Good point, but at this point four years ago, "the one we feared most" was Hillary Rodham, and how'd that work out for us?
Glad to see you're feeling better.
In the long run? Just fine.
That's not a fair analogy. Hillary Clinton didn't lose the nomination due to a popular vote. She lost the nomination due to a manipulated caucus system.
The lesson to be drawn from THAT was the very thing some of us here on FR were trying to warn people about at the time -- the GOP was stupidly using the criteria of "somebody who can beat Hillary!" in their panicked desire to determine the "best" GOP candidate, instead of "somebody who will hold the banner high for the Republican party as being a true, effective ANTIDOTE and ALTERNATIVE to the Democrat party's big-government liberalism.
When the GOP chooses a candidate based on what person they think the candidate will be running against, they're setting themselves up to be manipulated by the opposition.
THAT was the lesson that should have been learned, but it hasn't -- already, many Republicans who should know better are seeking "anybody who can beat Obama!" I think there is a very high probability that Obama won't even get the Dem nomination. So it will behoove the Republican party to start looking for a candidate who can communicate to the American people that the Republican PARTY is the party that will work to get government off their backs, out of their personal lives, and out of their pocketbooks, and to hell with whatever idiot Democrat is chosen to run against him or her.
The truth is that we really have no idea who that idiot is going to be; the only thing we know is that it will be a liberal idiot.