Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Mike Huckabee 19% {18%} [16%] [(12%)
• Mitt Romney 15% {16%} [19%] (19%)
• Sarah Palin 12% {16%} [16%] (16%)
• Newt Gingrich 10% {9%} [13%] (9%)
• Ron Paul 6% {5%} [6%] (7%)
• Michele Bachmann 5% {4%}
• Mitch Daniels 4% {3%} [1%] (2%)
• Tim Pawlenty 3% {3%} [4%] (3%)
• Haley Barbour 2% {3%} [4%] (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 2% {1%}
• Rick Santorum 2% {2%} [1%] (2%)
• Gary Johnson 2% {1%} [1%] (1%)
• Donald Trump (vol.) 1%
• Other 2% {3%} [2%] (4%)
• None/No opinion 15% {14%} [14%] (19%)

Survey of 1,082 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted March 18-22, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted February 18-20, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 13-14, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 25-26, 2010 are in parentheses.

(more…)

Donald Trump has decided to double down on the Obama birth certificate issue, making him seem like the potential “birther candidate” if he decides to run. Newsmax has more on the story here. Here’s an excerpt from their article:

Donald Trump is not backing down from his demand that President Barack Obama produce his birth certificate and stepped up his criticism by questioning why he has not released other personal records, including college transcripts and legislative papers. 

The billionaire real estate tycoon and star of “The Apprentice” created a stir on Wednesday when he said on “The View” that Obama must release his birth certificate.

Now Trump has reiterated his call in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, with this simple message for Obama: Why don’t you produce your birth certificate and put to rest all speculation that you were born outside the United States?

He says Obama’s birth certificate controversy is a “strange situation” — there are conflicting reports as to what Honolulu hospital he was born at, and the governor of Hawaii claims he somehow remembers Obama being born 50 years ago.

Also in the article are some other recent quotes from Trump on the issues. Including:

On Libya
“…For one thing, if you’re going to save lives on a humanitarian basis you should have started sooner, because many of those lives are gone. For another thing, you really have to find out who you’re fighting for. Who are the rebels? You have some people who say that Iran is controlling the rebels, that Iran is the happiest of all nations because they think as soon as we leave they’re going to go in with the rebels and take over Libya…I hear more and more reports that the rebels aren’t the sweetest people on earth either. It looks to me like it’s a total mess.”

On International Respect for the US
“I hate what’s happening to this country. It’s never been at a point like this, ever. We’re not respected. We’re scoffed at. We’re laughed at by other places. People from China and other places cannot believe they’re getting away with what they’re getting away with. We’re rebuilding China. We’re rebuilding other countries, and our country is going to hell in a hand basket…One thing I can say, if I ran and if I won, that would stop, and everybody knows it. I think that’s why I do well in the polls.”

Trump is a fascinating candidate who seriously does not have a filter when it comes to talking about…anything. That may be a boon to a potential candidacy, but also presents a limitation as he could offend people with his honesty at times. Trump stated that he’ll be announcing one way or another before June.

_______________________________________________________

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

National Journal has released their latest Power Rankings. They rank the top 15 contenders by considering four criteria:

• Money: How much do they have? How much can they raise?
• Campaign infrastructure: Do they have the ability to assemble a competitive and competent staff, both at the national and state levels?
• Strengths: What issue(s) can the candidate truly hang their hat on? Is there a specific area of expertise they can sell to voters? Do they have a strong track record on one particular issue?
• Weaknesses: Every candidate has one — heck, most candidates have plenty — and the reality is that eventually they will have to address them. This will be easier for some contenders than others: Explaining away one vote for bad legislation is far easier than justifying a major moral lapse or some fatally flawed executive decision. At the end of the day, some candidates will have weaknesses, and others will have albatrosses. It’s the latter group who should be worried

Here are their rankings:

Here are their comments for the top five:

MITT ROMNEY (previous rank: 1)
Romney’s campaign-in-waiting has started picking up the pace. He’s visiting key early states and recruiting staffers who will serve in key roles. But health care hangs over his head like the sword of Damocles, ready to fall at any moment. Romney’s initial defense of CommonwealthCare won over a few skeptics, but the vast majority of Republicans aren’t going to be thrilled when they hear his rivals compare his Massachusetts version of health care with President Obama’s. And Obama is gleefully trumpeting those comparisons, much to Romney’s dispair.

TIM PAWLENTY (previous rank: 2)
Pawlenty looks increasingly likely to step into the front-runner’s void if Romney fizzles and no other candidate sets the world on fire. South Dakota Sen. John Thune’s decision not to run creates more room for a Midwestern conservative with few glaring vulnerabilities. Pawlenty has already snagged some top staffers, including Eric Woolson, the architect of Mike Huckabee’s 2008 caucus victory, to run his Iowa operation. He recently became the first serious candidate to launch an exploratory committee, which will help raise his profile beyond Minnesota.

HALEY BARBOUR (previous rank: 6)
No candidate’s reputation has preceeded him with the chattering classes more than Barbour’s. He has met the attending expectations in some cases, especially as he begins to form a top-notch staff. But in others, Barbour has fallen short, stumbling where his reputation for political preeminence should have bolstered him. The terrible two-month stretch of damaging headlines he’s endured will make his path to victory more difficult. But if his reputation is deserved — and it is — Barbour will be able to recover.

