I've never been interested in the survivor type programs, including Donald Trump's sophisticated program "The Apprentice", but am familiar with the basic way they work.
"The Apprentice" provides the best model for choosing a
president, but the political parties should also consider the
process of "voting people off the island". On the basic "Survivor"
programs contestants are divided into tribes and work
together to survive in a wilderness setting. They conduct
periodic votes in which individuals are gradually "voted off
the island" until only one remains. On "The
Apprentice" contestants are assigned business related
tasks. Donald Trump, or comparable people in other countries,
gradually eliminates the least productive individuals by
telling them "you're fired."
Trump based his decisions on how well the individual
the walk" rather than how well they "talked the
talk." Those who want to be the U.S. CEO [i.e.,
president] should have to first demonstrate they can run an
organization such as a major corporation or state first.
Those candidates like Sen. Marco Rubio who have never run an
organization should be fired or kicked off the island in the
first round. Any candidate can mumble the
appropriate political cliches and promise
to do this, that and the other thing. Would be presidents need
to demonstrate that they actually can do this, that and the other
Governors should be the easiest to evaluate because their duties are
similar to the president's particularly in the area of working
with the legislative branch of government. Both
corporate CEO's and governors can be evaluated on how well
they select subordinates. For example, the New Jersey
"bridgegate" scandal raises questions about how well Gov.
Chris Christie selects subordinates . Voters would want to how
well governors delivered on the promises that got them
elected. Investors are usually interested in the
profitability of a business which can depend on economic
conditions. Voters should be more interested in the type
of risks a CEO took while running the business. For example,
did the CEO take calculated risks or take reckless chances, or
perhaps just continue doing things they had always been done.
Governors can also be evaluated on whether continued doing things
the way they had always been done or found more effective ways to
providing government services.
Democrats should have voted "Calamity" Clinton off their island long
ago. Calamity has been an ongoing disaster for the Democrats
since her husband began running for President. She has a history of
bad decisions. Her foolish decision to represent a corrupt savings
and loan before a board appointed by her husband caused the
appointment of a special prosecutor who eventually charged Bill with
perjury. Opposition to the health care plan she developed
early in his administration helped the Republicans take control of
She had our ambassador stay in Benghazi in spite of an attack on the
British ambassador's motorcade
in that city in June. She seems unable to understand that she
could have prevented his assassination by withdrawing him from
Benghazi prior to 9/11/2012. Many American cities recognize
the possibility to terrorist activity on the anniversary of the
original 9/11 attack. Why didn't Clinton? Her foolish
decision to use a private e-mail server while Secretary of State may
have compromised national security.