March 10, 2014

After the CPAC poll...

... the Instapundit poll.

27 comments:

The Crack Emcee said...

Glenn Boy?

Guaranteed:

The winner will be a loser.

Watch.

tim maguire said...

At the moment, it appears Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds have 1,422 cross-over readers. (Oops, 1,423, I forgot to count myself).

Thorley Winston said...

I dismiss as unserious any presidential candidate who has not run and won a statewide race before and doesn’t have major executive experience.

Ann Althouse said...

"I dismiss as unserious any presidential candidate who has not run and won a statewide race before and doesn’t have major executive experience."

Does running a doctor's office count as exec experience?

Ann Althouse said...

Maybe Romney should try again...

Fen said...

Agree Thorley, but unfortunately POTUS has become a celebrity position - elect a charsimatic snake oil salesman, surround him with experts/incompetents (depending on the party).

eric said...

I see that all three of my favorites are doing well so far (Although I like Ben Carson as well).

That's nice to see.

Lyssa said...

Does running a doctor's office count as exec experience?

No. The person has to have experience running a large, multifaceted organization, with a lot of moving parts and a large number of egotistic people doing work that he or she could never hope to understand. That's what running the government (or a major organization) is like.

Dr. Carson is clearly very intelligent and a great speaker, but I could not endorse him for president without a great deal more executive-type experience.

Russell said...

I get Thorley's issue, but I'm not even sure that is an accurate cut off line. First off, Senator is a state wide elected office and there is no more overrated elected position in the land (yes, that includes Vice President). Of the nominees over the last several cycles, we've had Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and John Kerry: you know a college 'lecturer' and a whose who of Beltway house plants. Also being governor doesn't change the fact that Huckabee (for example), would probably destroy the GOP for any number of reasons.

BTW, outside of Paul Ryan, you notice who that standard eliminates? Anything particularly in common about them? I'm just making a note and not intentionally criticizing.

That being said, Fen has a point, though its not a celebrity position but a leadership position. Who you apoint and the policies you propose matter just as much (if not more) than experience. You still have to good people and good ideas and a willingness to be the boss. In terms of resume, no one can realy touch Bush 41. But, that was a mixed bag of a term, no?

So, if you choose Colon Powell and Condi Rice as your Secretary of States instead of two former Senators whose only achievenments in office is lots of appearances on the Sunday talk shows, then the rest of your experience is beside the point (yes, Bush 43 was an order of magnitude more qualified than the current guy).

That said, I'm all about Governor Scott Walker and Rand Paul (Senator or no).

Russell said...

Rereading Thorley's comment. Is that 'AND' meant to be an 'OR'? Condi has been inside multiple White Houses at an intimate level, she's seen first hand how tough decisions are made and, oh yeah, she was the head a $10 billion bureacracy.

Hagar said...

Not only is Romney missing from this "poll," but so is Jeb Bush.

It is not about "experience," but what have you achieved so far in life?

And Condoleezza has headed up more than one 10 billion dollar bureaucracy.
She has so far served under someone else as president, whether of the US or Stanford. What she would do if she was the "decider" remains to be seen.
However, I think she has too much fun finally getting to be just Condoleezza to want to get back into that rat race.

The Crack Emcee said...

I don't care what you do. I care if you have a vision for the country that's better than the one I see now.

I don't see a Republican candidate who has that yet,...

Nonapod said...

Here's the past straw poll winners. Looks like they haven't picked a president since Reagan.

Mitch H. said...

Does running a doctor's office count as exec experience?

No, no more than running senatorial campaigns count for executive experience. I would greatly prefer a second-term governor. I'm default Perry right now, but I'm persuadable on Walker or Jindal or hell, even Daniels even though he's been out of office an awful long time.

Carson is likeable enough, but he needs to run for some intermediate office first. I'd say governorship, except that Maryland is a GOP statewide trainwreck from all accounts. House at least, please.

Rice? People are still pushing Condi Rice? Same objection to her that I have to Daniels - she's been marking time in academia for too long, and running a university is almost as bad a class of education for actual governance as, oh, say, being a CEO.

I *like* West, but a single term in Congress isn't a compelling resume for the presidency. Lincoln, sure, but take a closer look at his performance in office - Lincoln pulled some massive boners in an administrative sense. They spent twenty years paying off the debts from the Lincoln years.

Maybe Romney should try again...

Only if he wants to go down in history as the Republican Adlai Stevenson.

Birkel said...

"I don't care what you do."

Bingo!

Revenant said...

I dismiss as unserious any presidential candidate who has not run and won a statewide race before and doesn’t have major executive experience.

