During my career, I have reviewed thousands of resumes submitted by candidates who were applying for a variety of different positions. I have reviewed resumes submitted by attorneys, corporate executives, potential Board members, administrative assistants, secretaries, and even church pastors. The review of resumes is normally the first step in the hiring process. In reviewing a resume, I have always attempted to compare the experience and achievements of the candidate with the duties and responsibilities of the position that needs to be filled.
If I were named to a committee to identify candidates for the position of President of the United States, I would not select Barak Obama for further consideration. After reviewing his resume, I would conclude that Obama does not have either the experience or the record of achievement to qualify him to be President. He has served only two years in the United States Senate during which he has spent most of his time running for President. He is only four years removed from being a member of the Illinois State Senate. He has no executive experience. I am not aware of any significant achievements on Obama’s part, except that he has run an excellent campaign for President.
Unlike Obama, McCain has a strong resume. His resume, in my opinion, clearly shows that he has the experience to be President of the United States. McCain attended the United States Naval Academy and thereafter spent 22 years in the U.S. Navy. He served as the naval liaison to the U.S. Senate before retiring from the Navy in 1981. His naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. McCain has spent the last 26 years as a member of the U.S. Congress. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982 and to the U.S. Senate in 1986.
There is clearly no comparison between McCain’s extensive experience and Obama’s limited experience. Some will argue that experience is not the only factor to be considered in electing the next President, and I would agree that experience should not be the only factor. In my opinion, however, it is an extremely important factor that deserves great weight. It is important because experience brings with it wisdom, judgment and knowledge.
Obama’s supporters have jumped on the fact that McCain’s choice for a running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, lacks the qualifications to be President, as if this somehow makes Obama more qualified. I agree that Gov. Palin does not have the qualifications to be President, and I wish McCain had selected a more qualified running mate. But Gov. Palin, if elected, will be Vice President—not President. Moreover, in my opinion, Gov. Palin, although lacking the experience to be President, is more qualified than Obama. She has been a member of a City Council, a Mayor, a Governor, and a member of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Obama talks about reform but has no record to stand behind his rhetoric. Gov. Palin has a strong record as a reformer and as someone who is willing to take on the establishment, including fellow Republicans.
Posts
3 comments:
The big thing people will say about Palin is that, yes she is running for Vice President, but she has to be ready to step in and lead the country at a moments notice if necessary. Some people will argue that point and say that it nullifies the Obama/McCain experience arguments. I think his choice of Palin was some what of a hail marry. So far, it has worked. I hope he does not let her go too far with the left bashing because people will pull the same ol' politics card on her in a heart beat.
Achievements and Experience. Interesting choice of words defining one's selection criteria.
No one can argue that George HW Bush ("41" , VP, CIA Director, military aviator, congressman, Amb to China) and Jimmy Carter (GA Gov, Navy officer) had government experience prior to becoming President. Both of these men were not re-elected and neither have been recognized as particularly effective Presidents.
What was missing?
Leadership . . . the ability to have people follow one's lead. The ability to inspire, to motivate, to raise people to take action.
Ronald Reagan had it. He led America and its Allies to do better. While recognized as an administrative "no-show", he motivated the world (including the USSR) to his thinking.
FDR understood it and through weekly meetings with the press, incredible oratory skills and effective policy brought America out of the Depression and prepared it to fight and win WWII.
The criteria for a military officer to move up in rank is based solely on the Leadership skills of the rising officer. Simply, the criteria is based on the question, "will men follow him."
So, the discussion regarding our next President should not be based solely on one's resume, but on the ability to intelligently lead, motivate, inspire, recognize the best direction for America.
A Leader is one who has the innate ability to bring people to his/her way of thinking. A leader is not a long-suffering maverick because they will have created followers to their independent direction. A leader is only a maverick for a short period of time. Then they become the head of a movement.
The ability to Lead is the criteria for this election.
After all, we are electing the Leader of the Free World.
From Day One of the primaries, only one candidate has demonstrated the qualities of Leadership. Only one has brought people to their feet. Only One has professed change in American policy and started a movement. Only one was able to inspire and not rely on their VP pick to ignite a following.
These are the qualities we need in the next American Leader.
In response to Tim, my criteria for selecting the best candidate is not limited to his or her experience and achievements. There are many other factors, including leadership. In my post, I said that experience should not be the only factor in selecting a candidate, but I think it is an extremely important factor that deserves great weight.
Post a Comment