The campaigns are well underway now; no one is holding back. The Obama team apparently has come up with the new buzzword. In 2008, of course, it was “Hope and Change.” That obviously won’t work this time around because people would be thinking, “yeah, we do need a change—that might be our only hope.”

So now Democrat legions are to be inspired by the one simple word “Forward,” which is supposed to be a positive message. However, it seems to have gone awry already:

Obama has never broken his bad habit of blaming everything on Bush. Don’t expect that to stop. He’ll have plenty of help, too, from an obliging press corps:

Voters, though, may have a different response when they realize his idea of progress comes at their expense:

Another embarrassing fact that has come to light is that “forward” has historically been a favorite slogan for communist/socialist movements. Did the Obama people know this ahead of time? I find it hard to believe they were unaware of its history. Apparently the association doesn’t bother them all that much. If, though, we see a sharp turn away from the new slogan in the coming days, we will know they have decided it won’t work.

On the Republican side, with the suspension of the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns, Romney is the nominee-in-waiting. While he hasn’t enjoyed the enthusiastic backing of many conservatives, he is the only alternative to another Obama term, so most Republicans have resigned themselves to the inevitable:

The political world is now speculating who will take second place on the ticket. It’s an important decision for Romney, particularly if he wants conservatives to rally to him. Hopefully, more serious thought will go into that choice than was demonstrated four years ago on the Democrat side:

I keep coming back to how the future of the country truly does rest on the outcome this November. This might be the most significant election thus far in my lifetime.

Listening to the panic within the GOP establishment about the possibility of Rick Santorum being the Republican presidential nominee reminds me of 1976 and 1980. The criticisms I hear today of Santorum by GOP insiders are similar to the ones leveled against the “outsider” back in those earlier presidential campaigns. The outsider at that time was a guy named Ronald Reagan.

I remember clearly how adamant his Republican critics were that it would be an embarrassment to have Reagan at the head of the ticket: he was a grade-B movie actor, we were told; he had a tendency to say foolish things; he was too focused on the problems and didn’t have a “sunny” enough disposition. Can you believe that last one, now that everyone points to Reagan’s optimism? But back in the day, he was the one who came across to some as too hardline—he would turn off the moderate voters.

As today, we were gravely informed that disaster would befall the GOP if Reagan were the candidate. So, in 1976, the GOP establishment lined up behind Gerald Ford. Of course, he was the sitting president, so much of that was to be expected. But the venom directed at Reagan was unceasing. In particular, we were assured that a prolonged primary season, one that lasted right up to the convention itself, would destroy any chance Ford would have against Carter. It did go to the convention, and Reagan only barely lost the nomination. While it’s true that Ford lost to Carter, blaming Reagan for that would be to omit how badly Ford performed as the candidate. It also would dismiss the effects of Watergate and Ford’s pardon of Nixon. No, Reagan’s challenge was not the reason Ford lost; he accomplished that all by himself.

Again, in 1980, the Nervous Nellies of the squishy middle wanted someone else besides Reagan, whether it was Bob Dole, Howard Baker, or George H. W. Bush. We were gravely informed once again that a Reagan candidacy would be a disaster because he couldn’t draw in the independent voters. The economy at the time was eerily similar to what it is today. There was a weak incumbent—Carter—just like there is today with Obama. Yet the polls still predicted a Carter victory right up to the week before the election. Imagine all the “I told you so’s” being whispered among the Republican moderates. Well, that election was a blowout for Reagan. The rest is history.

That’s why I’m not swayed by our current crop of Nervous Nellies. They’ve been wrong before; they can be wrong again. What we need is someone who stands for genuine Biblical principles in government—no, that’s not a theocracy—and who’s willing to take on the incumbent philosophically as well as on specific policy issues. We need someone who can explain “why” we need to change our perception of government, not merely tell us “what” he’s going to do. Reagan was good at the “why” as well as the “what.” Santorum deals with foundational thinking, whereas Romney doesn’t seem to have a foundation.

By the way, do you recall that Romney won Michigan this week? Well, you recalled incorrectly. It turns out that the delegates are split 50/50 between Romney and Santorum. In most worlds, that’s called a tie. This isn’t over yet.

The Arizona and Michigan primaries are now behind us. Arizona went as expected, 47% for Romney, 27% for Santorum. It was a winner-take-all primary, so the Santorum team was wise not to spend money there. The focus was on Michigan, which went for Romney 41%-38%.

Both sides will of course spin for the greatest PR effect. For Romney, it is a win, but he had to sweat. It was not the steamroller his people had expected before Santorum’s rise. If he had lost Michigan, where he grew up and his father was a three-term governor, it would have been a severe blow to him on the expectations front. GOP establishment figures were already leaking comments about finding a new candidate if Michigan rejected its native son.

What about Santorum? How does this affect his momentum? It remains to be seen. First, the loss was not by a large margin. Second, it wasn’t a winner-take-all primary, so he will get some delegates. If you look at a map of the state, and which counties he won, you see he grabbed quite a few; he practically owned the central/western counties. Romney, however, took the Detroit area where there was a higher concentration of voters.

Super Tuesday is next week. Current polls have Santorum leading in a number of states such as Ohio, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. Ohio has 66 delegates at stake, which would be a big haul for him. The real question now is whether yesterday’s results will pull down his numbers. Or will his supporters be encouraged by a strong second-place showing in a state where he originally had no hope?

The GOP establishment is breathing easier today, but more tense times for them may be upcoming. If Santorum can pull off a number of victories next week, it could keep him on track for the Texas primary later, where he has a significant lead right now.

The long march to the convention did not end in Michigan.

We now have another example of how President Obama will govern if he wins reelection and has to deal with a completely Republican Congress—he will simply ignore Congress and do what he wants. Why do I say that? Have you heard what he did this week?

A new agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, was created by Congress despite the opposition of most Republicans. Obama nominated Richard Cordray to be the head of the agency. The Senate has to confirm such appointments, as cited in the Constitution. Republicans, though, are concerned that this agency will become an arm of big government to lash out at businesses. Certainly the Obama administration has a history of doing so. Republicans wanted assurances that this new bureaucracy can be kept in check, so they have not yet confirmed Cordray.

The president decided he was tired of waiting and simply placed Cordray in the position, saying that Congress is in recess, so he has the authority to do so. The only problem is that Congress is not in recess. He has merely declared it to be and has acted accordingly.

This is blatantly unconstitutional.

Using unconstitutional means to achieve his goals is not something new to him, but this act of indifference to the rule of law is more obvious than most. Yet he believes he will get away with it, and he’s probably correct in that assessment. Most Americans know so little of constitutional limitations that they won’t think twice about it. Further, he can score political points by saying he is the one trying to protect consumers, while Republicans are siding with big business.

Never mind the truth, just demogogue.

He’s betting this type of inexcusable bravado will be the ticket to a second term. His strategy is clear:

How many will he fool this time?

As a historian, I believe I’m somewhat prepared for less than perfection. I mean, in studying history, one realizes that the really principled people are fewer than they should be, and that we have to settle, more often than not, for less than the ideal. That applies to policies and people.

As I ponder the lineup of contenders for the Republican nomination this year, I’m reminded of that historical lesson. The two top prospects that I had counted on running opted out, leaving a field of potential nominees that are more flawed than usual, in my view. Now that doesn’t mean all are flawed in character, but there’s something in each one that makes him/her far less suited to the presidential role than others I would have chosen.

The one man who keeps bobbing to the surface is Mitt Romney. Conservatives are highly suspect of him, and rightly so. The apologist for Romneycare can hardly be expected to take it to Obama for his dramatic overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system. Any arguments Romney uses against Obama on that front won’t carry much conviction. In fact, it’s in the area of conviction that he’s questioned the most. Is he really pro-life? Is he squishy on homosexual marriage, based on his experience in Massachusetts? Those are important to me, and quite frankly, I don’t trust him. This is why he has a hard time staying on top of the polls. There are simply too many issues about his “core”:

Meanwhile, the conservatives can’t find one candidate around which to rally. Santorum is appealing to some, and he just got the endorsement of a key family issues organization as well as one of the leaders of social conservatives in Iowa. Will that make a difference? How does he overcome the image of a loser after his overwhelming defeat to retain his Senate seat? Bachmann is forceful, but seems too opportunistic. She will attack with relish anyone who is rising above her, even those she used to praise. A little self-serving, perhaps? Perry may have good perspectives and fine ideas, but will he ever be able to communicate them effectively? Paul is a doctrinaire libertarian, not a conservative. On foreign policy, he is little different than the most radical leftist who blames America for everything. Gingrich is a big question mark. He might be a great president, or he might be a disaster. I sense there will be no middle ground with him if he gets the office.

Where does this leave us?

As I said at the beginning, I don’t expect perfection, and sometimes politicians develop into real leaders unexpectedly. This may happen with someone in the current crop of contenders. But are we sure it’s too late for someone else to jump in and shake things up? I would welcome it.

We’re only a couple of weeks away from the Iowa caucuses. Last night Fox News sponsored a Republican debate in Sioux City, the last opportunity for each of the candidates to take their message to a widespread audience. The polls, prior to the debate, have been dynamic in the sense that one can’t really tell who has the upper hand right now. Gingrich leads in some, Romney in another, Paul rising rapidly.

So who was helped and who was hurt by what transpired last night? I watched the whole thing, so I do have some thoughts on that. Let’s start with those at the low end of the polls and work our way up.

Huntsman sounded credible, but still comes across as arrogant and condescending, as if he is the only smart guy in the room and has to lower himself and his rhetoric to make the others understand his wisdom. While some of his answers were fine, there’s no way this debate will elevate his numbers.

Santorum, as always, didn’t get as much airtime as the others, but he took advantage of the time he had to offer sound arguments on national security. He also fired directly at Romney on the issue of same-sex marriage, taking him to task for allowing it to happen in Massachusetts on his watch. What I would like to have happen, I think, is for Santorum to be either the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of Health & Human Services in an upcoming Republican administration. That’s his niche, not the presidency.

Bachmann is someone I want very much to like, but she keeps shoving me away by her strident attacks. Yes, she’s solid on issues, and I appreciate that in her, but she doesn’t come across as presidential, and I’m not at all sure she always has her facts straight. Her insecurity revealed itself when she commented that she was a serious candidate for the presidency. If you have to make that statement, you’ve already lost the argument. It’s like a manager of whatever enterprise, or the head of some department instructing his/her underlings that he/she really is in charge. What Bachmann needs to do is bide her time and run for the Minnesota Senate seat currently occupied by a national embarrassment named Al Franken. She would serve the nation well in that role.

Perry was very likeable this time around. He probably was the most relaxed aspirant on the stage. His ability to poke fun at himself while still offering a conservative critique of current issues was a winning combination. Does that mean he has erased my concerns from earlier debates? Not by a long shot. I’m still not convinced he’s ready for prime time as a presidential contender. Images of a debate with Obama continue to haunt. For me to feel comfortable with him as the Republican choice, he’s going to have to not only maintain what he accomplished last night, but steadily improve.

Paul was his consistent self. That worked well when talking about basic constitutional issues dealing with the economy and scope of government, but I believe he hurt himself big time with his commentary on Iran and the threat to the United States. He sees no real threat, and spent most of his time claiming that his own party is a warmongering entity out to alienate the entire Muslim world. It almost descended into a rant, and I actually felt sorry for him in the middle of it. While I respect Paul’s devotion to constitutionalism, he is a disaster on foreign policy. One can disagree with aggressive nation-building policies without denigrating honest attempts to eliminate Islamic terrorism. He continues to believe that diplomacy will work with Iran. That is foolish and unrealistic. Paul’s numbers were rising prior to this debate; I wouldn’t be surprised to see them plummet now. If the audience was any indication, he’s in trouble. They booed him lustily a couple of times.

Romney was Romney. I’ve said enough about him in previous posts. You know he’s not my favorite for a variety of reasons. He did nothing last night to change my mind. Does he look and sound presidential? Yes. Am I convinced he’s a genuine conservative who can be trusted? No.

Gingrich had to take a lot of heat. At times, he may not have convinced the audience that the charges were unfair, particularly on his role as advisor for Fannie and Freddie. Yet he was steadfast in asserting he was not beholden to them, and that his primary concern was a conservative one—helping people afford housing. He distanced himself from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd on the issue, saying his vision was not the same as welfare-state Democrats. I believe him on that, but appearances are what some people see first and find hard to forget. He was strong on a number of issues—the out-of-control judiciary, for example. Like Perry, he communicated a sense of humor about himself at times, such as when he said he was busy editing his comments in his mind before speaking so he wouldn’t be accused of being “zany,” a Romney critique this past week. On most points, he acquitted himself well.

I will be voting in the Florida primary next month. I’m still assessing the candidates, but I’m giving my hardest look right now to Gingrich. I want to believe he’s for real. I want to believe the old Gingrich has been left behind with respect to his infidelities. I want to believe he can win the general election. I want . . . but remain unconvinced. I’m just glad the primary isn’t today. I have more time to consider.

Be prepared. We’re about to see history rewritten again. Did you know that the Republicans are the ones who want to tax you more? Did you realize that the massive spending over the past three years is their fault? Surely you understand that the jump from a $9 trillion dollar national debt to more than $15 trillion in that same period is due to outlandish financial recklessness by the GOP?

How do we know all these things? Why, President Obama tells us so. What remains now is to see how many of our fellow citizens fall for the line. The president is in full campaign mode [as if he ever abandoned it], trying to pull a Harry Truman and blame a do-nothing Congress for the failure of the economy. He’s half right—the Democrat-controlled Senate has killed a myriad of bills passed by the Republican-dominated House that would have created the proper types of incentives to get the economy on track again.

Oh, but that’s right, the economy is already back on track, isn’t it? The administration touts the drop in the unemployment rate from 9.1% to 8.6% as evidence that Obama’s policies are working. What they don’t want you to grasp is that the main reason for that drop is that more than 300,000 people have given up looking for work; they’ve removed themselves from the potential labor force. That’s a strange kind of recovery.

But let’s give President Obama credit where he’s earned it. He has proved to be hugely successful, if you reinvent the concept of “success”:

Yes, he’s the consummate professional when it comes to that.