Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Qualifications of a Congressperson in 2010

  1. Sep 18, 2009 #1
    Recently, Congressman John Conyers made a very interesting statement.

    "Congressman John Conyers Says There's No Purpose to Reading Health Bill
    CNSNEWS/the lid ^ | 7/27/09 | The Lid

    Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 9:56:25 AM by Shellybenoit

    During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

    I've been thinking about his comments ever since. However, I've come to a different conclusion.

    Why don't we elect people who can understand what they are reading?

    With this said, I started wondering what the job description of a Congreeperson would look like if posted on a job site, like Monster or Career Builder, or if listed on the "Ladders" or another executive search board?

    Why don't we compile a list of our expectations - the way an employer would.

    I'll start:

    1.) No felony convictions.
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 18, 2009 #2
    This is what I had in mind.
    http://jobview.monster.com/Vice-President-Statistics-Actuarial-Services-Job-Bowie-MD-US-83410865.aspx [Broken]

    This is a Monster ad for an executive position in healthcare. Should the people writing legislation to govern this industry be expected to have comparable education?

    By comparison, and after reading this, I don't believe the average Congressperson is competent enough to make decisions about healthcare reform.

    "MedAssurant Inc

    MedAssurant Inc

    Job Summary

    MedAssurant Inc
    Bowie, MD 20716
    Healthcare Services
    Job Type
    Full Time
    Relevant Work Experience
    7+​ to 10 Years
    Education Level
    Master's Degree
    Career Level
    Executive (SVP, VP, Department Head, etc)


    Vice President, Statistics and Actuarial Services
    About the Job

    MedAssurant, Inc.​ is currently seeking a Vice President of Statistics and Actuarial Services that desires to use their extensive background in healthcare analysis and statistics to lead our Statistical and Actuarial Services group and be a part of a company that is transforming the healthcare industry! Not only will you take the lead on the actuarial and statistical functions within our product design, development and implementation, you will have the unique opportunity to be involved in business development and the expansion of our Company’s business and product lines.​

    Your experience with healthcare data and expertise with a broad range of statistical and analytical techniques will enable you to demonstrate your leadership ability in this area and manage a complex analytic function and a top notch analytics staff.​ You will be responsible for assuring that MedAssurant’s statistical and analytical work is aligned with best scientific practices, and that the information provided by the Statistical and Actuarial Services group is timely, trusted, and useful to internal and external customers.​


    * Lead, and be ultimately responsible for, all actuarial and statistical capabilities, tracking and reporting of data analytics, quality, compliance, outcomes, product development, and financial performance pertaining to the Company’s product offerings in a timely, accurate, and comprehensive fashion.​
    * Lead, and be ultimately responsible for, the analytical, actuarial and statistical functions within the areas of product design, development, implementation, and business development for the Company's business and product lines.​
    * Coordinate with all resources and manage personnel to provide all actuarial and statistical services necessary to support the Company’s client relationships, strategies, products and service lines.​
    * Participate with Company leadership in the strategic development of initiatives to identify product and system enhancements which may improve client appeal, process flow, overall Company business function, industry reputation, and financial performance.​
    * Adhere to all confidentiality and HIPAA requirements as outlined within the Company’s Operating Policies and Procedures and fulfill the responsibilities and/​or duties that may be reasonably provided by MedAssurant for the purpose of achieving operational and financial success of the Company.​

    Job Requirements:

    * 5-10 years experience with analysis of health care data, including analysis of clinical outcomes, financial outcomes, and health care process.​ Experience working with large healthcare databases.​
    * Demonstrated leadership ability and success managing a complex analytic function and staff.​ Ability to build and to grow a management function.​
    * Experience working with systems development and information technology personnel.​
    * A positive, flexible and self-motivated attitude, with excellent teamwork skills in a multi-disciplinary environment.​
    * Strong work ethic and good interpersonal and project management skills.​
    * Excellent written and verbal communication skills.​

    Who we are:

    MedAssurant, Inc.​ is a leading provider of nationwide medical data abstraction, analysis, and verification solutions for the U.​S.​ healthcare industry.​ MedAssurant delivers unparalleled and truly end-to-end solutions to address matters of quality of care, cost improvement and containment, risk adjustment, clinical outcomes analysis, and healthcare data verification.​