NEWT GINGRICH (previous rank: 7)
There is no bigger ideas factory in the Republican Party than Newt Gingrich’s brain. However, many of those ideas aren’t realistic or feasible, and Gingrich’s inflammatory rhetoric has gotten the best of him in the past. In addition, his disorganized “launch” won’t inspire much confidence about his ability to put together a structured campaign. But if there’s one cautionary note everyone involved in the race is sounding these days, it’s that Gingrich is not to be underestimated. Perhaps no other serious contender can dominate a debate like Gingrich, and that will keep him in good stead through the long months until the Iowa caucuses.

MITCH DANIELS (previous rank: 5)
On paper, Daniels is a very intriguing candidate. He’d be a formidable contender — if, that is, he actually showed signs he was interested in running. But despite conservative buzz over balancing the budget and reforming public services in Indiana, Daniels hasn’t taken any steps to prepare for a presidential campaign. To the contrary, he’s been gratuitously alienating key parts of the GOP base — from calling for a social truce, tweaking Rush Limbaugh, and even (initially) defending liberal protesters at the state House. Once he signals any serious interest in running, he’ll move up in the rankings.

Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee didn’t make the top five and for good reasons. It’s their “all talk, no real action” strategy that is hurting them.

While playing coy has been an effective election strategy since George Washington’s day, doing less than the minimum preparatory work is a dangerous game to play. Not only does it give a head start to your opponents, but the longer you put off doing anything concrete, the more your supporters will start to wonder if you might not be running after all. That will encourage them to start looking for an alternative. When they do that, there is always the danger that they may find they like their new Plan B far more than they liked their old Plan A.

Now if Mike were to seriously began hiring campaign staff, he would easily move back into the top three. If he started raising cash as well, he might even displace Mitt for the top spot. Sarah has a longer way to go to climb to the top, but she should at least break the top five if she began showing signs that she is really serious about getting into the race. But the longer they wait, the further they will drop.

The Iowa Republican Party announced today that they would be sponsoring a third debate in the run-up to the February 6 Iowa caucuses. This debate, the last to be sponsored by the Iowa GOP, will take place either December 10 or 11 in an Iowan city to be determined, and will be in conjunction with ABC News.

The other two debates sponsored by the Iowa GOP are both in partnership with FOX News – one right before the Ames straw poll and the other one week prior to the caucuses.

That gives us the following primary season calendar:

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

According to the Wall Street Journal, Romney is eying early April as the ideal time to announce his exploratory committee:

Mr. Romney told the crowd this morning that he is likely to announce his presidential exploratory committee in early April, an announcement that would kick fund-raising into high gear. A 15-city fundraising tour that began Tuesday in Washington is now expected to reach at least 30 cities.

He made no promises, but this is the closest he has come to confirming that he is running.

The field is starting to take shape.

The March 24th edition of the state of the race according to Intrade. Movement is from the last update two weeks ago — since that time, we’ve had the Pawlenty rollout and more strong Barbour staff hires.

Big winners: The investors reacted well to Pawlenty’s rollout, even though it took a few days for his numbers to climb the couple points they did. They also apparently like Barbour’s campaign staff hires and organizational groundwork – he got boosted from 9th place up to sixth place (the top of the second tier). Bachmann’s gains came after the announcement that she’s likely to jump in the race in May or June as well.

Big losers: As more and more days go by with no visible moves towards running, the number 3, 4, and 5 candidates on the list are beginning to rapidly lose ground. If Daniels, Huck, and Palin all sit this one out, that could be a huge opening for someone from the second tier to become a top tier candidate (Barbour or Gingrich, I would assume.) Investors also felt like Romney was overvalued, apparently. He jumped up to 24 after Thune announced he wasn’t running, then continued to climb for a couple weeks. The last two weeks, however, have seen him pull back to that 24 point level.

What do you think? Who’s over- or undervalued on the list?

It’s all but official, The Fix is reporting that Michele Bachmann is likely to form an exploratory committee for President as soon as May 2011. Here’s a quick excerpt from the article:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is likely to form a presidential exploratory committee, two advisers said Thursday. The committee could be formed as soon as May but no later than June.

 

“The size and enthusiasm of the crowds she has been attracting is very encouraging,” said Ed Brookover, a consultant to Bachmann. “The voters are telling her to keep pushing forward with her fight to stop this unparalleled growth of government.”

Bachmann is currently in Iowa, speaking to grassroots activists and state legislators. This morning she addressed the state Senate caucus and has secured the support of Iowa state Rep. Kent Sorenson…One thing that is not in question is Bachmann’s ability to raise money. She has proven herself to be one of the most dynamic fundraisers in the party and in the 2008 election alone, she collected a stunning $13.5 million for her reelection race in the suburban 6th district. One Bachmann adviser said the the money is indicative of the excitement Bachmann generates on the campaign trail; “It’s times five, times ten” of the other candidates in the field, the source insisted.

