Texas’ redistricting numbers are in, and they don’t look great for GOP hopes of creating up to four new Republican districts in the state. Almost all of Texas’ population growth has come from minorities, and Hispanics in particular. For the first time in the state’s history, Texas is now a majority-minority state, and the new round of redistricting will likely create at least one, and probably two majority-minority districts in Texas.

For many Democrats, and many in the national political media, population growth in Texas’ Hispanic community ibso facto will lead to Texas becoming a less red state over time, eventually making it a swing state. This would, as I don’t need to tell anyone, be a real disaster for the GOP, and for conservatism, and an absolute wind-fall for progressives.

So, is Texas on it’s way to becoming the next California, or even a bigger version of New Mexico? I’m skeptical for a couple of reasons. First of all, the Texas GOP seems to have been, from my admittedly non-Texan perspective, at least marginally better at winning Hispanics than neighboring parties. Rick Perry, not exactly the most moderate GOP’er in the state, got a fairly respectable 38 percent of the Hispanic vote in his last election, and I believe George W. Bush did even better in his gubernatorial runs. Encouragingly, two of Texas’ Republican freshman, Quico Canseco and Bill Flores, are Hispanic, and Blake Farenthold managed to squeak by in a majority Hispanic district. Better still, Republicans are making small but real gains in the number of local Hispanic Republican officials, and the effort to increase this number even more has an excellent spokesman in George P. Bush. The recent defection of conservative Hispanic legislator Aaron Pena is also a good sign for two reasons. First, it indicates that some of the elected Hispanic legislators who are Democrats now are actually pretty conservative; many Democrats, after all, are liberal enough to make a party switch impractical. Second, it indicates that Pena, who is nobody’s fool politically, thinks that the best place for a Hispanic legislator in Texas is the Republican party.

This brings me to the second of three reasons I’m not unduly pessimistic about Texas. Namely, it seems as though the Hispanic population of Texas is not directly analogous to that found in California. I would be interested, for example, in how many Texan Hispanic legislators are members of groups like the American Legislative Exchange Counsel, and how their voting records stack up against their Californian counterparts. My sense–and this is without looking at the demographic data at all–is that the average Texan Hispanic is more rural than his/her Californian counterpart, which will also change voting patterns. Finally, it’s important to point out that terms like “Hispanic” “Latino” or even “Mexican immigrant” can be quite misleading. There’s a lot of variation in even the most narrow of these terms, and it would not be surprising to see different voting patterns develop among Hispanics in Texas and California.

Part of the reason for this difference is also the third reason why I’m somewhat more optimistic about Texas than the national media. Bluntly put, Texas is such a very distinctive culture in it’s own right that a certain amount of assimilation is going to happen. California has a pre-existing multicultural sensibility, and a pretty liberal culture among whites. Other areas with high Hispanic/Latino populations often also have a fairly liberal culture (e.g…, New York). There may be examples of areas in which fairly conservative states or regions have been transformed into liberal ones by immigration in American history, but I struggle to think of them (internal emigration is a different matter; I’m frankly more concerned about some of the mountain west states getting deluged by wealthy white liberal Californians fleeing from–and exporting with them–the conditions which make the golden state less of a friendly place to live every year). In all likelihood, Texan Hispanics will–to a greater degree than their fellow Hispanics in less crimson red states–assimilate the politics and some of the culture of their neighbors.

Despite this cautious case for optimism, I do remain concerned for one reason which almost over-rides the rest. Namely, the Republican party has an uncanny ability to screw things up when it comes to any kind of minority outreach. It repeatedly and routinely fails to grasp the most basic principal of minority outreach–which I laid out previously–showing up and listening. It’s politicians routinely and consistently tend to take principled stands–a desire to control the border for example–and express them in frankly horrifying and border-line racist ways. Finally, it’s committees, county chairs and strategists consistently and routinely develop strategies based on winning elections without minority voters, and which exclude any meaningful attempt to build the party in minority areas. While this seems like a reasonable strategy in any given electoral cycle, it amounts to a death-trap in the long-run. Thus, if anything, it is my hope that the arguments I’ve made above will convince not only the Texas GOP, but parties across the country, that minority outreach can be done. Texas, rather than an example of how “demographic destiny” pushed the Republican party and conservative movement into the dust-bin of history, has an opportunity to demonstrate how conservatism and the Republican party can truly represent and reach out to all Americans. Here’s hoping they’re up to the challenge.

Right now there is a fascinating battle going on in the Badger State. To keep it brief, the Wisconsin Teacher’s Union is locking horns with the Republican dominated legislature and Republican Governor Scott Walker. The Democrats have literally fled the state, heading to Illinois and schools have been shut down in many districts as teachers and other union supporters descend upon Madison to protest a piece of legislation aimed at reforming the state’s pension system and ending collective bargaining for the unions.

So far, Governor Walker and the Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature are holding firm. And good for them. The way I understand it, the Governor is essentially saying that it’s time to change the way the state of Wisconsin deals with their public service unions. The Governor is probably looking at what happened to his neighbors in Michigan and other Midwestern states that caved to the unions and is deciding that he doesn’t want that fate for his state.

This is a pivotal moment early on for Governor Walker and the Wisconsin Republican Party. They can’t capitulate to the thuggish tactics used by the unions. Here in Florida a couple of years ago, the teacher’s union made their students (from preschool up) write letters to their state legislators asking to “save my teacher” and “let me keep my education” to try and bully them into not reforming the system. This has got to stop. Times are tough and the teacher’s union, along with the whole education system, is going to have to suffer through the cuts and reforms like everyone else.

We’ve seen unions do this before, across the pond in Great Britain. Back during the Thatcher years, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), led by a radical communist Arthur Scargill, went on strike against the Conservative Government’s pit closure program. For an entire year, from 1983-1984, there were protests, pickets, and pitched battles in Britain between strikers and police. Back in the 1970’s, the NUM’s strike had broken the back of Ted Heath’s Tory government, and the Labour Party was in their pockets anyways. So a miner’s strike was a pretty formidable thing.  But Margaret Thatcher stayed firm. The Lady wasn’t a turnin. Eventually, she triumphed. The NUM’s strike collapsed. Since then, a union strike has never again reached the point where it threatened the stability of the British Government. Margaret Thatcher had conquered one of the most powerful unions in Britain.

Our Republican Governors, from Chris Christie to Mitch Daniels to Scott Walker, appear to be following in the footsteps of the Iron Lady. Knowing that their state’s need reform, these three Governors are taking on their states public sector unions. As with the British Miner’s, the public sector unions aren’t going to play fair, nor are they going to be nice. However, if our leaders do just what Thatcher did, stand firm and not give in to their demands, we’ll win. This could be the tipping point in Northern, unionized states. If Christie, Daniels, Walker and others beat the unions now, they might well break the back of the public sector unions in their states. Considering how important the unions are to the Democratic efforts in those states, this could have serious electoral consequences in the future.

It’s high time someone smashed these unions and now is the chance. So Governor Walker and the Wisconsin Legislature, go for it!

Yesterday’s vote in the House of Representatives to eliminate the $450+ million earmark for continued development of a second/alternative jet engine for the F-35 Air Force and Navy fighter program was very good news in that a budget conscious House cut this unnecessary expenditure from the Appropriations bill.  The amendment offered by freshman Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Florida) to eliminate the earmark was adopted by a vote of 233-198.   The good news is that 110 of our guys, including a solid majority of freshmen, voted for the cut, but the bad news is that 130 (a majority of the House Republicans) voted to continue with the wasteful program.  Considering the dire fiscal situation facing the country and the level of Republican rhetoric about the need to make very substantial spending cuts, I am appalled that 130 of our guys would vote for this unnecessary program that was opposed not only by the current Administration, but by the Bush Administration as well.  The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have consistently opposed the second-source F-35 engine from the beginning.  The primary engine for the F-35 joint-service fighter is made by Pratt & Whitney Corporation; the other engine funded by the earmarks is being developed jointly by General Electric and Rolls Royce (the British company).  The GE engine was not selected by the Pentagon during the original source selection competition and contract award, but has been kept alive by Congress ever since.  GE and Rolls Royce cleverly spread the work on their engine throughout many states and Congressional districts.

The New York Times today provided a particularly useful breakdown of the votes in the House by party and geography.

What I found particularly surprising was that two of the the most prominent Tea Party activists and spending hawks voted against eliminating the earmark—specifically Michele Bachmann and Mike Pence.  Encouraging was that Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, and Jeb Henserling were among the senior members who bucked the House Leadership and voted against the earmark.  This should provide them added credibility when it comes future budget issues.

The fact that 130 GOP members voted to continue with a program that the Pentagon in both Republican and Democratic administrations has opposed and that the F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin has indicated would be of little extra value  is nothing short of disturbing.  Sure, one would expect those members from districts most directly effected by the program such as those near the GE jet engine plant in suburban Cincinnati, Ohio, (John Boehner country) and maybe a few other areas to vote to continue the funding—but 130!?  This may not bode well for more serious efforts to reign in spending.  If these guys can’t let go of something like this, what are they going to do when things start to get really tough such as with entitlement reform and programs like ethanol subsidies?  The F-35 alternative engine is a mere drop in the bucket.

While not an “official” endorsement (since nobody’s even an “official” candidate yet), this has got to have the Daniels camp feeling pretty good this afternoon:

Jeb Bush likes Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ 2012 presidential prospects. The former Florida governor told a private gathering of Jacksonville business leaders that Daniels is the only potential candidate he’s heard who demonstrates a willingess to face up to harsh realities.

“Mitch is the only one who sees the stark perils and will offer real detailed proposals,” he said, speaking at a reception held before he took the stage in front of a crowd of real estate professionals.

Bush acknowledged that Daniels is absent the smooth, television-friendly delivery present in other hopefuls, but said voters were looking for a direct approach.

“He would be the anti-Obama, at least socially,” Bush said. “He’s not good on a teleprompter, but if my theory is right that could work well for him.”

Since Daniels is in my top three choices for nominee, this is good news to me as well. Heh.

In 1992 a quirky Texas businessman named Ross Perot decided to run for President. He threw around pie charts, touted his business sense, and proposed all manner of bipartisan reforms to help get the deficit under control. He received 19% of the popular vote in the general election as a third party candidate. In 1992, I was 9 years old, but I was already intrigued by this “competent businessman” – a candidate model I’ve seen a number of times since.

In 2010, a relatively unknown Republican by the name of Brian Murphy decided to run for Governor against the fairly well known former Governor Bob Ehrlich in the gubernatorial primary here in Maryland. He was a businessman with experience turning businesses around that I found fascinating. I was an Ehrlich guy early on, but I decided to hear Murphy out at a candidate forum – he did not disappoint. His rhetoric about cutting spending, his specific discussion of budgetary issues, his tax cut ideas – they all reeled me in. Add to that the fact that Murphy had experience working with budgets, dealing with red tape, cutting spending, etc all in the business end made me interested. It was after the second time hearing him speak that I officially jumped on board, I voted for him in the primary.

In this “pre-primary” Presidential election season, I’ve been most impressed with…Herman Cain (if you haven’t noticed by my commentary here and at Old Line Elephant). Why? Much of the same reasons as above – he talks the talk, promotes good business sense, and is fiercely fiscally conservative. He also comes with proven experience turning businesses around – and that’s part of the draw to the competent businessman as a candidate.

The competent businessman is a candidate that we sometimes see in Republican primaries. They’re conservative in rhetoric and have experience in the private sector dealing with budgets. This is a draw to conservatives. Why? Well, first – they have proven experience dealing with budgets, spending, etc. This executive experience is incredibly useful when going into the public sector in such roles as County Executive, Governor, and President. Even at a small scale, that’s more than most members of Congress will ever have. That and small scale budgetary issues still apply to the larger scale of the government.

Next, these competent businessmen have seen the problems that conservatives keep complaining about. All the red tape, all the government involvement in business, all the increased taxes, all the problems small businesses face – the competent executive candidate felt that pain, dealt with those issues, seen what they can do. The competent executive coped with them and saw that they were destructive firsthand. With their own experience, they are able to seriously discuss these issues not from a theoretical standpoint, but from a practical one. That resonates among voters who are able to relate more when a candidate has a personal story than when they talk 100% in axioms.

(more…)

PPP conducted a poll asking the question, “Do you think xxxxx is most qualified to be President or Vice President?”  The results are as follows:

More people seem to think that Romney is better qualified as President as opposed to Vice President.

I have to agree.  I just don’t see someone of Romney’s talents and skills being wasted as Vice President.  I feel the same way about Rudy Giuliani.  You just don’t take a dynamite executive talent like those two men and bury them in a job that John Adams described as the worst job ever invented by man.

PPP has just released their latest vs. Obama polling in Tennessee.

For comparison, here are the Tennessee Horse Race numbers from yesterday.

Longtime readers of this blog know that I have been critical of Sarah Palin’s avoidance of the tough interview. Since the 2008 campaign closed, she has rarely faced any seriously probing questions by anyone other than her best of friends.  Well that’s about to change.

According to CBS, she is speaking to the business group “the Long Island Association” scheduled for noon today.

“Palin has agreed to answer questions posed by the president of the organization for about an hour with cameras rolling”, LIA President Kevin Law said. “It will be interesting to see and hear what direction she thinks this country ought to be heading in,” he said.”

While it isn’t exactly facing the liberal members of the press, she is still stepping out of what has long been her comfort zone. She will be speaking on the record for an hour, facing what promises to be some serious questions.  It will be enlightening to see how she performs.

You go, girl.

While the media continues to lie about the rhetoric of the Tea Party, we have yet another example of violence and hate coming from left wing protests.  Just a few weeks after a left wing protest of the Koch brothers brought us threats against the life of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a new round of left wing protests in Wisconsin have brought us a whole slew of hateful rhetoric against Gov. Scott Walker.  Have a look at the public sector unions doing what they do best:

Gov. Christie’s newfound interest in entitlement reform is, let’s just say, timely:

And then there’s this:

Gov. Chris Christie today delivered a broadside against the broken politics of Washington and the need for straight talk to solve the country’s problems in a speech that will stoke talk of a 2012 presidential bid by the New Jersey Republican.

“I look at what’s happening in Washington right now and I am worried,” said Christie in an address at the American Enterprise Institute. “What game is being played down here is irresponsible and it’s dangerous.”

Asked whether he would consider running for president in 2012, Christie acknowledged that he “see[s] the opportunity” but quickly added: “That’s not a reason to be president of the United States.”

And yet, Christie’s speech, which spanned roughly 45 minutes, had all the traditional markers of someone eyeing national office.

“Leadership today in America has to be about doing the big things and being courageous,” said Christie. At another point, Christie argued that “we have to bring a new approach and a new discipline to this.”

Christie repeatedly drew on his experiences in New Jersey — tightening the state’s budget, facing down public-sector unions — to draw a harsh contrast with the kick-the-can-down-the-road-ism that he believes has infected politics in Washington.

Dismissing the “old playbook” of putting off hard choices until after the next — and then the next — election, Christie noted that after the 2012 election Medicare will be less than five years away from insolvency. “My childrens’ future is more important than some political strategy,” said Christie. “We need to say these things and we need to say them out loud.”

