“administration of a political campaign and making a good speech do not constitute qualifications to administer the monstrosity that the Executive Branch has become.”
WRT any run-of-the-mill Senator, you are correct. Frankly your assertion is correct regarding almost any legislator. The best Presidents have been governors or generals before assuming office, and the worst have GENERALLY been legislatores.
Of course, Carter was a governor, and Gerry Ford (legislator), though only a bit above average as President, was head and shoulders better than that idiot. FDR was a governor...and while a guy who got things done, he got many of the WRONG things done.
Bush 43 was a governor...and decidedly mediocre (esp. 2nd term).
Lincoln was never an executive. You can argue all day about how he abused (or not) the Constitution during the Civil War, but he and he alone preserved the Union.
Reagan was a governor, of course, but where did he learn the skills to run CA? From acting? Being President of the SGA? Nope - he had a natural gift, he was a born leader that just needed the opportunity.
So, based on just these few examples, I’d say that while there is truth to your general observation, it isn’t and can’t be an iron-clad rule (and I know that you understand this as well - I’m not accusing you of claiming that it is).
I would argue that Cruz is one of the exceptions to the rule. Take a look at his Wikipedia bio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_cruz to see how many times in his short life that he’s been put in charge of something that came out well. He, like Reagan, has the gift of leadership. What he also has is a solid vision that is utterly consistent with the ideals of the Founders, and he can communicate is about as well as Reagan himself could. I can’t think of anyone I’d rather have as both the GOP candidate and the POTUS than him.
Well stated.