Some of these names are bizarre. Whitman, Kasich? They are at best fifty fifty to when their governor races. Why didn’t Barnes list Hutchinson, Paul, Limbaugh, Hanity, me? As long as we are throwing crap against the wall.
I went to school with John Kasich. A nice guy, but he reminds me too much of McCain. In DC nice guys finish last. There is no room for compromise.
OR Paul Ryan, he’s certainly the most intelligent on issues that I have heard lately.
Because Fred Barnes is another beltway boy who can’t see west of the Potomac. He’s just like too many Washingtonians who think the sun only rises and stays in the east.
Because Fred Barnes is another beltway boy who can’t see west of the Potomac. He’s just like too many Washingtonians who think the sun only rises and stays in the east.
Barnes mentioned that Whitman and Kasich are both going to have trouble being elected governor. I think his point was that if either or both manage to pull it off, they’ll have instant national credibility for having won tough elections in politically important states.
I see his point, but he has a bit of a timing problem. Barnes correctly points out that Ohio and California both have serious problems and that Kasich and/or Whitman could make strong cases for the Presidency if they manage to get results as governor. However, their respective terms won’t start until 2011, and even if they wait as long as Fred Thompson did to begin running in earnest, that means they’ll have been governor for all of 8 months or so.
That isn’t nearly enough time to establish a respectable track record. Also, it wouldn’t look so great to spend less than a year governing a troubled state before taking on the full-time work of running for another job.
Their names aren’t completely out of left field in this discussion. If either becomes a successful governor, that could very likely lead to a credible run for President. Just not in 2012.