Note how Christie’s Shermanesque statements with regard to 2012 are becoming a bit less Shermanesque. And why wouldn’t they? The coming presidential election is probably Christie’s one shot at the White House, given the rising conventional wisdom that the only sort of candidate who can beat President Obama in 2012 is a straight-talking truth-teller — one with the courage to address the structural problems embedded in our nation’s economic and fiscal policy, and with a track record of results on comparable issues at the state level. By 2016, the great national moment for such a candidate will have passed, and Christie will be sitting in the pub next to Mitch Daniels, as Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio fight over the nomination.

Interestingly, Christie and the other candidate who fits this mold, Mitch Daniels, have opposite problems. Christie would probably be a natural when dealing with conservative media types, who would love the New Jersey governor’s bombastic, combative personality. The reality is that the right-wing media’s big problem with Daniels is tonal. The more that conservative politics begins to sound like a polite conversation between William F. Buckley and George F. Will, the less talk radio will have to, well, talk about. The grassroots base thrives on red meat politics, and someone like Christie would communicate the Daniels message in a way that would keep the Right’s political-media complex going strong. He would display a natural chemistry with the modern-day opinion makers on the Right and he would be temperamentally suited to run a colorful campaign, which is the sort of campaign that the GOP base has come to expect out of its politicians.

But unlike Daniels, Christie lacks the long, strong record on social issues that would give him cover with social conservatives as he attempts to focus on the Red Menace of the debt. So-Cons are already going to be suspect of Gov. Christie given his recent conversion to the pro-life movement, and his Northeastern-ness will make him seem more socially liberal than he actually is. Christie’s governance has not been without attempts by the governor to build up socially conservative street cred. He addressed a pro-life rally earlier this year. And he defunded Planned Parenthood. It remains to be seen whether social conservatives will warm up to the governor, or harbor continued suspicions.

Exit question: Which is more likely to occur, a pact between Gov. Daniels and the right-wing opinion makers, or a warming of relations between Gov. Christie and social conservatives?

Second exit question: Is Ann Coulter just trying to be snarky in the following clip, or is she onto something?

PPP has just released their Horse Race poll for Tennessee:

Huckabee takes it, hands down.  The closest one to him is Palin, 14 points back.  Then comes Daniels and Romney at 20 points back, only one point ahead of Ron Paul.

*** Edited a math error.  Had Palin at only 12 points back. ***

PPP has released their latest National vs. Obama poll.

Mike Huckabee did the best, though it is nothing to really brag about.  He came in the least behind Obama at -3%.  Mitt Romney was close behind him at -5%.  Mitt did manage to hold Obama down to 46% versus Mike’s 47%, but again that is little to brag about.  Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are tied at -9%

The big takeaway has to be that things continue to look poorly for Sarah Palin.  Obama scored the best against her of any of the field.  In fact, she was one of only two 2012 GOP hopeful that couldn’t keep Obama under 50%, and the other one who couldn’t was one of the novelty candidates.  She trailed the President by double digits.  Only two points separated her from the two novelty candidates, Donald Trump and Jeb Bush.

Now that the contest for the 2012 Republican nomination for president is more or less underway, and we know almost all the possible candidates, what chance does the eventual GOP choice from this roster have against the Democratic incumbent?

I have been repeatedly stating that when the full roster is known, and it is likely to be a large number initially, the race will nonetheless quickly narrow to a few candidates after the initial primaries.

The GOP roster for this cycle is not only large, it has a number of potential candidates who could mount a truly serious challenge to President Barack Obama, including Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Mitch Daniels, and Tim Pawlenty.. It also has well-known potential candidates who possibly could be nominated, but would be less likely to win in November, including Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Haley Barbour. It further has less well-known potential candidates who are unlikely to make it to the finish line in Tampa next year, including John Thune, Rick Santourum, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson and Herman Cain. There are, as well, vanity candidates who are well-known, but have no chance such as Donald Trump.

I think it would be presumptuous to make a prediction from this roster at this time, although when I was younger, I did so anyway. (I did make some successful early predictions in those days, including Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and I was among the first to predict the national emergence of Gary Hart (in 1982) and Joe Biden (in 1985!) But I also made some predictions that were downright political lemons, and eventually I withdrew from the presidential prediction business.

This year I want to discuss a condition no one usually talks about in the presidential contest. This is because it is ultimately mysterious, unmeasurable, and can’t be polled. I am talking about luck.

Yes, most of the men (and in the future, the women) who win the Oval Office have, or will have, “what it takes” to be president, including communication skills, experience, intelligence and charm, but a great many American politicians have had these qualities, and did not win the presidency.

In more modern times, I am thinking of Harold Stassen (not nominated), Thomas Dewey (nominated twice), Robet Taft (not nominated), Adlai Stevenson (nominated twice), Hubert Humphrey (nominated), Averill Harriman (not nominated), George Romney (not nominated), Bob Dole (nominated), Mario Cuomo (not nominated), Jack Kemp (not nominated), Bruce Babbitt (not nominated), John McCain (nominated) and Hillary Clinton (not nominated). This is only my list, and a partial one. The reader my well have his or her own that differs from mine.

Regardless of who is on or not on the list, however, there is at least one element the aforementioned have in common. They were not “lucky.” I am not at all suggesting that was the only reason they did not make it to the White House, but I am suggesting that any of them could have been president, and possibly in other, luckier, circumstances might have made it.

Now what do I mean by luck?

It’s an elusive quality, and in presidential politics, it can involve how a candidate looks (Dewey), running against a popular incumbent (Stevenson, Harriman, Dole), what a candidate says (George Romney and Robert Taft), potential opponents who decide not to run (Cuomo), running against an unexpectedly strong opponent (Humphrey, Babbitt, Hillary Clinton). It can also involve that all-important element in politics — timing. Another week, many political scientists say, and Hubert Humphrey] would have overtaken Nixon in 1968. When the mortgage banking bubble broke late in the 2008 campaign, McCain was some points ahead of Obama. If Hubert Humphrey had been healthy in 1976, he might well have defeated Jimmy Carter for his party’s nomination. And so forth.

This subject calls for much more detail and more examples, but I wanted to raise it because the Republican list of potential nominees is large, many on the list are clearly capable of being president, but only one will win the nomination and have the chance to win the White House prize.

We could list characteristics, resumes of political and business positions held, issues each candidate favors and opposes, communication skills, geographical origins and the like, but which Republican candidate also has luck on his or her side?

Events soon to come will answer that question. I am not being mystical. It is an element always present in a presidential election cycle.. It is by no means usually the biggest element. After all, it was that way-off Broadway playwright who long ago said, “The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

More likely, the next GOP nominee will be someone who, by great craft and perseverance, will prevail in September and take their case to the voters in November. There is an old saying that luck is not all just chance, but also what a person makes of themselves.

________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, the Prairie Editor Blog.

As I posted yesterday, one of the writers at AlterNet wrote a racially charged article regarding Herman Cain calling him all manner of derogatory names, ranging from “black garbage pail kid” to “monkey” to “race minstrel.” This offended many on the right and left.

With the higher profile this post gained, the author decided to respond to his critics and, much like the original post, continued to use racially charged dialog. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

As a black American with a deep and abiding love and concern for my community and country, I begin with a basic question for my conservative brothers and sisters regarding their political affiliations. Why?

Any reasonable discussion of the role of black conservatives in the Right-wing movement—especially as highlighted by the type of racially reactionary politics embodied by CPAC, the Tea Parties, and the New Right—must seriously consider that question. From the Southern Strategy of Richard Nixon, to the policies of Reagan and his embrace of the image of “the welfare queen,” to the notorious Willie Horton Ad, and including the vitriolic race baiting of the Palin-McCain campaign with its “Real American” meme of 2008, the policies of the Right-wing in this country can in the most polite and generous terms be described as hostile and anathema to the political interests of the working and middle classes, people of color, and the poor.

Now, let’s tread a bit carefully: a difference of opinion on what constitutes good policy is not in and of itself a bad thing. Moreover, the diversity of political opinion in the black community is something to be celebrated. It should not be glossed over or run away from.

But Herman Cain has repeatedly spoken before the Koch Brothers funded, John Birch Society-linked groups, including those that are in favor of rolling back such basic Civil Rights era gains as integrated schools. In addition, to raucous applause at the CPAC conference, Herman Cain and Allen West both legitimated a deep hostility to President Obama that is rooted in “birtherism,” and crazed paranoid narratives about tyranny and terror from America’s first black president. As I and others have suggested elsewhere, these are narratives which are at their root premised on a belief that a black man who happens to be President is prima facie and de facto illegitimate.

In my original post, I referred to Herman Cain and other black conservatives as “race minstrels” and “mascots” for the White conservative imagination. I stand by this observation.

Whenever Herman Cain and others have a moment where they can engage in “real talk” among their ideological compatriots or make a public, critical intervention against the obvious racial hostility which drives contemporary American Conservatism, they either stand mute or enable it.

First, who at CPAC has ever wanted to roll back integrated schools? And where was the bitherism at CPAC? I don’t recall any high profile person at CPAC discussing birtherism? In fact, anyone I knew who attended was opposed to birtherism. Also, really not sure how the McCain-Palin campaign was race baiting, except that those on the left decided to define race by political ideology.

The bottom line is that this man owes Herman Cain an apology for his racially charged attacks on a man and a movement that has done nothing to provoke his anger. I won’t hold my breath.
_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.

Yesterday, the Iowa GOP announced that they have scheduled a second debate in conjunction with FOX News, to be held one week before the Iowa caucuses.

To keep track of all these debates, straw polls, and primary dates, I’ve combined them all into one handy dandy color-coded table:

Did I miss an event? Let me know in the comments!

I just received the following by email.  Enjoy!

The Darwin Awards are out!!

Yes, it’s that magical time of year again when the  Darwin Awards are bestowed, honoring the least evolved among us.

Here is the glorious winner:

1. When his 38 caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim during a hold-up in  Long Beach, California, would-be robber James Elliot did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered down the barrel and tried the trigger again. This time it worked.

And now, the honorable mentions:

2. The chef at a hotel in Switzerland lost a finger in a meat cutting machine and after a little shopping around, submitted a claim to his insurance company. The company expecting negligence sent out one of its men to have a look for himself. He tried the machine and he also lost a finger. The chef’s claim was approved.

3. A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken the space.. Understandably, he shot her.

4. After stopping for drinks at an illegal bar, a Zimbabwean bus driver found that the 20 mental patients he was supposed to be transporting from Harare to  Bulawayo had escaped. Not wanting to admit his incompetence, the driver went to a nearby bus stop and offered everyone waiting there a free ride. He then delivered the passengers to the mental hospital, telling the staff that the patients were very excitable and prone to bizarre fantasies.. The deception wasn’t discovered for 3 days.

5. An American teenager was in the hospital recovering from serious head wounds received from an oncoming train. When asked how he received the injuries, the lad told police that he was simply trying to see how close he could get his head to a moving train before he was hit.

6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer, the man pulled a gun and asked for all the cash in the register, which the clerk promptly provided. The man took the cash from the clerk and fled, leaving the $20 bill on the counter. The total amount of cash he got from the drawer… $15. [If someone points a gun at you and gives you money, is a crime committed?]

7. Seems an  Arkansas guy wanted some beer pretty badly.. He decided that he’d just throw a cinder block through a liquor store window, grab some booze, and run. So he lifted the cinder block and heaved it over his head at the window. The cinder block bounced back and hit the would-be thief on the head, knocking him unconscious. The liquor store window was made of Plexiglas. The whole event was caught on videotape…

8. As a female shopper exited a New York convenience store, a man grabbed her purse and ran. The clerk called 911 immediately, and the woman was able to give them a detailed description of the snatcher. Within minutes, the police apprehended the snatcher.. They put him in the car and drove back to the store. The thief was then taken out of the car and told to stand there for a positive ID. To which he replied, “Yes, officer, that’s her. That’s the lady I stole the purse from.”

9.. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a Burger King in  Ypsilanti , Michigan at 5 A.M., flashed a gun, and demanded cash. The clerk turned him down because he said he couldn’t open the cash register without a food order. When the man ordered onion rings, the clerk said they weren’t available for breakfast… The man, frustrated, walked away. [*A 5-STAR STUPIDITY AWARD WINNER]

10. When a man attempted to siphon gasoline from a motor home parked on a Seattle street by sucking on a hose, he got much more than he bargained for.. Police arrived at the scene to find a very sick man curled up next to a motor home near spilled sewage. A police spokesman said that the man admitted to trying to steal gasoline, but he plugged his siphon hose into the motor home’s sewage tank by mistake. The owner of the vehicle declined to press charges saying that it was the best laugh he’d ever had.

In the interest of bettering mankind, please share these with friends and family….unless of course one of these individuals by chance is a distant relative or long lost friend. In that case, be glad they are distant and hope they remain lost.

*** Remember…. They walk among us, they can reproduce, and they vote!!!!!

A little humor helps smooth out the wrinkles of life.

While “jump the shark” has become an essential part of the political vernacular, my guess is that many folks who use or otherwise appreciate the term have no clue of its origins. In the waning years of the sitcom, Happy Days, with all novel ideas for the show exhausted, the show’s plotline began to become increasingly absurd, culminating in an episode that featured “The Fonz” quite literally jumping over a shark using his water skis. When a public figure “jumps the shark,” then, it is likely a sign that he or she is nearing the end of his or her relevance, and that he or she is displaying highly erratic behavior in order to remain relevant.

It is against that backdrop that I present to you the reception that Mitch Daniels’ monumental keynote address to CPAC is receiving among the right-wing talk radio crowd. Here’s a hint: the carny barkers ain’t buyin’ what Daniels is sellin’. Here’s Rush on the Daniels speech, by way of Hot Air:

“‘You don’t diss the people who are already audiences of those shows — you don’t say that they’re irrelevant or unnecessary,’ Limbaugh said on his show Monday afternoon when asked about Daniels’ comments. ‘Who won elections for your party year after year after year?’…
“‘The Republican Party establishment group is really not thrilled with talk radio, they’re not thrilled with the tea party — they don’t like it, they’re trying to find ways around it,’ he said.
“‘I don’t think that we can only win by watering ourselves down and diluting ourselves,’ Limbaugh said, adding that he thinks Daniels does. ‘He has this overriding notion that conservatism is not enough to win. That bothers me, because clearly it is.’”

Meanwhile, Mark Levin’s dissent from Daniels-mania can be found here.

Note that Rush’s comments are in response to Daniels’ suggestion that Republicans will need more than just talk radio listeners to win the 2012 election. That observation, while candid, also happens to be true. The fact that Rush sees such commentary as an insult to his listeners doesn’t pass the laugh test, and has more to do with Rush clinging to his own relevance than to his faux concern that Mitch Daniels is bullying the poor, defenseless ditto-heads.

Lest I be pegged as someone who can ONLY appreciate politics when it’s serious and substantive, let me assure the reader that no such thing is true. In fact, you may be surprised to learn that I used to listen to Rush as I drove home from high school back in the ’90s. At the time I found him to be clever, charming, and quite effective at exposing the foolishness of leftism with humor and irreverence. But the Rush of today, as this quote demonstrates, has become humor-less. The few times that I tried listening to Rush in the recent past were met largely with Obama-is-a-Muslim gags and analogies that didn’t quite add up. Rush knows that his traditional act is downright milquetoast compared to the ravings of Glenn Beck. As the old lion begins to lose his relevance, he attempts to tighten his grip.

