We don't need another Bush or Clinton in the White House
 

Is our Country so lacking in qualified Presidential candidates that we have Clinton as "heir apparent" and the possibility of a third Bush desiring the White House? Can't we find a Governor who has had to balance a budget and lead a state (but not another Bush)? Haven't we had enough of former Senators? Regardless of party or ideology one might ask Senator Obama, Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry and Senator Hagel, how has that worked for you?

Crazy alert! Are you sure you're a citizen of this Country? (I only capitalized the C because you did.)

You sound like Ms Palin (or themerc) with 'how has that worked for you?'

Please say something pertinent or shut the hell up

No, there are plenty of them, but since when would a competent leader/administrator want the job? Used to be the two parties were trying to do what they thought best for the country. But now that half are rooting for the country to fail, why would someone want their lives, and the lives of everyone they ever knew put under a microscope, just to take a can't win job for 10% of what they'd make on Wall street?
So now any candidate who could stand the scrutiny is a carbon copy of dry toast, or has been sent to bench W. Hardly an inspiring leader.

Oh Noes, the President is boffing three secretaries, drinking 100 proof toddies, and rolling fat ones in the rose garden.
Gee, sounds like a kick-ass-take-names leader. (sounds like Putin :haha:) I don't give a shit about his hobbies, tell me whether he's doing what we hired him to do.

Infinite Monkey you are priceless. Typical liberal response to go completely ad hominem (resorting to name calling) rather than answer the questions or add anything productive to the post. Good luck with Hillary in 2016.

xoxoxoBruce, Thank you for some illuminating commentary. It is nice to get a response that explains rather than attacks. For the record, I think that is precisely the point and I appreciate your insights. Thanks!

Chris Christie maybe.

Eh, when you go trolling that's what you get. Yes, I'm priceless.

Thanks for noticing!

Now, what are your answers to the problems, aside from bitching about leadership? How is your non-productive shilling working out for you? What do you think about Ebola? So transparent.

I think one of the eligibility requirements for being elected POTUS should be former military service.

Perhaps one wouldn't be so quick to spend lives, if their own life used to be one of those lives.

[/crickets]

I don't agree. If anything there's the risk that they will be far more resigned to the loss of soldiers' lives as the cost of war. Every single general has to learn how to send men to fight knowing the chances are some will die. It is a fundamental part of their role. It has to be.

What I think wuld be good - and this goes for politics and leadership in the Uk also - would be a requirement to have worked in something not related to politics for at least 5 years.

Soooo many of the current generation of politicians have essentially been working in, or attached to politics, at a local or national level, their entire working lives. Speaking for the Uk - the days of conservative politicians coming up through business and industry and labour politicians coming up through trades and working organisations are long gone. They go from school to college, to university to a job in an MPs office, or working for one of the parties - they go do a year of internship in a company maybe - but mostly that's a company that will give them an in to politics.

Time was, prominent politicians on the conservative side had experience running businesses, or law firms, and prominent politicians on the labour side had worked in industry and risen up through trades unions - with a bit of crossover between the two. They had experience of how business actually works, of how the world of working people actually functions.

Fok yeah. Make it 10.

And to me, lawyerin' and solicitin' don't count. Get us some civil engineers, who actually know what it takes to build and maintain. Get us some artists, who actually know what it takes to inspire and create.

I like that bit as well but won't oppose prostitutes running...

infinite monkey, I wasn't bitching, I was raising what I thought to be legitimate questions. Most people answered. I appreciate that because I don't pretend to have the answer. Their responses have given me something to think about which is good. I think xoxoxoBruce raised an interesting point when he queried (paraphrasing) why would anyone of quality bother to run? Some of the other responses raised military experience or real world experience as prerequisites. For me it comes down to someone of high character, a reasonable world view and a unique style for acting to face our toughest problems. That is not up to me or you to decide but the electorate. The reason I raised the questions is because I can't think of anybody right now but God help us if we get Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush by default. By the way what on earth does my view on Ebola have to do with this?

lumberJim, I am not so sure about Chris Christie but I respect the fact that you were the only one to throw out a name. I thank you for that.

Mark Warner is a Senator now, which is a strike against him, but I remember him as a very good governor in Va. He was a businessman before that. His businesses were very lucrative, but were not your typical nuts and bolts business. He used political connections and knowledge gained while a staffer on Capitol Hill to get into telecom. You can read about him on wikipedia if you want details.

He doesn't have the charisma a presidential candidate usually has, but he's smart and knows how to organize stuff. Plus, he really was a good Governor. Balanced the state budget and took care of all the basic needs in the state. Didn't do any controversial political crap like so many politicians do now.

If he got a good foreign policy person to be a trusted secretary of state, I think he would make a good president.