My “fetish” has nothing to do with where they are at on the totem pole. It has to do with where they are at when it comes to the constitution and conservatism. That is the only factor that matters. Sure, I would love it if we had a gubner or a general who was a proven, rock-ribbed conservative step up to the plate. So far, nothing of the sort has emerged. We have a gaggle of gubners with very mixed records.
Where do you draw the line in the tradeoff between ideal experience and ideal conservatism? If I was a typical republican, I could easily make the argument that Mitt, with his business resume, governorship, Olympics head, telegenic looks, etc etc was “the most qualified”. If I wanted a more intense record in politics, Huckabee was Lt. Gubner, before a 10 year stint as the real gubner, not to mention he’s an ordained minister and ran a competitive race for prez nomination.
Instead, I’m a conservative. I couldn’t care less about these guys’ experience governing, because the both had liberal streaks a mile wide, not to mention some of the idiotic things they said when running in 08. The same can be said for the rest of the “big names”, in some degree or another.