When did I ever say Cruz was all talk and no experience? The issue with Cruz is that going into 2016 he’ll have as much experience in the US Senate as Obama. Granted, he’s used his time better. Cruz also did legitimate work as the Solicitor General in Texas, compared to Obama voting present in the Illinois State Senate.
The question though is who will make the best President. I would argue for someone like Scott Walker over Ted Cruz because Walker has experience managing an executive branch of government. Being Governor is like being in the minor leagues, he’s getting experience in preparation for the big leagues managing the Federal executive branch. Cruz doesn’t have managerial experience, which I believe is vital these days.
Reagan was a great President because he had spent eight years as Governor of California. He knew how to manage an executive branch, he knew how to figure out people’s talents and put them in positions that utilized those talents. He learned how to do that as Governor, it’s why he was a great President.
That’s not to say Cruz is a bad candidate, he’s not. I would vote for him in a new york minute over most of the GOP field.
YOu didn’t. Tupelo did. I was posting to Tupelo. Does it show I was posting to you on your browser?
And to me it’s not about Walker V Cruz at this point. I can make a great case for both men, and would be happy to vote for either man, or the pair as a ticket. But the idea that Cruz doesn’t “have X or Y experience” or whatever is just not important today.
The President is NOT an administrator. He’s a leader, a direction setter, a potentially inspirational figure. Managing bureaucrats is no longer the skill set needed.
I think both men can fit the bill described above.
oh wait, I got threads crossed. Multi tasking, not enough coffee.