The Three Issues That Allowed Trump to Break Through the Liberal Urban Wall
Dems to Pelosi: Sit Down and Shut Up
How DOJ Staffers Reacted to Matt Gaetz's Nomination as Attorney General
Is This Why Trump Rolled Out a Ton of Controversial Picks?
The Ratings Continue to Fall Down an Elevator Shaft as the Networks Continue...
Gavin Newsom Urged To Use State Law Enforcement on Gun Controlled Mass Transit
Colorado Governor Faces Backlash From Dems Over Post About RFK Jr.
Staying on Top May Be Harder Than Getting There in the First Place
John Fetterman Says What We're All Thinking
Third-Party-Payers Might Be the Real Financial Catastrophe
Will President-elect Trump Deliver on His 11-Point Education Plan?
A Whistleblower's Warning: RFK Jr. Must Address the Missing Migrant Children Crisis at...
Democrats Defend Soviet-Era ‘Myth of Infallibility’
Remembering Corrie ten Boom and the Jews
Trump's Iran Strategy Could End Middle East Wars
Tipsheet

VIDEO: Should Republicans Nominate a Governor or Senator in 2016?

Is there an inherent danger in electing a freshman Republican senator to the American presidency in 2016? After all, if one of the biggest criticisms then-candidate Obama faced from conservatives in 2008 was that he was too inexperienced, why should Republicans turn around and nominate someone like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Rand Paul this election cycle? If we’re being honest with ourselves, are they really any more qualified than he was?

Advertisement

As it happens, this is a question some of my colleagues debated last week during a panel discussion at CPAC:

I agree with Katie that successful governors have a much better case to make for why they deserve the nomination than senators. I also agree with Erick that it’s somewhat hypocritical for conservatives to endorse a freshman Senator in 2016 after assailing then-Sen. Obama’s resume (or lack thereof) during the 2008 campaign. But these kinds of questions are almost peripheral to what matters most; namely, nominating a candidate who can win the general election.

As Mitt Romney’s candidacy painfully showed us, Republicans can consolidate behind the most qualified person in America to serve as president. But if that person loses, their credentials, business acumen, and potential matter naught. Of course, there is a real risk in nominating a candidate who is (ahem) appealing to the base but lacks true leadership qualities and executive experience. But wouldn't you rather nominate a candidate who is unproven and can win than suffer the consequences of four or eight years of President Hillary Clinton?

Advertisement

By the way, there is no proven litmus test for what makes a good president. History demonstrates that candidates with little experience in government (see Abraham Lincoln) can exceed all expectations whereas presidents with all the experience in the world have failed miserably (see his successor). So while I’m inclined to support a governor in 2016—after all, they know how to “get things done,” as Katie put it—if Cruz, Rubio, or Paul prove electable and up to the task, that candidate will earn my support.

It’s as simple as that.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement