...I can't begin to imagine what it could possibly be.
Seriously, at this point in the game Governor Pawlenty's my first choice: he's got the right credentials (two-term Republican governor in a Blue State), there's no scandal attached to him, his major problem policy-wise (cap-and-trade) is not really a game-breaker for me*, and he lacks drama. I am done with drama, thank you. I'm putting this in RedState's diary section because the site itself is not endorsing a Tim Pawlenty run, of course; it's far too early for that and we haven't really made up our own minds, yet.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
*If find this explanation acceptable, in other words:
For most conservatives, the biggest blot on Pawlenty’s record is his past support for cap-and-trade. He does not try to finesse the issue. “It’s fair to say I’ve had a change of position and change of view, and the reason is it’s a dumb idea,” he tells NR. “It was a mistake.” All public officials have a few “clunkers” in their record, he says, expressing the hope that voters will appreciate a straightforward acknowledgment of error. He adds, “I think my clunkers are fewer than others’.” This particular clunker is widely shared. Gingrich, Palin, Romney, and Mike Huckabee all once supported cap-and-trade — although not all of them are as candid as Pawlenty about their switch.
Frankly, there is a bad habit among some conservatives to create an image of the perfect candidate, measure it against the candidates that we will actually have, judge all the candidates unworthy of even remote consideration, then subside into smug self-absorbed passivity for the rest of the election season. Even more frankly, I've never seen any kind of useful effort from anybody who has modeled the above behavior, either.