- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
You are not a retard because you are standing up for the working class.
No, you are a retard because you are failing to note that I am saying being trained in the law is a plus.
You are arguing that is GOOD to hold someone's educational level against them when you are voting for a president, in essence you are arguing in favour of having uneducated presidents.
Administrative ability is also a plus, so is vision, and so is being able to put your ideas across well.
You are a retard because you are prosecuting a class war rather than looking at what those qualifications mean, instead of actually about what a lawyer is trained to do, you are acting like that lawyer's education is meaningless.
There is nothing wrong with getting an education or demanding one in a president. The Republicans have studiously avoided law degrees in their candidates for years - and it has ended up hurting the country as its legal system took strain.
Once you've got that education you are no longer working class.
Further you talk about how the president is supposed to be a leader in things like art? Are you insane? Most politicians' writing is terrible, and the last professional "Artist" America hired as president supported Apartheid and couldn't balance the national cheque book.
The economy, if you read your constitution is not really the president's main field of focus. He can set up treaties which Congress must then approve, but the purse strings are held by Congress, it is Congress that decides how much America spends.
And treaties are a legal issue, a treaty has constitutional effect. This is why Bush selling nuclear technology to India was such a big deal, he was violating constitutional law when he violated the NPT.
The president can argue with Congress but he can't force it into action on spending, he can only veto actions taken by Congress. A president's main ability when it comes to the economy is having a bully pulpit which can be totally ignored, pretty much like what happened to Jimmy Carter.
That GW Bush has managed to do so much damage is not because presidents are that legally powerful, but because assume that they are. They aren't. There duties are mainly dealing with legal issues if all goes well. Their duties regarding the military should be the exception not the rule.
