Watching Tuesday’s GOP debate in Las Vegas this is what Republican voters are looking for and have yet to find: a leader who presents a vision to us—the American people—of how he or she will reverse a widespread sense of national decline and then lead an American revival.

Instead, all we see are quibbling, un-imaginitive candidates who focus on small things instead of the biggest issue of all: how to inspire a dispirited American people and infuse them with a belief that America’s best days are not in the past.

On technical grades, Herman Cain withstood withering attacks on his 9-9-9 plan, but what might hurt him has now been established: an average taxpayer will pay more under his 9-9-9 plan than he or she currently pays. If that argument proves to be accepted as true, then Herman Cain’s popularity will begin to wane. He is so intertwined with his plan that when that plan becomes less popular, so will he. (This happened in 1996 with Steve Forbes and his momentarily-popular Flat Tax; as soon as the people looked at it and compared it to their current taxes, the Flat Tax—and Steve Forbes—dropped like a rock.)

However, Cain is an enormously refreshing candidate who you cannot help but like. He is the repository of most Tea Party voters who like an out-of-the-box, non-politician.

Mitt Romney seemed a bit more petulant than his carefully-controlled performances in the three recent debates. He clearly dislikes Rick Perry, even though Perry has flat-lined as a candidate and should basically be ignored. But Romney couldn’t hold back and really tore into the lost-looking, in-over-his-head Texas Governor. This exchange made Romney look like less of a man – and certainly less presidential.

Ron Paul continued to say things that previous GOP presidential candidates would never have had the courage to say—especially about aid to Israel, closing foreign bases, not building a fence on our southern border and the Occupy Wall Street protestors.

Newt Gingrich always does well in these debates because he breaks the format, critiques the questions – and at the end of this debate criticized all the other candidates for “quibbling.” He was—and is—right. You get to the White House by going big and high – not low and petty.

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum were almost invisible in this debate and they have no impact on the race anymore; they have become vanity candidates who stay in the race through Iowa—and then disappear.

Conclusion: not the best debate for the Republican Party overall. We did not present a Reaganesque, positive, hopeful, visionary face to the American people.

The Tea Party Movement is the driving force in American politics.

In every aspect of our politics‚both in campaigns, in State Houses and up on Capitol Hill—the Tea Party Movement is re-shaping the debate on debt and the role and scope of government.

This grass-roots, bottom-up movement completely dominated the 2010 GOP senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial primaries—and won almost every contested GOP race. Even long-time conservative senators were defeated in GOP conventions and primaries because, in the eyes of the Tea Party Movement, they were “too liberal” on fiscal issues.

But not every Tea Party GOP nominee won their general election races. The two most notable losers of races that a better GOP candidate would probably have won were Delaware (Christine O’Donnell) and Nevada (Sharon Angle).

With the power of the Tea Party Movement in mind, the best way to analyze the 2012 GOP presidential field is through a Tea Party prism:

• No candidate is going to be the 2012 GOP nominee unless the Tea Party Movement embraces him or her;

• Thus, we can begin to eliminate candidates who are unacceptable to the Tea Party Movement;

• Mitt Romney has gone out of his way to distance himself from Tea Partiers; his RomneyCare health bill dooms him.

• Haley Barbour was a two-decade long inside-the-Beltway lobbyist; the Tea Party Movement abhors lobbyists, insiders and those who have lived off the political system;

• Jon Huntsman—who, you ask?—can forget it. Known in Utah as a “liberal” Republican who then served as Obama’s ambassador to China cannot win the support of the Tea Party Movement.

• Newt? Too self-promoting, too many marriages, too mouthy…has no credibility.

• Donald Trump? While many agree with his China rhetoric, he is un-electable. And he cannot survive serious scrutiny. But, before that happens, he does excite Tea Partiers with his “outsider” image. (It is indeed just an image; Trump has played footsie with long-time Democrat incumbents and funded their campaigns. The Tea Party doesn’t know that—yet. But they will. And they will not embrace him.)

• Forget the other also-rans, too, like Rick Santorum and Rudy Giuliani. No one digs them at all. They are yesterday’s news.

• OK. Who can be the darling of the Tea Party Movement? (But not necessarily someone who can win the general election.)

• Today, they are focusing on Michelle Bachman, who senses that there is no one else right now who excites the Tea Party. They have loved Sarah Palin—and still might if she runs. But her recent absence from the scene has opened up the way for other. Bachman is just Palin 2.0.

• Tim Pawlenty is trying to be all things to all people: he’s trying to have one foot in the GOP Establishment camp and the other foot in the Tea Party camp. The problem is that when you try to be all things to all people, you often end up being nothing to anybody. Pawlenty is also boring—a fatal problem in the era of TV in politics.

• Governor Mitch Daniels is dithering about running. He has a Tea Party-friendly economic story to tell—but he appears to lack the fire in the belly for this 2012 race.

• Huckabee is still very much alive as a candidate—although rumors abound that he is not going to run because he’s making a ton of dough on TV—and he appeals to Evangelicals and to some Tea Partiers, but not all. He is the front-runner right now. But a weak one.

