Here is a proposition

Here is a proposition: Ex-governors make better presidents than candidates who have never run a state. Why? Because governors have had to learn to work with a legislature, frequently a legislature dominated by the other party. They need to have learned how to compromise and make deals before they get to the White House.

Our last two presidents, Bush and Clinton, had both been governors, and, whether you like their policies or not, they were generally effective at working with Congress. President Obama was an academic, a community organizer, and a junior Senator before becoming president, but never a governor, and he has proven to be woefully inept at working with Congress, even with members of his own party.

As an independent, I am not bound by party loyalties (in fact my current attitude is “a pox on both your houses”). On the basis of my proposition above, in the upcoming 2016 presidential election I am not going to vote for any candidate in either party who does not have a record as a reasonably successful governor.

That eliminates Hillary Clinton, nice as it would be to have our first woman president. On the Republican side it also eliminates Paul Rand and Ted Cruz (though Cruz would have been eliminated anyway for other reasons). Governor Chris Christie is a possibility, as is ex-Governor Jeb Bush, who seems to have done a pretty good job in Florida (but are we ready for a third Bush?)

On the Democratic side, with Clinton already eliminated, the requirement to be an ex-governor would leave New York’s Andrew Cuomo and Maryland’s Martin O’Malley , but eliminate Senator Elizabeth Warren and vice-President Joe Biden.

It will be interesting to see who, in the end, each party puts up as their candidate, But if the candidate isn’t a governor or ex-governor, they won’t get my vote. Of course, both parties might fail to nominate someone with governor experience, in which case I’ll be back to square one, and so, probably, will the nation.