PRESIDENTS: Who passes the test?

Recurring voter dissatisfaction with presidents suggests that candidates will never be good enough for the job. Who is good enough to prevent suicide attacks, financial collapse, poverty? Who can conceive innovative products, their production creating jobs? Who is free from the human flaws that spawn our laws?

Searching for such a candidate becomes frenzy agitated by improbability. An ordinary, studied, perceptive, logical person, backed by a Presidential Cabinet of varied ingenuity is good enough.

Biographies of 44 presidents reveal many were undeserving of the ridicule they absorbed. Here are three:

South Carolina got insolent after Lincoln was inaugurated. As the Civil War disappointingly dragged on, distressed, voting fans called him stupid, ape-like and ugly.

Truman - cheated on eye exam to enter the Army for World War I, former farmer, failed clothier and vice president to Roosevelt. People were shaken by Roosevelt's successor. Who is this duffer, this bumpkin, this ignoramus who could whimsically unleash the deadliest weapon - ever! Politicos and bar stool sages doubted his scrappy grit.

Populations of people cried tears at Obama's victory. Throngs were charmed by his mellifluous orations. Now - his performance rating is in descent. People are blurting epithets of ineptitude at the first person able to nullify the revolting concept of segregation - getting to the presidency.

Wreaking scorn on presidential and candidate flaws evidences ignorance of the measure of leadership: Courage overcoming catastrophe.

If trapped in a burning building, is it relevant whether that courageous person climbing through flames to save you is an adulterer, tax cheat or libidinous?

FREDERICK FUECHSEL

Coeur d'Alene