• Ron Paul is more of a libertarian than a Tea Partier—but he does have strong, devoted supporters. He is a good man. But he will not be the GOP nominee or the Tea Party candidate.

Conclusion: the Tea Party Movement will select the 2012 GOP nominee. That is not to say that candidate will win the White House. For example, Michele Bachman could be the Christine O’Donnell/Sharon Angle of the 2012 GOP presidential race: she might win the support of the Tea Party Movement , but she is un-electable in the general election because independent voters will not vote for her.

We on the Right have a big problem: we have no one running—yet—who can win both the support of the Tea Party Movement andcan then win over the crucial independent voters in the fall of 2012.

Obama can be beaten. But only if the exact right kind of candidate runs against him.

So we have to keep looking for just such a candidate.

As President Obama’s ratings again slip into the low-to-mid 40’s, no potential Republican candidate is even close to capturing the imagination and fervor of the huge built-in anti-Obama sentiment inside the GOP, Tea Party and conservative movement.

In fact, the candidates are failing so badly that unelectable names like Donald “I love Hillary and Bill and I have donated tons of cash to liberal Democrats all across this country” Trump and Newt “I cheated on two wives because I love my country so much” Gingrich are actually getting news coverage.

If these two clowns are getting coverage, it tells us that we have no one.

And the so-called serious candidates, like Mitt “I invented ObamaCare before Obama!” Romney and Haley “I was the best danged lobbyist you ever done seen!” Barbour and Tim “I will be all things to all people!” Pawlenty are most definitely not catching fire. In fact, the more they are seen, the less they are liked. Quote after quote from audience members at each public appearance highlight the fact that there is just no passion for any of these men—while there is uber passion to defeat the President in 2012.

At the same time, there is rising discontent on the Right with the GOP House leadership. Speaker Boehner is caught between a rock and a hard place: if he tries to forge deals with the Senate Democrats and the White House, his Tea Party freshmen revolt. Conversely, when he assuages the Right, he has to take such hard-line positions that no deal with the Democrats is possible.

As predicted here before, the Debt Ceiling Increase vote will be an epic battle between the GOP leadership and the Tea Party. It will likely shatter the fragile GOP-Tea Party coalition.

Indeed, Tea Party members all around the nation today are growing increasingly hostile to the GOP—with long-time stalwarts like Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar sure to face difficult primaries in 2012.

Meanwhile, what has happened to the Revolution in the Middle East? Has it fizzled—or is it merely taking a respite?

Egypt: after the initial post-Mubarak heady days of seeming victory, things are back to normal. And it is worth asking: will the Army really allow its power to be diminished by democratic elections? Or will they rig them like all the previous elections?

Libya: Khaddafi has—so far—survived. He butchers his people. It looks like he will stay – at least for a while.

Saudia Arabia and Bahrain: The Saudi Royal Family has learned its lessons and brutally repressed any demonstrations in the Kingdom—and even has crossed into Bahrain to put down Shi’a demonstrations against the Suni Bahraini leadership.

Thus, the sweeping pro-freedom revolution appears to have fizzled out.

Japan: the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown will be used by the Left here to try to stop future nuclear reactors—at a time we need them to offset our dependence of foreign oil.

Here we have oil prices spiking—has anyone thought about $5 per gallon?—and yet the Environmental Left won’t let us drill and also wants to stop future nuclear reactors.

How are we to acquire energy?

Conclusion: the American economy remains in a morass and thus Obama, too, is languishing. But the GOP is in even worse shape.

The only salvation would be a new candidate—spunky and smart—who can unite the Tea Party passion and the GOP and then harness the fervent anti-Obama sentiment that is lurking out there.

When you find that candidate, please give me a call.

The national economy–again–stalls. No new jobs are created. The immigration issue–again–becomes red hot. And the health care bill–still–is unpopular. Well, we can assume that 2012 will be a watershed election year with an at least a semi-unpopular and thus vulnerable incumbent, Barack Obama, who can possibly be defeated. This is a far cry from November 2008 when he was proclaimed the New Messiah.

But–and it is a big “but”–“you can’t beat somebody with nobody.” The Republican Party has a penchant for nominating “nobodies” for President lately. Let us remind ourselves of some recent disasters:

• In 2008 the GOP nominated John McCain, perhaps the most disastrous nominee possible. He refused to attack Obama; he wouldn’t even allow McCain surrogate speakers to use Obama’s middle name–Hussein!

• McCain is/was/always will be pro-amnesty-for-illegals–so he and Obama had the same position and thus there never was a debate in the 2008 election about immigration;

• Back in 1996, when Bill Clinton was vulnerable after the 1994 Republican Revolution, the GOP nominated Bob Dole, a great man, a great American and a great US Senator–but a total disaster as a national presidential candidate; (Perot drawing 9% of the vote away from the GOP didn’t help, either);

• Even in 2000, the GOP selected G.W. Bush who barely – maybe defeated the biggest dud stiff bore political candidate ever: Al Gore. Yes, on pure candidate skills, Bush was better that Gore. But he still wasn’t exactly scintillating.

