It was a little weird to read “The Case for Amy Klobuchar” Monday from . . . the WSJ Editorial Board.
But then again they don’t like Trump. We’re unlikely to see him displaced by a primary challenger. So maybe she’s just their least unfavorate “anyone but” candidate.
ETA it wasn’t an endorsement.
I’ve never heard of him but he seems to have a solid centrist platform, and there’s certainly space for that in the upcoming primary battles. He’ll annoy the progressives but they’ve got their champions already.
So, yeah. Why not?
Maybe ITR champion was using the phrase in the sense of “being absurdly overcrowded.”
based on the past, the more people running tends to lead to a non “party elite” favorite getting the nomination
You are forgetting our current Prez. Not to mention Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower,Ulysses S. Grant, & Zachary Taylor.
Yes, he was mentioned several times as being “Mayor Pete” last night.
In terms of “experience relevant to being president”, in my opinion its about:
“5” is usually where I draw the line on a candidate. YMMV, of course.
Well, if you are the administrative head of a army, that does give you plenty of experience. So Ike was fine but not the other two- who were in affect poor presidents.
I’d extend the line to US Rep, but only if they were a very significant Rep: Either with a long and distinguished career, or with a major leadership position like Speaker.
And I’d put “major metropolitan mayor” on the list, if by “major”, we mean the likes of New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. South Bend doesn’t cut it.
I’ve always wondered why, unlike other in other countries, Americans don’t consider being a member of cabinet qualification for President. As if, say, the Secretary of Defense, with 2.8 million subordinates, somehow has less “executive experience” than the Governor of Wyoming.
To my mind, it’s because a cabinet secretary is a subordinate.
If you ask a cabinet secretary why they did something, figure the answer is either “because the president told me to,” or “despite the president telling me not to” — where the former maybe rates a shrug, and the latter maybe earned them a spot behind bars. Senator Jones votes ‘aye’ or ‘nay’ as he sees fit after the president declares for a given position? Governor Smith makes a call and pointedly doesn’t answer to the president? Okay, that’s a story; that’s years of stories.
Secretary So-And-So serves at the pleasure of the president? Uh, okay.
I think it’s because, generally, the parties want to nominate someone with a proven ability to win competetive elections (it doesn’t always work out this way, of course). So a cabinet secretary might be considered qualified in terms of doing the job, but possibly not qualified in terms of what it takes to get elected.
Maybe a bit silly – I would certainly strongly consider a cabinet secretary if I thought they were smart and agreed with them on the issues.
:smack: Yes, I did manage to forget the current Prez. You should congratulate me for that! Life was sweeter for those minutes. And yes, Zachary Taylor may be the 2nd least qualified of all Prezes.
But surely Grant and Ike had far more relevant experience than a Representative! To be commanding general of a large army in wartime is not a small chore.
Mayor Pete was on MSNBC this morning and he addressed this very question. I think he answered it well. I can’t recall exactly what he said now, but I think he did a great job overall. Some of the panel seemed to be almost hostile to him and he just stayed calm and addressed the question that was asked. I like him a lot.
But doesn’t that also disqualify generals? After all, they also do what they’re told. The fact is, the President hires cabinet members to make decisions, because there are just too many decisions for him to make by himself.
It just seems like you’re utterly rejecting the principle of promoting from within. If the Head of Marketing or a division manager can replace the CEO, why can’t a cabinet secretary replace the President?
Obviously one can; it’s happened in the past. But as you said, voters here sure seem to more often prefer Governors and Senators; and, when I think back on the folks I’ve voted for in presidential elections, I think about my reasoning and it’s never yet boiled down to me thinking ‘well, even though they had to do what they were told, I assume they were sometimes making the actual decisions because the president was handling other stuff right then.’ That could someday be the case; I can be won over; but it hasn’t happened yet.
I don’t see that as much of a problem this time. First, I don’t think the “party elite,” whoever they are, have settled on a favorite, which is probably a Good Thing. Second, the only candidates I can think of that might give heartburn to the “party elite” are Bernie, Tulsi Gabbard, Buttigeg, and possibly Bloomberg. Bernie’s not the threat he was in 2016, and none of the others are going to get very far.
William Safire once said that every Cabinet should contain at least one credible future President, which I always thought was an interesting idea. Taft (War) and Hoover (Commerce) both went directly from the Cabinet to the Presidency, IIRC, and in the early years of the republic quite a few secretaries of State made that move.
He was asked a similar question in Parma, and noted that he had more executive experience than either the incumbent President and Vice President. Arguable, but not a bad response.
Here’s the *NYT *on his June wedding, BTW: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/fashion/weddings/mayor-peter-buttigieg-wedding-democratic-party.html
For what it’s worth, used to be that being Secretary of State was considered training ground for the presidency.
Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, and Van Buren were all Secs of State before becoming President.
Right, but they all did other stuff. Jefferson was a Governor before he was the VP, and Van Buren was a Senator before he was the VP, and Monroe had been a Governor and a Senator, and so on, and so on. I don’t think that was a coincidence.