Friday, December 30, 2011

If Only I Had Married That Guy I Never Dated


If one more “expert” commentator voices the crackpot view that Republicans have been deprived of the chance to choose among “the best” candidates for president, namely, Thune, Christie, Daniels, Barbour, Ryan, Jindal, Rubio, et al., please bring me an air-sickness bag.

That means you, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Peggy Noonan, Bill Kristol, and all you other self-important inside-the-beltway talkers.  (Radio talk-show hosts, you’re a lost cause.  You are so transparent that it’s embarrassing—your goal is ratings, pure and simple.)

I am absolutely disgusted with the endless drumbeat about the “weak field” of GOP candidates for president.  In my books, a weak candidate is one who has never even tried to win.  That means you, John Thune, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, et al.  If you had any guts, you would at least get behind a Republican candidate who does have the nerve to run.  So, kudos to Thune, Christie, and Jindal, who have stood up and lent their support to flesh-and-blood candidates.  A pox on the rest of you and your quixotic endorsers!

That guy I never dated is perfect.  He would have performed superlatively in every debate.  He would have a stellar conservative record, not a blemish on it anywhere.  He would never have changed his mind on anything, no way.  No gaffe would have emanated from his lips.  He would be telegenic, quick with the quip, ultra-pure in his principles, and able and willing to beat Obama to a pulp rhetorically.  He would be a “he”—no woman need apply (weak, unstable, and, oh, that voice, that makeup!).  He would be accessible, fun, and friendly, but also commanding, competent, and intelligent.  He would be a man of the people, yet also a super-smart politician.  No professional compromises or personal scandals would mar his record, zip, zero, nada.  What a dreamboat he would be.

How easy it is to speculate on the wonderfulness of an imagined candidate.  How hard it is to come to terms with a real man or woman who is actually running for the office of president.

Each of the real-world candidates has been subjected to an MRI of intellect, history, character, experience, persona, physicality, speech, and family.  I am not objecting to this examination.  But I am heaping scorn on the effete snobs who seek to protect their own reputations as political cognoscenti by hedging their bets on non-candidates who might have been.  Enough already.  It’s January 2012.  The if only’s and might have been’s are self-serving, tiresome, and pointless.

Each of the so-called “best” candidates has made it clear that there is a priority more important to him than the presidency.  Be it wife, family, congressional duties as senator or representative, gubernatorial office, earning power, or other professional activity.  None of the non-candidates has made the presidency his highest priority.

That will not do.  You don’t want to wake up the day after the election and realize he’s just not that into you.

Areté
30 December 2011


Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

13 comments:

Doug NYC GOP said...

EXCELLENT!!!

And so true...

Graham said...

Hell to the yes! This more than any post on this blog of late has punched this issue right in its huevos.

Stop dreaming about the guy you never dated. You might as well think Edward Cullen is a real man (and thank goodness he's not.)

We have the man we need. JUST GET BEHIND ROMNEY.

Anonymous said...

Amen, Arete!

I still believe that the reason the dream-teamers didn't run is because they knew they had to get past Romney --no easy task.

-Martha

GetReal said...

Well said.

Noelle said...

Excellent post! Well said.

BOSMAN said...

Bravo!

hamaca said...

Very well said! You've articulated what I've been thinking for some time.

I also think some didn't get in due to the toxicity that has become reality in some GOP quarters. They just want to deal with it. Maybe they didn't want certain aspects of their past, personal or political drudged up for all to examine.

Whatever the reason, only those who have actually chosen to run, whether out of courage or out of stupidity, merit discussion.

Silly, silly pundits.

marK said...

Very nice post. I do have a problem with it, however.

"Each of the so-called “best” candidates has made it clear that there is a priority more important to him than the presidency. Be it wife, family..."

One of the primary reasons I support Romney is that I have no doubt that if Ann's health had took a turn for the worse, he would never have run. Mitt has his head on straight as to his priorities.

The story is told of Newt confiding with one of his colleagues that one of the reasons he left his first wife was that she wasn't pretty enough to be a First Lady. I do not know if that is apocryphal or not, but that would be the logical end to your assertion that obtaining the Presidency has to take priority over your wife and family.

I am sorry, but I could not support a candidate who would sacrifice his wife on the altar of personal ambition.

Rob said...

Yes,yes,yes! But Rubio, Christie, Ryan et al represent the near future of connservatism in high places. By "near future" I mean 4 to 8 years.

Check me out at:
www.rightandnow.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Graham, I'm concerned you even KNOW who Edward Cullen is! (I have a teen daughter. I have to know who 'he' is!) Ellie

dougx said...

I don't get it either. Romney is the best candidate in 50 years.

Graham said...

Anon,

I write YA fiction. It's an occupational hazard that I have to know who he is :-)

Ohio JOE said...

"Romney is the best candidate in 50 years." That statement is lunacy especially with such a weak field.