Barack Obama is what he is – a Marxist committed to doing all he can (in Cloward and Piven fashion) to destroy the United States and the West generally.

To complain about him (and his Legion of comrades) is a bit like complaining about an earthquake or a plague. Rather pointless.

But one can (sensibly) complain about the human response to an earthquake or a plague. The official leaders to the resistance to Obama could do a vastly better job than they do.

As for Mitt Romney – some compare him to David Cameron.

But, on reflection, that is a bit unfair to Romney.

Romney has no core beliefs and principles. But David Cameron has the core beliefs and principles of his “liberal” left education.

I know which I think is worse.

I have issues with Cain, notably his background on the Fed, his support of TARP and his advocacy of the Fair Tax. But I have even greater issues with all of the others. Perfection isn’t in the cards, so I’ll have to settle for the best on offer, especially when it is so superior to that which we have been enduring these last three years. (And frankly, even the worst of the Republican candidates would be vastly superior to Obama.) So at the moment, and barring some debilitating gaffe or explosive revelation, or the entry of some new and unexpected candidate (and not merely Chris Christie), Cain has my support.

Now Rick Perry has proved unable, yet, to debate (sorry, it does not matter how good your record is and how good your ideas may be – if you can not DEBATE you can not win the nomination, let alone beat Obama in the general). It seems that our dear friend Mitt Romney will be the candidate.

A man who the Wall Street Journal editoral team (hardly an ultra radical libertarian source) said (on the “Journal Editorial Report” television show)….. his every policy was opinion poll and focus group driven.

Indeed that everything Romney even says (even in supposedly casual conversation) is worked out in relation to opinion polls and focus groups.

In short a man with no beliefs or principles what-so-ever – prepared to say one thing, and then the exact opposite (on the same issue) depending on the political circumstances.

For all of his faults – no one could honestly claim that about Herman Caine (who is a decent man).

And, the ulitimate confession, I regard Barack Obama as such a threat to the very survival of the West that I would, if he becomes the candidate, hope for the victory of Mitt Romney.

Better a man with no beliefs or principles – than a man with profoundly evil beliefs and principles.

Plus, Cain seems like he has the business background to understand that economies aren’t made up of questions of how much more you can spend than before.

He has made some really troubling gaffs, relating to freedom of religion. Also, his tax plan involves the introduction of a Federal Sales tax. I’m in favor of that, but only if the income tax gets killed in the process. Giving the Feds another way to tax, regardless of what the rate might be today, is pretty scary in my view.

Gary Johnson is an excellent candidate, but doesn’t seem to have any hope of winning the nomination.

If we didn’t have open primaries, he wouldn’t be in anyone’s circle.

You guys should try one of those. Makes it less like going out to one of the usual agencies to hire a new professional manager.

Do you believe that he could manage to get a pizza to your house in 30 minutes or less?

Putting questions to the candidates about “jobs” and what “jobs plan” they have is insane. It is despiriting to see that none of the candidates, except perhaps Paul and Johnson, challenge the premise directly and reframe those questions in terms of monetary and fiscal reform.

Cain’s presentational style is simpler than the others, but his main thrust is tax reform and that is only marginally relevant to the problem.

A year ago I wondered whether Christie might run, but instead there is this linguistic cripple from Texas who looks like he’d lose a chess match in four moves.