I’ll do more than that, here.  I’m not just going to endorse a ticket.  I will lay out who I want in an ideal administration—and give my reasons why.  So, without further ado…

The ticket: Of the Final Four, my favorite, as you probably know, is Rick Santorum.  Still, the practical guy in me understands the argument that Mitt and Newt have more momentum.  Of those two, I’d pick Mitt Romney.

Now, recall the classic ticket of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.  The Gipper picked Bush—his chief rival in the 1980 primaries—in order to have the GOP unite behind him.  Thus, if Mitt wins (and he probably will), he should seriously consider Rick for VP.  (Somehow…I doubt Newt’s ego would allow him to play second fiddle….)  SO—my heart goes for Santorum/Other-Great-Conservative…my mind for Romney/Santorum.  Take your pick.

Attorney General: Here’s a no-brainer—Rudy Giuliani, the legendary former NYC mayor…the “real rain” Robert DeNiro yearned for in Taxi Driver, who’d wash the scum off the streets.  Rudy won over America’s heart, providing a cool head in the aftermath of 9/11.  (Yes…I know some folks hate that—claiming he “took advantage of a national tragedy”.  Pardon my vernacular, but that’s hogwash.)   And I feel his tough anti-crime stances make for a perfect AG.

Secretary of State: I actually have to thank Newt Gingrich for this idea—John Bolton, former Ambassador to the UN.  John can always be counted on to provide a thoughtful, yet firm, analysis of the global issues we face.  Here is a diplomat with a brain…and a patriotic heart.

Secretary of the Treasury: You’re going to love this—Ron Paul.  While I’m certainly contemptuous of his foreign policy (or lack thereof), I’m in firm agreement with his points on monetary policy, the Federal Reserve, etc.  There’s no doubt that he would tackle such issues head on, as Treasury Secretary.

Secretary of Commerce: No, I haven’t forgotten my main man—Herman Cain.  For a department concerned with matters of business…we need a man who knows how to run a business.  Believe me, Herman understands the needs of American business.

Secretary of Defense: Ideally, I’d say Allen West.  But as he’d only be starting his second House term in 2012…I don’t think he’d want to move that high, that soon.  So, Oliver North—another man known for doing what’s necessary.

Secretary of Homeland Security: As Michele Bachmann serves on the Intelligence Committee, she understands fully the threats we face.  Thus, she’s a good choice.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: This one’s easy—John McCain.  A Vietnam vet himself—who fully understands the plight veterans are all-too-often forced to go through—John would be superb in laying out what needs to be done, to take care of those who served our country.

Secretary of Labor: None.  I’m with Senator Richard Burr—Commerce and Labor should be re-joined.  We must streamline the government.  Rick Perry’s right on; we need to get rid of some executive departments.

Secretary of Energy: I’d prefer to get rid of this department, too—the federal government should have no business imposing national restrictions on business.  However, this one’s going to be hard to get rid of.  Until we can…I’d say Sarah Palin.  Look up her record as Governor of Alaska—and her firm, honest energy policies.

Secretary of Education: This department has been viewed with contempt by Conservatives since its creation by Jimmy Carter—and with good reason.  It’s a cash-guzzling funnel that consistently fails to do anything to improve our public school system.  Get rid of the darned thing—put federal financial aid under block grants to the states.  As for the Secretary, appoint a “fill-in” that won’t cause any more damage to our schools, while we work to dissolve the department.

Secretary of HUD; Secretary of HHS; Secretary of Transportation; Secretary of Agriculture: Appoint “fill-ins” for these departments—then, merge Agriculture and Transportation with Commerce; the other two, with Interior.

Secretary of the Interior: No clue.  Just someone who knows what they’re doing.

There you go, folks!  Here’s hoping Rick and Mitt are reading….

This is it.  There are only four left.  Many a candidate has dropped out, been thrown out, or otherwise been weeded out.  Needless to say, none of our choices is perfect—Marco Rubio flat-out stated, “No—not this year.”

So let’s look at the folks we have—and let the chips fall where they may.

