You might wish to use this as your base template and adjust as to what you think should be considered.
Chief Executive Officer Of The United States and
Commander In Chief over the armed forces
R O G S
Ability to govern effectively (and not have to learn so much on the job) A+ C- D C-
Ability to inform people for good decisions A C- B B
Ability to work with others in cooperation toward compromise and solutions A D D C
Ability to gather and use experts A B- B-D C?
Ability to plan and make rational decisions, and implement them A D B- ?
And, I think, good character relative to the items that matter, not politically
act against country's best interests. A C D? A-
Average and consistency, which is vitally important A C- C- C
ADVICE: Elect a man for the progress he is capable of, not just because you "like him", he is "like you", or because he offers "hope and change" (pied piper). This is a serious position and your decision making should be based on facts and reasoning - for the consequences are great. Elect a man who can GET THE BEST RESULTS FOR YOU AND THOSE WHOM YOU CARE ABOUT.
We're not hiring someone to represent us as a lawyer, or a think tank idea generator for the excitement of it, or a politican/legislator - we are hiring a manager, a results guy, a decision maker - someone who will benefit all Americans. We are hiring a chief executive (get it done) officer to run the most powerful country in the world. Isn't this a truly vital decision?!!
THE CANDIDATES EVALUATEED: RESULTS PRODUCED, QUALIFICATIONS
The test for the qualifications lies in the results produced.
Widespread dissension, blamed on others
A budget so bad it was voted down 97-0 in the Senate,
Class warfare increased (instead of understanding of others),
Ill-considered regulations hurting business and small banks,
Not voted for the jobs provided by the Keystone Pipeline based on poltical considerations,
No plan in writing for social security, medicare, debt reduction,
Appears to be encouraging dependence and entitlement, redistributing for "fairness",
Good personal moral character, but in politics he is not in integrity as politics overrule what is
good for the nation. (some acting in conflict of interest is true of most of Washington, which
he promised to work on cleaning up, with no progress)
Etc. and etc. and etc. See his Obama Main Page and look in more detail at the proof.
We like him and we forgive him for his lack of competence, but we should not put him back into a position for which he is not qualified nor should we set ourselves up for the damage he could cause over time, not out of badness but out of ineffectiveness and misdirected efforts.
If Obama was a top corporate CEO, he would have been fired a long time ago. The problem is that most people do not have adequate information about what is actually occurring and they are not evaluating his performance objectively, based on clear criteria. See also The Qualifications For The Job. Romney: "Mr. Results" - If he makes a promise, he keeps it (intensely)
Improved greatly a great number of companies performance, saved companies (and jobs)
Save Winter Olympics from fraud and debt - and made $100 million for the US
Produced extraordinary, excellent results on investments in managed funds, owned by individuals,
pension plans, unions, etc.
Keeps promises, does not exaggerate
From high deficits, he moved Massachusetts with 85% Democratic legislature to a surplus plus a
$2 billion dollar rainy day fund, in four years (during which he figured he could help the US).
Courageous in his decisions and actions (and he is a careful considerer who will not act
TRULY THE MOST QUALIFIED LEADER I'VE EVER SEE, IN MY LIFETIME, FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES. That is my assessment and also Jack Welch's (video).
(A satirical script)
Contract With America, and purported resultant majority in Congress (actual cause: corruption
issues with the Dems)
Helped reform welfare by a large degree (not giving credit to other particpants
Contentious record, drummed out by his Party later (he resigned before any actual vote)
Reprimanded for ethics by equally Party allocated committees and in Congress
(300+ to 28)
Known for skirting the regulations
No experience running anything of substance (only his small "consulting"/lobbying firm)
One of the most unpopular (unfavorable opinion of) politicians in history
Erratic and not able to stick to what it takes to run things to completion in peace
Hasn't even run anything of substance, so he is disqualified on that basis alone.
"While we forgive him as a human being, we must recognize that past behavior, rather than promised changes, is the absolute best predictor of future behavior."
Santorum: Mr. Clean And Righteous, But...
Honorable and good values
No experience running anything substantial
Makes remarks that are repugnant to certain groups - Extreme?
Drafted the welfare reform Gingrich claims credit for
Says he is responsible for the 1994 takeover of the House, not Gingrich
'Newt's grandiose troubles are a pattern, big ideas but didn't carry through'
Held regular meetings for lobbyists about legislation
Survey identified him as being the least popular of all 100 senators, with a rating of -19%
A good guy, not even close to being qualified for the actual position, but a good moral leader (but a little too righteous for me).