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.
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.
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.
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?
I think that the ideal candidate would be someone who has been the Vice-President. But, that would be from an ideal Presidency.
It makes sense to have the President focus on foreign affairs while the Vice-President focuses on running the government apparatus.
The President would then train the Vice-President in matters of foreign affairs. Thus, the Vice-president would move up to handle foreign affairs while having a solid background in being the Chief Executive.
Of course, this was developed when people saw politics as a means of selecting the best person for a job. Now, with the Democrats, they could care less about being good Executives. Look at Obama. He couldn’t run a snocone cart. The Democrat Party exists to give thieves access to the public treasuries in order to loot them.
Levin should go one step further: Governors should be disqualified. They have sold out by definition.
I listened to Mark Levin last night and I am in agreement that what this country needs right now is a leader. I only see two people with the force of personality to do what needs to be done and the first is Ted Cruz.
Ping for later