Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Updated list.  Added Scott Walker.

Unfortunately, the bigger the Republican field gets, the better Hillary's chances are. Unless it narrows down tremendously before New Hampshire, those guys are going to beat each other to death before a nomination is made, and the Democrats will latch onto whatever hits the eventual nominee takes and run them all the way to the White House. At this point, I don't know that any of them could beat whatever Democratic candidate ends up being thrown in the ring.

 

Speaking of the Democratic candidates, the more I see of Martin O'Malley, the more I think he could mount a strong challenge to Hillary. He's much more moderate than she is, and this race will feature the left facing a right that will be very, very motivated to take control of, well, everything, and tear up much of what was written by all branches of government during this administration. He's also not nearly as polarizing a figure. Let's put it this way: I think that the Democrats are far more likely to hold onto their moderate voters and steal some from the Republicans with Martin O'Malley. That goes double if the Republicans send a wackyland far-righter like Ted Cruz out as their candidate.

 

My guess is that Carson, Fiorina, Huckabee, Pataki and Christie are all "politely" nudged out by the GOP before New Hampshire. Trump is DOA. Several more will drop out shortly after being stomped in New Hampshire. Ultimately, I think the Republican nomination will be a three-dog race between Bush, Cruz and Rubio by the time the convention rolls around, but how much damage will the candidates have done to each other by then?

Quote:I think this election is going to come down to the Hispanic vote which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see a Bush/Rubio ticket in some form or fashion.


Still want Rand Paul more than anyone though.

 

It can't be Bush/Rubio. The Constitution does not allow Prez and VP from the same state.


 

Maybe Bush/Cruz? But there's n
o way I'd vote for Bush 3.0.

Quote:It can't be Bush/Rubio. The Constitution does not allow Prez and VP from the same state.

No it doesn't.

Quote:I think this election is going to come down to the Hispanic vote which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see a Bush/Rubio ticket in some form or fashion.


Still want Rand Paul more than anyone though.

Agreed on Paul at this point, but there's a long way to go, and it's yet to be seen how much further away from his libertarian roots he'll swing.

 

Edit: Stupid Constitution and its ruining my posts.

Just to be clear, the constitution only prevents electors from voting for both Pres and Vice President from the same state.  They cast the votes separately.  Now there's certainly ways around this.  Jeb could register in another state if he chose to choose Rubio (such as Texas).  Much like Cheney chose to register in another state when he ran with Bush II.

 

In smaller states, it wouldn't even really matter.  Though in a large state like Florida or Texas it might.  But even then the vote would eventually go to the senate, and Republicans currently have a majority in the senate.


So the constitution definitely does allow people from the same state on the same ticket.  All it does is prevent electors from voting for two people from the same state.  And again this is easily gotten around by registering in a different state.  Bush/Rubio is certainly possible.  

Quote:Just to be clear, the constitution only prevents electors from voting for both Pres and Vice President from the same state.  They cast the votes separately.  Now there's certainly ways around this.  Jeb could register in another state if he chose to choose Rubio (such as Texas).  Much like Cheney chose to register in another state when he ran with Bush II.

 

In smaller states, it wouldn't even really matter.  Though in a large state like Florida or Texas it might.  But even then the vote would eventually go to the senate, and Republicans currently have a majority in the senate.


So the constitution definitely does allow people from the same state on the same ticket.  All it does is prevent electors from voting for two people from the same state.  And again this is easily gotten around by registering in a different state.  Bush/Rubio is certainly possible.  

 

Thanks for the clarification.

Quote:I think this election is going to come down to the Hispanic vote which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see a Bush/Rubio ticket in some form or fashion.


Still want Rand Paul more than anyone though.

 

My first thought was to disagree with you since Jeb Bush seems to be the "de-facto" republican establishment candidate.  Marco Rubio isn't very well liked in establishment circles in Washington.  However, after thinking about it for a few minutes, it would kind of make sense.  In some ways Jeb Bush was a "mentor" of Marco Rubio's, and they are good friends and close allies.

 

The unfortunate thing when it comes to politics is the ability to raise money for a campaign.  Jeb Bush is raising a ton simply because of "name recognition" and his record as Governor here in Florida.  Rubio is raising a bunch of cash from more of a "grass roots" type of campaign.  This is an interesting possibility.

nevermind 

Just got back from vacation... walker is the only one that has enough backing to take out Bush, in my opinion.

