just not someone who has no practical experience as a leader.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The executive branch is not a business. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

[clambake]

the current pres. makes all those questions moot.

[ChumpDumper]

So Lincoln is out too.

[Mr. Peabody]

I would like to know if anyone knows what qualifications senator Clinton, senator Obama, senator Edwards, senator McCain, or Representative Paul have for becoming president.

OK, the fit the constitutional criteria for age and citizenship. However, what have they done in life to prepare then for an executive position?

Have any of them been in an executive position before?

Have any of them been successful in business as an owner or CEO?

Have any of them been successful in any private sector job that shows the qualities of a leader?

This may not matter to many of you, but it is a real question that merits an answer to many of us.

If you were the owner of a chain of stores, would you higher someone who never managed a single store, to be the regional manager of several stores?

I am not aware of any of those people being qualified. I may be wrong, can someone convince me? Sure, I left out a few candidates, but I feel I picked the top tier. I am comfortable with someone who was a successful business owner, mayor, or governor. Just not someone who has no practical experience as a leader.

Well, I know Barack Obama probably doesn't have much executive experience because after undergrad he was a community organizer. Then, after law school, he was a civil rights lawyer before becoming a constitutional law professor and state senator. If only he had done something more substantial like owning a minority interest in the Texas Rangers or operating failed oil ventures.

[boutons_]

Ask all those questions about dubya. He was and is now totally unqualified.

affirmative action/legacy Ivy League entrant, loafed through Yale AND Harvard.
draft evader
alcoholic and drug user
multiple failed business ventures rescued by Poppy's friends
no charisma.
no intellectual curiosity or interests
never travelled outside of the USA before age 50
loves politics? didn't even want to run for TX governor, was drafted.
essentially uneducated and ignorant
tongue-tied "uncommunicator" with tone-deaf, wooden delivery
no connection between brain and mouth
EFL (English Foreign Language).

[Mr. Peabody]

The executive branch is not a business. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

:lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, I know Barack Obama probably doesn't have much executive experience because after undergrad he was a community organizer. Then, after law school, he was a civil rights lawyer before becoming a constitutional law professor and state senator. If only he had done something more substantial like owning a minority interest in the Texas Rangers or operating failed oil ventures.


but then there's the whole "pin-gate" thing.

[Mr. Peabody]

but then there's the whole "pin-gate" thing.

If he would have been an executive, he would know that your apparel is more important than your actions. It's the Mr. Blackwell doctrine.

[Oh, Gee!!]

If he would have been an executive, he would know that your apparel is more important than your actions. It's the Mr. Blackwell doctrine.


Speaking of Mr. Blackwell, did you catch Hillary's outfit last debate. OMGzz!!! Who dresses her? Ray Charles?

[clambake]

Speaking of Mr. Blackwell, did you catch Hillary's outfit last debate. OMGzz!!! Who dresses her? Ray Charles?
:lol :lol :lol
hilarious

[Mr. Peabody]

I would like to know if anyone knows what qualifications senator Clinton, senator Obama, senator Edwards, senator McCain, or Representative Paul have for becoming president.

OK, the fit the constitutional criteria for age and citizenship. However, what have they done in life to prepare then for an executive position?

Have any of them been in an executive position before?

Have any of them been successful in business as an owner or CEO?

Have any of them been successful in any private sector job that shows the qualities of a leader?

This may not matter to many of you, but it is a real question that merits an answer to many of us.

If you were the owner of a chain of stores, would you higher someone who never managed a single store, to be the regional manager of several stores?

I am not aware of any of those people being qualified. I may be wrong, can someone convince me? Sure, I left out a few candidates, but I feel I picked the top tier. I am comfortable with someone who was a successful business owner, mayor, or governor. Just not someone who has no practical experience as a leader.

You're comfortable with someone who is a mayor? You don't aim very high do you? So in your opinion, Ed Garza is more qualified to be president than Hillary, John Edwards, Barack, McCain, etc.? :rolleyes

[Oh, Gee!!]

:lol :lol :lol
hilarious


you see, WC? If you put me on ignore, you'll be missing out on pure comic gold.

[clambake]

thank you

[Wild Cobra]

You're comfortable with someone who is a mayor? You don't aim very high do you? So in your opinion, Ed Garza is more qualified to be president than Hillary, John Edwards, Barack, McCain, etc.? :rolleyes
I know nothing of the mayor of San Antonio, but at least he has a resume that shows if he did or didn't have what it takes to be a leader.

Thing is, with someone never in a true leadership roll, what do we have to base our decisions on? Some of us actually believe in promotions as a succession of steps, rather than just suddenly being at the top of a system.

I couldn't say if Garza was more qualified than Edwards for example. We could get lucky and elect someone with no leadership experience that turns out to be a good leader. I'm just pointing out that we have no past qualifications to look on that count for applying to the top executive position in government for these people.

