Israel Matzav: What's more important than electability?

What's more important than electability?

Adam Graham discusses the one thing that's more important for a Presidential candidate than being electable. Being able to govern. While the column deals with the current White House incumbent, it is equally applicable to any leader anywhere. In fact, it's why Prime Minister Netanyahu is far more popular and successful right now than his American counterpart.

Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan) is expressing his frustration, saying he’s tired of “covering Obama’s can,” and has some pointed advice: “The president could take a few pages from Lyndon Johnson’s book … and start knocking heads together.”

Conyers is wrong — the president can’t. During his four years in the U.S. Senate (which he spent running for president), Obama didn’t acquire the legislative “skills” Lyndon Johnson did during ten years as a member of the Senate leadership. If the Democrats had wanted someone who would be effective moving legislation, they picked the wrong guy. They picked a solid candidate who could excite crowds and raise money. They didn’t choose someone who could make good decisions and move bills.

What’s the lesson for Republicans in 2012? Simply put, the goal of the nominating process is not to pick a good candidate; it’s to pick a good president. The problem with political folks is we tend to imagine the presidential campaign as the Super Bowl of politics, when it isn’t even opening day.

...

There are three basic questions conservatives should ask themselves:

Does the candidate have a coherent agenda that will make the country better?

Does the candidate have the necessary skills to get his agenda passed?

Does the candidate have the ability to make executive decisions?

Obama fails on all counts.

Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: What's more important than electability?