This is a good step toward it: Apparently Keith Olbermann has been canned at MSNBC. Or, at least, his contract hasn’t been renewed.
Dude.
Rudy’s use of the word “moderate” to describe himself in contrast with the other candidates for president is telling, as it shows that he senses a vacuum in the Republican Middle that is just itching to be filled, a thirst that Huntsmania just can’t quench. This is especially interesting considering that Rudy was never particularly “moderate” as Mayor. He was generally right-of-center on economic issues and left-of-center on social issues, except those involving law and order. Additionally, Giuliani’s tone and temperament have always been very immoderate, so even if the Mayor were to run as a centrist, he would end up being anything but the temperate, sober politician to whom moderates tend to flock.
But what’s really interesting is that Giuliani was sold to the Republican Party back in 2008 as the kind of presidential candidate that would appeal to Republicans who were to the right of the 25-yard-line on economics, defense, and law and order issues, but who were between the 40-yard-lines on social and cultural issues. He was billed as a modern-day Thatcher with an affinity for conservative judges. Then again, that strategy garnered Rudy all of one delegate to the convention, yet more evidence that what makes sense to Beltway strategists and armchair pundits doesn’t always compute with, say, a middle-aged accountant in New Hampshire or a school teacher in Iowa. If Rudy does decide to take the plunge, it will be interesting, to say the least, to see what form Giuliani 3.0 ultimately takes.
…and he will do so with a home base in Georgia:
In the last 24 hours, former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich has touched base with several prominent Republicans in his former home state, telling them that he intends to make a run for president in 2012 using Georgia as his base – and that he already has his eye on office space in Buckhead for a campaign headquarters.
That he’s running isn’t a huge surprise – after all, as I’ve always said, you don’t divorce your wife because she doesn’t look Presidential enough and then not run for President – but Newt’s (unofficial) confirmation of his plans to run does help solidify the field one step more.
Despite having lived in Virginia for the past 12 years (and not having a residence in Georgia any longer), he will be operating his campaign out of Georgia. His explanation:
“My offices are here. My grandchildren are here. I’m here regularly,” Gingrich said at a Thursday news conference at his Center for Health Transformation in suburban Atlanta. “I helped create the modern Republican Party in Georgia starting in 1960. I have a certain fondness for being back in Atlanta.”
Game on.
I am not exactly buying this folks… But Public Policy Polling finds Sarah Palin leading Barack Obama by only a single point in the state of Texas in a potential 2012 match-up:
2012 could be the year Democrats are finally competitive for President in Texas…but only if the Republicans nominate Sarah Palin.
There are vast differences in how the various different potential GOP contenders fare against Barack Obama in Texas. Mike Huckabee is very popular in the state and would defeat Obama by 16 points, a more lopsided victory than John McCain had there in 2008. Mitt Romney is also pretty well liked and has a 7 point advantage over the President in an early hypothetical contest, a closer margin than the state had last time around but still a pretty healthy lead. A plurality of voters have an unfavorable opinion of Newt Gingrich but he would lead Obama by a 5 point margin nonetheless. It’s a whole different story with Palin though. A majority of Texas voters have an unfavorable opinion of her and she leads the President by just a single point in a hypothetical contest.
~snip~
What’s maybe most striking about Obama’s competitiveness in these numbers is that they’re from the same sample that showed Democrats had virtually no chance of picking up Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Senate seat earlier this week, trailing all 12 match ups we tested by double digit margins.
We also tested Rick Perry for President against Obama on the poll and he actually did the worst of the Republicans, earning only a tie. It’s hard to say whether that’s simply because people want him to serve out his term as Governor or because they really don’t think he’s cut out for the White House. The next time we do a Texas poll we’ll go into greater depth about the causes behind the reluctance of voters in the state to support him for President.
Texas ought to stay safely in the GOP column for 2012 but with a weak nominee Obama would have a chance and these numbers are further confirmation that you’re probably talking about 400+ electoral votes for the President next year if his opponent is Sarah Palin.
Please don’t shoot the messenger…
Last night Herman Cain was on Hannity’s America on Fox discussing his potential bid for President. Here’s the video:
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
Following up from recent polling which shows that Paul is the second choice of most Texans for Kay Bailey Hutchison’s US Senate seat, Paul has openly acknowledged that he’s considering a bid for US Senate. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says a new poll that shows him a a top choice among Texas Republicans to run for Senate has him thinking about the race. “It’s certainly crossed my mind,” Paul told The Ballot Box of a potential run for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s (R-Texas) Senate seat next year.
New numbers out Wednesday from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling found Paul was second only to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (R) among Texas Republicans asked who they want to see run for the seat in 2012. The poll found Dewhurst to be the top choice of Republicans, garnering 23 percent support. But Paul was right behind him as the pick of 20 percent of GOP voters.
The two-time presidential candidate stressed that his potential interest in a Senate seat wasn’t anything new, but admitted the poll numbers had peaked his interest. Paul said “a lot of people” brought the numbers to his attention Wednesday. “I was surprised,” he said of the poll results, quickly adding that a run for the Senate has crossed his mind several times in the past, “so I don’t know that it means much.”