Quote:Unfortunately, the bigger the Republican field gets, the better Hillary's chances are. Unless it narrows down tremendously before New Hampshire, those guys are going to beat each other to death before a nomination is made, and the Democrats will latch onto whatever hits the eventual nominee takes and run them all the way to the White House. At this point, I don't know that any of them could beat whatever Democratic candidate ends up being thrown in the ring.

 

Speaking of the Democratic candidates, the more I see of Martin O'Malley, the more I think he could mount a strong challenge to Hillary. He's much more moderate than she is, and this race will feature the left facing a right that will be very, very motivated to take control of, well, everything, and tear up much of what was written by all branches of government during this administration. He's also not nearly as polarizing a figure. Let's put it this way: I think that the Democrats are far more likely to hold onto their moderate voters and steal some from the Republicans with Martin O'Malley. That goes double if the Republicans send a wackyland far-righter like Ted Cruz out as their candidate.

 

My guess is that Carson, Fiorina, Huckabee, Pataki and Christie are all "politely" nudged out by the GOP before New Hampshire. Trump is DOA. Several more will drop out shortly after being stomped in New Hampshire. Ultimately, I think the Republican nomination will be a three-dog race between Bush, Cruz and Rubio by the time the convention rolls around, but how much damage will the candidates have done to each other by then?

 

I can somewhat agree with your sentiment, but it would all come down to how the primaries go.  So far I have not seen any "direct attacks" between republican candidates, though we are still very early in the process.  If they continue to run on policy rather than attacks (I know, wishful thinking) then it really doesn't help the democrats.

 

Regarding the democrat nominees, I found it almost hilarious that Hillary used a phrase that Marco Rubio made part of the center point of his campaign, that being that (paraphrasing) "republican ideas on the economy are ideas of the past, not 21st century ideas".  She's trying to garner support from the younger voters, and position herself as "in touch" with main-stream voters and having a vision of the future while at the same time avoiding the issue of her age.  That argument will backfire on her most certainly.

 

In my mind, I've narrowed it down to five that could really make a serious run for the republican nomination.  Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham or Scott Walker.

Quote:I can somewhat agree with your sentiment, but it would all come down to how the primaries go.  So far I have not seen any "direct attacks" between republican candidates, though we are still very early in the process.  If they continue to run on policy rather than attacks (I know, wishful thinking) then it really doesn't help the democrats.

 

Regarding the democrat nominees, I found it almost hilarious that Hillary used a phrase that Marco Rubio made part of the center point of his campaign, that being that (paraphrasing) "republican ideas on the economy are ideas of the past, not 21st century ideas".  She's trying to garner support from the younger voters, and position herself as "in touch" with main-stream voters and having a vision of the future while at the same time avoiding the issue of her age.  That argument will backfire on her most certainly.

 

In my mind, I've narrowed it down to five that could really make a serious run for the republican nomination.  Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham or Scott Walker.

Age is the least of my concerns with Hillary Clinton. If she finds herself in the White House, much of the country will find itself longing for the days of the centrist-by-comparison Barack Obama.

 

This primary cycle, particularly on the Republican side, will look just like you'd expect a wide-open race to: lots of politeness and talk of policy right up until Iowa and New Hampshire are coming up on us and a few candidates realize that they're toast unless they can steal some voters. Out come the attacks, and they don't stop until the convention, at which point the winner is crowned, the losers are graceful in defeat, and everyone is (publicly, at least, friends again). I remain convinced that this is Hillary Clinton's race to lose unless a few things happen:

 

1. A moderate Democratic contender emerges and is able to unite the center and left better than Hillary, who'll unite the left and alienate the center, will. Kind of like what happened in 1992 when a guy from Arkansas emerged as the unlikely favorite. Martin O'Malley could be that guy, and I'll be watching his campaign closely. In an age of increasing polarization, he's about as close as either party has to a centrist candidate this year.

 

2. The Republican contenders avoid kicking the crap out of each other and giving the Democrats an infinite list of talking points to crush them on. Again, I think the only way this condition is met is if the field shrinks dramatically long, long before Super Tuesday. If there are still eight or nine candidates alive that late in the game while the Democrats have focused in on one person, probably Hillary, good luck recovering.

