Sample Blog Header

What professional experience best prepares someone for the presidency?

Posted at 5:00 AM on January 12, 2012 by Eric Ringham (39 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government

The candidates competing for the Republican presidential nomination have experience in politics, business, diplomacy, medicine and other fields. Today's Question: What professional experience best prepares someone for the presidency?


Comments (39)

Clark is just mad because his field is soon to be obsolete. He'll be replaced by a webpage soon....

Posted by david | January 13, 2012 7:58 AM


Although there are many qualities that go into being a good president. I have always looked at who a president surrounds himself with.

Posted by Hugo | January 12, 2012 7:22 PM


"Most of those who post on these pages are takers not makers."

Clever rhetoric, Clark. However, I distinctly remember you letting it slip that you're in the financial services "industry" (so called). So tell us, in the course of your work, what have you made lately that's added to the overall well-being of humanity? The value of your sector of the economy is in helping boost the productivity of other sectors that actually produce goods and services that help people live better. A stand-up comic produces more direct benefit to people than you do. One of the causes of the crash of 2008 was unregulated financial institutions greedily extracting more profits from the economy than their services were worth. In short, when you accuse others of being "takers, not makers," it's a case of projection-- the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by Steve the Cynic | January 12, 2012 5:28 PM


Most of those who post on these pages are takers not makers. Useless freeloaders who continue to support obama's food stamp nation.

=============
well mr posted at 5:21 AM, 6:51 AM 2:54 PM, ... if you are under the impression that the entire base of business law and regulation that exists today came into existence with Obama - you're kind of killing your own argument there. Let's assume that you don't think that ... It wouldn't have been necessary to create those rules if cohorts of your's hadn't so badly screwed the environment, customers, investors, employees and society in general... so you best be checking the pool your're in and telling us how you intend to clean that up ... oh .. but your logic says its up to someone else - you are only responsible for your own business. Well guess what... the rest of got together and did do something .. we made those laws - cause it was easier that getting folks who think like you to do the right thing. Pity aint it.

Posted by GregX | January 12, 2012 4:32 PM


"Bush started the fire. Obama threw dried pine needles and gasoline on the fire."
================================================= um - the fire the Bush started was melting American industry, exploding the national housing market and under-serving the national debt- before Obama took office. I'd say it was more like Obama was only allowed to throw one gallon of water on it and only after congress made sure that he had gotten their pet "properties" out of the way.

Posted by GregX | January 12, 2012 4:22 PM


8 years as a grade school teacher. 5 years as a customer service representative in a car dealership. 5 more years as a barber or stylist. One year as a monk. 1 term as a school board member to complete the circle. In that circle you will have experienced private and public service, leadership, sub-serviance, the demands of extended consituencies, and how to listen. You know, actually - this might be a good CV for any politician. We elect too many people who are trained for the problem , er... system we currnetly have.

Posted by GregX | January 12, 2012 4:18 PM


After Citizens United? Lady of the evening.

Posted by Mark | January 12, 2012 3:33 PM


Bush started the fire. Obama threw dried pine needles and gasoline on the fire.

Posted by Surley the Cynic | January 12, 2012 3:26 PM


"Huh: Who has the time to identify all the facts that support my claim that obama is a clueless community organizer and the WORST president in 100 years.

Now there's a cop-out if I ever heard one. Seems the economy crashed under mr. bush's watch, and in most people's eyes he's the far worse president. But since you are allegedly the smartypants MBA/CPA I would like to know just what it is he should be doing differently, besides not being a democrat. Everyday you are up at the crack of dawn to post an anti-Obama rant, but offer absolutely no usable solutions, you just whine. As is your ilk's tendency these days. Do you need an ever bigger tax cut? Got any real solution's to pay for you last tax cut? You mention freeloaders every day. Who exactly are the freeloaders? And what would you intend to do about them? You see Clark, you come off as a whiner, not a winner. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might actually have solutions. Oh by the way if you haven't noticed, the populous is starting to see your type, the wallstreet financial sector as the freeloaders, who offer no real products, no solutions, but require ever greater and greater tax breaks, welfare, and a bigger cart to ride on.

Posted by huh? | January 12, 2012 3:15 PM


Huh: Who has the time to identify all the facts that support my claim that obama is a clueless community organizer and the WORST president in 100 years.

I am also a highly educated MBA/ CPA and I deal every single day with obama's clueless regulators searching for another solution to a non existant problem. I have seen thousands of good people lose their jobs in the past year, a direct result of this clueless community organizer pretending he understands the impact of his economic decisions and regulations.

Most of those who post on these pages are takers not makers. Useless freeloaders who continue to support obama's food stamp nation.

Posted by Clark | January 12, 2012 2:54 PM


You probably can not answer my question Joanie Jet, since your post is an obvious sad attempt at an ad hominem attack to discredit Obama for your obvious ulterior motives. Like Clark does in every post when he says "clueless community organizer" or Rush Limbaugh constantly uses since his arguments are usually weak and lacking any merit.

