"The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him." ~Niccolo Machiavelli

Judging the Presidential Hopefuls

I've been repeatedly taking the quiz on VoteHelp to determine which presidential candidate meshes well with my interests. No matter how I finesse my answers, the top four candidates are within a percentage point or so. So, I'm using other criteria in preparation for the California primary.

Experience? Nonsense. Prior results? Perhaps. I don't care how many years someone has put into their work. What counts are results. Did anyone check out G.W.'s impact while governor of Texas? Apparently not. Molly Ivans was asked what her take was on Dubya's first five years as president, and she responded, "I told you so."

Let's look at personality. One candidate is frosty and over rehearsed. Another is charismatic, disdainful and short on specifics. Still, another is a charming, unrealistic populist. What does this mean? Nothing. All are qualified to be president, and I don't have to hang out with any of them.

Presidents Aren't Managers

Presidents are leaders, not administrators. They don't run the country; that's what thousands of bureaucrats are for. Therefore, presidents are at their most revealing when they fill their cabinet positions. Unfortunately, the positions are appointed after the election, and yet, it's the most important process before actual governing begins. Discussing who a candidate would select as his or her vice president during the primary elections is ill-advised, but it would help the American voter to know who, specifically or by a list of virtues, a candidate would select to be in his or her cabinet.

Double Dare You

Every debate, every interview has had the same set of questions—and the same answers. Let's ask the question of each candidate, "Who, sir or madam, would you select to run the country's executive branch? Name names or characteristics."

The truth would be tortured to death.