Not that I don't like Bush, it's just that I think we need to introduce some new blood and there are plenty to choose from that don't share his name. He would, however, be better than Hillary who seems to have little more than celebrity to offer.
I look at Ted Cruz, among others, and his grand standing and see that he doesn't want to follow how the game is played in Washington. It is a game and there's little we can do about it except elect people who will ease it back to where it works well for us. Slash and burn doesn't cut it.
That's why I lean toward a governor. Someone who has experience in running a multifaceted entity. That gives us a record to look at. What does he or she know about trade, environment, education and so forth. They can be grilled on foreign and defense policy for they will all have to have a policy to offer especially since our current President doesn't and the lack thereof is painfully obvious.
We will be able to see if they delegate or micro manage. Whether their policies as governors were successful or not and why. Maybe all states should pass laws that if you hold one office and want to run for another you have to give up the one you hold. No more going back to the Senate or House if they fail. That should force them into adopting strong enough positions to give them a chance to succeed rather than merely trying to promote a personal agenda.
It would be nice, too, if we'd adopt regional primaries so the same two or three states don't get to choose the candidates who pander to them then change their positions once nominated or even worse elected. I won't hold my breath on this one.
It seems we're doomed to have professional politicians running our country. At least let's choose ones who have some practical experience.
1 comment:
I like the idea of electing a governor, too. And, the Bush family has had enough time in the presidency, and doesn't need to try to set up a dynasty.
I'm a bit reluctant to back Hillary, for the same reasons you are.
We'll see, won't we?
Post a Comment