Michelle Malkin is looking for a candidate who is "a man. A man who can say 'No.' A man who rejects Big Nanny government. A man who thinks being president doesn't mean playing Santa Claus. A man who won't panic in the face of economic pain. A man who won't succumb to media-driven sob stories.
"A man who can look voters, the media, and the Chicken Littles in Congress in the eye and say the three words no one wants to hear in Washington: Suck. It. Up."
She complains that "the He-Men of the GOP field went all mealy-mouthed when asked about the signs of recession" and started offering up government programs and bailouts. Even "Fred Thompson, supposedly the conservative's conservative, asserted the need for a fiscal stimulus."
Finally she asks: "Do Republicans want a clear alternative to liberal-nomics? Or will you settle for a lip-service conservative who will reward fiscal recklessness with only slightly less government intervention than the Dems?"
Ms. Malkin, may I suggest the one candidate in the race who will do precisely what you claim to want him to do here? Of course, you probably won't support him because he doesn't offer mealy-mouthed, feel-good, big-government solutions to the problem of terrorism, either. For all your talk about opposing big government, you certainly seem to have no problem with it when it's being applied to people you don't like (including Japanese-Americans under FDR). Support anyone but Ron Paul and you're guaranteed to get bigger government at home and abroad. Then you'll keep griping about the GOP's betrayal of the conservative base even as you continue to pull the lever for its candidates, to which I can only say: Suck. It. Up.
