Disagree.
While great communicators are a big plus; i.e., Reagan, whose acting background was a gift married to his midlife turn to conservative principles, ACTIONS, PRINCIPLES, DEVOTION TO DUTY AND COUNTRY, CONSISTENCY, and NATURAL AND POLITICAL SAVVY are the big pluses I see which will carry his legacy very positively into the future.
He is a moral and principled man who can be trusted. That’s not to be taken lightly among the ranks of politicians and world leaders.
He will play poker very cleverly, very shrewdly, as I’m sure he’s doing now with Russia, but he’s not a cutthroat at heart .. he does have a heart.
One of his BIG attributes is his ability to cultivate very solid friendships and alliances abroad with important foreign leaders ... many times for purposes for which we have no clue as to reason or need to know, but he has his reasons, which I trust implicity. I believe those relationships exist because he’s so innately real and likable, and he’s trustworthy.
Those friendships have played out at critical times and played an important role in world events for our benefit; i.e., Blair, Howard, Merkel, Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Karzi, Koizumi, President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea, and for all their confounding inconsistencies: the Middle East royals and heads of state, like Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, UAE and ruler of Dubai.
Kerry have those qualities? Gore? Edwards? Clinton? Obama?
Yes, great communication skills are wonderful; but gems like Ronald Reagan are the exception rather than the rule, and are a blessing to us that comes along only rarely.
Given the choice, I’ll take principles, actions, devotion to his duty and country, and consistency over great speaking skills every time.
And I’ll not even get into the battles he’s won over the Dim congresscritters. That’s a whole book.
Long story short: he acts on his principles, not polls or political criticism.
Rare, my Friend.
You must have loved the entertaining, schmoozing, winning wordsmith, raconteur and saxaphonist, Bill Clinton.
God bless and protect President George W. Bush. Right man, right time.
The issue is not about being a "gem".
The issue is about being merely adequate.
A "gem" is required when the Union is faced with military disaster after disaster such as First Bull Run, the Seven Days, Second Bull Run, Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg and a gem like Lincoln is able to keep up the morale of the Home Front until final Victory.
A "gem" is required when Great Britain is faced with military disaster after disaster such as the Battle of France, the British Army surrounded at Dunkirk, and the Blitz and a gem like Churchill is able to keep up the morale of the Home Front until final Victory.
Bush, on the other hand, was handed spectacular military victories.
Bush did not need to be a "gem". Bush only needed NOT to fail miserably at communication.
He did not accomplish even that.
We are therefore facing the very real possibility of an obscenity this November: Having America lose a war that has already been won because the President of the United States was so unbelievably inarticulate that the American Home Front voted to lose a war that American blood and military might has already won.
The communication skills of Lincoln and Churchil that inspired the Home Front to achieved Victory after multiple military catastrophies rank them as Great.
If Obama wins in November and the War in Iraq is lost, the lack of communication skills of George W. Bush that demoralized the Home Front to the point that it voted for surrender after such spectacular military victories will rank George W. Bush right next to Jimmy Carter under "Failed Presidents".
A war leader, cursed with military disasters, who inspires the Home Front through his oratory to final Victory is a "gem".
A war leader, blessed with spectacular military victories on the battlefield, whose who is so inarticulate that he allows the Home Front to become so demoralized that the Home Front itself votes to surrender is a failure by any historical standard.