What we need in a President

So the Presidential campaign is in full swing.  I know.  It sounds insane.  Its way to early.  But here we are.  Tomorrow night starts the first presidential debate.  This is the first chance for 17 members of the Republican party to make their statement.

Right now, Donald Trump leads the pack.  Why?  I've been reading twitter a lot lately, and what I've found is that people like him because they are sick of DC politics and so is he.  But anger makes a bad president.  He has many things that he is against, but he isn't for anything. 

So what do we need in a President?

#1 Executive experience. We need someone who was a governor.  Governors understand how the presidency should work, because they've served as the executive as a state.  The problem with President Obama (and by association a Rand Paul, Teddy Cruz, and Hillary Clinton) is that those that come out of the Senate don't know how the Presidency should work.  Most of them want to serve as President by proposing and signing laws (i.e. ObamaCare).  They don't understand what it means to be Commander in Chief.  They don't understand the duties of the President.  They just want to propose laws.  In truth, they think they want to be Speaker of the House.  Therefore, we need a person who has executive experience.  That should rule out much of the field right there for reasonable people.

#2 A Conservative.  There are several reasons why we lost the last two elections.  There was major fraud, unnecessary though it may be.  There was racial motivations (many people voted not on the content of his character, but on the color of his skin).  But mostly, it was due to the Republican primaries.  For some reason, Republican obeyed the liberal media in voting for who the liberal media thought was "electable."  In other words, with McCain and Romney, they voted for the most liberal Republicans they can find.  It seems that the same is going on this year.  Trump is liberal.  He donated to Hillary Clinton's last presidential campaign.  He's voted for more Democrats than Republicans.  He's a liberal.  I am honestly convinced that he's running a fake campaign to try to get Hillary elected.  But I feel the same with Jeb Bush and Chris Christi and a few others.  We need a conservative.  Think about it.  The most one-sided election of all time (1984, Reagan vs. Mondale) was where we put up a true conservative. 

#3 Intimidating.  The world is in chaos.  Putin is restarting the Cold War.  ISIS is rolling over much of the Middle East.  Iran has a path to the Nuke.  Our border is porous.  Again, I hate to compare everything to Reagan, but he ended the Cold War by staring down the USSR and making them blink.  Some want to pull back from the world.  But as we all know, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."  Rand Paul believes that if we give Iran a nuke, the MAD policy will keep them in check.  Mutually Assured Destruction is not a great policy for those who blow themselves up in order to receive seventy virgins.  That's just not good foreign policy.  And there is no reason why we are the only country in the world who are not able to secure our borders.  And yes, note the "s."  I mean Canada too.  I would also include in that we need to change our legal immigration policy.  We need more immigrants from Mexico, and from China and the Middle East.

#4 Financially sound.  President Bush really wasn't financially conservative.  True, he ran two wars, but he wasn't that financially good to begin with.  Trump declared bankruptcy four times.  Our dollars are worth much less today than they used to be.  Our debt is insane.  President Obama took out more debt than every President before him.  We don't need someone who declared bankruptcy.  We need someone who doesn't believe in debt. 

Rand Paul

So Rand Paul has made his run official.  The Senator from Kentucky is going to run for president.  Is he who we want in the White House?

At least he's not Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush.

But seriously, I want to take a moment to express my thoughts on him.

Pros: He's from Kentucky, not New York or Florida, so he deals with real people.  And that's good.  Kentucky is a good, solid state with good values.  It's a part of the heart of this country.

He's a fiscal conservative, which Washington desperately needs.

He speaks in a way that people can relate to.  And for a Washington politician, that's good. 

He's done a good job in the Senate.  I like him personally and have followed his career since his election.

Cons: First and foremost, let me say what I don't like about Hillary, President Obama, McCain, Teddy Cruz, and Rand Paul.  Plus a list of others that haven't thrown in officially yet.  They come from Congress.  Presidents that come from Congress think that their main job is Chief Legislator, not Commander and Chief.  Take President Obama, for example.  His signature acts as President are ObamaCare, and going around Congress to do whatever the crap he wants to.  But he's been a lousy executive.  He doesn't seem to grasp the roll of the three branches.  Reality is, President Obama thinks he's the Speaker of the House.  That's the same problem so many presidents have had.  And that's a big strike against anyone to me, no matter the party.

Second, and this is major, is his foreign policy.  He shares his dad's foreign policies.  First and foremost in this is that we should just give Iran a nuke.  Ron Paul, and so it seems Rand, share the same belief.  To understand this, you must understand the 1980s.  In that time (and throughout the Cold War), the global policy was MAD.  MAD, was truly mad, nuts, crazy.  MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction.  It was the idea that the Soviets and Americans would not launch nukes, because both sides would fire everything, completely killing both.

But will mutually assured destruction restrict people who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up really fear being blown up?  NO!  That's absurd!  This is insane! 

Third, he's pro-legalization of pot and prostitution.  Not exactly something that the country is ready for.  He seems to ride both extremes, while alienating the middle.  That's not great.

I'm still waiting for Scott Walker.

Too political

I just have to do a quick rant on Ron Paul. He's a lunatic. He's stuck in the 1960s-70s. He actually thinks that mutually assured destruction that kept the United States and the Solviet Union from firing nukes is enough to keep Iran in check. Mutually assured destruction does not mean much to a people whose philosophy of war is the suicide bomber.

Also, he wants to take an isolationist view of America, meaning that we pull our military and everything else home, then let the rest of the world do whatever they want. He thinks this is a new concept, based upon the founding fathers (the same founding fathers that had a hand in helping the French Revolution. What sounds isolationist about that?). Historically, this is not a new concept, or even a modern concept. In the 1920s and 30s, America also had the same philosophy. What were the results? Japan and Germany conquering then butchering our allies and innocent people, only to reward our passivity with an attack on Pearl Harbor. yes, we stuck our noses in a few places where it did not belong since then (none moreso than Vietnam), but it does not have to be either or. "With great power, comes great responsibility." We have a responsibility to do the right thing, and in doing so, we protect ourselves for the long-term.

So Ron Paul, stop thinking only of the growing debt. The present is built upon the past. If we do not learn the lesson of the past, we are doomed. If we take one particular and apply it universally, we are also doomed. Wisdom is the best course. You would think a man of your years would know that.