[THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED IN THE FIRST ISSUE OF THE
NEW NATIONAL WEBSITE "RIGHTOSPHERE" ON MARCH 1, 2010]

There are several ways to look at the next presidential election in
2012, especially since the current and new president, Barack Obama,
appears unuusually vulnerable to being limited to one term.

This early vulnerability, after only about one year in office, could,
following the 2010 mid-term elections this year, provoke an intraparty
challenge to the president, as happened in 1980 when then-Senator
Ted Kennedy took on incumbent President Jimmy Carter. Kennedy
ultimately failed in that effort, but a politically wounded Carter went on
to defeat by Ronald Reagan in the November election that followed.

Although it would take a huge wave reversal in the congressional
elections, the Republicans might take control of one or both houses
of Congress as early as this year.

All of this remains speculative, at this point, since so many events
and conditions can intervene in an eight-month and thirty-two month
interval. Political fortunes rarely go very long in a straight line either
up or down.

But if all this predictive caution isn’t enough, I suggest that an even
much longer period of time may be in order for political and policy
planning for candidates and their political parties if they are not only
to win the next political cycles, but govern successfully as well.

Barack Obama has been a political phenomenon. In 2008, the
odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination was Hillary Clinton,
then a U.S. senator from New York. But it was the novice US.senator
from Illinois, Mr. Obama, who survived a long, closely fought battle up
to the Democratic convention, and then went on to defeat Republican
nominee John McCain in November. Although the latter was in the end
a decisive victory for the first black U.S. president, it should not be
forgotten that following their own convention and just before the mortgage
banking crisis, the McCain-Palin ticket had pulled ahead in the race. The
financial meltdown effectively ended the presidential race, but without it,
it is not dispositively clear who wins.

In any event, Barack Obama did win, and did have a reasonably good
idea for some time before election day that he would become the next
president. While there is some evidence that Mr. Obama and his
advisers, and certainly Democratic congressional leaders, had some
idea of “what” they wanted to do if they won, there is now little evidence
that any of them, especially in the executive branch, had thought out
“how” they would accomplish their goals.

The “what” of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid political team has turned out to
be a radical series of public policies which are mostly quite unpopular
with U.S. voters. Even with huge majorities in both houses of Congress,
they have been unable to pass very much legislation. In an historically
brief time, in fact, they have squandered their decisive 2006 and 2008
victories, and appear headed for major losses in the national elections
eight months away.

But if those losses do indeed materialize, if they reach such proportions
that control of one or both houses of Congress are lost, then what?

What would be the “what” of a re-empowered Republican party in the
Congress, and then if Mr. Obama would subsequently be replaced in
2012, what would be the “what” of a new Republican
president?

Recent major off-year and special elections, all of which have so far
gone to the Republicans, combined with the so-called Tea Party
conservative movement and pronouncements of various other
Republican leaders and groups, indicate a strong economically
conservative trend for many if not most new Republican candidates
this year and in 2012. But no major national political party, especially
a successful one, is monolithic. As the recent elections in New Jersey
and Massachusetts demonstrated, only moderately conservative
Republicans can win in the northeast region of the country, Even in
Virginia, a traditionally southern state, the new conservative governor
campaigned in the political center in order to win. Perhaps more
conservative candidates can win in the deep south, the far west and
some midwestern states, but if the GOP truly wants to win control of
the Congress and the presidency, too, it will have to accept some
range of conservative political attitudes among its candidates and
officeholders (although it has every right to expect general agreement
on basic economic principles).

It can be argued, I think, that a pure conservative wave might be all
that is needed to win many elections in 2010 because of the negative
reaction to Obama-Pelosi-Reid policies which are so radical and
unpopular. But I suspect that if candidates and party leaders don’t
accompany the “what “ of their policies with a “how” they will enact
their program and maintain popular support over the next decade
(the minimal period, in my opinion, in which their efforts will be
required to bring about meaningful reform and change in the nation,
and to restore sustained free market economic growth), their
moments of control and power will be as brief as that enjoyed by
the Democrats they replace.

Obviously, this has direct and immediate bearing on the mid-term
elections of 2010, but in some ways, these considerations are more
important for the presidential election of 2012. Most speculation about
this election so far is personality-oriented. There is already a nominal
frontrunner (Mitt Romney), a number of dark horses (Tim Pawlenty,
Mitch Daniels, John Thune, Jeb Bush, et al), at least two major
figures from 2008 who may or may not run (Sarah Palin and Mike
Huckabee) and probably one important gray eminence who may or
may not run (Newt Gingrich).

I have every reason to believe that Mr. Gingrich, the Republican
Party’s most significant fount of new ideas and political strategies,
is thinking along these long-term lines. But, short of an even
greater crisis than we have now, he may not be able to be
nominated for president by his party in 2012. Is Mr Romney
thinking about the “how” as well as the “what” of a new GOP
administration? How about Governor Pawlenty, a very attractive
dark horse? Or Governor Mitch Daniels (who has the most
impressive resume of all). Or Jeb Bush (in spite of his surname)?

It may be too early to make meaningful predictions about the
presidential election of 2012, especially on the Republican side.
And it may not be clear (until after the 2010 elections) to
formulate the precise “what” of future public policies.

But I do suggest and contend that it is not too early for those
with ambitions for the highest office in the nation, a country
which still holds the leadership of the free world, to think about
and plan for the “how” to govern should they also, incidentally,
figure out the “how” to be elected.

[Barry Casselman is a long-time commentator on national
politics and public policy. His blog "The Prairie Editor" is
availble at www.barrycasselman.com , and he contributes
regularly to many of the nation's leading journals, websites
and newspapers.]