I wouldn’t vote for Huck unless he were the only guy left. He will never be the only guy left. In a way, he creeps me out....can’t put my finger on it.
Congressional experience versus executive experience is a real argument. I, too, would say that a former governor has an advantage in having seen a lot in terms of a functioning miniature government. But there have been senators who have had no problem being executives.
The real clincher in this argument is Abraham Lincoln who was not a senator or a governor. Some say he had no problem being the in charge guy.
Other senators who have not been governors:
John Quincy Adams
Senator, 1803-1808
President, 1825-1829
Franklin Pierce
Senator, 1837-1842
President, 1853-1857
James Buchanan
Senator, 1834-1845
President, 1857-1861
Benjamin Harrison
Senator, 1881-1887
President, 1889-1893
Warren G. Harding
Senator, 1915-1921
President, 1921-1923
Harry S. Truman
Senator, 1935-1945
President, 1945-1953
John F. Kennedy
Senator, 1953-1960
President, 1961-1963
Lyndon B. Johnson
Senator, 1949-1961
President, 1963-1969
Richard M. Nixon
Senator, 1950-1953
President, 1969-1974
Barack Obama
Senator, 2005-2008
President, 2009- present
I cannot stand this socialist. Bob
I can't disagree with this, except if the only people with executive experience who are running are bloody freakin' RINOs.
All the executive experience in the world means nothing if you have no vision about where this country needs to be headed, or if the vision you do have is anything other than restoring America as a land of free markets, limited government and Constitutional law.
While Huck is definitely better than Obama (but who isn’t?), he can’t hold a candle to Cruz, or Palin, or anyone else who espouses CONSERVATIVE Values.
“Do you have the capacity, as an executive, to look at the whole battlefield and to see all the issues in play and how they integrate with each other?” he said. “And one of the things that I learned in ten-and-a-half years of being a governor, is that you don’t get to just enjoy the issues that are most endearing to you.”
He says he can articulate what "we" are for, but where does he do any of that in this article?
It looks like he’s running, God help us all........
If it is somehow true that the Huckster is “better than the others”, the USA is in worse shape than I thought.
He’s more fiscally liberal than Bush.
No thanks, Huck.
“If the party wants to nominate somebody who can be very articulate in what we’re against, I’m probably not the best guy at that, but I think that what I can articulate is what we’re for,” he said. “I don’t think you can make people fearful enough and mad enough to get elected. You may make them fearful enough and mad enough, you know, maybe to get exercised and go scream at a rally. But to get them to go vote and to vote for you, I do think you have to give them something that they believe is going to make the election result in a different direction of the government.”
____________________________________________________________
Huckleberry might not be the person I would most want...but I can’t disagree about needing someone who articulates what they want to do vs a pol that just says what they’re against.
The vast majority of American voters are not politically savvy and will need a rallying cry by an articulate, accomplished politician who is believable and trustworthy to get them to the voting booth.
Is Huckleberry THAT person?
I don’t think so....but then I didn’t think Obama would win either.