A Paul run for US Senate could change the Presidential primary, opening his base of support to another Tea Party or libertarian oriented candidate – with potential gains from the likes of people ranging from Herman Cain to Sarah Palin to Gary Johnson. This would not be the first time Paul has run for US Senate in Texas, losing the primary to Phil Gramm in 1984. If he runs and wins, this would be the second time a father-son duo served in the US Senate. Henry Dodge (WI) and his son Augustus Dodge (IA) served alongside one another in the US Senate from 1855 to 1857.
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
Hi
I’m JohnG from Rightosphere. Most of you probably know me already, but for you who don’t, I just thought I’d introduce myself: My name is John, I’m from Sweden originally (currently studying in Ireland). I’m a conservative and I’m here to add an international perspective (same thing I did on ROS basically)
Great to be here, thanks to Kavon for adding me. I’m looking forward to contributing to the dialogue.
/John G
I received this interesting tip via Facebook:
A phone poll is being done in SC, even though they don’t say its for Thune, the questions leave no doubt.
…I received an automated phone call a few days ago. It focuses just on the general not primary election. The first question is something like “If John Thune was the Republican nominee would you vote for him against President Obama?” other questions included “do you favor a repeal of Obamacare?” “do you consider yourself a supporter of the tea party?” I can’t remember much else because I was doing something else when I got the call. I can’t remember the name of the firm.
Stay tuned….
Public Policy Polling 2012 Republican National Primary Poll
- Mike Huckabee 24%
- Sarah Palin 14%
- Mitt Romney 14%
- Newt Gingrich 11%
- Tim Pawlenty 8%
- Ron Paul 7%
- Mitch Daniels 4%
- John Thune 1%
PPP surveyed 515 usual national Republican primary voters from January 14th to 16th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.3%.
_________________________________________________________________________
-Texas Conservative blogs at ILikeMikeHuckabee2012.
(more…)
Gov. Mitch Daniels discusses dysfunctional fiscal policy with Larry Kudlow on CNBC:
__________________________________________________________________________
-Chris Lars can be contacted at LarsC36@aol.com
Mike Huckabee sat down with FOX News host Martha MacCallum who asked him how and when he will make his presidential decision:
Also of note, Huckabee resisted the notion that he will make his decision based on whether any other candidate, such as Sarah Palin, would run stating he would base his decision on, “whether I feel that I have a shot to take it to the finish line and I believe I offer the best alternative to President Obama.”
_________________________________________________________________________
-Texas Conservative blogs at ILikeMikeHuckabee2012.
…and Why He Needs to Learn it for 2012.
A charismatic candidate, with the ability to reach out to minorities, and a stated desire to move beyond the party leader idolized by the rank and file. A “big society” conservative, unwilling to talk about the issues nearest and dearest to the firebrands in his base, but forced to do so by circumstances. A party leader seen as the most electable alternative—particularly in head-to-head match-ups with his opposition—who eventually triumphs, but at a high cost.
If this saga, that of British Tory Party leader David Cameron, sounds familiar, it should. History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme, and in early 2011, it looks like David Cameron’s story might just rhyme with the 2012 presidential candidacy of Mike Huckabee.
The similarities between Huck and David are legion, and they represent both positive and negative qualities that these candidates share. Both have made minority outreach, and softening the image of their party, a hallmark of their political careers. Of course, they went about it in slightly different ways—I don’t expect Huckabee to announce he’s not a global warming skeptic or back off from his conservative immigration stance—but the pillar both men seemed most ready and willing to abandon from the old party orthodoxy was economic conservatism. Both were also quick to announce the death of the old Reagan and Thatcher consensus within each party, a fact which helped differentiate Huck from his competitors in 2008, and was more successful in gaining Cameron the victory in his party leadership struggle. Both Huck and Cameron have “base issues”. Rank and file Tories were suspicious of Cameron’s new “big society” project, and many conservatives within the Republican Party remain wary of Huckabee’s lack of fiscal conservatism. Neither man was particularly experienced on foreign policy, but for Cameron, who can simply find his party’s brightest light on foreign policy issues and make him or her foreign secretary, this is less of a problem. Huckabee’s weakness on this issue will have to be overcome with good foreign policy staff work, and the selection of top-shelf surrogates.
More centrally, however, I think there’s a philosophical continuity between Huckabee and Cameron. Cameron calls it “big society” conservatism; Huck doesn’t have a name for it. At it’s core, this philosophy, I think, tries to go beyond the dynamic of individual-versus-government, and speak up for the mediating structures (church, family, community), which sit between these two polar opposites. Rick Santorum, in his controversial book It Takes A Family, makes a similar argument. There have always been conservatives like this in the Anglo-American tradition, but in the fusion of conservatism and classic liberalism, communitarian conservatives have tended to get lost in the shuffle. This is probably a shame, as the sort of virtuous free society envisioned by libertarian individualists almost certainly requires such mediating structures to function.
But Cameron and Huckabee (and to an extent George W. Bush before them), have a unique take on communitarian conservatism. Since government, they argue, has done a great deal to wreck these mediating structures, it is up to government to fix them. And both Huckabee and Cameron are comfortable using the power of the federal government directly to create the conditions which foster such communitarian regeneration, in ways which make limited government advocates nervous.
