Why aren't the heads of Congress not prepared for executive leadership? Both candidates for the current election are from the Senate. Are you saying that their legislative pasts automatically disqualify them?

By your logic, Gerald Ford was a complete mistake. The Vice President stepped down and Nixon pulled up Ford from the ranks of the House (he was Minority Leader) to be the new Vice President. And less than a year later, Nixon resigned which made Ford President. Are you saying that this shouldn't have happened?

You do realize that if both the President and the Vice President are eliminated, that means the Speaker of the House becomes the President and in the process steps down as the Speaker of the House, yes? There is no conflict of interest here. It isn't like Pelosi would preside over legislation in the House as Speaker and then sign it as President.

If your complaint truly is that legislative experience necessarily disqualifies someone to be the executive, then you're going to have to abandon a great number of Presidents we've had. More than a third of the Presidents we have had served in the Senate. In fact, you're more likely to become President if you've been a Senator than if you've been a Vice President. Only 13 Vice Presidents have gone on to be President...and 6 of them were because the Presidency was vacated.

Why do I get the feeling your concern is more the politics of the individuals in question rather than the process by which the succession takes place?