In discussing the race for the Republican presidential nomination, my goal has been to be forthright and honest about why I believe certain candidates are not the best options, and I’ve also made it pretty clear where my sympathies lie. What it comes to down to is either Romney or the anti-Romney.

Romney is the establishment’s choice. He will never upset the status quo, and he won’t make them nervous with deeply held convictions. A list of issues where he has changed from one side to the other is rather extensive: abortion; amnesty for illegals; tax cuts; gun control; global warming . . .

About the only thing he’s remained solid on is his support for Romneycare, which included an individual mandate and has kept healthcare costs in Massachusetts higher than in any other state.

Is this really what we want as the standard-bearer for Republicanism? Can’t you just see Obama rejoicing that his own disastrous healthcare debacle will be taken off the table as an issue in the campaign if Romney is the candidate? How can Romney, with credibility, attack that plan?

So, as I said, it’s either Romney or the anti-Romney. Who will take up that mantle? Let’s be honest–neither Santorum nor Bachmann has a chance at the nomination. Ron Paul, as I’ve said before, has ardent supporters [so ardent that they sometimes cross the line into rudeness], but not breadth of support. He’ll never get the nomination. Perry has self-destructed. While his supporters believe he can make a comeback, I’d rate that as improbable. Neither is it desirable, in my estimation, due to his lack of debating skill. He would be trounced by Obama on stage. Gingrich is smart, knowledgeable, and great in debate, but has too much of a history of alienating people to be able to unite either the party or the nation.

That leaves Herman Cain. Yes, I know there are some questions about his grasp of foreign affairs, yet he told Sean Hannity this week that he has devoted himself to studying those issues to the point where he believes he will know more about them than his questioners. He confused people with his abortion comments, but the context in which he stated them was relegated to the rare cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Most seem to miss that point.

What he does bring to the race is a solid and successful business background that emphasized problem-solving. He also brings a spirit of joy and he inspires those who hear him speak. No, this is not an Obama rerun—Cain is common sense and speaks to the people, not down to them. He also has the added promise of drawing black voters to the GOP in numbers no one would imagine possible. If he is the candidate, the racism issue should die a much-deserved death.

Currently, Cain is either tied or ahead of Romney in most polls except New Hampshire. His financial backing is on the rise, which has also allowed him to expand his field team in key states. People are asking whether he’s for real. The media has been slow to pick up on this phenomenon:

Cain’s increased prominence has the potential to alter stereotypical thinking:

It’s still too early to predict that Cain’s upswing will continue. You never can tell what is around the bend in politics. But it would be the height of folly to dismiss him as a serious candidate. The Republican establishment turned its back on Barry Goldwater in 1964 and it ridiculed Ronald Reagan when he challenged Gerald Ford in 1976 and when he ran again in 1980. The establishment got its way with Goldwater, but was stunned by Reagan. May it be stunned again—that is my prayer.

Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.

I haven’t said much about foreign affairs lately, so let’s catch up a bit. The really big news, of course, is the death of Qaddafi in Libya. Some are touting it as a major step forward for “democracy.” While I’m glad the delusional tyrant is gone, don’t count me among those who believe the future is rosy in that part of the world:

Change is not always synonymous with progress.

Speaking of change, that would be nice for Venezuela. Yet it appears Hugo Chavez is hanging on, to the detriment of the country he rules:

And then there’s Iraq. President Obama has declared our mission complete by the end of this year, and most troops will be removed. While I am always glad to keep our soldiers out of harm’s way, this is a bittersweet withdrawal:

I realize we can’t stay forever, and that Iraq must stand on its own, but will this now be a vacuum that Iran will fill? How can that be a better scenario? No easy answers in the Middle East, but it would be tragic if Iran now becomes the neighborhood bully. What’s Obama’s plan about that? Or is this primarily a campaign strategy? Forgive me if my cynicism is showing.

It’s really kind of funny to hear some critics say Herman Cain is not an authentic black man like Obama. Let’s compare.

• Obama was from a mixed marriage; he had a white mother. He was raised, essentially, by his white grandmother. Cain’s all-black parents raised him themselves with his father working three jobs to make ends meet.
• Obama went to a fancy prep school in Hawaii, then on to Columbia and Harvard. Cain attended his local segregated school, then went on to all-black Morehouse College. He later got a master’s degree from Purdue, which is good, but not at all Ivy League.
• Obama has never held a private sector job, unless you count his time as a community organizer; yet that “job” was totally political in its orientation, and he was eased through the Chicago machine into state politics. Cain had to overcome racial obstacles on his own, taking charge of his life and moving up the ladder one step at a time. He entered the private sector after his stint in the navy and was eminently successful. The “pick yourself up by your own bootstraps” story come to life.

Here’s another difference between the two black leaders:

While Cain is touting his plan to remake the tax system and move toward the Fair Tax, Obama is busy using the taxpayer money for really important purposes:

Cain—the self-made man. Obama—the elite, privileged man. Yes, there is a difference. And let’s please forget all this talk about being authentically black. Racial politics must end. When are we finally going to judge a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character? Sound familiar?

I don’t know too many people who would have the time to join the “occupy” movement. Most of the people I know occupy jobs. It takes a special kind of person to participate in an extended protest/vacation.

Since they hate capitalism, anyway, they probably don’t mind being unemployed. I mean, why buttress the evil system? They’ve got dads who can do that:

They hope, of course, to get positive coverage. They don’t have to worry:

Thank God [literally] for alternative sources for news.

I love history books that read like novels. History is a story and should be told accordingly. Character, plot, and all other features of a good novel should be incorporated. As long as the story is fully documented and doesn’t deviate from the facts, it can be a delight to read. I just finished one such book. It’s called Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine, and the Murder of a President by Candice Millard.

Few Americans know much about President James Garfield. Those who do only know that he was shot a mere four months after taking office and lingered for another two and half months before dying in September 1881. That’s the extent of our collective knowledge, if we know anything about it at all. As a historian, I had further details. For instance, I knew that Garfield was an evangelical Christian who was ordained through the Disciples of Christ. I also knew that he was a reformer in the best sense—not someone who believed that the federal government should take on responsibility that belongs to individuals, but a man who sought to remove the corruption of the spoils system. As president, in those four short months before the fateful day when he was shot, he already had taken bold steps in that direction.

This book, though, opened up a vista of new information about the man: his commitment to protecting the civil rights of former slaves; the deep relationship he developed with his wife; the high regard in which he was held even by political opponents because of his integrity and kindness. Upon finishing this book, I felt the pain of the loss of someone who could have been a good friend, if I had lived at that time.

The book also paints a portrait of Charles Guiteau, the assassin. All I ever heard was that he was a disappointed office-seeker, perhaps a little crazy. Both are true, but only scratch the surface of the madness a man can exhibit when he gives himself over to megalomania. At first, he was part of a commune that believed in “complex marriage.” He later tried to fashion an identity as a traveling evangelist, but most of his traveling was to stay one step ahead of those to whom he owed money.

After Garfield’s election, Guiteau believed he himself was responsible for the victory and that he was owed an ambassadorship to France. He was wildly out of touch with reality. He finally came to the conclusion that God wanted him to remove Garfield so that the vice president, Chester Arthur, would become president, which would pave the way for Guiteau to realize his dreams. He thought the American people would hail him as a hero. He was literally out of his mind.

The entire American public followed the drama of Garfield’s treatment, hoping that the man they admired would recover from his wounds. The greatest irony is that he would have recovered, if not for the proud, arrogant doctor who took charge of his care—a doctor who rejected the new theory of protecting against germs and infection. Garfield eventually succumbed due to the mistreatment he received at that doctor’s hands. Along the way, the author also gets us better acquainted with Alexander Graham Bell, who was called upon to try a new invention to find the bullet lodged in the president.

The story is tragic. Yet it is a story well told, one that will grip you as you quickly pass from chapter to chapter. Even though you know the ending, you keep hoping it won’t turn out the way it did. In short, this is a terrific read, one that you won’t soon forget.

Much of the attention politically has been on the Republican side lately since there’s an actual competition for the nomination. On the Democrat side, there’s no drama. Every once in a while, a rumor floats about Hillary Clinton planning a run against her boss, but that’s not much more than fluff. No way that’s going to happen. The rumor gets circulated because of the spreading discontent with Obama within his party, but the rumormongers are going to have to come to grips with the brute fact that the establishment is on his side and will brook no rebellion in the ranks.

Given a choice between governing and campaigning, Obama has always found the latter more to his liking. It’s a lot more fun making promises and bashing opponents than it is having to deal with the reality of his failed policies. So in the guise of touting a so-called jobs bill, he is on the road quite often now, in campaign mode, all the while pretending that’s not what he’s doing:

But, hey, give him some credit—he’s an excellent pretender in many ways. Lately, he’s taken to identifying with the “Occupy” movement, claiming to be one with them in their attacks on Wall Street, a rather humorous identification since the Wall Streeters have filled the coffers for the Democrats for some time. The idea that Wall Street is Republican territory only is more mythology than truth:

Pretty brazen.