The Republicans' "If Only" Candidates In the comments on my Tuesday post, it was asserted that despite stubborn Republican discontent with the party's field of presidential candidates, the supposedly superior alternatives are plenty flawed themselves. There's considerable truth to that. Let's start with Mitch Daniels, the Indiana governor. Daniels is thoughtful, level-headed, experienced, erudite. But as he demonstrated when he gave the official Republican response to President Obama's recent State of the Union address, he's no orator. He's not telegenic. He lacks presence and wants for charisma. And while those are superficial judgments and measures in one regard, they're indeed crucial characteristics when it comes to succeeding on the campaign trail and even when it comes to governance. The ability to inspire, arouse and rally the public helps determine the course and success of any legislative agenda. Let's move on to another governor, Chris Christie. His pugnacious style plays one way on the state level, especially when the state is New Jersey. But nationwide, with more sustained exposure? And in the context of what we regard as presidential behavior and what we don't? I direct you to a public appearance of his in New Hampshire, just before that state's primary in January, when he cut down a female heckler of sorts at a Romney rally with an inelegant comment that many people interpreted as crudely sexual. And this wasn't a "hot mike" moment, when he was under the impression he wasn't being heard. This was a very public exchange during a formal event at which television cameras were visible and rolling. If he ended up as a vice presidential candidate this year - I'm betting he doesn't - or as a presidential candidate four years from now, he faces the following potential problem: there are personalities that come across as refreshingly unadulterated, invigorating and commanding in the short run but can come to seem overbearing over time. Personalities that can overstay their welcome. Does Christie's, with all its ire and brashness, qualify? There's also the issue of his weight. While I believe, as I wrote in a column last year, that his critics have focused too much on it, and that it has minimal if any relevance to his fitness for office, there are, no doubt, voters who would be bothered and turned off by it. That this isn't right doesn't make it go away. Jeb Bush may in fact be the best of the Republicans" "if only" candidates, in terms of record, resume, style, intellect. But with two Bush presidents already, the most recent of whom left office with low approval ratings, the dynastic aspect may be too much for voters, and seems no better suited to some of the class tensions of the moment than Mitt Romney's extraordinary wealth is. Still, for Republicans, he is apparently the dreamiest of the dream candidates - and for Democrats, the most nightmarish. A story by Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman that went up on the Politico web site last yesterday observed: Mitt Romney's tortured triumph in Michigan put him back in the GOP driver's seat - but that hasn't quelled the desire among some Republicans to trade up. Yes, Republicans are still pining for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush despite his repeated and vehement refusal to be sucked into the 2012 Republican vortex. And Democrats continue to cast a wary eye on a guy they see as more dangerous - and capable of connecting with middle-class and Latino voters - than Romney. As I said in Tuesday's post, there was no possible outcome of the Michigan and Arizona primaries that would make this sort of wishful chatter go away, at least not yet.