For days now, there have been rumors that Eddie Murphy was the leading contender to host the 2012 Oscars. After this previous year’s hosts – Anne Hathaway and James Franco – a steady, professional, ADULT hand on the Oscar till would be welcome, which is why my immediate reaction was “happy!” when I heard the news confirmed, that Eddie would be hosting the next ceremony. But is Eddie up for it? Many people don’t think he is, and they point to his current trend of family-oriented, mainstream, dumbed-down comedies as supposed “evidence” that he’ll be bad at the job. To which I say: BITCH PLEASE.

Now, I’m not saying that Eddie is the most obvious choice, or that it’s a sure thing that he’ll be good. Eddie got the gig because Brett Ratner, a hack director who has had enormous financial success doing the whole “dumbed down” thing, is producing this year’s telecast. But for all of Brett Ratner’s fault, he likes and appreciates “old Hollywood” and mainstream, crowd-pleasing, big-“get” awards shows. My guess is that Ratner will put a lot of energy into getting GOOD, interesting, quality people to the awards show as presenters, and then they’ll just let Eddie do his thing.

So, back to Eddie and how he’ll do. The old Eddie, the Beverly Hills Cop/Raw-version of Eddie would never be asked to host the Oscars. He would only be asked to host the MTV Movie Awards, which Eddie did do, and he was a great host. For all of the Norbit jokes you throw at Eddie, he’s a pro. He knows how to handle himself, he knows how to improvise, he knows how to command a room, and he knows how to entertain. I’m not a fanatical Eddie apologist, although I will admit to carrying a childhood crush on him into my adulthood. But come on, haters: even you bitches have to admit, when Eddie is on it, he’s really, really good.

And you know what? James Franco set the bar so low, all Eddie has to do is show up, and he’ll be worlds better.

Photos courtesy of WENN.