Both the GOP presidential nominating race—already underway—and next year’s general election are certain to mirror the near-panic and almost-desperation of the American people as they face one key question: is America declining and on a track to permanent ruin?

None of today’s Republican candidates—or President Obama—ever talks about this.

But that is no surprise: the American people are always ahead of the Political Class.

Hanging over the American electorate is: a mood more pessimistic, fearful, worried, and furious-at-government-and- financial-elites and-the-media than at any time in American history.

While the Tea Party believes a debt-ridden Federal Government is to blame, others believe our system is corrupt—or a “rigged game” that favors the rich and powerful over the rest of the American people.

All of this is the context of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Now, the GOP race: how can a southern-based, heavily evangelical Christian political party nominate a northern-based Mormon?

How can a political party that abhors government-mandated health care plans nominate the first governor in the country to actually impose such a plan on his state?

How can a political party comprised of Tea Party activists nominate the one candidate who does not have a good relationship with the Tea Party?

And yet it is “conventional wisdom” to say that Mitt Romney is the “GOP front-runner.”

Yet each new aspirant with Tea Party support—beginning with Donald Trump last spring and then followed by Bachmann and Perry and now Cain—have all surged to a lead or a close second to Romney—however briefly—before self-imploding. (Cain has not deteriorated—yet.)

What does this tell us about Romney? He is resilient and tougher than he looks. But he is also a lousy political candidate because he does not connect with voters. Period.

Connecting cannot be taught. You either have it—or you don’t. And Mitt doesn’t have it.

So any votes he’s getting now are the result of the failures of his opponents. And that applies to a race versus Barack Obama next fall: Romney gets the anti-Obama voters—and there are a lot of them. It may even be enough to win.

But you can bet that Team Obama—with the complicity of his supporters in the in-the-tank-for-Obama/so-called Mainstream Media—will unleash eight months of merciless attacks on Romney, painting him a phony and a fraud who has taken every conceivable side of every issue (mostly true) and a brutal lay-off artist in private business at Bain Capital (also mostly true). Look for commercials interviewing entire towns of people who lost their jobs when Romney broke up their companies and sold off its parts for huge profits—and thus “enriched” himself.

At the same time, look for the possibility that Team Obama tries to run a pseudo-in-name-only Tea Party candidate for President as a Third Option—all to siphon 5% or more of the vote from Romney.

That 5% might just be enough to tilt a few key states to Obama—and give him a victory in a how-low-can-you-go gutter campaign.

Around April or May—with a nation thoroughly sick by then of both Romney and Obama - there will be a political vacuum waiting for a Third Option.

If the right person indeed steps forward—a savvy anti-politician who is actually a great politician—he can actually win the presidency in this chaotic year.

A true Independent who runs against the Political Class can address both the political and financial corruption that has brought us down.

All of this inside a nation which wants a race to determine how to reverse America’s decline.

Will the 2012 campaign mirror that decline—or be the first step in America’s resurrection?

Pat Caddell, Doug Schoen and John LeBoutillier will analyze the 2012 Presidential and Congressional races on CAMPAIGN CONFIDENTIAL on www.live.Foxnews.com on Monday at a new time: 2 PM ET.

While President Obama’s ratings continue to tumble, the GOP Presidential race—in the wake of last Thursday night’s debate on Fox News/Google/YouTube—has changed. No sooner did Rick Perry turn in his third straight lackadaisical performance but Republicans and Tea Party activists renewed their extraordinary pressure on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to run.

(Read John LeBoutillier’s take on whether that debate was a “turning point” in the GOP race.)

All this and much more will be discussed this week on CAMPAIGN CONFIDENTIAL.

This is TV’s only show that features only people who have done politics for a living—no blow-hard, know-it-all, pontificating, tired, opinion-spewing, boring Talking Head so-called journalists—or self-proclaimed “strategists”—here. CAMPAIGN CONFIDENTIAL has no phony arguments; no interrupting and yelling, no party-ordered Talking Points and no “agendas.” Instead, we let the viewers watch what would be a typical Senior Campaign Staff meeting—either in the White House or up on Capitol Hill—from people who have actually been in those meetings.

So, just before 2 PM on Monday, go to www.live.Foxnews.com and get your computer all set and the volume just right—and enjoy this unique political show.

And read other things at www.johnlebout.com

In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, self-elected political experts are rushing to proclaim, “President Obama is now guaranteed to win again in 2012!”

A word of caution: not so fast.

In 1945, less than six months after he led Great Britain out of the darkest days in her history to defeat Nazi Germany, Prime Minister Winston Churchill was himself defeated at the polls.

More recently, in 1991 President George H.W. Bush defeated Sadaam Hussein’s forces in Kuwait and drove them back into Iraq. By May of 1991 President Bush had a record-high 91% approval rating. Yet 18 months later, Mr. Bush received a mere 37% of the vote in losing to Bill Clinton (and Ross Perot).

So anyone who thinks this wonderful, long-awaited killing of Osama bin Laden guarantees President Obama’s re-election 18 months from now is just plain mistaken and short-sighted.

However, here is a simple, two-point plan that would almost guarantee Obama’s re-election:

1) Use this long-awaited killing of Osama bin Laden as the point of demarcation for the U.S. to end its occupation of Afghanistan. The President could announce, in effect, “We have succeeded in our first mission–to capture or kill Osama bin Laden–and we will leave behind a skeleton force to guarantee our second mission–that Afghanistan will not become the launching pad for more attacks on the United States.”

The President could then order a drawdown of 90,000 troops and leave 5,000-10,000 either in Afghanistan or in the theater to monitor future terrorist activities in Afghanistan.

As for the effect of this withdrawal on the future of Pakistan, their obvious complicity in hiding Bin Laden disqualifies them as an American ally worthy of our help and protection.

In other words, to Hell with them.

2) Obama’s other action which would virtually guarantee his re-election is to make The Grand Bargain–the deal with the Republicans and Tea party Congressmen to cut the National Debt and deficits by changing Pentagon, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending in a fundamental way.

If he did this, the financial markets would rejoice and foreign investors would flock to the US. The reaction would be positive–that the US has finally addressed its long-term budget problems.

Declaring victory in Afghanistan and withdrawing most of our forces and seriously implementing a debt reduction program would leave the GOP almost nowhere to run in 2012. The key voting bloc–independents–would go for Obama in a big, big way.

Only one caveat: if the economy goes back in the tank, then Obama would still have trouble in 2012. Barring that, he’d be heavily favored.

Let’s hope he doesn’t read this column.

Donald Trump’s emergence as a possible 2012 GOP presidential candidate has to be compared to the last billionaire—Ross Perot—who burst onto the political scene in February 1992 on CNN’s Larry King Live and completely altered that race and, in effect, elected Bill Clinton over President George H. W. Bush.

There are a few similarities between Perot and Trump but many differences, too:

• As billionaires they are seen by the public as too rich to be corrupted by our dirty political culture;

• In a time of national economic distress, billionaires are seen as guys who know how to make money when none of us can; they know how to do all the things we cannot do—in sum, many people think billionaires are smarter than anyone else; this is ironic as most people think billionaires don’t pay their fare share of taxes—yet they still want the billionaire to be the savior;

• Ross Perot and Donald Trump do share several characteristics that come from being rich: they are both their own bosses and thus the normal political and media rules do not apply to them;

• They have enormous egos;

• They don’t listen to people very well;

• They can get on any show any time they want—something only a sitting president can do;

• Now, how are Perot and Trump different?

• Perot is a Naval Academy graduate and thus was always a straight-laced square person who wanted to focus his campaign not on himself but more on the debt status of the federal government.

• Perot’s true—and heretofore-unknown—reason for running in 1992 was to ruin George H.W. Bush’s chance of being re-elected as payback for Bush’s criminal behavior in covering-up the truth about the POWs left behind—alive—in Vietnam when the war ended. Bush was head of the CIA in 1976—and has been dirty on the issue ever since. Perot was out to “get” him for this perfidy—and he did.

• But that was all about a serious public policy issue—not about the personal aggrandizement of himself;

• Donald Trump is all about himself—period!

• Everything he touches has to have his name splashed all across it. (Will it become The Trump White House if he wins?)

• Trump’s business and personal behavior over the years is not on the same level as Perot’s pioneering career in computers. Gambling casinos and three marriages are not going to fit with the still-powerful Religious Right—even if much of what (now) says on China and OPEC and Obama strikes a responsive chord.

Conclusion: While our country is floundering in a weak economy, the allure of the billionaire savior can be intoxicating.

But American does not need a savior! We are America’s saviors!!!

Do not fall for the (momentary) allure of the easy fix—the idea that one rich man knows better than we do.

No, as we see with the Tea Party Movement, we, the American people, are pushing, clawing, scratching and fighting to change our country’s economic future. We are saving the country!

We just need to keep on pushing—and, like the Founding Fathers—God’s grace will shine on us.

The Tea Party Movement is the driving force in American politics.

In every aspect of our politics‚both in campaigns, in State Houses and up on Capitol Hill—the Tea Party Movement is re-shaping the debate on debt and the role and scope of government.

This grass-roots, bottom-up movement completely dominated the 2010 GOP senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial primaries—and won almost every contested GOP race. Even long-time conservative senators were defeated in GOP conventions and primaries because, in the eyes of the Tea Party Movement, they were “too liberal” on fiscal issues.

But not every Tea Party GOP nominee won their general election races. The two most notable losers of races that a better GOP candidate would probably have won were Delaware (Christine O’Donnell) and Nevada (Sharon Angle).

With the power of the Tea Party Movement in mind, the best way to analyze the 2012 GOP presidential field is through a Tea Party prism:

• No candidate is going to be the 2012 GOP nominee unless the Tea Party Movement embraces him or her;

• Thus, we can begin to eliminate candidates who are unacceptable to the Tea Party Movement;

• Mitt Romney has gone out of his way to distance himself from Tea Partiers; his RomneyCare health bill dooms him.

• Haley Barbour was a two-decade long inside-the-Beltway lobbyist; the Tea Party Movement abhors lobbyists, insiders and those who have lived off the political system;

• Jon Huntsman—who, you ask?—can forget it. Known in Utah as a “liberal” Republican who then served as Obama’s ambassador to China cannot win the support of the Tea Party Movement.

• Newt? Too self-promoting, too many marriages, too mouthy…has no credibility.

• Donald Trump? While many agree with his China rhetoric, he is un-electable. And he cannot survive serious scrutiny. But, before that happens, he does excite Tea Partiers with his “outsider” image. (It is indeed just an image; Trump has played footsie with long-time Democrat incumbents and funded their campaigns. The Tea Party doesn’t know that—yet. But they will. And they will not embrace him.)

• Forget the other also-rans, too, like Rick Santorum and Rudy Giuliani. No one digs them at all. They are yesterday’s news.

• OK. Who can be the darling of the Tea Party Movement? (But not necessarily someone who can win the general election.)

• Today, they are focusing on Michelle Bachman, who senses that there is no one else right now who excites the Tea Party. They have loved Sarah Palin—and still might if she runs. But her recent absence from the scene has opened up the way for other. Bachman is just Palin 2.0.

• Tim Pawlenty is trying to be all things to all people: he’s trying to have one foot in the GOP Establishment camp and the other foot in the Tea Party camp. The problem is that when you try to be all things to all people, you often end up being nothing to anybody. Pawlenty is also boring—a fatal problem in the era of TV in politics.

• Governor Mitch Daniels is dithering about running. He has a Tea Party-friendly economic story to tell—but he appears to lack the fire in the belly for this 2012 race.

• Huckabee is still very much alive as a candidate—although rumors abound that he is not going to run because he’s making a ton of dough on TV—and he appeals to Evangelicals and to some Tea Partiers, but not all. He is the front-runner right now. But a weak one.

• Ron Paul is more of a libertarian than a Tea Partier—but he does have strong, devoted supporters. He is a good man. But he will not be the GOP nominee or the Tea Party candidate.

Conclusion: the Tea Party Movement will select the 2012 GOP nominee. That is not to say that candidate will win the White House. For example, Michele Bachman could be the Christine O’Donnell/Sharon Angle of the 2012 GOP presidential race: she might win the support of the Tea Party Movement , but she is un-electable in the general election because independent voters will not vote for her.

We on the Right have a big problem: we have no one running—yet—who can win both the support of the Tea Party Movement andcan then win over the crucial independent voters in the fall of 2012.

Obama can be beaten. But only if the exact right kind of candidate runs against him.

So we have to keep looking for just such a candidate.

As President Obama’s ratings again slip into the low-to-mid 40’s, no potential Republican candidate is even close to capturing the imagination and fervor of the huge built-in anti-Obama sentiment inside the GOP, Tea Party and conservative movement.

In fact, the candidates are failing so badly that unelectable names like Donald “I love Hillary and Bill and I have donated tons of cash to liberal Democrats all across this country” Trump and Newt “I cheated on two wives because I love my country so much” Gingrich are actually getting news coverage.

If these two clowns are getting coverage, it tells us that we have no one.

And the so-called serious candidates, like Mitt “I invented ObamaCare before Obama!” Romney and Haley “I was the best danged lobbyist you ever done seen!” Barbour and Tim “I will be all things to all people!” Pawlenty are most definitely not catching fire. In fact, the more they are seen, the less they are liked. Quote after quote from audience members at each public appearance highlight the fact that there is just no passion for any of these men—while there is uber passion to defeat the President in 2012.

At the same time, there is rising discontent on the Right with the GOP House leadership. Speaker Boehner is caught between a rock and a hard place: if he tries to forge deals with the Senate Democrats and the White House, his Tea Party freshmen revolt. Conversely, when he assuages the Right, he has to take such hard-line positions that no deal with the Democrats is possible.

As predicted here before, the Debt Ceiling Increase vote will be an epic battle between the GOP leadership and the Tea Party. It will likely shatter the fragile GOP-Tea Party coalition.

Indeed, Tea Party members all around the nation today are growing increasingly hostile to the GOP—with long-time stalwarts like Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar sure to face difficult primaries in 2012.

Meanwhile, what has happened to the Revolution in the Middle East? Has it fizzled—or is it merely taking a respite?

Egypt: after the initial post-Mubarak heady days of seeming victory, things are back to normal. And it is worth asking: will the Army really allow its power to be diminished by democratic elections? Or will they rig them like all the previous elections?

Libya: Khaddafi has—so far—survived. He butchers his people. It looks like he will stay – at least for a while.

Saudia Arabia and Bahrain: The Saudi Royal Family has learned its lessons and brutally repressed any demonstrations in the Kingdom—and even has crossed into Bahrain to put down Shi’a demonstrations against the Suni Bahraini leadership.

Thus, the sweeping pro-freedom revolution appears to have fizzled out.

Japan: the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown will be used by the Left here to try to stop future nuclear reactors—at a time we need them to offset our dependence of foreign oil.

Here we have oil prices spiking—has anyone thought about $5 per gallon?—and yet the Environmental Left won’t let us drill and also wants to stop future nuclear reactors.

How are we to acquire energy?

Conclusion: the American economy remains in a morass and thus Obama, too, is languishing. But the GOP is in even worse shape.

The only salvation would be a new candidate—spunky and smart—who can unite the Tea Party passion and the GOP and then harness the fervent anti-Obama sentiment that is lurking out there.

When you find that candidate, please give me a call.

The impending federal government shut-down—which could happen at the end of this week or be delayed two weeks—demonstrates the fissures inside a very shaky Republican-Tea Party coalition.

This is an alliance that will not last long.

While Speaker John Boehner has so far bowed to his Tea Party freshmen, his instincts are not with them. He’d prefer to cut a spending deal with Harry Reid and President Obama; the Tea Party people do not want to hear of “deals.” They are not of a mind to compromise with “career politicians.”

So, what we have here is an inevitable—predicted here for the last seven months – train wreck that threatens the GOP majority and opens a door for Obama to get re-elected.

All the inside-the-beltway self-congratulation over Boehner’s move to take $4 Billion of cuts from Obama’s budget next year and moving that into this year and believing that will satisfy the Tea Party people is way, way off base.

All indication from Tea Party people around the country is that they are—if this is possible—even angrier about DC’s spending habits than they were a year ago, when they defeated establishment Republicans all across the country in GOP senatorial and gubernatorial primaries.

With the 2012 GOP presidential race beginning with Newt’s imminent announcement, we will soon see the Tea Party voters force the GOP even more to the Right. We will see these GOP presidential candidates racing to get ahead of each other in criticizing not just Obama, but the GOP establishment in Congress. If Boehner and McConnell try to do a deal with Obama and Harry Reid, it will be scorned and attacked by these presidential candidates.

Thus we will see the Republican Party attacking itself!

The future 2012 presidential nominee will probably have been the man who was most critical of his party’s congressional leadership—the very people he would have to work with if he won the White House in November of 2012.

This is what we are headed for.

The past spending practices of the Republicans—especially from 2001–2007 under G.W. Bush—are what has given rise inside the GOP of the Tea Party anger at the Richard Lugars and Orrin Hatches and Olympia Snowes, all of whom will face severe Tea Party primaries in 2012.

Believe this: the national Republican Party as we have come to know it is about to be blasted into oblivion by Tea Party grass-roots rage against the Establishment’s way of doing things in DC.

What will be left of the Republican Party is yet to be determined. But one year from today—in the midst of the presidential primaries—the GOP will look substantially different than it does today.

Also, do not be surprised if the GOP presidential candidate comes from out-of-the blue and is filled with the same anti-establishment rage that has fueled the rise of the Tea Party Movement. He will not be some DC establishment guy—like a Newt Gingric—masquerading as a true Tea Partier.

No, the next Republican president will have to be a true Tea Party revolutionary.

The just-completed C-PAC annual meeting has–gain–shown us that we on the Right do not have a front-runner or even a plausible candidate to unite us as we head into the crucial 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

In fact, C-PAC demonstrated that the organized Right, which sold its soul to a faux conservative in 2000, G.W. Bush, and then supported him and an irresponsible GOP-run Congress as they partnered to bankrupt our public fisc and squander our moral and military advantage for six years, is now devoid of a true conservative who understands and believes in the principles that separate us from the squishy middle and the out-of-touch Left.

First, this C-PAC event shamed itself by inviting Donald Trump to speak. Who can take him seriously in a political context? He is not, nor has he ever been a conservative. How quickly C-PAC organizers apparently forget Trump’s support of and praise for both Bill and Hillary Clinton in all their campaigns–as well as the scores of other liberal Democrats he has financed in states where he buys their influence for his business interests. How quickly they also forget Trump’s sordid marital and sexual history.

This is someone to be listened to? Especially as he trashes the one candidate, Ron Paul, who has maintained steady and consistent principles for over thirty years?

Last Sunday we celebrated the 100th birthday of America’s greatest conservative leader, Ronald Reagan. But by Thursday we were listening to Donald Trump comment on public issues?

Do we need any more proof how far off the rails the Right has gone?

As for the other possible GOP 2012 presidential candidates, it is clear none of them connected in any emotional way with the majority of conservative activists sitting in that hotel ball room over the weekend and who came to DC desperate to find a new leader.

Instead, the candidates demonstrated their ability to pander–and their scripted anti-Obama rhetoric–but noneof them–other than Ron Paul-touched the souls of the thousands of activists who are the Army of the Right.

A note about Ron Paul: he is indeed a libertarian more than a traditional conservative. But the key to Ron is his constant adherence to his principles no matter how many times he has been defeated or his ideas rejected. Ron is the Energizer Bunny of the libertarian right–and we on the Right all respect that perseverance, as we have all been rejected, humiliated and treated with contempt over time by the smug leftists who think they are smarter than everyone else.

It was poor form of Trump to come to C-PAC and dump on Ron Paul. And it shows that Trump did not know his audience—or did not care about their respect for Congressman Paul.

What is clear is that we do not have a candidate–yet-who can unite the Right and win a majority of the crucial independent voters. Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee and Barbour? It doesn’t look like any of them can do it. Nor can the others we have seen. They are lackluster and boring and without that special spark that could ignite a prairie fire that sweeps all across this land and then arrives in Washington determined to change the role of the federal government in our lives.

It may be that the GOP will again nominate a dud, ala McCain and Dole–and, frankly, both Bushes, who were uninspiring candidates who won because of other factors (Bush I won because Reagan was President and was handing the Oval Office off to Bush and Bush II might not really have won at all!).

If we do pick another uninspiring, inarticulate, unprincipled bore, Obama will win a second term.

But maybe–somewhere, somehow–in the next year a new candidate will emerge who can bring the passion of the Tea Party and the legacy of the Republican Party together and then give us a chance to save this country from the leftward lurch that threatens to bankrupt us all.

• By the end of the year, the unemployment rate will still be unacceptably too high–in the 8 - 8.5% range. And that will turn the country even more sour about the economy, the future and the 2012 elections.

• Articles will appear asking this question: has any incumbent president ever been re-elected with unemployment north of 7% or 8%?

• While President Obama will not have a Democratic Party challenger, he will be viewed as beatable in November 2012. The Upper Mid-West–from Ohio to Minnesota–all states he won in 2008–will now be against him and his Electoral College math will be difficult.

• Both parties are going to be viewed negatively by the end of 2011 precisely because the economy continues to flounder.

• GOP control of the House will cause a split inside the Republicans between Tea Party conservatives who want to address the National Debt and regular Republicans who want to cut more taxes to stimulate the economy.

• Sarah Palin will continue to dominate the talk of the GOP race for the presidential nomination. She will continue to prevent any other new “star” to emerge from the pack.

• By the end of 2011 no Republican will have emerged as the favorite for the GOP presidential nomination. Sarah Palin will still the most talked-about Republican candidate. She will have catchy one-liners at the TV debates which begin in June. There will be eight white guys—and Palin—up on the stage—and she will dominate the news of these debates.

• Instead, there will—again—be a flavor du jour—a new, hot, favorite candidate, each of whom lasts for a week or two only to fade and be replaced by the next faddish wave.

• A Big Fight will be over the extension of the Debt Ceiling. This has to be voted on by the House and Senate. The establishment is already saying to the new Tea Party elected conservatives, “You have to vote to extend the debt ceiling!” And these Tea Party-backed new Senators and Congressmen are replying, “I did NOT come here to run up more debt!!!” So look out for an explosion over this by spring.

• Cathleen Parker doesn’t make it to March 1 on CNN’s Parker/Spitzer. And the show itself–so dreadful you cannot watch it–doesn’t last past May 1. And if it does last longer it is only because everything on that network is unwatchable.

• The Big Scandal–written about in this space a few years ago–is still simmering. This is a scandal bigger than Watergate. It envelopes both major political parties. There will be progress in 2011 in blowing this open. And if it does blow, it will severely alter the 2012 presidential race.

My first thought when the news broke on Monday night about the deal to extend the Bush Era Tax cuts: The Republicans secretly placed a new script on President Obama’s TelePrompTer: “I now love tax breaks for millionaires!”

Barack Obama finally became an engaged President. He made a deal designed to get the economy moving by 2012 so that he can get re-elected. The fact that the Left hates this deal shows that Obama is trying to seize the center—again—and win the 2012 election.

Obama’s first two years of massive federal spending—corporate takeovers, TARP and the Stimulus Bill—failed miserably to generate private sector economic growth. And time is running out for him to wait for the economy to start growing.

As a friend of mine put it, 9% unemployment is the over/under for Obama’s re-election chances. Above 9% and he is toast (unless the GOP nominates Palin) and under 9% and he has a fighting chance to be re-elected on the argument that “I have gotten our economy back on track.”

Now Obama has channeled Ronald Reagan with his payroll tax cut and agreement to keep the Bush Ear tax cuts in effect and even to cut the estate tax rates. No wonder the Left is going nuts! Their great hope—Barack Obama—is more Reagan and Bush than they can stomach!

The only loser in this arrangement is the long-term financial viability of our nation as another almost-one trillion dollars will be added onto the already staggering $14Trillion debt we are carrying.

But the President and the GOP leadership decided it was more important to juice the economy now—in advance of the 2012 election (after all, everyone in the House is up for re-election in 2012, too)—and worry about the debt later.

If it works, Obama can get himself re-elected in 2012. If it does not work, the consequences for both parties will be catastrophic. The anger that catapulted the Tea Party Movement to political prominence this year will compound itself into a “throw ‘em all out” fury in 2012.

Here is a terrible conundrum: we all want our fellow Americans to do well, to be happy, to find the jobs they desire. We all want the economy to recover–and soon. But if that recovery happens, it is likely that Barack Obama will get the credit (presidents get the blame or credit regardless of what they do) and will be a strong favorite to be re-elected in 2012. Furthermore, his Big Government spending spree will be credited with the recovery–just as FDR’s New Deal “cured” the Great Depression. For generations to come, historians, political scientists and economists will once again praise massive federal spending as the sure-fire cure-all for economic problems.

On the other hand, we can’t be rooting for the economy to remain lifeless. Yes, that might very well spell doom for President Obama’s chances in 2012. But do we want years more of the misery we are experiencing now?

No!

So we root for economic recovery. And if the price is Obama gets re-elected, so be it. Maybe the Republican House and a 2012-elected GOP-controlled Senate can restrain the worst of Obama.

By the way, many economists do not believe we are poised for a real job-creating recovery. The stimulus was a flop. And there isn’t enough in the system to ignite a true recovery. Thus the Fed’s move to buy $600 billion more of Treasuries as yet another way to inject liquidity into a frozen lending and investing situation.

Meanwhile the 2010 election is over. The Republican/Tea Party/conservative movement has won a startlingly large victory. President Obama and Nancy Pelosi have been severely rebuked by the American people–even though they don’t seem to understand why.

The next—and only order of business—re-invigorating the economy–will include major decisions over taxes, the raising of the National Debt Limit, and the hardest of them all: curtailing entitlement and Pentagon spending.

The American business community will be watching carefully. DC’s decisions will determine whether or not consumers, banks and business begin spending again and thus hiring workers again.

But here is the crux of the matter: if the economy does not improve and if the unemployment numbers don’t drop substantially by the 2012 election, both parties and President Obama will have a hard time being re-elected. This year’s Tea Party anti-establishment fervor will seem like a festive holiday compared to what will greet the Political Establishment in 2012 unless things improve.

There will be an opening for a credible Independent Candidate to come along and run against both political parties.

We do not–as of today–know who this person might be. But with the power of on-line fundraising, this Independent Candidate does not have to be rich, ala Ross Perot in 1992. No, nowadays you can raise the money from hundreds of thousands of people online in the snap of a finger.

Conversely, if things do improve by 2012, then Obama and incumbents in both parties will most likely be re-elected. We will have more status quo, with no one wanting to rock the boat by making any large, revolutionary structural changes. Thus, the deficits and debt will continue.

Conclusion: the United States is in deep, deep trouble–all caused by our own addiction to personal, state and federal debt. In the long run we might overcome this problem, but we have a long way to go before we get there. Politically, the results of this debt-ridden economy are going to roil us for several more election cycles. We are billiard-balling back and forth–from the Republicans to the Democrats and back–in rapid time. The voters are impatient. They are shopping for someone and some party to fix this mess. The GOP has been given a new life. Will they make the right moves? Or will they misstep–again–and hand it back to the Democrats?

Stay tuned. We’ll find out in the next year.

Barack Obama’s presidency is quickly descending into Jimmy Carter territory. That means he is not only out-of-the-mainstream and out-of-touch, he is now being seen as an incompetent president. And once that happens, the vultures begin to circle.

Recent evidence that this is happening:

• Democrat Congressional candidates are begging the White House not to campaign for them this fall; these candidates do not want to be photographed with Obama! Who would have predicted that 18 months ago?

• The President’s performance on the New York City Ground Zero Mosque has roiled his weakening political situation;

• Rahm Emanuel spent three days this week on the phone begging Democrats not to split – as Harry Reid did – from the President over this Mosque issue;

• New polls show an increase in the number of Americans who believe Obama is a Muslim; and these polls were conducted before his ham-handed handling of the Mosque controversy.

• A new story has been published revealing that the President still has not joined a DC area Christian church. He says it “would be too disruptive for the church” if he joined. What hogwash!

• Add in the recent Michelle Obama Spain trip and the President being left alone on his 49th birthday and you have to wonder exactly what is going on inside the Obama White House and the Obama Family, too.

All of this makes political professionals scratch their heads. The smooth-running 2008 campaign operation has not translated to a well-run White House. Take the Mosque: Friday night at a Ramadan dinner in the White House, the President reads from his ever-present TelePrompter and clearly referred to the controversial downtown NYC Mosque, despite his next-day denials.

For that speech to make it up to the TelePrompter it had to go through a series of White House offices–ranging from speech-writing to the political office and probably the National Security Council as well–before getting to the Senior Staff for their review. So what Obama said that night was indeed the policy of the White House. This was not some off-the-cuff gaffe.

Clearly by the next morning the White House was besieged with calls of protest from stupefied Democrats running for office this year begging the President to back off. And thus Mr. Obama did try to retract his Friday night statement–thus now showing a lack of command for the issue.

He is indeed incompetent. He fumbles each issue–and reacts to criticism with lightning speed by often reversing himself.

If we use the Jimmy Carter analogy, then let us follow it all the way. By 1980 Democrats were split over re-electing Carter. And the GOP had an establishment candidate in George H.W. Bush versus the outsider, Ronald Reagan. Reagan trounced Bush and then trounced Carter.

So, is something similar shaping up for 2012?

Or will the GOP this time – like they did in 1996 and 2008–opt for a mediocre, boring, un-daring, timid candidate who will be easy meat even for Obama?

That is the question.

Do you want to know why the American electorate is simultaneously furious, disconsolate, pessimistic and at times beyond hope?

Because our government(s)–federal, state and local-are on the wrong side of numerous issues and against the majority of Americans! Look at these six hot-button issues:

• Amnesty for illegals coupled with no border security and no punishment for American employers who hire illegals. No issue has undercut Americans’ belief in their Federal Government more. Thus the Arizona law–and the huge national support for it. Yet one un-elected judge stops the law–for now.

• The Obama Health Care Bill. We had our first direct voter test in a Missouri statewide referendum last Tuesday. A whopping 71% rejected the federal mandate that each of us must have/buy health insurance. Plus, national polls show that over 62% want this bill repealed. Yet it is the law of the land.

• Excessive government spending and endless bail-outs. A clear majority of the American people want these to stop. But Obama, Congress and many states persist in even more spending. And now the House has voted another $26 Billion for public teachers unions. They took that money from Defense, another area of enormous spending (and one in which since 9/11 the Military, Industrial and Intelligence Complex milks patriotism to justify endless expenditures).

• Extending the tax cuts. 70% of Americas want these kept in place, knowing that to raise taxes in this economy is certain to cause an even more severe economic slow-down. Yet Obama, Pelosi and Reid persist in blasting the “Bush tax cuts” as the reason for our present economic plight and promising to let them expire. Crazy.

• The Gay Marriage ruling by one federal judge last week–again–shows the disconnect between the people and the un-elected elites. A clear majority of Californians voted against gay marriage. But one gay judge over-rules them. For now.

• The Mosque in New York City near Ground Zero is another case: Mayor Bloomberg and some Super Lefties want to defy the overwhelming view of citizens and place this mosque smack dab next to Ground Zero–and public will be damned! No wonder Bloomberg’s popularity has gone under 50%. Let’s hope it goes even lower. His arrogance knows no bounds.

It is crazy that in America the majority of Americans are ignored–repeatedly–and arrogantly by the very people they elect!

All of these examples show why the American voter is so ornery this year. And why November 2, 2010 will be a seminal day with many, many incumbents being voted out of office.

However, one election does not a problem fix. No, we need the same spirit to be in effect in 2012 to go after the other Senators who are up for re-election and to defeat an out-of-touch, too-far-left, and inept President Barack Obama, too.

And then these newly elected office-holders need to remember the anger they heard on the campaign trail and translate that into what will be very unpopular among the political class inside the DC Beltway and among their sycophants in the dying, so-called Mainstream Media. The screaming about the “draconian” cuts and changes will be deafening. But these newly-elected people either carry out the changes mandated by the electorate–or else they, too, will get the heave-ho in the next election.

It has taken decades of corruption and incompetence and political cowardice and the refusal to simply say one word–No–to get us into a state of near national bankruptcy.

It will take us more than one election to fix it.

It will be a rocky road.

But America will one day return as the economic leader of the world.

The national economy–again–stalls. No new jobs are created. The immigration issue–again–becomes red hot. And the health care bill–still–is unpopular. Well, we can assume that 2012 will be a watershed election year with an at least a semi-unpopular and thus vulnerable incumbent, Barack Obama, who can possibly be defeated. This is a far cry from November 2008 when he was proclaimed the New Messiah.

But–and it is a big “but”–“you can’t beat somebody with nobody.” The Republican Party has a penchant for nominating “nobodies” for President lately. Let us remind ourselves of some recent disasters:

• In 2008 the GOP nominated John McCain, perhaps the most disastrous nominee possible. He refused to attack Obama; he wouldn’t even allow McCain surrogate speakers to use Obama’s middle name–Hussein!

• McCain is/was/always will be pro-amnesty-for-illegals–so he and Obama had the same position and thus there never was a debate in the 2008 election about immigration;

• Back in 1996, when Bill Clinton was vulnerable after the 1994 Republican Revolution, the GOP nominated Bob Dole, a great man, a great American and a great US Senator–but a total disaster as a national presidential candidate; (Perot drawing 9% of the vote away from the GOP didn’t help, either);

• Even in 2000, the GOP selected G.W. Bush who barely – maybe defeated the biggest dud stiff bore political candidate ever: Al Gore. Yes, on pure candidate skills, Bush was better that Gore. But he still wasn’t exactly scintillating.

What exactly makes someone a great political candidate?
Here are my Five Tools that make a great political candidate:

1) Fire in the belly. This overriding hunger borders on the obsessive. Virtually all successful political candidates, no matter how well they disguise it, would "walk over their mothers" to win, as Nixon White House aide Charles Colson once put it.

2) Self-discipline. The ability to rein in one's own worst instincts, habits and weaknesses. Both President Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich ruined their legacies through a lack of personal self-discipline. The speaker couldn't keep his mouth shut; the president couldn't keep his fly shut.

3) Authoritative presence. Especially in the television era, candidates must project an air of gravitas and weight. Dan Quayle's "deer in the headlights" look undercut anything he said or did.

4) Raising money. All successful candidates find a way to raise enough money to win. Some, like JFK, merely ask their fathers to pay. Others spend years developing a network of donors; others cultivate special interests. However they do it, winning candidates always come up with "the mother's milk of politics."

5) Communicating a positive vision. Derided by President George H.W. Bush as "that vision thing," it is this singular ability that elevated presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt into the political Hall of Fame. The skill to speak in a way that inspires voters is invaluable–and very rare. (No wonder so many campaigns today resort to "negative campaigning"; their candidates are incapable of painting with voice and words a believable picture of a better future.)

When a candidate has all five of these–and especially Numbers 3 and 5–then you really have a potential star.

All the so-far mentioned 2012 GOP candidates–Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Daniels and Barbour–have some good points. But none of them are sincere or talented at Numbers 3 and 5.

Our fear must be that through the 2012 primaries and caucuses, the winnowing process will bring the GOP back to its boring, staid old self–and thus turn off the Tea Party fervor which is the hottest political movement in decades.

What we should be looking for in our 2012 candidate is a conservative who can sell conservatism–and also attract middle-of-the-road independents–all the while being pleasantly on the attack against the liberals, using humor and a light touch to harness the underlying fear and anxiety we are all feeling about our country’s future.

A tall order indeed.

The 2012 candidate who can do this has not yet surfaced. Let us hope he soon will.

Whether anyone realizes it or not, we are smack dab in the middle of one of the most exciting eras in American history.

We are witnessing–and are a part of–yet another chapter in America’s ongoing revolution.

Our Founders created a political system specifically designed to allow the people to change their government through an orderly system of elections and, if possible and if necessary, constitutional revision.

The United States of America in the summer of 2010 is in terrible trouble. We all know it. Our finances are a mess. Our two political parties epitomize the greed, the short-sightedness and the lack of self-discipline that we all despise.

Others, too, are partly responsible for this morass: Big Business’ behavior is disgusting. And the so-called Mainstream Media’s obvious leftward bias had roiled our political system, along with causing the demise of so many one-time bastions of the media. (Have you noticed that conservative-leaning TV, radio and papers are surviving the recession just fine, thank you very much. It is the leftist ones who are hemorrhaging readers, viewers and listeners. Do you think there might be a message in there somewhere?)

Too many Americans–and uninvited visitors, too–see the Government as a Hand-Out Machine with no financial consequences.

The President of the United States appears oblivious to all that is happening around him. Clearly in over his head, he rigidly sticks to the wrong priorities–he identifies with the wrong side of almost every major national argument-and he has repeatedly chosen the wrong way of enacting laws that a majority of the American people oppose.

All of this has to change–and is going to change after the much-needed major mid-course correction that is coming in November.

Why is this exciting?

Because the Founding Fathers’ system is working!

The people are ticked off–and they will order the government to change this November by firing dozens of incumbents. And if the Government does not listen to the people after this election – as Obama, Pelosi and Reid have not–then in 2012 the people will again force change by firing even more of those who hold these high offices.

As a conservative it is indeed an exciting time.

Could we soon see a reversal of the trend toward more and more government as the panacea for all our ills?

Could we soon see policies enacted to lower the disgustingly enormous national debt?

Could America–the home of risk and reward and boldness and innovation–soon re-emerge as the leader she was destined to be?

Could we, the American People, soon have a federal government that listens to us and does what we want?

The answer will come in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

We should all fear a looming disastrous debt-driven new recession.

Greece was not an isolated case of a national government living beyond its means. No, that problem–The Consquences of Irresponsible Deficit Spending (CIDS)–is certain to spread first to some of the other PIIGS nations: Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain. But now it is thought that England and the United States may also be in for the same consequences: austerity budgets which cause social dislocation.

The riots in Athens came from people protesting draconian cuts in government pensions. Greece had to make these cuts in order to qualify for the massive almost-one trillion dollar bail-out from the EU and the World Bank. The real story here is that western European socialism has virtually bankrupted all these countries. Germany and France are ahead of the game; they elected more conservative governments in the past several years and are already economizing, as painful as that might be.

Last week’s British election is yet another sign that belt-tightening is the new winning formula in elective politics. While the Conservatives did not win an outright majority of the seats in Parliament, they won enough to create the first unity government in over half a century. That government has pledged to reverse the increase in government spending.

Meanwhile, here in America, what does Obama’s Washington do?

It expands federal spending at a faster rate than at any time since World War II.

It increases deficits faster than all administrations preceding it.

It increases the national debt to an unfathomable $13.4 Trillion.

Yes, irresponsible spending by Republican Presidents and Congresses have greatly contributed to the mess. But Obama has only accelerated the trend—and at a time when history shows us it is a mistake.

There is no doubt that the next president–either elected in 2012 or 2016–will have the unenviable task of actually trying to reduce federal spending, including the third-rails of American politics: Social Security and Medicare.

Why?

Because we are facing federal bankruptcy, hyper-inflation, collapse of the dollar and a corresponding inability to maintain our national defenses and economic standard of living.

This is what the two major political parties have brought us to.

No wonder the Tea Party Movement is sweeping long-time incumbents of both parties out of office.

And no wonder 80% of the American people do not trust the government, according to a new Pew Poll.

Obama’s “change” has not been a change at all; rather it has been more spending at a time we cannot afford it.

The “change” is coming each Tuesday as Democrat and Republican incumbents are being thrown out of office in their own parties.

We are in the midst of a political revolution. The “old” politicians, the “old” media, the “old” pundits, the “old” ways are O.U.T.

The “new”? Well, ironically, the “new” is the oldest way of thinking of all: we—as a nation and as individuals and families—can only spend what we take in, we cannot live beyond our means, we must save, we must be modest and we must have self-discipline.

All these traits made America the envy of the world.

And all have been flushed away in a greedy, arrogant rush for immediate self-gratification.

That oft-invoked Day of Reckoning is indeed here.

America and Americans, are you willing to “change” your ways to regain America’s status as that Shining City on the Hill?

THE FIRST 2012 PRIMARY

Long before we on the Right can worry about defeating President Obama in 2012, we have to come up with an electable—and presidential—candidate—and one who, if elected, will run the country according to traditional, conservative economic and foreign policy principles.

And the key to that task is to find a candidate who can unite all the disparate factions and groups on the Right—and also appeal to the all-important independent voters, especially the Tea Partiers who have grown disgusted with the Establishment of both political parties.

In other words, this first 2012 primary is the race to be anointed Mr. Conservative.

This is, in sum, a difficult task.

To illustrate: Yes, Sarah Palin is the champion of many on the Right. In fact, they adore her. And she is exciting and good on TV.

But more people view her negatively—a lot more. She is even more polarizing than Obama!

She can not unite the Right and the independents. Instead, she drives many voters away from what could be a winning message in 2012.

Mitt Romney? Can he be Mr. Conservative?

Can a man who ran for US Senate in Massachusetts by saying, “I don’t want to go back to Ronald Reagan” but who then campaigned at the Reagan Library in a pathetic attempt to become a Reagan disciple, truly become the heir to Reagan?

Can the man who actually implemented ObamaCare and now wants to run against it be seen as a true conservative?

No.

He cannot.

And he will not.

There is something insincere about Romney. He is indeed an “elegant snake oil salesman.”

So who is the new Mr. Conservative?

Well, we do not yet have one.

In fact, we haven’t had one for quite a while. We have had several poseurs for this position: Newt for a while when the 1994 Republican Revolution burst on the scene. He was brilliant during this period; he does come up with some innovative ideas. But his massive ego subsumed the movement which then morphed into the Gingrich Revolution and soon petered out.

Then along came G.W. Bush, campaigning as the Son of Reagan—i.e. cowboy motif, gaudy belt buckles and cowboy boots, a ranch (with no animals, by the way) instead of the Son of Bush. It took people a long time—delayed by 9/11 and Iraq and his hiding behind the courageous troops he was using as political cover—to figure out the Bushes are fraudulent conservatives who pretend to be on the Right but in reality are closer to Rockefeller Big Government Republicans. (Must I remind you of the lie of No New Taxes from Poppy Bush and the lies about massive deficit spending and “nation building” from Junior Bush?)

In 2007-2008 various other poseurs for this position of Mr. Conservative surfaced: Fred Thompson and then Mike Huckabee. But after a few weeks’ exposure they faded into weekend TV shows and little-heard radio commentaries.

By default—and the absence of a unifying Mr. Conservative—John McCain won the 2008 GOP nomination. The Right was un-enthused by McCain. Obama won. It was inevitable after the Bush Years, Katrina, the crashing financial situation and two wars.

But 2012 could be—depending on the jobs situation—the Year of the Conservative.

If it is to be a big year for our side then Mr. Conservative needs to lead the way.

So far he has not yet appeared.

Will he?

Stay tuned.

More to come—soon!

A Look at the 2012 GOP Presidential Race

Because Mitt Romney is on a pre-2012 presidential campaign book tour—and because Sarah Palin is constantly in the news—and because President Barack Obama is in self-destruct mode—let’s take a look far, far ahead at the present state of the 2012 GOP race for president. After all, 2012 is now wide-open:

Romney is a bit hot right now. He is back in the news, on TV and radio shows. He is a good-looking man and with a business background he can speak to the still-deteriorating economic situation all around us. He has learned from some of his mistakes from the 2008 race, too. He now appears more humble.

However, he also has many of the same problems from the past: he is a political chameleon who can change a position at the drop of a hat. He was an enthusiastic booster—and as governor, a signer—of Massachusetts’ own version of ObamaCare. It is now widely unpopular in the Bay State—and one of the reasons Scott Brown won that January 19 special senate election.

Health care premiums have exploded in Massachusetts since that bill was enacted—and may very well be a precursor of what will happen nationally if ObamaCare passes.

Is Romney the Republican ONE or is he, as someone recently put it, an “elegant snake oil salesman”? (See answer below.)

Sarah Palin hit a home run as a stand-up comic on Jay Leno last week. She is just plain good on TV. She is shopping an Alaskan reality show with mega-producer Mark Burnett. She has the Fox News gig and earns huge speaking fees. In sum, she is raking in the big bucks.

If she runs for president in 2012 then she has to stop most of this money-making. Or, another way to read it is that she is making this money—people look at her on TV and pay to hear her speak—precisely because she might run for president. So, if she does not run, does much of this money-making capability dry up? Or is she banking a ton of dough now and will worry about running later?

Either way she is a major player for this pre-primary period. If she says she is not running, then it is a new race altogether. But until then she dominates all the calculations, sucks up the political oxygen and complicates the race—and the fundraising—for all other candidates.

Speaking of other candidates there are the usual names: Huckabee, Pawlenty, Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels. They all bring something unique to the table. The question is: can any of them “connect” with voters and light a fire?

In late 2007 and early 2008 Huckabee caught fire, passed Romney – who never caught fire at any time in the entire race by the way—but then that fire petered out. No one else caught fire inside the GOP. So McCain won by default. He was a terrible candidate who ran a horrible race.

Today’s fire is not inside the Republican Party. It is inside the Tea Party anti-establishment movement.

This is a movement that sees the establishment of both parties plus Wall Street, Hollywood and the Big Media as corrupt, dirty and rigged. And they are!

This is what the Tea Party Movement is all about.

And the next ONE—the next Reagan—the next Mr. Conservative—has to feel this anger in his bones. No, he can’t come across as an angry person. But he has to feel this anger and this despair and translate it into all his speeches and interviews. Only then will he “connect” and catch fire with this growing band of swing voters who will elect the next president in 2012.

Mitt Romney does not connect. Nor does he really feel that anger. He may yet win—by default; he may stand out in a desultory field the way McCain did in 2008. But he will never really lead this country. You know why not? Because he doesn’t really believe in anything. He looks good but stands for nothing. And this will be his undoing.

The One we are all waiting for—the next real leader of this nation—has not yet appeared on the national stage.

Let us hope he does by 2012.

Sarah Palin is enormously popular.

And she is also enormously unpopular—even among many on the Right.

Sarah Palin is a good watch on TV.

She is also erratic. And slightly hyper. And full of contradictions.

Sarah Palin is good-looking to many men.

And she is “a bit loopey” to many other men—and women, too.

Sarah Palin is a leader of many conservatives. But to other conservatives, she ruined herself with her sudden—and inexplicable—resignation last summer. Many wonder, “if we invest our hopes in her, will she just up and quit one day when the going gets tough?”

She is glib.

But to others she speaks only in generalities and does not seem to really know anything.

Some see her as a breath of fresh air.

Others see her as George W. Bush in a skirt.

All of the above is part of the fascination with Sarah Palin. And the conundrum for the Republican Party.

If she decides to run for the GOP nomination in 2012 it will rip the Republican Party—and the conservative movement—apart. Perhaps forever.

All at a time when we must defeat Obama. The country cannot take a second Obama term; we are barely going to survive his first term.

But there are many who worry that Palin on the GOP ticket will send independent voters—who have as of now totally abandoned Obama—scurrying reluctantly back to him.

And many others just do not think she is up to the job of being President of the United States.

The 2012 GOP presidential race will revolve around her. And her alone.

If she runs, no other candidate will get any “oxygen”—and the fundraising will be skewed in her favor, too. All the attention will be on her—and on no one else.

She has 25% of the hard right who adore her. But that is all she has. That bloc might win some caucuses and primaries for her. And it will skew the remaining votes and divide them up among other GOP candidates.

In sum, she is an unexploded IED thrown into the 2012 race. The collateral damage is impossible to calculate.

If she does not run, then the race is wide open. And, as of now, we do not have a great candidate on the scene. But there is still time for one to appear.

If she does run, the Republican Party will be ripped apart over her candidacy. And the eventual winner—if it is someone other than her—will have a wrecked party and a discredited, divided conservative movement behind him.

Although it is way, way too early to even begin to think of 2012, it is possible that President Obama will not choose to run again in 2012.

In fact, there is a 30% chance of this.

Why?

Because he already has planted the seed of possibility that he will simply walk away and not risk a humiliating defeat.

Three times in recent interviews he has raised the possibility of “not running again” or, as he told Diane Sawyer this week, being a “good one-term President.”

Why would a new President already float the idea that he might just chuck it all?

Is it because he is scared of losing in 2012?

Or is it a ploy to look as if he is “above” politics?

Or is it something deeper? Is it that he is a diffident, emotionally distant man who does not really enjoy the rough and tumble of inside-the-Beltway politics?

Sure, he loved all the adulation as The One and The Messiah as he campaigned for President. But since his honeymoon ended last summer, he has had a rough “go”—what with his patriotism, brains, judgement, and citizenship questioned.

Both Barack and Michelle Obama—going all the way back to the 2007-2008 campaign—at times acted as if it was a step down for them to deign to run for the Oval Office. She once said in 2008, as things were getting rough with the Clintons, that this would be the “only time” the Obamas would go through this.

Now, in office, President Obama says, “It’s better to be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”

Hmmmm… A “good one-term president” will get re-elected and thus have a chance to be something Obama never mentioned: a great two-term president.

So far Obama is not even a mediocre one-termer. He is on track to be a failed one-termer; another Jimmy Carter.

He does have time to turn things around. If the economy improves and if the unemployment rate drops substantially he can get re-elected.

He will—no matter what happens—be able to get re-nominated. An African American Democrat President can not be defeated for the 2012 Democratic nomination. Talk of a Hillary Clinton challenging Obama in the Democratic primaries is pie-in-the-sky. Ain’t gonna happen.

But what might happen is this: when 2012 begins and unemployment is at 9%, polling shows Obama in deep, deep political trouble. In polls he loses head-to-head match-ups to several Republican candidates. Democrats are panicked—especially after huge 2010 mid-term losses in the House and Senate. There is a sourness in the political system and among a nervous electorate.

In the midst of this, Obama surprises the nation by announcing that he will not run again; he says, “I want to devote this year to governing, not campaigning.”

It might happen.

A 30% chance it will happen.