PPP (D) Florida 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 46% (46%)
• Mitt Romney 44% (44%)

• Barack Obama 48%
• Jeb Bush 45%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Rudy Giuliani 42%

• Barack Obama 50% (47%)
• Newt Gingrich 42% (42%)

• Barack Obama 50% (49%)
• Mike Huckabee 43% (44%)

• Barack Obama 52% (52%)
• Sarah Palin 39% (38%)

(more…)

Strategic National 2012 Ohio Poll

If the 2012 Presidential Primary were held today, and the only candidates running were Michelle Bachmann, Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum, for whom would you vote?

• Mike Huckabee 24.49%
• Newt Gingrich 21.94%
• Sarah Palin 16.33%
• Mitt Romney 13.78%
• Michele Bachmann 5.61%
• Tim Pawlenty 3.57%
• Rick Santorum 2.04%
• Haley Barbour 1.53%
• Jon Huntsman 1.53%
• Undecided 9.18%

(more…)

FDU PublicMind 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mike Huckabee 46%
• Barack Obama 46%

• Barack Obama 44%
• Mitt Romney 43%

• Barack Obama 46%
• Chris Christie 40%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Tim Pawlenty 34%

• Barack Obama 52%
• Newt Gingrich 37%

• Barack Obama 54%
• Sarah Palin 34%

(more…)

AP-GfK 2012 Favorability Survey

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mike Huckabee 45% / 33% {+12%}
• Mitt Romney 41% / 33% {+8%}
• Jon Huntsman 19% / 14% {+5%}
• Tim Pawlenty 25% / 21% {+4%}
• Michele Bachmann 30% / 27% {+3%}
• Haley Barbour 24% / 22% {+2%}
• Rick Santorum 23% / 21% {+2%}
• Mitch Daniels 20% / 18% {+2%}
• Newt Gingrich 40% / 42% {-2%}
• Sarah Palin 39% / 57% {-18%}

Survey of 1,001 adults was conducted March 24-28, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.2 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 45% Democrat; 33% Republican; Political ideology: 32% Moderate; 23% Somewhat conservative; 18% Strongly conservative; 15% Somewhat liberal; 8% Strongly liberal.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Quinnipiac Survey on President Obama and the Situations in Afghanistan & Libya

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Approve 42%
• Disapprove 48%

Looking ahead to the 2012 election for President, do you feel that Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?

• Yes/Deserves 41%
• No/Does not 50%

If the 2012 election for President were being held today, do you think you would vote for Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or the Republican candidate?

• Republican candidate 37%
• Barack Obama 36%

(more…)

A new CNN poll finds that Americans are abandoning the Tea Party, with the group’s unfavorable ratings up 21 points from last year.

The bottom lines:

Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings of Parties

• Democrats – 46/48 (-2)
• Republicans – 44/48 (-4)
• Tea Party – 32/47 (-15)

Survey was taken March 11-13 of 1,023 people, and has an MoE of 3%.

CNN notes that the 32% favorable rating is down 5 points from their last survey in December. The Tea Party’s unfavorable ratings stood at just 26% last January – nearly doubling since then.

Now, the group’s unfavorables match those of the two major parties – indicating people are just as fed up with the Tea Party’s gimmicks as they are with the GOP and Dems – but their favorability lags 12-14 points behind. Not a good spot to be in on a national level.

Blaming the slow start to the GOP primary season (as we noted here at R4’12, it’s the latest starting primary since 1992), the Reagan Library is moving their debate back from May to September.

The debate, co-sponsored by NBC News and Politico, was originally scheduled for May 2, and the Reagan Presidential Foundation made a point of saying they would enjoy the tradition of kicking off the primary debate season every election at the Reagan Library.

Well, that tradition has ended after just one campaign (2008). Now, the debate will be held on September 14, after four other debates to be held in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.

That gives us the following calendar for the 2012 primary season:

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

Chris Cillizza, of the Washington Post, apparently thinks so; in an article today, he tamped down speculation, fueled most recently by Sen. Jim DeMint, that the eventual 2012 Republican nominee could enter the race late:

Let’s start with governors, the ranks of which DeMint suggested might produce a new crop of national candidates.

Of the 25 Republican governors, 20 of them were elected or appointed in 2009 and 2010. That relative newness makes it difficult — rhetorically and organizationally — for any of the 20 to quickly pivot to a presidential race.

The obvious exception to that rule is New Jersey’s Chris Christie who, in less than two years on the job, has emerged as a straight-talking superstar for Republicans nationally.

…It still seems an unlikely prospect, however. One plugged-in Republican operative suggested that there is a “10 percent” chance that Christie runs.

Beyond Christie, the only other potential candidate who could immediately step into the race with a real following is Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker who endeared himself to Republicans nationwide with his stand-off against organized labor earlier this year. But having just weathered that traumatic political moment, it’s hard to imagine Walker moving into the presidential field.

Other newly-elected governors with bright futures at the national level — South Carolina’s Nikki Haley, Nevada’s Brian Sandoval, New Mexico’s Susana Martinez, Pennsylvania’s Tom Corbett — seem content to let their stars rise more slowly.

So, if you assume that none of the newest governors will run, you are left with five people: Govs. Rick Perry (Texas), Mitch Daniels (Ind.), Bobby Jindal (La.), Dave Heineman (Neb.) and Butch Otter (Idaho) — all of whom were elected in 2007 or earlier.

Neither Heineman nor Otter have any sort of national profile. Jindal is actively running for a second term this November, making it impossible for him to simultaneously put the pieces of a presidential bid together. Perry is intriguing but might struggle with being viewed as the second coming of George W. Bush. Plus, Perry’s 2010 campaign manager Rob Johnson and longtime political consigliere Dave Carney have signed on with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign, moves that suggest the Texas governor isn’t likely to be a surprise late entrant into the race.

Cillizza proceeds to discuss the notion of Daniels running, an exercise tossed about often on this site and, thus, one I won’t re-hash. The author then mentions the list, which pretty much begins and ends with Rand/Ron Paul and Michele Bachman, of possibilities from the Senate and House. He concludes with the following:

Viewed broadly then, the 2012 field appears unlikely to be considerably affected by a last-minute candidacy. Christie is the true wildcard and would almost certainly re-shape the race if he ran. But, it’s hard to find anyone in Republican circles who put the odds on such a bid at anything short of long.

A Daniels candidacy would make the race interesting but wouldn’t exactly be the sort of “new cast” member to which DeMint was referring.

In Cillizza’s mind, the layout of the 2012 race has begun to come into view, and those who drag their feet risk losing out on precious staff talent, fundraising dollars, and media exposure.

His analysis certainly challenges a significant deal of conventional wisdom, which states that the apparent lack of a clear frontrunner leaves the race wide open. If Mr. Cillizza has, indeed, read the tea leaves correctly, it seems to bode well for candidates like Romney, Pawlenty, and Bachmann; the former two have taken some of the most significant steps toward building campaign organizations, Pawlenty has a real opportunity to attract the anyone-but-Romney vote, and Bachmann will presumably take much of the Tea Party/anti-establishment vote.

PPP (D) 2012 Michigan GOP Primary Survey

• Mitt Romney 26% {22%} [30%] (37%)
• Mike Huckabee 20% {22%} [14%] (12%)
• Newt Gingrich 16% {15%} [16%] (16%)
• Sarah Palin 14% {18%} [17%] (24%)
• Ron Paul 7% {10%} [8%] (6%)
• Mitch Daniels 4% {2%}
• Tim Pawlenty 3% {3%}
• Someone else/Undecided 10% {7%}

(more…)

Alternative title to this post: “Grown-up-ism.” Take a gander:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0bZCb67wCE[/youtube]

Good for Pawlenty. Republicans who embrace Birther-ism are essentially buying into the Left’s argument that opposition to Obama is somehow race-based, and that if Americans are reminded frequently enough of the president’s “foreign” nature, they will turn against him. Not only is this strategy extremely base, it is also fairly dumb, as Americans rejected Obama in 2010 on the issues, not because of any concerns about his origins. As such, Birthers, or at least those who are only flocking to the issue because of the supposed political payoff, are demonstrating their lack of faith in conservatism as applied to the issues. They are essentially saying that Obama has already won the policy argument, and that the only way he can be beaten is by tarnishing him personally. But the midterm election results, the president’s approval rating, and Americans’ views on the issues all suggest that Obama does not have a majority of Americans behind him in terms of his governance.

If the president is going to be beaten, it will be because he has failed to close the deal with a majority of Americans in terms of the substance of his presidency. The president’s approval rating, according to Gallup, has hovered between 45 and 51 percent all year. His approval rating today in the same poll was 48 percent, which also happens to be his median approval rating this year. Between 44 and 47 percent, depending on how the question is worded, approve of the Obama Administration’s approach towards the Libya situation. On fiscal matters, 46 percent of the country prefers Obama’s approach. In terms of this year’s labor disputes, 49 percent of Americans favor the unions. Anyone beginning to see a trend?

The reality is that on the major issues of the day, the Obama Administration’s approach to, or position on, each issue individually, as well as the issues in sum, is pretty much stuck in the upper 40s. The president and his party can’t get a majority of Americans behind them on anything. And that means that a majority of Americans will be open to an alternative to Obama, provided that alternative is able to convince Americans of the superiority of his or her ideas and approach.

Link here.
(more…)

PPP (D) Mississippi 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mike Huckabee 54%
• Barack Obama 40%

• Haley Barbour 51%
• Barack Obama 41%

• Mitt Romney 46%
• Barack Obama 40%

• Newt Gingrich 48%
• Barack Obama 42%

• Sarah Palin 48%
• Barack Obama 44%

(more…)

CNN/Opinion Research Birther Survey

Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in the United States, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another country?

• Definitely born in U.S. 46%
• Probably born in the U.S. 26%
• Probably born in another country 15%
• Definitely born in another country 10%

(more…)

Over at Conservative Home, Ryan Streeter writes about the stunning depth and scope our national debt (he and R4’12 alum Dustin Siggins just penned an Op-Ed for the Washington Examiner on this issue):

Last Friday, Dustin Siggins and I argued in an op-ed in the Examiner that if more Americans understood just how big and bad our federal debt has become, we might see more efforts to drum up the political will to reform entitlements – our biggest long-term debt drivers.

Americans are used to hearing massive and incomprehensible figures such as $14 trillion when talking about the debt. But we decided to put it all in perspective by bringing the debt figure down to the ground. What is it per worker? Per couple?