Mitt Romney: The most electable candidate—the most powerful candidate—the strongest against Obama—all that’s been said.  And in some sense, that’s true.  Mitt’s a devoted capitalist—he should be hailed by conservatives for his defense of profit, and the free market system.  Indeed, attacks on Bain Capital for “vulture capitalism” have been frankly disgraceful—and have rallied many conservative icons, like the great Rush Limbaugh, to his defense.  His big problem, of course, was his…less than ideal record as governor of Massachusetts.  Romney-Care comes to mind—he has a legitimate “state issue” defense, but unfortunately, the fact is that he did implement a government-run health care system.  The problem is consistency.  Can we trust him?

Newt Gingrich: To be clear, the problem with Newt is not his personal life—and certainly not this “he-said/she-said” fiasco regarding The Ex-Wife!  No…his problem is simply this: while Newt is a brilliant man, with many grand, visionary ideas…those ideas are often unstable—and at times contradictory.  What does Newt really believe?  He’s praised Big-Labor union boss Andy Stern…he’s a self-proclaimed “realpolitik Wilsonian” (as in…uber-Leftist president Woodrow Wilson)—and as Rick Santorum noted, he had long been a major supporter of an individual mandate for health care.  And then, of course, there’s the fact that, way back when, he was busted out of the House for ethics violations (along with the fact that his own party was getting really frustrated with his unstable style of leadership).  Mitt’s calling for the report to be shown to all.  In short, Newt did a lot of great things—such as balancing the budget four years in a row, back in the ’90s—but do we really want to take the risk?

Rick Santorum: For all the smearing from the Ron Paul campaign, Rick is the true, honest, 100%-solid conservative left on the ballot.  Mitt Romney is quite appealing to independents, to be sure—but as I’ve stated before, Rick is the ideal candidate for getting the working man “blue-collar” Democrats and independents, who eagerly wait for policies that focus on bringing manufacturing jobs back to America.  The claims that Rick is “unelectable” simply for his social conservatism is poppycock—they are the same views held by Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and so on.  His views on gay marriage are virtually identical to Obama’s.  What do provide challenges for Rick are his problems with style—some see him as cold and unlikable; he lacks the rhetorical power of Newt and the suave charisma of Mitt.  Substance is not Rick’s problem; style is.

Ron Paul: As expected, I’ve gotten grief from Revolutionaries about my previous article on Ron Paul.  I stand by every word in that piece—and will repeat my points, here.  Ron Paul is a terrible speaker—given to non-sequiter ramblings and a very weird sense of humor which only the Revolutionaries seem to get.  (As for those nuts…they seem to have almost no sense of protocol or decency, as their hecklings during the debates indicate—along with the death threats Glenn Beck has gotten, and the anti-Semitic slurs against Mark Levin and other Jewish conservatives.)  He also constantly invokes  straw men (“We can’t act like all Muslims are the same!”—“Well, my policies are only dangerous if you don’t like the Constitution!”), which the Leftist media (oh, I’m sorry…“corporate-controlled media”) would have a field day over.  While his ideas on limited government are excellent, he is not a good spokesman for them.  (His son, however, is an excellent one—and I freely admit that I would vote for Rand Paul in a heartbeat.)  As for foreign policy…well, need I say more?

Well, there you have it, folks.  You know where I stand.  Here’s hoping America will take note, and choose wisely….

WINNERS:
Tim Tebow
Sure, he and his Denver Broncos lost the AFC Divisional playoff game to a vastly superior New England Patriots team. And yes, he’s being mocked by the likes of Bill Maher and his bigoted, anti-Christian ilk. But Tim Tebow is obscenely popular across the Fruited Plain for a first year starting quarterback. His name has become a verb. Aspiring athletes everywhere are Tebowing to celebrate in all manner of sports. Although Tebow classily refuses to endorse any political candidates, his open faith and role-model behavior ensure that every candidate on the Republican platform will be claiming him as their own.

Stephen Colbert
Comedian Stephen Colbert is running for president again. He started his faux-campaign so late that he can’t even be a write-in candidate in South Carolina. But that won’t stop some of his fans from trying. Colbert is having a ton of fun and is getting a whole lot of extra publicity for his show while simultaneously messing with the Republican establishment. Of course, his mockery of a campaign is really just a pale imitation of my mockery of a campaign.

Mitt Romney
It’s all over but the shouting. Mitt Romney has played the slow and steady role to the Republican nomination. The attacks from Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry aren’t sticking with the Republican faithful. In fact, their sudden anti-capitalist viewpoint has only served to further alienate them and fuel Romney’s campaign. Jon Huntsman has already dropped out and endorsed Romney as of Monday the 16th, shifting all 12 of his supporters to the Mitt camp. It’s been a good week for Mitt and next week in South Carolina should be even brighter. Then it is on to Florida. If that works out well for Romney, there will be nothing left to talk about.

MLK
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr would be 83 this week. I’m sure wherever he is, he is singing a glorious “hallelujah” seeing his dream fulfilled with a black man in the White House.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul picked up a key endorsement in South Carolina this week from Senator Tom Davis.  Paul’s future in this campaign is looking short, but for now he’s still putting up big numbers.  He is influencing the debate and he isn’t going away gently.

Consumers
Nothing happened to actually disrupt the flow of oil to the United States. The whole Straights of Hormuz debacle potentially, possibly, maybe could. But they haven’t yet. But somehow we all end up paying more at the pump.

Europe
Nine European nations had their credit ratings downgraded last week. More bad news for a region that’s had their fair share of economic woes recently.

I need to point out that for me, compromise means making changes to appease the other side, but not giving up on an idea entirely. You make some concessions, but you retain the initial idea. Obama ran on a political platform and was voted into office based on this political platform. Thus he has the backing of the voting majority. To me, this means he isn’t pandering to his voting base, but rather serving his constituents.

Here are a few of the issues where I have watched Obama make some pretty decent concessions to the right. Several negotiations were made when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. These include:

Health Care – This was one of the early battles Obama fought, and it set the stage for future decisions. Despite being the cornerstone of his election platform and despite being an issue that many Americans felt passionately about, the health care debate became polarized quickly. Despite having such a controlling portion of both the house and the senate, Obama worked hard to try to find a compromise with Republicans. This included addressing issues of illegal immigrant access to health care and, most mourned by those of us on the left, the lack of a public option. Not to mention that much of  Obama’s bill looked quite similar to the Republican compromise proposed to Bill Clinton back when he tried to push health care through.

Taxes – Despite campaigning on the idea that taxes should adjust to a level closer to what they were pre-President Bush, due to the large spending on a two-front war, Obama compromised and extended the tax cuts for an additional two years. He also compromised on the estate tax, which he initially proposed at 45% of anything above 3.5 million, but settled at 35% on anything above 5 million. Many of Obama’s concessions to Republicans on this matter alienated many Democrats in congress. Many outsiders described the deal struck on this tax matter as a true example of how compromise could be reached across a really large gap to show true bi-partisanship.

After Republicans took control of the House and Senate, Obama continued to compromise; although some would say it was due to his being forced to, it really also reflects not only his campaign promise, but also his approach to the presidency for the first part of his term.

The compromise on the debt-ceiling required a great deal of concession on the part of the democrats, and Obama signed on, despite the fact that many economists were convinced the pressure from Republicans would affect the economy in all of the wrong ways.

One of the things I have always been envious of, when it comes to Republican leaders, is their ability to stick to their guns about issues no matter what. I think of Giuliani dealing with the NYPD amid public pressure responding with “This is what I said I would do when I ran, this is what I am going to do.” I am reminded of George Bush making the remarkable argument that changing your mind about past decisions based on new information was somehow dishonorable and “flip-flopping”. I wish that just one Democrat leader would barge through and just say “I’m doing it MY WAY, you voted for me, this is what I said I would do, so I’m going to move forward with that.”

But in the end Obama said he was going to be a compromiser, so I guess the argument could be made, he did just what he promised.

(White House photo)

It’s simple, really. In any sane world, where media coverage and public opinion was based on verifiable truth instead of the constant manure that is spewed from the fat mouths of these disingenuous and corrupt career-politician, aristocratic, white-collar criminal sociopaths, Newt Gingrich would have been out on his keister a very long time ago.

So, when I get the opportunity to see Newt get that stupid smirk wiped off of his smug, lying face, it provides me with a great deal of entertainment. I revel in it. I eat it up like a pig at a trough. This goes for any corrupt politician or public figure, really. Representative Lamar Smith is drawing my ire recently with his comments about SOPA opponents and I can’t wait to watch him crash and burn.

Getting back to our buddy Newt, though, it seems as though he thinks that just because his father served in the military, he can simply ride his father’s coattails to gain support from veterans of U.S. wars. Come on, guys. Give this guy your vote. His father served in the military for cryin’ out loud! He must know and care about the veterans of this country!

Dr. Ron Paul is quick to point out, however, that Newt Gingrich never served in the military and in fact, received deferments. Newt then takes Ron to task on his “allegations”, saying that because he was married and had a child, he was somehow ineligible to be called up. Dr. Paul then states simply that when he himself was called up, why, he was married and had two children. That’s the funny thing about standards, apparently – they don’t apply to smug politician criminals like Gingrich. And did you notice how no one else had the cojones to call Gingrich on his bull? That’s what I like about Paul; he’s got spunk.

Just in case anyone wants to give good ol’ Newt the benefit of the doubt, I’d like to remind you that this is the guy that says that the Bible is very important to him and that he’s very into values. This is the same guy who cheated on two of his ex-wives while at the same time vilifying Bill Clinton for his infidelity. So not only is he an adulterer, but he’s also a hypocrite and a liar.

I’m just gonna put this out there – Anyone who supports Newt Gingrich after learning about all of this is, simply put, a masochist or an idiot.

…

One last thing before I let you get back to your regularly scheduled romp in the land of confusion, did it amaze anyone else how Ron Paul came in third place in the Iowa Caucus, yet got very little time in the New Hampshire debate? And not only did he get third place in the Iowa Caucus, he got third place by a very slim margin. Not bad for someone who’s “unelectable”, eh?

I just think it’s the darndest thing. I mean, here’s a guy who’s polling consistently high among voters and the media simply can’t be arsed to give him equal attention. Oh, but let’s give Rick Perry some love – he’s got a really good shot!

*chortle*

WINNERS
Rick Santorum
There can be little doubt that the biggest political winner this week is Rick Santorum. He not only made the top of my list but he’s also this week’s People’s Winner, nominated by alert reader Eric. Rick Santorum didn’t win Iowa, but he came within a scant 8 votes.

Suddenly Santorum has gone from “that other guy” to Mitt Romney’s chief rival for the nomination. He’s basically that last non-Romney standing after everybody else has had their shot at the top of the polls, only to fall back into obscurity. There is something to be said for peaking at the right time. Santorum followed up the Iowa Caucus with a strong performance in the weekend debates. He has no chance in New Hampshire, but South Carolina isn’t all that far off. And the latest polls show Santorum within striking distance of Romney there. A win in South Carolina could change the whole dynamic of the race.

Hilary Clinton
The blogosphere erupted this week with speculation that Hilary Clinton will replace Joe Biden as the VP on the 2012 ticket. It happens every time an unpopular president is up for reelection. It means nothing. She’s at no risk of actually having to do anything, but she’s the recipient of heaping praise all across the Internet.

Ron Paul
One of Ron Paul’s many off-kilter supporters posted a ridiculous and tasteless anti-Jon Huntsman ad this week. Not only is attacking Jon Huntsman about as useful as patenting your secret formula for ice water, the ad was just poorly done and offensive to Huntsman, Hindus, Indians, adoption supporters and, well, most everyone. Props to Ron Paul for promptly and sincerely denouncing the advertisement.

George Stephanopoulos
It’s a safe bet that George Stephanopoulos isn’t going to be voting for any of the Republican candidates with whom he shared the spotlight on Saturday night. He managed the debate well, bending the rules and letting the clock flow to give the viewers the best show possible during his share of the debate. Unlike Diane Sawyer, who seemed to think this was another celebrity interview on Good Morning America.

Iran
Iran is flexing its military and political muscle this week and getting away with it… for now.

LOSERS
Pervez Musharraf
Pervez Musharraf was once the President of Pakistan. Now he’s a wanted criminal. Because of his – alleged – role in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto back in 2007, Pakistan has declared him beneath the need for a warrant. Set foot in Pakistan, go to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

The “I Don’t Vote Because My Vote Doesn’t Really Matter” Crowd
8 votes! 8 votes made all the difference in Iowa, people. Shut up and vote next time.

Michele Bachmann
Michele Bachmann has finally seen the writing that has been on the wall for months now and dropped her bid for the Republican presidential nomination. One could argue that even though she did poorly in the Iowa Caucuses, she’s a winner this week for getting out of the race gracefully. But I’m putting her squarely in the Loser column because she didn’t just not-win the Iowa Caucus, she finished a distant last place and she didn’t even win the popular vote in her own hometown. That hurts.
Chelsea Clinton
Well, that went south fast. Chelsea Clinton’s debut on NBC was a bust. The media, which has been so reverent of Clinton since the days of her father’s campaign for president way back in 1991, hasn’t been kind now that she’s officially one of their own. The word “boring” was used a lot. So was the word “charisma”, but only as in “she’s totally lacking in”. 20 years is a nice, long honeymoon. But it’s over now.

Leave a comment below to nominate your choice for next week’s People’s Winner or Loser of the Week.

Right now, there is plenty of evidence that the party is divided. But after all, it is the primaries. There are a few candidates to choose from. While Mitt Romney has the slight advantage, not every Republican is keen on him and some would like to see some other candidate at the reins. However, this, in and of itself, is quite normal. In fact, that is the main reason why there is a primary, so people can vote for their favorite candidates.

Just take a look at the Democratic Primaries four years ago between Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Did the Democratic party divide because Hillary Clinton didn’t become President? Obviously, the answer is No.

Then there is the evidence of the Tea Party that wasn’t really present in the last Presidential election. Some say that they are an offshoot of the Republican party. However, others will tell you that they are more of an independent party with their own ideas on how government should be run. It just depends on who you talk to.

One thing is clear, they have had their share of influence in elections and the primary. But at this point, the Tea Party has the same goal as the Republican party. That is, to vote President Obama out of office. This means that they might not like the Republican candidate but they will still vote for the winner of the Republican primary, because he has the best chance of getting President Obama out of office.

Another prevailing piece of evidence is the lack of the overwhelming majority for Mitt Romney. In other words, there is the Mitt Romney crowd and those who want anyone but Mitt Romney as the candidate. It will likely lead to some very close races within the next few months. Especially from all of those Ron Paul fans who feel he is the only candidate who should get the nomination. If there is one thing you can say about Ron Paul fans, they are loyal.

In fact, this piece of evidence is never more obvious than when you look at the polls. Those political polls can drive you crazy as on nearly a daily basis the person who is “not Mitt Romney” changes. One day it is Newt Gingrich and now, right after Iowa, it is Rick Santorum. The next primary it might be someone different. It is these wildly swinging changes that have everyone up in arms.

But even the “not Mitt Romney” crowd has a goal in common with the Mitt Romney crowd: getting President Obama out of office. There may be a few upturned noses at the voting booths this year when votes are cast.

Getting President Obama out of office is the number one reason why the Republican Party will not be divided when the final votes for President are cast.  After all, such division is perfectly normal during the time of primaries. The Republican Party is not divided. merely distracted by the primaries. Soon, they will come together for a very common goal.

Ron Paul’s been smearing him, of course—with ads to the effect that Rick’s lax on abortion (laughable, coming from a guy who’s said that abortion must be labeled a state issue unless and until a pro-life amendment is passed…), or weak on gun rights (actually, Rick’s been given a big seal of approval from the NRA), or generally a “big-government” advocate (compared to Ron, that’s basically everyone).  My guess is…Ron fears Rick as the one most willing to take him to task on his foreign-policy poppycock.

From the Left, Rick’s smeared as an “extremist”.  They say he’s an anti-gay bigot—for holding, interestingly enough, the exact same views on marriage as President Obama.  They rant about his saying that states should not be prevented by the federal government from imposing standards on birth control.  (Read Griswold v. Connecticut…and take a good look at the excellently reasoned dissents by Justices Black and Stewart.  Rick’s in good legal company, with the great Hugo Black on his side.)  And of course, there’s the “He’s anti-choice!” garbage.

As a rule, you know who the Left fears, by the amount of smears they level against an enemy.  Frankly, such speaks volume about Rick.  And they fear him for good reason.

Rick served as a senator in Pennsylvania—a “purple” state, known for its blue-collar, “working man” culture.  He also emphasizes the fact that he is a descendent of Italian immigrants—and has himself a strong blue-collar background.  If there’s anyone to break the working-class vote from the Democrats in 2012…it’s Rick.  He is always clear to emphasize policies he would push for, to encourage manufacturing jobs, and bring them back to America.  Such is music to the ears of the working man—union and non-union.

(Full disclosure: I grew up in Pennsylvania.  I will always remember the many times my father and I drove past what had once been the mighty Bethlehem Steel Plant—blessed symbol of American industry.  There was a sense of tragedy, seeing the abandoned factory complex.  Pennsylvania had once been a steel capital of the world—now…well, Billy Joel’s “Allentown” is all too appropriate.  Rick also seems to feel this nostalgia—and channels it, to great effect, effectively promising to bring that greatness back….)

Of course, Rick has a few problems—but they can be big ones.  If you look back at my “Debate Spotlight” series…you’ll notice that I don’t let him get away with a most unfortunate tendency of his.  Namely—he attacks without mercy.  At his best, he holds to the fire the feet of all the others.  At his worst, he’s a raging—almost petulant—attack dog.  Fortunately…he hasn’t barked up the wrong tree that much, lately.  One gets the feeling that time has taught him to calm things down, a bit.

At times, he’s also whined about not being given as much time on the stage as his competitors.  Of course, his newfound status in the top tier has effectively nullified any chance of that happening—and I doubt we’d see any of this in the general election.

But let’s go back to the “attack-dog” idea, for a moment.  You just know, without a second thought, that he will pull no punches upon facing Obama.  He will be bold.  He will be firm.  He will be unapologetic.  He will not let the president get away with a record like he now has.

For now…Rick’s taking advantage of the fact that he’s now the last man standing.  More “appealing” competitors have come and gone—and one by one, they’ve been shot down: by unfortunate blunders (Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry), by policy problems (Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich), by merciless smears from the Left (Herman Cain)…or else, just bad luck (Michele Bachmann).  Newt and Perry are still striving to get back up…but Santorum is seen as the most promising for conservatives unsatisfied with Mitt Romney.

Is Rick here to stay?  We’ll see.

(Photo: U.S. Congress bioguide)

Obama is in a difficult spot. One of the reasons for his first victory was the turnout of people who traditionally don’t show up at the polls. He got the youth vote to actually show up. But now, three years later, can he make them do it again? Is there any “hope” left, or can he muster up enough from the regular voting public?

While it may seem surprising to right-wingers, I think one of Obama’s biggest problems among Democrats, left-wingers and liberals may be that they view him as a bit of a centrist. It is true, we may have expected a bit more from “our guy,” than what we got. And that’s why I decided to take a look into what exactly Obama has accomplished in his three years.

The list was longer than I expected, and probably would make most right wingers assure themselves that they voted correctly, but I am writing it to remind those of us on the left why sometimes a left-leaning centrist is better than a right-leaning one.

Things Obama has accomplished in the last 3 years:

Women’s rights:

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – Increased measures towards equal pay for women

Ended gag order – OK to give federal funds to organizations oversees that deal with women’s reproductive rights and offer abortion services

Gay Rights:

Ended Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – Gay servicemen and women can now serve our country proudly.

Use of Foreign Aid to promote gay rights – Several countries consider homosexuality a crime punishable by death or imprisonment. New allocation of federal aid can work to show the U.S. is staunchly against such measures

Health insurance – not much different from Republican Candidate Mitt Romney’s act passed in his home state – but quite controversial; here are some of the things it has meant to Americans so far:

• Kids are covered under their parents insurance until they are 26
• Cannot deny insurance to someone due to pre-existing conditions
• Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act extended coverage to millions of children

Troops out of Iraq

Obama is calling this the end of the combat mission, but he isn’t wearing a uniform and standing on an aircraft carrier. Many are doubtful as to what America’s role will be in Iraq in the future, but as he campaigned under the promise that the US would remove itself from one war and focus on another, this was perhaps a much awaited step.

Job Creation

Despite the bad press, unemployment is down again at year-end and job creation is up. Approximately 500,000 jobs were created in the last 6 months of 2012. According to studies, Obama has created more jobs in his three years than Bush did during his entire eight-year presidency. And he created them despite the tough economy.

There are still a lot of things Obama has not done, which he promised, some of which are disappointing. Despite signing an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay in 2009, there are still inmates held there today. There is no sign that these prisoners will be moved to the U.S. in the next year. Also, the state of the new health care bill is still uncertain — no one seems to know what will stand up legally over the next several years and what it will mean in practice.

