That man was a good candidate for the job because he was well qualified.
Of Course especially of the talk at Ohio of 9/30/2020 trump interrupted ALOT
Ronald Reagan
When one refers to a job candidate as being viable, it means they are qualified and may considered further in the hiring process. It is a good thing to be a viable employee.
Jefferson was a totally obvious choice as a candidate. He was a leader in the revolutionary government from the beginning, doing everything but actually fight in the field of battle. He was known in the capitals of Europe and had served in Washington's cabinet as well as vice-president under Adams. He had had executive experience as the governor of Virginia. Moreover he was brilliant and honest.
Barack Obama is the only president to have a viable female opponent and that was only for the Democratic nomination. Hilliary Clinton made a strong shpwing in the primaries in 2008 but Obama eventually prevailed.
After being forced to resign as VP, his party did not consider him to be a viable candidate for president. Spiro Agnew was never elected to the presidency. When Nixon resigned as President, Agnew was no longer the Vice President.
There is no law that sets a maximum age and people vary in their decline as they age. From a practical standpoint, an older person who might otherwise be a viable candidate for president would find it hard to get the nomination and be elected. The campaign is physically grueling and younger voters are not likely to vote for anybody who seems old and feeble. Also, it is bad for the country if a president can not complete his term and the party wants someone who can serve for two terms.
People expect the President to be an experienced and established leader. Most people have to be considerably older than 35 before they attain credentials sufficient to make them a viable candidate. Also, in most cases, the president was active and well-known to the national party. Attaining this also requires a certain number of years.
Most conservative Evangelical Christians are supporting Mitt Romney for President. Many of them have stated that while they do not support the doctrines of his faith, they recognize that he believes in traditional Biblical moral values and that he represents their principles better than Barack Obama (the only viable opposing candidate) does.
The president considers all the plans and proposals forwarded to him by his team and selects the most viable for the whole country. The president consults other experts in order to get the most reasonable plans.
Speaking as a Republican (who may become an ex-Republican if a viable third party emerges), Reagan was nearly the perfect US President. He made a few mistakes, but he had a vision for the country which many of us still believe in. He was known as the Great Communicator, and he was. I was not old enough to vote for him in 1980, but I was proud to vote for him in 1984. I doubt that I will live to see another US President to handle the office as ably as Ronald Reagan did. On the subject, why do Democrats love Kennedy so much? Since the above was written, this contributor has remembered that Ronald Reagan was a Democrat before he became a Republican. Also little known is that in the 1930's Reagan applied to become an American Communist but was turned down. I think we admire the idealism of Ronald Reagan, however short the reality may have fallen. Reagan believed in justice, small business, and the entrepreneurial spirit. That ideal has certainly been twisted by others, but we still believe it to be a worthwhile ideal.