We had some figures in the piece, but we also had quite a bit more based on original research using BLS and Treasury figures (Dustin gets the credit for running the numbers). I wanted to lay some of those out here so that readers can get a full sense of the debt picture. These numbers are pretty scary.

We have collected these figures in a chart that you can view here.

Here’s a summary of some main points, both from the op-ed and in the chart.

• A couple’s share of the national debt was $8,200 50 years ago, is $202,000 today, and will reach $320,000 by 2021.
• By 2021, the federal debt will be more than 4.5 times the size it was just 20 years earlier.
• Between 1961 and 1981, federal revenue climbed as a percentage of national debt from 33 percent to 60 percent, but it has dropped since then to 27 percent in 2005 and 17 percent in 2011.
• The debt per American worker in 1961 was $4,101. In 1981, it was $9,182. In 2001, it was $40,404. Today, it is $101,150. And in 2021, ten years from now, it will be $161,631.
• In 1981 our national debt as a percentage of of GDP was 32%. It will be 102% by the end of this year.

The chart that Mr. Streeter referred to is partially reproduced below:

Cain, Roemer, and Santorum, meet the newest member of the Third Tier Club:

Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who garnered attention and lost his job after building a Ten Commandments monument outside Alabama’s judicial building, is considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination, his top aide confirmed to CNN.

Moore plans to announce in mid-April that he is setting up a presidential exploratory committee, the aide, Zachery Michael told CNN.

Well, as a Romney or Daniels guy, I guess the more ways we split the “who’s the best Christian” vote, the better. But I have to admit: didn’t see this one coming.

I guess those two primary losses down in Alabama left him hungry to lose some more. (If he can’t even win in Alabama, how does he think he can win anywhere else?)

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

When you think about politics, which of the following sets of issues is most important to you?

• Government spending and power 38% {35%}
• Business and the economy 32% {31%}
• Social issues and moral values 17% {17%}
• National security and foreign policy 12% {15%}

Among those who say government spending and power are most important issues

• Mike Huckabee 22% {18%}
• Mitt Romney 18% {17%}
• Newt Gingrich 12% {13%}
• Sarah Palin 9% {11%}
• Mitch Daniels 6%
• Ron Paul 6%
• Jon Huntsman 3%
• Michele Bachmann 3%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Haley Barbour 2%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Gary Johnson 1%

(more…)

There has been an argument presented by some in the press that Obama has not received the customary poll bounce that a president normally receives upon wagging the dog. The New Republic, predictably, blames the Republicans (though not, to their credit, George Bush):

In 1989, Stanford political scientist Richard Brody discovered that there was one key variable: the reaction of politicians and leaders in the party out of power.

Mickey Kaus responds that maybe bounce depends on whether the dog-wagging makes sense:

Maybe the reaction of opponents to any given military action is a dependent variable. The independent variable would be, you know, the smartness/stupidity of the action itself. If it seems reasonable and necessary, the political opponents keep quiet. If it seems ill-advised, confused and clumsily handled, they criticize.

I question the premise. Rasmussen’s daily approval index (produced by taking a three day rolling average of ‘Strongly Disapprove’ responses subtracted from ‘Strongly Approve’) showed a significant improvement on the day following the passage of the UN resolution to authorize the Lybian bombing, followed by another increase when the bombing actually began.

A one-day improvement of six points in a three-day rolling average indicates a strong and sudden change in opinion. This was sustained, and over the six days following the resolution Obama gained nine points. He has since settled into a new range that is five to ten points higher than where he was previously.

These may not be epic changes, but they’re not nothing.

Please feel free to use this as a thread for comments on the President’s speech tonight.

Harris Interactive: Rudy Giuliani Only One of 11 Possible Republican Candidates Who Could Beat President Obama

Looking at the list below, assuming each person listed is the Republican nominee running against President Obama in the 2012 presidential election, who would you vote for?

• Rudy Giuliani 51%
• Barack Obama 49%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Mitt Romney 49%

• Barack Obama 52%
• Mike Huckabee 48%

• Barack Obama 55%
• Donald Trump 45%

• Barack Obama 56%
• Mitch Daniels 44%

• Barack Obama 56%
• Newt Gingrich 44%

• Barack Obama 56%
• Tim Pawlenty 44%

• Barack Obama 57%
• Rick Santorum 43%

• Barack Obama 58%
• Sarah Palin 42%

• Barack Obama 59%
• Haley Barbour 41%

• Barack Obama 59%
• Michele Bachmann 41%

(more…)

Well, if he wasn’t doubling down on the birther “issue” before, he certainly is now. On Fox & Friends today, Trump said the following:

“They give you a certificate of live birth which anybody can get. Just walk into the hospital. This guy either has a birth certificate or he doesn’t. I didn’t think it was such a big deal, but I will tell you, it is turning out to be a very big deal. People are calling me from all over saying please don’t give up on this issue. If you weren’t born in this country, you cannot be President. You have no doctors that remember, you have no nurses — this is the President of the United States — that remember. Why can’t he produce a birth certificate? I brought it up just routinely, and all of a sudden, a lot of facts are emerging and I’m starting to wonder myself whether he was born in this country? … I think this guy [Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie's (D)] should be investigated. He remembers when Obama was born, give me a break. He is just trying to do something for his party.” 

You can check out the video over at Political Wire. Trump is really trying to fill in that birther role in the field, as no current candidate has even considered bringing this issue up – and for good reason. It’s not an issue.

