Spudinsky

The topic of experience drove me to this question and I believe the answer is Governors for two reasons:

1) Governors are excecutive positions and that experiencee counts.

2) Why would I believe a Senator could fix problems in Washington when most of them have been there for years and haven't done anything before.

Simply put, if you have 35 years of experience and we have the same problems, why would I vote for you? You been holding back until now to do something?

Do voters pay enough attention to this issue?

Where have the best presidents come from?

What say ye?

Caltex

I'd have to say anyone with foreign policy experience. Real experience, not fake experience like Giuliani. House and Senate foreign affairs committee's members, Secretary of State, etc. The primary powers of the president are vested in their foreign relations powers.

So I guess if forced to pick between those two, I'd go with Senators.

Kansas_Boy

I don't think there is a right answer to your question. We have had some good former-Governor president, most recently Bill Clinton. But we've also had some bad former-Governor presidents, most recently George W. Bush.

The question you ask, however, does bring up a very interesting topic, because voters do look at those type of things... or at least the candidates think they do.

Rudy claims he's qualified because he's been a mayor of a large city - it's executive experience, he says. Same with Bill Richardson, N.M.'s governor. It sure helps to have executive experience, but there's so much more to being president than just being able to govern.

Plus, it's situational. It matters where the country is at the time of the election. Like right now, we have a ton of problems domestically - health care, immigration, the economy, etc - but we also face a tremendous struggle internationally.

We still, under Bush, have no real plan to end the Iraq War, plus our credibility and reputation around the world has been damaged immensely during the past four to five years.

So yes, we need someone who can govern and make good decisions for the American people, but we also need someone who can deal with other nations, regain their trust and try to get our standing in the world back up where it needs to be.

Which is why I'm voting for Joe Biden. I think he can do all these things. Yes, he's a senator and has been for 35 years. So I guess some cynics could say he's been in Washington a long time and could be part of our problems. I disagree and think he may very well be one of few Washington politicians left who could help save this country.

__________________
Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. ---- Mark Twain

Dragon Horse

I took the foreign service exam last week and that was the Essay question...well pretty close.

francois60

Governors. The best Senators, however, tend to be mavericks who didn't fit in well. Kennedy, Lincoln.

The career Senators who everyone in Congress loved tend to be the worst Presidents. If Congress likes a President, the President isn't doing his job.

__________________
chicken butt

Albinonewt

Governers. It's a competely different skill set. Senators are used to ruling by consensus. They are never "on the hook" for a decision. Presidents have to be the decider, and Senate experience doesn't prepare you for that in nearly the same way the governor's office does.

francois60

You do have to look at each one as an individual though. Bush was a governor, but he was a mediocre governor who only did as well as he did seeking the Presidency because of his last name. Rick Perry is a much better governor of Texas than Bush was, but he's unlikely to ever see the White House.

Clinton and Reagan on the other hand, were very good governors, real leaders. I realize there are going to be people on both sides who think these two Presidents sucked, but their two terms, 60+% approval ratings, and America's peace and prosperity during their administrations tend to outweigh petty ideological differences, IMO.

John McCain fits the Kennedy/Lincoln mold of a maverick Senator, so I don't think we'd have any issue with him as President.

Joe BIden is kind of unique. A career Senator, bipartisan, consensus builder, but someone who just might work out because he's a leader-type. He might be one of those few politicians that can be successful both as a legislator and an executive.

THen there are our excellent executives, Bill Richardson and Rudy Giuliani. Both had great success, so it would seem logical that they'd make good Presidents, despite their other issues.

Romney and Huckabee are both mediocre governors, although either one would have more success than GWB.

__________________
chicken butt

FreedomLover

I think governors might fit more naturally into the job of president, since the job of a governor is more similar to the job of a president than the job of a senator is.

But, it takes more than that qualification to get my vote. What's more important is what a candidate stands for, to me.

__________________
It's a Free Country

francois60

What they stand for is important, but not worth much if they don't have the competence or the charisma to get what they want.

Since a President isn't a legislator, he has to talk Congress into doing what he wants. Which is why charisma is an important quality.

And since a President IS an administrator, he has to have the competence to make sure all of the departments in the executive branch are functioning well. Otherwise, the best thought out policies can go awry.

I put integrity and proven leadership above everything else, even if the candidate is against everything I believe in.

__________________
chicken butt

TokenLiberal

I would agree with some of the others here, and say that you can't really generalize in this regard. If I had to... probably governors, but there have been some amazing presidents from the Senate too.

Governors, however, certainly get the easier ride in elections.