I supposed they are as qualified as most politicians. For sure, they are used to speaking and functioning in public which would be a plus. However, I think in general people that make a lot of money often think that they are smarter and deeper and more valuable in all areas than they maybe really are.

I don't feel it DISqualifies OR Qualitfys them in ANY way. They are just a bit more distinguishable than the next person. Jesse Ventura was the most recent example of this.

NDY

Green446 i agree with you.

I think narcissists end up in two professions: entertainment and politics. Both feed the need for love, attention, power, whatever they think it is that will get them whatever it is they want.

I think they should stay out of politics...

Unfortunately, the fortunate often do not have a clear understanding of the common man and the daily struggles to make a living, provide for their family and possibly make a difference. Those who have made a living in entertainment may or may not grasp the needs of the general public but may be able to understand the emotions that are inherent in men and women. I was extremely disappointed in George W but had a deep respect for his father.

As an Alaskan, I lived in the Mat-Su Valley when Sarah Palin was Mayor of Wasilla. She was down to earth and made significant strides for the people in the area. When she ran for Governor, I thought it was a good thing. When she ran for VP, I felt sorry for her. Totally unprepared and out of her depth. To top it all off when she returned to Alaska after failing to win the election, she then walked away from the people of this state. She left the Office of Governor before her term was up, and claimed it was due to the spotlight being on her and her family all the time. Boo hoo! You put yourself in a position that is directly in that light, you will be examined under a microscope. No one is perfect, but man up if you are going into politics.

I don't think there's anything wrong with an actor or actress running for a government office so long as they actually have some actual concept of law. They ought to know the ins and outs of the branches of government (not just the one they aim to enter), they should know what they would be doing if they were in that job, and they should know where they stand on specific issues affecting the constiuancy they aim to represent and be able to clearly inform voters what their stance is and once they are elected (if they are) they need to put aside their own beliefs sometimes to do what is right for the greater good and not act on behalf of lobbyists or just a small select few who bought them off. Frankly though, that all goes for anyone who runs for public office - whether they are an actor or actress or whatever they did prior to running for office - they need to know what's going on and the area they want to represent and how they plan on doing it and then if they get elected they have to follow through. Being an actor may help with being on camera and speaking in public, maybe for the sake of being a name people know, but it could also be a problem for a lot of people because most folks don't think actors and actresses know anything about politics so they may have an uphill battle to show they are qualified.

Well its not illegal but why folks choose a person to represent them on the basis of appearance instead of knowledge, is beyond me. Most of the time i cant imagine why they even think they understand the average citizen, let alone represent him. I remember Meryl Streep addressing Congress about the pesticide Algar... She stood up and said "As a mother" and I thought no kidding, you and 150 million other women are mothers, why are you able to address Congress when you have no knowledge of chemistry? Why not ask any other person to stand up and say something about fear and nasty chemicals. We the people often choose second best because we dont follow politics or the issues and then vote on the basis of popularity and appearance.

Ever wonder what would happen if we had a direct democracy instead of respresentatives?

Hey it's a free country (I guess) anybody can run!

Yeah I wonder about that Green446, sure. Interesting thought.


Direct democracy is a form of government in which people collectively make decisions for themselves, rather than having their political affairs decided by representatives. Direct democracy is classically termed "pure democracy".Depending on the particular system in use, it might entail passing executive decisions, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials and conducting trials. Representative democracy stands in contrast to the direct form in that the represented can only act indirectly with decisive authority vested in a subset of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

As bad as the government is (mainly for who we do elect and what they do or don't during their tenure in DC) I would think that direct democracy would work better in theory than in practice. There are too many people in the country to actually get everyone's collective opinion on any little thing to enact anything - eventually someone would have to be in charge in some capacity to compile the ideas and choices of the masses and convey what those results are. Could you imagine having the public at large deciding a court case rather than a jury of 12 random people? Maybe in a small community direct democracy could work, but the larger the group of people, the harder that becomes. Besides, the whole reason our government was set up the way it is was because there were more folks that were uneducated and unable to read and write than there were ones who could actually grasp the concepts necessary to run a government back when the country was formed. Ironic that in this day and age the people who can't grasp the concepts necessary to run the government are the ones we keep electing into government positions though.