That seems a bit silly. Of postwar Presidents, only four -- Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, and George W. Bush -- had major executive experience. The other seven came out of the legislative branch and had, at most, "experience" as Vice President, a job with no executive duties, responsibilities, or powers.

So obviously one can be a serious candidate without having executive experience.

Revenant said...

Here's the past straw poll winners. Looks like they haven't picked a president since Reagan.

According to that list, they picked George W. Bush in 2000.

Lyssa said...

Rev, you left Bill Clinton off your list (a pretty major omission, IMO). And I would disagree that VP is not a reasonably helpful qualification. It may have no true duties, but serving as the president's right hand man must give a person a pretty great perspective on how it actually works. I'd give credence to a VP, or a department head, as executive experience, over a legislator.

Hagar said...

Poppy Bush made his money in the Texas oil business, and he ran the CIA in the Ford administration, and though only for about a year, was credited with having done a good job and helped to restore the agency's morale.

Birkel said...

Lyssa:
Good catch with Clinton.

Also, wasn't George H.W. Bush Director of the CIA? Why yes, he was and that is significant executive experience, I'd suggest.

Lastly, Gerald Ford doesn't really count. As always. LOL

Birches said...

Glad to see Scott Walker showing so well. I agree with needing executive experience too. That's why I'm not totally sold on Rand. But running a State doesn't necessarily mean someone will be able to run the country well. Aside from his more obvious problems, wasn't Carter sort of paralyzed by executive decision making?

mccullough said...

JFK, LBJ, and Obama were all senators. HW Bush was head of the CIA and VP for 8 years.

Republicans would be dumb to nominate a senator who wasn't a governor. If Hillary is the nominee, it wold be a contest between somene with very slight executive experience who has travelle the world but accomplished nothing vs. someone with no executive experience who has not travelled the world and accomplished nothing.

The country needs a good president. The Repubs should register as Dems and try and get Mark Warner the nomination. Hillary would be an awful president. So would Rand Paul and Ted " Count Chocula" Cruz.

Revenant said...

Rev, you left Bill Clinton off your list (a pretty major omission, IMO).

Argh, you're right, I did! Total brain-fart on my end. Ok, so 5 executives vs. six non-executives, then.

And I would disagree that VP is not a reasonably helpful qualification.

The claim I was responding to was that a candidate is "unserious" unless he or she has serious executive experience. The fact that most of the presidents since WW2 have had no serious executive experience demonstrates that, yes, you can be a serious candidate without it.

It may have no true duties, but serving as the president's right hand man must give a person a pretty great perspective on how it actually works.

Does it? Here's a mental exercise for you: name three former VPs who made good Presidents. I came up with "Truman" and "Coolidge" and then had to hit Wikipedia to refresh my memory about which 19th-century Presidents were former VPs.

Also, I would point out that under the criteria you're using, Hillary Clinton is more qualified to be President than any potential Republican candidate.

Revenant said...

Also, wasn't George H.W. Bush Director of the CIA? Why yes, he was and that is significant executive experience, I'd suggest

If one year of executive experience is "significant", what qualifies as "insignificant"? :)

Mitch H. said...

Does it? Here's a mental exercise for you: name three former VPs who made good Presidents. I came up with "Truman" and "Coolidge" and then had to hit Wikipedia to refresh my memory about which 19th-century Presidents were former VPs.

Coolidge was a very successful governor of Massachusetts - "There is no right to strike against the public safety, anywhere, anytime." He also held most of the intermediary offices as well - state representative, mayor of Northampton, state senator, president of the state senate, lieutenant governor - making him one of the most experienced presidents we've had, at least in terms of governance. His period as president of Massachusetts' state senate was especially useful - see his Althouse-esque aphorism “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones."

Hagar said...

Come to think of it, Revenant is really blowing smoke out his rear.
He also left out Bill Clinton, of all people, Attorney General and 2 terms as Governor of the sovereign State of Arkansas, suh!

Lyssa said...

Also, I would point out that under the criteria you're using, Hillary Clinton is more qualified to be President than any potential Republican candidate.

Fair enough. We may be arguing past each other - I wouldn't go as far as saying that the non-executive experienced candidate is "unserious"; just that he or she lacks experience that is very important. In terms of pure qualifications based on experience, yes, Ms. Clinton would be more qualified than some of the potential R candidates, but certainly not all.

But I'm saying that the executive experience is very important, not that it is the end-all-be-all. I would still vote for candidates Paul, Cruz, or Rubio over any possible D candidate I can think of - values and ethics still matter quite a bit. But while we have a choice, which we still do now, we should be focusing on people who have values, ethics, and experience. There are a lot of good GOP governors who have good experience out there to choose from.