|
 |
Posted on 02/11/2015 2:03:33 PM PST by SoConPubbie
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is refusing to cede the argument many of his likely Republican presidential rivals are making: that governors are better equipped than legislators to be commander-in-chief.
“Historically, when elections have focused in significant part on national security, that has given an advantage to candidates who have experience concerning national security,” the Texas senator said on Wednesday. “And that, by its nature, has tended to favor senators over governors.”
Cruz's comments, made to reporters on Capitol Hill after delivering a foreign policy speech, follow remarks that former Texas Gov. Rick Perry made downplaying Senate experience ahead of a presidential bid.
Asked by The Texas Tribune and The Washington Post last week what separates him from Cruz, Perry never mentioned his potential 2016 rival by name. But he said voters appreciate executive experience, and, referencing President Obama, predicted that "they’re going to make a rather radical shift, away from a young, untested United States senator whose policies have really failed.”
On Wednesday, Cruz said he recognizes that "more than a few governors thinking of running for president have stated that the next nominee must be a governor.”
"And I always chuckle when they say that," he added, "because our friends in the media treat it somehow as news that governors prefer governors, whereas I find it altogether unsurprising.”
Should Cruz campaign for the GOP nomination, he could face off against more than a half-dozen current and former Republican governors. Some of those contenders have federal foreign policy experience by way of serving in the U.S. House.
But Cruz, a member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, did not roundly criticize executive experience.
“I love the governors,” he said. “I think it is great that we have strong, conservative governors across the country who are demonstrating that conservative policies work.”
And he said at the end of the day, "I don’t think primary voters are going to focus all that much on the particular job title."
Cruz’s speech on Wednesday before a conservative think tank eviscerated President Obama’s foreign policy choices on nuclear proliferation, relations with Israel and ISIS.
In his remarks about governors, though, Cruz revisited a common stump speech theme: that the primary will be a contest of how well individual candidates have stood up to Obama’s policies.
“What I think Republican primary voters are looking for is a strong leader who has demonstrated that he or she will stand up and lead and has stood up and led on the great issues of the day,” he said.
|
|
CRUZ or LOSE!Cruz is right.
He has much more Foreign Policy experience over Governors like Scott Walker, Rick Perry, and Chris Christie.
One word: Biden
He's good on Iran and Israel, but shows naivete on Ukraine and ISIS (show us a detailed plan?).
IN some respects he's the one that appears the amatuer.
Cruz shines on Ukraine, and shows Reagan like insight into national defense and foreign policy, Palin also.
Lefties and the pro-Russia/anti-West people of course, disagree with their conservative views.
While Cruz is correct, because the Senate deals with foreign policy along with the executive, only three people have moved directly from the Senate into the presidency, Harding, Kennedy, and Obama, and with good reason, because senators tend to think of themselves as demi-gods, and the most brilliant people on earth. Experience has proven the opposite.
Most US citizens are fed up with regime change and all the damage US policy has done. Unless someone does come up with a smart foreign policy that puts the US and us citizens first, Rand Paul's going to own that issue.
Of course we have brilliant senators like Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions and total idiots like Biden, Boxer, the Minnesota pair and Pat Murray who are nowhere close to average.
Right now his insight is to help arm the Ukrainian defense forces to slow and possibly stop this Russian invasion.
I’m not sure the kind of “Foreign Policy experience” you get as a Senator amounts to much besides bloviating. It seems to be most senators are far less informed about foreign affairs than your average FReeper.
He’s right. But the average Senator’s edge is foreign policy experience is more than overshadowed by the average Governor’s edge in executive experience.
Bingo!
one word
AMEN!
To date, sixteen senators have also served as president of the United States.
(Photo: Warren G. Harding. Senate Historical Office)
-----------------------------------------------------
Senator, 1790-1794
President, 1817-1825
-----------------------------------------------------
Senator, 1803-1808
President, 1825-1829
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Jackson
Senator, 1797-1798; 1823-1825
President, 1829-1837
-----------------------------------------------------
Martin Van Buren
Senator, 1821-1828
President, 1837-1841
-----------------------------------------------------
William Henry Harrison
Senator, 1825-1828
President, 1841
-----------------------------------------------------
John Tyler
Senator, 1827-1836
President, 1841-1845
-----------------------------------------------------
Franklin Pierce
Senator, 1837-1842
President, 1853-1857
-----------------------------------------------------
James Buchanan
Senator, 1834-1845
President, 1857-1861
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Johnson
Senator, 1857-1862; 1875
President, 1865-1869
-----------------------------------------------------
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
CRUZ or LOSE!
Monroe and Adams had been Secretary of State, quite close to the President. Jackson had been a successful general -- he wasn't elected because he happened to put in a few undistinguished years in the Senate. Van Buren had been Jackson's close advisor and Vice President.
Johnson II had been Senate Majority Leader, which in a way is close to an executive position. He and Nixon had both been Vice President, so they, too, had been close to the center of power and experienced in the executive branch of government (for all the good it did them in office).
Arguably, foreign policy is more important now than in the past, but the record of senators as president hasn't exactly been a glorious one (though, of course, in mediocrity is the norm in everything and great presidents are the exception rather than the rule).
“What I think Republican primary voters are looking for is a strong leader who has demonstrated that he or she will stand up and lead and has stood up and led on the great issues of the day,”
Yes, and as an additional bonus who is a Conservative and has common sense.
It's an issue conservatives are going to disagree on.
No, conservatives will back him.
How would you know what conservatives support and don’t support not being one.
We don’t support Russian invasions and being weaker than even Obama is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.