In what could potentially be a huge indication of Huckabee’s future political plans (or lack thereof), Huckabee’s presidential committee Huckabee for President, Inc has filed termination paperwork with the FEC.

The report was filed with the FEC on 1/31/11 at the time other political committees were filing their usual year-end reports, and can be viewed here.

On that same date, Huckabee’s team filed a regular year-end report for Huck PAC — meaning that Huckabee has made the intentional decision to continue Huck PAC operations while ceasing the operations of Huckabee for President, Inc.

Huckabee for President, Inc was founded in April of 2007 and has been filing regular quarterly or monthly reports with the FEC until now.

I must add an important caveat: as I am not thoroughly versed in FEC campaign laws, it is not precisely clear what this filing means – but we will keep digging to find out. Closing this committee could be indicative of Gov. Huckabee retiring old debts incurred in his 2008 presidential run in order to open a new committee for his 2012 campaign, or it could simply be the settling of old accounts. The timing, however, is interesting. Stay tuned for more details and analysis as the situation becomes more clear. As Drudge says, developing…

So does this set up George Allen vs. Tim Kaine?

PPP (D) New Mexico 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 51%
• Gary Johnson 36%

• Barack Obama 53%
• Mitt Romney 37%

• Barack Obama 55%
• Mike Huckabee 36%

• Barack Obama 56%
• Newt Gingrich 35%

• Barack Obama 62%
• Sarah Palin 33%

(more…)

Quinnipiac New Jersey Political Survey (Chris Christie Edition)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Chris Christie is handling his job as Governor?

• Approve 52% {51%} [51%] (44%)
• Disapprove 40% {38%} [36%] (43%)

Among Republicans

• Approve 82% {79%} [75%] (75%)
• Disapprove 11% {12%} [13%] (14%)

Among Independents

• Approve 55% {56%} [61%] (50%)
• Disapprove 36% {32%} [29%] (40%)

Among Democrats

• Approve 27% {22%} [24%] (18%)
• Disapprove 66% {68%} [63%] (67%)

(more…)

While we wait in anticipation for the would-be Republican candidates to announce that they are running for President, it’s easy to forget that there are 4 races for Governor this year. Right now two are controlled by the Democrats (Kentucky and West Virginia) while two are controlled by the Republicans (Louisiana and Mississippi). Only in the Magnolia State, where Governor Barbour is retiring, is the seat open. So, without further ado, let’s look at these races:

1.)    Kentucky- Democrat held, Steve Beshear: Governor Beshear came into power in 2007 in large part due to the scandals of the administration of then incumbent Governor Ernie Fletcher.  Right now, Beshear has a 48% job approval rating, according to PPP, not bad, but certainly not invincible. The Bluegrass State though is still Republican territory so Beshear can be vulnerable to a tough, concerted, united GOP effort.  

 There are two main candidates for the Republican nomination. The first is David Williams, President of the Kentucky State Senate and the Establishment GOP favorite in the race. The PPP poll shows Beshear leading Williams 44-35, not a terrible showing considering that Beshear has been Governor for 3.5 years and Williams is not all that well known; less than half of Kentuckians have any real opinion of him.

 The second candidate for the Republican nomination is Phil Moffet, a businessman and the favorite of the Tea Party. He is even more unknown than Williams; only 20% of Kentuckians have an opinion of him. Consequently Moffet performs even worse against Beshear, losing 45-26.

 Current Rating Leans Democrat: It’s early but Governor Beshear probably has the edge. He won’t face any real opposition to being renominated and can focus on gearing up for the general election. The GOP will have to hash through a primary which will probably once again be an Establishment v. Tea Party battle that could hamper party unity and handicap their efforts in the fall. Both Williams and Moffet need to tread lightly when seeking the nomination, if only to make it a nomination worth having.

 2.)    Louisiana- Republican held Bobby Jindal: Governor Jindal is almost certain to win reelection in Louisiana, especially under the rules of the state’s “jungle primary”. His popularity with the voters of Louisiana makes Jindal an incredibly formidable candidate. The Democratic Party has been in rapid decline in Louisiana of late, holding only one House seat, the 2^nd, based in New Orleans and one statewide official, Sen. Landrieu.

 Right now, not a single Democrat has filed to run against Bobby Jindal and only 1 independent has. With the Democratic bench having been wiped out, the only mentioned candidate is Caroline Fayard, who ran for Lt. Governor in 2010. If she couldn’t win then, she isn’t going to win against a powerhouse like Jindal.

 Current Rating: Safe Republican: For all the reasons mentioned above, it looks like Bobby Jindal will be cruising to reelection. The Democrats are struggling just to find someone to use as a sacrificial lamb. The RGA probably isn’t going to be losing much sleep over Louisiana this time.

 3.)    Mississippi- Republican held, open seat: The only open seat of the cycle, the Magnolia State will decide who replaces the very popular Haley Barbour this November.  

 On the Republican side, there is an open field with several candidates; however the front-runner is probably Phil Bryant, the current Lt. Governor. Others include Dave Dennis, the former Chair of the New Orleans Federal Reserve Board, and Hudson Holliday, the District Supervisor of Pearl River County. Other possible candidates include Amy Tuck, the former Lt. Governor (during Barbour’s first term), and Delbert Hossman, the Secretary of State.

 Democrats have a potentially divisive primary if candidates like Attorney General Jim Hood, Mayor Heather Hudson of Greenville and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Waller all run. However, each of these candidates have not yet declared, leaving the field essentially open to Mayor Johnny DuPree of Hattiesburg.

 Current Rating: Leans Republican: Haley Barbour is very popular in Mississippi and the state is very red. However, as I said above, there are a lot of potentially strong Democratic candidates who may run. We’ll have to see how this race develops to see if we have a fight on our hands in the Magnolia State.

 4.)    West Virginia- Democrat held, Earl Ray Tomblin: This is easily the strangest race of the cycle. West Virginia usually elects their Governors in presidential election years, and that will be the case in 2012. However, the election of Joe Manchin to the Senate has set off a domino effect, meaning that West Virginia will have an interim Governor until the October election (you read that right, it’s in October). The new Governor will hold the seat until November 2012, when they will run for a full term. Confused yet?

 It gets even better. The Acting Governor is Earl Ray Tomblin, who is also President of the West Virginia Senate. He is running for the job himself, but the path to the Democratic nomination will not be clear. A whole slew of candidates are running, but the early race seems to be Tomblin and Natalie Tennant, the Secretary of State. PPP had Tomblin receiving 25% of the vote against Tennant’s 24%. However, as of right now, both parties will nominate their candidates at State Conventions, so who knows what’ll happen.

 The Democrats are having a free-for-all, but the GOP seems to be settling on Betty Ireland, the former Secretary of State.  She has three opponents, but since none of them is named John Raese or especially Shelly Moore Capito, Ireland should have an easy time locking up the Republican nomination. Right now, Ireland is trailing Tomblin 49-32 and Tennant 43-32.

 Current Rating: Leans Democratic: Joe Manchin has shown that Democrats win West Virginia by essentially becoming Republicans, which is tough for the GOP to compete against. However, since the Democratic race looks chaotic right now, there might well be divisions created in the primary that we can exploit. Besides, with only 4 races this year, the RGA can invest a good deal of money in this race. With all the craziness surrounding this race, anything can happen.

