The process by which we choose our presidents in America is apparently broken, or if not broken it is at least suspect. Why, you ask, would I make such an assertion?  Am I a political heretic? Am I questioning the concept of democracy?  The answer to both of these questions is “no I am not.”  Rather, I am questioning the practical application of the concept, specifically as it relates to how we choose our president.  In the private sector, if the hiring process resulted in the selection of the least-qualified applicant we would know something is wrong since choosing the best-qualified applicant was the goal.  If the goal of the process by which we select our president is to choose the best qualified candidate, our process is without question broken.

What if Barack Obama, instead of campaigning, had to interview for the job of president and provide a resume to the American people? His resume would have almost no entries before the one showing his first term as president, and that entry would contain nothing but a litany of failed policies and programs.  Frankly, with a resume like his, Barack Obama could not even get a job in today’s economy. Even when hiring minimum-wage employees, companies do a better job of screening their applicants than America did in selecting our president in the recent election.  If Barack Obama had to interview for the job of President of the United States, his interview might go something like this:

Read more: Patriot Update