Ironically, I think Huckabee may face some of the same challenges in his 2012 race which Cameron did in the 2009 British elections. First, of course, Huckabee would have to (A) decide to run and (B) win the nomination. For Cameron, these two hurdles did not exist, since the British parliamentary system picks it’s party leader long before elections are called (those bemoaning the length of American campaigns and the “permanent campaign” often forget that, in countries with shorter campaign seasons, party leaders are chosen by parliamentary cadres, card-carrying members and/or back-room wheeler dealers). Assuming Huckabee can overcome these two uniquely American hurdles, he still must face the factor which almost sank David Cameron: circumstance.
It is almost a truism, and no less accurate for all that, that candidates almost never get to talk about the things they want to, when running for office. This was certainly the case for David Cameron, who was forced to pivot from the big society programs and kinder gentler Toryism which were his hallmark, to an aggressive deficit-cutting, immigration-curtailing candidate reminiscent of the Thatcherism he sought to move beyond. Likewise Huckabee, who is not an economic conservative or limited government advocate at heart, will likely be forced to take on the mantle of austerity when he runs in 2012. Even if the economy improves temporarily in 2011, there are enough potential economic crises on the way to keep economic issues at the heart of our political debate. What, for example, happens when twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings with literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loans start defaulting enne mass? Or, what if candidate Huckabee is faced with a massive foreign policy crisis?
Mike Huckabee can, potentially, learn from David Cameron’s successes and failures. The Tories, after all, did manage to throw out labor, all be it somewhat underwhelmingly, and they did so with a high number of minority MPs newly elected. Cameron broke into long-time Labor and LibDem strongholds in his win, but also failed in certain key ridings. For Mike Huckabee, the biggest lesson is: be prepared to transcend your base. For Cameron, this was the moderate reformist wing of the Tory party, while for Huckabee it is the conservative evangelical element within the Republican Party. But Huckabee, like Cameron before him, may be limited by his inability to demonstrate to fiscal conservatives and defense hawks that he is, fundamentally, one of them. Huckabee could also benefit from a little philosophizing. There’s an argument to be made that strong communities foster individual liberty, and if Huckabee wants to unite the party without substantially changing his politics, he needs to make it. Finally, the biggest lesson from Cameron’s travails is also the simplest, and as a Baptist minister, Huckabee should appreciate it. There is a famous passage in the Old Testament (in the book of judges I believe), which stated that the Men of Issachar “new the times”. For a presidential candidate, “knowing the times” is an essential ingredient for success. No candidate can prepare for all eventualities, but it is possible to have a smart, flexible and effective policy staff, which can provide rapid-yet-thoughtful responses to developing crises. For a candidate not generally associated with policy wonkishness like Huckabee (or Cameron), such a group is essential.
I don’t know whether Huckabee will be the nominee, and I’m not particularly sure I want him to be. While I am sympathetic to communitarian conservatism, I’m not sure a nation with an economy in crisis is in the mood to be receptive to it, and I am a bit concerned—regarding both Huckabee and Cameron—that their desire to use government to undue the previous mistakes of government may back-fire. But, on the off chance that Huckabee is our nominee, I think it’s important for him to learn from—and improve upon—the electoral fortunes of another big-society conservative across the pond. And, he’d better learn his lessons well, because whatever else you can say about Barack Obama, he’s at least a hundred times more effective a politician than Gordon Brown.
Apparently, calls are being made on his behalf by a top-fundraiser on his behalf in the Granite State:
WASHINGTON – One of Sen. John Thune’s top fundraisers quietly has been making calls in New Hampshire on Thune’s behalf, a further sign that the South Dakota Republican is nearing a decision on whether to run for president.
Gregory Slayton, the former U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas, runs a private investment firm and is a professor of business administration at New Hampshire’s Dartmouth College. Slayton was Thune’s Northern California finance director when Thune ran unsuccessfully for Senate in 2002 and when Thune defeated former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle two years later.
New Hampshire will hold the first presidential primary, probably in February 2012, days after Iowa’s caucuses are expected to launch the campaign season. Those two states and South Carolina have culled the GOP field in presidential primaries since the 1980s.
In separate interviews Thursday, Thune and Slayton acknowledged that they had discussions about Thune’s possible candidacy, and each hinted that a decision might come soon.
Be sure to read the rest here.
Jonathan Martin and Kasie Hunt have the scoop over at Politico:
To understand the dissatisfaction on the right with the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls, look no further than Mike Pence.
An Indiana congressman with just five terms in public office, Pence is currently the subject of a draft movement—but he may well pick a gubernatorial run over a White House bid.
Nevertheless, a group of longtime Republicans – including former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and former Rep. Jim Ryun – are working with a well-connected conservative PR firm to urge the congressman to head to Des Moines and Manchester instead of Indianapolis and Muncie.
Their efforts have intensified in recent days as Pence’s own self-imposed end-of-January deadline for a decision grows near.
For all the praise they heap on the congressman – and his fans tend to be effusive – it’s also plain that what makes him so compelling is the perception that he lacks the flaws of the other candidates currently in the presidential mix.
The pro-Pence crowd consists of a group of traditional conservatives who, while sympathizing with her, don’t view Sarah Palin as a serious presidential candidate. They doubt Mike Huckabee will run again or can broaden his appeal. And they believe the rest of the field features has-beens or candidates insufficiently pure on cultural issues.
Be sure to read the rest here.
Not necessarily. According to a new poll by CBS:
House Republicans may be focused on fulfilling their campaign promise to work to overturn the health care reform law, but a new CBS News/New York Times survey finds that a plurality of Americans prefer they focus instead on creating jobs.
The poll finds forty-three percent of Americans believe the most important thing for the new Congress to focus on is job creation – compared to just 18 percent who say the top priority should be health care. Fourteen percent chose the federal budget deficit, 12 percent the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and seven percent illegal immigration. Respondents were presented with a list of options.
Do we risk making the same error the Dems did by focusing on something other than jobs?
_____________________________________________________________
Steve’s most recent post at “my lyceum”: Of Tiger Moms & Snow Days
-Did I miss an article? Broken Link? If so, please email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com.
Q: Seriously? You’ve decided to trot out this old format, often used by the late Dean Barnett on Hugh Hewitt’s website, where a hypothetical, often snarky, questioner asks for your take on a series of topics?
A: Yep! I’m “bringing it back,” as it were.
Q: Good luck with that. So what do you make of Sarah Palin putting out feelers in Iowa?
A: Oh, she’s definitely running for president. No question about that.
Q: But wasn’t Michele Bachmann’s own foray into the 2012 pre-game a sign that Sarah may not be running after all?
A: That was certainly a reasonable interpretation. But perhaps Bachmann was playing a game of chicken with Palin, hoping that Sarah would put up or shut up if her niche was about to be filled.
Q: What if both Palin and Bachmann run? Won’t that dillute Palin’s natural constituency?
A: No. If Palin runs, she IS the Tea Party candidate.
Q: But what about Herman Cain? Gary Johnson? Couldn’t they run against Washington and big government as well, and do so more effectively than Palin given their respective backgrounds and expertise?
A: In theory you are correct. But what looks good on paper doesn’t always translate into the real world. It’s true that Gary Johnson has eons more experience at shrinking government than does Sarah Palin. And that Herman Cain was against HillaryCare back when nobody had heard of Sarah Palin. But what you have to understand is that Tea Partiers have a strong emotional connection with Palin that none of the other candidates can match. She was there for them during the 2009-2010 cycle, when everyone in the world was saying that conservatism was finished in America. They’re not going to forget that.
Q: So Sarah Palin is going to be the representative of the Tea Party in the GOP primaries?
A: Yes. There will essentially be two sub-primaries: the Establishment sub-primary, which Mitt Romney will win, and the Tea Party sub-primary, which Sarah Palin will win. There may be a third sub-primary if Mike Huckabee runs, or if Tim Pawlenty can go from zero-to-sixty by year’s end. But ask me about that later.
Q: Oh I will! But first, let’s get back to your laughable assertion that Mitt Romney is going to walk away with the “Establishment” imprimatur. What about Daniels? Barbour? Thune? What about Thune?
A: I appreciate your enthusiasm for the senator from South Dakota, but I simply cannot ignore the GOP Law of Primogeniture, which states that Romney will win the Establishment sub-primary because he is “next in line,” as it were. The Republicans on the ground who never read political websites are probably by and large Romney supporters, just like they were mostly McCain supporters four years ago, even though no one knew it. Romney’s going to have the money, the organization, and the GOP machinery that McCain had last time around. And there really isn’t a compelling alternative to Romney among the sorts of candidates who appeal to mainstream Republicans. Daniels, Barbour, etc, are compelling to political and policy junkies like us, who analyze every legislative proposal and every political demographic. But to the average Republican voter, there’s no reason not to give the nomination to Romney, given that it’s his turn.
Q: So Romney’s going to sail to the nomination?
A: In any other year he would. But the GOP grassroots is more energetic than it’s been in a long time, and a lot of that energy is taking the form of angst. Romney isn’t the most effective candidate at channeling energy and angst emanating from the grassroots base. That energy will go into the Tea Party candidate, Sarah Palin.
Q: Wait a minute, so are you suggesting that we’re looking at a Romney/Palin race?
A: Probably. There are two things that could prevent that.
Q: Please tell me one of them is likely to happen.
A: Neither of them is likely to happen.
Q: I was afraid you’d say that. So what could deny us this, er, wonderful choice between Mitt and Sarah?
A: Well, there could be a third sub-primary for a candidate who could win both evangelicals in Iowa and Republicans in New Hampshire and elsewhere who want an electable nominee who can beat Obama. The two candidates who fit that description are Huckabee and Pawlenty. Huckabee has maintained very high favorables across the board, and Pawlenty comes across as a reasonable, pragmatic fellow. And both are ready-made candidates for Iowa.
Q: So why are you banking on Romney v. Palin if Huckabee or Pawlenty seem like they could make waves?
A: Because one of two things would have to happen in order for Huck or T-Paw to break the Romney/Palin stalemate. Either Huckabee would have to run, or Pawlenty would have to become a serious contender. I am predicting that neither of those things will happen. Huckabee’s campaign team is already splintering, he and his wife are settling into a new home in Florida, and the former public servant is finally making real money with his cable news career. It’s hard to believe that the Huckabees would give up all of that to run around Iowa for the next year, and then to run around the nation for another year, and then to move to Washington and work 20 hours a day. In Pawlenty’s case, it’s hard for a reasonable candidate like Pawlenty to break out of the pack in a year when sobriety isn’t “cool.”
