Should There Be A Better Vetting Process For Presidents Since Obama Has Failed

[nodoginnafight]

True blindboo - the economy has improved significantly - Americans have recovered trillions of dollars. But the radical right tactic of pretending things are going poorly in an effort to convince people that things really are going poorly is about as old a hack-job as there is.

The real question is whether are not Americans really are sick and tired of such dishonesty or if they are falling for it.

The increasingly desperate timbre of the radical right reminds me of a drowning victim fighting for that last gasp of breath. Their core demographics are dwindling and they are not reaching any new ones. So if they do manage to regain a senate or house majority in November I'll just write it off to: "It's always darkest right before the dawn."

 

[shintao]

The real question is whether are not Americans really are sick and tired of such dishonesty or if they are falling for it.

I am sure they are falling for it. The only question is, what will occur when the final curtain closes. Will retard-chaos reign across the nation? Will people get desperate and do things they would not ordinarily do to other US citizens? I don't see gated communitys saving the rich. Or will the middle-lower classes become the corporate slaves to the corporate store.

 

[saveliberty]

Bush Jr. slipped by with no qualifications whatsoever.

Bush response has expired. Please check your dates for valid excuses.

Actually Bush is a valid reason to call for stringent government servants qualifications that would lead to greater US citizen protections from the evil empire. Like taking away pardon power from presidents and giving 10 year prison sentences for violating their oaths.

Not much sense this makes even if Yoda speak you use.

 

[Sallow]

Since the President has not failed the question is moot.

The real question should be "Have the pseudo-conservatives fooled enough Americans to return them to power?"

The president has failed. Look at his poll numbers and look at the economy. He was not fit for the job. He had no executive experience.

He's polling as well as Reagan and has better employment numbers.

And exactly what do mean by "executive" experience? Constitutionally that is not a requirement.

 

[zzzz]

Vettted? All of the candidates were vetted... by the people, or those that voted anyway. Half the people don't care anyway because they don't vote! The news media's treatment of candidates pushes the best qualified people away from office, that and all the partisan bickering. We have had several presidents from our past who have appeared to fail but the President is but one part of the equation and cannot be blamed for everything.

 

[saveliberty]

Since the President has not failed the question is moot.

The real question should be "Have the pseudo-conservatives fooled enough Americans to return them to power?"

The president has failed. Look at his poll numbers and look at the economy. He was not fit for the job. He had no executive experience.

He's polling as well as Reagan and has better employment numbers.

And exactly what do mean by "executive" experience? Constitutionally that is not a requirement.

Expecting a learned person with a wide variety of experiences is not an unreasonable request.

 

[Moon]

Look at all the failures he has had his first two years as a president supported by a democratic congress. Lets face it. The American people were duped by this guy who obviously wasn't properly vetted. How could a candidate promise so much and not deliver. What were his qualifications to make such promises and bring Hope & Change? Think about it folks. What kind of vetting process should we have for these candidates who want to bring prosperity for America and its citizens? Obama has proven that the vetting process doesn't work when selecting a president.

The Constitution establishes the qualifications for one to be considered eligible to be President. It's up to the voters to decide which candidate fits best with their views on the various issues. On rare occasions we get an excellent President, most of the time we get a mediocre one, and sometimes we get a bad one. I'd be willing to bet that wouldn't change one bit if you had some formal "vetting" process in place.

 

[USArmyRetired]

Since the President has not failed the question is moot.

The real question should be "Have the pseudo-conservatives fooled enough Americans to return them to power?"

The president has failed. Look at his poll numbers and look at the economy. He was not fit for the job. He had no executive experience.

He's polling as well as Reagan and has better employment numbers.

And exactly what do mean by "executive" experience? Constitutionally that is not a requirement.

Executive..... like knowing how to operate a business or office with a budget, making business decisions, etc. Obama never had any of that experience.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look at all the failures he has had his first two years as a president supported by a democratic congress. Lets face it. The American people were duped by this guy who obviously wasn't properly vetted. How could a candidate promise so much and not deliver. What were his qualifications to make such promises and bring Hope & Change? Think about it folks. What kind of vetting process should we have for these candidates who want to bring prosperity for America and its citizens? Obama has proven that the vetting process doesn't work when selecting a president.

He's accomplished far more than Reagan did in his first 2 years.

btw, it's funny when people who didn't vote for Obama complain that he hasn't done enough for them.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Bush Jr. also ran against a certifiable lunatic Al Gore and that spandexed John "Ironballs" Kerry and his wife Zsa Zsa.

No contest, so we got Bush Jr.

Obama clearly sucks, not sure what everyone so defensive about, unless they are government workers.............

 

[shintao]

Bush response has expired. Please check your dates for valid excuses.

Actually Bush is a valid reason to call for stringent government servants qualifications that would lead to greater US citizen protections from the evil empire. Like taking away pardon power from presidents and giving 10 year prison sentences for violating their oaths.

Not much sense this makes even if Yoda speak you use.

