The Washington Examiner’s Phil Klein lays out his argument that the GOP field is an “incredibly weak” one, an assessment I share, although I’m not sure the field is “incredibly weak.” I think it’s just that every candidate has some considerable strength but some considerable, glaring flaw.
We need Mitt Romney’s business expertise and raw analytical intelligence, without Romneycare and his history of reversing positions.
We need Rick Perry’s record of job creation and intense appetite to stimulate domestic energy production, without his demonizing of his opponents on illegal immigration and tendency to put his foot in his mouth.
We need Herman Cain’s inspiring life story and irresistible good humor, without his dismissal of policy details.
We need Newt Gingrich’s encyclopedic knowledge of policy and political philosophy and sharp debate skills, without his considerable personal baggage.
We need Jon Huntsman’s sterling résumé and variety of experience, without his corny jokes and determination to position himself as the most leftward candidate of the party of the Right.
We need Michele Bachmann’s willingness to live her values and pugnaciousness in defense of those values, without the occasional leap into kook territory over retardation-causing vaccines.
We need Ron Paul’s steadfast adherence to principle and willingness to get into policy detail, without the positions that prompt a significant number of Republicans to recoil.
We need Rick Santorum’s focus on the problems of American families and passionate combativeness, without his Google problem and dreadful final race of his Senate career.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to accelerate our efforts to genetically engineer the perfect Republican candidate.
What? No perfect candidate?
I'm convinced most of the candidates could defeat Obama because this campaign will be a referendum on the Obama presidency.
Obama won the presidency not by running against McCain (who ran against himself) but by running against GWB. More specifically, Obama ran against an ailing economy and a financial sector in complete meltdown.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNR continues to dive head first into inside the beltway thinking. The narrative is not the weakness of the republican candidates. The narrative is an incompetent, reckless, hyper partisan President driving the country to financial and moral ruin.
Any republican who maintained that theme throughout the campaign would win 49 states.
But you guys keep talking about how bad the Republican candidates are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe did - his name was Mitch Daniels. But his wife wouldn't let him run.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim, I agree. So what are we supposed to do? I agree with the other comments that Obama truly should be the focal point, but I'm not fired up over any of the candidates. Paul Ryan continues to impress, his speech at the Heritage Foundation was great today, none of the candidates excites me like he does. At this moment I feel as if I'll be voting AGAINST Obama and not FOR anybody....what a shame that there isn't anybody to be excited about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThrow off your misgivings and get behind a candidate!!
Or two. Cain & Newt.
And we can see the two of them in the upcoming Nov 5 "Lincoln-Douglas" debate. Let's let new enthusiasm, not overplayed reservations, drive this forward!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney's flaws? "Romneycare and his history of reversing positions." Notice that he doesn't reverse positions on Romneycare, that his problem is that's one of the few things he's vigorously defending. Is it because he's misreading the public and isn't as savvy as people suppose, or is this the real Romney, a technocratic statist? Does either answer make him more appealling as a candidate?
Romney also shares Perry's two flaws. He put his foot in his mouth just this week, being over cautious or betraying instincts that aren't conservative; since he'd face brutal opposition in trying any conservative reforms, is this a distinction without a difference?
And on demonization, just look to his campaign's deliberate efforts to smear opponents (and scare grandma) over necessary truths about our entitlement programs like Social Security, that it IS a Ponzi scheme without any real constitutional warrant.
Not a single primary vote has been cast -- not one -- and Romney's already triangulating. Every candidate has his flaws, but not all flaws are created equal.
In the Jolt, Jim writes, "Look, the vast majority of us will fall in line by the convention, I suspect."
I wouldn't bet on that, especially if Romney not only wins the nomination, but does so because of the primary schedule being moved up -- if he wins without ever attracting the conservative base, because the base remained divided until it was too late to do anything.
And I'm not sure "falling in line" is the right thing to do, not for a nation that needs more than just another Republican statist who promises to be a competent steward of Leviathan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe don't need to merge all the candidates, just give Cain the last dozen years of Perry's resume.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat it sounds like you have is not a presidential field, but one heck of a cabinet. But I have to ask on one thing, with Ron Paul what are "the positions that prompt a significant number of Republicans to recoil"?
I see one, maybe two possibilities here: his stance on drug legality and his non-interventionist foreign policy. Aside from that, what's so repugnant that one would recoil?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have often wanted to genetically engineer local candidates. We had for Congress 4 candidates for our nomination: a poor boy made good businessman and veteran with few social graces or education, a female Hispanic (this is South Texas), a wealthy lawyer, and a classy looking engineer. I would have liked to have run a rich female Hispanic veteran and Lawyer who came from humble beginnings. The lawyer won and defeated a 28 year dem incumbent by the slightest of margins. He has done an excellent job since.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm with Newt. Any one of the people on the stage is better than what we have now. I don't know how it can be done, but I would like conservative media to write about other things for a while. Analyzing the mistakes, flaws and weaknesses of our candidates gives fodder to the msm and sets up the commercials for the Obama campaign.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about more advocacy of our guys? The left has no problem evading, obfuscating and lying about their guys and they have the msm always at the ready to do their dirty work. What's wrong with our being selective in what we emphasize for a change?
We have the most conservative field we have ever had since Reagan won. I may prefer some candidates over others but most of our guys are good conservatives.
We could all learn a thing or two from Rush. He is jovial, optimistic and makes it sound like we have excellence to choose from. For the moment for my money, and I mean that literally as well as figuratively, if we get Perry or Cain or Bachmann for our ticket, and if one of them wins, I see no downside for my country. I want the one who will cut taxes the most, cut spending with zeal and get government out of the way of our economy. I want an anti communist and anti Islamist I want the one who will support Israel and recognize who our enemies are and who our friends are. I have no doubt that these three fill the bill on all of what I want.
It's time now for NR and others on our side to accentuate the positive for a change.