We have one year to make a monumental decision. In 2012 we will select someone to be President of the United States. It is no exaggeration to say the fate of Liberty depends on our decision. We all sense the country is in great peril. Our decision next year will determine the fate of our nation, the fate of our families, and the fate of the free world.
Without Liberty there can be no prosperity, and without prosperity, there can be no security.
We must make an informed, wise decision, and evaluate the candidates as if our lives depend on our ‘hiring’ decision. What kind of person will we hire to be our President? What kind of person do we need to turn the economy around? What kind of person is required to restore wise and useful foreign policy? Who can best achieve judicial reform and lead effectively to advance a reform agenda legislatively?
Which person is best equipped to handle the enormous task of being President of the United States?
Last time, we hired someone long on oratory and short on credentials, an ideologue lacking experience and integrity. We made an emotional decision drained of objective evaluation. In doing so we must take responsibility for the outcome. It is blind and irrational to make excuses, or otherwise excuse the colossal failure of this administration.
And, it is not enough to simply conclude that anyone other than Obama would be an improvement.
This time, we need a real statesman.
This time it is required we elect a patriot with a cool head, a firm hand, an extraordinary mind, and the experience gained only in the trenches.
We are hiring a chief executive, not a clerk. We are hiring the leader of the free world, not a pawn of special interests. The person we select will be placed in the most challenging situation faced by any President, ever. We cannot afford to just settle for anyone with a shot at defeating the incumbent. We need someone who can rally this country to greatness again.
Michelle Bachmann is a true conservative who loves America with passion. While her candidacy is appreciated, she falls short concerning qualifications. It is difficult to see her in the role of commander in chief, not because she is a woman, but because she lacks experience and command presence. To advance a reform agenda, our next President, unlike the current occupant of the White House, must be able to manage relationships with the Legislative branch. For that to happen, we need a chief executive like Reagan who found ways to get people to agree. Bachmann too often appears an agent of divisiveness. As a practical matter, that can often translate into legislative paralysis.
Ron Paul is brilliant in many ways. His approach to economic reform, monetary policy and strict interpretation according to original intent are all credible positions, inspiring support for his leadership. His experience and qualifications are beyond reproach. Many voters may be glad to overlook some of his more radical domestic policy stands, but most voters will continue to have a tough time with his foreign policy approach. Cutting defense and becoming essentially isolationist has never made sense, either from an economic or security perspective. Such a policy projects weakness in an age when such projections invite attack. And then there’s the voice and the persona. It’s just hard imagining him as President. After all, we do live in a media-driven world. To audition you have to look the part.
Herman Cain inspires. His personal and professional stories attest to his courage, stamina, intelligence and leadership qualities. He knows from direct experience the value of liberty and economic freedom. He knows what makes the economy excel and he knows the heart of Americanism. He is genuine and connects with people in very positive ways. Unfortunately, in this day and age, direct government experience is crucial. It remains a glaring deficiency on Cain’s resume’. Additionally, his 9-9-9 Plan is not passing muster as more and more people realize it likely means tax increases on far too many people, increases that historically work against economic recovery. And like Bachmann, Cain falls short when one considers the essential role of a President as commander in chief. Yes, Cain has military experience, but that service alone does not qualify an individual to be commander in chief. There is also the matter of foreign policy and a lack of direct experience in that arena. Four years as Vice President would bless the people with his wisdom and service, and prepare him for a stronger run at the WH in the future.
Rick Perry is a natural born leader bringing solid executive government experience and track record, military acumen, border security experience, and economic development achievement. Early on he was seen as the lead candidate, until the debates. For all his laudable qualities and experience, his inability to articulate his vision on the national stage has resulted in serious polling declines. It has been said his character and financial backing, along with the likelihood of substantial Hispanic support, will combine to make him the nominee. However, considering his debate performance and a showdown with Obama, confidence waivers. Our next President must be able to inspire us to act above and beyond the minimum requirements of citizenship. That kind of inspiration requires energy and an ability to communicate, which Perry may possess but has yet to demonstrate.
Mitt Romney is not as conservative as the other candidates, if he can rightly be called conservative even to a respectable measure. Critics are correct in pointing to the failure of state-run healthcare in Massachusetts during his term as governor. He was for gun control before he was against it. Others point out he was adamantly pro-choice before he was reluctantly pro-life. If elected he will likely do a good job with the economy and an ok job on foreign policy, but are Americans really interested in a moderate performing, well, moderately? The troubling things about Romney as well: he has been running for the office for many years and still doesn’t inspire. Anyone who strives for the presidency that much, wants it too much, begging the question: is he too ego-invested?
Newt Gingrich is the most experienced man in the race for the nomination. He has been on the national stage and in government since 1980. He has served in the House and as Speaker. He worked with President Reagan and understands not only the inner workings of D.C., he understands what actually makes this country work, and how to get us back on track. When it comes to balancing the budget and reforming entitlements, both critical immediately, no one is better equipped than Gingrich. He is thoroughly versed in all things military and on the foreign policy landscape. Gingrich is an intellectual, an author, a filmmaker, and excellent orator, and an historian. He is the brightest man on the stage, the most knowledgeable, and the most articulate. His challenge to Obama to engage several Lincoln/Douglas debates is excellent: no moderator, three-hour duration for each, only a time clock to balance access. Gingrich will absolutely devastate Obama and his entire worldview. In the process Gingrich will have the opportunity to school an entire nation about our history, our national character, the original intent of the Constitution, and the value of our founding principles.
Many have argued Gingrich is not young enough, not media-genic, and brings baggage such as his divorces. Others remind us a virtual communist with no vetting and a huge network of radical associations acquired $750 million and the presidency without articulating an agenda.
It is hoped Gingrich will prevail in the days to come. If this is a ‘hiring’ decision, it’s really a clear choice as to which person is most qualified and capable. However, if Perry emerges as the nominee, that will be excellent as well, and Gingrich as Secretary of State, Defense, or Commerce will still help us see, work toward and realize an American renaissance.