Ahead of the curve or ‘I told ya so’.

The 2012 GOP field just got smaller. The disappointment among Republican voters looking for a candidate to stir them and the reluctance of so many real political stars to get in the race remains the most telling aspect of the strangest year yet in national Republican politics.

In the history of modern Republican presidential politics this year will go down as the year best described by that silly 1960's song “Please, General Custer, I don’t want to go.” And this they don't want to go to Iowa.

None of the big names wants to get into the race. None of the big money has picked a candidate and given them momentum. And the split between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives has the lackluster entries currently in the race fearful that they won’t be able to unite the party.

Iowa’s Republican Governor, Terry Branstad, gave testimony to the painfully slow start to the big GOP race this week when he publicly pleaded for possible candidates to please come visit his state where the caucuses will mark the start of actual vote counting in less than nine months.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/18/incredible-shrinking-gop-presidential-race/

In following the lead of Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump, Mitch Daniels announced he will not seek the 2012 GOP Nomination, confirmed in a statement late Saturday

I would put my money on Obama Mike.

I think Pawlenty and Bachmann could take it to Obama very handily.

First, let the president talk, and talk, and talk. (And talk.) His frequent rhetorical cul-de-sacs numb the minds of listeners and set up the opportunity for sharp contrasts between the definitive and the ambiguous, the purposeful and the feckless.

Second, look right at him when responding. This so unnerved President Obama that his anger and frustration was visible. Whether he brought the sense of superiority to the White House or whether it erupted there, the president does not care for people who challenge him directly, cannot seem to believe that anyone would have the temerity to do so. This is the sign of a deep insecurity, and Netanyahu used it.

Next, speak from specifics, using facts and especially history. Netanyahu used history to spank the president on Friday. A GOP nominee armed with specific references -- not just to Obama's many blunders but also to clear evidence of the American exceptionalism that Obama has clearly rejected -- will put the wordy academic on his heels.

Finally, express core truths bluntly -- especially the harshest ones, such as the nature of Hamas. The president has been shrinking from clarity for more than two years, whether it is clarity on Iran, on the butcher Assad and the nutter Chavez, and most recently on the key Palestinian problem -- that Hamas, like Hezbollah to the north, wants Israel destroyed.

The economic gap between black and white has grown since Obama took power. Under his tenure black unemployment, poverty and foreclosures are at their highest levels for at least a decade. . . .

If it were white Americans who remained this loyal to a Republican president under whom they were doing this badly, the left would be claiming false consciousness. If a Republican president were behind statistics like these, few liberals would be offering that president the benefit of the doubt.

So, how do we explain this apparent inconsistency?

Although I'm thinking more Pawlenty and Cain.

Earth to taxpayers! Owning stocks in banks is not nationalization of the banking industry. It’s trying to solve a problem.



The unprecedented financial crisis has caused the Treasury of the United States to take unprecedented measures to help solve the problem of frozen credit and cash flow for U.S. businesses.



Most of us had dreams of what we wanted to be when we grew up as children. Some of us wanted to grow up and become a fireman, a policeman, a doctor, a nurse, a lawyer, a teacher, an actor, an engineer, a writer, a dancer, a chef or any number of other professions.



But some of us wanted to own a bank because that’s where the money is!



Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a problem.



But the mainstream media and the free market purists want you to believe that this is the end of capitalism as we know it. It is not for several reasons that they have conveniently not explained.



First, instead of buying toxic mortgage-related assets of banks as originally proposed, the Treasury has changed tactics and will buy equity positions called preferred stocks, which gives us as taxpayers an ownership stake in their success for a limited period of time.



Preferred stock means we get paid a dividend before any other stockholders get paid a dividend when they make a profit. You got a problem with that?



Second, the purchase agreement between the Treasury and the participating banks has an incentive for the banks to re-purchase the stock back from the Treasury within five years.



If the banks do not re-purchase the stock in five years then we get a bigger dividend until they do re-purchase the stock. That’s a good deal!



The free market purists’ objection to this is that it smacks at government control of the banking industry, which is called nationalization. They are correct. It smacks, but it is not nationalization because that would require the government to own at least 51 percent of the entity for an indefinite period of time.



The ownership by the taxpayers is going to be relatively small and nowhere near the amount needed to be called nationalization. So what’s the problem?



The problem is economic illiteracy and media incompetence. Some people want to continue to fan the flames of anger and outrage over how we got into this mess in the first place. Anger and outrage will not solve the problem.



Unprecedented problems require unprecedented solutions. The actions by the Treasury are a win-win for the taxpayer. But the mainstream media does not get brownie points for reporting win-win solutions for the taxpayers. Their focus is doom and gloom.



These actions by the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Bank and the actions by the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are all intended to help solve an unprecedented financial crisis. Unlike steps taken prior to and during the Great Depression, these actions have a high probability of success.



In order for these collective actions to work, the media needs to calm its crisis rhetoric, and Congress needs to just shut up with its political rhetoric.



Now don’t tell Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but if this works, and I believe it will, the Bush Administration will have gotten this one right.



As we say in the South, y’all hush!