Q: Is there anything else that could save us from Romney v. Palin?
A: The only other possibility is that an unlikely candidate jumps in and sucks all the air out of the race. Think Jeb, Pence, Christie, Paul Ryan, or Marco Rubio. The likelihood that any of those candidates will run is very low.
Q: So who wins the Romney/Palin knife fight?
A: Too soon to tell.
Q: Dude. You’re seriously going to give me a non-answer like that?
A: Yes, because I think the primaries could play out in a number of ways. The most likely scenario is that Palin would win Iowa, Romney would take New Hampshire, and South Carolina would determine the winner. But I could also imagine a scenario where Romney sweeps the primaries after Republicans digest enough January 2012 polling to determine that Palin has no shot at beating Obama. In that event, Romney could win the nomination in a walk, similar to the way that John Kerry won the Democratic nomination in 2004 with little real opposition once the votes started coming in.
Q: Can Palin beat Obama?
A: Never say never, but I doubt it.
Q: Would it be close?
A: She’s not going to lose by 30 points, but it would be a decided loss. I think a lot of wavering Republicans would come home to Palin after she proves that she has sound judgment by putting forth her potential agenda for the nation as president. But she would get creamed by Independents, who vote for the candidate who “seems” competent, intelligent, etc. Unfortunately, it’s probably too late for Palin to turn around her public image in those areas. Also, a lot of down-ballot races would go to the Democrats in the event of a Palin run.
Q: Can Romney beat Obama?
A: Oh most certainly. With Romney it’s going to be very close, because Mitt’s sort of a Kerry-esque candidate who is inoffensive enough to the general electorate that he would be able to win most of the voters who disapprove of Obama.
Q: Um, I hate to break it to you, but Obama’s approval rating is back to 54 percent in some polls, right?
A: Yes, polls of “adults.” The pollsters who use a likely voter screen find that Obama pretty consistently bumps his head at around 48-49 percent of the electorate. Anything can happen between now and November of 2012, but if Obama continues to max out at 49 percent of likely voters, that gives the GOP nominee a real shot to best the president with a slim, yet very real, plurality or majority of the vote.
Q: What states would decide the race in a close election?
A: In 2008, Obama won the nation by 7.2 points. Virginia was 0.9 percent more Republican than the nation, while Colorado was 1.4 percent more Democratic than the nation as a whole. Those were the two states that ran closest to the national average. So in a “tied” election, like the one I’d expect in an Obama/Romney race, Romney would win the McCain states, as well as the Nebraska congressional district that Obama won last time, along with Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida, all states that were “redder” than the nation in 2008. At that point, Romney would need both Virginia and Colorado, which would probably be too close to call, or one of those states plus a state or two that was “bluer” than the national average back in ’08. Possibilities include Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.
Q: Will there be a primary challenger or third party challenger that will splinter Obama’s coalition?
A: No and no. Bloomberg has been backing off as of late, and Hillary doesn’t seem to be getting ready for a run either. The reality is that the Left is going to close ranks during the coming election cycle. Liberals know that the next four years will be pivotal in terms of national policy. ObamaCare was designed like a cleverly-manufactured computer virus, that slowly eats its way into your files without you even knowing it. It can be repealed in 2013, but probably not as easily in 2017, once employers have dumped tons of Americans into the exchanges. Meanwhile, the next president will almost certainly replace Justice Kennedy, determining whether the Supreme Court going forward has a 5-4 conservative majority or liberal majority. And there are probably equally important judicial vacancies that will occur at the appellate level, as Reagan/Bush appointees continue to retire. Finally, the power of the Executive Branch to enact regulatory policy and to veto spending cuts will ensure that the government exerts far greater control over American life than it has since the pre-Reagan era, and will result in the eventual choice between national bankruptcy and massive tax increases, as Democrats continue to “feed the beast” in a sort of perversion of Reaganism. Ultimately, four more years of a Democratic White House has the potential to structurally and institutionally move the country leftward. The Left knows that, which is why Democrats are falling into line behind the president.
Q: So are you effectively saying that it’s Mitt Romney or bust for those Americans who don’t want four more years of President Obama, and the creeping leftism that he promises?
A: No, but I am saying that there are a lot of things that are beyond our control, such as which candidates choose to run for president and which choose not to do so, as well as the behavior of the regular Republicans who don’t read political websites and who are just going to go out and vote for the candidate whose turn it is. I would much rather see Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, or Jeb Bush be the Republican nominee than either Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin. But for most Republican voters, the Romney/Palin choice may be the only one we get. And I remain convinced that only one of those two can beat Obama.
No one can be rated as having an “excellent” chance at winning the nomination (yet someone will eventually win). Mitt Romney, widely considered to be leading the early pack, starts out as a weak frontrunner. Six actual or possible contenders are placed in the First Tier; four more in the Second Tier: four in the Third Tier; and five in the Fourth Tier. Obviously, the nominee is likely to be found in Tiers 1 and 2.
