Not since John F. Kennedy has a United States Senator been elected to the White House. (Former) Governor Mitt Romney has "suspended" his candidacy, although it seems unlikely after Super Tuesday that he could concievably win anyway. Ditto Mike Huckabee, who is staying in the race, but for how much longer, who knows. Therefore, it will ultimately be John McCain going up against whomever the Democrats select as their nominee, both of whom are sitting U.S. Senators themselves.
An article (Reader's Blog) in the NY Times ruminated over the reasons why governors have more often been the elected nominees over U.S. Senators when it comes to the general elections. Some of the responses to the article argued, logically, that governors are the analog to presidents at the the state level and therefore have the most applicable experience to bring to the Oval Office. This is true, and in some ways it's a shame on the Democratic side, that Bill Richardson didn't advance further. Not only is he a sitting Governor in a border state (New Mexico) with its southern neighbor, but was Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton, an Ambassador, and Congressman. Therefore, he has important experience as the chief executive of a state, experience as a federal cabinet secretary on one of the most important issues that grips the U.S. and the world, experience as a diplomat, and experience as someone who knows how to draft legislation. The only thing Bill Richardson could add on to this resume is a stint on the bench. But enough of my Richardson digression for the moment.
One of the comments I read noted that Senators are "legislators" and Presidents/Governors are "implementers". This is of course true in part, but simplistic. Governors and presidents oversee a variety of executive agencies, that involve to be sure, traditional executive functions. These would include, law enforcement, border security, tax collection, issuing visas and permits, and directing the armed forces. Yet they also have legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Administrative agencies produce regulations, that have the same force and effect as Congressional statutes; they are law. When disputes arise, for example when someone is denied Social Security benefits, an Administrative Law Judge hears evidence and provides an opinion. All this is overseen by the executive branches. So the point is, governors and presidents do more than just implement and execute. There is more complexity to the job and involves an understanding of law-making and adjudication.
Although a Senator, who has never served as a chief executive, may lack a certain type of experience, s/he may still be able to bring his/her legislative strengths and insights to the legislative components of the job. Although, the President or Governor, rarely, I imagine, actually do any of the actual drafting of regulations. However, they may take more direct involvement in reviewing treaties and executive orders.
The job of a chief executive, however, is more than just being a good administrator. It's the direction that they can give to the country. And to be sappy for a moment, a certain vision, whether in the Obama, Reagan or Kennedy sense. It may explain why someone like Richardson, who clearly has the pedigree for the job, got see easily cast aside (in addition to the fact that Obama and Clinton had loads more money). Every now and again, for better or for worse, certain politicians come around and electrify. Of course, one would hope that it is more than smoke and mirrors, and that there is a real plan and experience behind the vision.
One thing is for sure, there is an awful lot of excitement surrounding Senator Obama's run for nomination, and it can be evidenced by the money that is pouring in to his campaign coffers. Senator Clinton just acknowledged that she had to loan her campaign 5 million dollars to assist in her bid. There is money which is reserved for the general election and cannot be touched. In any event, Obama seems to be blazing a trail and will likely use it to fight hard to drill into Clinton's delegate lead over the next few weeks and months.
One can't predict where this race is going to end up for sure. Pundits and polls have both been wrong a number of times since the primaries began, and I am neither a pundit nor a pollster, although a bit of a political junkie. But if this Senator-led election proves to be a once every 5 decades type event, perhaps it will go to the one Senator who seems to electrify so many. Or who knows maybe it will go to the very knowledgable Senator Clinton or the Senator "straight talk express" McCain who has the social conservative base of the Republican party threatening revolt.
No comments:
Post a Comment