Not sure why a premium is placed on executive experience. The job is not close to being a CEO where you are the leader and the company follows you.
The Presidency is the administrative branch of government. The POTUS chooses or authorizes who heads all the divisions and branches of the government and is absolutely the CEO of the country charged with the responsibility to see that all functions of government are carried out competently, effectively, efficiently, and within the laws and initiatives passed by Congress. He also is the face on the 'company who inspires faith and confidence and sets the tone and standards of conduct. Some hands on experience with the skill sets necessary to do all that is invaluable.
Okay...so person X is elected in November of 2016. She will name her cabinet by January 2017. According to you this invaluable skillset is sparingly used again. Hardly the most important of any skills is picking folks to run the "divisions and branches" (they are called Departments BTW).
As for inspiring faith and confidence, a former coke user who was AWOL during 'nam and says "Bring it on" while we're invading nations that didn't attack us is hardly admirable traits despite any "executive experience" you gain during the 40 days you have to be a governor of Texas every 2 years.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when a presumed leftist uses whatever forum is offered to 'blame Bush' or 'bash Bush' yet again. Or deflects from the topic by yet another tiresome diversion into semantics. But oh well.
I have headed a large and complex organization in which I had oversight over the people who were in charge of various divisions, and I have also worked for such organizations both as a rank and file employee and as a division head. Many of us here have. And contrary to what anybody thinks, the CEO doesn't just hire or appoint somebody to those jobs and then pays no attention to how well those jobs are carried out and provides no leadership or direction for how they will be carried out. Or if he or she does, he/she is a very very bad/incompetent CEO.
Basically that is precisely what R. W. Reagan did. And he had corruption in nearly every department of his administration. No doubt that he was a great leader (not in my mind anyway) but he simply did not want to know most of the details of what his subordinates were doing. So you had Ollie Norths, Sam Pierces, Ed Mease, etc...
He was the governor of a state that requires the governor to show up every day. In Texas, they meet for 140 days every 2 years or some bizarre equation like that. GWB was a disaster as a governor (hemmed in by a true Texas Statesman named Bob Bullock) and a disaster as a President as his misadventure in Iraq, the $700B bailout, wanting to privatize SS, and massive NSA scandals all clearly indicate. I shouldn't be surprised that you don't want to talk about the most glaring example of the "you must be a governor to be a good POTUS" is utter rubbish; lesser lights such as yourself actually still think he is a Christian and a decent President.