Read the chart to see the supposed strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. Not sure I agree with his logic in all cases, but it makes for a good discussion starter at the least!
_____________________________________________________________
-Steve also Blogs at my lyceum, where he is currently blogging through a reading of Paine’s Common Sense.
After last election’s madhouse primary campaigns, which began in 2006 and saw the early primary states debating whether or not to hold their elections before Christmas 2007, I never thought I’d hear anyone complain that the current primary campaign is unfolding too slowly.
But some pretty important people are saying just that, including Doug Gross — the campaign chairman for Mitt Romney’s Iowa campaign in 2007-08:
“What he’s got now is this base of people that he had touched over the course of the last campaign, and the longer he waits, the more those people are going to start looking around,” Gross told RealClearPolitics in an interview at his law office in Des Moines. “And I know they don’t agree with me on this, but I would argue that if he’s serious about it, he ought to play hard right away, show that he’s going to win here, use that base of support and build on it, and make it clear what he’s about.”
Gross said that he would decide who to lend his services to based on whichever Republican candidate he felt had the best chance to win a general election. He said he is disappointed in the relatively late start to this year’s campaigning cycle, which he believes is a result of Romney’s failed Iowa strategy during the last campaign.
Gross goes on to praise Gingrich and Pawlenty, pointing out that Pawlenty has been doing the most legwork in Iowa of any of the potential candidates.
But what about the charge: is staying out of the race hurting Romney’s chances? At first glance, that would seem pretty foolish — because there are no other candidates in the race yet either for operatives and campaign veterans to flock to. This isn’t exactly Fred Thompson waiting until September to jump in here.
On the other hand, though, there are stories coming out like this one from the NH Union-Leader:
Veteran Republican activist Claira Monier will be formally announced later today as the chair of likely 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s New Hampshire political action committee.
Monier endorsed Mitt Romney during the 2008 election cycle…
She assumes a volunteer post to recruit grassroots activists for Santorum as he explores a run, according to an announcement obtained by the Granite Status.
Does Monier signing on with Team Santorum rather than Team Romney indicate she got tired of waiting for Romney to enter the race? Probably not, at least not entirely. But if Romney had already been in the race, could he have kept her on board? (And does it ultimately matter?)
This also seems to be something that will disproportionately affect Romney in this campaign, as he is the only candidate with the existing campaign structure and teams left in place from 2008. Huckabee never had any notable structure to speak of, Palin rode McCain’s structure as the Veep candidate, and all the newbies are putting together organizations from scratch.
So is Gross correct? Does Romney need to jump in earlier than anticipated in order to keep his structure and organization in tact? Or can he wait and play the game on his timetable as he has set out to do?
Headlines screaming, “Santorum Plays Race Card Against Obama” are never a good thing for your Presidential ambitions.
The damning moment for Santorum comes during an interview with CNS News and is, of course, making the rounds on YouTube:
For those of you who can’t watch the video, here’s the transcript of the rant:
“So the question is, not whether this is a human life. When Barack Obama was asked, you know, ‘Is a child a human life?’ – ‘Well, that’s above my paygrade.’ Just about everything else in the world he’s willing to do – to have the government do, but he can’t answer that basic question, which is not a – which is not a debatable issue at all. I don’t think you’ll find a biologist in the world that will say that is not a human life.
The question is – and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer – is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no.
Well, if that person’s human life is not a person, then – I find it almost remarkable for a… for a… for a black man to say, ‘No, we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’” (Emphasis added.)
Well, this is just what the GOP needs right now. Here’s hoping Santorum doesn’t run for President and doesn’t get any air time if he does.
UPDATE: Here is Santorum’s defense of the comments:
“For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country.”
NBC News/Wall Street Journal 2012 Presidential Survey
- Mitt Romney 19%
- Mike Huckabee 18%
- Sarah Palin 14%
- Newt Gingrich 10%
- Ron Paul 8%
- Tim Pawlenty 5%
- Mitch Daniels 3%
- Rick Santorum 3%
- Haley Barbour 2%
- John Thune 1%
- Other (VOL) 2%
- None (VOL) 6%
- Not sure 8%
Mike Huckabee’s 2008 chairman, Chip Saltsman, states that he has a “Notre Dame Clause” allowing him to leave his new position as Chief of Staff for freshman Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.) should a presidential campaign come calling. However, the timing of Saltsman’s decision will raise some eyebrows:
Mike Huckabee and his top advisers insist that he’s thinking seriously about running for president, but he’s doing little to put together the sort of organization needed to mount a campaign. The latest evidence: Chip Saltsman, his campaign manager in 2008 and one of his closest confidantes, has accepted a job as Chief of Staff for freshman Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.).
In an interview, Saltsman said his taking the job should not be read as an indication about Huckabee’s intentions.
“I have a Notre Dame clause in my contract,” he quipped. “So I can leave if a presidential comes a calling.”
~snip~
Yet it also means that he’s not devoting his days to helping Huckabee build the infrastructure he lacked last time, something that most every other GOP aspirant will be doing in the months ahead. Because of his devoted grassroots following in places like Iowa and South Carolina, the Arkansan doesn’t need to create something from scratch. But if he’s serious about running, he’s going to need somebody like Saltsman to start working full-time at putting the band back together.
