Needed: A Different Sort of Presiden

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... vis-hanson


..."When Obama finishes his term, we will have had 28 consecutive years of presidents with either an undergraduate or graduate degree from Harvard or Yale. We should have learned from chronic deficits, massive debt, and Obamacare that the Ivy League’s best and brightest are not always either. Truman’s higher education came from the school of hard knocks. Ike graduated from West Point and helped win World War II.

Reagan slogged it out for years in the cutthroat worlds of Hollywood and television — after graduating from tiny Eureka College.

Finally, can our next president have done something for a while other than nonstop politicking? The press caricatured Ike’s garbled speeches and Reagan’s B-movie reruns. But at least they did not go uninterruptedly from one political office to the next until being elected president.

Youthful charisma, the Ivy League, career politicians, and two presidential terms may be fine in theory, but next time around can we take a needed break from what have become our presidents-as-usual?"...

I like the idea of a non Ivy league President. Where did Christie go to college? Cruz went to Harvard as did Hilary. Rand Paul?

I care a whole lot more about what they believe; what they intend to fight for; what they plan to fight against; and their ability to accomplish it than I do what level they accomplished in school.

If you use Ted Cruz as a yardstick, I don't care that he went to Harvard--He's a lunatic, and I'd rather have Jeffrey Dahmer in the White House.

It would be nice to have someone as POTUS who knew more than how to campaign and play golf.

Maybe had some clue how to actually run a successful business?

Those people are probably too smart to get involved.

I can't help it if Bush played golf, and ran at least three businesses into the ground before bailing out on them. I guess you got what you paid for.

Couldn't agree more that we need someone with actual life and preferably business experience. We also need someone to lead. Bush didn't really lead, except after 9/11, and Obama has not shown any semblance of leadership.

I'd love to see Dr. Carson, Christie, Mike Rowe :woo hoo: run. Drives me nuts that the current crop of politicians have never actually had to make anything for themselves....

Yikes, we need citizens that don't look to their leaders as much.

Ever hear the phrase, "he gives you enough rope to hang yourself"?

We also need better systems so this stuff does not happen no matter who is president or any of the other nutty govt positions, elected or not, you look to for leadership and decisions in your life, we need better systems where they CANNOT overborrow, CANNOT tell us what to buy, CANNOT tell you how to live in your home and CANNOT make major or irrelevant minor decision in our lives. We give the presidents enough rope to hang themselves and of course they hang us. So of course they borrow more rope and then "what do we do with all this rope?", well more hangings of course.

I would really love to see people independent enough that the solution is not another heavy handed leader. The leaders revered in this thread were far from perfect and the recent presidents mega failures should not be used to make those previous presidents that also did much damage. (I think big govt and drug war Reagan was mentioned as a good president) A good president just runs the executive branch and realizes that the federal govt does not have a need aside from national defense to grow. We have state and local govt for all other needed govt growth. Don't let a really bad president make bad presidents look good, that is settling.

I'd also love to see citizens powerful enough to not vote for Obama or Romney if those were not the people that actually wanted to be president.

I think anyone who has ever thought or muttered the words "lesser of evils" in an election are a big portion of the problem.

It is the average American that knows who his neighbor is that demands a Yale or Harvard grad. Sorry folks you fell for the marketing. I hate to say it, you will vote for the next one too.

When your choice is eliminated in the primaries, ie. Ron Paul, what do you suggest?

My reason for asking is simple, do you throw your vote away so you have no involvement in the outcome or vote for the candidate least likely to continue the damage?