Return to story

Candidates' 'resumes' aren't the answer

October 11, 2012 12:10 am

Candidates' 'resumes' aren't the answer

The Sept. 26 letter "Speeches say nothing: Look at the resumes," was from someone who introduced himself as a business manager for "almost three decades," and noted that he had interviewed a number of people for job openings.

He describes first considering the applicant's professional resume, seeking "to understand the relevant background they possess. It is only after they pass that first phase that I sit face to face and ask them questions to determine if they have the requisite experience, intelligence, and motivation to be successful at the job."

It is interesting that he has decided to vote for Romney rather than Obama as a result of the manner in which those who supported him at the Republican National Convention introduced themselves and Romney, and the extensive relevant experience "defined in Mitt Romney's and Paul Ryan's resumes." He does not mention where he acquired those resumes, which are usually written documents, who supplied them, or when he read them.

In contrast, he notes that he had read Obama's "resume review" in 2007, and "it was obvious he lacked the relevant background to be president."

I seriously doubt that he read resumes submitted by Obama, Romney, or Ryan, or that he interviewed any of the three "face to face."

If he had resumes to read, one wonders if those submitted by Romney had been prepared 10 years, 10 months, or 10 minutes before, for Romney's ideas seem to change that quickly.

Evidently the letter-writer heard "nothing of substance" at the Democratic Convention that would make him consider hiring Obama for any managerial job, "much less president."

I appreciate the writer's honesty in noting that he did not vote for Obama four years ago, so this was evidently an easy decision for him.

Tony P. Wrenn

Spotsylvania





Copyright 2014 The Free Lance-Star Publishing Company.