A WORD OF CAUTION – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:   Our side is understandably giddy about the depth of Tuesday's victory, and the message it sends to the Obamans.  But we should be careful.

Other recent presidents have been similarly rebuked.  In 1938 FDR lost 72 seats in the House, an even bigger drubbing than The One took Tuesday.  In 1946 Harry Truman lost 54 seats.  In 1982, Ronald Reagan lost 26 seats.  In 1994 Bill Clinton lost 54 seats.

But...in every one of those cases, the president went on to win reelection two years later.  So what happened Tuesday does not predict what will happen in 2012, and we should soberly go about our work.

There is, however, one difference between Obama and those other presidents.  The others had a certain skill at governing that Obama lacks.  And they were not rigid ideologists.  FDR was a devoted liberal, Reagan a devoted conservative, but they understood America.  I'm not sure Obama does.

We need a terrific presidential candidate in 2012 to go up against Obama.  We already have a winner for the second spot - Marco Rubio.  But, alas, people generally don't vote for the vice president. 

Republicans have, too often, chosen "the next in line" for the top of the ticket.  The next in line for 2012 would, presumably, be Mitt Romney.  But Romney has more baggage than American Airlines.  His health-care plan, adopted when he was governor of Massachusetts, bears a chilling resemblance to Obamacare, essentially eliminating one of our best issues.  And he doesn't wear well on the electorate.  He failed to make an impression in his 2008 run for the nomination.  He's almost too pretty, more like the guy in the Brooks Brothers underwear ad. 

Yes, I know:  Sarah, Sarah.  But the problems, problems.

Selection is going to be tough.  But the stakes are high, and the opportunity is there.

November 4, 2010