Bad Choices in 2008 - Steps to Better Choices

Obama, Clinton, McCain. What do these three individuals have in common? They are all unsuitable and unqualified to ascend to the highest public sector executive office in the United States. The consequence is that none of these individuals have the proven track record as successful executives to provide assurance that under their leadership, the US will again establish and maintain policies in foreign and domestic affairs that will address deficits and debts in American economic policies. The long-term consequence is the continued devaluation of the US Dollar, the decline of the USA as an economic power, and the overall decline in our personal opportunties to build wealth.

So who would be more suitably qualified for this executive position?
1. Executive experience at the national level includes the Vice-President, Cabinet Secretaries, the Chief of Staff, and any of the Chairmen, Directors, and Commissioners of significant agencies.

2. Executive experience at the state level includes the Governors, Lieutenant Governor, Secretaries and Commissioners.

3. Municipal Leaders of major cities or metropolis regions, including the Mayor or City Manager.

4. Military Senior Officers with a significant scope of authority including tactical, administrative, and structural authority. Military law and administration is distinct and often self-contained, making a military leader more powerful than his civilian counterparts.

Certainly individuals with these credentials provide superior evidence of leadership and accountability to someone in a Legislative role - who simply crafted and debated laws and resolutions. Legislators have an important role in government, but they are not the singular individual. Given that the current process has disregarded candidates with proven leadership track records in favor of articulate legislative debaters, with compelling personal histories, I believe that it is severely flawed and needs replacement in order to restore the US to its prior greatness as an economic power.

My recommendations are to disband this current destructive and divisive Presidential selection method and decouple the key items so that, using technology and direct selection, Americans can:

1. Select a president from a pre-approved pool of qualified candidates. These individuals would have specific Executive experience within the public sector. Vote for the best leader who can build a strong team and lead a successful transformation.

2. Set the policies with a series of referendums and mandates. Rather than accept an entire platform, take a "cafeteria" approach, selecting the best combination to have a practical and pragmatic consensus.

3. Determine the priorities for public policy, assigning a weighted criteria to make decisions and choices. Where policies or programs conflict, use the prioritization criteria to determine what should be done first.

This way, the President with the consensus choice can deploy the mandate approved by the majority to the satisfaction of the population, without being driven to pursue a hidden extreme agenda. The alternative is to continue the status quo which rewards populist demagogues, well-financed insiders, and vague communicators who appear to be all things to all people.

A strong and effective president will lead to a strong and effective economy.