Accomplishments in congress have no comparisons for accomplishments in an executive roll. The reality of the jobs are different.

[clambake]

I know nothing of the mayor of San Antonio, but at least he has a resume that shows if he did or didn't have what it takes to be a leader.

Thing is, with someone never in a true leadership roll, what do we have to base our decisions on? Some of us actually believe in promotions as a succession of steps, rather than just suddenly being at the top of a system.

I couldn't say if Garza was more qualified than Edwards for example. We could get lucky and elect someone with no leadership experience that turns out to be a good leader. I'm just pointing out that we have no past qualifications to look on that count for applying to the top executive position in government for these people.

Accomplishments in congress have no comparisons for accomplishments in an executive roll. The reality of the jobs are different.
you must have boutons on ignore. too bad. he laid it out pretty well.

[Mr. Peabody]

I know nothing of the mayor of San Antonio, but at least he has a resume that shows if he did or didn't have what it takes to be a leader.

Thing is, with someone never in a true leadership roll, what do we have to base our decisions on? Some of us actually believe in promotions as a succession of steps, rather than just suddenly being at the top of a system.

I couldn't say if Garza was more qualified than Edwards for example. We could get lucky and elect someone with no leadership experience that turns out to be a good leader. I'm just pointing out that we have no past qualifications to look on that count for applying to the top executive position in government for these people.

Accomplishments in congress have no comparisons for accomplishments in an executive roll. The reality of the jobs are different.

So you based your decision to support Bush based on his accomplishments as an executive?

[Mr. Peabody]

you must have boutons on ignore. too bad. he laid it out pretty well.

Yeah, putting people on ignore causes you to miss half the argument.

[BradLohaus]

Why did you leave out Rudy "I was the mayor of NYC during 9/11, in case you didn't know that!" Giuliani? That's good enough to qualify for the presidency, no questions asked?

[clambake]

So Lincoln is out too.
he wouldn't have voted for lincoln anyway. remember, he'd have fought for states rights to promote slavery or any other state rights reason.

[Mr. Peabody]

he wouldn't have voted for lincoln anyway. remember, he'd have fought for states rights to promote slavery or any other state rights reason.

According to xray's excellent article, Lincoln overreacted when he abolished slavery.

[clambake]

According to xray's excellent article, Lincoln overreacted when he abolished slavery.
didn't we all.

[Wild Cobra]

So you based your decision to support Bush based on his accomplishments as an executive?
No. In general I was to see a resume that shows the candidate in a leadership roll. I was leery of voting for him in both 2000 and 2004. I never really liked him, but he is our president. I think he has done a fine job handling some things, and a miserable job handling others. I was not going to vote for either senator Gore or senator Kerry. What was their qualifications anyway?

Richardson probably has the best chance of being elected president from the democrat side if he could win the nomination. Allot of republicans would cross over and vote for him. I really don't think Hillary will be president if she maintains being the democrat favorite. I think Obama has a better chance of winning the Nov. 2008 election than she does. Still, he has the lack of experience that Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani will be able to capitalize on. Even if Thompson manages to take the republican nomination, he has been successful both as a lawyer and actor, then does have some experience as a well loved senator. He has shown he is multi-talented. I don't think it's as good as being in a leadership roll, but his achievements are better than others without such experience.

[clambake]

i guess it's escaped your attention that the man you voted for isn't qualified.

you should find another way to choose a candidate.

[Wild Cobra]

you must have boutons on ignore. too bad. he laid it out pretty well.
No, boutons from time to time contributes to an argument. I just try not to go off on tangents too much. He list a series of negative things about or president. Some are true, some are just unfounded rumor. Sins of the past does not mean people haven't changed, or disqualify then freom being productive. Person demons do not disqualify a person from being able to hold down a job either.

[Extra Stout]

Speaking of Mr. Blackwell, did you catch Hillary's outfit last debate. OMGzz!!! Who dresses her? Ray Charles?
:lol That made me laugh. I think it was a meaningful contribution.

[ChumpDumper]

So you voted for Bill Clinton instead of Bob Dole, right?

[Mr. Peabody]

So you voted for Bill Clinton instead of Bob Dole, right?

Dammit! I missed that one. Good job.

[Wild Cobra]

Why did you leave out Rudy "I was the mayor of NYC during 9/11, in case you didn't know that!" Giuliani? That's good enough to qualify for the presidency, no questions asked?
I didn't leave him out. I mentioned mayor as a qualification. I never said that automatically gets him my vote either. I would vote for him if he was the republican nominee. He has proven himself a good leader.

You guys seem to be reading into my words wrong, or else I just didn't word them well.

I mean that someone who has no leadership experience should not be considered as president. Fine, bring up Lincoln. I will remind those of you using old examples that times have changed.

