Posted on 03/22/2011 9:37:36 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA
WASHINGTON Mitt Romney is the godfather of what Republican critics call Obamacare. Newt Gingrich is an adulterer on his third marriage. Tim Pawlenty is too green environmentally, that is.
Jon Huntsman worked for President Barack Obama. And Haley Barbour has come off as dismissive of racial segregation.
Is any potential Republican presidential nominee without vulnerabilities that could alienate voters, especially those in the GOP primaries, and provide ready-made attacks for opponents?
Not in this crop.
The 2012 Republican field is deeply flawed, lacking a serious GOP contender without a personal misstep or policy move that angers the party base. Each of those weighing bids has at least one issue that looms as an obstacle to White House ambitions, and that could derail the candidate if not handled with care.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
Here goes the AP, trying to pick our candidate again. It worked in ‘08 why not this time?
I love how there isn’t even a byline because the AP reporters are in contract disputes so we have no idea who even wrote this crap. Hooray for our independent media!
Personally, I'd be happy with 'marginally constitutionally grounded'.
In an essay about flawed Republicans, to spend such little time on Palin is an indication that she isn't very flawed at all. Best not to say too much then, eh?
The time has come to question the conventional wisdom which asks the question: “Is a candidate electable?”.
The truth is my dog could beat 0bama.
The question becomes: “Who has the guts to turn around this socialist Rat/Soros agenda?”
On that score Palin looks to be a top contender.
AP should only report facts, but that article is mainly the writer’s opinions.
This alone discredits the writer. No debunking could be made. His own Swift Boat compatriots from the day gave validity to the claims. Alone this did not sink Kerry. His flaws were to numerous to mention.
The other part of the article dinging the GOP candidates is also flawed. Picking random things out as disqualifiers is silly. Reagan raised taxes in CA among some other questionable things. It didn't matter. He ran a solid campaign and destroyed Carter. He also followed through with his promises. I see no reason why any of these candidates can't do the same thing except for Myth. Romneycare is the kiss of death when your opponents Achilles heel is Obamacare.
I AM ONLY GOING TO VOTE REPUBLICAN IF THEY HAVE A PERFECT CANDIDATE. IF I DISAGREE WITH THEIR NOMINEE ON EVEN ONE THING THEN I’M GOING TO VOTE THIRD PARTY!!!1!!1!ELEVENTY11!
All of the candidates, including Huckabee, are greatly preferable over Obama and Hillary.
She's in a great position to be king maker, but I really don't see anybody worthy.
Of course, a moldy sponge would do better than our current office holder, but alot of people like moldy sponges apparently.
The question becomes: Who has the guts to turn around this socialist Rat/Soros agenda? ...
Allen West !!!
Is this their version of rope-a-dope? Are they pushing to run against Palin?
If all are aforementioned are sub-standard, isn’t the take away actually leading, pointing, directing, begging us to put up only Sarah??
I notice no mention is made of Herman Cain in the article. Probably because it invalidates the headline.
“Best not to say too much then, eh?”
You got that right!
If you look at the actual article, you’ll see it comes across as a pro-Romney piece.
(1) It has a (good) picture of Romney. None other candidates are pictured.
(2) Mitt Romney’s name is in bold letters that jump off the page. None of the candidate’s names are in bold.
(3) This type of list is an old retorical trick. List a half dozen people’s flaws one after tha other, and it makes all the flaws blend together, so none of the really stand out. The idea is to minimize the one person’s flaw by making it seem like everyone has a similar flaw. It is just another version of the old “If I can’t rise to their level, I’ll bring them all down to mine” ploy.
As far as the GOP nomination goes, being the father of ObamaCare is a deal killer for any candidate.
Drives me nuts - as if the politician has nothing to do with how electable they are come election day.
Its the same basic school of thought that one which argues economic policy from the premise that for one to have more it needs to be taken from someone else.
There's only one way to look at a potential condidate - do I agree with them on the issues?
You know, the more and more I see him and research him, I like Herman a lot!
That’s what I initially took away from the article.
Yes, I've been saying that for years. People on FR that get freaked out over Mittens should save their energies, ‘cause he ain't doing squat.
I've have a modicum of respect for Mittens if he'd save us the dog and pony show and just step away and for good. I suppose the only positive in having Jon Huntsman running is that the two of them will cannibalize the Mormon vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.