• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?


  • Total voters
    12
I think it should be mandetory for a person who runs for the highest office in the country to have had at least one full term as governor or 2 terms as a senator.

Or a workrecord of working in high office for a considerable amount of time.

I would never give my vote to some upstart, no matter how nice the promisses may sound.

Someone should show that they have expirience and can be trusted with the job.

Which is why I was very suspicious of Obama in 2008.


Heya German.....Well we have been shown when we get Senators in office. At least Kennedy had real Military experience and was a War Hero. Popular just within that regard.


Obama had nothing under his belt.....absolutely nothing but a lil time in as a Senator. Otherwise he was what he always was in Chicago.....a Scrubm who carried no weight with the Democrats here. None whatsoever!
 
We know who the GOP is going to back. The same types they always back. Democrat light. ie the likes Mitt Romeny, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush et al. All of whom suck. By the way Howdy there MMC :2wave:

Mornin Pirate.
harrr.jpg
Yep.....look at my post above. Looks the RNC will back Rove and the NEO-Cons.


I am not to happy about it.....I hope Pence runs and doesn't back off due to Bush. If I could would walk Right up and put my foot off into Bush's ass.....just for even thinking about Running. I would do so. Don't necessarily have to be his ass either. Kinda of hard to give a speech while talkin without any Bass.
kick.gif
 
The GOP is having quite a few people thinking about running for the Presidency.....and the list keeps growing with people throwing their name out there.
So far those that have given word are, as follows. (which they are not in any order of who is polling or currently on top.)

1. Christie
2. Paul
3. Jindal
4. Perry
5. Santorum
6. Bush
7. West
8. Pence
9. Carson

10. Cruz
11. Rubio
12. Huntsman


Even with the limiting of the Debates. Advertising and the MS Media is looking for a field day to catch the GOP up, and with the gotcha moments.

We have some popular figures here with Ego's to match. We have some that have never governed. So the question is.....should the RNC/GOP establishment only back those that have been Governors and know what it is like to govern a State, take care of budgets, and can get people to back to work, and have the record or working with the Demos, even if they weren't in control of anything.....or was?

My preference would be a governor over a senator any day of the week for many of the reasons you mentioned. Governing experience and as a governor, he had to work with the opposite party to get things done. That is probably the problem with Obama, he is still campaigning and really hasn't settled down to governing. My opinion. So does being a governor really make a difference?
FDR was a governor and is considered one the great presidents of all time.
Truman no, but he is considered near great
Eisenhower, no again. But he did run the military, he was a general and had experience in running a huge bureaucracy. He is top 10.
JFK no again, but his death cut him short.
LBJ no, he is ranked above average though.
Nixon no, enough said
Ford no, ditto enough said
Carter, yes, he is not considered a very good president at all. He is more noted for his after presidency deeds than anything he accomplished as president.
Reagan yes, Again considered above average.
Bush the first, no he is considered average.
Clinton, yes, again he is considered above average.
Bush the second, yes, but is considered below average
Obama no, we will see where history rates him, but probably down there with Bush the second, Carter and Ford.

Who knows if being a governor is a plus or minus, I guess it is up to each individual to make up their own minds.
 
Placing limitations on who runs will not lead the GOP to the land of milk and honey, nor will having the GOP dictate from above.

First, Republicans need to stop listening to the White House propaganda; 2012 was not the disaster they paint. Romney ran Obama through the middle part of the campaign and won the opening debate, ending five points behind. He was gaff prone, weak, cold and distant and his campaign people were complete morons; they let Obama get away with so much crap they deserved to lose by 15%....YOU NEVER take your heel off your opponent's throat. EVER.

So under a weak, kind of cardboard cut out too-square chinned candidate, against a brilliant showman, glowingly protected in the media and armed with the largest war chest in the history of politics, the Republican machine still delivered its core and then some......within 5% as I recall.