I simply want an individual who has some record of leadership than can be examined. Is that too much to ask for as a minimum requirement for consideration into the highest leadership roll in this nation?

Now it’s not the same type of leadership roll, not being an executive type, but look at Nancy Pelosi. With all she said she would accomplish, once actually there, she is hit with realities that she never faced before. Has she accomplished anything she promised?

Our last several presidents have been governors for a reason. This is a job experience that is crucial for becoming president. Our last president without such experience was Gerald Ford, and he was not elected into the position. Before that, Nixon… Look how the corruption of congress followed him… He was al least a vice president also. Johnson was only a vice president too, rather than the head of a leadership. Look at how bad he botched up the Viet Nam war, making it more political than sincere. President Kennedy’s top leadership roll was the commander of PT-109. This isn’t a very big leadership roll, but at least he ended up being a pretty good president.

All presidents from president Carter, on, have been governors first. With more modern access to relevant facts than when we only had ABC, CBS, and NBC, I don’t see someone becoming a president without a proper background of experience.

[Wild Cobra]

i guess it's escaped your attention that the man you voted for isn't qualified.

you should find another way to choose a candidate.
I guess I could have voted for "none of the above?"

Please, he is easily more qualified than either Gore of Kerry. If I was registered as a republican, I would have voted for someone else in the 2000 primary. Probably Lamar Alexander, but I never followed politics, especially the primaries that close back then. I am registered as "not affiliated." I will probaly change my affiliation to republican for the Oregon primaries to help oust senator Smith, voting for his competition.

[ChumpDumper]

http://whatscookingamerica.net/Bread/CinnamonRolls002.jpg
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm....leadership....

[Wild Cobra]

So you voted for Bill Clinton instead of Bob Dole, right?
Yes, Dole already had the repuiblican nomination. I voted for him because I dispise president Clinton. Had I been a registered republican, I would have voted for someone else in the primary.

[FromWayDowntown]

http://whatscookingamerica.net/Bread/CinnamonRolls002.jpg
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm....leadership....

:lol

I surmise from WC's argument that a Senator or Representative is per se someone who does not serve is a leadership role (or roll, as the case may be). At least to this point, only those with executive experience seem to qualify as having held "leadership roles." I'm not sure I'd be willing to say that a Congressman is categorically disqualified from having held a leadership role. With the already-limiting litmus tests that we put our Presidential candidates through, it strikes me as fairly ridiculous to say that only those who rise through the executive ranks (governors and mayors) would have the qualifications to serve as President.

[ChumpDumper]

So you voted for the guy with, according to you, no leadership experience.

[clambake]

he did say he'd vote for rudy if he's the repub. nominee.

rudy picked kerik, kerik just got indicted.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's interesting to me that most of the Presidents over the last 100 years have NOT had the sort of executive experience that WC seems to deem so essential to a President.

George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisnehauer, Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, and Warren Harding had never served in any executive position of leadership before assuming office.

Those who had served as governors or the like don't universally instill confidence in requiring executive experience of a Presidential candidate: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Franklin Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson, William Howard Taft, Theodore Roosevelt, and William McKinley.

[clambake]

how many of them were rhode scholars?

[Wild Cobra]

It's interesting to me that most of the Presidents over the last 100 years have NOT had the sort of executive experience that WC seems to deem so essential to a President.

...

Well, I missed president Bush (41) in my earlier assessments, but he was in an executive position, and the Director of the CIA.

I never said it had to be Mayor of Governor inclusively. I repeatedly made reference to leadership positions.

Come on DownTown. I consider you one of the more intelligent people who normally oppose my views. How did you get that wrong?

[ChumpDumper]

So less than a year as DCI makes you automatically qualified to be leader of the free world?

[clambake]

bush=cia, putin=kgb

[Wild Cobra]

So less than a year as DCI makes you automatically qualified to be leader of the free world?
Why are you being so single minded?
Let me state it another way. Leadership positions allow us to see tangible abilities for on to becom a leader in another role.

It does not automatically qualify them, but gives us something to reflect on their abilities.

Without a leadership role of some importance, why should we even consider them for the most important leadership roll?

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you being so single minded?Because you are so single minded about what qualifies someone to be president -- unless he's a Democrat.

[ChumpDumper]

And for fuck's sake -- it's ROLE you idiot. You're too stupid to see just how badly you are being ridiculed.

[Wild Cobra]

Because you are so single minded about what qualifies someone to be president -- unless he's a Democrat.
"unless he's a Democrat"

How did you ever read that into what I said?

Please explain. I initially asked:


I would like to know if anyone knows what qualifications senator Clinton, senator Obama, senator Edwards, senator McCain, or Representative Paul have for becoming president.

Notice I included senator McCain, and representative Paul?

Will you please turn attack mode to the OFF position and think about what is really stated and meant for a few seconds?