Read the rest of Ben Smith’s piece over at Politico.
Scott Conroy at Real Clear Politics has the big scoop:
DES MOINES, Iowa — Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has tasked her aides with quietly gauging her level of support for a potential presidential campaign by making inquiries to a select pool of likely allies and grassroots activists in Iowa, RealClearPolitics has learned.
Key Republican officials and operatives in the nation’s first voting state had begun to assume that Palin would not run for president in 2012 since most of them have not heard a word from her or from her small circle of aides, even as other likely candidates have begun jockeying more forcefully behind the scenes. But a Palin adviser confirmed that although the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee’s footprint has not been as heavy as that of other possible candidates, her political action committee has indeed been taking discreet steps in Iowa that would help her build a credible campaign here if she decided to launch one.
“The idea that we’re not in Iowa is inaccurate,” SarahPAC adviser Andy Davis told RealClearPolitics.
A top official in the Iowa Tea Party who insisted on anonymity to avoid betraying Palin’s trust told RealClearPolitics that a friend of SarahPAC met with him in person in Des Moines late last year and prodded him for suggestions on how Palin might mount a grassroots campaign in the state.
Be sure to read the whole piece here.
My most recent op ed on these pages suggested that some Democrats’ notion that Republicans, having won the 2010 election, now must “govern” was a bad idea and doomed to fail. But, at the same time, I argued that the Republicans, now having momentum and history on their side, should not surrender the initiative nor squander their opportunity.
This may seem to be a contradiction. My friend Tony Blankley argues persuasively that Republicans SHOULD govern from the House of Representatives (which they now control). Mr. Blankley was Newt Gingrich’s press secretary during Mr Gingrich’s speakership, and lived through the travails of the government shutdown in 1995. He points out that the communications environment has dramatically changed since then when liberal bias overwhelmingy dominated TV and print, and conservative radio talk show hosts were not so powerful as they are now.
No greater demonstration of Mr. Blankley’s point could be made than the recent dust-up over civility following the tragedy in Tucson, Arizona. Without a scintilla of evidence or justification, many liberal media persons tried to use the tragedy as an attack on conservatism, conservative leaders, and the conservative grass roots. Unlike 1995, or any other time in the recent past, there was a powerful and effective response from the New Media forces, many of which are conservative. Within hours, it was obvious that the ruse would not work, and all polls indicate that the public did not buy the rants and hysteria from the left. The bottom line is that it was a clear net loss for the provocateurs and apologists from the left, their media outlets and their overall credibility. It took, of all persons, Barack Obama to rescue them from further damage.
The GOP-controlled house of representatives has now voted to repeal Obamacare. My point was to state the obvious, i.e., even if conservatives could force a vote in the U.S. senate, and then win a majority (with moderate Democratic crossovers), they could not get past President Obama’s inevitable veto. On the other hand, there are many ways to skin this political leopard, including de-funding (when possible) the various provisions of Obamacare, rendering it mostly inoperable until, with a Republican president, it can be fully repealed.
I think Mr. Blankley means this when he says the GOP should govern, as well as that conservatives should stand their ground if the administration decides to have a showdown over the deficit limit. This is NOT what Democrats mean when they say Republicans now have to govern. It’s a political sucker punch. What they want is for Republicans to take the responsibility for the fiscal morass that has grown since January, 2009. No one denies that the recession and economic breakdown occurred first under President George W. Bush, nor that his policies did not contribute to this crisis, nor that his treasury secretary initiated the bailouts which have now become all too big and routine. And while President Bush did cut taxes, he did not cut spending, and thus violated the basic rules of supply side economics. It was President Obama, his administration and the Democratic Congress of 2009-2011, however, which took bad policy, bad timing and bad ideas, and compounded them until our deficits have become astronomical nightmares. The chronic high unemployment, lack of a bounce-back in several economic sectors, and the lack of long-term confidence in the economy by both investors and executives is now the Democrats’ responsibility. It was the fundamentally unsound Obamacare legislation which hangs like a lead weight around the neck of U.S. economic prospects.
The new Republican majority in the house, and the several new GOP senators, received, in 2010, a stern direction from the majority of voters to repair these worsening and disturbing economic circumstances. There is also a very obvious and similar message for moderate liberal Democrats. The Republic cannot wait until January 20, 2013 to begin those repairs. That is what Mr. Blankley and other conservative commentators mean when they say that Republicans must somehow “govern” without the White House and control of the U.S. senate. Conservatives will have to enlist centrists of both parties to succeed.
It will be an acrobatic act to do so, but there is too much at stake not to do so.
__________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Cassleman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor
-Did I miss an article? Broken Link? If so, please email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com.
Democracy Corps/CAF (D) 2012 Presidential Survey
- Barack Obama 48%
- Mitt Romney 46%
- Barack Obama 49%
- Sarah Palin 39%
Imagine a primary in which you had to choose between a staunchly conservative African-American with strong policy chops and grass-roots support and a staunch Hispanic conservative with a legal background and charisma which probably equals Marco Rubio? Imagine, further, that this primary is likely to be crowded with every single elected official in a predominantly Republican state, one of whom is a popular, self-funding Lieutenant Governor?