My opinion of birther and birther logic is that it’s flawed and pointless. Even if it were somehow proven right, which it isn’t, what will it do? It won’t retroactively make Barack Obama no longer the President of the United States. If anything, it will embolden those who have been wanting to allow non-natural born citizens to change the law. It’s windmill chasing – but it’s Trump’s strategy so far. I will say this about the Donald – he knows how to market himself. So, we shall see.

_______________________________________________________

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

It’s finally here, that is, the beginning of the 2012 presidential race.

President Obama is the overwhelming favorite to be his party’s nominee again, although the volatility of the domestic economy and high risks of his foreign policy keep alive the possibility that a dissatisfied and prominent Democrat might challenge him several months hence, but that remains only a possibility.

Most of the action in the 2012 presidential race will, of course, take place in the contest for the Republican nomination. A substantial discussion about this race has already taken place in the media, but that’s all it has been, a limited conversation among a tiny number of political reporters, pundits, political consultants, pollsters and bloggers. A larger number, but still relatively small group, of party activists have also been busy in the preview stage of the race, and many have already taken sides — and jobs — with potential candidates in various states of preparations for their official announcements.

I want to stress that it is almost entirely VERY speculative discussion until we hear definitively from actual voters in primaries, caucuses, and some early straw votes. It has already been pointed out that, at this point of the 2008 campaign, Rudy Giuliani was the frontrunner, McCain trailed, and Fred Thompson had notable poll numbers. Mike Huckabee was even not being mentioned.

As it turned out, Giuliani and Thompson proved to be dreadful candidates, and went nowhere quickly. (Thompson, the seasoned actor, got in late, but kept looking at his shoes instead of his audiences during his speeches.) Huckabee was the surprise winner of the Iowa caucus, Romney did well in New Hampshire, but it was McCain going up and down until he finally secured the nomination.

Some of the main characters from 2008 are back, most notably Mitt Romney, the early 2012 frontrunner, and possibly Huckabee (who scores very well in most early polls).

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, seems likely to run, and also has high name recognition and good poll numbers, although he has not run for president before. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is almost sure to run, and is winning unexpected attention in this early stage. Current Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has seemed tentative about running, although he has done well in early forays, and has a broad base of support among fellow GOP leaders, Current Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has been a formidable figure at both the national and state level, and is gathering some top consultants, but his early campaign statements have included a number of blunders. Mike Huckabee has hemmed and hawed, and now indicates that if he gets in, it will be much later this year. With a lucrative national TV show, and limited possibilities outside his base, Huckabee may be a no-show. Current Ambassador to China and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman has indicated he might enter the contest, although he has not run for national office before, and in recent days (as it becomes likelier that 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin may not run), Tea Party Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann has been traveling across the county to try to stir up interest in her running for president. There will be at least 3-5 other major GOP figures who will likely announce their candidacies.

I would like to suggest that there is no true GOP frontrunner yet, and that the race at this point is truly open. This, I repeat, is because we really have no credible idea how GOP voters feel about these candidates, and we have little evidence yet, except in the case of Romney and Huckabee, of how these figures would be as presidential candidates.

Remember, Giuliani looked very strong early in the 2008 race, and was undeniably a formidable politician, but it turned out he was a lousy candidate for president. Thompson was a famous movie star, but it turned out he could not give a good political speech. Romney looked like a winner, but could not connect sufficiently with GOP voters across the country.

In 2011, Romney is back, apparently stronger than before, but still facing the challenge of achieving more direct appeal to voters. Gingrich is a unique figure in U.S. politics, has made a remarkable political comeback, and clearly dominates the debate, but if he does not stop responding to questions about his marriages, and otherwise speaking impetuously, he will have increasing problems. Haley Barbour is a wily politician and excellent governor, but he does not yet sound like a president. Mitch Daniels could be the surprise of the year, but it won’t happen if he does not soon convey a clear impression to voters that he really wants to be president. The so-called “sleeper” of the race, Tim Pawlenty is enjoying the most early success, but most Republican voters still don’t know who he is, and he has not yet been tested on the national campaign trail and in debates with his rivals.

I have consistently maintained that the Republican nominee for president will move into the White House on January 20, 2013. Although much is always made about the possibility of events and a suddenly-improving economy restoring President Obama’s chances to win in 2012, I think the past several months have clearly demonstrated that Mr. Obama is way over his head in the job, and that his healthcare legislation will probably remain a powerful negative for voters. Of course, if the GOP convention somehow nominates someone way off center, that could be self-defeating.

Now there will be announcements, debates, political ads, campaign strategies. The campaign is at last underway. But I’m keeping my predictive political powder dry for a while. Ron Paul will make some noise and get some media attention, but his campaign is going nowhere. If Michelle Bachmann wants to throw away her seat in Congress to run for president, it’s a free country, but she is not going to be the GOP nominee. (Perhaps she knows that, but craves the attention of a national campaign nontheless.)

Get yourselves a ticket for the show, however. It’s going to be a humdinger, a lulu, a rip-hummer, a crackajack, a lollapaloosa, a dilly, a buzzblast and who knows what else.

