Thursday, April 7, 2016




I DON'T EXPECT THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES to be experts in everything. None can be.

But I DO expect the presidential candidates to have experts who can advise them on things with which they will have to deal as President of the United States (POTUS), Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (CinC), and CEO of the country. Things such as the

  • Constitution
  • Economy
  • Education
  • Foreign relations
  • Justice System
  • Medicare & Social Security
  • Military
  • Taxes
  • Terrorism

IT WOULD SEEM "REASONABLE" TO EXPECT our candidates to have cast into Jell-OR, if not concrete, opinions on how to handle the myriad problems facing all recent presidents. The ISSUES are the same as they have been for decades.

How can the economy be improved? How can jobs be kept in the U.S.? How can the trade deficit be lowered? Is any business really "too big to fail"?

Should federal dollars be spent on private schools? Colleges and universities? Should the Federal government be in the education standards business, telling the states how to educate their children?

How many dollars do we need to spend to prop up FIRST WORLD countries? Second World? Third World? Does anyone really think we can BUY allies; what has been our success rate for that? Why is it we gladly deal with some countries with horrible human rights records and thumb our national nose at others? (OK, I'm thinking China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba.)

Who will fill the vacancy on the Supremes? Left? Right? Thinker? Political hack? How about the laws on banking, immigration?

What happened to the sacredness of Social Security? Granted it was never intended to be what it is - a retirement plan for many. Likewise Medicare, another "untouchable."

Do we want a strong military that can enforce our intrusions into other nations' business? Or is a weak military a better deal a la BRAC? Do we really need bases in Europe when we can't protect our people across the Med in Benghazi? I know the only way to hold territory is with "boots on the ground," but do we NEED to hold terrority - and why can't the locals take care of their own?

Would lower corporate taxes keep U.S. companies in the U.S. and - perhaps - bring back some who left? Would returning and new organizations make up any loss? Would a lower tax reduce "cheating" and legal tax dodges?

Whet can be done to reduce the threat of terrorism in the U.S.? Is TSA enough? Could the CIA, NSA, FBI, and all the other alphabet soup spook agencies be made - forced - to cooperate with one another so we won't have another 9-11(2001)? Will there be a czar of czars? Are the agencies top heavy with (in)effective management?

My list hardly is "all inclusive."

I understand each candidate has his or her personal perspective on each of the issues; however, I would expect each candidate to invite experts - real world and self-proclaimed academic expects - with varied opinions on each subject.

Listen to the experts; consider their expertise; formulate a position. It might be based on one expert or the opinions of several.

Actually, all the candidates SHOULD have done this BEFORE the first day on the "campaign trail."

I hear this candidate and that tell the tv talking heads either that they have not considered the question or, worse, proving they are totally uninformed about the issue.

It is embarrassing.

The world is watching and the U.S. is showing the ignorance of the hopefuls for its top political office as too incompetent to run around the block let alone run a country that some still consider a world power.

I was born while FDR was in the White House; the first president I remember was Harry S. I have seen presidents who were presidential (Nixon, LBJ) and presidents who were "less so." Neither party has a "lock" on good candidates, but both parties seem to have more than their fair share of "less good" candidates. Each election seems to be the one in which I write in Alfred E. Neuman or Daffy Duck as my candidate of choice.

I voted in my state's primary, but if I'd known then what I know now, maybe Alfred E. would have received my vote.

I would like to vote FOR a candidate who I thought would fulfill the obligations of the office honorably RATHER THAN vote for the candidate I consider "the lesser of two evils" - or the least incompetent.

No comments: