Donald Trump for President? Why Not?

Decided to take a look at this poll that just came out on an Obama/Trump match-up and am still chuckling. Maybe Trump can fire Obama like he has the interns on his reality show who don't meet the standards required for the position. If Obama had to meet the standards to be President before announcing, he never would have been able to run with his very weak resume. He wouldn't have made it past week one as an intern for Trump because he would have been expected to work.

Barack Obama barely beats business tycoon Donald Trump in a head-to-head race for the presidency.

In the Newsweek/Daily Beast poll, Obama received 43 percent of the votes, while Trump — who has announced that he is seriously considering a run for the White House in 2012 — was right behind with 41 percent.

Frankly Obama and Clinton have been lousy interns in his job as President and in her job as Secretary of State for starters. Obama came into the job with no practical experience in anything but community organizing and it shows. Only thing he made comments immediately on was the Wisconsin Senators fleeing the state and his solidarity with the public service unions. Hillary had practical experience in hiding Rose Law firm records and ... Only foreign policy experience came when she was in the White House as First Lady and showed her true colors like the famous picture of her and the terrorist Yassar Arafat's wife.

As for Libya, Obama's schedule was too heavy for him according to Carney is press secretary to have any meeting on Libya including something important like getting American citizens out of Libya. The State Department answer was to send in ferries and not talk to the Defense Department? Our State Department is run by the same type person who runs the White House -- both kumbyya types who never met a dictator they didn't like and like to dis our allies. State Department spokesman refused to acknowledge Khaddafi was a dictator. From Stephen Hayes article, 'An Administration Adrift' in this week's The Weekly Standard:

On February 15, thousands of demonstrators filled the streets of several Libyan cities demanding the departure of the strongman who has ruled the north African nation for more than four decades. The Libyan regime immediately ordered state-backed militias and mercenaries to put down the violence, with force. A bloody battle followed. As the crackdown began, and then escalated, it was early afternoon on February 16, halfway around the world in the State Department briefing room, when the Obama administration faced questions about how it regarded Muammar Qaddafi.

“Is Qaddafi a dictator?”

State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley, at the podium for his daily briefing, smiled at the question and turned his head to call on another reporter.

“Are you stumped?”

“I’m not stumped,” Crowley responded tartly.

“So what’s your answer to the question? Is he a dictator?”

Crowley smirked. “I don’t think he came to office through a democratic process.”

It wasn’t a trick question. Qaddafi has survived as the unelected leader of Libya through a combination of wanton brutality and strategic bribery. His reign has been characterized by the systematic suppression of his own people and the eager exportation of terror.

Crowley’s answer—uncertain, hesitant, and morally ambiguous—would come to symbolize the Obama administration’s response to the massacre in Libya. Within days there were numerous, credible reports that the Libyan regime was using fighter jets to strafe protesters. Regime-hired mercenaries from other African countries roamed the streets of Libyan cities exercising Qaddafi-style restraint. First they fired warning shots in the air. If that didn’t work, they fired at the ground near the protesters’ feet. And if the demonstrators still refused to disperse, the mercenaries gunned them down.

Then there is the famous quote from his new press secretary that it was a scheduling conflict. Excuse me but Obama had time to dis the Governor of Wisconsin and insert himself into a state's rights matter in Wisconsin immediately but no time to make a statement on Libya or hold a meeting on the subject? Give me a break!

Yet pressure mounted for the White House to do something or, at the very least, say something. White House press secretary Jay Carney took the podium on February 23 to answer numerous questions about Obama’s bizarre silence. When CBS News Radio’s Mark Knoller pushed Carney for a better sense of when Obama might speak on Libya, Carney explained that Obama would be meeting with Clinton that afternoon.

“This is just a scheduling issue,” Carney said. “As I said, the president will meet with Secretary of State Clinton this afternoon, his regular meeting, and they will obviously discuss Libya. We will have something to say out of that meeting, and if possible, the president will speak this afternoon or tomorrow.”

Carney came off as inept -- we thought we had seen the last of that with Scott McClellan from the Bush Administration. Robert Gibbs, the previous press secretary came across as a buffoon who liked to talk around the questions and would ignore other reporters when he didn't want to answer but the remark by Carney was one dumb remark about Obama and his scheduling conflict. Would have thought the Americans still in Libya would have been a priority since our embassy is filled with public service types but they obviously received a priority way below the public service unions in Wisconsin that the White House and DNC helped organize events.

Another F for the Obama Administration when it comes to foreign policy.

At least Donald Trump knows something about running a huge business! His resume is also quite a few inches thicker than Obama, but then most of our resumes are thicker than Obama. You won't see any of us talking about 57 states or that the United States is one of the larger Muslim countries. Makes you wonder where Obama took his history courses with comments like that!

We will support Donald Trump if he gets the Republican nomination. Would be an interesting race.