_______________________________________________________________________

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

A lot of our readers feel that I’m being a tad harsh on presidential contenders like Haley Barbour and Jon Huntsman for their deviations from GOP orthodoxy on environmental issues. I would retort that I know a thing or two about being accused of heterodoxy. As longtime readers know, I support some mechanism that would allow gay Americans to form legally-recognized unions. I have no desire to ship 10 million illegal immigrants back from whence they came. And I think that conservatsm has to be about small-government solutions to public problems (e.g., DanielsCare in Indiana) as opposed to just being the Party of No. So I’m no stranger to apostasy. But I think that the conventional wisdom among the Beltway crowd is that environmental issues are sort of the “safe” issues on which to be a squish for Republicans, and that being green will help to soften the image of Republican candidates for the presidency as we head into 2012. I submit to you that this couldn’t be farther from the truth, and that those proposing a green GOP just in time for 2012 are misreading both the mood of the GOP base, as well as the sentiments of average Americans.

First, as we learned in 2010, the Republican base is more energized than ever. This is going to make it awfully hard for a John McCain to win the nomination this time around. In 2008, McCain won, so said the exits, by uniting moderate voters with “somewhat conservative” voters, leaving “very conservative” voters casting ballots for either Romney or Huckabee in any given state. That probably won’t happen this time around. Secondly, not only is the base motivated, but it is organized around principles of individual freedom and limited government, which makes squishiness on environmental issues especially toxic. That’s because “going green” almost always involves individual freedom being limited, and government getting bigger, spending greater amounts of money, and generally exercising more control over our lives.

But people like Mark Levin are going to screech about any failure to “check the boxes,” so why not use these swing-voter-friendly environmental issues as sort of a “Sister Souljah” moment, in order to prove to independents that all Republicans aren’t one and the same? There may be a need to kill some sacred cows down the line, but going green isn’t the way for the presidential nominee to do it. That’s because green issues aren’t exactly “swing-voter-friendly” during an election cycle like this one, with an economy in the gutter, anemic job growth, real wages that haven’t risen in years, widespread underemployment for skilled professionals, and chronic unemployment for unskilled laborers. In an environment like this, the last thing that swing voters want to hear is that job growth must be put on hold in order to prevent global warming.

A few years ago, this wasn’t the case at all. Just a decade ago, of course, we had reached the End of History, that magical moment during which the U.S. would exist as the global hegemon, sitting atop the world, getting fat and happy. At that point, suburban independents, motivated by a sort of “green guilt,” actually did support candidates whose focus included the environment and considered the rest of us to be knuckle draggers. But history decided not to end after all, but instead to move ever onward, serving as a reality check to white collar, educated professionals whenever the SUV’s fuel tank has to be filled to the brim.

As I said before, this is probably the first election in a long time where the GOP base and the swing voters in the middle are united against the green movement. Which is why it makes no sense at all to use this issue as a way to differentiate oneself from the caricature of Republicans painted by the MSM. If a Sister Souljah moment is truly needed, it should be over military spending, an issue where the Right is presently divided, due to dueling concerns over military prowess and tumbling over the fiscal precipice. This is a sacred cow that is begging to be slaughtered, especially when the strongest arguments against military budget cuts seem to be scenarios that are a tad difficult to swallow, such as the suggestion that a revived Soviet Union and a China that apparently wants to blow up its best customers are going to somehow employ Islamic terrorists to take out the United States. These notions don’t pass the laugh test and are clearly designed to create an issue for the voters who become visibly aroused by military issues and by learning that the U.S. is being threatened by a sort of real-life Legion of Doom. And the cartoonish quality of this argument would allow a prospective GOP nominee to run against certain elements of the base on this issue, citing our fiscal mess as our real enemy, something that would resonate well among swing voters without turning off too much of the base. But to attempt to use environmental issues as evidence of authenticity or seriousness or maturity this time around is just silly. And doing so will likely unite base and center against any candidate who attempts this strategy, ending any such candidacy before it even gets off the ground.

Politico reports that Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad has agreed to spend some time with Sen. Rand Paul:

A sit-down with the Kentucky senator is listed on Branstad’s public schedule April 2 in Des Moines.

…The younger Paul has said he won’t run if his father does, but an adviser to both Pauls recently said it’s likely that one of them will ultimately launch a White House campaign. Ron Paul met with Branstad earlier this month.

I initially thought a Rand Paul for President campaign might have a lot of potential, with his extremely close relationship with the Tea Party (just take the title of his recent book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington, as a prime example of this) and the fundraising prowess of his family name. However, with Michele Bachmann’s entrance into the fray, the Tea Party connection may become a moot point. Still, it remains to be seen if a single candidate can consolidate the Tea Party vote.

Obama Outdoes Bush in Undercutting Civil Liberties

Another lefty realizes that he wasplayed for a rube by Obama’s sweet talk. Glenn Greenwald on Obama’s suspension of Miranda rights for terror suspects:

One of the central pledges of Barack Obama’s campaign was that — as he put it early in his presidency — the Bush administration had gone wildly wrong because it “established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass.” […]

Today, the Obama DOJ unveiled the latest — and one of the most significant — examples of its eagerness to assault the very legal values Obama vowed to protect. The Wall Street Journal reports that “new rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.” The only previous exception to the 45-year-old Miranda requirement that someone in custody be apprised of their rights occurred in 1984, when the Rehnquist-led right-wing faction of the Supreme Court allowed delay “only in cases of an imminent safety threat,” but these new rules promulgated by the Obama DOJ “give interrogators more latitude and flexibility to define what counts as an appropriate circumstance to waive Miranda rights.”

