Governor is an administrative job at its core.
Now, let's pretend we have an election tomorrow. Candidate A never went to college, but managed to get a job and move up the ranks of a corporate becoming a CEO. Candidate B has degrees in government, MBA, JD, and a few others, but never left a university setting.
All other things being equal, who is better qualified for the job, the guy who knows the theory and has the degrees to prove he knows the theory or the guy who never cracked open a textbook but has done the work of administering a large organization with lots of moving parts?
Personally, neither of those skill sets you listed are what I look for in a candidate. Values and passions are more important to me.
But if I had to pick one, I'd pick Candidate A. What you should always look for is a mind at work. Candidate B's skill set is great but when the environment changes, what worked last week may not work best this week.
I also don't buy the notion that elected office is an administration job; the best ones inspire their populations.
Your answer makes no sense to me. I'd take the guy with the track record and actual accomplishments over a "great mind" and "passion and values" any day.
Why do you value feelings and intentions (passion and values) over practical experience and results?
We have thousands of successful businesses in our nation. How would one CEO's success out weigh another CEO's success? Seldom can one draw a straight line from a CEO's decision to a business's success. Sometimes the competition fades, sometimes governmental regulation creates barriers to entry, sometimes, you're just in the right place at the right time and sometimes you can draw a straight line from what is decided in the executive suite to a business doing markedly better.
For example, one of the companies in which I am invested is Female Health Company (FHCO). They make female condoms. Female condoms is something that hasn't taken off and it may never take off. However, in some public health departments, the State is mandating that female condoms are to be kept on hand. So I see the sales increasing. Also, there may be some substitution going on for oral contraceptives which will increase sales further beyond the mandate. Should the CEO of FHCO get credit for that? I don't think so.
Secondly, running a business and running a country are two different skill-sets. In my view, the government shouldn't be in the business of turning a profit. The accomplishments spoken of in the post I responded to cite administrative qualities. Governor Romney's success in private equity where they buy a struggling business, chop it up and sell off it's pieces doesn't translate well into what to do with the FAA or reforming the tax code. I'm happy there were some successes but there were some outcomes that those whose companies were purchased that were not so favorable to the working stiffs. And keep in mind, the CEO never had an opposition party within their ranks they had to negotiate around with any sort of real clout.
Thirdly, the Presidency is much broader than the duties of CEO to me. I want to know what the energy policies are, what type of judges they'll appoint to the high court, where they stand on the issues of the day.
Fiscally, both parties are out to lunch. Anyone who is honest in their assessment cannot
say otherwise with a straight face. So passion and intent are big matters to me.