Thursday, May 31, 2012


From Think Progress, here's a suggestion by Mitt Romney that the Constitution be amended to require that future presidents all have at least three years of business experience, a rule that would have excluded Dwight D. Eisenhower and John McCain, among others, from eligibility.

The last president we had with an MBA as well as a considerable business background was George W. Bush. Funny how Romney does not mention how well that worked out.

 It's also funny that in this video Romney mentions a constitutional requirement having to do with the birthplace of the president. The Constitution contains no such provision, requiring only that the president be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. Did Romney forget that his own father, who ran for president in 1968, and who considered himself constitutionally qualified for that office, was born in Mexico? George Romney nevertheless regarded himself as a natural born U.S. citizen.

UPDATE: Timothy Egan in the New York Times explains in more detail why requiring that the president have a business background is a terrible idea.


  1. I thought Clinton through down the gauntlet to Obama over the last 48hrs by standing with other Dems who recognize Bain as a good company. Dems must start to consider that Obama is taking their party over a falls.

    Clinton is smart enough not to want to tag along. I believe he is hoping Obama tacks and sees the light. If not, Obama risks losing the Presidency, control of the Senate and greater House representation by Repubs. Most of us who are open minded have seen this coming for a couple years now. The man is indredibly stubborn, and Clinton is frustrated by that.

  2. The issue is not whether Bain does good work or bad work. Obama never said that Bain is a bad company. What Obama has said is that working for Bain does not qualify Mitt Romney as a job creator. Quite the opposite.

    Companies like Bain are not in the business of creating jobs. They are in the business of generating profits for their investors. And if they can do that by selling off the assets of a business, or firing lots of workers, that's what they do.

    I don't think Clinton and Obama disagree on that at all.

    And I don't see how Obama risks anything by talking about Romney's record at Bain, or his record as Governor of Massachusetts. In neither of those roles did Romney distinguish himself as a job creator. But the whole premise of Romney's campaign is that he somehow knows how to create jobs. If he knows how to create jobs, he certainly hasn't demonstrated that anywhere in his prior career. And he isn't explaining now how he thinks he will create more jobs. So it's a perfectly legitimate campaign issue to tell the truth about that. Especially while Romney has been week after week lying about Obama's record on the economy.

    Why do people think that it's ok for Romney to run the kind of nasty campaign that he has done so far? And why do they criticize Obama for making the perfectly legitimate point that Romney has a terrible record at job creation? I understood why Republicans questioned Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum for making some of the same points about Bain that Obama is now making, because that kind of criticism tore the Republican party apart and provides fodder for the Democrats. But why criticize Obama for that? The Democrats are supposed to present an ideological alternative. They're not supposed to just accept whatever Mitt Romney says.

  3. << I don't think Clinton and Obama disagree on that at all. >>

    I am not sure how you could come to this conclusion. We will see Obama change direction or we will see Clinton separate himself further. Clinton is to smart to go down with this ship as is.

  4. I come to that conclusion by listening to what Clinton actually said on tv, which is that Romney did good work at Bain, but that Obama would be far better for the American economy than Romney would as president.

    That is exactly the same thing that Obama said, which was not to criticize Romney's record at Bain, in fact he said it was a healthy part of the free market, and that folks do good work in that area. What Obama pointed out however, was that the job of private equity is to maximize profits, and the job of president is a lot different from the job of private equity fund manager.!

    Don't pay attention to how the media is spinning this story, because the media is trying to create these divisions between Cory Booker and Obama, or between Clinton and Obama. That is what the media loves to do. Look at exactly the words that were used, and try to understand the distinction between doing good work in private equity and the job of president of the United States.

    Again, the point is not whether Romney was doing good work. The point is whether that kind of work is a good qualification for the job of president. Clinton, Booker and Obama are all on exactly the same page on this.

  5. << try to understand the distinction between doing good work in private equity and the job of president of the United States. >>

    Thank you. I am attempting to do that. I admit, looking back, I don't see Obama's qualifications for the job. And. I can see why some may not see Romney's qualifications.

    Now if you want to go by ideology -- I can see why you favor Obama. However, ideology is not a qualification for President; it is a vision or worldview; and anyone can hold those.