This is the dilemma Texas Republicans are likely to face, in the (now quite plausible) event that Ted Cruz and Michael Williams both get into the race to replace retiring Texas senator Kay Bailey Huchison. Cruz and Williams would be viable, top-shelf conservative candidates in any state in the union, and now, they will likely face off against one another, and a whole boat-load of other contenders in the 2012 Texas senate primary. Two such rock-stars facing one another in a primary is almost tantamount to malpractice. It goes beyond the fact that these two gentleman are thoughtful and charismatic minority spokesmen for the conservative movement and Republican party. Both also have strong followings, and each could easily win the endorsement of Jim DeMint. And, in all likelihood, Cruz and Williams will split the conservative vote, allowing another candidate–David Dewhurst or Roger Williams for example–to win the primary.
Cruz and Williams should both have a bright future on the national stage, so a compromise is in order. If Dewhurst does run for senate–and this seems likely–either Michael Williams or Ted Cruz should run for the Lieutenant-governor’s slot, which will be open (alternatively, if Rick Perry has the power to appoint an LG, one of them should be appointed). My recommendation would be Cruz for LG; he’s still very young, and could wait a cycle before going for the senate. Cruz could then endorse Michael Williams for senate. Rick Perry can only run for so many terms before he wears out his welcome, and John Cornyn isn’t the youngest guy in the senate, so Cruz will have opportunities to move up. It would be ideal to, at some point, have both men in the senate, or one in the governor’s mansion. Cruz and Williams are more than just the future of the TX GOP; both have the very real potential to help reshape the Republican party on a national level, and both are unabashed conservatives. It would be a crying shame to see them fighting one another in a bruising multi-sided primary.
Orrin Hatch is in third place in a new poll in Utah — behind Jon Huntsman and Jason Chaffetz:
Dan Jones and Associates/Utah Policy-Exoro Group 2012 Republican U.S. Senate Primary Poll
- Jon Huntsman 48%
- Jason Chaffetz 23%
- Orrin Hatch 21%
The poll was conducted among 504 eligible voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percent.
I love this quote from Huntsman (from an earlier interview):
“You know, I’m really focused on what we’re doing in our current position. But we won’t do this forever, and I think we may have one final run left in our bones.”
Hey, Jon, unless there’s a mouse in your pocket, you might want to lose the Royal We.
Back to the subject — with Bennett fresh in his memory, Hatch cannot be liking these numbers.
Like every presidential primary season, 2012 is bound to be full of surprises. Unless a challenger suddenly appears against President Obama, this will be the first time in 16 years that the GOP alone will have a contested primary season. Unusually for the GOP there is no definitive frontrunner; no Reagan, Bush or Dole who the Party believes “is his turn”. Whether there is 6 candidates or 16 candidates running, factors seem likely to be constant, regardless of who is running. This is not a definitive list, but these are just some of the important factors that will play into the Republican Primaries.
1.) Whoever wins Iowa will not win New Hampshire: Reagan didn’t, Bush didn’t, Dole didn’t, and no one has since the Iowa Caucuses have mattered in the GOP field. Karl Rove put it best when he said New Hampshire has no reason to vote the same way as Iowa; why ratify the choice of someone else. It’s probably a safe bet to say that 2012 will not be any different. The winner of Iowa will lose New Hampshire and how that is played out will have big implications down the road.
2.) The Ames Straw Poll will mean something: Will the folks at Ames pick the ultimate winner of the nomination and their Caucus? Sometimes they do (Bush in 2000) and sometimes they don’t (Pat Robertson in 1988). What Ames does that’s really important is helping to crystalize the field. In 2000 Dan Quayle and Lamar Alexander were both out after poor showings but in 2008, Mike Huckabee began his rise with his surprisingly strong showing. Others like John McCain, don’t participate at all. Part beauty contest, part spending binge, the Ames Straw Poll, no matter its flaws, will tell us something about the state of the race.
3.) What about Nevada: In 2008, Nevada moved up in the calendar to try and gain recognition and importance. Unfortunately for the Silver State, the date they chose was the same as the extremely high-profile South Carolina primary. The media paid modest attention to Nevada but the more important contest by far was South Carolina. In 2012, things will be different. Nevada will be on its own day, before South Carolina. What impact will it have? Don’t know, but time will tell.
4.) The Calendar: The rules adopted by the RNC will dramatically alter the primary calendar. Not only is the race going to start later, but the way delegates are apportioned now depends on when the states holds its contest. If the state is in March, the delegates are proportional. If in April or later, it can be whatever each state decides. If the contest is as heated and close as some of the early polls predict, the delegate math will become more and more important.
5.) What about the Tea Party: Before 2009, there was no Tea Party movement. Right now, they are a potent (although not dominant) force within the Republican Party. What’ll they be in 2012? We don’t know. They might still be around in one form or another, or they might go the way of the Buchanan Brigade. If the primaries were held today, the Tea Party would be a good constituency to go after. By 2012, maybe they will, but maybe they won’t. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Like I said, this is not an exhaustive list by any means, but these are a few factors that I think will be important in the 2012 primary season regardless of who runs. How each candidate handles these issues and factors will be critical in helping to shape who, and how one of the candidates running will be our nominee to take on Barack Obama in the fall.
