Poizner has been discussed as a likely Republican candidate for Governor in 2010. It seems that Poizner is going out of his way to make a name for himself, increasing his name recognition through these sorts of efforts (and, of course, through funding the opposition to Prop. 93 earlier this year).

However, as Insurance Commissioner, there is clearly some distance between his office and the Governorship. To make a comparison to the President's cabinet, while a Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State might be viewed as a contender for the Presidency, a Secretary of Housing & Urban Development or a Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be viewed as somewhat less formidable. Much the same, an Attorney General or Treasurer may be viewed as a contender by virtue of their offices alone, but a Secretary of State or Insurance Commissioner would be viewed as more weak.

This is an important distinction between the Federal Constitution and California Constitution that is not frequently recognized directly, although most politically-aware citizens seem to have a peripheral awareness of it. That is, the various state elected officers (e.g., Attorney General, Secretary of State, Controller) are not analogous to the U.S. President's cabinet secretaries--they are independent executives, with independent departments, and independent responsibilities. When considered, this seems obvious--they are all elected, and are not all members of the same political party, after all. But I've noticed that frequently Californians don't make that distinction.

While I'm no expert on the California Constitution, I would speculate that this difference between the Federal and State governments had several bases. The limitation of the Executive Branch is a common goal of American-style constitutions, and what better way is there to limit the power of a branch than through diffusion? And, of course, it is important to realize that there was no mention of Presidential cabinet secretaries in the Federal Constitution as originally ratified. Their existence speaks to a need that was identified by the President once already in office--that is, the scope of the office of the chief executive was simply too large for the President to handle on his own.

The California Constitution makes allowance for this need--to split up the executive duties, in order to make them more manageable for the occupants of the various offices. Each of these state executives has a "piece" of the executive branch that would otherwise be under the purview of the Governor, who would likely make appointments to head the various departments. Even with those appointments, the department heads would report to him, making the final responsibility his.

But with the executive branch split some eight ways, each one rules his or her department as he or she sees fit. That makes the holder of even the most dull of offices (Insurance Commissioner? Sorry, that's horribly dull) better suited for the Governorship than might be expected.

As the only Republican holding a state executive office--one of seven Governors-lite, one might argue--Poizner is, ahem, poised to be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2010.