But as I said at the beginning of this piece, sometimes it is easy for us to get lost in the negatives: what Obama promised, but didn’t do. And in all honesty, he did quite a bit in three years. He did quite a bit despite not always having the votes he needed in Congress. By looking back at this list and reading up on some of the things he has done, I feel a little better about my options in 2012. But I also look forward to seeing who the Republican candidate will be and where they stand on the issues.

(White House photo)

It would’ve been nice, were they to apply that slogan to, say, Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann: the Establishment—in the media and the government—has dismissed both as “unelectable”, mocking them as “stupid”, and despising them as “extremists”, or “racists”.

No such luck.  See, it’s not Gandhi’s general principle the Revolutionaries are interested in, so much as a way of making themselves feel better about Ron Paul’s failures.

I don’t blame them.  He’s the only Libertarian in the GOP race who’s been able to garner any support—with Gary Johnson giving shaky debate performances, broken only by a joke unintentionally borrowed  from Rush Limbaugh.  And of course, the “Ron Paul REVOLUTION!” has been a few years in the making.

Still…in four years, you’d think they’d learn their lesson—and get a candidate who can articulate Libertarian principles without coming across simultaneously as a jerk and a nutcase.

Nope.  Instead, the Revolutionaries invented a narrative along the lines of, “Ron Paul is the MOST electable candidate!  He would win in a landslide, because WE THE PEOPLE are behind him, and his fight against the military-industrial complex!”

And then they seek to prove it: arriving at C-PAC en masse, crowding out other poll voters—and then gloating about the mere plurality of votes he gets (which were, to be blunt, more due to the vast amount of conservatives on the ballot—splitting the vote—than anything else.)  They also seize the online “who-won-the-debate” polls…and then go around claiming that he was the “clear” winner.

The same thing happened in the Iowa straw poll (in which, as Fox noted, Ron’s campaign bussed in a great deal of voters—effectively stuffing the ballots)…or almost happened.  Michele Bachmann beat him.

Of course…whenever Ron Paul loses a poll, the Revolutionaries are ready with a convenient “Those weren’t the real poll results—the corporate-controlled media FAKED those results, and took down the real ones!”

Such are the antics of people in denial.  Here’s two more:

“Ron Paul would mop the FLOOR with Obama in a debate!”

Sure.  Over the past several months, we’ve seen what an excellent debater Ron Paul is.  As I’ve pointed out, he often takes a question, and rambles into something completely different — the non sequitur fallacy.  (He is reported to have said, “You can’t call yourself ‘pro-life’ and support this war!”  News flash, Ron: Abortion and the Iraq War are not related subjects.)  He also constantly engages in straw men—particularly when he’s backed against the wall on foreign policy.  (When Michele Bachmann challenged him on his accommodationist stance towards Iran, he shot back with, “We can’t just go around saying all Muslims are the same!”  Ah…who’s saying that, Ron?)

Do you really think a clever word-spinner like Obama would let him get away with antics like that?  Personally…I don’t.

“But Ron Paul would get the Independents and Democrats who are tired of these wars—tired of these infringements upon their liberties—and tired of presidents who lie to them!”

Maybe.  He’d also alienate citizens who understand that, like it or not, there are enemies overseas — enemies who want to destroy us, who will not be appeased, no matter what Ron Paul claims about our “imperialism”.  (As Dick Morris has noted—some “empire” we are, paying tribute to our “subjects”!)  The excuses of “They were motivated by our bases overseas!” (Really?  Last I checked, those bases aren’t hurting anyone…) don’t fly with conservatives—or Tea Party folks, if the 9/12 debate was any indication.

He’d alienate social conservatives, who don’t want to see illegal drugs legalized.  Granted, I’ve heard some good points made by advocates of legalizing pot.  However… Ron doesn’t exactly want to stop there….

He’d also alienate evangelicals with his libertarian stances on gay “rights”.  He’s…okay on abortion—but that’s about it.

Thus…he might get some Democrats and Independents—but at what cost?  No GOP candidate can win without support from the base.  See: John McCain.

In short, the people who say that Ron Paul is unelectable know what they’re talking about.  Hold the tomatoes, folks.  I just call it as I see it.

(Photo: U.S. House of Representatives)