Posted on 03/24/2015 5:54:52 AM PDT by Biggirl
Talk radio host and author of “The Liberty Amendments” Mark Levin argued that the next president does not need to be a governor and that it doesn’t matter what title the Republican nominee has on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
This was a great segment by Levin - (of course, I love it cuz it’s what I’ve been saying for months) - and the salient line was this:
We don’t need a manager. We need a visionary - and he can HIRE managers. (paraphrase, but pretty close).
So so true. The Prez is NOT an admin position, it’s a vision position. Look at Obama, he’s not administrator or executive, but he’s accomplished all HE wanted to do. How? He did set the vision and hired like minded managers.
Exactly. We need a leader as president. If a governor, fine. In not a governor, that’s fine too.
Not sure I agree. Ronald Reagan was one helluva administrator. Because he knew how to delegate, AND he understood the nuts-and-bolts of how the system operated.
The Federal Leviathan is such a tangled web by now I feel we need someone with first-hand structural knowledge in order to begin the task of untangling it.
Shades of Bush 41’s “Vision Thing.”
Mark Levin and I think you are totally wrong. And others too. The web is so tangled indeed - but that leads to the opposite conclusion.
Any one entangled in the minutae cannot possibly lead the vision. An executive is often a tactician, what we need is a big picture strategist.
Reagan did not administer closely the way you say.....and back then, the gov was MUCH smaller and MUCH MORE manageable. I think Reagan would agree with Levin too.
yes, as in Cruz is the opposite of a Bush who doesn’t have “the vision thing.”
Of all the contenders so far, Cruz is the best choice. But not being a governor is a drawback. It’s not insurmountable, but it’s not a plus.
Ronald Reagan had been a governor. I agree that it is hardly a prerequisite for the presidency, but some executive experience is a very good thing. Some experience in Washington is a good thing. People skills are important, also. And of course we want a President with vision.
Reagan was a governor, of a state bigger and more complex than most countries. So, what’s the take away?
That Reagan did not micro manage California, nor did he micro manage or try to micro manage the country. He was a visionary in both offices.
And of all of those traits mentioned in your post, vision is far and away the most important. Management is a skill set you can hire. Vision is something you either have, or you don’t. Period.
>>Not sure I agree. Ronald Reagan was one helluva administrator<<
What Ronald Reagan had...was vision. He was called the “Great Communicator”.
The republican establishment HATED Ronald Reagan. The democrats saw him as a threat.
They were not ready for Ronald Reagan. After Jimmy Socialist, Reagan swept the election/nation in a historic landslide election.
I pray history repeats itself.
Anyway, visionaries can be managers if they choose. That’s the point of being a visionary—you can see what it takes to do what’s necessary.
Now more than ever we need a visionary to resurrect the glory of the City on the Hill, not a manager to manage the decline of our country.
The presidency were designed to have limited power in a divided federal government that was supposed to have LIMITED AUTHORITY.
What good is a Governor other than to be “better” at managing a bloated government that instead should be scaled back massively?
I’m not looking at someone that can move spending bills quicker because they were able to do it back at the state capitol so well.
(1) He neglected to campaign vigorously for congressional allies, leaving himself on the wrong side of budgetary restraint, so....
(2) ...he never did get the old Laffer Curve supply-side economy working. While we were spending the USSR to its demise, we were also increasing entitlements
(3) He screwed up the immigration thing, having a sort of old California B1 Bob Dornan view of illegal Mexicans as quaint, colorful, and reliable domestic retainers. Ah well, he did say, "Sorry, Gang!"
Yes, he was the greatest President of my born-under-Roosevelt (no, not Teddy!) lifetime, maybe even better than Eisenhower. If you are old enough to remember, under Ike this was a powerful, wealthy, and respected country with fully functional, much less obtrusive and smaller government ... which Reagan almost succeeded in recreating. (Of course, ultimately Ike failed us by not adequately supporting Nixon, resulting in the lecherous fool JFK .... then the treacherous crook LBJ.)
I am hoping Cruz is the next, new and improved Reagan. Cruz is following a President much worse than Jimmy, from whose disastrous policies Reagan did largely manage to extricate us.
I am so tired of hearing this idea that governors make the best presidents, which has not been borne out by history.
Over the past 100 years (or so) we have had 8 presidents with prior gubernatorial experience:
Theodore Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Calvin Coolidge
Franklin Roosevelt
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
With the exception of Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge, the remaining six have been unmitigated disasters.
That's hardly an encouraging record.
And Reagan wasn’t a great president because he was a governor. He was a great president because he understood what America was all about, loved liberty, limited government and free markets, and knew how to sell it.
I like a lot of what I know about Scott Walker, but the fact is that he appears to be a supporter of amnesty/immigration reform -- which is a deal killer as for as I am concerned.
Ted Cruz is the ONLY consistent, articulate conservative candidate who seems to understand the proper role of the federal government in all respects.
I believe that when one looks at the whole pack, Cruz is the only one who has the brains, the principles and the experience to save this country, if in fact it can be saved after 100 years of Progressive leftist infestation by both parties.
That’s a very odd post....for a number of reasons.
A: no one here said RR was perfect.
B: You seem to hold RR to “dictator can do anything he wants” standards.
C: Congress was baked in Democrat at that time, period.
D: He did indeed preside over an economy that demonstrated precisely the Laffer Curve. Remember, the Laffer Curve is only about income, not out go.
E: Yes, he did mess up on immigration, but the reason you are so sure of yourself now is that history lesson. RR did not have the benefit of that lesson to learn from obviously.
That tired stale and irrelevant “governor executive experience” thing is the coin of the realm of the formulaic, non-original, shallow thinker.
George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, and John Quincy Adams did not serve as Governors. If the founders had wanted it as a prerequisite they would have said so.
This nonsense that we have to have a governor as President comes from the party elite who want to make sure that any contenders for the office have duly paid homage and sold their soul to the handlers in the party elite. Scott Walker is a good example of someone who hasn’t and they attack him, for that very reason.
“Talk radio host and author of “The Liberty Amendments” Mark Levin argued that the next president does not need to be a governor and that it doesn’t matter what title the Republican nominee has on Monday.”
Why would it matter what title the Republican nominee has on Monday. Oh, wait, you mean Mark argued on Monday that it doesn’t matter what title the Republican nominee has.
Did this writer take classes in grammar and sentence structure?
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.