Republican Party presidential candidates for 2016.
Eleven (11) are former or current GOVERNORS [or half] of the 22 listed:
Walker
Perry
Pataki
Christie
Bush
Ehrich
Gilmore
Huckabee
Jindal
Kasich
Pence
Palin
I tend to agree. They need to know how to manage A state before they can manage 50. No more community organizers or AntiChrists that don’t even know how many states there are.
Walker/Jindal 2016 works for me.
Jimmy Carter was a governor, Abraham Lincoln was not.
Jerry Brown is a governor, George Washington was not.
George Wallace was a governor, Ike Eisenhower was not.
Bill Clinton was a governor, and so was Jeb Bush.
*******************************
Being a governor is not causal to being a great leader.
No more first-term Senators from “safe” states!!!
Pataki?
I disagree. What we need is a fire breathing Conservative who will level with the American people, and tell them the truth about the dismal future we all face if we allow Washington to spend us into oblivion. Make a BIG stink about it. I only see one person running so far with the guts to say it out loud....
Time for an attack dog, I don’t give a rat if they were a Governor or not. Time is running out, and the mobsters in Washington, both party’s, need to be exposed so the people will open their eyes and demand prosecution of these criminals.
Nope. The GOP nominee’s name needs to start with “Ted” and end with “Cruz”. As you can see, only one man qualifies.
Walker promotes idea that the next President and/or Vice President should have been a Governor of a State.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
President needs to be Ret. Military, we are in a war with terrorist. VP can handle the economy.
Lt Col Allen West is my choice with Ted Cruz as VP.
Will agree if Cruz is allowed to be an exception to the rule....
Just my two cents on what sort of experiences would make a good president:
1. Former governors: they have some idea of how to be a chief executive of a state, which is some ways is not dissimilar, although they tend to be weak in foreign policy areas, although this isn’t hard to figure out (US wins, everyone else loses is usually a good starting point).
2. Former military officers: My preference here is someone who worked his way up to high rank from the bottom, saw combat and actually killed some of the enemies of this country themselves, so they have some knowledge of what war is really like. This sort will be more likely to have clear goals and be able to make decisions quickly, and be able to work as the head of an organization.
3. A right-wing academic (yeah, I know- that’s so rare as to be legendary..) with extensive knowledge of war and politics who has some of the characteristics of 1 and 2- have served in the military at some point, been a politician of some sort, or both. ‘Book learnin’ can be a useful adjunct to someone of limited experience.
To sum up, someone who understands both war and peace,and can wield extensive power competently and wisely.
Scott should stop trying to disqualify the other candidates and finish figuring out his core beliefs.