OPTION NUMBER 1

It’s January of 2013. Obama has just been sworn in for his second term in office after a relatively easy campaign against one of the GOP’s usual lame nominees.

BUT…

The new Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress have also taken their seats.

Now what?

1)    DeMint (great conservative) replaces McConnell (weenie) as Senate Majority Leader. Paul Ryan (great conservative) or Cantor replaces Boehner (weenie) as Speaker of the House. GOP-controlled Congress finally grows a spine, gets its act together, and actually starts passing conservative legislation. Obambi threatens to veto everything. Congress holds firm, and the PR war begins. The experienced true conservatives controlling the message defeat Obambi, and he’s basically gelded for the remainder of his term.

or

2)     The GOP leadership under the new majorities remains the same. Ignoring the fact that their ascension to congressional control is due to conservative/Tea Party support, the GOPers lapse back into their usual ways of being wary of criticism from the MSM and their fear of not being invited to the fun parties in DC. Obambi takes control of the message as confrontations begin, and with the help of a complicit press outmaneuvers the GOPers in Congress, managing to save parts of his agenda, though in watered-down form.

OPTION NUMBER 2

It’s January of 2013. Romney/Gingrich/(other Establishment GOP Hack) is being sworn in for his first term as President.

AND…

The new Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress have also taken their seats.

Now what?

1)     The Establishment GOPers in both chambers of Congress decide it’s back to business as usual, since the old GOP “message” of being the Dem-Lite Party worked once again, a la both Bushes and now the new guy. Tea Party conservatism is shoved to the back burner. The country continues to hurtle toward the cliff, but just a little bit slower.

and

2)     The Democrats feel especially emboldened, because even though they lost significant ground in the election, they see the President as being weak in the traditional “reach-across-the-aisle” mode, and they know that if they continue to play their traditional hardball they’ll be able to continue pushing their agenda forward, though in weakened form… for now. They’re encouraged, because the results of the election have assured them that the GOP still hasn’t even learned what a “hardball” is.

or

3)     Congressional GOPers – with the understanding that their electoral sweep is due to the unrest of traditional American conservatives, including “Independents” and Tea Partiers –  elect a hardcore conservative leadership and force the new “moderate” President down the path of true Reaganist conservatism. Frankly, I consider this the least likely scenario of all.

OPTION NUMER 3

It’s January of 2013. The new President – one in the Reagan mold – is being sworn in for his first term in office.

AND…

The new Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress have also taken their seats.

Now what?

1)     The GOP finally gets the message – at least temporarily – that traditional American conservatism is the vehicle that drove their electoral success. They heed the message and put forward their policies, the only hope for the future of this country.

2)     There is no “2)”. There’d better not be.

Because here’s where the rubber really meets the road; any meaningful recovery from over seventy years (with the exception of the eight-year Reagan Era) of primarily liberal and socialist policies – from FDR to Obama – is going to be extremely painful. Can it even be done?

I don’t know. I do know that if we don’t even give it this shot, this country as we know it is over.

But it’s going to require political courage of a magnitude that was required to carry out the Revolution and the Civil War. Do any of today’s politicians have that level of courage, conviction, and skill?

Again, I don’t know.

Even more importantly, do the American people have those qualities?

Once again, I don’t know. I see signs of it.

As we all know, Giuliani dropped out (good!), but McCain – AKA “Juan McAmnesty” – won the nomination and went on to lose to Obama.

I lived up to my promise and refused to vote for McAmnesty, and am glad to this day that I did so. I believe that his loss to Obama fueled the fires that led to the formation of the Tea Parties – of which I consider myself an unofficial founding member – which as far as I can see is the only hope for the survival of this country as we know it. I got so disgusted with the GOP that I cancelled my membership of almost 40 years and re-registered as “Decline to State”, Commiefornia’s version of “Independent”.

Now the GOP is poised to commit the same error again, ignoring Santayana’s dictum that “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it”. Let’s take a look at who’s throwing their hats into the ring this time.

MITT ROMNEY

Good… Grief.

This is the guy who, during his time as Governor of Massachusetts, signed into law the state’s mandatory healthcare law, the very same law that was used as a guide by the socialists in Congress and the White House when they foisted Obamacare on the country.

So, when he officially announced his candidacy, in full knowledge that Obamacare is one of the huge issues with conservatives, what did he do? Did he renounce his support of that program? Say he’d reconsidered and realized that it was a bad idea?

Nope. He tried to rationalize the whole thing by saying that he thought it was the right idea at the time and for that state, and that the states were designed to be the “laboratories of democracy” where ideas are tried out and either succeed or fail.

Well, that second part is true… but that doesn’t make the idea of socialized medicine any the more palatable just because it’s at the state level. In other words, Mitt’s clueless as to what he REALLY did wrong, i.e. he failed to stand up for traditional American conservatism and principles.

Further, he gets a failing grade in smarts for not even getting that NOW, when he’s trying to get the GOP’s nod as the candidate.

Even were he to get the nomination, his opponent would beat him to death with the FACT that he supported socialized medicine when he had a chance to stand against it. It’s called “hypocrisy”, and it’s a character failing.

LOSER.

NEWT GINGRICH

The moon-faced former conservative named for an amphibious reptile.

Gingrich lost all “conservative” creds with me when he sat on that couch with Pelosi in those TV ads bleating about “climate change”. What the hell was he thinking? He’s either incredibly politically stupid – sitting on the couch with conservatives’ avowed ENEMY? – or he really believes in that “climate change” garbage, in which case he’s the wrong guy for the job anyway.

Then today, on “Meet The Press” (Here), he said this:

“I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.”

That’s a slightly modified version of the Obamacare “mandate”. The very same idea that’s so unconstitutional and so inflames conservatives. It’s the very essence of the meaning of the words “socialized medicine”!

What in God’s name gives this Bozo the right to call himself “conservative”?

Then, of course, there’s Gingrich’s “personal baggage”, of which there’s enough to fill a barge. Girlfriends, wives, affairs, divorce papers served to one on her deathbed, congressional investigations; a soap opera worthy of Peyton Place or Bill Clinton.

So… a fake conservative with loads of baggage he can be clubbed over the head with.

Now we want to take THAT national?

Yeah, he hasn’t formally announced… yet. Hopefully, he was just playing for some face time on camera, and he’ll go back to “firing” D-List “celebrities”. The guy’s a complete joke; the Clown Prince of this election Silly Season.

His tough talk was just meaningless mumbo-jumbo. How’s he going to “force” Saudi Arabia to lower its oil prices? How’s he going to “force” China to open its markets to the US? Those are sovereign nations. Is he planning on going to war with them? Is he going to go to war with every country with which we have disputes? Isn’t that gonna spread us pretty thin? Is he planning to do that without congressional approval, which is required by law?

He’s just a blowhard promising the moon, which he will be completely unable to deliver… again just like our girly-man Governator.

RON PAUL

Paul’s announced another run for the office. Paul’s an interesting study. He has a small following of devoted, almost cultish devotees, mostly extreme libertarian types.

He also has some very, very good ideas in line with traditional conservatism. Unfortunately, when he goes wandering off into some of his more “libertarian” beliefs, he goes WAY off the reservation.

He’s for legalizing all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. He doesn’t believe we should engage in any wars, pretty much, unless our own country is directly attacked. His policy on immigration is garbled; he’s for unrestricted and uncontrolled immigration when times are good; not so much when times are bad. He doesn’t believe in round-ups and deportation, but he’s against amnesty. He’s all over the map. Stuff like that. As far as I can tell, there’s no coherence nor consistency to his stances on issues, which is confusing to voters (to say the least).

Zero chance of even getting the nomination.

SARAH PALIN

She hasn’t said she’s going to run. She hasn’t said she not going to run. Like Fred Thompson did last time, she seems to be playing a game of tantalization in which she’s waiting to see how many people are going to “clamor” for her candidacy.

Personally, for a variety of reasons I don’t think she’s qualified for the job. But I’m not going to go into that. I’d rather assess her strengths and weaknesses as a candidate.

She has a very strong following of devotees, like Paul and Trump. She also has a very large disapproval rating. Hand it to Palin; people either love her or hate her. There doesn’t seem to be any middle ground.

Like Trump (and Schwarzenegger), she seems to talk in platitudes and slogans, with little real meat in the bun. But far more importantly, she has very little experience at which she can point as qualification for the job as President of the United States, arguably the most powerful individual in the world.

She has one uncompleted term as Governor of Alaska, a state with a population smaller than that of Los Angeles County. She didn’t even complete that term, quitting for incomprehensible reasons never clearly articulated. Something about the “strain” put on her family. Well… what about the pressures of the job of Prez of the USofA? I think those would make the job of Alaska’s governor pale by comparison. So people can’t help but ask themselves: what would you do as Prez? You going to quit that, too?

That’s the problem with being labeled a “quitter”. It sticks.

She also has absolutely zero foreign policy experience or expertise.

Then there’s her position on amnesty for illegal aliens. Her last official position, when she was McCain’s running mate, was pro-amnesty. As I said, a deal-killer for me. Since then, she’s never disavowed nor even modified her position. She’s got the same problem with amnesty that Romney has with socialized medicine. Yet more weaknesses and inconsistencies with which her opponent can club her to death, and use to alienate from her the base support she’d need to win.

Unless something radically changes, if she gets the GOP nod, I vote third-party again. Further, if she gets the nod I think she goes down in flames, big time.

LOSER.

So, there you have it. My analysis – for what it’s worth – of the state of the GOP race for the nomination and presidency as of now.

Bottom line: the GOP is poised to make the same errors they did four years ago, which could give Obama the second term he wants so badly. Now, that’s not quite the disaster it may seem to many. If the GOP retains the House, and particularly if they take the Senate, and especially if they start paying more attention to the base and the Tea Partiers, a second Obama term would be pretty harmless, as he’d be gelded by a GOP-controlled Congress.

I have to say, as an Independent – the demographic both parties claim to clamor over – there’s no way I vote for Obama… but there’s no way I vote for any of these five people, either. If any of these people are the GOP nominee I’ll be voting third-party again.