I Have a Confession to Make …

It may be a bit late for confession, but here goes anyway:  I never felt comfortable with any of the Republican candidates for president.  Not after they opened their mouths, anyway.

I could be wrong but I get the feeling that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum would turn the country into a theocracy if they had the clout to get away with it.  I thought Rick Perry might be someone I could support, until he started talking – about anything.  Jon Huntsman, the liberal media’s favorite Republican, oozes sanctimony whenever he pontificates, which is not an attractive trait.  Herman Cain never had the chops to be president, sex scandal or no sex scandal.  As for Ron Paul, he’s not as crazy as a lot of his critics make him out to be, but he’s crazy enough.  That leaves Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

I really wanted to like Newt.  But the man with a million ideas ought to keep a few of them to himself, like the one about inviting judges to Washington to explain decisions that Newt doesn’t like.  And if they don’t come voluntarily, hey, what’s the U.S. Marshall Service for if not to round up judges and haul them before Congress to explain themselves?  Sorry Newt, that was a bridge too far.  But honest, I’d still vote for you if I thought you could win.  But I don’t.  The presidential election should be about one person – Barack Obama.  If Newt gets the nomination, it’s going to be about him.

What about Mitt?  Well, his critics are right – he’s not a principled conservative.  And you do get the impression that he’ll be for or against whatever he has to be for or against in order to win.  Not admirable stuff, even for a politician.  But can he beat Barack Obama?  Let’s just say, he’s got the best shot.

But I don’t simply want the guy with the best shot.  I want to be excited about the GOP candidate. I want to think he or she is one of America’s best; someone who inspires us.  I’d feel that way if William F. Buckley were alive and well and young and were running.  I’d feel that way, too, if Bill Bennett were the Republican candidate.  Or Chris Christie. Or Paul Ryan.  Or Haley Barbour.  Or Charles Krauthammer.  Or Marco Rubio in a few years. But since none of them are running, it looks like I’m stuck with the guy with the best shot.

Just about everyone who identifies himself as a conservative will vote for the Republican nominee, whoever it is.  They can whine all they want about how “I’ll never vote for such-and-such” for whatever reason, but if they dislike the president as much as they’ve been telling us they do … they won’t sit out the election.  They understand that that would be a vote for the man they desperately want out.

A smart friend of mine – I’ll call him Burt (because that’s his name) – tells me not to worry.  “I just don’t see how Obama is going to win this time,” he says.  “One, he won’t be running against McCain or Bush; two, the economy is his; three, in none of the polls is he above 50% against Romney, Gingrich or a generic Republican; four, nobody who didn’t vote for him in 2008 is going to vote for him this time around, and a great many people who voted for him then have learned their lesson; five, no group that supported him by huge margins in ’08 — be it Hispanics, young people or Jews — shows any sign of doing it by the same margin in 2012.  Hard for him to improve on the 91% vote the post-racial candidate received from blacks. And, for good measure, the GOP has won a great many Senate seats and governorships in the past few years, especially in so-called toss-up states.”

Makes sense, on paper anyway.  But I’m not sure I’m buying it.  Despite the weak economy, despite the high unemployment numbers, despite the fact that most Americans think we’re on the wrong track, despite all of that, Barack Obama, I think, still has a chance to win re-election.  Actually, I think he’s got a lot more than just a chance.

Burt tells me “It’s just nerves.”  Boy do I hope he’s right.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Sunnyr

    Rick Perry for President – 2012!

    A REAL Leader with a record of achievement spanning 11 years, and a REAL Commander in Chief who knows how to pronounce the word, “corpsman.”

    Go Rick! Win S. Carolina for the Gipper!

  • Rodney

    You lost me when you said that you only wanted to vote for the man who would win. In other words you are like everyone else.
    No BA ckbone.

  • Marilyn

    I, of course, Bernie, yield to your view…but until this point, I thought Newt was it. He “owned” the polls, and then the media (and talk show hosts) zeroed in on him and cut him down to pieces. Why him? Because they saw he was the one that could take it away from Obama…and he would have, if not for the number they did on him. Now, I’m not so sure. And Ron Paul, well, he does look kind of crazy.

  • christian

    I agree with your concerns. And with Obama, you should be a worry wart. He is a terrible president, so a second term is absolutely intolerable. He is a charismatic campaigner who I give good odds of recovering quite a bit of the cult of personality that drove him to the White House in the first place. He is from Chicago – enough said. The dirty tricks, the one-sided media coverage, the torrents of despicable attacks to come, the willingness to lie and the willingness of the media not to expose the lies – people have very short memories. And people are right to question whether Mitt has what it takes to survive all of that. The question is — what can be done now? One alternative is for the Republicans to lay down their arms and coalesce around one candidate early in the process. That sounds attractive, but what if you make the wrong choice? No, as scary as it seems, I think the best way forward is to let this dogfight continue and hope that a strong, tested candidate will emerge for the general.

  • Kathie Ampela

    I looked up Webster’s definition of theocracy:
       
    1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
    2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.

    I doubt if Bachmann or Santorum would institute a theocracy if elected, but your point is well taken. Even though Santorum came in an extremely close second to Romney yesterday, I’m not jumping on the train. He has some good ideas, I like him personally but some of his social positions will be used against him and he hasn’t got executive experience; we have a legislator right now and it hasn’t panned out well. This is an election we can’t afford to lose, I guess we have to accept Romney.

  • Lisa

    I’m really getting tired of this from you and others, Mr. Goldberg. Personally I think that, with the exception of Ron Paul (I do agree with you there), we have an excellent lineup of Republican candidates. No, none of them is perfect (who is?) but they’re well qualified and very capable of beating Obama. I will say that Romney is not my favorite candidate, but I will vote for him if he’s the nominee, because even with his drawbacks, he’s a good man and a far better option than Obama.

    Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum would make the country a theocracy? Good Lord, where did you come up with that one? That’s an insult to two fine, principled conservatives. I guess you’re really worried now that Santorum is polling well in Iowa. You’re one of those who believes that a staunch conservative is going to send those vaunted independents fleeing in terror back to Obama. Really? They’re not turned off by liberals’ vicious personal attacks on conservatives but they are scared of someone who voices – horror of horrors – conservative views? I think that a good candidate not afraid to articulate conservative principles would get the votes of many independents, considering the current state of our country.

    • chuck.tatum

      “Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum would make the country a theocracy? Good lord, where did you come up with that one?”

      They have eyes and do not see…

  • Bob Blair

    I like you Mr. Goldberg, but you really are a worry wart.

  • Shirl

    Newt is the one to articulate the difference between Americanism and Socialism in order for the masses to understand what is really at stake. And, when you talk about baggage, Newt only has a carry-on compared to what POTUS has amassed in the last three years. Romney keeps tip-toeing around the tulips and generalizing; doesn’t want to get his hands dirty pulling the weeds.

  • STEVE BECKER

    I HAVE VOTED FOR ONLY REPUBLICANS SINCE 1980 BUT IF ROMNEY IS THE CANDIDATE I WILL BE VOTING FOR OBAMA. PROBABLY WON’T MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN NEW YORK, WHERE OBAMA WILL BEAT ANYONE, BUT I HAVE HAD IT WITH RINOS.

    ROMNEY CANNOT, IN MY MIND, OVERCOME HIS SIGNING OF ROMNEYCARE IN MASSACHUSETTS. AS A TAX PREPARER I SEE THE REQUIRED PAPERWORK NECESSARY TO PROVE YOU HAVE COVERAGE OR ELSE YOU GET HIT WITH A FINE. THIS WAS NOT FORCED ON ROMNEY – HE DID NOT VETO IT AND HAVE IT OVERTURNED. HE SIGNED THE ORIGINAL BILL.

    SO, AT THE AGE OF 65, WITH A COMFORTABLE, IF NOT WEALTHY, RETIREMENT I WILL GO AGAINST MY PRINCIPLES AND VOTE FOR OBAMA AND ANYONE ELSE WHO PROMISES TO TAKE MONEY FROM SOMEONE ELSE AND GIVE IT TO ME. WHAT THE HELL, AT LEAST OBAMA WILL NOT DISAPPOINT ME AS I SUSPECT ROMNEY WOULD IF HE WERE TO BE ELECTED.

    • Steve Angers

      Steve, I’m really not sure what to make of your post. I understand your frustration with the health care legislation that Gov. Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. But I don’t understand how that would justify voting for someone you appear to disagree with even more strongly if Romney does become the Republican candidate for President. What’s the point of being a Republican if you’re just going to vote Democrat when your party’s candidate doesn’t satisfy you. That, it seems to me, is the definition of being Republican In Name Only. You either stand with the Party when it matters, or at least don’t stand with the opposition Party, or you’re not a real Republican.

      It would be easier for me to take the position you have. Politically, I’m fairly moderate, which makes me a liberal to moderate Republican. There are a couple of presidential candidates in the current Republican field whose political positions may be further from mine than President Obama’s positions are. If a Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann were nominated, I could decide that the President’s views are closer to my own and vote for him in the general election, but I won’t. I could decide that if conservative Republicans are foolish enough to put forward an unelectable candidate then they can get by without me, but I won’t. I know that what Barack Obama stands for, and what he’s likely to do with another four years in office, is not going to be good for this country. I may not like what I think a Santorum or Bachmann are likely to bring to the Presidency. I might not think it’s any better for the country than what President Obama has already done with the office. But I know that four more years like the past three will be very harmful to this country. I know that it would be wrong to support that. So I’ll do what’s right, even if I don’t feel great about doing it.

      I hope that you’ll be able to let go of some of your frustration with Romney if he ends up being the Republican nominee. I think you’ve put too much of the blame for the Massachusetts universal health care legislation on him, although that’s really not the point. I hope that you’ll eventually decide that, however much you might disagree with Romney on some issues, he would make a better President than the incumbent. At the very least, I would hope that your principles would prevent you from voting for someone who has done, and will continue to do, much more harm to this country than Mitt Romney ever did in Massachusetts.

    • Ron Kean

      Romney has got to be better than Obama.

  • Drew Page

    Bernie — Wasn’t it you who a few months ago was advising Republican purists not to sacrifice ‘the good’ in favor of the ‘perfect’ candidate? The truth is there is no ‘perfect’ candidate. If Chris Christie or Marco Rubio would get into the race, the critics would have dug up enough dirt, real or imagined, to make you think twice about even one of them.

    I like Newt more than I like Romney, but I do think Romney is more electable.

    I do agree with you that Obama has more than an even chance of winning. He has more and more people on food stamps, unemployment benefits and welfare than ever before, counting on his continued largess. He has millions of Hispanics just waiting for him to announce general amnesty. He has the support of the unions, federal employees and the black voting bloc. His campaign of class warfare is supported by the MSM and the OWS crowd. And while he is putting together this coalition, we have those opposed to another Obama term bickering about who is the least offensive conservative candidate. With friends like you Bernie, we don’t need enemies.

  • Brendan Horn

    I think it is healthy to find flaws in our leaders or in our potential leaders. Leaders should not be worshiped. Obama is worshiped by many of his followers and this leads them to not see his many flaws. It is unhealthy to be blind to flaws.

    I am not worried about any leader leading this country into a theocracy. The way the government is set up makes theocracy almost impossible as long as less than 2/3 of the people want theocracy. It is difficult to get 2/3 of the people to agree on anything much less such a drastic change in the government.

    Here is a way that Obama can win reelection: if as many as 2 million people stop looking for work, Obama might have a chance. People will look at a decline in the unemployment rate and think that Obama has achieved something, when really it is only a reflection that people have given up hope. Next, Obama can win if people look only at the flaws of the Republican candidates while not focusing on the many flaws of Obama. Another thing that might help Obama is if people think that foreign policy “achievements” like Libya, killing Bin Laden, and removing all soldiers from Iraq are enough to make people lose sight of the worsening of conditions in Iran and Syria, the worsening of the relationship with Pakistan, and the increasingly dangerous situation that Israel finds itself in because Iran is getting closer to becoming a nuclear threat.

  • J. Choinski

    I think Mr. Goldberg is overly pessimistic about Gov. Romney. True that Romney changed his positions about a few things (the big one being abortion), but overall he is pretty consistent for a politician. Remember that even the Republican gold standard for principled politicians, Ronald Reagan, signed bills supporting abortion and with tax increases when he was governor of California. The ‘idea’ trajectory on Romney is good and I predict he will be a conservative and (possibly) great president. Unless, of course, dogmatic conservatives somehow push him out and we are left with Gingrich or Perry to face Obama (which means four more years of what we have now).

    • RecknHavic

      “True that Romney changed his positions about a few things..”

      Possibly the biggest understatement Ive read here.

  • Dan Ashcraft

    Bachmann or Santorum turning the country into a theocracy? That’s a ridiculous statement.

    • RecknHavic

      It’s typical anti-religious bias. Altho I am surprised that Goldberg would resort to such a Leftist-like caricature.

      • Steve Angers

        Oh for heaven’s sake! I don’t think Bernie is suggesting that Bachmann or Santorum are just itching to install the mullahs of conservative Christian orthodoxy in the White House situation room! He’s identifying a perception that those candidates might be a little too entrenched in their own personal values to offer broad-minded leadership to the majority of Americans who don’t share their views.

        With the limited space constraints of a column in which to make his argument, Bernie found a few words to sum up his feelings about why Bachmann and Santorum wouldn’t make good standard bearers for the Republican Party, or for mainstream conservatism. “Caricature” is the key word. And this isn’t just a leftist caricature. It’s a mainstream concern. I think there are a lot of very reasonable people in this country who worry, correctly or incorrectly, that a Bachmann or Santorum, given the opportunity, might not hesitate to use their power to tell us all how to behave or what to believe.

        Personally, I really don’t want my government, whether conservative Christian or leftist secular humanist, telling me what to believe. And I think that’s a sentiment that many Americans share. I believe it would be bad for the Republican Party, and for the country, if voting Americans identified it strongly with candidates they fear would interfere with private belief and matters of conscience. A good Republican candidate won’t fit a stereotype that might trigger those voter fears. For that reason, Bachmann and Santorum would probably not be the best leaders for the Republican Party at this time.

        • RecknHavic

          “I get the feeling that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum would turn the country into a theocracy if they had the clout to get away with it.”

          Doesn’t sound like a limited space statement to me; it’s bias.

          • ph16

            Um no, it actually reminds me of what he said in one of his books “Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right of Me” that he doesn’t want the right OR left imposing their values on everybody. Whether you agree with them or not, Bachamann and Santorum seem like the type to do so and frankly, that wouldn’t work in a Democracy.

          • RecknHavic

            Accusing a Christian of wanting to impose a theocracy if elected is a sophomoric argument.

  • Bryan Horn

    Look, Bush raped and pilaged this country for 8 years, culminating in the worst recession since the great depression. Things are better. Not much granted. But better still. You can’t fix the mess Bush created in 2 1/2 years. De-regulate wall street. De-regulate the banks. What idiot came up with that junk? Answer: Republicans. Bushes republicans to be exact. After what Bush did I don’t think you could sell a republican for president at any price. At least, not to anyone with a brain or a pair of eyes. I think Obama has a great chance just because things are getting better. Not much, but better still.

    • EddieD_Boston

      Actually, Carter deregulated banks. Seems you’re another irrational liberal. “It’s all Bush’s fault” is sounding more and more foolish.
      Just admit it, you’re guy is in over his head. When you are serious when you state “green jobs will help us turn this economy around”, as Obama has many times, you have absolutely no clue.
      Liberal policies and taxes keep driving our manufacturing base to China. How come liberals claim to be smarter but just don’t get it?

      • Wil Burns

        Take your pick of the stupid things Georgie Bush did…

        Tax cuts for the wealthy with no way to pay for it
        Deregulation and non-enforcement of regulation
        Privatized Medicare (Plan D) with no way to pay for it
        An invasion of Afghanistan that he didn’t budget or pay for and then neglected almost immediately
        A disgraceful and dishonest invasion and occupation of Iraq under false pretenses that he didn’t pay for
        Coddling of Enron and other corporate wrongdoers
        Encouragement of the housing bubble and non-regulation of mortgage derivatives
        The inability to pay in any way for his idiotic actions
        Attacks on workers’ rights

        That’s just the tip of the iceberg, Eddie!

        • EddieD_Boston

          Wonder why Obama has continued so many of Bush’s policies?

          • ph16

            Good point Eddie, and a point liberals never seem to address. What they hated Bush for, they put up with Obama doing and just continue to blame Bush as always!

          • Bob Hadley

            According to you, he does so because he’s a complete failure, a fool, stupid, cluless, pathetic and a laughing stock. In other words, he does so because he’s a liberal liberal liberal.

            I may have left out a few reasons. :)

    • Bill Hurdle

      Sir, may I suggest that your comments will not be taken seriously by any non Democrat – the blame Bush mantra plays much better at irrational Obama worship sites such as Huff Po.

    • Drew Page

      Bush forgot about conservatism. He spent a ton of money we didn’t have to add prescription drugs to Medicare and another ton on his “No Child Left Behind” program. He was asleep at the wheel when it came to making sure the SEC did its job regulating Wall Street brokerage firms. Republicans paid the price in 2008.

      Now it’s time for the Democrats to pay the price for a national debt of $15 trillion; annual deficit spending of over a trillion dollars a year; 3 years of high unemployment, officially 9% – 10%, and unofficially at 16% – 18%; massive numbers of home foreclosures; sharp reductions of home values because of a glut of homes on the market; and the foolhardy mortgage lending practices foisted on Fannie and Freddie by liberal, social engineers more concerned with buying votes than sound lending policy.

    • Ron Kean

      “anyone with a brain or a pair of eyes”

      Don’t sell yourself short.

  • RecknHavic

    The “vote for anybody but the other Party’s guy” is part and parcel of our country’s problems.

    If the establishment believes that we Tea Party simpletons will simply go along w/ whatever Republican candidate that comes along, they’re sadly mistaken.

    The battle that began two years ago for the direction of the GOP continues.

    • Steve Angers

      Are you saying that you, and others who share your views, are willing to sentence this country to another four years of Obama if it helps you win that “battle…for the direction of the GOP”? I’m just not sure I want to be anywhere near, let alone follow, people who would shoot me in the head to force me to do what they want.

      • RecknHavic

        How does me not voting for Romney force you to do anything?

        Two years ago the silent majority woke up and in doing so reshaped the national congressional landscape (to a point, there’s still many battles ahead) and brought Republican majorities to state houses that had been owned by Democrats for decades. If we now turn over the leadership of our Party to a liberal Republican (which Romney is based on the his actual record) you can kiss all that goodbye. The GOP is returning to fiscal conservatism, let’s not chuck all that away in a quest to simply put in anybody but the Democrat.

        Many Republicans say “Ill vote for the most electable Republican”. I say, “Ill vote for the most electable conservative”.

        • Steve Angers

          I believe it’s very important that we change the direction in which the country is headed. I think most of us who are reading this would agree with that sentiment. Our government is spending far too much money and doing a very poor job of accounting for what it is doing with our money. I think government is far too involved in our daily lives. It spends too much time telling us what to do (and compelling us to do so) instead of asking what we want it to do. Government has become far too powerful and we really need to do something very soon to rein in that power.

          We don’t all agree about exactly what should be done, or to what degree. Some people believe that most of government’s power should be curtailed and our country returned to a heavily constrained government, like it was in the earliest days of the Republic. I believe that almost everything government does had some kernel of need at its core, but that government isn’t necessarily the best tool to meet the need, or that the government is failing miserably to meet the need without also doing excessive harm in the process. But I think we all generally agree on the basic principle of constraining, and reducing, the power of our government as it currently exists.

          I think we all can agree that another term for President Obama would do little or nothing to meet a goal of limiting government and will likely make the problem much worse. I hope we all agree that there isn’t a candidate in the Republican field who wouldn’t, as President, be an improvement over a second Obama administration. While we may each have a preferred candidate, and we may have concerns about some of the other candidates in the Republican field, I hope that we can all clearly see that each would be at least some improvement over more of the same.

          It seems to me that the one thing we might all agree on is that Barack Obama should not be in the White House after January of 2013. I’m not insisting that you, or anyone, nominate a particular Republican candidate to oppose the President. I have expressed my opinion that Mitt Romney, among the presently declared candidates, does stand the best chance of beating Obama in a head-to-head race, and that many of the other candidates could not do so. But if the Republican Party’s voters, in their wisdom, determine that one of the potentially failed candidates should carry the Party’s standard next year, I will support that candidate. I may shake my head, roll my eyes a little, and make the occasional snide remark, as I can be a bit sarcastic at times (it’s not one of my more attractive qualities, but we all, especially the people around me, have our little burdens to bear), but I will support the Republican nominee.

          I will support the candidate of the Republican Party because I know that person would do a better job than the current President of getting this country moving in a positive direction. I firmly believe that some progress in the right direction is better than no progress, or continuing to move in the wrong direction.

          I get a little frustrated when I hear others insist that we need to seek change, but only on their terms, and that they won’t do anything to help if we’re not following their plan. I think it’s much too important that we all pitch in and try to make something positive happen instead of giving up because none of the options available are positive enough to suit our personal preference. Believe me, the people who want to keep this country moving in the direction of bigger government and less personal freedom aren’t going to stop working toward their goals just because you stop. Wouldn’t it make more sense to spend the next four years making a little progress in the right direction than it would to wake up in 2016 to the realization that we now have an even steeper hill to climb?

          • RecknHavic

            I think you might consider adding long-winded to your “not one of my more attractive qualities” list :)

            If I believed that Romney would advance the Conservative cause Id support him as the nominee. I do not believe, based on his record, that he will.

            Happy New Year.

          • Steve Angers

            Sorry, Havic. I know at times I can be a bit long-winded. But I prefer to say too much and make my thought clear, rather than use too few words and be accused of something like anti-religious bias.

  • Bill Hurdle

    Why don’t you people go ahead and just vote for Obama!! My God can’t you see that the two Presidential candidates should be Obama and “Anybody But Obama”! Are you so naive that you think you can have the perfect candidate who will right all the ills that the progressives have imposed on this nation – it ain’t gonna happen. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE stop destroying the candidates with juvenile criticism which provides reasons for neutral independents to dislike the candidates. Do you people not understand that the most important thing a President can do for the US right now is to attempt to rein in spending – anything else is secondary to restoring the financial viability of the US government. You cannot expect to get ideological purity when there is an overiding objective.

  • Barker

    This nation was founded as one nation under God. It doesn’t call for any special God or religion so it’s not a theocracy.
    Ronald Reagan said,”Any nation that is NOT under GOD is a nation gone under.”
    More power to Santorum and Bachmann for their good moral character that can only set a better future for America than the godless
    socialists who currently dominate our government.

  • rider237

    another thought: you could have a conservative president, but if you don’t get a grip on congress, both by electing republicans, and by getting rid of some of the RINOs, it doesn’t make much difference.
    a less conservative president with a conservative congress will work fine also.

    lets not get so focused on the big house that we forget the other house, and the senate.

  • John Lofton

    Calm down, Bernie. All “theocracy” means is Godly-rule….you know, like when ancient Israel was under God’s Law. Things went pretty good for them when they obeyed God, as Scripture tells it. But, what is it about being ruled by God’s Law, Bernie, that has you so frightened? Seriously, answer here, please, what it is about God’s Law that scares you if we were governed by it. I mean, we have Godless government now, Bernie. How do you like it? Only in America today could you have a Goldberg against Torah….

    John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
    Recovering Republican
    JohnLofton.com
    JLof@aol.com

    • ph16

      John,

      The only theocracies that exist in the world today are Muslim theocracies and look at how those work. Seriously, do you want to live in a government like that?

  • Iklwa

    I was severely disappointed by the Republican Party when we fielded Bob Dole. Bless his heart, a good man but to run against Bill Clinton???

    I was then disappointed by the American voter when Clinton was re-elected for a second term. I had told myself that the American people were smart enough and forward looking enough to see what a sleaze President Clinton was and is. I still maintain he is a sleaze. Who sold missile technology to the Chinese because he thought it would make them feel better about themselves? Talk about sex scandals and lying under oath!

    Anyway, I just knew we were doomed when the Republican Party fielded John Mc Cain. I knew what a leftist Mr. Obama is and I knew what shmucks the votes can be.

    That brings me to 2012.
    I too pray that Burt is right.
    I like Burt a lot.
    I know he is a smart fella.
    But I’m not putting any of my money on Romney.
    It’s like “Deja vu all over again” and I can only peek between my fingers and watch…scared like an adolescent school girl (that I am not).

    • Steve Angers

      With due respect, lklwa, I don’t think John McCain was a bad candidate. 2008 was just a bad time to be a Republican running for President. McCain got saddled with Bush’s economy and a perception of age against young and resilient “hope”; and I can only hope that the majority of American voters have learned their lesson about that misperception. But I don’t believe that McCain’s loss in 2008 had anything to do with his generally moderate positions.

      • EddieD_Boston

        McCain had zero charisma and looked terribly old next to Obama.

        The country needed change and McCain didn’t offer a fresh alternative.

        • Steve Angers

          I don’t think the Republicans had any good candidate for that race, Eddie. The country had been through eight years of President Bush (the first six years with de facto Republican control of Congress), the economy was tanking, people were getting tired of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there was a general perception that the Republicans had failed to deliver on their promises to voters.

          I think the only way the Republicans might have won the White House against Obama in 2008 would have been to run hard against Bush and the Republican Party. Instead, McCain was jammed between voters who wanted to repudiate George Bush (and the Party) and a conservative base that was insisting he pander to them. It was an almost hopeless situation. And you’re right, McCain wasn’t up to that task. But who was?

  • Jay Thompson

    At the end of the day, it’s about ideas. It’s about solutions. The only think tank in the bunch, Obama included, is Newt Gingrich. If we believe that there is power in words and in truth, then why not believe that the most articulate spokesperson with the best ideas (yeah, including some not so great) should be the one taking on Obama.

    I will support Romney as a last resort; in reality, he is too much like Obama. The one who understands government and its current impasse is Gingrich.

  • Jeannette

    There probably are many Americans who feel and think the same way. I do want to like Gingrich, who I believe is smart and savvy, but I just absolutely CAN NOT warm up to the guy. No matter how hard I tried. I’m not going to try anymore. I just don’t like him and will never like him.

    That leaves, in my opinion, Romney, who may not be as smart or as savvy (or as sneaky, either, for that matter) as Gingrich, but he’s a darn sight better than anybody else. He has a presence, he has experience both in government and in the enterprise system, and I believe he’s a patriot.

    Besides, I looked up “newt” in the dictionary, and it’s just too apt. Sorry, Newt.

  • Shane

    I do believe that Romney has the best chance of beating Obama, though Romney is not a real conservative. However, a moderate Republican seems much better to me than a far left Democrat like Obama, who pledged to “fundamentally transform America.”
    Romney should be able to beat Obama unless Paul runs as a third party candidate, which would give the election to Obama.

  • Dave O’Connor

    Nothing is more predictable than reaction. I agree that Bachman and Santorum (Sanctorum) would be serious swing.
    Obama and secularists have, with their exception for Islam) have scored big points by putting down religion, not as practiced, but as guiding principles.
    The two cited Republican candidates are capitaling on that primarily (add in all the shiboliths).
    And, the issue is; can this be enough to alienate voters. The answer is yes.

  • Neil Johnston Rouse II

    i wish we had a perfect candidate. i wish the democrats had one, that anyone had one. we do the best we can with what we have. i’m not even going to go so far as to say anyone would be better than obama, but almost anybody. i’m content to just be rid of obama for four years while we continue to judge our own, and maybe look for a primary challenger for ’16.

  • robin in fl

    ok Bernie..I agree 100% ,so here is MY pick…

    I hear Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is going to run as a Libertarian in a third party for people like me..I like that idea..so I hearby nominate him and you as his VP ..

    I can see it now: JOHNSON/ GOLDBERG 2012!!!!!!

    now thats a ticket I would vote for in a second :)

  • Webmaster

    Sadly, I think you are correct in your outcome.

    As Obama openly throws taxpayer money away on lavish vacations, White House parties that embrace Hollywood’s 1%, pork for his liberal brothers and sisters in Congress, and extravagant dresses for a wife who had dared to complain, when not First Lady, about the cost of paying a teacher’s minimum wage for her children’s piano lessons, where are the people’s complaints? Instead we hear, “Well, Obama is president. He has a right to rest.”

    So I have to ask during the 2007 and 2008 campaign, or even before when Obama was doling out millions for the CAC while working with Ayers in the late 1990s, where did he learn to play golf when having referred to his late grandmother as a “typical white person?”

    A sitting president is supposed to be a role model for thrift and a motivator for success for the country’s citizens, especially during dark times. But as Obama continues to keep his 2008 campaign promise to fundamentally change America, he will do neither.

    With too many Americans not making Obama accountable, especially those in the Democrat Party that surround him and enable, even celebrate, his deceptions, the will is missing for “We the People” to right the ship in the next election. Tragically, it will continue to take on water as if hope and change really floated anything except the lies those words were formed on.

  • judith logue

    As an Independent who has tried my best to follow the Republican candidates with an open mind, there is no way, so far, I can vote for any of them. To me, they are making Obama look better and better. Do you think the current Robert Reich “fantasy” that Obama could get Hilary Clinton to run for Vice-President has any possibility, Bernie? His thinking is that she would then run for President in 2016.

    There is something appealing to many of us feminists about a woman following a biracial President. I’m not sure Romney or Gingrich are going to solve the economy or prevent its further ruin any more than a Democrat, sorry to say. I can’t buy that Obama is not a real American even if he tends to be anti-colonial, liberal, and all of what he is (and is not).

    I think the current Republicans are a sorry lot. My parents (1910 to 2002 combined) always voted Republican, but I don’t think either of them today would be very pleased with Romney. Definitely not Gingrich.

    J

    • rider237

      curious as to what you’d like if you could build your own candidate. i ask because if obama looks good to you in any way, against any person running, a conservative candidate is probably not going to appeal to you.

    • wally

      If you can not see that Obama is a socialist, I feel sorry for you and the rest of the independents that think this way. I am convinced that he wants to change the US into his version of Europe. He really believes that the government should redistribute all wealth to the remainder of the citizens. Any of the republicans would be acceptable over Obama. In fact, I would vote any man or women who has run a household since they would be more fiscally responsible than Obama who hasn’t run anything other than his mouth. His idea of stimulating the economy has been to throw money at increased government jobs and green energy jobs. Neither of these stimulate the economy. Government jobs do not create real jobs since they are burdens on the tax payers. The green jobs will be more effective in the distant future but they are not ready for prime time since these types of energy are more costly to everyone and mostly to the middle class and poor who Obama claims he is for. A job that is a true stimulus is the Keystone pipeline project that would not be funded by the tax payer but corporations and private money. What a novel idea. No government money? Plus the pipeline helps to provide US security rather than relying on the Middle East countries. Also, the pipeline would result in reduced and/or maintained costs for the middle class and the poor who then stimulate the economy by purchasing other goods and services.

  • Bill ONeill

    Right on Bernie I could’nt agree more It’s a frighting thought that Obama has even a remote chance of re election. However, if the country did’nt learn their lesson this time after Carter and now Obama I’m afraid there is little hope for the future I sincerely hope this is not the case

  • Tom Manning

    The Election and your comments, I think you are right, none of the Republicans have the moxie to beat Obama Almighty. I am 83( that gives me some wisdom) and I read a lot and look at the news, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Americans do not read anymore. Not what they ought to anyway. A lot of us don’t even know what really has been or is going on in the Middle East, let alone know where it is! It is more important to know the contestants of Dancing With The Stars! The head bashing between Republican contenders has to have the Democrats laughing their guts out.

    Thanks for your wisdom and talent

  • Joseph Maloney

    Yeah, your right about the Republican field. With the defection of Johnson, and possibilities of Paul, and Trump running as Independents, and the Green Party’s Nader. It could ahape up to be a repeat of the 1912 Presidential election, and a win for Obama.

  • Burt Prelutsky

    A brilliant column, Bernie, and I’m not just saying that.

    Happy New Year.

    Burt

    • Charlie

      Yeah, but who’s this “Burt” guy? I sure hope he’s as smart as Bernie thinks he is! :-)

      • ph16

        Charlie,

        Bernie is referring Burt Prelutsky who is a columnist and a writer who authored the book “Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Fransisco” He writes some articles for this websites along with some other columnists.

        • Charlie

          Thanks, ph16. Sorry, I was being facetious. I am a fan of Burt’s writing, and I sincerely hope he is correct in his assessment of 0bama’s chances for reelection.

  • Rick Johnson

    I like Newt more and more. And, by the way, some of our Federal judges should be impeached. No not collected by US Marshalls and brought to DC to explain. However, many are diserving of impeachment and ultimate conviction – you have to admit. Was a fan of Michele Bachmann, but she has developed a habit of sidestepping questions. On O’Reilly, Eric Bolling asked her the dumb question, “if Paul is nominated, would you vote for him?” She didn’t answer! I could have answered: 1) I’ll cross that bridge, if and when I come to it; 2) No Republican is worse than Obama, so of course; 3) No, or Yes. How hard was that, Michele?

  • Fred Pasek

    Not only does he have a shot, but at this pint, I’d make Obama the favorite, and I blame precisely the mentality Bernie uses to come to the deicison to nominate Romney. I’m a Tea Party guy. I see the deflated faces when I meet with my Tea Party groups. Nominating Romney is ripping the heart out of the Tea party, because you’re pushing the guy who spawned the very same massive healthcare plan we stormed the front steps of the Capitol to try to kill.

    Instead of keeping the focus on which of the candidates has the best economic plan to reduce the debt, balance the budget and restore fiscal order, the election has become about precisely the kinds of things Bernie mentions. It’s about whether or not a candidate is too Christian. It’s about whether or not a candidate has “too many ideas.” It’s about whether or not Ron Paul is crazy because he wants a non-interventionist foreign policy. It’s not crazy. Just tell me when the last time someone burned the Swiss flag or one of it’s leaders in effigy. Tell me the last time someone flew a plane into a Swiss building. And Paul isn’t even THAT isolationist.

    The election has become about everything but the fiscal matters that fired up the base in 2010. Congratulations, you guys have won over the Republican voters and they’ll toe the line to vote for Romney. And where there would have been enthusiasm from those of us who were so full of fervor two years ago, you’ll get sulking. Sorry, but that’s just how we feel. Who’s going to pick up the torch and chatter at the office in our stead? Who’ll convince their independent friends that Romney’s the far better alternative to Obama? It won’t be us. I know it sounds like sour grapes, but to those of us who are tight fisted fiscal conservatives, Romney is not anywhere near the top of our list. We just can’t get enthused about him.

    • EddieD_Boston

      You’re wrong about Romneycare. Read my response to rick geiger below.

      I live here. Trust me. The perception nationally is flat wrong.

      • Fred Pasek

        Okay, so why did the Cato Institute say it was going to cost the taxpayers 2 billion more than budgetted? I confess, I don’t know the nitty gritty about Romneycare, but the things I’ve read about it pait it as a very costly endeavor.

        My problem isn’t even so much about looking back to what the candidates have done, it’t that nobody is doing an analysis of what their proposed policies will do to us. I don’t begrudge Romney or any other candidate saying that what he/she has done in the past isn’t what they’ll do in the future. if we voted strictly based on that, then those of us who want a fiscal conservative, would put Ron Paul at the top, Bachmann second, etc..I defy anyone to say that Romney has been more fiscally conservative in his years in government than those tow, or even Gingrich. Now we have their proposed plans, and you would think that the media would sick their accountants on them and have them analyze what would be the effect to every voter if he votes for one or the oither candidate, but instead, peoiple wil be voting based on whether or not they think some newsletters were racist, whether or not someone has too much baggage, etc..And in that kind of an election, Romney will get the nod, because he is clearly the least threatening in the superfluous aspects of an election. But that’s not what I believe people should base their decision on.

        • EddieD_Boston

          It used to be the State would cover ALL unpaid medical bills hospitals would be stuck with when an uninsured person went to the emergency room and stayed overnight etc. Now everyone has insurance and the insurance company pays. The budget maybe be over extended buy compared to the billions the state was paying before this it’s still a good way to fix the problem.
          The is the blue of all blue states. Romney worked with a State House Democrat majority of maybe 90%. I’m not a huge fan of his but he’s better than Obama and all other Republicans.

  • Bill Coffey SR.

    Idiot, Obama VS the T.E.A. Party. If they are 100% for our candidate we win. Case Closed. As far as this country becoming a theocracy ‘your term’ I prefer back to what the founding fathers incorporated. So get out of Washington and stop worrying about loosing your connections if us Constitutional Conservatives win. Your friend, someone who gets his rights from the Creator and not the State.

  • Andy

    Bernie:

    I agree with you 99.9% of the time. I own all of your books and never miss you on O’Reilly but I’m surprised – yet not that surprised – at this article.

    Let me explain. I’m Jewish and was brought up in a Democratic household (picture of JFK hangs at my parents’ house). I’m one of the few Republicans of my Jewish friends and family. Trust me, most of these people aren’t informed about issues. They were brought up to vote for a Democrat and think EXACTLY like your 2 surprising quotes:

    1. “I never felt comfortable with any of the Republican candidates for president.”

    2) “Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum would turn the country into a theocracy.” Do you know how silly this second quote is? I heard the same type of nonsense when Reagan was running in the 80’s. He was a “war-monger” that would bring on Armageddon.

    No wonder 80% of the Jewish electorate keeps voting for Democratic candidates when someone like you who is Conservative, so well-informed and who “gets it,” has these inner feeling of fear ( unwarranted in my opinion) of many Republicans.

  • Bob Weber

    Paul consistently polls higher with independents than Romney or any of the others. I’m not sure how that makes Romney your ‘best chance to win’. You nicely sidestepped the big ‘elephant in the room’ with Romney as well, his religion. He is not just a Mormon, but was a Mormon Bishop for the Boston area. This has been discounted by most of the press, but will likely have a big impact in the polls with evangelicals.

  • Richard Allen

    You are spot on. It’s going to be a crap shoot.

  • Vin Bickler

    Dear Bernie:
    I am nervous, too. There are lots of dumb folks who will vote for BO even though he stinks! Add to that, some folks will not go to the polls to protest the lack of leadership, ethical conduct, and competence that abounds in Washington, D.C.
    The Founding Fathers never envisioned a concept of “career” pols. Term limits are needed in Congress. Same should be required for judges at all levels.
    Happy New Year!
    Vin Bickler
    Beachwood, NJ

    • EddieD_Boston

      There should be some kind of questionnaire filled out in order to vote. Like “have you ever watched the Kardashians”? If you have your stupid and your voting rights should be revoked.

      • EddieD_Boston

        Ooops…should read “you’re stupid”…

  • Ralph M. Hahn

    I’m afraid you’re right, Bernie. If the Republicans lose the White House this year, it’s their own fault. Whoever is #1 in the polls for a week or so, gets all the garbage from the liberal media, the Democrats and their fellow GOP candidates. I think Gingrich, with falling numbers, was the last one to fight back. Until now, Newt was the only GOP candidate who DIDN’T break Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment of speaking ill of other Republicans. If my name was on a primary ballot or mentioned in a poll, I’d surely want the #2 position, not come out as the Top Dog. Among your “other” choices for the GOP nomination, Chris Christie would be the best choice. However, #1, he’s my Governor and I’d like to see ALL of the bad apples in New Jersey government either in jail or out of power. And, unfortunately, #2 he’ll be the recipient of hurtful and hateful ‘fat jokes’ and his record for putting away gangsters and politicians in both parties during his time as U.S. Attorney will be ignored. Letterman could lay-off half of his writers. Another example of personal-attack politics: Sarah Palin. It’s HER fault that her teenaged daughter got pregnant out of wedlock. They say: “If she was a good mother and stayed in the kitchen, Bristol would not have gotten pregnant.” I’m sure that we ALL know of, or have a few young unwed mothers in our families or living on our blocks. Even if they have to hold their noses in the voting booth, Republicans have to stand united and vote Obama out. After South Carolina, maybe they will “take one” for the party.

  • Ken Besig

    I trust Romney, I don’t have any faith in Gingrich.

  • Wallace Flint

    Hi Bernie,
    I see what you mean! Again, it seems the Republicans have “shot themselves in the foot”.Altho I see Michael Reagan is backing Newt Gingrich to carry on the Reagan legacy. I sure hope so- as we have to get that “clown prince” out of the White House! Four more years of Obama is more than we can handle!

    In God We Trust!
    Wally Flint- Booonville, NY

  • Blakely1

    I’m all for a mass junket to New Jersey & getting on our knees to beg Christie to run.
    Maybe we should cry a little, while we do it.

  • rick geiger

    This perpetual myth that Romney has the best chance of beating Obama is the very same myth that gave us John McCain and Bob Dole, but great men and war heroes, but neither which, just like Mitt Romney, was a demonstrable conservative that would generate turnout.

    And this other crazy myth that any conservative will vote for Romney over Obama is pure silliness, not because it is not true, it is, but it is nearly irrelevant in a presidential election.

    Turnout in the correct states is what counts and if anyone cannot tell by now that Romney is disliked by conservatives, well, I don’t know what to say to people that say water is not wet and the sun is not hot…

    Obama is the odds on favorite to win, as much as I hate to say this, and if R’s nominate Romney Obama is nearly sure of a win. Obama still has over 45% approval, when anyone with sense knows his presidency has been a nearly unmitigated disaster on all fronts. That means he needs merely approximately 6 or 7% to get re-elected and 85% of that 6 or 7% will be relative to the turnout in states where there will really be a race. Obama is consummate liar, he has master manipulator in Axelrod that will generate huge turnout of Obama’s base, and as well all know, there will be considerable fraud in voting that benefits Obama.

    For the Repub’s to nominate a milquetoast liberal eastern Repub who implemented and still supports mandatory state run healthcare is close to being suicidal. Really if R’s nominate Romney, the Republican party has proven only one thing, that collectively, they are, well, just more useful idiots.

    • EddieD_Boston

      You’re wrong. Romney didn’t implement “state run healthcare”.

      You have to have health insurance in MA like you have to have car insurance. There is the Mass Health Connector that assists you in finding affordable health insurance. If you can’t afford the cost the State subsidizes your health insurance premiums.

      Romneycare isn’t state run healthcare. Not even close.

      • rick geiger

        Driving a car is a voluntary activity, breathing is not, so comparing the two is just not accurate.
        And you can call it whatever you want, but MA has a mandate to purchase and the state is a primary payer, that is state run health insurance. They could have just as easily implemented mass competition like vehicle insurance, and they could have then given vouchers as subsidies for those that could not afford it, that would have been a voluntary program that is subsidized. They chose the State managed route, and that is the problem.

        • EddieD_Boston

          The plan is NOT state run. It’s insurance industry/provider run and the state only helps the poor with their premiums.

          • Brian

            At the very least, you can get what is called Health Safety Net. This is a Mass Health product that provides coverage for any medical emergencies. The national perception of “Romneycare” is off-based

    • Steve Angers

      The thinking among those of us who believe that Romney has the best chance to beat President Obama goes something like this, Rick:

      1.) Conservatives may not vote for Romney over Obama, despite really wanting Obama gone, but they certainly aren’t going to vote for Obama.

      2.) Lost conservative support means the loss of one vote and a certain amount of enthusiasm from the campaign (i.e., money, word of mouth support, etc.), although I think it’s a lot more important for a Presidential primary candidate to have a strong “base” of support than it is for a general election candidate.

      3.) A very conservative Republican candidate, certainly any in the current field, runs the risk of alienating many independent, “swing” voters who just can’t identify with, or feel comfortable with, their more extreme political positions.

      4.) Most independents who are alienated by the conservative candidate will probably vote to re-elect President Obama.

      5.) Every alienated independent voter is likely to cost the Republicans two votes (i.e., one vote from the Republican candidate and one vote for President Obama), while every alienated conservative voter is probably only going to cost the Republicans one vote (i.e., one vote from the Republican candidate and a vote for a third party candidate, or no vote at all).

      6.) While the electorate is shifting, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida are likely to remain critical, large-electoral-vote-count, battleground states in this election. These states will give the Republicans an opportunity to win large blocks of vital electoral votes away from the President.

      7.) By virtue of their location in the Northeast, Pennsylvania and Ohio will be somewhat familiar with Romney and his style of politics. Their independent voters may be even more likely to feel comfortable voting for him, and less comfortable voting for a conservative from another region of the country.

      8.) The same argument holds true for Florida on account of the large number of northeastern “transplants” now living there.

      If conservatives can “hold their nose” and vote for Romney, the Republicans have an excellent chance of taking back the White House next November. If conservatives can’t bring themselves to vote for Romney, the points listed above still give the Republicans a good chance of winning the Presidency. Romney only becomes a Republican liability if the conservative base bolts the party to form a third party or if many conservatives decide to vote for President Obama to make a point. (I saw something like that happen here in Vermont about twenty years ago and that’s the reason we now have Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Senate, so I’d like to offer a quick “shout out” and “thank you” to all those folks who helped make that happen.)

      If one of the current crop of conservative Republicans wins the Presidential nomination, the party is likely to have a much tougher time winning those critical battleground states mentioned above. Without those states the election is almost certainly lost.

      While I appreciate your enthusiasm for a more conservative candidate, Rick, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. I think the best chance the Republicans have to defeat Barack Obama in November, at least among the existing candidates, is to nominate Mitt Romney. Any other choice is just too likely to fail.

  • David R. Zukerman

    Then let the Convention decide. Perhaps Rewpublicans in convention assembled would respond very favorably to a candidate pleadged to me gided by the principles for leadership set forth in the first half of Federalist No. 57 which opens by implicitly criticizing those seeking the “ambitious sacrifice of the many, to the aggrandizement of the few,” advises our leaders to work for the common good and stay close to the people and asserts that if the people let Congress take advantage of them, it means the people are not interest in democracy.

    I have tried to get word to Ohio’s Gov. John Kasich to endorse the principles stated in Federalist 57 as the basis for reform aimed at revitalizing the founding spirit. If he does issue such a statement — KASICH FOR PRESIDENT!

  • Jenna

    Romney has to has has to have Rubio as his running partner.

    Period.

  • Tim

    I agree that Mitt is the best choice for beating the present president. May we all be spared from another four years of Eric “my people” Holder. I would like a government who looks out for all its citizens and not “the world” Is the USA a country or a bank account for the world to spend.

  • rider237

    Mr Goldberg, God passed on running this time!

    ;-)

  • EddieD_Boston

    One more point…a little off topic…but not really…

    Did anyone else in Bernie Nation notice that the savages throwing punches at each other over Nike sneakers are the same people Obama claims aren’t getting a fair shake and who need more of your tax dollars re-distributed to them?

    Imagine, “poor” people can afford $190 for sneakers. Gimme gimme.

  • EddieD_Boston

    Yes, Romney has the best shot. To independent voters he is the least threatening Republican. Independents decide elections. The other Republicans are over the edge, one way or the other.

    Romney has had business success, which independents know is needed to turn our economy around. People with half a brain know turning us into Greece only makes the economy worse.

    Plus, the idiot in Iran could help Romney by making Obama look weak as Iran taunts us with their growing military capabilities.

    Or Iraq could erupt into civil war (at worst) or sectarian strife (at best).

    How about Romney/Rubio or Romney/Jindal or Romney/Condi Rice (my favorite…Romney’s business experience with Rice’s world affairs experience…pretty formidable, no?)?

  • chuck.tatum

    I can’t believe I’m saying this, but isn’t it time to draft Jeb Bush? I can see the bumper sticker now:

    Don’t Hate On A Brother …. Bush/Christy ’12

    or

    Bush/Christy …. He Ain’t Heavy…Oh, Christy Is.

    • EddieD_Boston

      Don’t hate on a brother. Priceless.

  • Glen Stambaugh

    Sometimes I think we’d be better off with a president who lacked the “chops”.
    Whatever it was Herman had is sorely lacking, and noone has stepped up with BIG ideas to remedy our fiscal woes since his 9-9-9. I’m ready to sign on to whoever picks up this baton from our fallen runner!

    • Steve Angers

      I’d be happy to share the detail of my 1-7-7-6 tax proposal with you some time, Glen, although I have absolutely no interest in running for President. :)

  • Jim Laurie

    If you have faith in Burt (and thanks for posting his columns), wouldn’t it better to have an articulate President who could lead and inspire the American people?

    If Mitt gets the nomination it will be about him, just as much as it would be about Newt, if Newt got the nod. At least Newt can defend himself, demonstratively!

    Mitt’s got the money, but not the quick wit. And, with the passion of a wet dishrag, who’s going to pay attention to anything Mitt has to say?

    • Glen Stambaugh

      I have not made up my mind for all the reasons mentioned, but disagree on your assessment of Mitt’s wit. He also has demonstrated his ability to organize a campain… something Newt’s failed miserably at.

      • Jim Laurie

        Organization has it’s merits, and there’s none better at campaign organization than team Obama. But, Mitt is easily shaken (and stirred). :) Newt, not so much. I wish his campaign was smoother and better funded, but still think he’s a lot sharper and more experienced than Mitt.

      • Jim Laurie

        And besides, McCain beat Romney and Obama beat McCain. Ya think maybe we should give someone else a chance,
        who hasn’t lost to Obama’s last losing opponent?

        • Ron Kean

          Coming in second or even third at another time doesn’t insure defeat in the future.

          Losing millions in a deal or a bankruptcy doesn’t necessarily mean the person will remain poor or a failure for the rest of his life. Abe Lincoln, Steve Jobs and Dean Martin for that matter suffered defeat and loss before greatness.

          Good people and hard workers get their turn at bat and what they do with it can make history.

          • MARINA

            You left out my personal non-politically correct president ever: Harry S. Truman
            and he never earned a college degree – an ex-haberdasher that failed in business and went on to make the most important decision that ended WWII ………and he never looked back on that. That’s leadership and courage!!!!!!!!

  • richard mcenroe

    It would be nice if we could get excited. But sometimes Reagan’s available for the picture and sometimes it’s William Bendix, you go with what you got.

    • Ralph M. Hahn

      Gee, The show MAY have been titled “The Life of Reagan.”

  • waterlilies84

    I would rather not settle for just anyone, but I have to tell you a crazy first term Ron Paul or a not so “principled conservative” Mitt Romney will be better than an off-the-wall BHO. Can you imagine a second-term BHO, nothing to hold him back from his unstated goals??

    • chuck.tatum

      I’m an anyone but Obama person. Yet, I believe Obama would be even more ineffectual in a second term save for the possible Obamacare changes getting enacted.

  • Ron Kean

    I’m for the guy with the best shot. Romney.

    Bernie, you brought up a fine point some time ago. Obama has a high likability quotient. He can be charming.

    Romney’s a steady-as-she-goes type of guy. He seems calculating, patient and confident. We know he’s experienced, successful and organized.

    We should get behind his candidacy now.

    • EddieD_Boston

      You’re right. 100% right. Romney will be a good president, especially if he has a republican majority.

  • Mike

    I just watched Newt in action at a townhall in Mason City, IA. Watch a re-run if you can. Newt is the GOP’s best shot.

    • Brian

      Newt seems a lot more likely to shoot himself in the foot than Mitt. That is the type of thing that will turn voters off.

      • Bob Hadley

        Newt already has holely feet.

        • Ron Kean

          Yes. It’s in his sole.

          • chuck.tatum

            Step OFF! ;)

          • Paul Courtney

            BAM

    • Rick Johnson

      Watched the same one, Mike. I agree – he looks better and better all the time. Not a fan of Romney, because he appears to desperately want to be President – solely to be in the history books. Romney is what I call a windsock – and frankly I’ve had enough of that type of politician. I feel Gingrich wants to solve problems.