The reax of the talk radio crowd to Daniels, then, shouldn’t be surprising. Talk radio was a necessary, but not sufficient, tool to countering the leftist-dominated mainstream media at one time, though the advent of Fox News and the ubiquity of the Internet has made talk radio far less important than it once was. And as talk radio diminishes in importance, its self-appointed prophets become far less powerful. Hence the need to crack down on dissent, to require candidates to bow a little lower, to kiss rings a tad more often. And by refusing to give their imprimatur to any candidate who is based in reality, and who knows how to communicate conservatism to the general electorate, the self-appointed guardians of the Republican presidential nomination are basically telling their listeners to remain loyal to them, and then watch the GOP lose to Obama in 2012.

If the Republican grassroots falls for this dog-and-pony show, they will deserve everything that they get. The entire framework is quite similar to the manner in which the powers-that-be on the Democratic Left simply would not allow anyone other than the most left-wing, shrill, abstract candidates to win presidential nominations in the 1970s and 1980s. If a candidate was a good liberal Democrat, but actually able to connect with “the folks,” well, that very ability to connect was somehow a case for apostasy. Aside from Carter managing to slip through in 1976, Democrats gave away the presidency numerous times, with nominees like George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis, the last of whom was at least somewhat reality-based, but still knew that he had to bow low before the opinion makers on the Left.

To be sure, the Guardians of Conservatism on talk radio and cable news often have perfectly valid reasons for opposing Republican candidates for public office. Their hostility towards John McCain, for example, wasn’t always unreasonable. McCain’s positions on taxes, immigration, “green” issues, and his tendency to pick fights with Republicans and conservatives made criticism of him from the Right not only fair, but expected. But Mitch Daniels is no John McCain. Which is why talk radio’s opposition to Daniels really does break new ground. After all, this is probably the first time that a pro-flat tax, pro-life, pro-drilling, anti-EPA, pro-entitlement reform, anti-ObamaCare, pro-marriage, pro-vouchers Republican, and one who has never violated the 11th Commandment against any Republican or conservative, has been deemed unfit for office by the talk radio crowd. And all because Daniels uttered a statement of fact that there aren’t enough talk radio listeners in America to win a presidential election for Republicans.

In the case of the professional bomb throwers on the Right, it really is all about them at this point. If they cause the re-election of President Obama, either by steering their listeners away from an electable conservative, or by dampening enthusiasm for a presidential nominee who isn’t one of their toadies, then all of the consequences of Obama’s re-election will be on their hands. That includes the permanent transformation of American health care. That includes the leftist jurist who will replace Justice Kennedy. And that will include the massive tax increases that will eventually have to pay for the entitlements that no one will reform and that Americans won’t give up.

Way to go, guys.

I don’t have time for a post with actual analysis, but I thought I’d post some reactions to the President’s budget from across the political spectrum (also, Jed Lewison of Daily Kos has a larger roundup for those interested):

Andrew Stiles of National Review has the breakdown of some key numbers:

Zero — Political risk the president was willing to assume by proposing meaningful reform to entitlement programs. That said, Republicans haven’t exactly been willing to stick their necks either, at least not yet.

Ezra Klein dislikes it a whole lot (H/T to Lewison):

The president’s 2012 budget dodges on almost all of that. Entitlements are left alone. So, broadly speaking, are tax deductions (though it’s worth noting that the Affordable Care Act took a big chunk out of the tax deduction for employer-provided health benefits). The military cuts are exactly what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said they should be, and they’re really not cuts at all: Just slight reductions in the rate of spending growth. The big attack is on the 12 percent of the budget known as non-defense discretionary spending, which is what politicians in Washington always like to focus on, and what the commission’s report was trying to move the discussion past. It’s like the Fiscal Commission never happened.

Former Obama cheerleader Andrew Sullivan says President Obama has betrayed young people who voted for him:

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you’re fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama’s cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America’s fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

The Washington Post, which I think is rationally center-left, disembowels the budget:

If Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn could sign on to a deficit-reduction plan that included raising tax revenue, is it too much to ask for such bravery from Mr. Obama? And if Illinois Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin could sign on to a plan that included raising the Social Security retirement age, is it too much to ask for more from Mr. Obama than an airy set of “principles for reform”? Sadly, the answer appears to be yes.

Ed Morrissey highlights several examples of the far left (such as Rep. Jesse Jackson (R-IL) denouncing the budget. Below is a quote from Dana Milbank:

Obama’s budget proposal is a remarkably weak and timid document. He proposes to cut only $1.1 trillion from federal deficits over the next decade – a pittance when you consider that the deficit this year alone is in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion. The president makes no serious attempt at cutting entitlement programs that threaten to drive the government into insolvency.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) keeps hammering what he’s been saying for years- let’s overcome our partisanship and find real solutions:

The President and Congress will never close our fiscal deficit until we close our leadership deficit. Our debt and deficit crisis cannot be solved without strong presidential leadership and this budget does not come close to reflecting the severity of the problems before us.

American Spectator’s Phil Klein slams one of the biggest lies of the budget- that the deficit will be cut in half by 2015:

So Republicans will have the talking point that in every year Obama’s been in office, the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. And Obama will be left arguing that it’s projected to go down the following year — and only then based on assumptions about the economy and what will happen with the Bush tax cuts. Who is the public going to believe?

Jonathan Karl of ABC might have the most damning (pardon the language) assessment of the President’s proposed budget. This short video is easily worth 10,000 words.

NBC White House Correspondent Chuck Todd asked the President why his Debt Commission got entirely ignored in the budget proposal at the President’s press conference today. It was a well-phrased question that the President not only didn’t answer but didn’t even remotely address. This should be what every single Republican focuses on between now and the 2012 elections. Check out the short clip at the linked URL.

If Republican candidates for the 2012 Presidential election want to have ammunition against Obama and for their own plans, this budget is the political football of the decade, with $1.1 trillion in savings after adding over $7 trillion in debt; over $1 trillion in new taxes; $26 trillion in new debt over the long run; and nary a glance at real entitlement or defense reforms. Terrible for the country but great for candidate Herman Cain and potential candidates like Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels- people known for the budget skills we will need in the next President. It’s also great for the political future of the House Republican leadership, as now Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and John Boehner are all chomping at the bit to work on entitlement reform in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget.

Amongst the conservative movement, there is something missing in all the discussions about the direction of our country. It may seem small, but really, I think it could be the difference between victory and defeat when we take on President Obama in 2012. The conservative movement is missing one critical thing optimism. It may well be the difference between a Goldwateresque defeat and a Reaganesque victory.

Now, Barry Goldwater was critical in the evolution of the conservative movement, but we all know how Goldwater ’64 went. It wasn’t just the JFK Assassination or LBJ’s dirty tricks that did in Barry. It was also the impression that Goldwater was somehow angry at America and America’s plight. Goldwater didn’t talk about a possible bright new future; he talked about the evils of collectivization and appeasement. Barry didn’t project an optimistic vision for America’s future; he scorned the policies that had gotten the country where it was. The American people don’t like to be scolded, and they don’t like hearing that the future is going to be all about sacrifice and hardship. So, when LBJ and before him Nelson Rockefeller, bashed Goldwater as a warmonger or America’s crank, the public had already been brought into believing it because of Barry’s stern bluntness. The results buried Goldwater under.

In contrast to Barry Goldwater, let’s look at Ronald Reagan. It is almost a cliché nowadays for conservatives and Republicans of all stripes to quote and emulate Ronald Reagan, with good reason. Reagan truly did bring about the conservative revolution in America and left our country and the world, stronger and freer than when he came into office. He, in many ways, defines the Party and the country we live in today. However, what separates Reagan from Goldwater was not so much their politics, but more importantly, how they addressed the American people. Was Reagan angry about what was happening in America, particularly during the Carter years? Absolutely.  But (and this is critical), he didn’t just talk and campaign about how awful things were or could be. Instead, what Reagan did was say “yes times aren’t good, but we’ve overcome worse, and we’ll do it again.” Reagan’s optimism and his ability to paint a picture of a bright future enabled him to deflect the vicious attacks launched by Democrats, particularly Jimmy Carter, at him. When the Democrats talked about “Reagan wants war” or “Reagan wants to cut off your Social Security” it just didn’t jibe with the voters because they didn’t see a yelling, angry man on their TV screens. They saw a guy pointing with optimism to the future.