The last run up was indeed self defeating. After the third debate I was wondering if the echelon knew something I didn't, but it was an ass-grab contest most notable for the media being unable to see or hear Ron Paul and the character destruction of perhaps the most decent man up there and the only guy with what might have been some answers, what I said then was the perfect VP candidate.

The problem, in the end, was that the whole show was about cardboard cut out pretty people who had fooled enough people some of the time to appear successful who came armed with talking points, no answers and far too few questions. They ended up with a chilly, gaff prone, candidate with the charisma of a gold fish after sifting through the party's collection of swelled head ambition whores; a guy who was simply using the party as his machine to stardom.

By the time the game begins publicly and in earnest, it will be too late. I have long seen the GOP circle its wagons and shoot inward. However I was at the pinnacle of my career when Nixon went out the hard way, that slime sucking ****-for-brains Ford making a mockery of justice; events we, the collective brain trust of the day were sure signs the GOP would languish in the political desert for decades. Enter Reagan and shooting outwards. There's a hint there.

The mid terms are an opportunity for the party to meld together on the points they agree on, close the pie hole on what they disagree on, then start shooting outward. It would seem to me the GOP has forgotten a basic rule of the nastiest non-contact sport in the universe; a house divided cannot stand. Democrats have a few fissures running through them and while they clobber the crap out of Republicans on so-called social issues, the Republicans ignore the huge divide on the other side: the rich, Hollywood environmental people with the $ on one side, and out of work, under employed working men and women who are not working but could be with one pipeline....

The party is still circled, still facing inward...at least for now their not shooting, but they need to turn around and see the enemy for what it is....smoke, mirrors, incompetence and lies....



Heya F&L. :2wave: Well to be honest.....it was the Tea party that came out and said they would field their own candidates to run against Repubs. Then put up the money and said they would go for those like McConnell and some that we need. Which caused that Demo there to pic up some pace.


Still its who will be in just to pull votes from another. Both Cruz and Paul will be splitting those Tea Party Votes.

I think Cruz jumps to counter Paul and definitely Christie.....but then he is nothing more than like a wannabe, and a Junior Senator. One that should look to hold his seat.

Also Look at Rand Paul wanting to change a States Law just so he can run for Both Senator and the Presidency. That Law don't need to be changed. He just needs to decide which one he wants and go for it. Should he lose.....deal with those consequences.
 
If a governor is the most viable/appealing candidate, so be it. However, I see no reason to arbitrarily limit the pool of candidates in order to fit a select mold. That could result in a loss of enthusiasm among one's own base and a strong feeling of disconnect between the electorate and the establishment.

They would never choose to back someone like Mitt Romney, Bob Dole or John McCain. ;)

The GOP "establishment" should get out of the way and let all of the contenders fend for themselves during the GOP primary process. Wasting resources to encourage picking the future underfunded loser in the general race is simply stupid. If the GOP establishment candidate needs help just to win the GOP primary then they are very unlikely to win in the general election anyway.
 
They would never choose to back someone like Mitt Romney, Bob Dole or John McCain. ;)

The GOP "establishment" should get out of the way and let all of the contenders fend for themselves during the GOP primary process. Wasting resources to encourage picking the future underfunded loser in the general race is simply stupid. If the GOP establishment candidate needs help just to win the GOP primary then they are very unlikely to win in the general election anyway.

:agree: What is the criteria that determines who the GOP establishment will back? That remains a puzzle to me and many other people! :mrgreen:

Greetings, ttwtt78640. :2wave:
 
:agree: What is the criteria that determines who the GOP establishment will back? That remains a puzzle to me and many other people! :mrgreen:

Greetings, ttwtt78640. :2wave:

The keyword here is "establishment". The GOP establishment is losing the ability to say that they favor "small gov't" as they allow the huge federal nanny state to grow like a weed. They fear losing control to the Tea "party" rogues who might actually reduce their bloated federal gov't power. Gov't power is a funny thing - it increases only so long as gov't control does. ;)
 
:agree: What is the criteria that determines who the GOP establishment will back? That remains a puzzle to me and many other people! :mrgreen:

Greetings, ttwtt78640. :2wave:



Money and appeal Lady P......and at least the Basics of Republican Ideology. One thing is for certain the Establishment will not be backing Santorum. Who will just cause more problems than good. IMO that is.
 
