Newt and Mitt share the same first principle: power lust!
"These people are not conservatives. They're not Republicans," Hatch angrily responds. "They're radical libertarians and I'm doggone offended by it."
Then Hatch, a former boxer, turns combative. "I despise these people, and I'm not the guy you come in and dump on without getting punched in the mouth."
You never hear Hatch muster up that much violent hate for the socialists. They are all despicable power entitled/crazed statists!
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but “fire in the belly” is virtually a requirement to become president, and it's awfully hard to distinguish that from having a big ego and a will to power.
The job description of Romans 13 for civil magistrates may overlap with the qualifications of I Timothy and Titus for ecclesiastical office, but they are not identical.
Being a civil magistrate is a calling, not totally unlike being a pastor, elder or deacon, but the skills required are very different. Yes, bravery and firm convictions are required in church and in state, but wielding the sword of civil justice is not the same as wielding the sword of the Scriptures from the pulpit. Servant leadership is an asset in the church but often perceived as weakness by the world -- look at all the attacks leveled against Huckabee and Santorum on Free Republic for “weakness.” I'm not saying those attacks were justified, but I am saying there was a perception of weakness -- and I'm saying that as a person who voted for both Huckabee and Santorum.
If the worst problem with a candidate is a big ego and a desire for power, that doesn't bother me in politics, though I'd have a big problem with someone like that in the pastorate. Oh, I forgot... we've already got a lot of men like that in too many “big steeple” churches ;-)