There seems to be a new media test for Presidential candidates in recent times. Does the candidate “look Presidential”?
John Stewart might “look Presidential”, but probably would not make a great President. Funny, perhaps. Great, not likely.
So what is the big deal over “looking Presidential”? It is another way for the media to steer the electorate and effectively choose our next leader.
What happened to judging a candidate on his or her principles? When did “looking” like a President become a criteria for being one? We are fortunate that leaders in the past were not put to this test or our world would look much different today. Consider some of these great leaders:
There are others. Can you imagine any of these great leaders being elected if they were subjected to the “Presidential Look” criteria?
On the other hand, we have had some “Presidential Looking” Presidents who certainly did not behave or perform very well. I would take a Maggie Thatcher type any day over a slick-looking Romney, Obama or Clinton.
America would do very well in the 2012 election to choose someone for President who has demonstrated long time conservative Christian principles; Lived by them, promoted them and committed to them. We can’t afford someone who comes now, in the election cycle, talking about those things without a track record to prove they are committed to them.
That narrows the field considerably.
Eliminating a candidate with strong values because their sound bites are flawed or they don’t look Presidential will give us more years of shallow leadership and take us even further in the wrong direction.
***Gordon Howie is a nationally syndicated author and CEO of Life and Liberty Media***
// ]]>