Are you talking about the official party? Are you talking about the individual delegates at the convention?

No. In the first scenario. The official party should only back the person that secures the nomination.

Yes. In the second scenario. Executive experience is always helpful. Otherwise we are rolling dice and crossing our fingers. If the candidate has been a governor then we know what to expect and what not to expect. I would take it a step further. I would only want a governor that has serve two terms and won by a landslide in his second election.

I voted yes in the poll because I think I know what you meant.

I was just being technical with the language.



Heya VT. :2wave: Yeah.....I could have been a bit more precise on it. But that would be the gist of it. Since no other can be prevented from running.

Still we do have quite a few Governors running this time out too.
 
Mornin' JD. :2wave: Looking at things realistically. I think we can now consider Rubio.....out of the Running. He needs to hold that Senator seat. But.....uh oh, and I just got word myself along with the DB. Jeb Bush is going to make the Dash. Rubio and Jeb Bush have made a deal. Rubio will stay out and Take on Wassermann Schultz.....who thinks she can move up to Senator. Now that is a scary thought. :shock:

Dammit.....another Bush run!!!!!
mad.gif



Forget the White House, Marco Rubio Might Be Lucky Just to Be Reelected.....

He still makes the presidential wannabee lists, but Rubio might be lucky in 2016 just to hold his Senate seat.

In fact, he may be forced into a career change. Why? Because Senator Rubio is up for a difficult reelection in November 2016, and he told Jonathan Karl that if he runs for president he would not simultaneously run for the Senate.

This could be construed as a jab at Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who is actively considering both. But Rubio does not have a choice because Florida law prevents ambitious politicians from having their names appear twice on the ballot for different offices, as does Kentucky. And Paul has more in-state political clout and is engaged in changing the law in Kentucky, while Rubio has accepted the Sunshine State status quo.

A quick glance at the Real Clear Politics poll averages for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination indicates that Rubio would be better off focusing all his energy on his Senate reelection if he wants to keep “politician” as his current profession. The current three leaders are Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee with 13 percent each, and Jeb Bush at 12.3 percent. Rubio is stuck in the middle at 6.5 percent. <<<<< !

He doesn’t even fare well at home. The latest Quinnipiac survey of 2016 GOP voters has Jeb Bush winning 27 percent, Rand Paul garnering 14 percent and Rubio trailing at 11 percent. Furthermore, in a Florida 2016 general election match-up Hillary Clinton stomps Rubio by a margin of 52 to 40 percent.

So things don’t look so encouraging for Rubio. But he may not be seriously eyeing a White House run anyway: A high-ranking GOP party official who asked that his name be withheld told me on Monday that Jeb Bush’s people have just met with Rubio’s people and a 2016 deal was struck: If Jeb runs for president, then Rubio would drop out—and “Jeb is running,” according to my well-placed source. (Alert the media!).....snip~

Forget the White House, Marco Rubio Might Be Lucky Just to Be Reelected - The Daily Beast

If Jeb is the nominee, I can safely say that the GOP will loose the election. By now everyone knows the Bush family enough to know that they are good and honorable people, who also are big government republicans. Conservative rhetoric and moderate to liberal governance with good foreign policy skills and a lot of inside ball and cronyism. This just isn't going to cut it this time, tea party folks are done with that type of governance. Jeb will get less votes than Romney. Go Ben
 
I am not a republican so it is far from my place to tell them how to run their party. I will however toss in my observations: to me, a party should pick the best candidate with a reasonable shot at winning. Artificially limiting that pool of potential candidates also limits the possibility of an exception candidate. If the DNC did something like what is suggested here I would be pissed. What would happen in the best candidate was not a governor, and because of a stupid rule does not have chance to run?