    Originated in 1998 and headquartered outside of Washington, D.​C.​ in Bowie, Maryland, MedAssurant also maintains primary offices in Annapolis, MD and Lansing, Michigan and other offices in many markets around the country.​ Employee field review staff and operations are maintained in all 48 continental States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.​ Our track record of superior customer service is the result of a commitment to excellence shared by all of MedAssurant personnel.​ This commitment is fostered by a dynamic, energetic, and team-oriented company culture.​ We offer competitive salaries and a comprehensive benefits package including Medical and Dental insurance, 401(k) plan, Life Insurance, Vision and Prescription Coverage, PTO (paid time off) and seven corporate holidays.​ If you enjoy a culture that rewards passion and creativity, we want to hear from you! "
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  4. Sep 19, 2009 #3
    It's amazing that a congressman would claim an inability to understand a bill, but favor it becoming law and expect others to understand and follow it. And ignorance of the law is supposedly no excuse for breaking it, even when it's passed in ignorance by people who know it will be impossible for those expected to follow it to understand it.

    Some would argue that congressmen should not be expected to be an expert in every subject, and I agree. I don't expect them to understand every subject. Just the laws they pass.

    Of course that would be a hindrance to passing so many huge, complicated, burdensome laws. Wouldn't that be horrible?:rolleyes:
  5. Sep 19, 2009 #4
    I'm very serious about this. Our elected officials have a great deal of control over our lives. Some of them, Obama included, have no prior executive experience. Others, like Kennedy, Dingell, and Gore hail from a "ruling class" of politicians - it's a family business.

    I've been thinking about the CEO's being grilled by Congress over the past few months as well. It would be interesting to see a real debate between the CEO's and the same Congressional leaders - without the protocol and authority of the Government. Instead of debating each other, maybe candidates should debate business leaders?
  6. Sep 19, 2009 #5
    Here's a bit on House Speaker Nancy Pelosu - 2nd in line to be President of the United States. http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/nancypelosi.html

    "Nancy Pelosi
    U.S. Representative

    Born: 26 March 1940
    Birthplace: Baltimore, Maryland
    Best known as: The first female Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

    Name at birth: Nancy D'Alesandro

    Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker of the House of Representatives on 4 January 2007. She is the first woman ever to hold the post. Pelosi graduated from Trinity College in Washington, D.C. in 1962, then married businessman Paul Pelosi and moved to his native San Francisco. She worked her way up through the state Democratic party before entering Congress after a special election in California's 8th District in 1987. The 8th District, which includes much of San Francisco, is considered one of the more liberal districts in the United States, and thus Pelosi has often been accused of extreme liberalism by her political opponents. She was named Minority Leader in November of 2002, becoming the first woman to lead a political party in the history of the U.S. Congress. After Democrats won control of the House of Representatives in the national elections of November 2006, she was elected Speaker of the House for the session beginning in 2007.
    Extra credit: Pelosi is the mother of filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, director of the documentaries Journeys With George (2002, with George W. Bush) and Friends of God (2007, featuring Ted Haggard)... Nancy Pelosi was first elected to congress in a special election to replace Representative Sala Burton, who died in office... Pelosi's father, Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr. was a congressman from Maryland (1939-47) and mayor of Baltimore (1947-59). Her brother, Thomas J. D'Alesandro III, also was mayor of Baltimore from 1967-71."
  7. Sep 19, 2009 #6
    This is fun - Harry Reid


    Reid was born in Searchlight, Nevada, the son of a miner in the camp 50 miles southeast of Las Vegas. He attended Basic High School in Henderson, Nevada, where he played football and was an amateur boxer.[1] While at Basic he met future Nevada governor Mike O'Callaghan, who was a teacher there. Reid attended Southern Utah University and Utah State University. He then got his juris doctor from George Washington University, while paying for law school by working for the United States Capitol Police. Reid became Henderson's city attorney after law school, then a state assemblyman. At age 30, Reid was chosen by O'Callaghan as his running mate for Nevada's lieutenant governor.
    [edit] Political career: 1966–2009
    Further information: Electoral history of Harry Reid
    [edit] Nevada politics: 1966–1981

    Reid was elected to the Nevada State Assembly in 1966. He left after being elected lieutenant governor in 1970, the same year his mentor O'Callaghan was elected governor. He served in that office until 1974, when he ran for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Alan Bible. He lost by fewer than 600 votes to former Governor Paul Laxalt. In 1975, Reid ran for Las Vegas mayor and lost again, this time to Bill Briare.[2]

    Reid then served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission from 1977 to 1981, a post that subjected him to death threats. Jack Gordon also tried to bribe Reid. Reid allowed the FBI to tape Gordon's attempt to bribe him with $12,000. Reid lost his temper and attempted to choke Gordon, "You son of a *****, you tried to bribe me!", and was pulled off by FBI agents. Gordon was convicted in federal court in 1979 and sentence to six months in prison.[3] In 1981, Reid's wife once found a bomb attached to one of their cars, a bomb Reid suspects was placed by Gordon.[3]
    [edit] U.S. Representative: 1982–87

    Prior to the 1980 census, Nevada had only one member in the United States House of Representatives, but population growth in the 1970s resulted in the state picking up a second district. Reid won the Democratic nomination for the 1st District, based in Las Vegas, in 1982, and easily won the general election. He served two terms in the House, from 1983 to 1987.
    [edit] U.S. Senator: 1987–present

    In 1986, Reid won the Democratic nomination for the seat of retiring two-term incumbent Paul Laxalt. He defeated former at-large Congressman Jim Santini, a Democrat who had turned Republican, in the November election. He coasted to reelection in 1992. However, he barely defeated 1st District Congressman John Ensign in 1998 in the midst of a statewide Republican sweep.

    In 2004, Reid won reelection with 61 percent of the vote, gaining the endorsement of several Republicans.

    Ensign was elected to Nevada's other Senate seat in 2000. He and Reid have a very good relationship, despite their bruising contest in 1998. The two frequently work together on Nevada issues.
    [edit] Leadership

    From 1999 to 2005, Reid served as Senate Democratic Whip. He served as minority whip from 1999 to 2001 and again from 2003 to 2005, and as majority whip from 2001 to 2003 (except for a brief period from January-May 2001). From 2001 to 2003, he served as chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee.

    Reid succeeded Tom Daschle as minority leader in 2005. He became majority leader after the 2006 elections.

    Reid was re-elected Majority Leader by the Democratic caucus without an opposition on November 18, 2008, winning all 57 votes.[4]"
  8. Sep 19, 2009 #7
    Now here's a guy with qualifications - a Harvard graduate. But other than teaching a little, what is his real world experience?

    Barney Frank

    "Frank is the subject of an upcoming biography entitled Barney Frank: The Story of America's Only Left-handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman..."

    "Early life

    Frank was born Barnett Frank[9] to a Jewish family in Bayonne, New Jersey, one of four children of Sam and Elsie. Frank's father ran a Jersey City truck stop—a place Frank describes as "totally corrupt"—and served a year in prison, when Frank was 6 or 7, for refusing to testify to a grand jury against Frank's uncle.[10] Frank was educated at Harvard College, where he resided in Kirkland House and then Winthrop House, graduating in 1962. Frank's undergraduate studies were interrupted by the death of his father, and Frank took a year off to help resolve the family's affairs prior to his graduation.[10] He taught undergraduates at Harvard while studying for a Ph.D., but left in 1968 before completing the degree, to become Boston mayor Kevin White's Chief Assistant, a position he held for three years. He then served for a year as Administrative Assistant to Congressman Michael J. Harrington. Frank later graduated from Harvard Law School, in 1977, while serving as Massachusetts State Representative.

    In 1972 Frank was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives where he served for eight years. While in state and local government, Frank taught part time at the University of Massachusetts Boston, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and at Boston University. He published numerous articles on politics and public affairs, and in 1992 he published Speaking Frankly, an essay on the role the Democratic Party should play in the 1990s.

    In 1979, Frank was admitted to the bar in Massachusetts. A year later, he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 4th congressional district, hoping to succeed Father Robert Drinan, who had left Congress following a call by Pope John Paul II for priests to withdraw from political positions. In the Democratic primary held on September 16, 1980, Frank won 51.3 percent of the vote in a four-candidate field. His nearest opponent, Arthur J. Clark, won 45.9 percent and finished almost 4,500 votes behind.[11] As the Democratic nominee, Frank faced Republican Richard A. Jones in the general election and won narrowly, 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent.[12]
    1981, Congressional Pictorial Directory - Frank's first term as Congressman

    For his first term, Frank represented a district in the western and southern suburbs of Boston, anchored by Brookline and Newton, Massachusetts. However, in 1982, redistricting forced him to run against Republican Margaret Heckler, who represented a district centered on the South Coast, including Fall River and New Bedford. Although the newly configured district retained Frank's district number — the 4th — it was geographically more Heckler's district. Frank focused on Heckler's initial support for President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, and won by 20 percentage points. He has not faced credible opposition since, and has been reelected thirteen times.[13][14]

    Frank is known for his witty, self-deprecating sense of humor. He once famously quipped that he was unable to complete his review of the Starr Report detailing President Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, complaining that it was "too much reading about heterosexual sex".[15] In 2004 and again in 2006, a survey of Capitol Hill staffers published in Washingtonian gave Frank the title of the "brainiest", "funniest", and "most eloquent" member of the House.[16]

    A 1990 investigation by the House Ethics Committee was prompted by Steve Gobie, a male hustler Frank befriended and housed, who attempted to profit on his allegations that Frank knew he was using the home to see clients. Frank confirmed that he had once paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia state probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that prostitution clients were visiting his apartment.[17][18] "Two years [after Frank fired Gobie], Gobie tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to the Washington Post. He then gave the story to the Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract for the male version of Mayflower Madam."[19] After the investigation, the Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims; they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets.[20][21] The House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank.[22][23] The attempts to censure and expel Frank were led by Republican Larry Craig, whom Frank criticized for hypocrisy after Craig's own later arrest for soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom.[24][25][26] Frank won re-election that year with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since."
  9. Sep 19, 2009 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think the basic flaw in your argument is that you seem to assume that a CEO of company is more well-informed about the details of the decisions they make than a politican(?)

    Most people that are in some high level leadership role don't know -and are not expected to know- much about details. They always rely on others to give them the necessary information. This is why it so much easier for them to move from one type of business to another than for an "average" worker.

    Also, requiring politicians to understand all the details of a law is quite unreasonable. The problem is that a law is something very different than a policy, the former is ideally watertight and without loopholes whereas the latter is all about intentions. Someone who e.g. writes a political speech can do so knowing that there won't be any army of lawyers waiting to go over it to find a small inconsistency that they can exploit.
    The "problem" with a law is that at the end of the day it is the actual text that matters and not the intentions of whoever wrote the text (which is why laws are very different from any other type of text). This is the main reason why laws are so complicated, it is also the reason why you DO need legal experts to tell you exactly what they mean.
  10. Sep 19, 2009 #9
    We expect citizens to understand the laws that govern them. We expect CEO's to spend whatever sums necessary to abide by the laws Congress imposes.

    I expect an elected official to read EVERY word of a Bill. I expect the elected official to hire experts to explain every sentence that he doesn't understand. I expect an elected official to do his job.

    Maybe the question is who is writing the Bills and do they understand the contents?
  11. Sep 19, 2009 #10
    Ugh, no WhoWee.....no. A congressman has a staff of lawyers and speech writers for a reason. Their job is to meet with people from their district that they reperesent.
  12. Sep 19, 2009 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    When I was running SD Warren's newest high-end paper machine, the CEO of Scott (parent company) toured the place and came into the control room to look around. I asked him why the company was spending mega-bucks to build a new high-loft (think Charmine) tissue machine in Washington state, when Scott tissue in the 1000-sheet roll was the best-selling tissue east of the Mississippi. Why take on P&G on their home turf instead of just stealing the market with a superior product? He couldn't make a cogent argument for the company's bone-headed decision, and that was sad. He was on the boards of many companies making consumer goods (including Campbell's soups) but didn't have a bit of technical expertise in the company he was heading, nor did he seem to have any real appreciation for the marketing of our products.
  13. Sep 19, 2009 #12
    It makes you wonder why he was taking a tour. I had a similar experience when I was in my early 20's. I had been with a company for about 4 years and earned a mid-level management position. The new President was touring the facilities (he was touted as having 20 years of industry experience) and made an effort to talk to everyone. That part was good, the bad part was that nearly everyone on the floor realized they new more about the operation than he did - it took us about 6 months to convince everyone that he was "up to speed". I like old sayings - the relevant one here might be "familiarity breeds contempt" (in my example specifically).
  14. Sep 19, 2009 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Just to be able to say he saw the place, I guess. It's certain that he didn't learn enough to pay for his trip from Chester, PA to Skowhegan, ME. Scott Paper and their fine-paper subsidiary SD Warren had a stranglehold on portions of the paper industry, but by the time the idiots in the head office got playing "me too" putting out directly competitive products and butting heads with other consumer-products companies, they had squandered their advantages in the industry. When the economy is soaring, idiots play for short-term gains even if they are reducing their products to the level of commodities in the process. The smarter direction would have been to market the core products more intelligently while letting R&D develop even more innovative products. Let Kimberly-Clark, P&G and others beat each other up trying to out-do each other with "softness" and "sqeezability" etc, then start a modest ad-campaign demonstrating that one roll of Scott tissue has 4-5 times as many sheets as a whole 4-pack of the "soft" tissues.

    The most profitable product made in Warren's Westbrook plant was release paper. Paper that is very strong with lots of "sizing" to make it dimensionally stable, then coated with a very slippery finish. The paper could be used as backing for adhesive labels, etc, and it could also be embossed. Embossed with appropriate patterns, it became a disposable substrate upon which patent leathers could be formed, giving the finished product the texture of cow-hide, alligator, etc. That is technology that other companies would have a hard time replicating - at least at the price point that we could hit.

    The biggest problem with the big boys making the big bucks is that they never seemed to understand our technology and our position in the current market well enough to see our strengths and take advantage of them. To them, it all came down to short-term goals, market share, and stock price.
  15. Sep 19, 2009 #14
    Well, if education and experience (quality) doesn't really matter to anyone, I guess lie detector tests are out of the question?:rolleyes:

    Term limits might be our only hope.
  16. Sep 19, 2009 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That's a really good idea, but the major parties would not let you enact them. Much of their power derives from the ability to award plum posts on the basis of seniority, longevity, and loyalty. Bring in a fresh crop of newbies every time there is an election, and the power of the parties would be diluted.

    Not a bad thing, IMO, but then again I don't belong to either party and would prefer to see their powers diminished.
  17. Sep 19, 2009 #16
    For this my friend, we need another thread. Using a Wiki definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_capitalism to frame the statement.

    "A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud. The terminology is used by economists and in popular culture. A free market requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies. It is the opposite of a controlled market, where the government regulates prices or how property is used."

    As long as the (Quarterly) 90 day mentality exists, maximized potential of Free Market Capitalism will never be possible. The (Wall Street) market pressures to perform lead to short term schemes over long term investment strategies.
  18. Sep 19, 2009 #17
    Someone presented a proposal this week to double the size of the House - sounded like another redistricting scheme. That aside, I'd be in favor of more seats in the House coupled with short term limits (and partial pensions). In this manner, I wouldn't care if Bozo the Clown was elected - as long as the people elected him from that District.

    On the other hand, I'm for longer term limits in the Senate (maybe 12 years?), coupled with an expectation of higher standards. It might be reasonable to make them first serve in the House and earn eligibility for a Senate position.

    Does anyone really believe Al Franken is the best candidate Minnesota can find? I know people in the Twin Cities that are mortified. Actually, I'd even be in favor of multi-million dollar compensation packages for Senators, to attract better talent and to hold them more accountable.
  19. Sep 19, 2009 #18
    House of Representatives:

    1. Set minimum standards: residency, age, citizenship, no criminal record, high school or GED.

    2. Accept applications. Applicants agree to random drug testing.

    3. Choose by lottery. Pay will be Minimum Wage plus travel and housing allowance.

    4. At the END of the 2 year term, hold the election. Choices: Approve, Disapprove or No Opinion.

    5. If Disapproval Votes are more than Approval Votes: A) by 10% then go to jail for one year, B) by 20% or more then go to jail for 5 years.

    6. If Approval Votes are more than Disapproval Votes: A) by 10% then collect $250,000; B) by 20% or more then collect $500,000.

  20. Sep 19, 2009 #19
    Basically, you are stating that a Congressperson's job is public relations, and their work is outsourced.

    I find that unacceptable. I want my representatives to be qualified and engaged. I expect them to read the Bills before voting and make sure they understand every detail as well as the long term ramifications of their decisions.

    I have no problem with them hiring as many people as necessary to explain complicated issues. I've been involved in complex business negotiations involving thousands of pages of documents. It is totally unacceptable to take anything for granted or to assume everything is "in order". At the end of the day, the executive must have confidence in the document he signs.

    During the campaign, Obama said his door would be open and he'd be glad to go through every piece of legislation "line by line". I think we should hold him to that standard.

    If a Congressperson isn't competent to work at that level - they shouldn't be employed at that level.

    You're a smart guy, as a pilot, you would never trust your aircraft to someone who isn't competent or qualified to fly it. Why trust your Government to unqualified people who are more concerned with re-election than governance?

    Until we begin to expect more from our elected officials, all we'll get is window dressing and double-talk.
  21. Sep 19, 2009 #20


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't remember the title of the short story, but I probably read it in one of the many Sci-Fi fan magazines that I used to borrow from my friend's father. It was about a delegation from Earth (PTA members, I believe) that visited an extraterrestial human culture to study their methods for producing such smart, capable students. They were shocked to find out that there were some very harsh penalties for students that had not mastered advanced fields at very young ages.

    What I liked about the story was that anybody could go to a local repository (like a high-tech PO box) and make a law. If the law was rescinded, and the person wanted to make another law, he or she would be required to leave a finger as a show of good faith when submitting the new law. I don't remember exactly, but if that law was rescinded, I think that the penalty was death.

    It sure would focus some of our law-makers' minds if there was any personal responsibility (and consequences) related to their activities.
  22. Sep 19, 2009 #21
    I agree.:biggrin:
  23. Sep 19, 2009 #22
    That is beyond unreasonable: that is why they have a staff of lawyers.

    Ok, and that doesn't negate what I said. So I fail to see the point you're making here.

    You've got to be joking me. This is beyond absurd: if you really think this, I have a bridge to sell you in NY.

    .........okay.... sure... :uhh:

    This analogy makes no sense. Anyways, why do you think they are 'unqualified'? Again, this makes no sense. Are we to say they are 'unqualified' because they use speech writers? Obviously, the answer is no. Why do you think they should read thousands of pages of bills....


    All of this 'big talk' really is divorced from reality. I will posit a better question for you: have congressmen ever read bills in their entirety?
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2009
  24. Sep 19, 2009 #23
    http://womenshistory.about.com/od/congress/p/nency_pelosi.htm This link adds that she was a stay at home mom prior to her first run.
    A little more from Wiki

    This says she has a BA from Trinity


    Here's a challenge to the entire PF community.

    Take a minute and read this bio of Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and 2nd in line to be President of the United States.

    Next, compare YOUR resume to hers, education, work experience, political views, and anything else that matters to you in the voting booth.

    Now honestly ask yourself who is more qualified to be President of the US - YOU or Nancy.

    If you don't want to consider yourself, pick a PF staff member that you're familiar with and compare.

    I'll go out on a limb and say that Astronuc, Evo, and Russ are all better qualified to be President than Nancy Pelosi - what say you?
  25. Sep 19, 2009 #24


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I have to recuse myself, but Evo and Russ are elligible in 2012. :biggrin:

    If Evo wins then Kurdt can be First Dude. :biggrin:
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2009
  26. Sep 19, 2009 #25
    Can't say I blame you - I wouldn't want that job either.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook