My first choice was Perry, because of his record as governor, in spite of my disagreement with him with respect to immigration. However, it has to be said that Perry seriously lacks the fast twitch reflexes needed to be a debater. The reason a lot of gaffes get made is because of the time pressure - people get put on the spot and need to say something quickly. A slow response under the glare of TV cameras makes the interviewee look stupid. Well, Perry alternated between non-responses and factually-wrong responses. Romney is better than Perry in this regard. His phraseology is crummy, and clearly that of a political novice, but his facts are accurate, as you might expect from someone with a sterling academic and business background.
From a biographical standpoint, I think Romney has a lot of advantages vis-a-vis Obama compared to McCain. McCain was a lousy student going up against Obama*, a Harvard Law graduate and Chicago Law professor. Romney's Harvard Law and Business School degrees, combined with his record of being a founding partner of a multi-billion dollar private equity firm neutralizes Obama's aura of being highly-qualified.
So why did I prefer Perry? Because Perry is a conservative.
* You and I know that affirmative action means McCain was probably a better student than Obama, but that's not the way these things get reported in the media.
Spot on!!!
But I look at it this way...I do not want a good debater in the WH...
I want a leader who understands their position in this government, and looks for ways to get that government out of our lives (physically, economically and socially) as much as possible...
We no longer have that kind of government...
We have a government, by the government, for the government on the backs of its citizens, utilizing socialistic methodologies to ensure and justify its existance and power over the very people they are supposed to serve...
How the hell can we beat that animal back into submission...Instead of the other way around???