This is, I think, an important lesson from history that our 2012 campaign needs to remember. Lamar Alexander, back when he ran in 1996, told voters to look to the debates in October. That seems like sound advice today. Picture the October debate. Barack Obama will be standing on that stage and so will the Republican nominee. Our nominee is going to have to do more than disparage the awful Obama record. They’re going to have to look into the camera and tell the American people what the future is going to be like under a Republican President. If we hope to win, we can’t just talk about how hard or difficult things are going to be. Our nominee is going to have to also project optimism about our nation’s future. It may be the difference between victory and defeat.

PPP has released their Colorado horse race numbers.

PPP surveyed 400 usual Colorado Republican primary voters from February 4th to 6th.  The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.9%.

Once again it is Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin, and Romney in the top four.

PPP (D) 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Mike Huckabee 20% {24%} [16%] (21%) {23%} [21%] (22%) {25%} [27%] (24%)
• Mitt Romney 17% {14%} [18%] (22%) {22%} [19%] (25%) {23%} [33%] (28%)
• Sarah Palin 15% {14%} [21%] (17%) {21%} [17%] (19%) {20%} [23%] (23%)
• Newt Gingrich 12% {11%} [19%] (18%) {21%} [23%] (15%) {21%}
• Ron Paul 8% {7%} [5%] (6%) {4%} [7%] (6%) {8%} (11%)
• Mitch Daniels 4% {4%} [2%]
• Tim Pawlenty 4% {8%} [5%]
• John Thune 1% {1%} [3%]

(more…)

Hello, fellow R4’12ers! I know posting has been scanty, but I’ve been busy with life and with a couple of potential candidate interviews on foreign policy (next one coming soon, and I think it’s going to be a good one). In the mean-time, I’d like to start an occasional feature focusing on down-ballot miscellany. I can promise it’ll be cheeky, irreverent and fun, and far less formal than my foreign policy posts. For those who don’t know me, foreign policy is sort of my livelihood, but getting into the nitty-gritty of down-ballot races is my very favorite sport. So, let the games begin!

1. Is the entire class of 2012 retiring or what! First the senate retirements started to pop (Hutchinson, Conrad, Lieberman, Webb, Kyl), then Jane Harman retired to take a gig at the Woodrow Wilson Center (one of the better center to center-left foreign policy think tanks in the belt-way), and Chris Lee resigned due to certain positions he took–shirtless–with women on Craig’s List. For the senate, this sets up a number of open seat races, at least four of which (TX, AZ, ND and VA) seem to favor the GOP, and a fifth, CT, will be seriously tough sledding

A. VA: Tim Kaine really doesn’t want to run, but everyone else in the Democratic Party of Virginia really wants him to. Is Obama going to be willing to twist his good buddy’s arm, or is the prospect of running with Obama going to scare him off? If he doesn’t run, my money is on net-roots favorite Tom Perriello to make a go of it. This guy is loved by the left in the way Marco Rubio is by the right, and he’s a pretty formidable candidate against George Allen (as a VA resident, I can tell you that Allen’s 06 campaign was lame in the extreme). However, Perriello’s success will be entirely dependent on Obama repeating the 08 miracle in Virginia, and given that Democrats’ fortunes have declined in the state since then, and rather sharply, that’s far from a foregone conclusion. There’s also another good question on the GOP side: how long is Allen going to have the race to himself? I think Prince William County supervisor Cory Stewart is going to get in, and he may give Allen a real, serious challenge. Other candidates, like Jamie Radtke and Bob Marshall, will have more difficulty in a primary.

B. ND: the ND GOP would love to have Congressman Rick Berg get into this one, despite the very short time he’s spent in the house. Berg, as you may or may not know, was the house majority leader in ND for a while, and could be a real field-clearer. This would give people like Brian Kalk a chance to run for Berg’s open house seat. Aside from Berg, probably the best-known, and most field-clearing potential candidate is AG Wane Stenehjem. In any case, Republicans should win here easily.

C. AZ: First and foremost, I don’t think Gabby Giffords will run, regardless of her recovery (for which, of course, I am hopeful). There is a two word reason for this: Barack Obama. I wouldn’t run with him on the ticket in Arizona as a Democrat, and Giffords could have a real shot at either the gubernatorial race in 2014 or a senate race in 2016, if McCain hangs it up. Aside from Giffords, Democrats don’t have anyone who could win this race, and even if Giffords does get in, it would be a real uphill climb. Arizonans may like and respect her, but they’re not going to want to help Obama by giving him another Dem in the senate. The only way the math on this looks good for Giffords is if Obama looks like losing the election by double digits by the end of 2011; if it looks possible that Obama might get reelected, her chances of winning drop precipitously.

D. CT: If Republicans couldn’t win in CT in a great year like 2010, it’s going to be difficult to do so with Obama on the ticket in 2012. It’s the opposite problem Democrats have in AZ: Obama is a huge net benefit for CT Democrats. Linda McMahon, Rob Simmons or Tom Foley could probably put up a real fight, but it’s going to be tough. Of greater interest would be if we could get both Chris Murphy (already in) and Joe Courtney (thinking about it) into the race, thereby creating two open-seat races in seats we held before the 2006 fiasco. I think Rob Simmons could take his old seat back in an open race if he wanted it, and further, I think we could have a credible shot at CT-05 with Murphy out of the way. Stay tuned.

E. TX: Republicans will keep this seat, but first they will have to pick a nominee. Unfortunately, this means choosing between Michael Williams and Ted Cruz (lest the seat end up going to the wealthy but sort of uninspiring David Duherst). I humbly suggest we give Texas a third senate seat, so we can have both of them! No, in all seriousness, the ideal situation would be for AG Greg Abbot to run for the LT governor’s slot, and then for Cruz to run for the open AG slot, which he was thinking about doing in 2010, allowing Williams to unite tea partiers and, hopefully, make it into a run-off against Duherst.

2. There will also be three special elections (so far) this year: two prompted by the Lee and Harman resignations and one in West Virginia for governor. I expect the two house seats to stay in their respective party’s hands, though we could make a potentially credible go of the California seat and Democrats are likely to try in NY. I think NY Republicans will probably nominate Assembly woman Jane Corwin. I don’t know much about her, but she apparently has the backing of both the Western NY GOP establishment and Carl Paladino, so I can only assume she’s some kind of ultra-powerful wizard. Rumors also swirl around Assemblyman (and son of a former congressman by the same name) Jack Quinn, but it feels like Corwin will be the ultimate pick. If she can get Quinn’s endorsement, she’ll be all but a lock. Democrats have yet to coalesce here, but I’ll update you all as I find stuff out. On the other hand, Democrats in CA are rapidly coalescing behind LA city council woman Jannis Hahn, considered the moderate in the race (whatever that means for L.A Democrats). I’ve heard a city attorney named Mike Webb may run for the Republicans. The West Virginia gubernatorial election is the wild west (ahem, no pun intended), but Republican candidates include: former Secretary of State Betty Ireland, state senator Clark Barnes, prosecutor Mark Sorsaia and a couple of state delegates. Ireland is probably the favorite in the primary, but West Virginia has a history of electing Democrats at almost every level.

3. There haven’t been a lot of developments in the KY, MS or LA governor’s races that I know of, and I think Jonathan did a fairly detailed post on these races earlier, so I’ll skip them for now. I will point out that, as an inveterate tracker of fun political names, I give props to Mississippi for both Hudson Holiday and Delbert Hoseman (I know nothing about either man’s politics, or the Mississippi primary more generally).

4. Miscellany from contested but not open senate races:

A. To nobody’s particular surprise, Dean Heller released a poll showing him owning scandal-plagued senator John Ensign by a nice, cool sixteen points or so. Heller wins in all regions, with all categories of voters. Basically, if he runs, he can pretty much walk into the senate. The real question is: how does John Ensign want to end his political career: before a reelection attempt, like Jim Bunning, or ignominiously in a primary, like Jim Gibbons. For what it’s worth, I think Heller’s poll is pretty accurate; Tarrance group is pretty good, and I’ve seen PPP polling with similar results.

B. Oops: it turns out Nebraska AG John Bruning used to be a progressive, of the particularly flaming variety, while in law school. Granted, the comments are almost twenty years old (I probably wrote some embarrassing stuff in my college paper too), but expect to hear some questions about it. Former state treasurer Don Stenberg is still mulling a run for this seat, and if he got in, I predict Jeff Fortenberry would be a very formidable candidate (incidentally, did you know Fortenberry has both a policy degree from Georgetown and a theology degree from Franciscan University in Stubenville? Interesting combination for a congressman).

C. Um, so state senate President Mike Haridopolos raised a million dollars at one event. Let that sink in for just a second; one, million, dollars in one day. Does anyone else think he may be trying to scare off the competition? In other Florida notes, Conney Mac visited CPAC to talk about foreign policy, and former Republican house leader Adam Hasner’s wife just got a substantial check from her former job running Meg Whitman’s campaign. It also appears as though Will McBride, a senate candidate from 2006 who happens to be Hispanic and related to a wealthy Christian broadcaster, is thinking about getting into the race, promising to win the Hispanic and socially conservative vote (and he lost to Catherine Harris in the 2006 primary why exactly? _That_ could have saved us a terribly embarrassing loss, even if it only made the loss a little less embarrassing). Over all, it looks like FL will be a wild race.

D. So, Andrew Ian Dodge is challenging Olympia Snowe, and apparently is a controversial figure in the ME tea party. But he may have an even more basic problem; apparently he’s a British lord. Wouldn’t the constitutional provision against holding titles from foreign governments keep him from serving, if this were the case? Apparently he’s been criticized as well for being too “British” (memories of the war of 1812 still run strong in parts of Maine do they?) Still, I have to say Dodge looks like a non-factor; I have yet to read of anyone who actually likes/supports the guy. Could those with a greater knowledge of constitutional precedent and/or the Maine tea party please advise?

E. Speaking of Tea Party challenges, Richard Murdock, Indiana’s state treasurer, has been meeting with CPAC attendees, as well as Jim DeMint and the club for growth. Undoubtedly, he’s trying to head off state senator Mike Delf from jumping into the race and splitting the tea party vote, allowing Lugar to pull a Dan Coates.

F. Still speaking of tea party challenges, Oren Hatch is really working hard to prevent one, and engage with his critics. Hatch has just received a 100 percent ACU rating for last year, and a recent poll has him up by 10 points over congressman Jason Chaffetz in a hypothetical match-up. Democrats will have absolutely no shot here regardless.

G. A note to libertarians: Gary Johnson is probably not going to win the presidential election. However, he possibly could win the New Mexico senate race. Ergo, if Johnson doesn’t win New Hampshire, please do convince him to parachute in against Jeff Bingamin. Johnson outperforms all other Republicans by a good 8 to 10 points, and he’d increase the number of libertarian Republicans in the senate, which might be the next best thing to an actual presidential nominee for libertarian types.

5. News of the hilarious: He’s baaaack!! Alvin Green is apparently, according to David Catanese, running for an SC state house seat. When I say Alvin, you say Green…

Well, that’s a rap for now, friends. Have I missed something, or gotten something wrong? Let me know in the comments.

Mitt Romney spent Valentine’s Day in Las Vegas.  First up, a luncheon at a Mexican Restaurant.   Said one attendee quoted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “There were a lot of people who supported him last time. We were all big supporters then and we are now. I would like to see him run again.” According to her, there was no fundraising and no announcement.

Then it was on to the big International Franchise Association convention at the MGM where he delivered the keynote address to over 2700 business leaders.  While the event was closed to the press, the Boston Globe reports that he highlighted his past experience as a venture capitalist aligning himself with their workplace values.  They quote Gov. Romney as saying:

“What scares me is that I’m worried that Washington, and politicians who don’t know butt kiss [sic] about the free-enterprise system and our economy, are slowly but surely doing things which smother the American spirit of enterprise and innovation and pioneering,” he added. “They don’t understand what it is that makes us work.”

Continues the Globe:

Romney said private sector work is “far less forgiving’’ than government work, because when government makes a mistake, “we simply pass that cost on to the taxpayers, or we borrow more money and pass it on to the next generation.’’

Small business owners know, he said, that if “you make a mistake like that, you go out of business. You lose your job. You lose other people’s jobs. . . . That’s why the best and brightest are in your world, and not in the government world.’’

Business owners, Romney said, also analyze data. In government, however, “the policy makers, the politicians, they have their answers without benefit of the data.’’

And he said government leaders have no concept of the value of incentives.

“In government, they spend little time thinking about what impact what they do has on human behavior, because, frankly, they’ve lived so long in a realm where they can command what you do, they don’t think a lot about how to convince you or encourage you to do what they want you to do,’’ said Romney.

The Review-Journal reported:

[T]he franchise organization said Romney spent most of his 40-minute speech addressing taxes and the new health care law that, the group said in a press release, “hinder the ability for franchise businesses to grow and create jobs.”

It quoted Romney as saying, “Growing small businesses are what get us out of economic downturns. Instead of creating policies in Washington that help small businesses grow, we have seen the most anti-business agenda in a lifetime.”

According to a spokesman, Romney finished up the day by visiting privately with business leaders.

First, if you haven’t heard Herman Cain’s address at CPAC, you can check it out here.

Second, a writer at the progressive news site AlterNet had decided to review Mr. Cain’s address at CPAC. What followed, was an article filled with racial slurs / epithets for Mr. Cain. Here’s a quote from the beginning of the article to give you an example:

As you know, I find black garbage pail kids black conservatives fascinating not because of what they believe, but rather because of how they entertain and perform for their White Conservative masters.

When race minstrelsy was America’s most popular form of mass entertainment, black actors would often have to pretend to be white men, who then in turn would put on the cork to play the role of the “black” coon, Sambo, or Jumping Jim Crow. Adding insult to injury, in a truly perverse and twisted example of the power of American white supremacy black vaudevillians would often pretend to be white in order to denigrate black people for the pleasures of the white gaze.

Herman Cain–an ironic name if ever, and one more suited to a tragic figure in a Harlem Renaissance era novella–is not “blackening twice” as some race minstrels chose to do.

[Unfortunately, the attendees at CPAC are not the butt of some type of joke where the white man wearing the cork is really a black man in secret.]

Instead, Herman Cain’s shtick is a version of race minstrelsy where he performs “authentic negritude” as wish fulfillment for White Conservative fantasies. Like the fountain at Lourdes, Cain in his designated role as black Conservative mascot, absolves the White racial reactionaries at CPAC of their sins. This is a refined performance that Black Conservatives have perfected over many decades and centuries of practice.

This type of language is disgraceful and not befitting any news organization. Even if you don’t find Mr. Cain to be a viable 2012 candidate, you should never resort to such personal, racially charged attacks on a candidate. Period.

Dana Loesch at Big Journalism and RB at TheRightSphere have more on this subject, including the response from Congress of Racial Equality spokesman Niger Innis.
_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.

