Editor’s Note: Mary Jo Jacobi Jephson served in the Administration of President Ronald Reagan as special assistant to the President and as a member the President’s Advisory Committee on Trade Negotiations. She then served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Administration of President George H. W. Bush.

Jephson has been a senior executive in the global financial services and energy industries and was appointed a British Civil Service Commissioner by Queen Elizabeth II. She is currently a portfolio executive residing in Houston.

At what point does charisma fatigue set in? Judging by the video posted on YouTube early last week by the Obama Campaign to announce the President’s 2012 re-election bid, the answer is: After about three years.

Gone are the cultish chants of “Yes we can!” and the creepy, messianic iconography that characterized Barack Obama’s meteoric ascent in 2008 from junior senator-turned-outsider candidate to President of the United States. Instead, the 2012 campaign season’s first commercial begins with quiet images of a farm, an obviously non-Catholic Church, and a sleepy looking row of mid-century homes; the types of places where folks cling to religion and guns; the types of places where people tend to vote Republican.

Let the Great Triangulation of 2012 begin.

The President — who is only briefly seen — is not once heard during the two-minute spot. Rather, stock characters including a middle aged white man, two mothers (one white, one Hispanic), and a hipster college student plea for continuity and grassroots organization, the latter a linchpin to the president’s re-election hopes amid sagging approval ratings and a growing enthusiasm deficit.

Only the most zealous Obamatons are still swilling the Kool-Aid, it seems. Our old friends Hope and Change do make cameo appearances, but they ultimately take a backseat to the Obama Campaign’s bizarre new slogan: “It begins with us.”

It begins? If it didn’t begin back in 2008, what exactly was all that? Is Candidate Obama asking the American people for a mulligan? Apparently the last two-plus years have been practice. Very, very expensive practice.

Let there be no mistake. The ad is good aside from that head scratcher of a slogan. The tone is appropriately subdued given the pessimism that characterizes the current economic climate. The President’s near complete absence should give pause to GOP strategists who were hoping to leverage fatigue caused by Mr. Obama’s unyielding egomania. The President’s handlers seem to have finally absorbed the message that a little humility will serve their ward well if he wants to keep the U-Hauls away from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for another half decade or so.

Given the shapelessness of the current Republican field, President Obama may get a second brass ring through the sheer power of incumbency and the perceived impotence — and relative anonymity — of the alternatives. However the president’s approval rating continues to linger below 50 percent, while independents who abandoned Democrats en masse during the 2010 GOP / Tea Party Midterm Smackdown seem reluctant to find their way back into The Chosen One’s flock. These are reasons to worry.

The Budget Battle

Sticking to what seems to be the Obama Campaign’s 2012 script (the traditional incumbent sprint to the middle) the president worked with congressional leaders to strike an 11th-hour deal late last Friday night to prevent the federal government from shuttering its storefront for the first time since President Bill Clinton and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich first squared off in 1995. While Mr. Obama was quick to call a press conference so he could announce the compromise while bathing in the warm glow of flash bulbs, his handlers should be wary of trumpeting as a victory the administration’s symbolic surrender of agenda-making power (the true source of a president’s strength) to House Speaker John Boehner and the GOP’s savvy budget wonks.

Unsurprisingly, liberal dissenters both in the Democratic Party and in the media have broken out the violins while criticizing the $38.5 billion in budget cuts as unfairly targeting women, the poor, the elderly and the infirmed. The Democrats’ cynical oversimplification of the cuts is obvious pandering to their base and borders on outright dishonestly. The budget victory gives Republicans the microphone and an opportunity to remind Americans that it was the Democrat-controlled House, Senate and White House that kicked the budget into the tall grass last year; a tactless political ploy designed to set up the incoming Republican majority in the House to take the blame.

The Republicans have been able to do what Democrats could not by explaining budget reform in terms that people understand: Essentially that the federal government can’t continue to spend more money than it takes in from the taxpayers. It’s basic arithmetic familiar to working families — don’t spend what you don’t have.

For decades the federal government has been living well beyond the taxpayers' means. Now we’re through the looking glass, The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the U.S. economy can't exist beyond 2037 at current spending levels. Everyone can and must understand that this is not sustainable, and that every American — from top to bottom — should expect to give up some entitlement or tax break. Deficits were fine in the 1980s when the continuity of the human race was predicated on spending the Soviet Union out of existence. It’s been two decades since that goal was accomplished.

The near shutdown last week is merely the first round in what is sure to be a very long prizefight over the size of government and recklessness of government spending. President Obama’s proposed 2012 budget, which landed with a resounding “huh?” back in February, all but ignored the long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation.