You should know that MPR listeners are typically well educated, and know about things like factcheck.org. In fact maybe you should check out their page about your baseless ACORN accusations. http://factcheck.org/2008/10/acorn-accusations/ just in case you actually are a bona fide dupe and not just a shill for some rightwing orginization. haha yeah right...

Posted by huh? | January 12, 2012 2:08 PM


"Considering the egos and immaturity running rampant in Congress and Washington today I suggest a professional comfortable dealing with such behavior: Any good Sixth Grade teacher would be a great choice.

Posted by Jim G | January 12, 2012 9:41 AM "

I agree.

It appears that regardless of who you are, (your ideas on leadership and directing the country), prior to the election changes after you have been dubbed with the hat of presidency to favor the wishes of the 1%.

What does it take to win the golden ticket of presidency? A history in theater and storytelling, the ability to appear to be busy and the ability to Organize, Multitask and Text 50wpm on your hand-held-clickety-clack, (cell phone) in order to proliferating viral nonsensical distractions (tweet-tweet) to keep the masses bamboozeled.

Posted by JackieRum | January 12, 2012 1:31 PM


Does it really matter who is running for President as to when they take over they jump into the puppet suit and follow where the puppet masters lead them. Sorry just a little cynical right now.

Posted by Bruce | January 12, 2012 1:17 PM


@ Joanie Jet, kimMN, roul, etc... whatever your name is until everyone gets sick of you again....

What is your point about ACORN? You say it like they are a group of child molesters. Please explain to the class what your claims regarding Obama's involvement is a bad thing, and why it matters at all. You bring it up on every post, I'm just trying to figure out why.

Posted by huh? | January 12, 2012 1:17 PM


Does professional experience include organizing protesters at ACORN count as experience as executive leadership?
Romney has executive leadership but fails on some other issues. Obama had none and he signed $1 trillion debt each year seemingly not aware
that raising our debt hurts the bottom line. He signed off to curtail USA oil and gas resources and fule prices and food went up immensely hurting the working class the most.

Posted by Joanie Jet | January 12, 2012 12:49 PM


I don't think there's a profession in the world, including governor, that could adequately prepare someone for the job. I'm much more concerned about the person's values, character, intelligence, willingness to seek good and varied counsel, resilience, etc. Realistically the person will always have a background in politics (sorry Donald) but I don't think governor vs. senator or former lawyer vs doctor makes much difference.

Posted by John P II | January 12, 2012 12:44 PM


How soon we forget.....

Many have pointed out that previous gubernatorial, Washington insider experience as being the utmost importance in being a successful president, even going so far as citing george w bush. But it was that experience, and his utter fumbling over the economic devastation he played no small part in, and pointless war, that lead to Obama getting elected. We were sick of Washington insiders pandering to their biggest contributors, playing politics, and doing nothing for the greater good.

Posted by david | January 12, 2012 12:38 PM


How about a school principal? Someone who has kept the zoo running, facilitated dialogue between rivaling factions, begged for public dollars, nurtured community and rung the bell on time.

Posted by Sheri | January 12, 2012 12:30 PM


Many commenters have expressed a desire for executive experience; some honestly, some as rhetoric. In either case there are only five living people with such experience at the highest of levels, none of whom are candidates for the Republican nomination.

Posted by Craig | January 12, 2012 12:17 PM


" qualities a presidential candidate should have"
We and the media did not seem to care about the gross lack of leadership experience in 2008 when we elected our leader.
I think the next president should have a valid resume at least as " good" and varied as our current President. Now let me try to recall exactly what those professional experiences were in pre-2008....Hmmm ( still thinking) Ah ha, it was actually being able to sign a mortgage in Chicago as his biggest event. "


Posted by Joanie Jet | January 12, 2012 12:02 PM


I used to think it was a law profession with an emphasis on a liberal education and/or experiences. I still think that's a good background, but I now see it more in terms of organizational skills and character.

Because no one is an expert on everything I see the president as mostly a decision maker. Having the ability to make intelligent, well considered, and knowledgeable decisions based on accurate sources is the best I hope for.

I also hope for someone who is not just a bag man for the big money interests, but I tend to cling wistfully to ideals.

Posted by JasonB | January 12, 2012 11:54 AM



I see that my earlier post was removed today because I used Obama as an example of no leadership experience
Is that fair?

Posted by Joanie Jet | January 12, 2012 11:53 AM


Joanie sums it up well.

A person with both real world private sector management experience AND holding office as an elected official in a managerial position.

I'd also like past military experience, but two out of three aint bad. Seeing the guy we have now had none of the above.

Posted by Gary F | January 12, 2012 11:12 AM


The only professional experience that makes someone suitable to be president is possessed by those that would never consider taking the job in a million years. It's a lousy job with relativity low pay. Anyone sane would rather have way less stress for more reward, both spiritually and financially. It's only perk is the enormous ego boost, so by definition it's sought out by the narcissistic and the borderline insane.

Posted by david | January 12, 2012 11:10 AM


I’ll go with Ross:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

DTOM

Posted by Regnar James | January 12, 2012 9:54 AM


Considering the egos and immaturity running rampant in Congress and Washington today I suggest a professional comfortable dealing with such behavior: Any good Sixth Grade teacher would be a great choice.

