Posted on 03/29/2011 4:54:05 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
There’s several...
Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin,
Time for a third party?
.
Alaska.
.
>> “But why are non of these young new politicians spoken of as potential Presidential nominees?” <<
.
Because we Republicans aren’t stupid enough to elect a wet-behind-the-ears Frat Boy as president. We expect our Frat Boys to get some experience before they screw us.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Obama -- four years experience at the national level in the Senate. How's that working out?
It takes a while for somebody to get the knowledge and experience and confidence to be president.
Let these new guys figure things out, rather than pushing them prematurely into presidential politics.
Traditionally, most recent successful Republican presidential candidates have been successful Republican governors. In governing a state, a politician is placed in a position where he or she cannot simply hew to conservative rhetoric as a legislator can - they must apply that rhetoric to accomplish actions in an executive capacity. It is a microcosm of the Presidency, and Republican primary voters can evaluate their record of where they stayed true to conservatism in meeting these accomplishments. A legislator can say he or she is conservative until they are blue in the face, but the governor proving grounds show us how that politician behaves when forced to make President-like decisions on a state level. With a legislator, there is not sufficient evidence to assure conservatives of how that politician would behave as President.
The two former governors most cited by the media for the nomination in ‘12 are Huckabee, Romney, and Palin. Huckabee’s experiment in the governor laboratory showed a distinct failure to display conservative fiscal principles. Romney’s experiment in the governor laboratory showed a distinct failure to display conservative social principles and, in some cases (i.e. Romneycare) conservative fiscal principles. Palin was unwilling to complete more than roughly half a term as governor, and regardless if you agree with that decision, it also leaves her grade as governor as an “I” - initial decisions in the “honeymoon” after election aren’t probative enough for most conservatives.
This is leading many conservatives to explore legislators, traditionally unsuccessful nominees, because the have not been tested in an executive capacity and therefore can appear more ideologically appealing. While some Tea Partiers may be willing to take a flier on their gut on a Congressperson, others will not be satisfied that that person has the executive experience to be an effective President, and worse yet - without confronted with executive tasks, are uncertain that this person would continue to follow a conservative ideology in an executive setting where laws must be executed rather than merely written.
The remaining candidates, who are “competent” as the author describes, are not getting much attention. And, naturally, as they have not had the luxury of merely legislating, any number of Congresspersons can insist they are “more conservative” than the governor because their own ideologies have not been challenged in that context.
I expect that eventually conservatives will come to explore the feasibility of the more conservative governors who have shown some interest in running, which may include Pawlenty, Barbour, Daniels, and others. Each of those is reasonably tested, reasonably conservative, reasonably experienced, and preferable to Romney or Huckabee. Certainly, none of them is as ideologically consistent as, say, Bachmann, but has enough of a record that there is some predictability of how they perform in an executive setting and assurance that they will not bear the incompetence of the Obama administration (notably, who had no executive experience, and neither did his VP Biden).
“But why are none of these young new politicians spoken of as potential Presidential nominees?”
The answer is in the question. It would be a bit hypocritical to elect someone with even LESS experience than Obama. Indeed, it should be impossible. The answer is not to find someone even less qualified than Obama to replace him. There are some possible candidates on our side who have actual executive experience - they will be our strongest contenders, if they run.
‘Competant Republican’ is an oxymoron.
You mean you hope they're uncorrupted. I'm skeptical of anyone seeking office. Once they've got a few years under their respective belts, then we'll be able to make a better judgement.
ONLY If Reagen rises from the dead will there be a competent GOP candidate.
Until then Obama is a far better choice.
Obama isn’t getting hammered by an opponent on obamacare, the economy or anything else. His polling will reflect that.....IF someone actually reports it.
Palin actually accomplished everything she campaigned for while serving as governor. She explained her reasons for stepping down, and its so easy to judge someone without having to walk a mile in his/her shoes. zero spent about 180 * days in the Senate, and no one holds that against him. I do, but, that’s beside the point. SHe also had other experiences under her belt, unlike some of the other governors.
I’m sick of people bashing her. I’m sure she prayed about her decision before making it. It was costing her state oodles of money, and taking away from time she needed to run the state. One thing I have to lay at her feet is the ethics reform which she signed into law. It is the very thing that hung her. She couldn’t have foreseen the zeroites using it against her, but, they did.
Cheers!
Right out of Alice in Wonderland (very fitting for this Administration):
`Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.
`I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, `so I can't take more.'
`You mean you can't take less,' said the Hatter: `it's very easy to take more than nothing.'
The fallacy in your argument, by the way, is that you assume that the country's problems during the Obaama administration are due to stupidity, not malice.
Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Obaama did; she is more intelligent; has greater humility and so will choose aides and staffers who will know their subjects better than her, in order to help her; and actually loves her country (Obaama does, too, but the problem is that his country is not the United States. More likely Koala Paroondi(*) or some fungal Third World wasteland like that.)
Cheers!
(*) old Dave Barry joke.
Quite a few post to free republic...in fact a lot of freepers would be better than MOST of the republicans being talked about..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.