The Obama Administration’s decision to punt the issue to GOP lawmakers rather to demonstrate real leadership has backfired allowing Republicans to build some serious offensive momentum. Meanwhile, the Democrats are being viewed by the American people as obstructionists whose refusal to draft a deficit-reducing budget while in control of both the House and Senate was tantamount to Dereliction of Duty.

As of late last week, Boehner and his team had the Democrats crying “surrender” (they’re even talking Social Security now, the “third rail of politics” — touch it and you die), and with any luck will keep them at the bargaining table through the election cycle.

Consequently, Obama was forced to cancel a planned family vacation to Williamsburg, Va., most likely to preclude all of the obvious “non-essential personnel” jokes that would have been hurled in his direction. Instead, he made a surprise visit to the Lincoln Memorial to tell tourists “you’re welcome” for keeping it open, apparently unaware that the Lincoln Memorial has no walls, and therefore can’t be closed.

He then followed with an announcement on Wednesday of his own plan to cut $4 trillion over the next 12 years countering the Republican plan to cut $5.8 trillion over 10 years. The President declared that “doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option,” a curious choice of words given that according to the Congressional Budget Office, the plan he proposed two months ago would have added $9.5 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

The ongoing brouhaha over the budget, coupled with two seemingly endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with another nebulous conflict in Libya should have Democratic campaign strategists who have been riding the Obama love train for three years bracing for a major letdown. Should the economy remain sluggish, Republicans could be eyeing a complete takeover, bringing both the White House and Senate into the GOP fold.

Winning

Since different campaign committees fund House, Senate and Presidential campaigns, winning back the Senate and the White House aren't mutually exclusive. Much will depend on the length and weave of President Obama’s coattails, which could help his party in both House and the Senate races with a realistic eye toward maintaining the status quo (control of the upper house and The White House). The Senate was designed by the Founding Fathers as a continuing body, thus one-third of its seats are up every two years (as opposed to the House of Representatives, where all 435 seats are up every two years).

2012 will be especially challenging for Democrats as they will have to defend more Senate seats than Republicans. Compounding the issue, there also appears to be an unusually large number of Democratic incumbents preparing to retire. Republicans can only expect to capitalize on this legislative shake up by putting a viable candidate on the top of the ticket.

So who, then, is best equipped to challenge Mr. Obama on his record (if not his ability to smile for the camera)? The Obama Campaign will certainly claim as their major accomplishments the enactment of ObamaCare (a compulsory health insurance system masquerading as universal health care); the bailouts of the financial services and automobile industries; a marginally improved jobs picture; and the appointment of two women to the Supreme Court, including the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.

Notice that Guantanamo Bay is not on the list. It’s easy to talk about freeing prisoners when you don’t know who those prisoners really are.

Assuming for a moment that that the 2012 election doesn’t follow the same shameful stumble down into the muck of identity politics that soiled the 2008 process, Republicans should juxtapose Obama’s hollow, vague messages of Hope and Change with more job-appropriate qualities such as Reason and Leadership. As the only politician elected by the nation rather than a state or a district, the president is expected by that electorate to lead.

Mr. Obama was criticized in the past for voting "present" too often when in the legislature. As president, the voters expect him to do more than show up. “Present” isn’t an option for a president.

Assuming current economic trends continue (and barring discovery of cold fusion in the next six months, there’s no reason to think that they won’t) Republicans could simply bootleg James Carville’s “it’s the economy, stupid” messaging strategy from the 1992 Clinton Campaign. With the Obama Campaign touting their fundraising prowess (expected to top out around $1 billion), the GOP should have no trouble lampooning the Democrat’s backwards thinking on the intersection of money and government.

The Contenders

With values voters currently more concerned about the possibility of $8 gas and double-digit unemployment than gay marriage and guns, the GOP needs to be all business. If RomneyCare hadn’t served as the blueprint for ObamaCare, former Massachusetts Gov. Willard Mitt Romney would seem the perfect fit, combining a sterling record of management and leadership along with a presidential head of hair.

Romney could denounce RomneyCare as a failure in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts while criticizing President Obama for imposing a similar system on the nation at large while fully aware that it would hasten the country’s swan dive into bankruptcy, but that would require a level of political courage and public contextualization impossible in today’s attention-deficit media environment.

Current Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels — who served as chief political advisor and liaison for President Ronald Reagan and later as the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush — is the most appealing among a slowly-coalescing field of undeclareds.

To illustrate just how leisurely the candidates are assembling: by May 2007 there were 10 candidates for the GOP nomination who had formed exploratory committees. At about the same point in the 2012 election cycle, there are only two: the aforementioned Gov. Romney and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

The GOP has demonstrated an unfortunate tendency over the years to ordain presidential nominees through a line of succession. In other words, Republicans have selected nominees through the same process college guys use to buy beer: “Whose turn is it?”

