This article certainly makes it clear why someone would think so.Hey, if they can get one of their senators into the Oval Office, why can’t we?
Senators do occasionally get elected POTUS - but not when they're running against a sitting POTUS - and only one (Harding) ever beat a governor in a race for the White House.The example of Cheney notwithstanding, VP is not an executive position. So you cannot use Kennedy's victory over Nixon as a counterexample to the fact that the guy with executive experience wins.
Granted that, as matters presently stand, Obama couldn't defend his seat against a Republican school board member - but two years is a lifetime in politics.
So I say, let's not take a chance. Palin would definitely be good enough - let's not let "better" be the enemy of good enough.I advocate "drafting" Palin because, as the election laws are written (not that I consider them constitutional, but . . .) a movement in that direction appears to be the best way to proceed. And because we have seen how easily the nomination can be obtained by a Senator Dole or a Senator McCain who simply is not gonna win. Lifer senators have a lot of political favors to call in, so they can readily get nominated - but they are sure losers in the POTUS sweepstakes.
Granted that DeMint doesn't strike me as a lifer type, but IMHO if we never nominate another senator, it'll be too soon. Any party which doesn't have a single governor who's a rising star doesn't deserve to win the presidency.
So you cannot use Kennedy's victory over Nixon as a counterexample to the fact that the guy with executive experience wins.Actually, Nixon probably won that election so the example still stands.
Excellent post #29. I agree with everything you said.
I’d have to agree. DeMint is a great candidate IF you look long and hard for one. Most people don’t and Palin is as good a choice as any.