 

3. The Republicans send a moderate candidate against Hillary, whose appeal does not cross the center at all, and whose rabid dogs are way off in left field. If the Republicans play the far right in this campaign, they'll lose. If they throw someone like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio out there, they could take it. I wouldn't call either of those two centrist, but let's be honest for a second. The people who intend to vote for Ted Cruz will vote Republican no matter which candidate the party trots out. Many of them would sooner vote for Fidel Castro than Hillary Clinton. By throwing a moderate-by-comparison candidate like Jeb out there, they'll get the Ted Cruz votes by default, but will also steal away from centrist Democrats. It's the same dynamic that the Democrats have with O'Malley, but unlike O'Malley, the moderate Republican candidates won't be steamrolled by the H-Train.

Quote:Age is the least of my concerns with Hillary Clinton. If she finds herself in the White House, much of the country will find itself longing for the days of the centrist-by-comparison Barack Obama.

 

This primary cycle, particularly on the Republican side, will look just like you'd expect a wide-open race to: lots of politeness and talk of policy right up until Iowa and New Hampshire are coming up on us and a few candidates realize that they're toast unless they can steal some voters. Out come the attacks, and they don't stop until the convention, at which point the winner is crowned, the losers are graceful in defeat, and everyone is (publicly, at least, friends again). I remain convinced that this is Hillary Clinton's race to lose unless a few things happen:

 

1. A moderate Democratic contender emerges and is able to unite the center and left better than Hillary, who'll unite the left and alienate the center, will. Kind of like what happened in 1992 when a guy from Arkansas emerged as the unlikely favorite. Martin O'Malley could be that guy, and I'll be watching his campaign closely. In an age of increasing polarization, he's about as close as either party has to a centrist candidate this year.

 

2. The Republican contenders avoid kicking the crap out of each other and giving the Democrats an infinite list of talking points to crush them on. Again, I think the only way this condition is met is if the field shrinks dramatically long, long before Super Tuesday. If there are still eight or nine candidates alive that late in the game while the Democrats have focused in on one person, probably Hillary, good luck recovering.

 

3. The Republicans send a moderate candidate against Hillary, whose appeal does not cross the center at all, and whose rabid dogs are way off in left field. If the Republicans play the far right in this campaign, they'll lose. If they throw someone like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio out there, they could take it. I wouldn't call either of those two centrist, but let's be honest for a second. The people who intend to vote for Ted Cruz will vote Republican no matter which candidate the party trots out. Many of them would sooner vote for Fidel Castro than Hillary Clinton. By throwing a moderate-by-comparison candidate like Jeb out there, they'll get the Ted Cruz votes by default, but will also steal away from centrist Democrats. It's the same dynamic that the Democrats have with O'Malley, but unlike O'Malley, the moderate Republican candidates won't be steamrolled by the H-Train.

 

Something's telling me that Hillary is going to lose it between now and next summer.  Too many skeletons, too much baggage.  If those in the democrat race bother to bring actual facts against her, she's toast.  I would like to see a democrat candidate with the fortitude to do as such, but the ones in the race won't do it.  If there is one democrat challenger who might do so, I agree with you it's O'Malley, but I don't see it happening.

 

Unless... those in the republican race highlight the truth regarding Hillary in such a way that O'Malley can no longer "back her".

 

The major thing that Hillary has going for her at this point is the money rolling in.  What most Americans don't do is actually watch the speeches or listen to what each candidate has to say (left or right).  I watched part of her speech today, and I can't help but notice how "fake" it is.  She's almost "robotic" in the way that she delivers her message.  She certainly doesn't have the same talent that Obama does when it comes to delivering a speech that she's reading from a teleprompter.

 

Contrast that with Bernie Sanders.  His speeches are more "angry" and the sound of him speaking reminds me of (and I know I'll get some flak for this) Hitler.  Couple that with the fact that he is an admitted Socialist.

 

Then contrast it with the messages that most on the right are talking about.  Those of candidates like Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz are very positive, and they seem to be "more from the heart" rather than "robotic".

 

Take the time to watch them, and more importantly, listen to the message.

Quote:Something's telling me that Hillary is going to lose it between now and next summer.  Too many skeletons, too much baggage.  If those in the democrat race bother to bring actual facts against her, she's toast.  I would like to see a democrat candidate with the fortitude to do as such, but the ones in the race won't do it.  If there is one democrat challenger who might do so, I agree with you it's O'Malley, but I don't see it happening.

 

Unless... those in the republican race highlight the truth regarding Hillary in such a way that O'Malley can no longer "back her".

 

The major thing that Hillary has going for her at this point is the money rolling in.  What most Americans don't do is actually watch the speeches or listen to what each candidate has to say (left or right).  I watched part of her speech today, and I can't help but notice how "fake" it is.  She's almost "robotic" in the way that she delivers her message.  She certainly doesn't have the same talent that Obama does when it comes to delivering a speech that she's reading from a teleprompter.

 

Contrast that with Bernie Sanders.  His speeches are more "angry" and the sound of him speaking reminds me of (and I know I'll get some flak for this) Hitler.  Couple that with the fact that he is an admitted Socialist.

 

Then contrast it with the messages that most on the right are talking about.  Those of candidates like Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz are very positive, and they seem to be "more from the heart" rather than "robotic".

 

Take the time to watch them, and more importantly, listen to the message.

I thought Obama was Hitler. 

Quote:I thought Obama was Hitler.

Any socialist is Hitler. Didn't you get the new right wing meme that Hitler was a national socialist?


And because they used the term socialist, then that means socialists are nazis, and thus Bernie is a Nazi.


There's my attempt and right wing deductive reasoning. :-)

Quote:Any socialist is Hitler. Didn't you get the new right wing meme that Hitler was a national socialist?


And because they used the term socialist, then that means socialists are nazis, and thus Bernie is a Nazi.


There's my attempt and right wing deductive reasoning. :-)

They didn't just use the term the nazis implemented socialism in every way possible. The nazis are an example of what happens when corrupt individuals are given the type of complete power a socialist government gives to the state.


That said calling any American politician today Hitler is ridiculous.

Quote:They didn't just use the term the nazis implemented socialism in every way possible. The nazis are an example of what happens when corrupt individuals are given the type of complete power a socialist government gives to the state.


That said calling any American politician today Hitler is ridiculous.

Agreed, with one caveat. Any government is socialistic to a given degree. The Nazis were totalitarian and were focused around a cult of personality. It's not that they were socialists that was the problem...


But other than that, yes, any government can turn tyrannical.

Quote:Something's telling me that Hillary is going to lose it between now and next summer.  Too many skeletons, too much baggage.  If those in the democrat race bother to bring actual facts against her, she's toast.  I would like to see a democrat candidate with the fortitude to do as such, but the ones in the race won't do it.  If there is one democrat challenger who might do so, I agree with you it's O'Malley, but I don't see it happening.

 

Unless... those in the republican race highlight the truth regarding Hillary in such a way that O'Malley can no longer "back her".

 

The major thing that Hillary has going for her at this point is the money rolling in.  What most Americans don't do is actually watch the speeches or listen to what each candidate has to say (left or right).  I watched part of her speech today, and I can't help but notice how "fake" it is.  She's almost "robotic" in the way that she delivers her message.  She certainly doesn't have the same talent that Obama does when it comes to delivering a speech that she's reading from a teleprompter.

 

Contrast that with Bernie Sanders.  His speeches are more "angry" and the sound of him speaking reminds me of (and I know I'll get some flak for this) Hitler.  Couple that with the fact that he is an admitted Socialist.

 

Then contrast it with the messages that most on the right are talking about.  Those of candidates like Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz are very positive, and they seem to be "more from the heart" rather than "robotic".

 

Take the time to watch them, and more importantly, listen to the message.

I don't know how much I agree on O'Malley being the guy who'll open up the Hillary History book on her unless he's within striking distance come primary season. If he's a distant second, I expect him to revert to being a friendly "competitor" with an eye on the VP job. Right now, Bernie Sanders is O'Malley's best friend. O'Malley will pull centrist Democratic votes, and if Sanders can take away enough of Hillary's far left supporters, O'Malley has a real shot at the nomination. If we're to have a Democrat in the White House again, I'd rather it be O'Malley than anyone else in the field. I'll admit that I haven't really looked at his history in any great detail yet, but he does seem to have a very Bill Clinton-esque "moderate" feel to him. If you put the Lewinsky scandal aside, it's, imo, hard to argue that Bill Clinton wasn't, along with Ronald Reagan, one of the better Presidents of the 20th century, and imo better than guy before him and the last two guys who've held the office.

