Reply
Thu 3 Nov, 2005 02:26 am
All you need to run for the Presidency is that you are all of35 years of age and born in the United States of America. It was okay when the US was a backwater nation newly minted ex-colony. But the US is now the sole superpower, the policeman of the world (however, momentarily it is acting roguishly) and founder of the UN. The President can send anyone to fight a war in distant lands, put you in harm's way by ignoring hurricane warnings if you live the path of an approaching hurricane, destroy your pension plans, put you in prison with the mere suspicion of being a terrorist, etc. Okay, so we know the President can do a lot of nasty stuff. Don't you think the minimum standard should be raised a bit so the wrong guy doesn't become the President?
To change the qualifications for who can run for the chief executive's job, you'd need to amend the Constitution. While this is certainly a possibility -- it's been done 27 times before -- it's a time-consuming, slow process and would almost certainly meet with a great deal of opposition. What sort of qualifications do you envision? A law degree perhaps? Lawyers are universally despised. Prior diplomatic service? That would exclude some of the most potentially able candidates. The idea smacks of elitism no matter how you slice it. Some of our most able presidents have been people with no college or university education. Some of the weakest have been otherwise most erudite.
Apparently, being a stupid person who is a puppit to his handlers is okay.
I was going to start a thread callled "No President Left Behind" with a similar theme. I often chicken out starting poltical topics for fear of getting stuck in the futility of agrument.
I think a President should at least be required to correctly pronounce the names of the countries, leaders and cities he would like to attack.
?
most bar-stools are adjustable.
". . .so the wrong guy doesn't become the President?"
And just who is going to decide who is the wrong guy, talk? You?
Just for starters, how about prior experience as senator then as a governor? The senatorial experience would enable a candidate to experience the international community and gain knowledge as to how Congress works. A governorship in a proper state i.e. excluding Texas and such where a governor seems to have a nanny, would help a candidate run a government.
I think we should raise the bar on the voting public. An IQ test? An education level? Hmmm....
Unfortunately, the people elected shrub, he didn't elect himself (well, not really).
There you go. Exclude Texas and California.
Don't TX and CA sort of negate each other anyway?
I was working quickly, littlek, to come up with another state that had elected a governor that talk might not find acceptable. I guess I was thinking that whoever controls the right to vote can control the outcome.
Not to worry. Half the time today, I don't even understand myself. Why should anyone else?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace