Posted on 07/02/2011 11:40:30 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Much has been written about Michele Bachmann's lack of any executive experience and the crippling disability it poses for her campaign for the GOP nomination and for the Presidency. But candidates with no executive experience have won the Presidency before. Both JFK and Obama come to mind. It is true that no GOP nominee in well over 100 years has lacked executive experience. (Even Senator Warren Harding had served as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio and William Howard Taft had been the Governor of both the Philippines and Cuba). It is a major obstacle for her, especially in this cycle and especially in the GOP, which prefers to nominate Executives rather than legislators. However, this impediment cannot be said to be insurmountable. It has been overcome in the recent past, albeit by Democrat candidates.
What would be unprecedented in modern times would be the nomination and election of a candidate who has NEVER won a state wide election. With the exception of Dwight Eisenhower, a War hero and Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in World War II, who was thus sui generis , it has been over seventy years since the GOP gambled on a candidate who had never run a state wide campaign, the hapless Wendell Wilkie. Wilkie was carpet bombed by FDR in 1940, even though the economy was still in the ditch after eight years of the New Deal. The Republicans confront a similar situation in 2012, a weakened Democrat President, who can be beaten with the right candidate. The GOP is not about to entrust its 2012 fortunes to a four year Congressperson who has never even passed a major piece of good legislation or blocked a major piece of bad legislation.
And the knock on her political experience is not just that she has never won state wide elective office, but that MICHELE BACHMANN HAS NEVER EVEN RUN A STATE WIDE CAMPAIGN. Indeed, even Herman Cain, who has never won state wide elective office, has at least run state wide, seeking the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate in a contested state wide primary. Now, in a singular act of political hubris, Bachmann puts herself forward to be the GOP standard bearer in a national election. And make no mistake. A national election for the Presidency is fifty separate state elections. Having never won, nor even run, a state wide campaign Bachmann argues that the GOP should trust her competence to run 50 state wide elections ON THE SAME DAY, as well as her ability to win more than half of them! Even the "Stupid Party" can't be bamboozled to that degree. The risk of a down ballot catastrophe caused by an inexperienced, gaffe prone candidate at the top of the ticket is too great, even if the Democrat President himself were a shoo-in for re-election (which, in 2012, he definitely is not).
Sarah Palin has the executive experience which Bachmann lacks. But, even Mitt Romney can make that claim, as can Barack Obama. However, leaving aside the question of executive experience, Palin also possesses the political experience so conspicuously missing from Bachmann's skill set. Palin has run in two state wide contested GOP primaries, in 2002 and in 2006. In 2002, she narrowly lost the GOP nod for Lieutenant Governor by 2.5% in a four candidate field. Four years later, after exposing the corruption of his administration, Palin took on and clobbered the incumbent GOP Governor Frank Murkowski, who had been elected state wide FOUR times previously, in the GOP primary, 51%-19%. She went on to easily dispatch popular two term former Governor Tony Knowles in the general election, 49% to 40%, in spite of a third party challenge by a former GOP opponent.
Palin, alone among all the GOP candidates, has actually run in a national campaign, and this experience cannot be overemphasized She has seen the errors the McCain operatives made. To a greater extent than all the rest, especially Bachmann, she realizes what works in a Presidential campaign and what does not work. She knows who can be trusted and who cannot be trusted. Michele Bachmann, on the other hand, will be completely dependent upon the likes of Ed Rollins and his ilk, because she has no clue how to run even a state wide campaign, much less a national one. Palin neither wants nor needs such crutches.
Obama in 2012 is shaping up as a ripe target for the GOP. They are not about to squander this golden opportunity by gambling on Michele Bachmann's thin political resume.
Right LMAO.
I said Palin had “run in” a national campaign, not that she had “run” the campaign, which is a large distinction.
Having “run in” a national general election campaign is in itself valuable experience, even though the McCain campaign was not well “run”. Had Palin “run” the campaign herself, it would have been measurably better than it was.
Virtually identical to candidate Obama in 2007:
- No executive experience
- Less than five years in Congress, preceeded by several terms in the state legislature
- Never chaired a Congressional committee or subcommittee
- Never sponsored a bill that has been enacted into law,
In addition Rep. Bachmann has six chiefs of staff in her first four years in the House. She's either very hard to work for or is a horrid judge of talent. Considering she appointed Ed Rollins as her campaign manager, I believe the latter is more likely.
Bachmann must be a real threat to Obama.
But my aunt Mabel would be a threat running against him.
In fact, my dog, Maxie could run against Obama and win.
I like Michelle Bachmann a lot, but she does have a woefully thin resume. Can’t do the research now, but to the best of my knowledge no sitting member of the U.S. House has won the presidency. There’s a good reason. Experience. Most House members don’t have enough either at all or of the necessary kind.
If Bachmamn is running to raise her national profile, that’s fine. Many people have done so in our history. If, on the other hand, she’s running because she seriously believes herself to be the best possible candidate at this time, then Bachmann is incredibly arrogant. That would be a character flaw we can’t afford.
Ron Paul ran for President and for US Senate.
James Garfield was elected from the House in 1880. It ended up being a bad career move as he was assassinated shortly after being elected.
“What about Paul and Romney? One’s a kook and the other is a squishy cultist but didn’t they run national campaigns?”
If you read the article, you would have noticed that I use the term “national campaign” in the sense of the general election campaign, 50 state election son a single day. Romney never ran such a campaign.
Paul ran a quixotic campaign as a libertarian 25 years ago, but that wasn’t a serious, national campaign. I stand by my statement. In terms of the current GOP field Palin alone among the current GOP candidates has national campaign experience on a major party ticket.
Aye, rather thin political resume.
Be Ever Vigilant!
Romney is no more of legitimate frontrunner than Giuliani was in the last election. Bachmann or someone else will beat him in Iowa and go on to win the nomination.
Rick Perry would suck the life out of Romney if he were to run.
The Office of President of the United States is becoming quite a sad state of affairs. Obama has proven that he cannot do it. It takes someone in charge. Not 50 Csars to brief him. He was very stupid for taking this line and as well, very well unqualified. A man of conviction and discipline is the key. He has neither.
Gotcha.
Those campaigns don’t count.
Makes perfect sense to me.
I love these vanities that end up being echo chambers for die hard Palin supporters. Boy they sure do spend a lot of time on someone who has no chance of being our nominee or beating Obama. ;-) Why spend so much time on Michele Bachmann if she’s really a non-entity? I’m confused.
I'm a Palin Supporter and I want Bachmann to overtake everyone, so when Palin gets in the race, game set match, Palin Wins,
Palin/Bachmann2012
The first thing the political elite claim is that they are blessed with governing and executive experience. If this is all so good why is America a disaster right now?
Oh, and about Bachmann’s executive experience concern—anyone who can manage a 15-person household understands how to live within their means.
I think that is precisely the kind of person I want for a president.
Sorry, I don’t think Perry is in the same philosophical sip code as Sarah, and he wouldn’t make the first cut in the primaries.
Maybe Palin/West or Palin/Paul
ah...zip, not sip.
Then I stand corrected on that!
However, I don’t see having “run IN” a national campaign all that big of a step up either. The candidate’s main responsibility is to keep the schedule organized by staff and give the speeches.
Yes, it’s a learning experience, but I think this article way overstates its significance. Especially since if it’s such a great resume item, there are candidates who have actually run in AND run a national campaign.
I mean, if having run in or run a national campaign is the criteria, we’d be talking only about losers and incumbents! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.