As I've been studying the crop of potential opponents for Barack Obama in the next election, it's become pretty evident that they all have some major flaws. Frankly, I don't like any of them very much. If I were to guess, I'd imagine that Mitt Romney has the best chance of emerging in the end, but I don't think the moment calls for a technocrat.
Do you like any of the current candidates? If so, what recommends your favorite?
4 comments:
I had some hopes for Perry. He seemed a little more willing to speak honestly about things (the whole Ponzi Scheme isn't a negative with me). But I wonder if he isn't rather more bluster than principle. He's still in first place.
Romney wouldn't be a disaster if paired with a conservative Congress. In fact, maybe that's the key we're overlooking?
I'm not comfortable with Bachmann. I like her, but she doesn't have any more experience than Obama does and that matters.
bachman actually does bring more understanding of issues and the workings of govt than obaba did.
20yrs ago, i found bluster atractive. now, its off-putting.
what is needed for the GOP is somebody with the ideaological wisdom of reagan combined with the pedigree/rolodex of Bush I.
he aint out there.
if i vote, i'll be voting for Paul. he makes more sense most of the time.
I had been supporting Pawlenty since, as other have noted, the environment screams for "generic Republican" and you can't get much more generic than T-Paw.
For the moment, I'm leaning towards Perry simply out of a process of elimination. I'd trust the 2007/08 version of Mitt Romney, but I have no idea which updated version we're on, or if he's reverted back to his 2002 Moderate Beta mode. Bachmann gives me a Howard Dean vibe and let's face it, the rest of field is extremely unlikely to obtain the nomination.
Perry's bluster can work for him if he channels it in a "America's better than this" attitude of disgust with Obama's economic record. But I'll admit his Texas swagger often seems to be Josh Brolin imitating Will Ferrel imitating George W. Bush.
reagan had swagger. perry has swagger. but there is a difference.
reagan had a confidence in himself. his swagger was natural, and he likely wasnt even aware of it, being blessed as he was with certain gifts of body language and posture.
with perry, it seems like stagecraft. he tries to appear that way, so he puts it on like a role he's pplaying.
Post a Comment