Being a good debator does not make you a good president. The Current Occupant should be evidence enough of that.
I will agree that being a good debater does not make a good president, but in this day of instant media coverage, a good leader will be a good debater. That is, he will be able to think on his/her feet, articulate a principle, and explain it sufficiently so that others can understand.
In my opinion, that is one of the reasons Barack Obama is such a poor leader. He cannot or at least does not think on his feet, he generally cannot coherently articulate a principle beyond a memorized sound bite, and I think he understands the concepts he promotes so poorly that he cannot competently explain them to anybody.
Newt does not have that problem. And while Cain is more likely to be blind sided with a subject he is not fullly familiar with, he otherwise speaks the language people can understand.
I checked Newt on the poll, but I wish we had been able to pick two or three.
I am beginning to see a Gingrich/Cain or a Cain/Gingrich ticket as very possibly a winning combination.
I have to disagree. I don't think Obama's problem is that he can't think on his feet. I think his problem is that he doesn't have the managerial skills, having never actually run anything in his life.
Bush-43 was a lousy speaker and a poor debater. But in his first term at least, he surrounded himself with solid guys. The same could be said of Clinton and Reagan. (All three of these guys promoted loyalists in their second terms, part of the reason their second terms were weaker.)
Obama's problem is that he believes his own hype. He really does think he's smart enough to do it all.
Newt is a smart guy. If I had a choice of any of these guys to spend an evening with talking about history or politics, it would be Newt. But his leadership of his own campaign and the four years where he ran the house, is another story.
This is why I like Perry. Not because he's a smooth talker, but because he's a solid manager.
But then so is Cain and he doesn't stumble all over himself when he gets a question or has to comment on something he wasn't expecting. Perry too often does. I also like Perry a lot, but, like with Romney, there are red caution flags in my head. I need some more convincing with him.
I have to gently disagree on Bush 43. In my opinion, he won every debate against a much more 'articulate' Al Gore mostly because he had right on his side. When he is being himself and not fending off hostility, he is warm, likable, and quite articulate. He does not do well with a teleprompter or reading a speech, however, and comes across as stiff and monotone when he is reading a script. When he is comfortable with what he is saying, he does well in extemporaneous speaking, and if it is a subject he cares deeply about, he is great. In other words, he doesn't deserve all the bad rap he's taken on a lot of that.
Bill Clinton was an excellent speaker and he could think on his feet just fine. He might be making it all up, but he was very good at extemporaneous commentary. I have little respect for him personally, but definitely do admire the skills he had, and with the Gingrich led Congress modifying the process, he didn't have a bad presidency and hasn't had a bad post presidency.
My quarrel with President Bush was not with his integrity, his competence, his knowledge or his skills. My quarrel with President Bush was on his policies on energy, environment, immigration, education, expanding the role of government, and going with some really bad advice on how to prosecute the war in Iraq. I thought he got it wrong on all those fronts.
As far as the person with integrity, vision, commitment to the proper role of the Presidency and government in general, I am beginning to like Herman Cain a lot. If it wasn't for all the negative baggage--most of which was blown all out of proportion by some on the left and the media determined to 'get him', I would also be very comfortable getting behind the Gingrich campaign. So far those two have impressed me the most. And either one could make Barack Obama look like a school kid in a debate.