Connie Mack will not run for U.S. Senate

Contrary to earlier reports, Mack will not be a candidate. He was generally considered a strong possibility for the seat. Mack cited family reasons as well as a desire to pursue his goals in the House.

Other Republicans running or expected to run include state Senate President Mike Haridopolos of Merritt Island, retired Col. Mike McCallister of Plant City, former state House Majority Leader Adam Hasner of Boca Raton and former U.S. Sen. George LeMieux of Fort Lauderdale. Mack said he has not made any decision about endorsing in the primary …

T-Paw: The Generic GOP Choice?

The idea that Tim Pawlenty is the generic candidate (aka ‘everybody’s second choice’) is not a new one, but Frum makes a good case both for and against the idea.

What we are witnessing is the unfolding of a Pawlenty campaign strategy to occupy the spot that once seemed reserved for John Thune: the most generic of all Republicans, the sole remainder after every constituency in the GOP has exercised its veto: the tax people, the life people, the gun people, the defense people, the anti-Obamacare people, etc. etc. etc. Along the way, a successful, pragmatic Midwestern governor has had to reinvent himself …

I can easily see Pawlenty being the last candidate standing. Consider the following scenario (it may very well be that none of these things happen, but all of them are quite possible): Romney implodes because of RomneyCare; Huckabee because of clemencies and an inability to expand beyond his evangelical base; Palin can’t expand her base because of electability concerns; Daniels doesn’t run, or else offends everybody by telling them things they don’t want to hear; Barbour proves to be too Southern; Gingrich is told his baggage is over the weight limit; and meanwhile, Tim Pawlenty smiles and carefully offends nobody.

It could happen.

Frum also points to this hilarious audio clip from NPR.

And of course, when, at the end of the report, an analyst points out that lack of authenticity can be a problem, he cites a well-known example.

Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights

No, it’s not a joke. Among past winners are Louis Farrakhan. The prize committee shows a strong preference for Latin American leftist dictators: Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega.

Lessons From Skins: Not All Sex Sells

MTV’s latest show has turned out to be less successful than expected (“initial ratings of 3.3 million slumped to a season average of 1.4 million, the network now concedes”). One wishes that the reason for the failure was public repugnance at the show’s themes, but the reviewer seems to think it was just a crummy show:

In their world, the insistence that teen sex be meaningful is an adult fantasy, one that the show pulls down its pants and moons at. That it has displayed similar disdain for decent dialogue and persuasive acting hasn’t helped.

Feel-good Story of the Week

Anthony Robles can do it. Do what? Whatever you might think someone with only one leg can’t do. Ride a bike? He learned when he was five, with no more tumbles than you probably had. Run the mile? Technically, Robles “crutches” the distance, but he’s done it in as little as eight minutes, which is better than a lot of people with two good legs. Play football? When he was 14 he hopped out to his position at defensive tackle for his junior high team in Mesa, Ariz. Sometimes blockers knocked him over like a bowling pin, but by the end of the season he had dragged down his share of ballcarriers.

If there’s something Robles can’t do because he doesn’t have a right leg, he hasn’t come across it yet. As for what he does best, it’s obvious every time he puts on his Arizona State wrestling singlet and twists another opponent into a human slipknot. Last season Robles was an All-America in the 125-pound class as a sophomore and finished fourth at the NCAA championships. Most people would call that amazing. Robles calls it an appetizer. This year’s NCAAs begin on Thursday in Omaha, and Robles, seeded fourth at 125 with a 28–2 record, will need to win five matches over three days to become a national champion. “I’ve been thinking about it nonstop since last season ended,” he says. “I want the whole thing.” […]

There were more tears when he began wrestling in ninth grade, not so much from Robles but from the spectators who watched him compete. “Grown men would come up to him after matches wiping their eyes, just to shake his hand,” says Bob Williams, his Mesa High coach, who has misted up too. Once, when Robles was a sophomore, Williams made each wrestler run laps while holding a 20-pound sandbag after the team’s poor performance at a meet. He didn’t expect Robles to carry one, but he didn’t tell him not to, either. Robles dropped his crutches, picked up the sandbag and hopped a few steps before falling. He got up and hopped a few more times. Another fall. He rose again and again. He fell again and again. But he didn’t stop until the rest of the team did. Is it any wonder that one of his nicknames is Braveheart? “I had to turn away,” Williams says. “It was hard to watch, but at the same time it was one of the most inspiring things you could imagine.”

It will be even more inspirational if Robles wins the national title this weekend—at least it will be to most people. Lately there has been grumbling, mostly the anonymous type floating through cyberspace, that missing one leg gives Robles an advantage. Because he has less weight in his lower body he can have a more muscular torso than his opponents and still stay in the 125-pound class. “There will always be haters,” he says. But maybe they’ve learned something from Robles too: There is no weakness that cannot be turned into a strength.

Robles won, defeating last year’s national champ.

Quickly Noted:

US Approaching Insolvency, Fix To Be “Painful”

The president of the Dallas Federal Reserve said: “If we continue down on the path on which the fiscal authorities put us, we will become insolvent, the question is when.”

Dick Armey Would Endorse Daniels

Armey, who served in Congress from 1983 to 2005, said that if Daniels does get in the race, he might be just what the tea party is looking for.

