Every election cycle, they come out of the woodwork, whining and complaining about every conceivable "flaw" of the current crop of Republican candidates. Mitt Romney is "too slick." Ron Paul is "too old." Rick Perry is "too Texan." You likely have a few friends who claim to be conservatives, but "have a problem with Michelle Bachmann" - perhaps even parroting the media take that she is "too crazy" and thus "won't get the moderate vote."
They even dissect the "imperfections" of people who aren't running - Chris Christie is "too fat" - Marco Rubio is "too inexperienced." And if either of these two non-candidates does decide to run, rest assured that they too will be subjected to even more intense scrutiny and criticism, and not by Democrats, but by their own party.
The problem is that there is a certain segment of Republicans who cannot simply "man up" and get behind the candidate who best represents their views. Instead, they engage in endless agonizing over whether or not a candidate will be able to attract those "swing voters" - the so-called "moderates" or "independents" that have become the Holy Grail of the "strategists" who advise the establishment Republicans.
But do you ever see Democrats do any similar vetting of their candidates? Of course not. On the contrary, they run, and elect, far left wing loons like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters (yes, the same Maxine Waters who ranted, on tape, that the "Tea Party can go straight to hell!"). And Democrats certainly had no hesitation in nominating Barak Obama, perhaps the most radical socialist in the history of the American presidency.
Democrats have no problems running candidates who cheat on their wives, use public money to pay for hookers, and don't pay their taxes. And even after their perfidies are discovered, they don't step down. They run. Again and again. Why not? If they should ever actually be forced from office, they can often get a cushy job at CNN or MSNBC.
After all, one reason Democrats can get away with all sorts or outrageous transgressions (Barney Frank's "roommate" ran a gay brothel out of Frank's condo) is the well documented left-wing bias of the American press. ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC (and their cable affiliate, MSNBC - the worst of the worst) have all but abandoned any pretext of objectivity. As a result, Democrat candidates know that they will never be subjected to the kind of withering attacks from mainstream journalists that any Republican would have to endure.
It is simply a fact that the most vile, even illegal actions by a Democrat will either be ignored altogether or relegated to the "back page" by their friends in the press. Meanwhile, the most innocuous childhood indiscretions of a Republican (or their spouse, and even their children) will immediately be put in the spotlight, and become the subject of endless "panel discussions" on the Sunday morning "news" shows.
You need look no further than the relentless attacks on Sarah Palin for an example. She's no longer even in elected office, nor an announced candidate, but because there is the slightest chance that she might become one, the pack of jackals known as the press corps still hounds her on a daily basis. So obsessed are they with destroying Palin that a "journalist" has gone so far as to take up permanent residence in the house next door to the Palins in Alaska, no doubt hoping to obtain some sort of "gotcha" moment - that is downright creepy.
Unfair? Absolutely. But Republicans need to accept the fact that the press will never give them a fair shake - that's just how it is in today's world. Get over it. And, please stop trying to come up with a suitably bland candidate, in the vain hope that you will avoid "offending" those mythical moderate voters. Such thinking got us John McCain - and we all saw how that turned out.
Ronald Reagan was anything but bland. Yet he won. By a landslide. Twice. Gosh, how did he manage to get all those supposedly "moderate" voters? Simple. First, Reagan spoke out clearly, forcefully, and eloquently in support of unmistakably conservative principles. Second, America is a far more conservative nation than is portrayed in the press - only 19% of Americans describe themselves as "liberal" while more than 40% call themselves "conservative." And third, "moderates" are more often aligned with conservative policies than the Republican elites believe.
Additionally, many of those who engage in "paralysis by analysis" are simply the kind of people who are unable to make a decision. But the country is in crisis. People are out of work. Businesses are hunkering down and not hiring, fearful of what new onerous regulation or taxation will be next. The Obama Administration has run up the national debt to stratospheric levels, and is considering yet another massive "stimulus" plan, while nudging the Fed to print money by the boatload, which will drive inflation even higher in the very near future.
So it is long past the time for all of you hand-wringing "Goldilocks Republicans" to stop agonizing over which candidate is neither too hot, nor too cold, but "just right" to appeal to those "moderate" voters. Instead, ask yourself who best represents the solid, fiscally responsible, conservative policies you would like to see implemented. Then "Butch Up" and support that candidate with your time, your money, and most of all, your commitment.
Because if you don't, you will condemn all of us to four more years of Barak Obama.
And that the nation simply cannot afford.