Of course we're not electing a debater in chief, but unless our nominee has the ability to communicate effectively, and convincingly make the case for limited government, and a return to the ideals and practices which made America great, it won't matter. They'll lose to the Usurper anyway.
Can Mitt do that? Not a chance. He can't debate Obama on his record because his is nearly identical. Not only that, he doesn't have a spark of fire in him, because he has no personal convictions. At least Obama really believes in his lunatic ideals.
Can Perry do it? I'm afraid he'd freeze up in front of the cameras, and Obama would make mincemeat out of him. I'm not even sure that Perry would excite the base enough to show up and give him the win on election day.
Santorum? I think the best case in a meeting between him and Obama would be a draw, although I hear that his post Iowa speech was great. If he's to have any chance at all, he's going to have to give that sort of performance 100% of the time, from here on out. I don't know that he can, but maybe. We'll see.
How 'bout Newt? In his case, there's no question that he's got the right stuff to eviscerate Obama in any meeting, but he's also got the chops to effectively communicate our ideals and goals to the whole electorate. He's also the only one I trust to do what absolutely must be done, should he go on to win the general.
Perry would deconstruct Washington, although he might eliminate the NRC, thinking it was the NLRB.
I actually have alot of respect for him standing up to the EPA on coal and oil issues in Texas.
Newt, as a denizen of Washington I think could still saw enough off with ample warning that his confederates would have time to run for the hills and form deconstruction consultant firms.
I’m somewhat cynical but NG has the vision; I’d like to see the willpower.
Cheers, FRiend!