Trump Reveals What North Korea's Kim Jong Un Called Joe Biden. It's Hilariously...
CNN's Scott Jennings Asked This Dem Rep a Simple Question. He Couldn't Answer...
It Seems Maine's Democratic Primary for the US Senate Is Over
Why Some Dems Are Seething Over David Hogg's PAC
Dems Got Served a Piping Hot Cup of Shut the Hell Up on...
It Didn't Take Long for Abigail Spanberger to Collapse in Virginia
Look at This SNL Star's Face When His Fellow Castmate Shared This Story...
President Trump Said the Iranian Regime Ends Tonight
Grab Some Tissues and Watch the Artemis Crew's Touching Tribute to Commander Reid...
The U.S. Has Carried Out Strikes on Kharg Island
Democrat Darling Hasan Piker Has a Plan for Capitalists. Guess What It Is.
Court Rejects Disgraced Judge Hannah Dugan's Request to Toss Her Guilty Verdict
Wisdom From America’s Founders: Government Isn’t Evil, But…
Pope Leo's Flawed War Doctrine
Iraq Cannot Afford to Repeat the Maliki Catastrophe
Tipsheet

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

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