“Tea party activists are very practical-minded people who are looking for results,” Armey said. “This governor’s got an outstanding track record. He’s not one of these show horses that historically have been winning elections. But we’ve got an electorate in America today with a much more serious and adult choice configuration than they’ve had in past elections.

“So they’re choosing substance over ceremony, character over charisma, and Governor Daniels fits the bill.”

Asked whether he would endorse Daniels, Armey said: “Oh, absolutely.”

Caterpillar Threatens to Leave Illinois

The CEO of Caterpillar, one of our state’s largest employers, sent the governor a letter saying the company is considering offers to move elsewhere (in the wake of recent tax increases in Illinois). Maybe Illinois politicians will get the message, but probably not. I liked what he said he had been told by Nebraska’s governor: “In Nebraska, we balance our budget by controlling spending, not by raising taxes.”

Add your own items. And if anyone wants to tell me how to embed audio (couldn’t do it with the Pawlenty clip), I’d appreciate the help.

So says a rumor from FOX News this weekend:

Fox News has learned the former Governor of New Mexico will announce his candidacy, for President of the United States in late April. Johnson insiders say he will bypass the exploratory stage, announce his candidacy and immediately travel to New Hampshire sometime after tax day, April 15. Johnson is a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana and gay marriage. Strategists say his libertarian approach to GOP politics may prove very popular in the Granite State, whose motto is “Live Free or Die.”

Johnson continues to quietly build up an organization and make himself known to voters in key states:

Johnson has traveled to more than 30 states and spoken to 500 groups in the last 15 months, and plans to visit Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, and South Carolina in coming weeks, all states crucial to anyone eyeing a White House run.

His background would seem to make him appealing to Americans worried about the nation’s massive debt and what many view as out-of-control federal spending. As Governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003, Johnson held state spending in check, vetoing more than 750 pieces of legislation in his two terms of office.

I enjoyed Matt Coulter’s recent post showing how different the race for the Republican presidential nomination looked in March of 2007, compared to how things eventually turned out.  But, since this election season is beginning so much later than the last one, I think it might be even more accurate to look at where the race for 2008 stood when, like today, there were only three major candidates (Governors or federal office holders) with exploratory committees.

At this point in time, only former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Governor Tim Pawlenty, and former Governor Buddy Roemer have presidential exploratory committees.  None of these committees are even a month old.

On November 10, 2006, there were three major candidates with exploratory committees: Congressman Duncan Hunter, Senator John McCain, and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (for all practical purposes a governor).  In early-to-mid November of 2006, which is more comparable to this point in the 2012 election, the polls looked like this:

The national numbers according to Rasmussen:

• Rudy Giuliani – 24%
• Condoleezza Rice – 18%
• John McCain – 17%

According to McLaughlin & Associates:

• John McCain – 28%
• Rudy Giuliani – 22%
• Condoleezza Rice – 13%
• George Allen – 2%
• Bill Frist – 2%
• George Pataki – 1%

According to Gallup:

• Rudy Giuliani – 28%
• John McCain – 26%
• Condoleezza Rice – 13%
• Newt Gingrich – 7%
• Bill Frist – 4%
• George Allen – 2%
• George Pataki – 1%
• Chuck Hagel – 1%

And, finally, according to Pew:

• Rudy Giuliani – 27%
• John McCain – 26%
• Condoleezza Rice – 20%
• Bill Frist – 4%

The race for Iowa looked like this:

• Rudy Giuliani – 28%
• John McCain – 26%
• Newt Gingrich – 18%
• Chuck Hagel – 6%

The race for New Hampshire looked like this:

• John McCain – 29%
• Rudy Giuliani – 25%
• Newt Gingrich – 14%

What I find most fascinating is not how only the candidates changed positions, but how many names were being purported as serious, major potential contenders for the Republican nomination, only to stay out of the race completely–as well as the candidates who weren’t even on anyone’s imagination yet, but would eventually become major players in the election.

For instance, for 2012, what if Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin never even run, and some out-of-left-field individual like Stanley McChrystal or Clarence Thomas suddenly swoops in during the last leg of the race, in response to some major dissatisfaction with the field, and instantly becomes a frontrunner, a la Fred Thompson?  Might one misworded joke send a presumed frontrunner like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty tumbling into oblivion, a la George Allen?  I’m not making any predictions here, but it’s interesting to note that, at this point, it’s so early, we don’t even know who the candidates are going to be, let alone their polling statuses.

Stick a fork in him:

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — Potential presidential candidate Haley Barbour appears to be staking out a moderate position on global warming than some of his possible rivals, saying at an event in eastern Iowa on Friday that the country should “proceed in national policy as if global warming is actually happening.”

Barbour, who has consistently opposed regulation of the energy industry, made the comments in response to a question from an Iowa voter who asked the Mississippi governor whether he thought global warming was real.

“I think the prudent thing for us, when you consider the potential risk, the prudent thing is to proceed as if global warming is an issue,” Barbour said at a luncheon organized by a local Republican group, the Linn Eagles, “but we don’t have to destroy the American economy for no positive results to do that.”