Summit 2012 Arizona Republican Senate Primary

• Joe Arpaio 21%
• Jeff Flake 16.8%
• J.D. Hayworth 16.6%
• John Shadegg 12%
• Ben Quayle 6%
• Undecided 28%

Auto-dial poll of 1,881 likely GOP primary voters. Margin of error of is 3 percentage points, which would put the top three finishers in a statistical tie.

Without Arpaio or Quayle:

• Jeff Flake 22%
• J.D. Hayworth 20%
• John Shadegg 17%
• Undecided 41%

Auto-dial poll of 1,469 likely Republican primary voters. It also had a margin of error of 3 points.

Sharron Angle will visit New Hampshire to promote the film, “The Genesis Code”

“Nevada Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle is headed to New Hampshire to headline an event at the first-in-the-nation primary state public premier of the conservative Christian film, “The Genesis Code.”

Concord lobbyist Michael Dennehy, New Hampshire public relations consultant for the film’s producers, told the Granite Status the event is scheduled for Feb. 25 at the Cinemagic theater in Hooksett.

The film was pre-screened at the Hooksett theater last month for invited guests only, but the upcoming event will mark the premier of its “run of engagement” when it is open to the public, Dennehy said.”

For more information on The Genesis Code movie, click here.

Dude:

As Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords continues to recuperate from last month’s assassination attempt, the possibility of her making a Senate bid in 2012 is being seriously discussed in Democratic circles.

Before she was shot in the head last month in Tucson, the conventional wisdom was that Giffords was a prime contender for Sen. Jon Kyl’s (R-Ariz.) Senate seat.

Now that Kyl is retiring, there is a genuine pickup opportunity for Democrats in the state, and Arizona Democratic Party Chairman Andrei Cherny says Giffords remains at the top of the list.

“It goes without saying that even before the attack, she was at the top of everyone’s list,” said Cherny, who was recruited to run for the post by Giffords. “I think the things that make Gabby Giffords an attractive senate candidate are 90 percent things that have nothing to do with the tragedy in Tucson.”

The congresswoman is making strides in her recovery. She still has a long way to go, but given that she was laying the groundwork for a Senate campaign before the shooting, it seems logical that a full or near-full recovery in the coming months could very well lead to a 2012 Senate run. (One smart Democratic operative pegs the chances of Giffords running at 35 percent.)

But could she win?

Should Rep. Giffords run for John Kyl’s Senate seat in Arizona, my on-the-record advice to Republicans, given my status as one of a million armchair strategists across the nation, is to run the best candidate possible, stick to the issues, and hold a red seat in what is still a red state. My off-the-record sentitments, though, are that this seat is gone if Rep. Giffords decides to run. The moderate Arizona congresswoman is a good fit for her state, and her compelling personal story will likely counteract the usual Republican lean of the electorate. The media will spend a considerable amount of time focusing on the race given the tragedy that befell Rep. Giffords and her heroic comeback, and the more Republicans try to hold the seat, the less the nation will focus on a failed president and his failed policies. Further, all it will take is one talk radio pinhead to make an insensitive remark about Giffords’ personal story and not only will the seat be gone, but Republicans nationally will see their numbers drop by several percentage points.

As such, when the doors to the smoke-filled rooms are closed, my suggestion to Republicans would be to take a pass on the Arizona Senate race should Rep. Giffords be the Democratic nominee. Nominate a Rick Lazio-style sacrificial lamb and go for the gold elsewhere. There are plenty of other seats that are in play this cycle, and Republicans can still win a Senate majority while losing Arizona if they pick up Virginia, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Florida.

Magellan Strategies (R) New Hampshire 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 48%
• Mitt Romney 44%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Mike Huckabee 38%

• Barack Obama 56%
• Newt Gingrich 33%

• Barack Obama 57%
• Sarah Palin 34%

(more…)

The post-CPAC rankings are here!

Mitt Romney retains his frontrunner status over the field.  Romney has been wrapping up his second book tour for No Apology, and finished 2010 as the best PAC fundraiser in the field.  Though Romney has not built up the kind of financial and organizational lead that George Bush did in 2000, he is significantly ahead of his opposition at this point.  However, the potential entry of Mitch Daniels into the field could pull significant establishment support from Romney as the race unfolds.

Mike Huckabee continues to post solid national polling numbers, even as the evidence begins to pile up that he will not run in 2012. While the former governor may still be undecided, it’s safe to say there is more evidence leaning against a run then towards a run at this moment. Governor Palin’s recent staff addition and potential to enter the field could make a Huckabee run even less likely.

Sarah Palin has seen her numbers nosedive over the last several weeks, adding to a months-long decline.  The former Alaska governor did, however, pull in some remarkable fundraising numbers from small donors and hired a new chief of staff for her PAC.  Perhaps the new hire will infuse the Palin team with the discipline it needs in the coming months.

Tim Pawlenty has taken a different tone in recent weeks.  Early on it seemed that Pawlenty was preparing himself to be the establishment alternative to Romney.  But with Romney’s New Hampshire strength unflinching at this point, T-Paw seems to be switching gears to a social conservative message in anticipation of Mike Huckabee’s decision against a run.  With Huckabee out, and the looming presence of Daniels, Barbour, and Thune crowding Romney’s establishment flank, Pawlenty could galvanize Huck’s Iowa coalition behind him, if Palin doesn’t get to them first.

The big news out of CPAC was the roll-out of Mitch Daniels and his well-received keynote speech.  Daniels gave a poignant, presidential speech about the fiscal challenges our nation faces and laid out the basics of a strategy for challenging President Obama.  Daniels has let slip that he has major GOP donors, activists, and businessmen waiting in the wings should he decide on a run. It’s quite possible that should he enter the race, Daniels could have the best organization, biggest and most influencial donors, and highest quality activists at his side, including his friend Haley Barbour.  His looming candidacy strikes directly at the heart of Mitt Romney’s chances for the nomination, but could also inadvertently boost a Tea Party candidate’s chances in Iowa.

Haley Barbour continues to earnestly make preparations for a run, but could end up being just a stalking horse for Daniels.  Sen. John Thune seems to be genuinely undecided on a run as his self imposed deadline looms.  Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is heading to Iowa once again, and seems to be on schedule for an early March announcement. Ambassador Jon Huntsman officially resigned his post in the Obama administration, and continues to quietly build a team for a run that will likely be announced in June.

On to the rankings:

1. Mitt Romney

2. Mike Huckabee

3. Mitch Daniels

4. Sarah Palin

5. Tim Pawlenty

6. Newt Gingrich

7. Haley Barbour

8. John Thune

9. Jon Huntsman Jr.

10. Michele Bachmann

Honorable Mention: Rick Perry, John Bolton, Herman Cain, George Pataki, Jim DeMint, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Santorum, Gary Johnson

Longtime Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan may be about to part company with his president after coming to terms with the fact that President Obama simply refuses to tackle the nation’s fiscal crisis. Here’s Sullivan throwing down the gauntlet:

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you’re fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama’s cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America’s fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

…

I’ll get to president Obama’s fiscal cowardice and downright irresponsibility later today, as it now appears quite apparent he has no intention of doing anything to tackle the country’s greatest fiscal crisis in its history. But first off, someone who takes fiscal conservatism seriously, unlike Obama. The speech Mitch Daniels gave at CPAC reminded me why the Dish is such a fan.

…

Rich Lowry commented that it was impressive “for Daniels not to strike one pandering note.” …a very imppressive speech on the whole – from easily the most plausible and fiscally honest Republican in the field.

Sullivan has been in Obama’s corner for fully three years, if not longer, deflecting every Republican attack and defending his candidate-turned-president at every turn. But the fiscal tsunami about to descend upon our nation is too much for even the most ardent Obama supporter to ignore, and Obama’s cowardice on the matter could be his undoing, provided that the GOP nominee has the courage to frame the coming presidential race around the Red Menace of red ink, and displays the competence to actually do something about it. Gov. Daniels fits the bill in a way that few other Republicans do.