Qualifications for government offices need to be more than a age/birth certificate. You take away pardon power to strengthen the laws of the US. For instance, Libby was pardoned from a felony in Iran Contra, yet was back in Bush's Admin again, only to get in trouble again serving America. So no pardons. You do the crime, you do the time. Perhaps you are blinded to Bush War crimes, so let me give you Pelosi who took an oath to uphold the constitution, and then refused to impeach Bush, violating that oath. She is a collaborator to murder, torture & rape of detained & chained innocent human beings. And so is Congress for allowing her to remain in power, and the Bush Administration. A good reason why we need people who have passed psychological testing, as a qualification for office. Bush is responsible for the murder & maiming of thousands US troops. That is how important having someone who is mentally competent as a candidate, regardless of government position. That help your understanding?

 

[ClosedCaption]

How has Obama failed? Be specific.

 

[Sallow]

The president has failed. Look at his poll numbers and look at the economy. He was not fit for the job. He had no executive experience.

He's polling as well as Reagan and has better employment numbers.

And exactly what do mean by "executive" experience? Constitutionally that is not a requirement.

Expecting a learned person with a wide variety of experiences is not an unreasonable request.

No it isn't. And Obama surely qualifies on this count. He's a graduate of both Columbia and Harvard, taught at Harvard, became a lawyer, was a successful author and served in serveral elected positions.

And calliing him a "failure" without getting specific as to why in not a reasonable argument.

 

[The Infidel]

How has Obama failed? Be specific.

I wish he was a faliure, but unfortunate for America he has been very successful at getting his Liberal agenda and all of its nasty consequences pushed down our collective throats.

Rush L. was right in wishing he would have been a failure.

 

[The Infidel]

He's polling as well as Reagan and has better employment numbers.

And exactly what do mean by "executive" experience? Constitutionally that is not a requirement.

Expecting a learned person with a wide variety of experiences is not an unreasonable request.

No it isn't. And Obama surely qualifies on this count. He's a graduate of both Columbia and Harvard, taught at Harvard, became a lawyer, was a successful author and served in serveral elected positions.

And calliing him a "failure" without getting specific as to why in not a reasonable argument.

He was'nt a teacher... he was a lecture-er (spelling?), big difference.

It was all grooming for a political career.

 

[Chris]

Look at all the failures he has had his first two years as a president supported by a democratic congress. Lets face it. The American people were duped by this guy who obviously wasn't properly vetted. How could a candidate promise so much and not deliver. What were his qualifications to make such promises and bring Hope & Change? Think about it folks. What kind of vetting process should we have for these candidates who want to bring prosperity for America and its citizens? Obama has proven that the vetting process doesn't work when selecting a president.

Obama has been a pretty good president.

Health care reform, Wall Street reform, the restoration of American prestige abroad, the return of science without political influence, the rescue of the American economy, and various foreign policy successes....all in all a pretty good record.

His only failure is he has been too soft on the Republican Party.

 

[Sallow]

How has Obama failed? Be specific.

I wish he was a faliure, but unfortunate for America he has been very successful at getting his Liberal agenda and all of its nasty consequences pushed down our collective throats.

Rush L. was right in wishing he would have been a failure.

Which "nasty" consequences?

The administration just reported a lower deficit..from 2009 to 2010.
The number of people on the federal payroll has shrunk.
The number of layoffs is falling.
The United States is leaving Iraq..or at least minimizing it's footprint.
A time horizon has been set for withdrawl from Afghanistan.
Legislation using a free market solution for health care has been passed.
Greater work protection legislation has passed.
Financial companies are repaying their loans and it's actually showing a profit for tax payers.
GM is on schedule to repay it's loan.
Several major companies are showing profit.
The stock Market is up over 11K.

There has been a great deal of tangible bench marks reached that indicate success.

 

[Sallow]

Expecting a learned person with a wide variety of experiences is not an unreasonable request.

No it isn't. And Obama surely qualifies on this count. He's a graduate of both Columbia and Harvard, taught at Harvard, became a lawyer, was a successful author and served in serveral elected positions.

And calliing him a "failure" without getting specific as to why in not a reasonable argument.

He was'nt a teacher... he was a lecture-er (spelling?), big difference.

It was all grooming for a political career.

Really. With all due respect this seems like sour grapes.

Personally I have no problem with any professional who has ambition to do well in a job and acclimates themselves to acquire the skills to perform it.

After all..one wants a person who went to medical school as a doctor, correct?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Expecting a learned person with a wide variety of experiences is not an unreasonable request.

No it isn't. And Obama surely qualifies on this count. He's a graduate of both Columbia and Harvard, taught at Harvard, became a lawyer, was a successful author and served in serveral elected positions.

And calliing him a "failure" without getting specific as to why in not a reasonable argument.

He was'nt a teacher... he was a lecture-er (spelling?), big difference.

Really? What's the difference?

According to The University of Chicago Law School, there is no difference.
Media Inquiries | University of Chicago Law School

It was all grooming for a political career.

Isn't everything?

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Obama has been a pretty good president.

Health care reform, Wall Street reform, the restoration of American prestige abroad, the return of science without political influence, the rescue of the American economy, and various foreign policy successes....all in all a pretty good record.

His only failure is he has been too soft on the Republican Party.

Oh my God, it's Mr. KoolAid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLcilJGPo68"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLcilJGPo68[/ame]