I try to be careful not to get into the horse race aspects of things around here, but I thought Gov Perry’s rise and fall was notable in the following sense.
It takes a lot to run an effective primary campaign these days, with money and organization and name recognition often at the top of the list. But you also need to be a good debater. Gov Perry wasn’t, and his high scores on those other assets failed to offset that by a Texas mile.
Newt, on the other hand, is a sharp debater. And his lack of those other attributes, e.g., organization, has, at least for now, been largely offset by his debating prowess.
But here’s the thing: does being a good debater make you a good president? I can’t see that it does.