This is not to say that being a governor is not good experience relevant to being president. It clearly is. But that should be weighed against other factors. Pick the candidate with the best qualifications overall.
 
If Jeb is the nominee, I can safely say that the GOP will loose the election. By now everyone knows the Bush family enough to know that they are good and honorable people, who also are big government republicans. Conservative rhetoric and moderate to liberal governance with good foreign policy skills and a lot of inside ball and cronyism. This just isn't going to cut it this time, tea party folks are done with that type of governance. Jeb will get less votes than Romney. Go Ben


Well with Paul and Cruz there.....they will be taking up most of the Tea Party votes. I doubt any of the others will carry as many as they will.

Still one can see where this is going to come to a head.....with the likes of Santorum Bumping heads with Cruz and Paul.
 
The GOP is having quite a few people thinking about running for the Presidency.....and the list keeps growing with people throwing their name out there.
So far those that have given word are, as follows. (which they are not in any order of who is polling or currently on top.)

1. Christie
2. Paul
3. Jindal
4. Perry
5. Santorum
6. Bush
7. West
8. Pence
9. Carson

10. Cruz
11. Rubio
12. Huntsman


Even with the limiting of the Debates. Advertising and the MS Media is looking for a field day to catch the GOP up, and with the gotcha moments.

We have some popular figures here with Ego's to match. We have some that have never governed. So the question is.....should the RNC/GOP establishment only back those that have been Governors and know what it is like to govern a State, take care of budgets, and can get people to back to work, and have the record or working with the Demos, even if they weren't in control of anything.....or was?

I'm not big on the elitist approach to choosing candidates - I see it far too much here in Canada where parties choose candidates and often avoid our equivalent of primaries thinking they know best. It just turns off average voters and makes enemies.

Everyone who has the desire and the qualifications to be President should have the opportunity to put themselves on the line. It will take no time for things to shake out and the true contenders to rise to the top. To suggest only current and/or ex-governors need apply would be to suggest that Sarah Palin is acceptable yet Rand Paul is not.
 
I think it should be mandetory for a person who runs for the highest office in the country to have had at least one full term as governor or 2 terms as a senator.

Or a workrecord of working in high office for a considerable amount of time.

I would never give my vote to some upstart, no matter how nice the promisses may sound.

Someone should show that they have expirience and can be trusted with the job.

Which is why I was very suspicious of Obama in 2008.

Except that eliminates many good candidates....
Best way to get better candidates is public funding of campaigns.
 
Well with Paul and Cruz there.....they will be taking up most of the Tea Party votes. I doubt any of the others will carry as many as they will.

Still one can see where this is going to come to a head.....with the likes of Santorum Bumping heads with Cruz and Paul.

If the more conservative folks beat each other up and we end up with a Bush or Christie Nomination, we are doomed again. Ben Carson is good middle ground.
 
Except that eliminates many good candidates....
Best way to get better candidates is public funding of campaigns.

I don't think so. The best way to get good candidates is to open campaign finance to all american citizens who are willing to donate individually and transparently in an amount that they are pleased to give.
 
If the more conservative folks beat each other up and we end up with a Bush or Christie Nomination, we are doomed again. Ben Carson is good middle ground.

So is Pence.....Plus Pence is a successful Governor. So is his Predecessor. Mitch Daniels. Either of them run......I will vote for them.

Pence over Bush any day.....anytime!

Over the Rest of them to.....All he needs do, is pick Condi for his VP.
 
So is Pence.....Plus Pence is a successful Governor. So is his Predecessor. Mitch Daniels. Either of them run......I will vote for them.

Pence over Bush any day.....anytime!

Over the Rest of them to.....All he needs do, is pick Condi for his VP.

I so far like Pence, but I don't know him that well. Mitch Daniels rubs me the wrong way... don't know why I just don't trust the guy.
 
Back
Top Bottom