 

Sanders doesn't remind me of Hitler in his speeches. He strikes me as one of two candidates, along with Trump, who feels like he has nothing to lose and is speaking straight from the heart. I don't know who I'd compare his speaking style to, but it certainly wouldn't be Hitler. Everything Hitler said was a carefully-crafted political message, delivered with two ounces of hellfire, a half cup of brimstone, and a pound of racist crap. Side note: the Nazis were about as "socialist" as the Stalin-era Soviet Union was. Both were much closer to fascist regimes, and many historical scholars agree that there was nothing socialist about the National Socialist Party. I don't think you were making the comparison between Socialism and Nazism, but others have, and it's just patently wrong.

 

I'm not sure how much Bush's speeches in particular are from the heart. Bush is a groomed dynasty politician, with a brother and father no doubt giving him loads of advice on getting into the White House and staying there. Rubio seems to be speaking from the heart, but one need only look at his voting record, particularly on immigration, to question how much is him being genuine and how much is him wanting to be President. With Cruz, it's impossible to tell. I'm certain he believes a lot of what he says, but I'm also certain that he's a skilled politician who recognizes how to play to the emotions of his voting base while making it seem like he's solely talking issues.

Quote:I don't know how much I agree on O'Malley being the guy who'll open up the Hillary History book on her unless he's within striking distance come primary season. If he's a distant second, I expect him to revert to being a friendly "competitor" with an eye on the VP job. Right now, Bernie Sanders is O'Malley's best friend. O'Malley will pull centrist Democratic votes, and if Sanders can take away enough of Hillary's far left supporters, O'Malley has a real shot at the nomination. If we're to have a Democrat in the White House again, I'd rather it be O'Malley than anyone else in the field. I'll admit that I haven't really looked at his history in any great detail yet, but he does seem to have a very Bill Clinton-esque "moderate" feel to him. If you put the Lewinsky scandal aside, it's, imo, hard to argue that Bill Clinton wasn't, along with Ronald Reagan, one of the better Presidents of the 20th century, and imo better than guy before him and the last two guys who've held the office.


Sanders doesn't remind me of Hitler in his speeches. He strikes me as one of two candidates, along with Trump, who feels like he has nothing to lose and is speaking straight from the heart. I don't know who I'd compare his speaking style to, but it certainly wouldn't be Hitler. Everything Hitler said was a carefully-crafted political message, delivered with two ounces of hellfire, a half cup of brimstone, and a pound of racist crap. Side note: the Nazis were about as "socialist" as the Stalin-era Soviet Union was. Both were much closer to fascist regimes, and many historical scholars agree that there was nothing socialist about the National Socialist Party. I don't think you were making the comparison between Socialism and Nazism, but others have, and it's just patently wrong.


I'm not sure how much Bush's speeches in particular are from the heart. Bush is a groomed dynasty politician, with a brother and father no doubt giving him loads of advice on getting into the White House and staying there. Rubio seems to be speaking from the heart, but one need only look at his voting record, particularly on immigration, to question how much is him being genuine and how much is him wanting to be President. With Cruz, it's impossible to tell. I'm certain he believes a lot of what he says, but I'm also certain that he's a skilled politician who recognizes how to play to the emotions of his voting base while making it seem like he's solely talking issues.

Dubya couldn't speak from his mouth let alone his heart.

Quote:I thought Obama was Hitler. 

 

Obama is the antichrist, Hitlery is Hitler

 

Quote:I don't know how much I agree on O'Malley being the guy who'll open up the Hillary History book on her unless he's within striking distance come primary season. If he's a distant second, I expect him to revert to being a friendly "competitor" with an eye on the VP job. Right now, Bernie Sanders is O'Malley's best friend. O'Malley will pull centrist Democratic votes, and if Sanders can take away enough of Hillary's far left supporters, O'Malley has a real shot at the nomination. If we're to have a Democrat in the White House again, I'd rather it be O'Malley than anyone else in the field. I'll admit that I haven't really looked at his history in any great detail yet, but he does seem to have a very Bill Clinton-esque "moderate" feel to him. If you put the Lewinsky scandal aside, it's, imo, hard to argue that Bill Clinton wasn't, along with Ronald Reagan, one of the better Presidents of the 20th century, and imo better than guy before him and the last two guys who've held the office.

 

Sanders doesn't remind me of Hitler in his speeches. He strikes me as one of two candidates, along with Trump, who feels like he has nothing to lose and is speaking straight from the heart. I don't know who I'd compare his speaking style to, but it certainly wouldn't be Hitler. Everything Hitler said was a carefully-crafted political message, delivered with two ounces of hellfire, a half cup of brimstone, and a pound of racist crap. Side note: the Nazis were about as "socialist" as the Stalin-era Soviet Union was. Both were much closer to fascist regimes, and many historical scholars agree that there was nothing socialist about the National Socialist Party. I don't think you were making the comparison between Socialism and Nazism, but others have, and it's just patently wrong.

 

I'm not sure how much Bush's speeches in particular are from the heart. Bush is a groomed dynasty politician, with a brother and father no doubt giving him loads of advice on getting into the White House and staying there. Rubio seems to be speaking from the heart, but one need only look at his voting record, particularly on immigration, to question how much is him being genuine and how much is him wanting to be President. With Cruz, it's impossible to tell. I'm certain he believes a lot of what he says, but I'm also certain that he's a skilled politician who recognizes how to play to the emotions of his voting base while making it seem like he's solely talking issues.

 

Regarding the part in bold.  Bill Clinton wasn't necessarily a bad president in my opinion, but I certainly wouldn't put him at the same level as Ronald Reagan.  One thing that is interesting regarding Clinton's presidency is remember, he had a Congress led by republicans.  I like to do a lot of reading, and one book that I found interesting is called The Pact by Steven M. Gillon  .  It talks about the contrasts and the relationship between President Clinton, and then Speaker of The House Newt Gingrich.  It's a pretty good read.

 

Regarding Bernie Sanders, I used Hitler as an example of his speaking style.  Most of his speeches seem very "angry", "authoritarian" and "demanding".  I am in no way comparing Bernie Sanders and Hitler regarding political points of view, and I am not comparing socialism to nazism.  Regarding some of his political views, there are a couple of things that I actually agree with him on when it comes to identifying the issues.  I just don't like his solutions.

 

Regarding Jeb Bush - In all honesty, I haven't listen to him as much as some of the other candidates, and I don't have a "concrete" opinion of him just yet.  That being said though, I view him as an establishment candidate which is a huge red flag to me.  Establishment means "more of the same" whether it's a democrat or republican candidate.  I must say though, I think he did a very good job as Governor of Florida, and I think that he could do a good job as President.

 

Regarding Marco Rubio, at this point he is still my first choice, though I'm starting to perhaps reconsider him as my first choice.  I like that he seems to speak from the heart and really wants to do good.  That being said, I look at his history and read his autobiography and one thing that comes to mind regarding him, he has always had political aspirations (read career politician).  He is still not a member of the establishment, but I wonder if he could eventually go that way.

 

As far as Marco Rubio's voting record, I don't fault him as much as many on the right for some of his votes.  As far as the immigration issue, I do think that he has common sense ideas regarding a reasonable way to solve the problem.  His supposed "flip-flop" regarding the issue is that he finally came to realize that it can't happen with one huge, sweeping bill, rather it must be done a step at a time.  That makes sense to me, especially considering the way that things work in Washington D.C..

 

As far as Ted Cruz goes, he is clearly my second choice though he may actually win my vote in the primary.  Unlike Marco Rubio, he wasn't/isn't as much of a "career politician".  Yes he is a lawyer, but his experience makes sense.  He has worked not only for The Supreme Court as a clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, but also worked in both the public and private sectors litigating cases before The Supreme Court.  He also has experience as a Senator, though not as much, and has stood firm regarding what he told his constituents when he campaigned for the position.  That tells me that he is honest, and will do what he tells you that he will do.  He has a very well-rounded resume having worked in two branches of government, and he is by no means an establishment candidate.