Now maybe I missed it, but nobody has yet told me what any of their past qualifications of leadership are. You guys are only attacking me, and supposable lack of qualification of others.

Please, go back and read post #1 again.

[ChumpDumper]

Going by history, your premise is flawed.

That's all that really needs to be said.

[Wild Cobra]

Going by history, your premise is flawed.

That's all that really needs to be said.
No it isn't. From posting #29:


I mean that someone who has no leadership experience should not be considered as president. Fine, bring up Lincoln. I will remind those of you using old examples that times have changed.

[ChumpDumper]

So you wouldn't want a guy like Lincoln as president today.

That's your opinion. I disagree.

Trying to say "times have changed" is just as flawed as the original premise.

[PixelPusher]

I will remind those of you using old examples that times have changed
I hear this a lot, or it's twin brothers "9/11 changed everything" and "post 9/11 world"...as if the United States never experienced any national threat before then.

I wonder why George Washington didn't simply retain his commission after the Revolutionary War and go along with his officers in their planned coup in the name of protecting his new nation against the perilous threat of Britanofascists who wanted to destroy America? Why didn't Madison suspend the Constitution after the British burned down the White House? How the hell did we manage to live through the Cold War with our civil liberties intact? Those were real threats, not this paranoid delusion about the U.S. transforming into an Islamic fundamentalist state.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, I missed president Bush (41) in my earlier assessments, but he was in an executive position, and the Director of the CIA.

I never said it had to be Mayor of Governor inclusively. I repeatedly made reference to leadership positions.

Come on DownTown. I consider you one of the more intelligent people who normally oppose my views. How did you get that wrong?

Why is Congressman (Senator or Representative) categorically not a leadership position?

[inconvertible]

white, male, 35?

[exstatic]

This whole thread = :lmao, both the people that were trying to be funny and WC.

The TX governor's job is one of the weakest in the nation. A huge chunk of the real power in dealing with the legislature resides with the Lt Gov.

[PixelPusher]

This whole thread = :lmao, both the people that were trying to be funny and WC.

The TX governor's job is one of the weakest in the nation. A huge chunk of the real power in dealing with the legislature resides with the Lt Gov.
Yeah, but governors get to make speeches and act all "leaderly" and stuff on the TV; that's how we know they'll make good leaders as President.

[Oh, Gee!!]

This thread is a waste of time because the point of it is to convince WC why he should consider Hillary a good candidate.

[101A]

I hear this a lot, or it's twin brothers "9/11 changed everything" and "post 9/11 world"...as if the United States never experienced any national threat before then.

I wonder why George Washington didn't simply retain his commission after the Revolutionary War and go along with his officers in their planned coup in the name of protecting his new nation against the perilous threat of Britanofascists who wanted to destroy America? Why didn't Madison suspend the Constitution after the British burned down the White House? How the hell did we manage to live through the Cold War with our civil liberties intact? Those were real threats, not this paranoid delusion about the U.S. transforming into an Islamic fundamentalist state.
That's a good post. With some good points.

However, we DID lose civil liberties during the cold war. Ever heard of McCarthy? How about what happened to the Japanese during WWII? Let's not even discuss Lincoln and what happened to the Constitution during/after the Civil War. Roosevelt and the Supreme Court?

I understand what you are saying, but you kind of cherry-picked history to make your point.

And, no, I don't think there is a great chance of the U.S. being transformed into an Islamist state. I do, however, truly believe that there are people who feel that their God wants it to do so, and wants them to help make it so.

[Mr. Peabody]

That's a good post. With some good points.

However, we DID lose civil liberties during the cold war. Ever heard of McCarthy? How about what happened to the Japanese during WWII? Let's not even discuss Lincoln and what happened to the Constitution during/after the Civil War. Roosevelt and the Supreme Court?

I understand what you are saying, but you kind of cherry-picked history to make your point.



Correct, but now we regard those events in history as with disdain and embarrassment. We should have learned something from those events.

[101A]

Correct, but now we regard those events in history as with disdain and embarrassment. We should have learned something from those events.
And I would suggest, sometimes overreact to current events believing ourselves to be repeating history.

[xrayzebra]

That's a good post. With some good points.

However, we DID lose civil liberties during the cold war. Ever heard of McCarthy? How about what happened to the Japanese during WWII? Let's not even discuss Lincoln and what happened to the Constitution during/after the Civil War. Roosevelt and the Supreme Court?

I understand what you are saying, but you kind of cherry-picked history to make your point.

And, no, I don't think there is a great chance of the U.S. being transformed into an Islamist state. I do, however, truly believe that there are people who feel that their God wants it to do so, and wants them to help make it so.

Were you even alive during the so called McCarthy era?

[101A]

Were you even alive during the so called McCarthy era?
No.