Whom should we nominate to represent the GOP in a fight against President Obama for the 2012 presidential election? I believe the name of the candidate who fills the majority of the answers in 10 questions (in no particular order of importance) deserves your vote.
Last week in Part 1, I discussed the first five questions, which leaned more toward who the candidate is more than what he or she can do. (If you haven’t, read those before proceeding.) The last five questions here (in Part 2) lean more toward what they are able to do than who they are.
Based upon the characters and track records of the GOP candidates:
5) Who has the best chance of beating President Barack Obama (in and outside of debates)?
The reason this question is so critical is because Rome is burning. Our republic is being “fundamentally transformed” by the agents of progressivism, chief among whom is their leader in the White House. There is nothing more critical than providing the best and most worthy contender to enter the ring against Obama, because four more years of his reign will certainly bring the kiss of death to so much that we have held so dear.
Whomever competes as the GOP nominee against President Obama rivals one of the toughest competitors in presidential history, not only in his charisma and oratory ability but also by the comprehensive backing of the mainstream media and a billion-dollar campaign.
It is imperative Obama’s GOP rival be very polished and articulate, possess a comprehensive knowledge of America and the world, including societal and political ills as well as historical solutions, in addition to a quick recall of Obama’s failed solutions and promises, etc.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, “I should consider the speeches of Livy, Sallust, and Tacitus, as preeminent specimens of logic, taste and that sententious brevity which, using not a word to spare, leaves not a moment for inattention to the hearer. Amplification is the vice of modern oratory.”
4) Who has the best abilities to lead Washington politics and politicians?
Leading in Washington is unlike leading in any other setting, political or otherwise. That is why I believe we need to be careful about how we throw around the pejorative term “insider.”
Is all Washington experience negative “insider” politics? Absolutely not. To be sure, one man’s “insider” is another man’s “expert.” (Would we not prefer an “insider” in the armed services to lead us into war? Would anyone want a surgeon operating on him or her who hasn’t had “insider” experience?)
While desiring a presidential “outsider” to Washington has its appeal, where does U.S. capital inexperience crossover to ineptness? And aren’t most Washington “outsiders” at least somewhat restricted by their inexperience and unfamiliarity of the vast web of capitol workings? To be sure, as Robert Frost once said, “You can be a rank insider as well as a rank outsider.”
Though I know longevity in Washington has a tendency to create bad politicians, we must remember that it also has the ability to refine its good ones. What’s critical here is not only that the next president has a great working knowledge of Washington but also superior experience in getting things done there. Without that, he or she will spend a large part of the first term in office just learning the ropes and spinning their Washington wheels mastering the maze.
3) Who has the best plan and leadership ability to restore America’s economy?
It’s only half the battle that America’s next president has a better economic plan than other candidates and the current administration, under whom the national debt has almost doubled at twice the speed than under President George W. Bush to more than $15 trillion and during which time the unemployment rate, while better than a year ago, has remained at a recession-level 8.5 percent (up from 7.8 percent when Obama took office).
The other half of the economic battle for the next president is that he or she must have much greater leadership skills to see his or her economic plan to acceptance and fruition. William Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services, recently criticized the White House, saying it has “often failed to lead with enough vigor to overcome political obstacles.”
2) Who is the most fiscally prudent?
This question is related to the former one, but I believe deserves solo attention because of the escalating crisis of our national debt and spending. America is drowning in debt, and Washington is on a runaway spending spree. President Obama again wants to increase the national debt ceiling another trillion dollars?
As George Washington said, “To contract new debts is not the way to pay for old ones.” Or as Thomas Jefferson said, “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” On his first campaign trail, even Obama himself called that type of fiscal management “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.”
We need to ask which candidate has the best track record for making fiscally prudent decisions, cutting where it needs be and (re)allocating investments to bring about the greatest yields. It’s one thing to know what to cut, but quite another to know where to invest. Solvency comes primarily from the former and growth from the latter. Our next president has to have a great track record for both.
1) Who has demonstrated the highest regard for human life?
More than a nation, our president leads one of the largest masses of human beings on the planet, as well as maintaining influence over the remaining global majority. Therefore, it is imperative that he or she has an impeccably high view and value of humanity.
The Declaration of Independence affirms the value and rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all human beings – something further secured in our Bill of Rights. How one values human life is reflected in ones’ adherence to America’s founding tenets, as well as how one has treated others and where they stand on such issues as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, euthanasia, civil rights and capital punishment.
No more critical of an issue is at the heart of government than placing ultimate worth and preservation on human life. As Thomas Jefferson again so eloquently put it, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” And, therefore, it is the first and only legitimate object of good leadership, too.