I'm running for President of the United States
 

A Poll (of sorts)

In this country we have, over a period of time, established a criteria that candidates for high office must meet to be elected. I am going to propose two imaginary candidates for President of the United States - Pick one and give the reasoning behind your choice.

Candidate A : From California - is married and has three children - he is third generation politician (his father and grandfather were both governors).

My name is Charles Evan Johnston III. I am proud to say that I am an attorney and a graduate of Harvard. I am married to the former Cheney Alexander (of the New York Alexanders). I have three children. Charles IV, Henry Alexander and Alexandria. They are all attending private boarding schools. I have never used alcohol, tobacco, or any drug other than that prescribed in cases of rare illnesses. I have no skeletons in my closet. I have never been in any type of trouble in my life, I am honest and totally trustworthy. I have never had sex with anyone other than my wife and can assure you that my wife can say the same about me. We are a deeply religious family and I base most of my decisions on the teachings of my religion. I am not indebted to anyone for the political success I have achieved and when I am elected will pick no one for appointed position based upon anything but their qualifications.

Candidate B: From Virginia - is married and has two children by his current wife and one by his first wife. He has served one term as Secretary of Commerce - prior to that he was CEO of the XYZ Corporation.

Hi, I'm Bill Smith, I live in Richmond and have a lovely wife, Charlene and two boys, Billy and Jerry. I have a daughter, Chrissy, by my first wife. I graduated from VMI with a 2.8 GPA. I didn't do as well in school as I could have because I really liked to party when I was younger. I got into a little trouble when I was in school but nothing out of the ordinary. I drink occasinally - a glass of wine or beer with dinner and a cocktail or two when we are out . I started my business with a loan from my first father-in-law and went through some lean years before I finally got him paid off. I didn't want to be in politics - it is not something I asked for but the current presdient had a real problem and I had experience in working with that problem. I have been asked to run for president by a large number of associates. Many of them have put their money where thier mouth is because I could never have afforded to run on my own. If I am elected they are going to expect positions in government. I have been involved with a number of women in my life and possibly could become involved with one again under the right circumstance. This is who I am, this is what I am. I will do what I feel is best for my country , I do not lie, I do what I say I will do and you can take that to the bank. Thanks

OK! Which one, and why?

i'd have to go w/ the first one.

just because of comptetency. i dont care anything about their private lives (like religious aspects, having affairs, # of kids, sexual preference) and all that crap.


first person would seem more qualified for the job

Candidate B sounds like a mix of Clinton and Bush. If Candidate A is telling the truth, its no contest.

I may be seeing this totally wrong but I would say A wouldn't recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit him on the ass.

Well, you made it up, so you can't be seeing it wrong, can you? I don't see why such a candidate is impossible. The only question mark I see is the thing about his religion deciding things for him.

The press would eat Prez. B alive.
Too much baggage.

that is a worrying factor.

It doesnt matter. Bill Clinton got into office. Both Bushes got into office. GW is especially "colorful"

Because of what I'm used to seeing A would be hard to believe, but if it were undeniably proven to be true through numerous references, scrutinizing background checks, and overall proven track record "A" would be the one. IMO for the time a president is in office his position on GOD should be one of an a agnostic. This doesnt mean to give up their religion; if they are a christian for example, but for the time in office and choices made they should be free of such influences. Thats my only concern about "A"

With "B" I understand no one is perfect, but IMO public servants especially the top one should have pristine records. The biggest problem with "B" is the fact he stated his lack of desire to initally want to do it. Thats not good.

Wheres the independents? This two choice direction sucks. But looking at history its reality. I see a strange trend that a faint invisible line is being drawn.

Candidate A is a fucking toffee nose, Candidate B is the everyman.

Here's the kicker, they're all Candidate A (with skeletons) to different extents.

They pay spin doctors to make them candidate b, 1) to appeal to joe sixpack and 2) to declare their closet skeletons before the other guys do.

Bottom line, no sane politician is ever going to make either of these speeches. B concedes too many negatives, A is too arrogant.

Candidate C, because both of them give off evil-vibes.

Candidate A seems flawless so would seem the better 'character'

I'm going to do a write-in candidate...don't really care for either of them.

A is going to base decisions on religion...I'm not a religious person, so he wouldn't be my ideal candidate.

B is going to be in someone's back pocket, so I'm not interested.

A seems flawless but comes off as a smooth-talker, if he's really telling the truth I'd go with A but he seems fishy.

undecided

i cant vote on caracter alone sorry im a meat and potatos man i need a platform