FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The 2012 presidential campaign will soon go into high gear; but before it does, here's an idea worth considering:
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/01/24/art.palin.jpg caption=""]
What if you had to pass a competency test in order to run for president? You know, prove to the voters that you have some sort of a clue.
It might go a long way toward eliminating some of the intellectual lightweights who have tried to pass themselves off as presidential timber in the past.
An evangelical supporter of Mitt Romney is calling on Christian conservatives to consider "a new litmus test" beyond the traditional cultural issues.
Politico got hold of the memo Mark DeMoss sent to 200 pastors, donors and intellectuals on the Christian right.
In it, DeMoss writes that a candidate "should be capable of becoming president, and then competent to be the president." What a concept!
He thinks Romney is the answer - since he can raise the money to mount a campaign against President Obama, is doing well in the polls and has a business background.
DeMoss seems to take a swipe at some of the other contenders. He says a candidate's values alone aren't enough to get his vote: "my pastor shares my values, but I don't want him to be my president."
This could be aimed at Mike Huckabee.
Then there's this: "By the way, 'energizing a crowd' is also not enough; Justin Bieber can do that - but I don't want him to be president either."
Are you listening, Sarah Palin?
Putting aside this guy's support for Romney, a competency test for the next leader of the free world doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
Here’s my question to you: Should presidential candidates have to pass a competency test?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Dee in Ohio writes:
It certainly would thin the herd some! And if the tests were given as a prerequisite to even getting on the ballot, it sure would save a lot of the truly gullible from making campaign contributions to some totally unqualified numbskull!
David in California writes:
We used to have an independent press that did that for us, but now that they all seem to work for one or the other political parties, I would say your suggestion has merit.
The grueling presidential primaries have done a great job of weeding out candidates over the years. I don't see how a so-called competency test will do a better job. The beauty of our democracy is that anybody can run to be the next president. But that does not necessarily mean that certain individuals should run. Ultimately it is up to the voters. We always deserve the politicians we elect.
Yes, and double yes. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, pilots, drivers, even many retail clerks have to pass a competency test to do what they do. Presidential candidates should. Members of Congress should also.
Chris in Los Angeles writes:
What good would it do if the voting populace is still largely incompetent in its ability to understand the issues?
I've been suggesting this idea for discussion in my college history classes for a long time. In ancient China, there were famous civil service exams that engineered the whole meritocracy system that China operated under; the best and brightest went forward to help run the government. Heck, my mail carrier has to take a civil service test. Why in heaven's name wouldn't the future president of the United States have to pass one, too?
Ken in California writes:
Bob in Iowa writes:
Jack, This is the funniest question you have ever asked. Of course not. Did you think of it when you were shaving?