Does the GOP want an intellectual or an executive?

POLITICO's Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith wrote an interesting piece this morning divulging that conservative editorial boards across America are displeased with the current candidates running to represent Republicans in the 2012 presidential election, especially after Monday's announcement from Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan that the young budget whiz would not enter the race. POLITICO reports that editorial boards from The Wall Street Journal to the Weekly Standard are desperate to find a pro-growth, policy intellectual to throw their enthusiasm behind:

Profoundly dissatisfied with the current field, that dull ache may only grow more acute after Ryan’s decision Monday to take himself out of the running.

The problem, in shorthand: To many conservative elites, Rick Perry is a dope, Michele Bachmann is a joke, and Mitt Romney is a fraud.

Martin and Smith were able to speak with well-respected conservative thinkers like Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and the National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru who all agree that the current Republican field lacks a degree of intellectual policy depth and political pedigree. The conservative "elite" according to POLITICO would prefer a dream candidate like Ryan, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, or even freshman Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, over the current field of GOP contenders.

Since philosopher kings are outside the political norm, there are few other remaining options.

"There was the promise of a conservative intellectual type running for president - which would have been very unusual," said the EPPC’s Levin. "What we’re looking at now would be more like a normal presidential campaign."

While being a huge Paul Ryan fan and admirer of most of the commentators quoted in the POLITICO piece, I have to ask the question: Do policy intellectual-type Republicans really make the best presidents?

Don't get me wrong, intellectual should not be a bad word for conservatives, but I feel history shows the best GOP presidents were first and foremost effective executives. The most successful modern Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan and the first terms of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, came to fruition not because these Presidents frequently installed their own comprehensive and far reaching policy proposals. In fact when they did, Nixon's EPA and Bush's No Child Left Behind became some of their biggest failures.

The most effective presidents act as executives leading the country with clear-cut and communicable policies, not 2,000 page bills to implement radical and far-reaching reforms that cripple American growth like cap and trade or ObamaCare. The most effective presidents are decisive and can command confidence in times of crisis, such as Bush following 9/11. The most effective presidents are strong judges of character and know how to find and install brilliant and seasoned Americans in their cabinet.

One would assume that advocates of smaller government should know that far-reaching and over-idealistic policy proposals aren't drafted from the desk of the Oval Office.

I don't think the current field of Republicans running for president is perfect, but I question those quoted in POLITICO that believe the judgement of a candidate should be based on his or her ability to write policy rather than the candidate's record of executive leadership and/or ability to communicate their decisions.