The chattering classes continue to carp about the political genius that is Haley Barbour, but from this pundit’s armchair, the Mississippi governor appears to be too smart by half. Anyone with an iota of political horse sense would be able to deduce that an election cycle in which a) the GOP base is really, really fired up and b) swing voters are really, really concerned about the economy, jobs, the deficit, and an overall decline in their standard of living is simply not an election cycle where “doing something about global warming” is a viable position for a Republican presidential hopeful. That’s because it involves more government action, and thus more debt, more taxes and regulations, and thus fewer jobs, and would probably lead to higher energy prices, thus yielding an even lower standard of living for the middle class. In fact, the coming election cycle will probably be the first one in a long time with conservatives and moderates on the same side of the “green” debate, which is why it would be incredibly tone deaf for a Republican presidential candidate to use this issue in order to “Sister Souljah” the base.

It seems to me that either Gov. Barbour has a case of Beltway-itis, which afflicts a lot of establishment Republicans, who spend so much time in Northwest DC and Northern Virginia that they begin to believe that the entire country shares the values of the silk stocking set, or that the governor is still living in a pre-Twitter world, where every word that every politician utters does not make its way around the world at lightning speed. Perhaps the governor thought that he could give a “green” speech to a “green” audience without anyone noticing. He couldn’t. Gov. Barbour was already on a short leash given his lobbyist past and his Deep South cultural cues, which would tarnish him with the sins of his region as he ran against the first Black American president. This gaffe just may be strike three.

Just for fun on a Friday afternoon…

Four years ago, going into the last week in March 2007, this is where the Republican primary race stood:

The national numbers according to Rasmussen:

• Giuliani – 35%
• McCain – 15%
• Romney – 10%
• Thompson – n/a

According to Zogby:

• Giuliani – 27%
• McCain – 13%
• Romney – 9%
• Thompson – 9%

And finally, according to Gallup:

• Giuliani – 31%
• McCain – 22%
• Thompson – 12%
• Romney – 3%

The race for Iowa looked like this:

• Giuliani – 29%
• McCain – 29%
• Thompson – 12%
• Romney – 10%

And New Hampshire looked like this:

• McCain – 23%
• Giuliani – 19%
• Romney – 17%
• Thompson – 10%

Not trying to make any specific point in particular (as fanboys and girls of any candidate can use these numbers as a Rorschach picture) other than this: the campaign hasn’t even begun yet. Numbers are going to move. And conventional wisdom will probably be shattered twenty-three times between now and February 6, 2012.

Jim DeMint, through a Senate Conservatives Fund proxy, definitely stated that he was not running for President in 2012. Senate Conservatives Fund spokesman Matt Hoskins said, “[DeMint]’s said all along that he isn’t running for President and his role in the primary is to encourage the candidates to embrace conservative principles.”

It’s not entirely unexpected, but it is a definitive response. This begs the question – who will the conservative, South Carolinan endorse in 2012? In 2008, DeMint endorsed Romney.

There’s a lot of talk here and elsewhere (as can be expected) about who is the frontrunner for the nomination. Huckabee and Romney supporters take turns beating their breasts and shouting from the rooftops each time a poll shows their guy a point or two ahead.

(I put a link to this on Kavon’s post, but I think it’s worthy of a post of its own.)

A posting at Gallup that escaped notice a few weeks ago, but that was linked in their analysis of today’s poll shows how silly such posturing is when neither of those candidates shows any real strength.

There is no clear front-runner for the 2012 Republican nomination, which is a departure from what it has been in years prior to a presidential election. Huckabee may be the closest thing to a front-runner at this point, but he has yet to hold a statistically significant lead in any survey.

The chart at the linked article shows past contested races at similar points on the calendar.

In every case, we have had a frontrunner with at least 30%, and often much higher. In six of the ten races, even the second-place candidate had support in the twenties.

The two anomalies, where the frontrunner did not win (both involving an Arizonan upsetting a New Yorker — hmmm), are of interest, of course. McCain was a strong second, with 25%, and was helped along by a bad Giuliani campaign (and some luck). At this point in 1963, Goldwater had as much support as Huckabee has today, but Rockefeller, with his huge lead, would almost certainly have won had it not been for his messy personal life.

The next-in-line theory is often trotted out as proving that some candidate’s nomination, usually Romney’s, is somehow pre-ordained (despite there being three candidates all with a plausible claim to be next). But let’s look at some of the previous NILs.

• Richard Nixon, clearly the NIL in 1960, had 56% in February of 1959
• Rockefeller had 45% in 1963 (pre-remarriage)
• Reagan had 31% in 1979, despite being matched up against a former president
• Bush had 33% in 1987
• Dole had 38% in 1995
• All except Reagan had huge leads over their rivals

Compare the performance of this year’s three NILs: Numbers in the teens (combined, they don’t equal Nixon) and no separation among them. They don’t even have much separation from the pack — Huckabee’s lead over fourteenth-place Herman Cain is less than the lead Dole had over runner-up Dan Quayle.

This race remains wide-open, there is no frontrunner in any meaningful sense, and there is a huge opportunity for a second- (or maybe even third-) tier candidate to break out and take it all.

PPP (D) Michigan 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 48% (47%)
• Mitt Romney 41% (43%)

• Barack Obama 50% (51%)
• Mike Huckabee 41% (39%)

• Barack Obama 53% (52%)
• Newt Gingrich 37% (37%)

• Barack Obama 52%
• Scott Walker 32%

• Barack Obama 55% (56%)
• Sarah Palin 35% (35%)

(more…)