Governor Frist?
By FirstState Posted in Elections | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Hill is reporting that former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is taking a hard look at the Governor's seat in 2010. The speculation is that Frist feels he needs the executive experience for a supposed future run for President. Have we come to that point, that executive experience is so important that someone like Frist would go from the height of power in the Senate to the governorship of a state in order to have it on his resume? Does the strength of that idea doom a McCain or a Brownback or promote a Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee, or is it really a secondary quality?
Executive experience almost is a modern prerequisite to be POTUS. This was a very smart move by Frist.
What I'm asking is where does executive experience rank with YOU as far as importance?
Is it more or less important than issue positions?
More or less important than overall years of government experience?
Where does it stack up against foreign policy experience, which most governors don't have?
1. Overall years of government experience, without regard to positions held, is a non-starter. Personally it's a negative.
2. Foreign policy experience is learned OTJ. No Senator, regardless of the opinion of Specter & McCain & Biden, HAS foreign policy experience. They have experience BLOVIATING ABOUT foreign policy. Not the same at all.
3. Issue positions don't matter if you don't have to formulate policy that will affect the issue. It's like talking about the voting record of Senators on judicial nominees, it's a meaningless exercise. The question is what kind of person would the Senator actually nominate and how would he fight for the nominees. A "good" position on abortion that won't be backed with a solid plan is also meaningless.
4. Executive experience, in terms of more-or-less measurable things, is at the top of the heap. The job of POTUS is to make decisions, to formulate policy and stand for something. The job of an elected legislator is to equivocate, to compromise and to make deals. Legislators will stand for whatever is convenient. They can take "popular" positions that will never amount to anything because they are just one vote of many.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
What I'm asking is where does executive experience rank with YOU as far as importance?
It is essential.
Is it more or less important than issue positions?
Yes. Issue positions tell me how I feel about a candidate's philosophy, but execuitve experience tells me whether he can implement those things he expouses.
More or less important than overall years of government experience?
Yes. I agree with Becker below; a long time in the Senate almost disqualifies someone as POTUS. My preference is for someone with a corporate background who has been a governor or large city mayor.
Where does it stack up against foreign policy experience, which most governors don't have?
Again, I agree with most below. Expert advice and OTJE pretty well fills the foreign policy void. For example, does anyone honestly believe the lightweights who now inhabit the United States Senate are any less reliant of their staff than the POTUS in the foreign policy realm? And possibly disadvantaged because of the lightweight advice they may have received to formulate their worldview?
I would agree with the thought about being a gov first. It should also help reconnect with people on the ground being that many times people get into the senate their heads tend to expand.
Frist is quite popular in Tennessee, and I believe he could defeat Governor Bredesen, despite the current Governor's high approval ratings.
I have a high opinion of Frist, but I don't think he is Presidential material. He did an awful job as Senate Majority leader, and seems to lack the charisma and communication skills it takes to be an effective Presidential candidate.
Then again, Bush won two terms, so what do I know?
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Bredesen was just re-elected to his second term, and the TN governors can serve a maximum of two, so Bredesen is out and the seat is open. If Frist wants it, and he runs a semi-competent campaign, it's his.
I've advocated out here for some time executive experience is a must. The job is the commander of all commanders in the military and the chief executive of the entire federal government. That is not an entry level position into the executive ranks, although prior political or military experience and success is another must.
The latter is why Perot was never qualified (amongst a whole host of other reasons including mental stability) or any other non political/military CEO. I believe a military hero commander can still be elected President as Colin Powell probably could have once upon a time but no longer. Although it hasn’t happened since Ike I think it’s possible on the heels of a successful and popular military campaign which covers the political piece (war is politics by other means – Clausewitz). Franks probably had a window after Afghanistan, but Iraq has closed that window for anyone for the time being. Although McCain has no command experience, his military heroism may suffice. Although I’m not a big McCain fan, it’s the one on the bubble that interests me. Some people see the uniform, the heroism, the rank and that’s enough. G series (command) orders really don’t matter to many at that point.
Only successful wartime commanders, governors or other government executives like VPs or Cabinet level types have the executive and political experience needed. But I think quite a few lawyers out here will disagree. But to many of them in my mind, everything is a process or position and proven leadership in motivating thousands to get the job done right means little. What I wonder is how many private sector managerial/executive/business owner Republican types disagree. That use to be the backbone of the Republican Party, although it’s becoming more and more the lawyers.
Excellent choice for Governor in my opinion. In 2010, he will have been disconnected from Washington enough to effectively start anew, but with experience and name ID.
There have been exactly two men who have moved directly from the Senate to the White House: John Kennedy and Warren Harding. Frist is probably aware of this history, and is thus making a side turn to up the odds.
It helps to take a historical perspective, and not assume that everything is about the last two weeks. The road to the White House tends to not run directly from the Senate.
not how, but why?
seriously, this guy is the poster boy for the Republican losses in '06. There is no way this man can unite libertarian-conservatives and big government-conservatives. In fact, he would split the party more. And for that matter, I could name a lot of big government conservatives I would prefer to Frist.
The issue is more likely to be a lack of trust in Washington.
People tend to trust their own representatives and senators enough to re-elect them (after all, they get re-elected). However, I don't trust your representative or senator.
that every elected Pres. since JFK was either a Governor or Vice Pres., I'd say yes.