 So there you have it. At this point, I’d say the 2011 gubernatorial races end in status quo. But, Kentucky and West Virginia are red states, at least during Presidential elections. There is no reason for the GOP to fight to make them red during other election cycles. After all, it is our gubernatorial bench where the next generation of Republican leaders will be made.

Update: Our resident Kentuckian, Ray Brun, has been so good to give an on the ground look at his state’s contest. Basically, ignore what I wrote:

“There are 3 legit candidates on the GOP side. Bobbie Holsclaw is the Jefferson County (Louisville Metro) Clerk. Doesn’t sound like a big position, but it is. She is extremely well liked by both Dems and Reps in Jefferson County.

Senate President is extremely well known in the state (not sure where PPP got there numbers from). He has been a thorn in the side of Beshear since day 1 and tried to out power Fletcher during his administration. Most of the state thinks Williams is a boob, even though the Establishment like him. Had Holsclaw gotten in earlier she might have been able to pick up that Establishment support (she would be considered the Technocrat in this race). Moffett is a nobody in KY and won’t get any traction, whatsoever.

Beshear switched Lt. Gov’s last year and now has former Louisville mayor Jerry Abramson as his running mate. King Jerry knows how to fundraise like no one else in KY and solidifies the urban vote for the rural Beshear.

Also, KY likes to vote Dem in state-wide races. I would put this race as solidly Dem right now.”

PPP (D) Colorado 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 47%
• Mitt Romney 41%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Mike Huckabee 42%

• Barack Obama 53%
• Newt Gingrich 39%

• Barack Obama 55%
• Sarah Palin 36%

(more…)

Some rumblings from New Hampshire:

In recent weeks, Giuliani and his allies have quietly been talking to activists to see just how much damage he dealt himself among the political class who view their first-in-the-nation role as sacred. Giuliani has scheduled a visit to New Hampshire in March and has hinted he may seek the nomination again if his party appears poised to nominate someone he views as too extreme, such as Sarah Palin or Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

Independents are the largest voting bloc in New Hampshire – for either party primary. In 2000 and 2008, McCain won the Republican primary after George W. Bush in ’00 and Mike Huckabee in ’08 energized conservatives to prevail in Iowa.

CNN/Opinion Research 2012 Republican Nomination Survey

• Mike Huckabee 21% (21%) [14%] {24%} (17%)
• Sarah Palin 19% (14%) [18%] {15%} (18%)
• Mitt Romney 18% (20%) [21%] {20%} (22%)
• Newt Gingrich 10% (12%) [15%] {14%} (8%)
• Ron Paul 7% (7%) [10%] {8%} (8%)
• Haley Barbour 3% (3%) [3%] {1%} (1%)
• Mitch Daniels 3%
• Tim Pawlenty 3% (3%) [3%] {2%} (5%)
• Mike Pence 1% (3%) [3%] {2%} (4%)
• Rick Santorum 1% (2%) [2%] {3%} (5%)
• John Thune 1%
• Someone else (vol.) 5% (7%) [6%] {5%} (8%)
• None/No one (vol.) 4% (4%) [0%] {5%} (2%)
• No opinion 2% (6%) [4%] {1%} (3%)

(more…)

According to a report from the Des Moines Register’s Tom Beaumont, a few top aides to Gov. Mike Huckabee  are interpreting his delay in making a decision on whether to run for president once again as a sign that the decision has already been made:

Among other things, they cite Huckabee’s decision to put off announcing his 2012 intentions until the summer and a lack of evidence he’s doing any work to prepare for a potential bid.

Eric Woolson, who ran Huckabee’s ’08 campaign, says he’s been in touch with his former boss, but only occasionally. He tells Beaumont it will be difficult for Huckabee to organize for the upcoming Iowa Straw Poll in August if he waits much longer.

“It’s going to be too late for some candidates to be successful if they don’t get started soon, and they won’t know it’s too late until it’s already too late,” Woolson said. “I’m not saying they have to formally announce. I’m saying there’s a lot of groundwork that needs to be done, and every day that passes is a day they won’t get back.”

Gov. Huckabee is scheduled to be in Iowa on a six-city tour at the end of this month to promote his new book, A Simple Government: Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington (and a Trillion That We Don’t!).

Note: Due to our server issues yesterday, I am republishing A.J.’s terrific piece.-KWN
__________________________________________________________________________________


-The Former Senator and Likely Presidential Candidate talks about his Clear Foreign Policy Vision

Those who follow politics closely tend to think of Rick Santorum as a controversial and ardent social conservative who has focused almost entirely on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. For most, the discussion ends there; they love him or loathe him on the assumption that he is a generic, all be it particularly vehement, culture warrior with little platform beyond this. That’s an impression which the former two-term senator from Pennsylvania finds particularly exasperating.

“Its a little bit frustrating when you get pigeon-holed into a category because you have the temerity to speak out on an issue that not very many people speak out on. That is the case with many of the moral cultural issues. But the fact is, I speak out on all the issues. I’m not shy on any of them, accept the hot-button ones tent to get covered by the press more, but I really wish they’d cover more of what I’ve done.” Since his loss to then state treasurer and PA Democratic dynastic heir Bob Casey, Santorum has indeed been busy, and one of the things which has preoccupied him the most has been foreign policy. In fact, from 2007 to the present, he has written extensively on the topic, given countless lectures on it, and even ran a think tank dedicated to the subject, and in particular, those nations, entities and ideologies which he feels threaten America. In characteristic Santorum style, his foreign policy vision is bold, confrontational and controversial, and he makes no bones about his willingness to speak the truth, as he sees it. For those who expect Santorum’s campaign to come exclusively from a culture war play-book, some surprises are in store; he is at least as interested in a war of an entirely different kind, an international “gathering storm” of which he fears America is largely unaware, and for which he believes we are almost totally unprepared.

Legislating for Democracy

Of course, as Senator Santorum himself will tell you, his engagement with foreign policy issues did not begin when his senate career ended. There are two pieces of legislation which the senator helped pass, and which he feels played a particularly important role in US foreign policy. Interestingly, both pieces of legislation were aimed at a widely-acknowledged Middle Eastern alliance inimical to US interests, that between Iran and Syria. First came the Syria Accountability Act, a law with a bipartisan group of sponsors designed to sanction Syria for its then occupation of Lebanon. With the connivance of Iran and its ally/proxy Hezbollah, Syria took advantage of Lebanon’s chaotic and fractured state to occupy that country in the 1980s, in violation of UN resolutions and a Lebanese government request that all Syrian forces leave the country. Santorum argues that it was the Syria Accountability Act which “helped get Syria out of Lebanon”, by reversing a previous US policy of tacit acceptance of the Syrian occupation, which began under the First President Bush, as a quid-pro-quo for Syrian acquiescence to the Persian Gulf War. The second foreign policy accomplishment of which Senator Santorum is especially proud is the Iran Freedom and Support Act, a law designed to aid Iran’s pro-democracy movement, a cause still near and dear to his heart. In this, as so many other aspects of US foreign policy, Santorum was to be disappointed, and believes his actions and warnings to have been prophetic: “Had we done what I suggested to do, which is to try to develop, build relationships with and support [the Iranian democratic movement] just like we did with movements in the Eastern block countries in Europe, we could have taken much better advantage of the Green Revolution that occurred two years ago.”

