Why Conservatives Love Unqualifed Black Candidates

[SillyAmerican]

It would be interesting to see a discussion of Dr. Carson's positions on the issues. Yes, he's religious, well educated, articulate, and thoughtful. Which of these qualities makes him "unqualified" exactly? I was under the impression that the Constitution specifies whether or not a person is qualified, and by my reading of that document, the qualifications for the office of president are quite simple; a presidential candidate must be (1) a natural born citizen of the United States, (2) a resident for 14 years, and (3) 35 years of age or older. So with this list of requirements, I am unaware of any candidate running for the office of president who would be considered "unqualified", be they black or not.

Perhaps you believe Dr. Carson would not be able to perform one or more of the specific functions a president is called on to do? If so, please indicate which one(s):

• Sign or veto legislation
• Act as Commander in Chief of the armed forces
• Appoint cabinet members and key federal officials
• Appoint justices to vacant Supreme Court seats
• Grant pardons and reprieves
• Negotiate with other countries
• Influence Congress for specific legislation
• Work with Congress on budgetary issues

Frankly, I think it would be quite interesting to see what a sharp non-lawyer, non-politician would do in the role. And despite what you may think, the activities that take up any sitting president's day are challenging to be sure, but it 'aint brain surgery...

[SillyAmerican]

But would he be a good President? By the enumerated requirements of the Presidency, we could never elect Madeleine Albright -- but we could in theory elect Charles Manson, who fits all the enumerated requirements.

The President has great discretionary powers. The issue is never whether someone can perform the enumerated and informal duties of the President,  but instead how he does them. Nobody can accuse either of the last two Presidents of failing to do the job as President, but the vast majority of Americans believes that one or the other was among the very worst in his choices of what he did.

Quite right. The election process is all about citizens deciding who would make a good President, and the first step in that process is determining what qualifies as a good President: what positions a candidate has taken on various issues (and how well he or she would represent the people), the principles by which a candidate operates and makes decisions, their general demeanor, and a host of other factors. Perhaps it's semantics, but I don't believe either Bush or Obama were "unqualified" to be President, despite my having serious reservations about many of the things each has done while in office. And while I might disagree with some of the views expressed by Mr. Sanders, I would never go around stating that he is "unqualified" to be President. So basically, I think folks should stop using the word "unqualified" in this context because it is completely inaccurate. If you are saying you believe a "qualified" candidate is someone who agrees with you on most things, then no matter who the next President is, by your definition, a good portion of the country will think he or she is "unqualified".

Sorry, but words (and the ideas they are used to express) matter.