To the editor:
I attended the recent Republican Caucus held at the Bainbridge High School last Saturday, and was impressed by the large number of people that participated.
Based on the general discussion, it appeared that the favored candidates were former Governor Mitt Romney and Representative Ron Paul. I took issue with the supporters of both of these candidates by suggesting that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich would be a far better choice.
My rational was based on a comparative evaluation of each of the four candidates, against a set of criteria that reflected, what I felt were, the essential characteristics necessary for an individual to possess, in order to be a viable candidate for President of the United States.
The criteria comprised four essential items as follows:
1. Leadership ability (self-confidence and the ability to instill confidence in others; presence and bearing are also important).
2. Experience (familiarity with how government works and a historical perception of pasts events).
3. Oratory ability (ability to inspire and accurately transmit ideas).
4. Personal character (integrity, honesty and honor).
An example of my scoring on “leadership” was based on an analogy that I formulated by envisioning each of the candidates faced with an extremely stressful situation that required immediate resolution.
One of the unnamed, but easily recognizable candidates, struck me as an individual that was prone to changing his mind and found it difficult to adhere to a specific course of action, thereby creating confusion.
Another candidate who is inclined to making drastic, hasty and overreaching decisions possibly resulting in chaos. While another candidate simply not having the required knowledge or experience to make a thoughtful, reasonable and timely response to the situation.
I know my choice for an analogy might strike someone as extreme, but make no mistake, we as a nation may be faced with the possibility of conflict in the near future, that mirrors the above scenario.
Scoring for the rest of the criteria followed on a comparative basis. I scored each candidate and concluded that none of candidates achieved perfection, but one appeared to possess a sufficiently high comparative score that I felt qualified him for serious consideration for candidacy. That was Newt Gingrich.
One additional consideration, that reinforced my evaluation, consisted of my total conviction in Newt Gingrich’s ability to overwhelm President Obama in a face-to-face debate. Gingrich has a degree of experience in governmental issues that far surpasses President Obama’s. I feel the rest of the candidates would not prevail in light of the president’s oratorical skills.
I did suffer a major setback from one of the members at our precinct table, during a discussion we had, concerning the stress being experienced by the candidates during a crisis situation, such as a possible nuclear confrontation. She informed me, in no uncertain terms, that Dr. Ron Paul was obviously equal to the task because he had participated in thousands of live births. I couldn’t argue the point.
Finally, I find it ironic that we evaluate and grade our military officers in a more precise and comprehensive manner than we do our candidates for Commander-in-Chief.
CAPT. FRED M. MCGINNIS, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED)
Bainbridge Island
