Jeb bluffs Mitt; 3 to 4 Republican governor potential
"I'm actively exploring the idea of running, Mitt, actively, you hear, so don't you get too confident just yet" - or words to that effect.
So this cycle, and following eight years of a community organizer-in-chief, we can look forward to a potential surfeit of at least three Republican chief executives in the running, four if you count Bobby Jindal (which I don't). If my bias isn't clear, I'm of the opinion that chief executives generally make the best chief executive.
To my mind, Mitt, if he runs, offers the richest combination of correct thinking and hands-on CEO bench depth (for those with misgivings, keep in mind that he will suffer no shortage of outside ideological advice and guidance).
So, for better or worse, who vs. Hillary does 2016 appear to be shaping up for to you?
I don't disagree that Mitt would be the best CEO of the outfit. But we don't need a better manager of the federal government that we have, we need someone who will reduce the scope of the federal government to what it ought to be. And Mitt isn't that guy, IMO.
ReplyDeleteAnd needless to say, Jeb Bush is farther still from being that guy. His touting of Common Core "because we need federal standards in education" is disqualifying for me.
DeleteAs I was saying ...
DeleteApart from executive over- and underreaching, though, Pik, (e.g., executive legislating, not faithfully executing existing laws) what you want done is constitutionally the province of the legislative branch, not the executive.
ReplyDeleteIf we have a defective legislative branch, the solution is probably not to be found in electing an executive also defective in the understanding and pursuit of his own constitutional mandates - not that that's what you're necessarily suggesting - which seems to me to only throw us into a spiral of increasing defective positive feedback. Best to address each branch in its own right.
Now if you're talking simply about the expansion of the regulatory state as such, i.e., purely within the executive branch or about abuses of power therein as with the IRS, I'm with you 100%.
Oh, of course I agree entirely, Keith. I meant to phrase it (honest! -- I edited for eloquency and lost the meaning) as "lead the reduction of the scope of the federal government to what it ought to be". I certainly didn't mean to make that separation of powers mistake.
DeleteLast time around, Rick Perry made one single statement that resonated with me more than anything any of them said:
"I want to make Washington as inconsequential in your lives as possible."
Whether it is the good Gov or someone else, I will sign on to any candidate who says that this time around.
And I'm with you on your last paragraph. Maybe an additional way for the executive to "lead" in this regard would be to submit a budget that asks for an appropriation of $0 for one or two Cabinet departments.
Would that Congress would zero a few appropriations themselves. But that would cut into their own power, so fat chance of that, esp. with the current GOP congressional leadership.
My opinion is that Mitt should sit out this race and be content for one of the top cabinet posts.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see Scott Walker get elected, but I'm not sure he could win a national election.
I think it should definitely be a governor. I can't think of one Republican senator who's I want to see be President, and that includes Rubio and Santorum.
Dang, I totally forgot about Scott Walker. That makes 5 potential governor candidates.
DeleteSen. Santorum's problem is a deficit of executive experience and of private sector employment generally. Rubio's is that plus intellectual deficits, putting lousy characters on his staff, and mendacity.
DeleteObama might have inadvertently boosted Rubio today with that travesty of his Cuba deal.
DeleteWhy Jeb Bush is not a Conservative. Money passage:
ReplyDeleteWe should also now understand why Establishment-men are rather frequently mistaken for Conservatives: they take one or two Conservative positions based on their feelings or perhaps the desires of their wealthy friends in business (e.g. tax cuts), and because very few Leftists would do this, they become “Conservatives” in the eyes of those not given to protracted examination and thought. I put it to readers that a man who rapidly increases the size of government, sees no problem with tax increases as long as they are coupled with spending “cuts” (any reduction in the rate of increased spending), wants centralized control of K-12 education, and attacks Conservatives while heaping praise on their enemies is no Conservative himself.