(more…)

For those interested, here’s the official list of who’s going to be on the straw poll ballot at CPAC 2011:

Rep. Michele Bachmann
Gov. Haley Barbour
Mr. Herman Cain
Gov. Chris Christie
Gov. Mitch Daniels
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
Former Gov Mike Huckabee
Ambassador / Former Gov Jon Huntsman
Former Gov Gary Johnson
Former Gov Sarah Palin
Representative Ron Paul
Former Gov Tim Pawlenty
Former Gov Mitt Romney
Former Senator Rick Santorum
Senator John Thune

What’s also interesting about this list are the two names who are not on the list: Senator Jim DeMint and former Governor Jeb Bush.
_______________________________________________________

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

Before the 2010 Election, a seminal moment occurred in September. No it wasn’t a primary or a poll or anything like that. What was it? A town hall meeting with President Obama on CNBC. Usually, these are good press for the President, no matter who it is. They get to connect with ordinary citizens and look like they are in touch. However, this own didn’t turn out like the President anticipated.

Enter one Mrs. Velma Hart, a middle-age, middle-class African American woman who stepped up to the microphone and proceeded to devastate the President with a few simple sentences:

“I’m one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly, I’m exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for,”

That simple exchange seemed to crystallize the frustration that so many people felt about the President after 2 years in power. Now, after 2 years¸ it’s time for someone in the GOP to say the same thing about Sarah Palin.

It is time for someone in the GOP to speak out and say what everyone in the Republican Party leadership already knows; Sarah Palin is completely unelectable as President and more importantly, she is unqualified to be President of the United States.

An article on Politico seems to sum up why this hasn’t happened. Essentially, Palin and Bachmann’s supporters terrify the Establishment of the GOP, afraid of primary threats and the like from the Palinistas and Bachmannistas. I’m sorry but it’s time for the Establishment to man up and grow a set. If they actually believe the grumblings about her, then have the courage to say it publicly.

Sarah Palin is not the leader of the Republican Party. No one has elected her to any office except the one she quit after only two and a half years. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte and others have been elected by Republicans to represent us in the Congress as well as Governors like Susanna Martinez, Tom Corbett and John Kasich.

It is time for someone in the GOP to stand up and say to Sarah Palin “We’re tired of defending you. We are tired of your antics and over your drama.” Will they encounter withering criticism from her rabid fans? Definitely, but that shouldn’t matter. This is not just a horse race or a fun game. This is about the future direction of the Republican Party and indeed America; something we shouldn’t take lightly.

If no one stands up to Sarah Palin, then we might end up with her as our nominee which would guarantee a 2^nd Obama term. And frankly, the stakes are too important for the GOP to give away an opportunity to win the election like that.

This man clearly has no plans to run for president:

Unless you’re in favor of a fully nationalized health-care system, the president’s health-care reform law is a massive mistake. It will amplify all the big drivers of overconsumption and excessive pricing: “Why not, it’s free?” reimbursement; “The more I do, the more I get” provider payment; and all the defensive medicine the trial bar’s ingenuity can generate.

All claims made for it were false. It will add trillions to the federal deficit. It will lead to a de facto government takeover of health care faster than most people realize, and as millions of Americans are added to the Medicaid rolls and millions more employees (including, watch for this, workers of bankrupt state governments) are dumped into the new exchanges.

Many of us governors are hoping for either a judicial or legislative rescue from this impending disaster, and recent court decisions suggest there’s a chance of that. But we can’t count on a miracle—that’s only permitted in Washington policy making. We have no choice but to prepare for the very real possibility that the law takes effect in 2014.

For state governments, the bill presents huge new costs, as we are required to enroll 15 million to 20 million more people in our Medicaid systems. In Indiana, our independent actuaries have pegged the price to state taxpayers at $2.6 billion to $3 billion over the next 10 years. This is a huge burden for our state, and yet another incremental expenditure the law’s authors declined to account for truthfully.

Read the whole thing.

Daniels’ interest in, and experience with, conservative versions of health care reform, as well as his position at the helm of state government, provide the Indiana governor with a perspective on this issue that is lost on many in the GOP presidential field. Simply attacking the individual mandate will not be enough. And taking on the new insurance regulations, while correct in principle, may work out horribly in practice, as it turns the debate into one over pre-existing conditions, rescission, lifetime caps for coverage, and so forth, issues where polls suggest that Democrats will have the advantage.

But instead of going either of these routes, Daniels’ line of attack against ObamaCare demonstrates how the bill will act as a Trojan Horse of sorts that will ultimately put government in charge of most health care financing, and, thus, most health care decisions. While Democrats sold the bill as a mechanism for getting the working poor and the uninsured sick into the health insurance system, what voters weren’t told was that pretty much all of these folks were going to be pushed into some sort of government plan, whether it be the Medicaid expansion, or the government-run exchanges. Meanwhile, by giving employers the option of paying a fine in lieu of providing coverage to employees, ObamaCare will ultimately cause millions of Americans to lose their employer-based health plan and be dumped into the government-run exchanges as well. The ultimate goal of the bill is to make the government the nation’s primary insurer, so that it can attempt to force down the cost of medical care via price controls that will result in the sorts of problems with quality of care that we see across the world.

Daniels also blows wide open the fiscal fraud that is ObamaCare, by pointing out that the only reason that the bill supposedly cut the deficit was that most of the costs were passed down to states in the form of unfunded mandates. These are the sorts of arguments that will resonate with swing voters, especially if accompanied by the many health care solutions that Daniels keeps in his policy wonk utility belt. All of this makes me believe that Daniels is planning a run for president, and that he will be more formidable than his mild-mannered demeanor suggests.

PPP (D) 2012 South Dakota GOP Primary Survey

• John Thune 37%
• Sarah Palin 12%
• Mitt Romney 12%
• Mike Huckabee 11%
• Newt Gingrich 10%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Tim Pawlenty 2%
• Mitch Daniels 1%
• Someone else/Undecided 10%

(more…)

Vanderbilt University 2012 Tennessee Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 42%
• Sarah Palin 37%

Survey of 710 respondents was conducted January 17-23, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points.

(more…)

The Illinois Republican Party has announced that it will be sponsoring a non-binding statewide straw poll in November. Clearly, this is an effort to increase the state’s role in the selection process, and to get around the new calendar.

Meanwhile, Nevada seems to be fretting over the fact that nobody takes them seriously, and thinks that making their caucus binding and proportional will help. I doubt it — there aren’t enough delegates at stake. Early primaries, because of the sizes of the states, are about the headlines you can grab, not about the number of delegates you get.  The article is interesting in its discussion of why Nevada doesn’t get the attention the others get (also about the games South Carolina is playing in an apparent effort to keep Nevada irrelevant).

