Third Time the Charm?

In 1960, Richard Nixon ran for President and lost by the closest of margins to JFK. In 1962, he ran for Governor of California and lost to Pat Brown. Shortly thereafter, his political epitaph was written. 

Oops! Johnson withdraws, RFK is assassinated and voila! Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968 and re-elected on 1972. 

In 1964, the spokesman for GE and other companies, Ronald Reagan, former actor and former sportscaster, gives a speech in Houston near the end of the 1964 campaign, ostensibly to help Barry Goldwater. Instead, it helped him become Governor of California in 1966, catapulting him to national stature.

With this political capital, Reagan ran in several primaries in 1968 but lost. In 1976, as an alternative to President Ford, he brought the Republican convention to a vote to decide the Party's nomination, and lost. 

In November, 1979, our embassy was overtaken in Iran and fifty two Americans were taken as hostages. On January 20, 1981, 444 days later, the hostages were released as Ronald Reagan was being sworn in as President.

I bring these up because, once again, there is an individual who was written off not quite two years ago by all the liberal media intelligencia as the man who reached for the brass ring of President and lost for the second time.

Willard Mitt Romney, former governor of probably our most liberal state, once again is leading the pack of Republican Party media designates, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Allen West, Jeb Bush and others, by what appears to be a comfortable margin. These fine men are designated by the media as the best and brightest that the Republican Party can offer to run against the MSM Queen, Hillary "What Difference Does It Make" Clinton. 

Ummm... Hold on there, boys and girls. As I recall, it is the PEOPLE who decide who will run for President, not Candy Crowley, Chuck Todd, Jon Karl, or even Rush Limbaugh.

I admit that of the current class of potential candidates, I would cast my vote for Allen West. I have said that now for over a year, at least. But I will be one of the first to cast my vote for Mitt, should he run.

I am nothing, if not loyal to a candidate. After all, I voted for Mitt in 2008 as he ran against McCain; and I voted for him again in 2012. I think, right now, he is the Best and Brightest the Republican Party can offer.

Perhaps, this time we can nominate a candidate who won't be bloodied and out of money before the convention, hell-bent on destroying him because he "doesn't fit the conservative mold" of the Party. Actually, gang, neither did Reagan.

Like me, Mitt is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. He believes in smaller government and a return to the constitutional principles we yearn for. Actually, I have a problem with the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, as much as I do with the extreme left wing of the Democrat Party.

We need a moderating voice leading our country, after what will be the failure of the experiment of Socialism, the attempt at the "Sovietization of America", by Barack Obama and his court jesters, Nancy, Harry, Chucky, Dickie and Joe.

I believe in Mitt Romney on so many levels. He is a successful businessman, who created jobs and saved companies from collapse; he saved the 2002 Winter Olympics from assured failure; he is credited with fixing health care, the right way, as Governor of Massachusetts; and everything he said during the 2012 campaign on the foreign front, Russia, Ukraine, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc, has come to pass, because, he said, Barack Obama had no idea what he was doing with foreign policy. And it shows.

Like Reagan, he will be 70 a couple of months after he is sworn in as President. Quite honestly, as a "baby-boomer", I am good with that. Reagan showed he could govern effectively, for two terms, and still be functional after eight years.

And just so you know, if Hillary were elected, she too would be 70 in 2017. So age should not be a factor. 

And as for Mitt's religion? First of all, who cares? I have more faith in how Mitt decides to worship God than many others who are hypocritical in the way they do. After all, do I really care that Obama is allegedly a Muslim? I have a bigger problem if he is choosing to pretend to be a Christian. If you recall, when JFK was asked about the fact that he might be his party's and the country's first Catholic President, his answer shut his critics when he said, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President; I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens to be Catholic."

So, my friends, I am providing you with the article which first appeared this past week in the Liberal blog Politico, and subsequently published in the online blog Conservative Tribune which reviewed other reasons why Mitt Romney could become President Romney on January 20, 2017.

As we have seen with Nixon and Reagan, and others throughout our history, you can't write off a two-time loser until the fat lady sings. Once again, the third time could just the charm Mitt Romney needs to put him over the top. 

And then, on January 20, 2017, he can once again complete the job he was born to do: fix other people's disasters, as he has done so many times in the past. He knows how to get it done because he knows how to LEAD. 

America, then, will be better off for electing Mitt Romney our forty-fifth President to fix the disaster the non-leader forty-fourth caused.