What exactly makes someone a great political candidate?
Here are my Five Tools that make a great political candidate:

1) Fire in the belly. This overriding hunger borders on the obsessive. Virtually all successful political candidates, no matter how well they disguise it, would "walk over their mothers" to win, as Nixon White House aide Charles Colson once put it.

2) Self-discipline. The ability to rein in one's own worst instincts, habits and weaknesses. Both President Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich ruined their legacies through a lack of personal self-discipline. The speaker couldn't keep his mouth shut; the president couldn't keep his fly shut.

3) Authoritative presence. Especially in the television era, candidates must project an air of gravitas and weight. Dan Quayle's "deer in the headlights" look undercut anything he said or did.

4) Raising money. All successful candidates find a way to raise enough money to win. Some, like JFK, merely ask their fathers to pay. Others spend years developing a network of donors; others cultivate special interests. However they do it, winning candidates always come up with "the mother's milk of politics."

5) Communicating a positive vision. Derided by President George H.W. Bush as "that vision thing," it is this singular ability that elevated presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt into the political Hall of Fame. The skill to speak in a way that inspires voters is invaluable–and very rare. (No wonder so many campaigns today resort to "negative campaigning"; their candidates are incapable of painting with voice and words a believable picture of a better future.)

When a candidate has all five of these–and especially Numbers 3 and 5–then you really have a potential star.

All the so-far mentioned 2012 GOP candidates–Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Daniels and Barbour–have some good points. But none of them are sincere or talented at Numbers 3 and 5.

Our fear must be that through the 2012 primaries and caucuses, the winnowing process will bring the GOP back to its boring, staid old self–and thus turn off the Tea Party fervor which is the hottest political movement in decades.

What we should be looking for in our 2012 candidate is a conservative who can sell conservatism–and also attract middle-of-the-road independents–all the while being pleasantly on the attack against the liberals, using humor and a light touch to harness the underlying fear and anxiety we are all feeling about our country’s future.

A tall order indeed.

The 2012 candidate who can do this has not yet surfaced. Let us hope he soon will.

THE FIRST 2012 PRIMARY

Long before we on the Right can worry about defeating President Obama in 2012, we have to come up with an electable—and presidential—candidate—and one who, if elected, will run the country according to traditional, conservative economic and foreign policy principles.

And the key to that task is to find a candidate who can unite all the disparate factions and groups on the Right—and also appeal to the all-important independent voters, especially the Tea Partiers who have grown disgusted with the Establishment of both political parties.

In other words, this first 2012 primary is the race to be anointed Mr. Conservative.

This is, in sum, a difficult task.

To illustrate: Yes, Sarah Palin is the champion of many on the Right. In fact, they adore her. And she is exciting and good on TV.

But more people view her negatively—a lot more. She is even more polarizing than Obama!

She can not unite the Right and the independents. Instead, she drives many voters away from what could be a winning message in 2012.

Mitt Romney? Can he be Mr. Conservative?

Can a man who ran for US Senate in Massachusetts by saying, “I don’t want to go back to Ronald Reagan” but who then campaigned at the Reagan Library in a pathetic attempt to become a Reagan disciple, truly become the heir to Reagan?

Can the man who actually implemented ObamaCare and now wants to run against it be seen as a true conservative?

No.

He cannot.

And he will not.

There is something insincere about Romney. He is indeed an “elegant snake oil salesman.”

So who is the new Mr. Conservative?

Well, we do not yet have one.

In fact, we haven’t had one for quite a while. We have had several poseurs for this position: Newt for a while when the 1994 Republican Revolution burst on the scene. He was brilliant during this period; he does come up with some innovative ideas. But his massive ego subsumed the movement which then morphed into the Gingrich Revolution and soon petered out.

Then along came G.W. Bush, campaigning as the Son of Reagan—i.e. cowboy motif, gaudy belt buckles and cowboy boots, a ranch (with no animals, by the way) instead of the Son of Bush. It took people a long time—delayed by 9/11 and Iraq and his hiding behind the courageous troops he was using as political cover—to figure out the Bushes are fraudulent conservatives who pretend to be on the Right but in reality are closer to Rockefeller Big Government Republicans. (Must I remind you of the lie of No New Taxes from Poppy Bush and the lies about massive deficit spending and “nation building” from Junior Bush?)

In 2007-2008 various other poseurs for this position of Mr. Conservative surfaced: Fred Thompson and then Mike Huckabee. But after a few weeks’ exposure they faded into weekend TV shows and little-heard radio commentaries.

By default—and the absence of a unifying Mr. Conservative—John McCain won the 2008 GOP nomination. The Right was un-enthused by McCain. Obama won. It was inevitable after the Bush Years, Katrina, the crashing financial situation and two wars.

But 2012 could be—depending on the jobs situation—the Year of the Conservative.

If it is to be a big year for our side then Mr. Conservative needs to lead the way.

So far he has not yet appeared.

Will he?

Stay tuned.

More to come—soon!