What I also found interesting, though, is that Nevada is also going to do a straw poll this fall in conjunction with the Western States Republican Leadership Conference, to be held in Las Vegas.

I’m wondering how many states are going to sponsor straw polls, and how long it will take for that to make them all meaningless.

Here’s a roundup of some news items for some of the lower profile potential 2012 contenders.

John Bolton – Bolton has predominantly positioned himself as the “neo-conservative” candidate by staying on the FoxNews circuit discussing foreign policy related issues. Recently he’s ventured outside of the foreign policy circles by endorsing in the RNC Chair race (Ann Wagner) and the Texas Speaker of the House race (Ken Paxton). On whether he could win the nomination, Bolton said, “I think I could win the Republican nomination if I choose to run, because I do think I’m in the mainstream of the Republican party…I have no idea whether this is the best course for me, and that’s why — right now — I’m thinking through whether, in fact, to become a candidate.”

Herman Cain – Cain has written an editorial for the Daily Caller entitled, “Liberalism is not in America’s DNA.” In it, he discusses liberal protesters at a recent conservative conference and how big government isn’t the status quo most Americans seek. In March, Cain will be speaking at the Allied Trades of the Baking Industry Breakfast at the American Baker’s Association’s 2011 Convention. Cain had previously served as chairman and president & CEO of the National Restaurant Association (1994-1999).

Fred Karger – Republican consultant / operative Karger has proposed lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. Karger said, “Sixteen and 17 year olds in this country are better informed than any generation in history…If we can engage high school student in the political process, they will be more likely to participate for years to come.” Karger is openly gay and has been on the air in New Hampshire and Iowa.

Jimmy McMillan – That’s right, the quirky “Rent is Too Damn High” candidate for New York Governor from 2010, 2006 is a registered Republican and is planning to run for President. Some say he “stole the show” in the 2010 Gubernatorial debates, mostly for being incredibly over the top. When asked about his bid for President, McMillan said, “If you don’t do your job right, I am coming at you. I know Barack Obama is an Internet hog. I know he knows that I am out there. But what he hasn’t heard yet is that Jimmy McMillan is running for President of the United States of America. Well Barack Obama, you might as well turn your Internet up. Go to the website, President. I want you to look at all the hits Sarah Palin got. I ate her up. Look at all the hits John McCain got. I chewed him up. Look at all the hits Hillary Clinton had, I swallowed her, chewed her up and spit her out. Jimmy McMillan is well-known”

Know any other lesser known potential 2012 candidate who deserves our attention – for better or worse? Let me know and I’ll try my best to keep track of them.

_______________________________________________________

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

Is a Pawlenty vs. Romney battle for the endorsement of Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad brewing?

Last Thursday, David Broder raised a few eyebrows by reporting that those “in-the-know” are already counting Branstad’s endorsement in Tim Pawlenty’s column:

…another governor will be more important in determining whether the strategy takes wing.

That is Terry Branstad, once again the governor of Iowa, decades after he finished his first long run in the job. An exceptionally skilled politician, Branstad is generally counted in the Pawlenty camp. His support is the main reason Pawlenty is given a chance in the leadoff caucuses – even against Huckabee, the surprise 2008 winner in Iowa; Romney, who has invested heavily in organizing the state; and perhaps others, including Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House.

Branstad’s decision to endorse the favorite-son movement and make himself available as the Iowa favorite would be seen inevitably as a blow to Pawlenty. But it could serve Pawlenty well in states holding later elections, such as New Hampshire, where he could back the favorite son rather than campaign there himself with little prospect of winning.

Not so fast says Sean Sullivan over at Hotline:

Observers of the 2012 presidential race turned their attention to Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) on Thursday after the Washington Post’s David Broder suggested in his column that Branstad “is generally counted” in the camp of former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R).

In response, aides to Branstad were quick to reiterate that the governor remains neutral. But speculation over Branstad’s endorsement may linger, given that late last year, he did not rule out the possibility of a potential endorsement down the road, even as he maintained his neutral stance.

As the Des Moines Register’s Tom Beaumont points out, Branstad is a contemporary of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R), another potential presidential contender. Meanwhile, close allies of Branstad — Chuck Larson and Karen Slifka — are advising Pawlenty, Beaumont notes.

But Branstad also has ties to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), who endorsed him during the 2010 gubernatorial primary. Numerous former Romney staffers were on Branstad’s 2010 campaign staff, including Romney’s former Iowa press secretary Tim Albrecht, who is Branstad’s current communications director.

For the record, in his first tenure as governor, Branstad endorsed former Kansas Senator Bob Dole in 1996 and remained neutral in 1988.

The final decision regarding whether to make an endorsement and who that candidate will be is still likely a long ways off. But as we learned in the lead-up to the 2008 Florida primary, endorsements of sitting governor be momentous – so there will likely be much behind the scenes courting (and deal making) up and until the decision is made.

From the Boston Globe:

In one more indication Mitt Romney is tuning up his political apparatus for a 2012 presidential run, the former governor hosted a breakfast meeting today at the Boston Harbor Hotel for dozens of his top local supporters and fund-raisers from his past campaigns for governor and president.

… While Romney indicated he has not made a final decision, he gave every indication he intends to make a formal announcement this spring, probably in late April or early May, one attendee said.

Meanwhile, back in Iowa, the Des Moines Register had this to say about the big three:

What’s up with Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee? Despite their public silence, forces are in motion that could shape an Iowa strategy for Romney and lay the groundwork for a Palin campaign here. But Iowa and national strategists see few signs pointing to a sequel to Huckabee’s 2008 campaign.

re Romney –

- Romney showed a card last week: If he seeks the nomination, the former Massachusetts governor will campaign in Iowa. But he’s expected to run a much different campaign in Iowa in 2012.

…

Romney’s comment last week that he plans to compete in Iowa if he seeks the GOP nomination a second time was aimed at quelling rumors that he would skip the state after a disappointing second-place finish in 2008.

re: Palin –

- A supporter of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been working county-level sources, giving her the seeds of an Iowa organization.
…
Palin is the Republican Party’s biggest rock star, yet she has put out no feelers in Iowa about mounting a caucus campaign, despite four visits to the state since stepping down as governor in 2009.

But before you write her off, meet Peter Singleton.

The 56-year-old lawyer from Menlo Park, Calif., was in Iowa last month and plans to return next week to talk with local Republican and conservative activists.

It’s an unofficial grass-roots effort, he said, unaffiliated with Palin’s political action committee, although Palin’s PAC political director also has kept in touch with some supporters since last fall.

And finally re: Huckabee –

- Huckabee has had little contact with his winning 2008 Iowa caucus team, and has said he will not announce his 2012 plans until this summer.
…
Unlike Palin, who has given no timeline for a decision, Huckabee has said he will announce his plans by summer.

That is later than most others have said they will disclose theirs, prompting some of Huckabee’s closest Iowa backers to doubt he’ll join the race.

“I’m not convinced he’s running,” said state Sen. Kent Sorenson of Indianola, a key Huckabee backer in 2008.
…
[M]omentum behind a candidate popular in Huckabee’s base might discourage him from running, said Bob Vander Plaats of Sioux City, Huckabee’s 2008 Iowa campaign chairman.

“In addition to Huckabee making up his own mind, some of these candidates are going to make Huckabee’s decision,” said Vander Plaats, president of a social conservative advocacy group. “Meaning if there is someone who is capturing the hearts and minds of Iowa caucusgoers in a fresh way, I think he looks at it and says maybe I don’t jump in.”

It’s a great article.  Read the whole thing.

So in summary, none of the big three have committed.  Yet of the three, Romney is carefully laying the groundwork, a friend of Palin’s is engaged in some tentative spadework, and Huckabee — well, let me put it this way.  Those anonymous Huckabee backers who have been expressing doubts about him running?  They aren’t so anonymous anymore.

-The Former Senator and Likely Presidential Candidate talks about his Clear Foreign Policy Vision

Those who follow politics closely tend to think of Rick Santorum as a controversial and ardent social conservative who has focused almost entirely on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. For most, the discussion ends there; they love him or loathe him on the assumption that he is a generic, all be it particularly vehement, culture warrior with little platform beyond this. That’s an impression which the former two-term senator from Pennsylvania finds particularly exasperating.

“Its a little bit frustrating when you get pigeon-holed into a category because you have the temerity to speak out on an issue that not very many people speak out on. That is the case with many of the moral cultural issues. But the fact is, I speak out on all the issues. I’m not shy on any of them, accept the hot-button ones tent to get covered by the press more, but I really wish they’d cover more of what I’ve done.” Since his loss to then state treasurer and PA Democratic dynastic heir Bob Casey, Santorum has indeed been busy, and one of the things which has preoccupied him the most has been foreign policy. In fact, from 2007 to the present, he has written extensively on the topic, given countless lectures on it, and even ran a think tank dedicated to the subject, and in particular, those nations, entities and ideologies which he feels threaten America. In characteristic Santorum style, his foreign policy vision is bold, confrontational and controversial, and he makes no bones about his willingness to speak the truth, as he sees it. For those who expect Santorum’s campaign to come exclusively from a culture war play-book, some surprises are in store; he is at least as interested in a war of an entirely different kind, an international “gathering storm” of which he fears America is largely unaware, and for which he believes we are almost totally unprepared.

Legislating for Democracy

Of course, as Senator Santorum himself will tell you, his engagement with foreign policy issues did not begin when his senate career ended. There are two pieces of legislation which the senator helped pass, and which he feels played a particularly important role in US foreign policy. Interestingly, both pieces of legislation were aimed at a widely-acknowledged Middle Eastern alliance inimical to US interests, that between Iran and Syria. First came the Syria Accountability Act, a law with a bipartisan group of sponsors designed to sanction Syria for its then occupation of Lebanon. With the connivance of Iran and its ally/proxy Hezbollah, Syria took advantage of Lebanon’s chaotic and fractured state to occupy that country in the 1980s, in violation of UN resolutions and a Lebanese government request that all Syrian forces leave the country. Santorum argues that it was the Syria Accountability Act which “helped get Syria out of Lebanon”, by reversing a previous US policy of tacit acceptance of the Syrian occupation, which began under the First President Bush, as a quid-pro-quo for Syrian acquiescence to the Persian Gulf War. The second foreign policy accomplishment of which Senator Santorum is especially proud is the Iran Freedom and Support Act, a law designed to aid Iran’s pro-democracy movement, a cause still near and dear to his heart. In this, as so many other aspects of US foreign policy, Santorum was to be disappointed, and believes his actions and warnings to have been prophetic: “Had we done what I suggested to do, which is to try to develop, build relationships with and support [the Iranian democratic movement] just like we did with movements in the Eastern block countries in Europe, we could have taken much better advantage of the Green Revolution that occurred two years ago.”

(more…)

In dealing with the fiscal and other problems dealt to this country by elected officials (and by extension, the voters who put our elected officials into power), the 2012 Republican candidates will have a variety of different ways to go:

A.      Focus on the size and scope of government- i.e. prioritize where government should be and don’t let it exist anywhere else. An example of this is cutting the Department of Education.

B.      Focus on the cost of government, thus achieving the same goal as A through fiscal discipline as opposed to actual elimination of departments, etc. This would include cutting the cost of the federal government equivalent to the cost of the Department of Education, and seeing what areas that fiscal discipline eliminates.

C.      Focus on utilizing federalism. One example of this is Social Security; some conservatives are for social programs only on the state level. Thus, they only want the federal government out of the way, not government as a whole.

One thing strongly intertwined into the fiscal debate is corruption. Intertwined with that are transparency and Big Government/Big Business collusion. For example, under President Bush it was Halliburton who received special treatment and non-competition contracts, and such contracts are prevalent in the Defense Department under both parties. The new Halliburton is General Electric, whose CEO is currently an advisor to the President and whose company recently received a waiver from certain EPA regulations. This collusion is harmful to the state of affairs in the federal government, and it is harmful to the American people, few of whom are able to achieve such preferential status with elected officials.

It is with these thoughts in mind that I propose the following changes to how our federal officials conduct business during and after their time of public service.

Transparency

All candidates for Congress, President and Vice President (as well as all incumbents) will have any and all donations posted on their official and campaign websites on the main page. Each campaign office and each official office shall also have this list. The list will include, from left to right:

Name(s) of donor(s)

Amount given

Related industry of donor

Interest group ratings related to industries of donor

This will all be done within 24 hours of receipt.

Voting for Imbalanced Budgets

Through a Constitutional Amendment, no Member of the House or Senate will be allowed to vote for an imbalanced budget on the floor of his or her respective chamber. If this happens once in a single term, the Member will lose his or her entire pay for that calendar year. If it happens twice in a term, that Member will leave office. If it happens three times in a career, that Member will be forced to leave office.

The above rule does not take effect during an officially-declared time of war (via Congressional declaration), nor during the first year of an economic recession.

This also applies to the President and Vice President of the United States.

Member & Staff Pay

The House recently diminished the annual office allowance by 5%. This is a good start. However, this should continue to drop to 70% of the 2010 level of allowance. Additionally, Members in both chambers will be limited to a $75,000 salary starting in 2012, and that salary will rise with the cost of inflation. The President’s and Vice President’s pay will be cut back to $200,000, and will only rise with the cost of inflation.

All of the above pay requirements shall be negated in a time of economic recession, and pay will follow the average loss of income by the totality of all workers in the United States during economic recessions. Pay will then start over at the amount received in the last year of the recession.

Except for leadership offices and committees, all D.C.-based House staffs will be limited to seven staff members, with the following as a guide:

1 Chief of Staff

2 Legislative Assistants/Legislative Directors

1 Press Secretary/Communications Director

1 Legislative Correspondent

1 Staff Assistant

Currently, House staffs are allotted up to 18 members, between district and D.C. staffs, and four part-time staff, according to Source Watch. This shall change and be limited to 14 total staff members. If Members wish to hire more than seven staff in the D.C. offices, and 14 staff total, it shall be done through his or her personal assets.

While Senate offices are not limited by staff number, they are limited by staff cost, according to Source Watch. Staff allotments shall be diminished by 15%.

One weakness to this approach is states where a Member of Congress is the only Rep. for the whole state, such as North and South Dakota. Any suggestions on how to improve the idea?

