[Whatssnew]

A collom from Bozeman Montan Tribune...

In considering who I'd like to see running in the election 10 months from now, I've given a lot of thought as to the qualifications the person should have. The best way to explain this is perhaps by analogy, a hypothetical local scenario: Imagine that you've been unexpectedly named as a member of a search committee to find a new president of Montana State University. What would the qualifications that you'd look for in a new president of the crown jewel of our community ? There are many. First of all, relative experience being the president, CEO, or head of a similar institution. Secondly, a proven track record of success. Of course a strong outgoing personality would be great, and certainly acceptable viewpoints on important issues, playing well with others, thinking logically, thick skin, etc. But good looks, a spouses resume, a large bank account, celebrity endorsements, color of skin, religious leanings, gender, and ability to attack the other candidates under consideration for the position, not-so-much. Yet for some reason the race, gender, religion, spouse, affiliate, and other cards are being played like one-eyed jacks and suicide kings in this primary election poker round. Nobody seems to be really interested in experience, integrity, or a proven track record. Nevertheless, I think it is important now, and it has been in the past. If one looks at past presidents from both sides of the aisle, we see that most presidents have had extensive CEO/executive experience. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush were all successful governors first. The problem with senators and representatives is that while they sometimes hire eloquent speech writers, they've never managed anything bigger than their own re-election campaign. Would MSU hire a president with no CEO experience ? I think not. So on the right side of the aisle, the republicans seem to have their house in order. Giuliani was deputy US Attorney General and then went on to become mayor of New York City, a place where 4/5ths of the voters are democrats. Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, and did a fairly decent job. He defeated the Clinton machine supporting his opponents. Romney ran the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake, and then was elected governor of liberal Massachusetts, home of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. So all three of these top GOP candidates have extensive successful CEO experience, and appeal across party lines to democrats. Candidates with support from both sides of the aisle help unify the nation. I supported John McCain in 2000, and although he does not have the CEO experience, he deserves consideration because he does have foreign policy and military experience far beyond that of any other candidate. (Senate Armed Services Committee and Council on Foreign Relations) My choice for GOP candidate however goes to Mitt Romney. For me, most of the GOP candidates are reasonable and would make good presidents. Poor choices would be Fred Thompson, Alan Keys, or Ron Paul. The left is not so lucky. Their top three candidates are all senators with little experience, no foreign policy or defense experience, and no CEO experience, yet they are applying for the position of president, i.e.: "commander and chief of the armed forces of the United States". Aside from being one-term senators with celebrity endorsements, the only unique claims these top three can muster up as qualifications are: Clinton is married to the former president and is a woman, Obama is black and young, and Edwards is a trial lawyer with good hair. None of those distinctions should be criteria for being seriously considered for the job of President of the United States (or even MSU). Dennis Kucinich would be a disastrous nominee. The only candidate on the left who I'd like to see get the nomination is Bill Richardson from New Mexico. He was in the Clinton administration as secretary of energy, was an ambassador to the UN, was a congressman from New Mexico, and more recently the Governor of New Mexico. That's an impressive list of accomplishments, and perhaps as good (or better) resume than any of the GOP candidates. Richardson's fatal flaw is that he's a democrat, not a liberal. He's one of the good guys like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller, or the one time democrat Ronald Reagan. His hero is Hubert Humphrey. He could be the perfect storm from the left, but today's radical liberals who have hijacked the Democratic Party have no use for such a candidate, and that's why he's currently a distant 5th place. But if I were on the search committee for the new MSU president, Richardson and Romney would be my two top picks for the post.

What you think?