Integrity, experience, judgment and leadership ... these are, to me, the four essential characteristics that one should look for when selecting our next Commander in Chief. To me most candidates who have thrown their hats in the ring so far ... from both of our parties ... lack one or more of these attributes ... Hillary Clinton comes up short on judgment and integrity ... Donald Trump, on integrity ... Bernie Sanders, on experience and judgment ... Jen Bush, on judgment and leadership ... Marco Rubio, on experience and judgment ... Mark O'Malley, on integrity and judgement ... Rick Santorum, on leadership and experience ... Rand Paul, on experience and judgment ... Ben Carson, on experience ... Ted Cruz, on experience and integrity ... Lindsey Graham, on experience and leadership ... Chris Christie, on judgment ... Bobby Jindal, on leadership ... Lincoln Chafee, on all four ... Rick Perry, on judgment ... Jim Webb, on experience ... Mike Huckabee, on leadership ... Jim Gilmore, on leadersihip ... and, if he runs, Joe Biden, on integrity and leadership.
The only candidates that I feel have all four traits are George Pataki, Scott Walker, Carly Fiorino, and John Kasich ... none of whom are currently leading in the polls. And Pataki also seems to lack a certain personal dynamism to propel him even later in his campaigns. So this leaves us, I think, with Kasich, Walker and Fiorino ... any of whom, by this sifting process, might have a real eventual shot at the presidency. People, you first heard it here ...
Afterward: Thinking objectively, our current president had or has none of these four characteristics ... so there must have be something else that was at work in 2008 and 2012.
25 comments:
Your afterword is rather teling. Are you trying to determine who OUGHT to win or who WILL win? Because Dubya was not a top scorer in any of your categories. He won twice.
I question how Sanders is rated as having inadequate experience when has been in the Congress for 24 years! In the military that would get you full retirement.
What do you want? A governor who has executive chops but knows zilch about anything outside the country? Or a congressperson who has tried at least to work with a group seeking collaboration? Or a businessperson who will run the numbers and shoot from the hip without consultation from team unless they are majority stakeholders? It is hard to be all three...
So what 20th century Presidents had all your sifting characteristics?
He had experience and leadership. I agree that his judgement was often flawed and many question his integrity ... but not me.
I think a governor who has some common sense is better than a congressman who can't manage.
I'm referring to management experience. I think that were Sanders elected, the country would manage itself (into the ground.)
Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan and Bush 41. (Truman almost makes it.)
Well if inteligence is not a characteristic then Rick Perry has got it all, right out of that same old Texan governor's mansion.
So Walker makes the cut even though he has governor four only four years. Maybe you would like Jerry Brown or LePage from Maine. How about that Market Basket CEO?
So essentially a person zero to little global or even non-regional experience is good as long as they are deciders.
Seems that Eisenhower would sift through your criteria. He had those characteristics to be sure.
Further: Truman lacked experience but was a quick study and had integrity despite the sewer he came out of. Eisenhower's leadership had been diminished by his war fatigue. Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan had the added advantage of good communication skills.
Further: However good communication skills are often a cover for other failings ... witness Obama and Bill Clinton. JFK also had them but also leadership.
Haven't we have had enough of ex-hippie presidents? e.g.s, Clinton and Obama
No. "Give peace a chance", "Let's all live together", and "Make love not war" are simply not anti-Christian or anti-American.
So you admit that a fifth characteristic is excellent communication skills. In our soundbite, twittersphere world, a well-turned phrase can (dare I use the word) trump the other characteristics. Which makes it hard to imagine what guided Dubya into office when he spewed misstatements like a drunk at closing time.
And what of FDR? He had personal and societal adversity, has stacks of soundbites of his pithy communications, and seemed to me to have the other characteristics. I do not accept that Reagan was great except in script reading.
How can someone really do a good job as our Commander-in-Chief when the whole notion of the military in anathema to him/her?
Good communication skills are nice ... but not essential. They are often like a tasty gravy atop some rotten meat. FDR did have good communication skills in a Thurston Howell kinda way. But he lacked judgment ... and his integrity was suspect (like many Democrats ... except Carter).
Don't forget ... judgment was one criteria.
Then Jeb Bush is your man. He was a signator to the Project for the New American Century back in 1997. http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement%20of%20principles.pdf.
As summarized "... a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. "
Actually integrity was just about Carter's only stellar quality.
Ah! Judgment resolves issues to sensible conclusions but everyone's notion of "sensible" is not the same. You crave judgment based on conservative principles.
Poor judgment = freeing illegal immigrant criminals, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons, running our national debt up to $18 trillion dollars, polarizing race relations, giving Iran $150 billion so that it can fund terrorism, dramatically increasing immigration from terrorist nations, politicizing the Justice Dept., etc.
Post a Comment