À propos of the spat that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sander are having about whether the other is qualified to be president, either one of them fulfills the constitutional qualifications for president so that’s not what they’re talking about. Let’s put the question on the floor.
How many serious policy errors can a candidate have made and still be deemed qualified for the job of president?
- Zero. Poor judgment is disqualifying.
- One. Anybody can make one bad decision.
- More than one.
- A pattern of poor decisions is disqualifying.
- The question is irrelevant. You’re judging among candidates not conducting a horse race. You choose the best among the available candidates. Having made the occasional mistake, even a major mistake, is just one among many factors.
Bad decisions may simply reflect on the candidates circle of friends, advisors, confidants. I’ve often wondered why we don’t give very close attention to a candidates circle. We are electing them as well and they should be vetted. Hello mainstream media, wake up!
You know, I miss reporters who actually report. Nowadays we’re mostly being treated to press releases.
F. Misuse of the word “disqualifying” is disqualifying, and
G. Use of hyperbole without a proper law license is disqualifying.
I don’t always use hyperbole myself, but when I do, my friends and I prefer a Panamanian-looking lawyer with bad taste in beer and killer chest hair.
Stay hyperbolic, my PD.
E.- How many people are really looking at policy anyway?
Steve
D
F. “Disqualifying” – a rhetorical device politicians use against opponents when they are desperate.
D
I’ll go with E, many times the candidates have no record of policy success (or failure). When they do, partisan noise machines make objective assessment difficult. If you take campaign noises as policy statements, implementation always seems up in the air.