Most recently, that process gave us the failed candidacies of Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 and Sen.John McCain in 2008. Reaching a bit further back, it also gave us Sen. Barry Goldwater in 1964 (who was overshadowed at the convention by the legendary “Time for Choosing” speech given by soon-to-be-California Gov. Ronald Reagan), and Gerald Ford’s failed 1976 re-election bid (where Reagan should have been nominated).

2012 could be a major game changer for Republicans in that there is no obvious heir-apparent waiting in the wings. Although whoever does top the GOP ticket would be wise to embrace the Reagan philosophy of smaller government, strong national defense, stable monetary policy and lower taxes. President Obama is sure to sing a similar tune now that he’s abandoned the pseudo-socialism that got him elected, but the Republican candidate can do it without a shred of irony.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour — like Daniels, a veteran of the Reagan White House — seems poised to make a run, as does for former House Speaker Gingrich. The decreased focus on values issues should give pause to former Alaska Gov. and reality television star Sarah Palin. Ditto Fox News talking head and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Each has a strong — and noisy — base and cannot yet be dismissed, but with economic and foreign policy issues at the forefront of the American consciousness, neither seems an appropriate candidate in the present climate.

Then there’s The Donald. As absurd as it may seem, Donald Trump has gained a bit of traction by leveraging his influence over sycophantic media outlets to get out his sometimes-belligerent message. Although his candidacy is hard to take seriously given his well-earned reputation as a publicity monger, Trump could self finance and make an appeal to small-government, pro-business conservatives.

While he’s not much of a factor other than as a bit of a curiosity for now, he has served as an effective attack dog in the early going seeming to rattle the White House and allowing more serious candidates to take the high road. According to CNN, he’s pulled even with other likely GOP candidates in the polls, and hasn’t ruled out a run as an independent.

Other interesting names include über-conservative and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Congressman and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, and current New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, although none among that group is likely ready for a presidential run.

Of course by conventional measures, President Obama’s galling lack of applicable job experience didn’t preclude him from landing his party’s nomination, but if the GOP were to go with someone equally as green, they would sacrifice a major talking point.

Meanwhile, the Tea Party demonstrated last November that in spite of what Bill Maher may think, it is a legitimate political force to be reckoned with. The anti-Obama camp, comprised of a loose alliance of GOP faithful and Tea Partiers, would be wise to centralize support around a single standard bearer, although there’s no guarantee that will happen.

In 2012, the Tea Party could either work hand-in-hand with the Republicans as kingmakers, or they could field their own candidate, which would likely work in President Obama’s favor.

Third-party candidates certainly aren't unheard of. Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot had an effect on the 1992 race between incumbent President George H.W. Bush and then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Conventional wisdom dictated that President Bush would ride his 80 percent approval rating following the Gulf War and steamroll any challengers, so none of the "really good" Democrats were willing to take up the mantle.

Pundits referred to the Democratic field in 1991 as the “Seven Dwarfs.” A strong argument can be made that Perot’s entry as a third-party candidate combined with a flailing economy contributed to a Clinton victory drawing Independent and Republican votes away from President Bush. Republicans need to be wary of any anti-GOP Tea Party or Independent candidate, and work to bring the right back together under the same tent.

President Obama is unlikely to face any serious threat from within, despite his flimsy approval numbers. Senator Ted Kennedy didn't hesitate to challenge President Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford in 1976, so it isn't unthinkable that a challenger could emerge. Of note, both of those incumbents won their parties’ nominations and then lost in the general election, a rarity in American presidential politics.

At present, the most likely contender would be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who could claim a major foreign policy disagreement with the President, stand down from her post, and challenge him to a primary contest. Not impossible; not implausible; but not likely either. The benefit to the GOP of a Democratic primary challenger is that it would force President Obama back out to the fringes of the Democratic Party to secure the nomination.

Regardless of what the Democrats do, Republican hopefuls will have to run to the right during the primary to secure the nomination, and then rush to the center for the general election to secure votes from moderates and Independents, where a likely unopposed President Obama will be laying in wait to paint the Republican challenger as an extremist.

Whether or not there is any infighting among Democrats, Republicans should heed Reagan’s 11th Commandment: never criticize another Republican.

Ultimately the GOP would be wise to dial back the clock to 1980, the last time a Democratic incumbent failed to win re-election. To borrow and slightly modify Candidate Reagan’s best line (it itself borrowed in part from President Harry Truman): “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when [Barack Obama] loses his.”