The point of my post above illustrates how posing restrictions could go. Where do we draw the line? Who would we trust with making a list of restrictions?
How many companies do we know of which has not been under scrutiny for the personal/professional issues we find undesirable? How many have simply gone undetected? Wasn’t Enron considered spotless, right up to disappearing?
Do we want someone with a big heart who never broke a rule? Is someone like that going to let their feelings get in the way of hard decisions? If we hire someone able to bury emotion and make the hard decisions, do we feel like our country is under control of a robot?
I guarantee, if we posed more restrictions, we would resent the sort of candidates we end up with, if any.
What say we rewrite the Constitution completely. Our elections would no longer come from the public at large. The ballots would consist of high ranking members of the top companies of the time. No backing out. Where does that put us? No longer would we be a democracy.
I understand people are frustrated, but no matter who gets elected, all the people who voted for someone else will be disappointed.
Abe Lincoln suffered depression. That was no secret. To get media to portray him as he chose he owned newspapers. He was not the only one to do that.
President Roosevelt hid his polio, so people would believe him strong and healthy. We have presidents all the way back with issues and secrets.
The problem is not who we have to choose from. The problem is we are scrutinizing too closely. It is an impossible realm we ask for already. However, if we did choose to impose more restrictions, the entire process would paralyze our government and cause collapse.