Posted by Jim G | January 12, 2012 9:41 AM


...multitasking, good stories about multitasking...

Posted by This is NOT lucy | January 12, 2012 9:21 AM


A professional is a specialist answering to their professional association over their boss. Your boss may fire you for, but you will still be a member of the profession; whereas if you violate the rules of your profession, you can be stripped of your ability to practice.

The rigors of professional training sharpen the mind, but for a president—who must be a generalist—it can also be a trap. Long-time professionals begin to see every problem through the lens of his or her specialty. It can also foster a deontological mindset through habitual deferral to the field hierarchy and always doing it “the way things are done” rather than analyzing situations in a more teleological manner.

Posted by Craig | January 12, 2012 8:53 AM


Of course, the only actual required experience, other than being 35 and born in the U.S., is to run a successful campaign, persuading enough of the right people to believe your message, regardless of what the truth is.

Posted by Steve the Cynic | January 12, 2012 8:45 AM


Being president is a crazy hard job.

Someone with proven executive leadership skills and significiant Washington experience might be able to pull it off.

Senators don't tend to do very well, as being a senator is not an executive leadership role.

Ex-governors have a decent record. They would do even better if they were more awareof the wierdness of Washington before they got there. A few years as VP or one of the big cabinet posts first would be good additional training.

Business exectutives, without Washington experience are challenged, because they have so mush less authority and confidentiality in Washington than they do in their companies.

Love him or hate his policies and/or beliefs, W had the qualifications. Governor of a populous state. Experience in Washington, even if it was mainly watching his dad for 12 years. The connections to recruit a bunch of experienced rogues to help him out. And a family and friend advisory board with real experience.

Posted by James | January 12, 2012 8:28 AM


I think the best skill needed for a potential president is the kind of executive ability that can generate compromise from a wide range of viewpoints. A president who tacks left just to please Democrats, or who tacks right just to please Republicans is not looking out for the interests of all Americans. We have ONE President, and that President needs to seek, promote, and advance the middle ground between the extreme points of view that seem to represent the major political parties today. When did compromise become a dirty word??

Posted by Mark G | January 12, 2012 8:23 AM


A person's character and decision-making process end up being far greater harbingers of success in the presidency than any professional experience. A private businessperson or a community activist could both make for equally good or equally bad presidents. It is not about what they have done, it is how they did it.

Posted by Todd | January 12, 2012 8:18 AM


@ Emery
Personally, in running for president, my gut feeling is that Romney's background as a relatively successful governor is more important than whatever his experience happened to be at Bain.

The problem, however, is that Romney has switched his stated personal beliefs so much since he was governor -

That for the life of me I can't figure out how much of his experience as governor reflects how he would govern as president.

Posted by Rich | January 12, 2012 7:22 AM


Good question, let me think a moment.. Got it!

How about being a former congressman, who was indicted and then made to step down as Speaker of the House and for extra credit a man who has personally gone out of his way to demonstrate behavior as a philanderer?

Perhaps someone who has had various women accuse him of adultery. And how can we forget "999"?

Perhaps being a former Senator who has very strong idea's about the government being involved woman's medical and healthcare decisions and at the same time allowing the government into our bedrooms? Oh and he voted for the bridge to nowhere.

Maybe a candidate who was a former wall-street leveraged buyout artist. Very similar to the folks who brought down the economy to it's knee's.



Posted by Steve | January 12, 2012 7:13 AM


What I find awe inspiring is that the voters would be willing to put a mirror image of the type of corporate raider and financial manipulator that brought the economy down in the White House. The stupidity astounds me. I'm looking for a helmet to keep the pieces together for when my head explodes.

Posted by Emery | January 12, 2012 6:53 AM


Here's a different concept. How about we spend a few months trying to find out what Mitt Romney would actually do as president, and whether his policies would be beneficial? I think it would be especially worthwhile to devote some effort to this because it's unusually difficult to figure out what side of various issues Mr Romney is on, or what side he's on at the moment, or what side he'll be on by the time the general election really gets rolling this summer.

Posted by Clerk | January 12, 2012 6:51 AM


Based on historical experience, I would say rail-splitting appears to be good preparation.

Posted by Steve the Cynic | January 12, 2012 6:48 AM


Clearly not a community activist such as obama.

I would believe as a governor of a state, it provides you with some experience managing budgets and working with politicians of both parties. It also requires you to balance the state budget, which for some reason our previous presidents seem to forget once they gain access to the feds currency printer.

Given the immense power of groups on both the left and right, I am not confident any president can make pragmatic decisions that will benefit the country if it impacts a specific protected group of whiners.

Posted by Clark | January 12, 2012 5:21 AM


Someone with a background in healthcare, say a doctor, with years of congressional experience. A person that when sworn to uphold the constitution does. A person with a strong understanding of the economy, like Ron Paul

Posted by John | January 12, 2012 5:12 AM


Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.


Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

January 2012
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        


Master Archive

Public Insight Network

The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.
More

MPR News
Radio

Listen Now

Other Radio Streams from MPR

Classical MPR
Radio Heartland

Services