On Saturday I wrote a pngWriter post about a new requirement for the presidency. According to the proposal you would have to serve a full term as a governor before being president. 

People pointed out that there have been good presidents who were senators. It's true, also representatives and generals. Now I will defend my proposal in light of that fact.

1. Truman was a good president. He was a senator. However there's no reason he couldn't have served as a governor before being president. Then he would be more qualified, not disqualified. Big diff.
2. The job of governor is closer to the job of president than the job of legislator. I believe a good governor is more likely to be a good president.
3. If an otherwise qualified person was not elected, such as Obama or JFK, well there have been a lot of qualified people who did not get elected. Hillary Clinton is a great example. It's not the end of the world. There are always many good people who could be president, the idea is to get one good person elected in each election.
4. I wanted to raise this question: If we survive this catastrophe, how do we prevent it in the future without ripping up the Constitution and making our country a dictatorship. I thought the governorship-bottleneck would weed out exactly the kind of mistake we're experiencing now. 

If you have a better idea, I hope you will share it by writing your own blog post and posting a link. :balloon: