Romney and Huntsman vs. the Rest

November 26th, 2011 at 9:46 am David Frum | 145 Comments |

| Print

In my column for the National Post, I explain why Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are the best contenders in the GOP presidential field:

I’m looking for two chief things in a candidate for 2012:

1) The temperament, judgment, deftness and largeness of spirit required in the presidential office; and

2) The creativity and intellect to respond to the global economic crisis – a crisis threatening to actually get worse if (or when) the euro implodes.

Those conditions obviously and categorically exclude the clownish Herman Cain, the daffy Ron Paul, the dim Rick Perry and the firebrand congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

A step up from those four is former U.S. senator Rick Santorum. Santorum, who is the only candidate in the race to talk about the stagnation of wages and the slowing of upward mobility in the United States. Unfortunately, Santorum – a fierce social conservative – speaks for too narrow a slice of modern America. Santorum has also never held any administrative responsibility. It’s not enough for a president to say “do this” or “do that.” Issuing the orders is the easy part. The president must ensure that “this” and “that” actually happen. If you have never had such a responsibility before, the White House is a bad place to learn – as President Obama (who also lacked any prior administrative experience) proves on a daily basis.

The Republican flavour of the month, Newt Gingrich, likewise flunks condition one. As Speaker of the House, Gingrich was notorious for his indiscipline. Where he does excel is in the use of rhetoric to divide and provoke. Take, for example, his musing last September in front of reporters: “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behaviour, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? … That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behaviour.”

Back in the 1990s, Gingrich made himself one of the most disliked figures in the recent history of American politics. As American political commentator Jay Cost reminds us, within 24 months of becoming Speaker, Gingrich had forced a shutdown of the federal government and sunk to an approve/disapprove rating of negative 25. There Gingrich languished through ethics challenges, impeachment and the revelation that he’d been carrying on an extra-marital affair while attacking Bill Clinton’s own sexual misconduct.

A Gingrich presidency, if such a thing can even be imagined, would be a chaotic catastrophe. A Gingrich nomination would yield an Obama landslide.

So that leaves us with the two governors, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. Romney has the better record as an administrator. I still think that his Massachusetts health-care plan showed creative leadership on an important problem – even if he himself now declines to defend his own accomplishment.

Click here to read the full column.

Recent Posts by David Frum



145 Comments so far ↓

  • overshoot

    Speculating about Huntsman is pointless: he’s counting his support not in percentages but in individual supporters. And he doesn’t have to take off his shoes to do it.

    Romney? He might well be a competent administrator. However, as a leader he’s totally rudderless. His theme song might as well be Bohemian Rhapsody: “Any way the wind blows, doesn’t really matter to me.”

    At best, we’d have a foreign policy that is a direct continuation of the Bush Administration and a domestic agenda driven by Paul Ryan. If we’re lucky.

    • Nanotek

      + 1

    • ZombieTory

      I know that if I were running the world’s last superpower I would set it on a strict, uncompromising course. Competent leadership must take a back-seat to the U.S.’s predestined journey towards Utopia.

      Pragmatism? Adaptability? These things would only lead us off track when some unexpected crisis threatens to divert us from our perfect “conservative” vision. Damn the consequences! We know what’s right, we know our destiny and we won’t let reality get in our way!

    • medinnus

      While I fully acknowledge that Huntsman doesn’t have the numbers yet, lets bear in mind that Huntsman’s approach has always been to focus on the primary in New Hampshire; if his strategy works (and it could, y’know), he’ll be in a much better position.

      His performance in the foreign policy debates has strengthened his position in the pundit class, and that allows him to be focused upon by the GOP, instead of the “might as well not exist” coverage that had gone before.

      Between the two of those, Huntsman is essentially back in the game. True, he’s a member of the LDS church like Romney, but he has a track record of consistency where his positions and policies are. He has executive experience. If he can get the moderates and the centrists to back him, and the Christianist Evangelists stay home because they don’t care which Mormon gets the victory… then he stands a good chance.

      In the general election, I feel Huntsman is the only GOP primary candidate who can take the otherwise-inevitable victory from Obama. Huntsman will not have the centrist-alienating baggage that all the other candidates have, and he has actual policy that aren’t sound bites of mindless Obama-bashing.

      And if not, he’s the only balancing Vice Presidential option for ANY of the idiots in the field…

      • Houndentenor

        Why do I suspect that “moderate” and “centrist” in Utah would be far right in 2/3 of the states? Candidates always think they can get Democrats and Republicans to work together once they are elected. And then they get to Washington and discover immediately that they can’t. Why doesn’t everyone laugh whenever anyone makes this delusional claim (and yes, Obama made it too and so do most candidates from both parties).

        • overshoot

          Candidates always think they can get Democrats and Republicans to work together once they are elected. And then they get to Washington and discover immediately that they can’t.

          They think that all it takes is offering the former enemies-to-the-death a chance for reconciliation and forgiveness and they’ll happily abandon their evil ways. If you want to see how that works and what happens next, look up “Martin Luther” and “Jews.”

  • Nanotek

    ” largeness of spirit required in the presidential office”

    don’t the opposing positions Mitt Romney has argued — including reproductive freedom, marriage equality and Ohio’s repealed anti-union law — disqualify him from largeness of spirit?

    if not, I do not think it means what you think it means, Vizzini

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo

    • overshoot

      I don’t think largeness means what you think it means, Vizzini

      Romney’s spirit is large enough to embrace all possible positions.

      • Nanotek

        an excellent point … I stand corrected

      • Probabilistic

        Including mischievously, nay deceptively, attributing a quote from a John McCain lackey to President Obama. Some examples of Romney’s large spirited nature would be illuminating.

  • sweatyb

    The president must ensure that “this” and “that” actually happen. If you have never had such a responsibility before, the White House is a bad place to learn – as President Obama (who also lacked any prior administrative experience) proves on a daily basis.

    This argument is not going to work when the Republican candidate is going head-to-head with Obama. One reason is the killing of Osama bin Laden. Another reason is “this and that” is pretty much as specific a policy position as any enunciated by the candidates themselves.

    I am skeptical that Romney or Huntsman would be capable of getting Congress to approve the “this and that” invasion of Iran. Or the “this and that” privatization of Social Security benefits.

    The devil is in the lack of details.

    PS. the link to the full article doesn’t work: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/26/david-frum-in-the-republican-race-its-romney-huntsman-or-bust/

    • Kevin B

      the White House is a bad place to learn – as President Obama (who also lacked any prior administrative experience) proves on a daily basis.

      Obama has had four years practice. None of the Republican candidates has ever been President. This is a clear argument to keep the incumbent.

      Being a governor is not preparation for being President, because “this” and “that” doesn’t really fall on the shoulders of a governor the way it does for the Commander in Chief.

      The only living, eligible Republicans with White House experience are George H. W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Dan Quayle, and none of them are in this race.

      • medinnus

        I never thought I’d see the day when there were front-runners LESS qualified to be President than Dan Quayle…

  • dgkerns

    Just when I think that DF is really the thoughtful conservative, he comes up with this bit of Krauthammerian bluster: “the White House is a bad place to learn – as President Obama (who also lacked any prior administrative experience) proves on a daily basis.” Given Obama’s dreadful inheritance from GWB, his legislative accomplishments (objective analysis reveals that prior to the brick wall constructed by the GOP after the ’10 election, Obama’s legislative accomplishments were the most prolific since FDR) and his anti-terrorism successes, DF seems to ignore all of it to throw some raw meat to the right – no RINO he! Come on David.

    • Graychin

      I have resigned myself to the fact that if I’m going to read any David Frum column or blog post, I am almost certain to be subjected to a gratuitous and evidence-free swipe at Obama – or some silly straw-man slam against Democrats in general. It’s part of the package.

      As the trite saying goes: “It’s not a bug – it’s a feature!”

      Mr. Frum spends this entire column knocking down all of the candidates except Romney and Huntsman. Since Huntsman is irrelevant (and not for lack of time and Daddy’s money trying to be relevant), let’s focus on Romney for the moment. Mr. Frum: I hope that soon you will write a column addressing the fact that Romney has expressed no core values whatsoever. Everything is negotiable with him. Everything! He has been clear about his support of both sides of every issue on which he is willing to express an opinion – and there are many issues on which he still prefers to straddle the fence. He is, as Huntsman pointed out, the perfectly lubricated weather vane.

      A person doesn’t need core values to be a successful vulture capitalist. In fact, absence of values is probably a helpful trait in that profession. But shouldn’t a President of the United States believe in something?

      Seriously, I hope to see you address the apparent emptiness of Romney’s character in a future column. Soon!

      • overshoot

        But shouldn’t a President of the United States believe in something?

        There is only one absolutely essential belief for a Presidential candidate: that he or she should be President. Romney is breaking new ground by recognizing that the others are dead weight and jettisoning them as an encumbrance to his one and only priority.

      • Probabilistic

        Everything is negotiable with him. Everything!

        Except tax increases and a 10:1 :: spending cut : revenue increase. So much for being solution-oriented!

      • Houndentenor

        “But shouldn’t a President of the United States believe in something?”

        No, he shouldn’t. Thank you for pointing out exactly what is wrong with American politics. Our elected officials should do what is best for our country based on reality and reason and not on ideology. I don’t need them to “believe”. We already have enough people who believe what they want in spite of evidence. We’ve had enough of that. We need people who lead based on reality, not blind faith.

        • wileedog

          “We need people who lead based on reality, not blind faith.”

          While I think you may an excellent point and agree with the sentiment, do you honestly think Romney’s ever-shifting policy positions are a result of him re-calculating them against a shifting reality, or re-adjusting them to the poll numbers of the given target audience that day?

          You are correct the pure ideology of Bush is one of the reasons we are in this mess. But Romney is the almost perfect rudderless other extreme, and there is no question in my mind that he will govern not based on fact-related decisions on what’s best for the country, but what policies will most likely get him elected to a 2nd term.

        • overshoot

          do you honestly think Romney’s ever-shifting policy positions are a result of him re-calculating them against a shifting reality, or re-adjusting them to the poll numbers of the given target audience that day?

          Friend, those poll numbers are reality. In fact, they’re the only reality that matters.

        • Houndentenor

          I can’t believe I’m taking on the role of Romney Apologist, but hasn’t every president mostly taken positions based on what would help him get re-elected? You’re slamming Romney for doing what politicians do.

          Romney is an extreme case of someone who will change from one extreme to the other, and yes that’s deplorable. But it seems to me that we have a lot of people who are tied to a single idea and won’t budget regardless of what happens. I don’t think admitting that you have changed your mind should be the kiss of death for a politician. It might also be refreshing to hear one admit that he’d made a mistake.

        • Drosz

          “…hasn’t every president mostly taken positions based on what would help him get re-elected?”

          No. HW Bush got tossed out because he did the right thing. There are others I’m sure.

        • nepr

          I believe people shouldn’t be tortured. I believe the young, the sick, the disabled, the old, should be cared for and not exploited. I believe civilians should not be targeted in war. I believe the natural environment should not be wantonly despoiled and destroyed.

          I believe that “belief” and “ideology” aren’t the same thing.

    • chicago_guy

      Agreed. The idea that Obama didn’t get anything done in his first term is silly on its face, and downright laughable when the facts are laid out.

      National healthcare. Banking reform that has the banking industry crying (like a crack dealer cries when the cops bust him). Saving thousands of manufacturing jobs and giving GM and Chrysler a chance to redeem themselves. Bad-ass terrorist killing powers. Peaceful democratization in the Arab world with US support. Keeping what appeared to be a runaway train of an economy from totally going over the cliff.

      And most of that was just in his first 30 months in office.

      Any Republican who thinks he can argue that The Man hasn’t produced has got his head up his rectum.

      • overshoot

        Any Republican who thinks he can argue that The Man hasn’t produced has got his head up his rectum.

        Unless you assume that every single Republican in the country (plus a few in Canada) have craniorectal insertion, you’re overstating the case. As DF frequently observes, Republicans live in their own factual environment and those accomplishments aren’t on their radar — or at the very least, aren’t “accomplishments.”

        Besides, compartmentalization rules. Especially for the Religious Right, there’s no problem with simultaneously believing that he’s an evil mastermind, the Antichrist, an anticolonial Marxist Kenyan Muslim atheist usurper, and totally incompetent.

        • chicago_guy

          Ah, I should have been clear that I was speaking from the standpoint of those hearing that argument who aren’t taking the “do it yourself colonoscopy” approach toward politics – non-Republicans, in other words.

          Re: DF, I’m wondering at what point you declare today’s GOP a lost cause and move on to independence. When a guy like Huntsman polls in the low single digits, you should recognize that rationality has left the building in your party, and there’s no sign that it’ll be back anytime soon.

        • balconesfault

          As DF frequently observes, Republicans live in their own factual environment and those accomplishments aren’t on their radar — or at the very least, aren’t “accomplishments.”

          Ironically, they don’t even seem to appear on Frum’s radar.

        • overshoot

          This is surprising? Just because DF can see it in other Republicans doesn’t mean he can see it in the mirror.

  • zaybu

    The only way I would contemplate a Romney presidency in a good way is if both houses were to be in the hands of Democrats. That way, Romney would be less tempted to pander to the far right of the GOP. But that’s pure speculation.

  • overshoot

    I am skeptical that Romney or Huntsman would be capable of getting Congress to approve the “this and that” invasion of Iran.

    Invade first, and after that Congress will be have to support the troops. Or, better yet, use those launch codes — in the case of a nuclear crisis, there’s no time to negotiate with Congress!

    • Bingham

      Because Iran is such a frighteningly imminent threat to the USA that we wouldn’t have any time to consult Congress. So let ‘em rip.

    • medinnus

      The second the Israeli AF does a fly-by, the chickenhawk GOP would unanimously declare war before Obama could even react.

  • Oldskool

    Yes but Romney 1.0 was a smarty-pants librul by the standards of conservatives today. Hoping he won’t govern as Romney 3.0 is a waste of perfectly good hope.

    • Probabilistic

      Romney 1.0 = GOP wilderness. Romney 3.0 = 25%. I think the product needs further evolution. Just beta testing and fix pack wouldn’t be enough for release to that ‘special’ market.

      Any other nominee would gravely test my commitment to the political party I’ve supported

      What’s Frum saying?

      • Oldskool

        Like Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles.

        [pressing his gun against his own neck] “Hold it! The next man that makes a move, the n___r gets it.”

  • booch221

    ” It’s not enough for a president to say “do this” or “do that.” Issuing the orders is the easy part. The president must ensure that “this” and “that” actually happen. If you have never had such a responsibility before, the White House is a bad place to learn – as President Obama (who also lacked any prior administrative experience) proves on a daily basis.”

    If only he had been governor of Texas for six years. After all, G. W. Bush really knew how to make things happen: 911, Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina, and the 2008 financial meltdown. Oh, those were the days…

  • PracticalGirl

    1) The temperament, judgment, deftness and largeness of spirit required in the presidential office

    Both Romney and Huntsman have blamed President Obama for the Congressional Super Committee’s recent failure to find the cuts that they, themselves, have legislated as necessities.

    “What’s most disappointing about that is that our president has had no involvement with the process,” Romney said. “I find extraordinary that there would be set up a committee with such an important mission as finding a way to provide fiscal sanity in America…”

    What ever happened to the GOPer argument that Congress-not the President- is in control of the purse strings? I know- that was so 2 months ago, but listening to to Frum’s top picks, I get the sense that neither really understands how our government works. So much for the “judgement” category.

    • Frumplestiltskin

      practical girl, I find it amazing that he literally said this: “I find extraordinary that there would be set up a committee with such an important mission as finding a way to provide fiscal sanity in America…” Without his one mentioning the conditions by which that committee was set up; America held hostage by fanatical Republicans during the debt crisis. Look at the passive voice he uses “there would be set up a committee”, he is such a coward he doesn’t state who set it up. I loathe Romney.

      Being I want the best from each party to run I hope that Huntsman somehow wins. My dream ticket of Republicans would be Huntsman-Jindal. But, if not now, there is always 2016

      • ottovbvs

        Frumps thinks Jindal is sympatico with his personal views. Interesting if true.

        • Frumplestiltskin

          actually, I don’t. My point is that I want the best Republicans to represent the party so if Republicans do win they will not be as disastrous as GWB was. Can you deny if McCain won in 2001 he would not have screwed up the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq as much as Bush did? (if he, in fact, chose to invade Iraq..going along with Bush was one thing).
          Jindal is a very effective administrator in La. and he recently won his election in a landslide, and I will admit it would be good for the Republican party to get some color representing them and being that Rubio is a complete fraud I would much prefer it be Jindal.

        • Probabilistic

          Kenneth is socially regressive. On the flip-side SNL will have ready made skits.

  • Nanotek

    “… the White House is a bad place to learn – as President Obama (who also lacked any prior administrative experience) proves on a daily basis.”

    for the fact-curious: http://obamaachievements.org/list

    A hallucination is a fact, not an error; what is erroneous is a judgment based upon it. —
    Bertrand Russell

    • ottovbvs

      As Jonathon Chait has pointed out Obama has the best liberal democratic record of achievement since Johnson and without the Vietnam baggage. Take that into account and he’s arguably got the best record since FDR. Great summary btw Nanotek.

    • Probabilistic

      To add context to his achievements, it should be noted that most were done in the face of nihilistic opposition.

      Thanks for the URL. It’s now bookmarked.

  • ottovbvs

    Tribalism will out. Despite a steady trickle of often incisive criticism of today’s Republican party and all it stands for (most of which has now been endorsed by Romney) Frum continues to insist Obama is daily proving he can’t govern without however providing any particulars. How can one take Frum seriously?

  • jjv

    Huntsman? Please. Merely mentioning the guy as a serious Presidential candidate detracts from your point. He is appealing to people who hate the Republican Party. When you get a gushing write up in Vanity Fair-rather than unflattering photos taken from below-you are simply liberalisms Manchurian candidate in the Republican primary.

    • Kevin B

      If the Republican Party nominated a candidate like Huntsman for President, fewer people would hate it so much.

      • Frumplestiltskin

        When a Mormon ex-Governor and someone who served under 3 Republican Presidents is not considered “Conservative” enough by the Republican party, then you know just how truly bat guano nuts the Republicans have become.

        No, JJV is the Rino, in truth he far to the right of true Republicanism that is represented by Frumforum itself. Or I suppose JJV doesn’t subscribe to Frums whole purpose: dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.

        Pretending it is 1950 and McCarthy is a God ain’t gonna cut it.

  • nuser

    Frum
    “as President Obama proves on a daily basis”.An outrageous and arrogant statement on your part. Why not provide a day to day account of President Obama’s mistakes.You always write
    as if what you think is a given.

  • Probabilistic

    The Republican flavour of the month, Newt Gingrich, likewise flunks condition one.

    Worse, he fails condition two, too.

  • Secessionist

    What’s daffy about ending the War on Drugs, cutting defense, ending the war in Afghanistan, and being 100% sure there will be no war on Iran from 2013 to 2017?

    Lord, no wonder the proponents of the status quo hate Ron Paul.

    You like the Patriot Act? War on Drugs? Wars in general? Money for the MIC? Vote for anyone but Paul.

    Also, let’s be clear: on foreign policy matters, Barack Obama belongs in the clown car along with the GOP field, excluding Ron Paul.

    Obama ended torture and gave orders to find and kill OBL.

    Apart from those two decisions, Obama runs a Bush/Cheney foreign policy.

    - DSP/Southern Populist

    • sweatyb

      Just to pick two examples:
      - Bush/Cheney would have sent Marines to capture Ghaddafi (and secure the oil fields) as soon as the uprising in Libya started.
      - Bush/Cheney would have strong-armed the Iraqis to ensure that US forces stayed in Iraq indefinitely.

    • Frumplestiltskin

      Wrong, Obama also is withdrawing all of our troops from Iraq at the end of this year and will draw down our forces in Afghanistan.

      sweatyb, I don’t agree with you about Bush, it was he who negotiated the deal to get all of the troops out by 2012, granted he thought the Iraqis themselves would beg us to stay, but no amount of strong arming would have worked to keep us there, if he tried it there would have been an eruption of violence. It was Bush’s own ineptness that made it very difficult for Republicans to lambaste Obama for pulling the troops out ( that doesn’t mean they won’t run their idiotic yaps, just that Obama can simply say you convince the Iraqis…)

      • sweatyb

        You’re looking at this too logically. Yes, Bush/Cheney negotiated the 2012 deadline. But the phony sunset provision is pretty standard stuff. (Bush’s misguided tax cuts were supposed to expire before 2011.) Even at the time, the deadline was a bit of a wink-wink thing. The war was increasingly unpopular in America and Bush was under pressure to show some scintilla of progress.

        Still with any other administration, you might be reasonably certain that they would hold to their agreement. But Bush/Cheney were not exactly sticklers for treaties. They needed no justification for starting the war in Iraq and they certainly showed no care to the popularity of their actions amongst Iraqis.

        Given the Bush/Cheney’s history, I would venture that any “eruption of violence” in Iraq would only have served as justification for further military involvement.

        • Frumplestiltskin

          sweatyb: You’re looking at this too logically.
          Guilty as charged. I forgot to bash myself upside the head in order to think like the Bushies.

    • Secessionist

      The CIA is still operating in Iraq with authorization from Obama, and Obama left behind 5000 “private contractors” in Iraq.

      The Iraqis decided they didn’t want American troops in their country. That is on the only reason Obama pulled out.

      • sweatyb

        The CIA is operating in a lot of countries. That’s pretty much why the CIA exists. If you think that America would be better off without a foreign intelligence agency, I doubt there’s anything I could say that would convince you.

        • Secessionist

          I think America would be better off without the CIA carrying out illegal drone strikes under Obama’s watch. They have been known to kill civilians.

        • overshoot

          They have been known to kill civilians.

          Actually, you bring up an interesting point: have they ever been known to kill anyone but civilians?

        • Kevin B

          If the next President is a Republican, you can bet the CIA won’t carry out any more illegal drone strikes.

          The strikes will continue, of course, but the new Republican White House will instruct its legal staff to declare them legal.

  • superdestroyer

    This must mean that Mr. Frum has decided that Romney and Huntsman will be the easiest to manipulate into doing whatever is best for Israel while ignoring what is best for the United States.

    Anyone who Mr. Frum supports for president is going to be an “invade the world” type of president who the U.S. can no longer afford.

    • nuser

      @ super
      ‘invade the world” type of president. How true! If it is possible to disregard Israel , and then ask Frum about Willard Romney’s character, honesty (especially that one) and humane treatment of animals,do you suppose , his take would be just a little different?

      • superdestroyer

        Mr. Frum is counting on Mr. Romney to be one of those hack politicians who will try to help whoever is the most important person in the room.

        By guess is that the neo-cons have decided that Romney is their man since he will be the easiest to manipulate. If Frum is supporting a candidate, it should be obvious to everyone that the candidate is an “Israel-first” candidate.

  • Secessionist

    Obama’s foreign policy program is not significantly different from Romney’s. No one would know that, however, from reading Obama apologists like Jonathan Chait.

    In defending Obama’s sorry foreign policy and war record (apart from OBL), Chait and Obama’s other hagiographers are showing the same tribal solidarity as the Tea Party.

    All that matters to them is that it’s “their guy” doing it now.

    Tea Party Member: Medicare Part D was fine when Bush did it, but under Obama it’s socialism!

    Obama Apologist: When Bush signed the Patriot Act, it was an affront to basic civil liberties! When Obama renewed the Patriot Act …uh, but, but but….

    - DSP / Southern Populist

    • Frumplestiltskin

      look, I get your point that Liberal internationalists and neo-cons share some similar outward goals, but in their execution they are wildly different. Liberal internationalists rely far more on international institutions and would use violence only as a last resort (and sometimes, not at all). Clinton and Obama are liberal internationalists, Bush was a neo-con. Clinton won in the balkans, Obama won in Libya, Bush screwed the pooch in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Now I don’t know how Gore would have handled Afghanistan, I daresay he would never have allowed OBL to escape like Rummy did with his whole 21st century vision of warfare. I believe Gore would have gone in far heavier and quicker than Bush, then got out after wiping out OBL and the then Taliban leadership. He also would never have gone into Iraq.

      And as Wileedog points out, Obama has a far more rational Israel policy than all of the Republicans.

      And the drone strikes are not illegal, your saying they are doesn’t make them so. The Pakistani government allows the drones to be stationed there in their airbases. I thank God that Obama has been using them so effectively as the Taliban recently begged for a ceasefire.

      • ottovbvs

        “The Pakistani government allows the drones to be stationed there in their airbases.”

        You may be out of date since we just blew away 24 of their soldiers and apparently they’ve ordered us out of the airbase in 15 days. As to the legality of drone strikes it’s hard to judge. Essentially they’re being conducted with the tacit agreement of the Pakistanis but this continues to amaze. I can’t imagine any country with respect for it’s own sovereignty allowing this to take place, we’re obviously laying out a load of dash.

    • ottovbvs

      “Obama’s foreign policy program is not significantly different from Romney’s.”

      Since we’ve no idea of how Romney would conduct foreign policy how does DSP arrive at this conclusion? Is clairvoyance among his many talents? However, we do have benchmark for the Republican approach to foreign policy (8 years of Dubya) and it couldn’t more different from how the president has handled it.

      • Secessionist

        They ask Romney in every foreign policy debate “how would your foreign policy differ from Barack Obama’s foreign policy,” and he never comes up with anything. It’s because Obama is already doing everything Romney would do up to and including the drone strikes and attacks on sovereign nations like Pakistan.

        • ottovbvs

          “and he never comes up with anything.”

          The guy changes his mind every day (he took six different positions on the debt ceiling committee failure) so all this remain pure supposition on your part.

  • wileedog

    “Obama’s foreign policy program is not significantly different from Romney’s. “

    I think how an Obama 2nd term or a President Romney handles a nuclear Iran and Israel’s response to it will be very different. I also think Israel will be given carte blanche to complete their current mission of alienating everyone in the world besides us by continuing to settle Palestinian lands. It will be us vs. the world vis a vis Israel as they slide inexorably into an apartheid state under a GOP administration, and Romney gives them a wink, wink, nudge nudge as they do it.

  • Emma

    Frum’s laying the groundwork to hustle a job in the off-chance that Mitt grabs the brass ring. Poor Frum. He knows better than most that Mitt lacks a “largeness of spirit” — worse, he can see the great and transforming accomplishments in a second term for Obama. Frum’s wallet yearns for Mitt, his intellect and heart for Obama.

  • LaLupa

    “I still think that his Massachusetts health-care plan showed creative leadership on an important problem”

    Yes, very creative. He just passed a law forcing people to buy insurance. Next Romney will end hunger in America by forcing people to buy food/sarc

    “He has a keen understanding of the debt and financial problems of the U.S. and Europe.”

    Really? I seem to recall Romney saying that Bartiromo’s question about European contagion was too hypothetical and refused to answer it.

    “The more supple (strike supple) spineless Romney has carefully avoided any such radical commitment.”

    There. Fixed it for you David. No need to thank me.

  • Ray_Harwick

    If you have never had such a responsibility before, the White House is a bad place to learn – as President Obama (who also lacked any prior administrative experience) proves on a daily basis.

    And it was mere days ago that Mr. Frum was complaining about the alternate knowledge source created by the Republicans; so he gets amnesia on both the circumstances of Obama’s introduction to the oval office and the record of accomplishment that followed – and then elevates Mitt Romney to viability. Mr. Frums tolerance for uncertainty it truly astonishing! Really! What do you get with a President Romney? See? **No one knows!**.

    Depressing, Mr. Frum. My God! How do you sleep at night.

    Mr. Frum lacks as a conservative what I always employed as a conservative: the ability to vote for a Democrat. How better to yank the chain of the rudderless and mad dogs.

  • anniemargret

    David Frum gives lip service to Huntsman. He supports Romney primarily because he’s not in the knucklehead category as the other candidates, but DF’s main concern is the state of Israel. We can surmise that Huntsman would use extreme caution and his lengthy and admirable experience understanding the nuances of foreign policy before he supported anything like an attack of any kind on Iran.

    Therefore, he is given a few high fives for his intelligence, but he doesn’t appeal to neoconservatives, especially their penchant for eradicating Iran for Israel’s sake.

    What is simply appalling to me is how anyone, after assessing what we lost in human lives, broken families and mental illnesses at an all-time high level for soldiers, and the massive loss of treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq, can even dream of starting another conflagration in the ME.

    Evidently the law of unintended consequences doesn’t bother their sleep, nor the image of a hotbed of tension, hate and violence that would ensue should Israel take the deadly step of initiating a war with Iran.

    So does anyone, anyone, think that Romney’s favored status right now isn’t coming directly from this desire from Frum and et al?

    This saddens me as Frum has articulated exactly what is wrong with the GOP now; a party of culture warriors whose heads are not screwed on too tightly, who are more ready to make war on their fellow Americans than our perceived enemies elsewhere.

    But there….he is a deep and loyal follower of Mitt Romney, whose loose talk and militaristic demeanor regarding foreign policy in the ME will assure another war on the horizon for this country…and the world.

    • nhthinker

      Frum is not a deep and loyal follower of Mitt Romney… 8 months ago, David was in the “let’s draft someone cause I don’t like the candidates” crowd. Huntsman’s was having 5 out of ten FF stories for weeks on end and Mitt would have maybe one. Mitch Daniels was another candidate Frum lusted over.
      For Romney, there was no lust…
      Frum wrote articles that Romney would get destroyed because of RomneyCare and had other articles where Frum suggested that Romney should propose nationalizing RomneyCare.
      When Frum finally figuratively embraced Romney: it was only a couple months ago: and it was only when it was obvious that no one else was getting in and that Huntsman was a complete lost cause.

      • Probabilistic

        It’s quite puzzling why many of the Republican “stalwarts” decided to forgo a run for the presidency. What did they see unfolding that didn’t make a run worthwhile for them, especially given the unemployment situation, right/wrong track numbers, and the deficit President Obama has with independents? Each had slightly different reason, but the probability of 3 or 4 serious contenders abjuring is really small, and makes me curious.

        Perhaps, the individual reasons are all there is for an explanation. Hmm…

    • overshoot

      What is simply appalling to me is how anyone, after assessing what we lost in human lives, broken families and mental illnesses at an all-time high level for soldiers, and the massive loss of treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq

      [...]

      Mitt Romney, whose loose talk and militaristic demeanor regarding foreign policy in the ME will assure another war on the horizon for this country…and the world.

      You say that like those are bad things.

  • TJ Parker

    God, I loathe Romney. “Well-lubricated weather vane”. Oily. Smarmy.

    • Grace

      Me too. Romney’s the one thing that gives me hope that maybe there is still some small sliver of common ground between the reality-based and the bubble-based: the overwhelming majority of both groups don’t trust him any farther than they can throw him, and he engenders equally heartfelt loathing from both sides. The only people I know who half-heartedly support him are very wealthy friends and relatives who believe he can be counted on to look after their class interests, and those (like Frum) who believe he’d put Isreal’s interests ahead of American interests.