Also, I mostly ignored Senate staffs because, unlike the House where districts are relatively homogenized (number of constituents, etc.), two Senators may cover a small state (such as Rhode Island) or a large state such as Texas or Alaska. I don’t know if a proper solution can be found, perhaps by distinguishing between large, medium and small states, similar to what is already done?

Laws Related to Lobbying After Congressional Service

No former Congressional staffer or Member shall become a lobbyist within five years of service, nor work for a lobbying firm within those five years. Once those five years are complete, no former Member or Congressional staffer may lobby any Members that once employed them or were on Committees related to Member responsibilities. Additionally, no Committees the staffer or Member worked for or with (in the personal office) may be lobbied by former staffers or Members.

Since this is an issue of the public trust and corruption, any first violation of this law will result in ten days in jail and a $50,000 fine. Any second violation will result in one year in jail and a $100,000 fine.

Outside Money Earned

No Member of Congress nor the President or Vice President of the United States shall be allowed to utilize money made outside of his or her annual salary unless that money already is in existence. Any monies earned as a Member, Vice President or President outside of salary shall be invested or otherwise put aside, not to be used by anyone until that person has left office. Nor shall a spouse, family member, friend, lawyer or anyone else be allowed to utilize such monies.

Also, no Member, President or Vice President shall be allowed to invest, nor shall their family, friends, lawyers or any others, during their time in office, in any business or company outside that which they have already invested in. We ban insider trading, and this is basically the same thing. If any Member, President or Vice President, or any other person associated with any federally-elected official attempts to invest while the person is in office, they shall be prosecuted under applicable insider trading rules.

Some modern examples of income that would be banned under the above rules are Senator Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) book, written in 2009; and President Obama’s books, for which he still receives income. Also, many times Members invest in businesses they have an interest in (for example, many Texan Members invest in oil). While none of these are unethical in and of themselves, they are unethical for elected officials to be involved in.

Post-Service Monies

No Member of Congress or Vice President or President shall receive pay from their public servant position after their final term ends. The President’s Secret Service protection detail will stop protecting a former President after five years, not the current ten. All Members of Congress will forego receiving Social Security as part of the means-testing required to properly reform the program.

All of my monetary reforms regarding Members may seem harsh, but I think they are reasonable. In 2010 The Washington Post reported that 251 Members of Congress (out of 535) were millionaires, and the median income was over $600,000. While some Members did have negative asset values last year, I suspect the fact that they don’t have to report the value of their homes somewhat mitigates this. Additionally, several Members are potentially (even the study the Post cited was not certain as to the value of a number of Members) millions of dollars in hole, likely meaning their lack of monetary value is not a lack of annual income so much as simply a lack of knowledge of the basics of finance.

I support term limits, but did not include them in my list above because a) there is some evidence that it would empower staffs to be more knowledgeable than the Members for whom they work, and b) it does essentially say that I believe the American people are too stupid to vote out bad politicians. I’m hesitant to put them forward as proposals for government reform, mostly because as I think and read and discuss more about term limits I am less gung-ho about making them law. I do support self-imposed term limits, and encourage them.

As I said at the top of this, fiscal change is absolutely the top priority for our elected leaders. The corruption and transparency reforms I have outlined above, while perhaps not feasible in and of themselves, provide an outline for changes to federal elected service that are critical to bringing Congress back to the people. Any 2012 candidate who offers such changes would be looked upon very positively, I suspect.

P.S. I spoke with my father about these proposed regulations, and he brought up an excellent point: if we require laws telling government officials not to give special treatment to their friends, not to help themselves via the public dollar, not to do the many unethical, immoral and criminal things the rest of us would be jailed for…than the rules are too far broken. Additionally, he pointed out, when Congress does to Social Security what Enron executives did to their investors and is not held accountable, in what way are the rules even fixable?

My response to these valid points is this: Short of a revolution, one must work within the framework one is given. I don’t like having to suggest these regulations and standards, and wish the American people would vote more often for ethical representatives. Until they do, enacting my proposed rules (or similar ones) are a good buffer against many of the unethical, immoral and criminal things many Members of Congress do.

President Ronald Reagan at CPAC

Various factions are developing among GOP groups over whether the American Conservative Union (ACU), headed by David Keene, should have accepted a “homosexual rights” group (GOProud) to be a co-sponsor of its annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which begins February 10th. Several groups are boycotting the event, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, The American Principles Project, and the American Family Association. In addition, politicians Mike Huckabee and Jim DeMint have declined invitations. Past keynote speakers have included Ann Coulter, President Ronald Reagan (14 years in a row!) and Glenn Beck.

Last year, shouting matches erupted when speakers Alexander McCobin and Ryan Sorba squared off on the issue. This year, Matt Drudge sidekick Andrew Breitbart, never one to avoid trouble, is hosting a bash to thank CPAC for inviting GOProud.

Other potential presidential candidates who plan to attend this year include Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. The complete list of confirmed speakers is below.

Sarah Palin will not be appearing, but she did not use the words GOProud, homosexual, or gay when asked whether she was going to CPAC by David Brody of CBN. She said she doesn’t have time, not that she is boycotting it:

“Well, I’ve never attended a CPAC conference ever so I was a little taken aback this go around when I couldn’t make it to this one either and then there was a speculation well I either agree or disagree with some of the groups or issues that CPAC is discussing. It really is a matter of time for me. But when it comes to and David, perhaps what it is that you’re suggesting in the question is should the GOP, should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within those forums are issues that maybe we don’t personally agree with? And I say no, it’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks whom you have been on and you provide good information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is needed in order for people to gather information and make up their own minds about issues. I look at participation in an event like CPAC or any other event, along, or kind of in that same vein as the more information that people have the better.”

Based on last years comments, it is doubtful that Mike Huckabee will be attending: “CPAC has becoming increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year.”

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told Fox News that they would not participate again this year because of its leftward drift, not only because of the inclusion of GOProud, but also its possible connection with the Muslim Brotherhood, through its founder’s son, Suhail Khan, and ACU board member. This issue was raised by by Frank Gaffney (according to World Net Daily News).

An American Principles Project press release praising Jim DeMint for boycotting the event said inviting GOProud is “fundamentally incompatible with a movement that has long embraced the ideals of family and faith.”

Crossposted at Caffeinated Thoughts

Here is the list of confirmed speakers:

Rasmussen has released the results of various match-up polls taken during January. The results and dates of the polling are as follows:

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 44% (44%)
• Barack Obama 42% (44%)

• Mike Huckabee 43% (41%)
• Barack Obama 43% (45%)

• Barack Obama 47%
• Newt Gingrich 39%

• Barack Obama 44%
• Ron Paul 35%

• Barack Obama 43%
• Jon Huntsman 33%

• Barack Obama 49% (46%)
• Sarah Palin 38% (43%)

• Barack Obama 45%
• John Thune 31%

• Barack Obama 47%
• Tim Pawlenty 32%

• Barack Obama 47%
• Haley Barbour 30%

• Barack Obama 42%
• Mitch Daniels 25%

• Barack Obama 42%
• Herman Cain 25%

• Barack Obama 46%
• Mike Pence 29%

Surveys were conducted between January 3 and February 1, 2011. Results from the poll conducted November 24, 2009 are in parentheses.

*Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Caveats are important here. In addition to the usual ones about polls being snapshots in time, it’s important to note that, given important news events in January, the dates of the polling are important here. The Tucson shootings (1/8), Obama’s subsequent speech (1/12), and the State of the Union (1/25) are all significant events, and the latter two almost certainly gave Obama a bump.

The other notable thing is that the difference between Palin’s result and those of Romney and Huckabee are confirmation of the PPP state by state numbers. She is running 11-13 points behind, almost identical to what she averages across multiple states.

So much for the “PPP has been bought off by Kos” theory.

Otherwise, we see the expected separation between the well-known names in the top tier and the lesser-known names polled later in the month.

A couple of quick notes: The linked page does not give sample sizes or MoE. I’m guessing samples of 400-500 and MoE of about 4.5, based Rasmussen’s normal practices. If anyone has access to the real numbers, please post them in the comments and I will update the post.

Tom Harkin calls for lobbyists to fight spending cuts. (Hat Tip: The Corner.)

New Mexico follows Arizona’s lead.

Governor Scott works to reform pensions. (Hat Tip: Instapundit.)

Baltimore judge overturns repressive law on pregnancy centers.

California Abortionist forced to surrender his license.

Did Kermit Gosnell defraud Delaware?

Conservative columnist gets death threats over column critizicizing homosexual movement.

17 year old arrested for Blasphemy.

Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Today is the 100^th birthday of President Ronald Reagan and the beginning of the official Reagan Centennial celebration.  The very fact that there is an official Reagan Centennial celebration with observances scheduled throughout the year suggests that Reagan was no ordinary president.  Rather, he was one of the two most consequential presidents of the 20^th century and, on balance, one of the most popular.  The successful Reagan presidency not only led to America’s victory in the Cold War but also represented a political triumph for the concepts of freedom and limited government over those of ever more central planning and steady expansion of government’s power.  Reagan’s long-sought victory over Communism was more than just the geo-strategic defeat of the Soviet Union and its empire.  His success, together with that of Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, represented a more basic intellectual victory for freedom over socialism–a victory for the politico-economic principles of Hayek and Friedman over those of Keynes and Galbraith.

As stated in the earlier introduction of myself to the readers of this site, I worked in Reagan’s campaigns for president both in 1976 and in 1980 and served  in his administration.  So, I would like to offer a brief perspective of those years and hopefully highlight a couple of points that are often glossed over in the many, many reviews and commentaries about Reagan and his presidency.

Two Big Problems–Separate But Interrelated

Upon taking office Reagan was confronted to with two vexing problems requiring immediate simultaneous attention:  economic “stagflation” that was growing steadily worse; and, a strategic military balance that was rapidly shifting in favor of the Soviet Union.  Much has been written about Reagan’s economic policy initiatives, the across-the-board reduction in income tax rates, deregulation, domestic spending restraints—what was once called “Reaganomics.”  A lot finds its way in the policy debates of today.  Perhaps because we ultimately won the Cold War, what is now all but forgotten about that period, however, was the nature of the military-defense problem, and specifically, the highly dangerous shift underway in the strategic nuclear balance in favor of the Soviet Union.

Both the economic and defense problems were equally important, equally urgent, and received top political and operational priority.  They were also interrelated in that economic recovery, low inflation, and a strong dollar were key to national security and to the competition with the Soviet Union; and, the perception of stronger American resolve facilitated a stronger dollar, and specifically lower oil prices.  In addition, the defense modernization program created many new jobs in science, engineering and manufacturing.

Reagan presented his economic recovery plan before a Joint Session of Congress on Febraury18, 1981, and his modernization plan for the strategic nuclear forces in September of that same year.  But soon after taking office, he and his senior national security team began developing and implementing a set of policy initiatives designed to unhinge the Soviet Union—initiatives that were very highly classified and that did not become known until much later in the decade and thereafter, but the success of which depended heavily on the economic and defense modernization programs, and on Reagan’s own political fortunes.

Political Hurdles and Priorities

Much of the recent and rather naïve lore about the Reagan years depicts a kind of mystical, magical time in which all Reagan had to do was wave his magic wand and these paradigm shifting policies fell neatly into place.  But, the reality of that era was far different.  The opposition, whether from the organized political Left or from the glitterati amongst the Establishment’s intelligentsia (including some well known personalities from former Republican administrations) was persistent—sometimes direct, sometimes indirect—but persistent, especially during the all too critical first 30 months of the first term.  Many who disagreed with the tax cuts claimed they would worsen inflation and further drive up interest rates.  The budget cuts would destroy the social safety net.  The defense build-up would trigger an out of control arms race and risk nuclear war.  On and on it went.  Each day was a battle.

The results of the 1980 election were surprising in two respects: (1) the geographical and demographical diversity of the Reagan win; and, (2) the Republicans gained 13 seats in the US Senate, giving them control, which included the defeat of some of the prominent names of the liberal Left.  While the Reagan economic reform and defense modernization initiatives were reasonably well received on the surface by the new Republican Senate, many of the specifics were another matter.  His initial budget amendment proposed the outright elimination of a number of outmoded or onerous federal agencies and significant reductions across most of the discretionary domestic spending accounts.  To be quite honest, some of these new “conservative warriors” in the Senate fainted at the sight of the blood.  When the FY82 budget was submitted later in the year, the response from the Republican Chairman of the Budget Committee was:  “Dead on Arrival!”  Ultimately, only TWO members of the Senate Budget Committee voted to approve Reagan’s initial budget proposals as submitted during the critical first year—Sen. John Tower of Texas, and Sen. Steve Symms of Idaho.

In the Senate Finance Committee, the tax reduction proposals were held hostage to the various demands of its Chairman, Sen. Robert Dole of Kansas (a former opponent of Reagan’s in the early primaries).  Reagan had wanted a clean tax bill; Dole and his Committee had other ideas. Not only did they “lard up” the tax reduction bill with many of their own pet preferences (some good, some not good) but Dole demanded other “tradeoffs” as the price for supporting Reagan’s across-the-board reduction in income tax rates.

In 1982 Senator Sam Nunn (the pro-defense Democrat from Georgia) together with the liberal Republican Senator Bill Cohen of Maine, publicly presented an “alternative” set of arms control proposals that had been crafted largely by the staff of the Council on Foreign Relations.  The Nunn-Cohen proposal called “Build-Down” was more conciliatory to the Soviet Union and its nuclear strategy than were the official US arms control proposals.  The net effect being, two senior Senators, one from each party, attempted to sabotage Reagan’s negotiating strategy with the Soviet Union by putting forth a concept that looked somewhat reasonable on the surface, but that would have in reality disrupted the critical strategic modernization program.  At the same time, the “Nuclear Freeze Movement” was initiated by the organized Left with a little help from Moscow no doubt for the purpose of forcing a halt to Reagan’s defense program.  The NFM involved notables among the intelligentsia, prominent celebrities, dissident scientists, commentators, and the usual political activists.

