great debaters do not great presidents make!
Having a core and a base, and being able to articulate it, is probably not enough, on its own, to make a person a great leader. The contents of that vision also matter, as does commitment to it, simple honesty, etc. It's darn difficult to "lead" a group of people who distrust you.
Being a lousy debater is not a disqualifier, either, IMO.
We don't need a "great president," padre. We just need somebody who will throw wooden shoes in the right gears to stop the leviathan!
Lincoln?
He won the nomination in 1860 by debating one of the best politicians in the country to a standstill. Horace Greeley made him a national figure by publishing the Lincoln-Douglas debates in his New York paper.
I didn't know we were still speaking Latin.
I think Mitt would be OK if the nation was doing well—he would be a lackluster leader and maybe do a few good things—just not the right guy for the crisis we are in now—Maybe as VP? We need bold ideas and I think Newt could do it—Not Reagan but a bit like Sam Houston, or maybe a Truman or Calvin Coolidge. I think he speaks for Americans who want a change back to the America we once were—He might do it.