      • nuser

        me too!

        • NRA Liberal

          Oddly, Romney the man doesn’t bother me much. I have much more loathing for Perry, or Gingrich.

          Romney’s economic background as an “asset stripper” and leading architect of takeovers however is pure evil.

          He must and will be stopped.

  • TerryF98

    Romney is a turd that will need a great deal more polishing before a majority of Americans will stomach him.

    Right now he has not lead the leading “not Romney” since before August, what does it say when the base of his own party rejects the “front runner”.

    • nhthinker

      Your BS fabricated polls of a not-Romney three-headed monster is amusing, the garbage being thrown own by the left is amazing… The LATimes planted story of Romney not being trusted by voters- without citing a single poll- is quite entertaining. I expect the polling won’t occurs until the fabrications make the rounds several times.

      But there is real scary polling going on…
      http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/11/22/poll-obama-would-probably-lose-pennsylvania-to-romney-if-vote-held-today/

      Seems like Romney is more trusted than Obama by voters in PA!

      More to scare you…
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/150611/Democrats-Liberal-Less-White-2008.aspx
      “Bottom Line

      Gallup finds relatively little change in the demographic composition of either major party’s supporters since 2008, even though the nation has become less Democratic, and more Republican and independent overall. All in all, Democrats remain decidedly less white, more female, more liberal, less religious, and less likely to be married than the general population.

      Liberals and nonwhites have come to make up a slightly greater percentage of the Democratic base since 2008, perhaps indicating that the decline in Democratic affiliation since 2009 was proportionately greater among conservatives and whites.

      The 2012 elections will thus likely show the same demographic voting patterns that prevailed in 2008, and that in many cases have been evident in presidential elections going back further in time.”

      • TerryF98

        “More to scare you…”

        Unlike bed wetters like you I don’t scare easily!

        • nhthinker

          Could you try for a more juvenile response? What are you, a 5th grader, with bad parents or just a senile old man?

      • sweatyb

        The actual poll shows Obama and Romney tied at 45% of the vote in PA. But the analysis then goes in to find that Obama’s unfavorables amongst undecideds are very high.

        http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/obama-struggling-in-pennsylvania.html

        If those folks really had to make a decision today it’s likely they’d move in Romney’s direction and hand him the state.

        Why bother doing a poll if you’re just going to make up numbers after you get the results? It’s worth noting that by the same metric PA is also “winnable” by Republican high-flyers Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.

        We’re a year out from the election, I don’t think these are very scary polls for the Obama administration.

      • nuser

        You totally missed the point! It is all about Israel and David Frum. All the rationalization in the world , will not change that fact.

  • Russnet

    If Romney gets the nod and he chooses Huntsman for the ticket, Obama will be SO TOAST.

    • nepr

      You heard it here first! Romney + Huntsman = third party candidate OR an Occupy Polling Place movement ( and it will take more than pepper spray to disperse them).

    • medinnus

      Given the two political families have rivalries and bad blood that go back a generation, don’t count on a Romney / Huntsman ticket; look for a Santorum/Bachman Evangel for Romney’s VP slot instead.

      • Kevin B

        Rivalries and bad blood will not prevent Romney from choosing a VP candidate who (he thinks) will help him win. I don’t pretend to understand all of the political calculus that goes into a VP choice, but I don’t see Huntsman as Romney’s choice for the reason that two Mormons on the ticket will cause some people to stay home. If Romney is nominated, he will choose a running mate who (he thinks, again) will bring the highest number of Electoral College votes that Romney can’t get by being Romney.

        • nuser

          Romney believes Sarah Palin is qualified to be president(he stated so), surely then she is qualified to be V.P. Also for the record ,David Frum voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin,
          and then guffawed about her sleazy character. I find all of this very telling and insightful.

        • Probabilistic

          Romney believes Really? I understand he stated something…

      • beowulf

        Mike Huckabee

  • rbottoms

    Romney, still a lying sack of sh*t.

    [blockquote]WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney’s first TV ad of the 2012 presidential campaign sparked immediate denunciations Monday night from President Obama’s reelection campaign, which complained that the ad was “a deceitful and dishonest attack.”

    The 60-second Romney ad quoted Obama as saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

    It sounds like Obama is talking about his own chances in 2012. But it’s actually a clip of Obama mocking his 2008 opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), for not wanting to talk about the economy in the final stretch of that election. McCain’s response to the collapse of the financial sector in the fall of 2008 is widely cited as a contributing factor to his loss.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/obama-campaign-romney-tv-ad_n_1106832.html
    [/blockquote]

    • Baldezar

      Truly shocking if that is accurate. Well, not really shocking. He’s not the first.

      However, the constant vitriol, like that with which you begin your comment, does not help in any way. Your facts are indictment enough without the sophomoric bravado.

  • Ogemaniac

    Well, duh. It’s obvious who the two least bad candidates are. But it doesn’t matter. Either would be a slave to the Tea Party. Do you honestly believe either would even try to keep the insanity in check? Would they seriously veto all the right wing garbage that would be sent to their desk, especially if Republicans hold the House (likely, though with losses) and narrowly gain the Senate? Oh, the filibuster you say? Come on, let’s not pretend for a second that Republicans, if holding all three branches, wouldn’t push through all sorts of things with reconcilliation. I am willing to bet they would neuter the filibuster as well, probably in some asymmetric manner such as “You can only filibuster spending increases and tax increases, but not cuts to either or nominations”.

    While both Huntsman and Romney are highly intelligent and have at least some portion of their brain which hasn’t been completely infused with right-wing Kool-Aid, both would be a disaster for our country if paired with the likely Republican-controlled House and Senate.

    Btw, do you really think it would be smart for Republicans to nominate a born-and-bred plutocrat, as Romney and Huntsman both are? That would be the third Republican president in a row who was born wealthy and connected. Meritocracy my heiney.

  • ottovbvs

    “If Romney gets the nod and he chooses Huntsman for the ticket, Obama will be SO TOAST.”

    Two Mormons on the ticket. As Erik Erickson famously said we’re about to nominate a wall street asset stripper who governed exactly like a democrat and has a huge reputation as a flip flopper. One might add he’s also a member of a rather weird cult. Not satisfied with one of them Russnet want two. Desperation indeed.