The point being is that right from the beginning Reagan’s key initiatives had to be negotiated not only with the opposition party but within his own Republican-controlled Senate which at that time contained at least ten members who would have proudly worn the label of “liberal Republican” and who did not like Reagan’s agenda.

A mystical, magical, fun time it was not—a battle royal it was—but one ultimately rewarding.

The Secrets of Success?

Reflecting back on that period in political history, I am tempted to say that it was remarkable that President Reagan was ultimately successful in winning Congressional approval for practically all of the critical elements of his economic and defense programs.  While reductions in non-defense spending were substantially less than what the president wanted, the tax reductions, the deregulation, and counter-inflation measures (initiated by the Federal Reserve) did result in economic and job growth with lower rates of inflation and interest rates.  In some respects, the president met with even greater success with the defense modernization program, and the secret strategy to unhinge the Soviet Union progressed better than expected.  The reasons for his successes during those critical first 30 months and throughout his presidency are varied, but from my observation the following were most critical:

1) Reagan was firmly grounded in the philosophical principles of freedom and limited government.  He actually read and studied the works of Hayek and the Founding Fathers among others. In addition, he knew something about Communism and the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and thus he understood its vulnerabilities. External pressures could not shake his belief system or cause him to abandon his important policy initiatives.

2) Reagan and his senior advisors devoted full focus to his top priority initiatives of economic recovery and the national security program.  Most other issues were, quite honestly, put on the back burner.  Realizing that any president only has so much political capital, Reagan managed his very well and kept it focused on the key initiatives.  His experience in Hollywood as a negotiator for the Screen Actors Guild served him well in the art of political negotiation.

3) Reagan won his election cleanly with wide geographical and demographical support.  He never resorted to personal or social “wedge issues” in any of his campaigns nor did he seek to gain tactical advantage by trying to set one group of people against another.  Rather, he consistently sought to point out how everyone would benefit from his philosophy of less government, more freedom and responsibility.  No opponent or opposition party could ever claim that Reagan ran a dirty campaign.  This characteristic served him very well in winning support for his program and in being able to govern effectively.

And, of course, there were the intangible factors.  Contrary to popular legend, Reagan was not 10 feet tall (well, maybe the Soviets thought so), but he was just damned good at what he did.  Then there was some Irish luck perhaps; and, quite likely, a little help from Providence.

So, here is to you Mr. President.  Happy Birthday—and thank you!

Since the early part of 2007, I have been a regular reader of Race 4 2008, then ROS, and now Race 4 2012.  Many of you have probably seen my comments under the moniker of “Chris L.”    A couple of weeks ago Kavon and senior editor DaveG invited me to write for the site.  So, I would like to take this opportunity to formally introduce myself and tell you a little bit about my background and thus the perspective from which I write and comment.  I am a Texas native who once held senior positions on the staff of a Congressman and US Senator from a western state.  Concurrently, I was active with the Reagan for President campaigns in both 1976 and 1980 and then served as a political appointee in national security positions in the Reagan Administration.   For the last 22 years I have  held research and analysis positions in industry.  Residing in the National Capital area I maintain an active interest in politics from a libertarian-conservative perspective, and have long been fascinated with the character and history of innovative and transformative organizations.  My political philosophical inspirations are drawn from The Federalist, Friedrich von Hayek, Barry Goldwater, Margaret Thatcher, and of course, Ronald Reagan.  From time to time I will be writing about the Republican Party, political philosophy and the upcoming presidential campaign, and some occasional reflections on the Reagan presidency that may be relevant to the Race for 2012.

Rasmussen’s daily Presidential Approval Index for Barack Obama has just hit a new low for the year of -17. This is coming after a nice bounce the President had been enjoying for most of the month of January.

Here is a chart of the index since the first of the year:

That peak of -4 is January 24, the eve of Obama’s second State of the Union Address.  Up to that time, all Obama’s assurances about learning from the “shellacking” he took in November, plus his talk about “reaching across the aisle to the Republicans” had caused his numbers to rise to their highest level since February 1, 2010.  The last time they had even been in negative single digits was late June of last year.

Then he opened his mouth in the SOTU address. The result?  His numbers plunged to -11 in just three short days.  Three days!  He did get a little boost at the beginning of the Egyptian Crisis.  (Presidents usually do when they have the opportunity to act Presidential.)  However, the plunge resumed on January 31 dropping from -8 to today’s -17.

It’s Amateur Hour at the Oval Office.  After more than two years under his belt, you would think the guy would be getting the hang of this thing.  But no, he doesn’t seem to be.  He managed to squander all the goodwill he built up from the first of the year in less than two weeks.  His numbers have fallen to what has pretty much been his steady state level for most of last year.

This spells trouble for the President in the future. If he cannot acquire any sort of sustained boost, it is going to be one term and out for him.

PPP (D) California 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 54%
• Mike Huckabee 39%

• Barack Obama 56%
• Mitt Romney 36%

• Barack Obama 58%
• Newt Gingrich 34%

• Barack Obama 62%
• Sarah Palin 31%

(more…)

Here is the latest YTD data on the PPP “vs. Obama” race with 2012 GOP Presidential hopefuls:

The second column is the number of electoral votes will have in 2012, and is used to weight the average.

Analysis:

• Huckabee leads, followed closely by Romney.  This follows the pattern we saw last year with Mike and Mitt always the top group and Newt and Sarah always the bottom group.
• Palin is losing to Obama by an average of -8 points.  She is going to have to work to overcome this if she runs and expects to win.

A number of people have asked me why I have not been posting the more detailed polling analysis that I used to do on a regular basis.  There were several reasons:

1. I felt it was too soon after the midterms.
2. It was “the crazy time”.  I wanted to wait for things to settle somewhat before resuming.
3. I wanted to wait until the new year to make a clean break with the past.
4. I wanted to wait until we had a reasonable sampling before doing any analysis.

I feel the time is right to begin them again.  So here is my first horse race analysis.

Oh, one more thing.  As before, I am relying strictly upon Public Policy Polling (PPP) for my data.  I have always found that they are a perfectly reputable polling firm, one of the best. Certainly, they have their biases.  All polling firms do.  The important thing is by taking data only from one source, any biases that there might be should be consistent from poll to poll. Any trends that show up will be for real.  And at this stage of the game, trends are far more important than any one data point.

So, here is the history of PPP’s Horse Race polls so far this year:

The second column is the number of delegates that each state will send to the 2012 Republican convention. It is used to weigh the weighted average.

Here is the graph:

So far, it isn’t much.  It only shows one week.  But as a new data point in added each week, we should be able to readily spot any trends that might arise.

Oh, one more thing.  I plan on making the weighted average a moving average of two months.  In that way, data more than two months old will be eliminated.  Only data that is reasonably current will be affecting the analysis.

Analysis:

• Huckabee is ahead followed by Palin, Gringrich, and Romney.
• Only eight points separate Huckabee from Romney.
• The lead may well be an artifact of PPP polling mainly Huckabee friendly territory. Over time as more and more states are polled, this may narrow.  Only time will tell.
• Palin, in spite of what most people are saying, is still in the thick of things.  At least, that is, for the states PPP has polled.