    • beowulf

      Yeah that Erick Erickson is a regular General Washington.

      “Macon City Councilman Erick Erickson plans to leave his one-term post about six months early to take a new nighttime job as an Atlanta radio show host.”
      http://www.macon.com/2011/01/06/1399941/erickson-to-quit-macon-city-council.html

      • ottovbvs

        Typical Republican behavior. There’s plenty of precedent after all. But his insight on Romney is not far off the mark.

    • Russnet

      Erik who? And what is this, a compassionate, fair-minded Democrat calling Mormonism a “weird cult?”

      • ottovbvs

        “fair-minded Democrat calling Mormonism a “weird cult?”

        Guess what…. I call Scientologists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Rosicrucians members of weird cults also. The country is full of weird cults and they are all equal opportunity organisations.

        • _will_

          at the risk of sounding glib, anyone who believes in magical faeries, goblins, virgin-birthed superheros and fantastical creation myths is a member of a “weird cult.”

          some have just been around a little longer than others…

        • drdredel

          That’s not glib, it’s spot-on.

        • balconesfault

          I’d like to add that one can see things the way Will expressed … and still be a deist.

          Just read Thomas Jefferson.

  • LaLupa

    I do not see Romney getting the nomination. I am very involved in Republican grassroots and I am hearing many SoCons willing to overlook Newt’s family history. When SoCons pass on “family values” in order to defeat Romney, it is clear sign that Mitt is unlikely to get the GOP nod.

    • ottovbvs

      I hope the Newtster is successful since I’ve always taken the view that Republicans need to nominate someone who truly represents where the party stands. I’m not as sanguine as you but apart from the above reason it would be worth it just to see the state of shock and horror that would afflict the Republican establishment for a few weeks. They’d all fall in behind him then of course. However it is extraordinary the lack of enthusiasm for Romney who can’t get out of the 20′s in appro. I really cannot remember such a situation six weeks before the first primary. The latest from Redstate on the unelectability of Romney.

      http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/11/25/the-unelectable-mitt-romney/

      http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/11/25/the-unelectable-mitt-romney-part-ii/

      • nuser

        You are simply priceless. Alas Mr. dear Otto, you are wasting your time on this site,with some exceptions, you are all alone. Take your family to California and live it to the hilt. My family and I ,do not belong to organized religion, but we do celebrate xmas , along with some jewish friends. Yah, well, go figure. Merry xmas to you and your family, and if Annie is around , the
        same to her and her family. Thinker mentioned addiction to this site, well I am , but want out.
        So call me simpleminded once more, please.

    • Nanotek

      “… and I am hearing many SoCons willing to overlook Newt’s family history.”

      LaLupa … do they recognize their moral relativism, which they have so condemned in the past?

  • indy

    Ah, the FF daily obligatory post, which always reads as follows.

    The Republican flavor of the month sucks.

    Obama did something suckey.

    Romney would suck too, except we all know he is pretending to suck. Phew! I have someone I can rationalize myself into voting for.

    Lather, rinse, and repeat for 12 months.

    • Rich T Bikkies

      But FF are just following what is happening in the Republican party. The party really is that bad!

  • zaybu

    Romney has taken so many opposing positions over the years, it’s hard to pin down exactly where he’d be as president. Obama’s supporters are hoping for a long, drawn-out primary process, with all sides practicing take-no-pr­isoners nastiness. The GOP seems perfectly capable of providing this right now–anyon­e who can pass the TP Purity test is not going to get independen­ts to pull the lever. The GOP’s best hope for 2012, and half of the party doesn’t even want him. Hmmm….

    • Drosz

      Flip-flopping isn’t really going to matter for many folks. It’s all about personality and supposed values of the candidate. It doesn’t matter if you know anything about the world, as long as people think you would fit into their group of friends and acquaintances, they will vote for you.

      Do you really think Gingrich believes Obama is an anti-colonial somethingsomething or top GOP leaders think Obama is really a socialist? They probably don’t care if he is or isn’t as long as they get enough people, i.e. potential voters, to believe their opponents aren’t “like them.” We used to think fact checking sites being quoted as saying such statements are demonstrably false would be a way to counter such silly arguments. They’re not, because the people that run them have been painted as “liberal” or “elitist” or “academics or “the intelligentsia” or “socialists” or “New England Patriots fans” (the worst of the bunch by the way).

      It’s not what policies you bring to the table, you can get people to support any policy, no matter what they are, against those “not like you” any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

  • valkayec

    Mr. Frum, perhaps it’s time to think differently. What I’d like to see more of from our political leaders is what one vet who’s making a difference says in an interview with Howard Fineman, at HuffPo.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/26/paul-rieckhoff-iraq-afghanistan-iava_n_1113541.html?page=1

    For example:

    What is leadership?

    Leadership requires vision. You have to really know where you’re going and drive in a direction, and then galvanize people and inspire people and draw strength from other people and draw assets from people. Management is kind of like moving stuff around on a plate. I think sometimes we confuse the two. Keeping the trains running on time is one thing, and that’s important, and that’s management, but keeping the trains moving forward is leadership. And building a new track and seeing where we’re going, that’s leadership: having to break the mold and innovate.”

    Where is the leadership today this young vet speaks of?

    • ottovbvs

      “Management is kind of like moving stuff around on a plate.”

      Aka the meat and potatoes of leadership. In fact in today’s world management competence is the pre-eminent requirement in a leader.

    • balconesfault

      keeping the trains moving forward is leadership

      I’d argue that this is still management. But yes – getting people to invest in new rail lines today, even if they won’t be fully utilized for a decade, because buying the land to lay the rails a decade from now will be extraordinarily difficult and expensive (take it from someone who deals in siting linear projects all the time) – that IS leadership and vision.

      It is also, in the minds of many Americans, akin to Socialism if done by the public sector. The only kind of leadership that Republicans seem to believe in these days is rhetoric which convinces the poor and middle classes to make sacrifices, and decision-making that sends young men off to shoot and bomb other people.

  • Fart Carbuncle

    Two thoughts:

    America’s electorate is setting up the collapse of America so predictably that bets are being made as to what decade…2030, 2040, or 2050. I mean, that voters would select a far far left politician (Obama) with ruinous economic and foreign policies is just both scary and sad.

    Second, Newt is going down the same road as Dole and McCain: retread, old, bitter career pols doomed before they even start.

    Sigh.

    • Secessionist

      Which is exactly I laugh out loud when I read something like…

      …social security is funded until 204x, or

      …White Americans will no longer be the majority in America as of 204x, or

      …in 50 years Americans will take the mandate for granted.

      Statements like those are great lulz material.

      America is going to implode long before any of those things ever happen.

      - DSP / Southern Populist

    • indy

      I see the nah sayers and doom sayers are out in force…it is a thanksgiving thing? Not the way I traditionally approach it but hey, to each his own I guess. I also see DSP has finally accepted the ‘leave it’ part of the saying. Is he going to take some states with him? If so, I have a few suggestions. For example, whichever one Fart lives in.

      • balconesfault

        What I wonder is – when someone is clearly labeling themselves as a “Secessionist”, is there any reason to believe that they really desire policies that favor the greater good of America?

        If one is a secessionist, that suggests they’re more likely to be supporting policies that will narrowly support themselves, or whatever tribe they belong to. Their allegiance to America as a whole is immediately suspect. It’s like a husband or wife who has already decided to divorce before telling their partner, and starts squirreling away cash or changing insurance policies or building up evidence to use in divorce proceedings – their interests are clearly at that stage at odds with what it takes to build a stronger and lasting relationship.

  • Secessionist

    60 minutes aired a story tonight about homeless children in Florida. It was the kind of story that breaks your heart.

    Wall Street got theirs, the MIC continues to get theirs, and ordinary people get nothing.

    It’s hard not to give up on this country when you see stories like this.

    - DSP / Southern Populist

    cbsnews [dot] com/video/watch/?id=7389253n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

    • Nanotek

      “60 minutes aired a story tonight about homeless children in Florida. It was the kind of story that breaks your heart.”

      it sure did …

      it seems politically incorrect in their circles to discuss it but DC Republicans, and the Dems who followed them, evade their role in creating this Depression … they walked Bush into the White House to oversee a nation with an economy, reputation and prestige that was the envy of the world … what we see and feel now is what they left behind … two unpaid-for wars, the giant give-away to big Pharma with Medicare Part D and the Bush tax-cuts

      but our nation’s founders founded a regenerating, phoenix-like nation … some of those kids will be senators, and maybe President, someday

      “Wall Street got theirs, the MIC continues to get theirs, and ordinary people get nothing.”

      + 1

  • Secessionist

    RE: Fart Carbuncle: “America’s electorate is setting up the collapse of America so predictably that bets are being made as to what decade…2030, 2040, or 2050.”

    Professor Alfred W. McCoy identifies four scenarios that could destroy America within the next 10 – 15 years.

    1) Economic collapse
    2) Oil shock
    3) Military misadventure
    4) WW3

    A depressing but fascinating read.

    http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/149080

    - DSP / Southern Populist

    • sweatyb

      Let’s see… economic collapse, oil shock, military misadventure… You’re talking about the Bush years, aren’t you?

      There’s so many better scenarios! This guy is just picking the low hanging fruit. What about a massive comet impact? or a super volcano? or carnivorous psychic whales? or the Rise of the Machines?

      • Nanotek

        exactly; seemingly intelligent machines will emerge fast and their intelligence will evolve even faster, imo

        • Frumplestiltskin

          I am going with carnivorous psychic whales, I think that Newt himself is a carnivorous psychic whale-human hybrid.

        • Drosz

          C’mon, no genetically mutated gorillas in the mix!? It’s so plausible I’ve begun memorizing Charleston Heston lines to infuriate our new simian overlords and show them I’m not to be trifled with.

    • Ogemaniac

      I am looking forward to my move to Cascadia and away from JesusBaggerLand. And the best thing? I will no longer have to subsidize those rugged red-state individualists.

  • Baldezar

    Your point about Romney declining to defend his accomplishment is really most troubling. How can one trust such a person as President, when he does not have the courage of his own convictions? Why would we want someone like that in the office? Perhaps this flaw is why, as the media often reports, is why Republicans are constantly looking for someone else other than Romney. I’m not one, a Republican that is, but from what little I know, I’m not sure Ron Paul is the most daffy candidate among the Republicans.

    • drdredel

      I’d argue he’s the least daffy, and easily the most consistent. Sure he’s said some very wacky things from time to time, but compared to the rest of these monkeys, he’s definitely the most rational.

      • balconesfault

        Romney is rational, but what good is knowing someone is rational if they’re wholly willing to suspend that rationality whenever it’s expedient?

  • Chris Balsz

    [i]“I’m looking for two chief things in a candidate for 2012:

    1) The temperament, judgment, deftness and largeness of spirit required in the presidential office; and

    2) The creativity and intellect to respond to the global economic crisis – a crisis threatening to actually get worse if (or when) the euro implodes.

    …Yet it’s also true that Romney has reversed so many of his positions so abruptly that voting for him is like taking a random walk. We can be sure that a Romney White House will be well-run. But what will it do? That’s anybody’s guess.”[/i]

    I think most people would find such unpredictability a strong mark against “temperament” and “judgment”.

    • Diomedes

      At this point, I wouldn’t mind if a chameleon like Romney was elected.

      With the government so polarized, I can’t see anything short of a shape-shifter being able to bridge the gap.

      Maybe they can run Odo from Deep Space Nine.

  • Diomedes

    “Professor Alfred W. McCoy identifies four scenarios that could destroy America within the next 10 – 15 years.

    1) Economic collapse
    2) Oil shock
    3) Military misadventure
    4) WW3″

    Other than WW3, didn’t the first three already occur? The 2008 financial crisis (and its ongoing saga) were an economic collapse. We had several oil shocks in the part decade, starting with the Bush Wars (where is our Iraqi oil again?) and the Arab Spring. And military misadventure, well, Alfred E. Newman couldn’t have done it better than Bush in that regard.

    I do see a lot of sabre rattling coming out of Russia lately. So maybe WW3 is on the horizon….

  • fgtayl01

    Sorry Mr Lincoln.

    You never had administrative responsibilities and are therefore unqualified to be President according to Mr Frum.

    Suggest you stay in Springfield. I understand you like the theatre. Maybe critic is more your calling.

    Good luck though. There seem to be plenty of critics.