Those are Alexander Burns’ words, not Team Romney’s, but it’s easy to see where he got the idea from.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Romney is currently in the midst of a below-the-radar, 15 city tour to meet with his top fund raisers and lay out his early campaign strategy. (He was in Washington Tuesday and will be in New York today.) That strategy? Raise an overwhelming amount of money in the first 90 days of the campaign, and win three of the five early states:

Mitt Romney is poised to put his money machine into overdrive, asking hundreds of his top contributors to collect between $25,000 and $50,000 each within the first 90 days of a presidential campaign…

Mr. Romney said he needed to do well in the New Hampshire and Florida primaries and Nevada’s caucuses, while emerging from those early states with enough money to convince undecided voters that he would have the financial firepower to get to the finish line.

This strategy seems designed to accomplish several things: first, scare away some of the competition. Second, build an aura of inevitability. And third, put Romney’s fund raising and organizational prowess on display for all to see, just as he did back in 2008. I don’t know if I agree with downplaying Iowa and South Carolina, but by the time this groundwork is laid it might not matter.

The first fund raising totals for the primary campaign will be for April-June, and will be reported in July – just one month prior to the Ames Straw Poll which will undoubtedly be the first winnowing event of the field. If Romney has the fund raising strength he thinks he does, this will be an impressive quarter to watch.

This, my friends, is how you lay the groundwork for an effective campaign rollout.

Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich are making significant additions to their campaign teams today.

Pawlenty is adding two well-respected New Hampshire operatives, showing that he intends to compete in the state where Romney currently holds a massive early lead. Sarah Crawford Stewart will become his New Hampshire campaign director, and Rick Killion will become a senior advisor there. Stewart helped run McCain’s New Hampshire campaign in 2008, and Killion was a senior advisor for Romney. These are two big New Hampshire names landing in the Pawlenty camp – good “gets”, as they say.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich is signing up folks from somebody else’s neck of the woods. Two folks from Texas Governor Rick Perry’s political team are heading to Team Newt: Rob Johnson, who ran Perry’s campaign last year, and Dave Carney, Perry’s top political consultant. Politico calls Johnson “a very big get” for Gingrich. Oh, and by the way, Carney may have done consulting for Perry in Texas, but he is based out of New Hampshire, too.

Some serious heft being added to the campaign staffs at this late-but-early stage in the game.

We have had a fair number of polls released today. Pew, CNN, PPP, UofU have all had something new to say. The one stat in the cacophony of statistics released that I found most interesting was buried inside the PEW report.  They asked 249 Republicans who supported the Tea Party whom they would like to see receive the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination. Here are the results:

Now contrary to what you might think, it isn’t the fact that Romney came in first by five points that so intrigues me. It IS great news for a Romney fan such as myself, but it’s early.  A lead of a mere five points is not likely to hold. It might as well be a statistical tie. Besides, it is just one more poll showing either Mitt or Mike in the lead.

No, what really intrigues me about these numbers is the fact that Sarah Palin came in fifth. She only managed to poll half — HALF the score of Mitt Romney. That is something I would not have expected.

We have been told for two years that Sarah Palin was the queen of the Tea Party. She had them in the palm of her hand. They saw eye-to-eye. She was what they were waiting for. Yet here is a poll of Tea Party supporters that places her in fifth place, lagging double digits behind the leader.

How does one explain it?

I don’t think you can chalk it up to not knowing the candidate. Very few GOP hopefuls have anywhere near the name recognition of Sarah Palin. Hardly anyone in America doesn’t know her name. Very few Republican voters don’t have an opinion of her.

Nor can you really claim it is the fault of the liberal news media out to get her. Almost by definition, supporters of the Tea Party don’t trust those guys. So to suggest that they have been duped by the machinations of the media really doesn’t pass the laugh test.

And please don’t waste my time with the old “the pollsters are out to get her”.  They can’t ALL be cooking the books just to make her look bad. I don’t know a single reputable pollster that hasn’t been showing that she’s been fading for quite some time.

So what exactly IS happening to Sarah Palin? Is her star dimming? Is she slowly but surely deflating like a pinpricked balloon? If so, what does she have to do to turn it around? It’s going to be quite the challenge if she decides to run.

What are her options?

CNN/Opinion Research 2012 Republican Nomination Survey

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

(more…)

Rudy Giuliani is still talking about a 2012 presidential bid, but is this serious, or just a bid to remain part of the national conversation? The Palm Beach Post says he’d consider running if the Republicans are moving towards a candidate who is too far to the right. Is this a non-too-subtle jab at Palin? He claims Obama can win a second term “if we put up a candidate that he can isolate as a right-wing candidate, too far-right.”

“If all we are faced with are candidates that are too far right so that they can’t win the general election, then that’s when I’d reconsider doing it.”

Is this yet another establishment pin being thrust into Palin’s balloon, or is Rudy just being Rudy? Or, is he serious?

_________________________________________________

Steve regularly blogs at The Lyceum

PPP (D) North Carolina 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 45% (46%) {49%} [45%] (44%)
• Mike Huckabee 45% (47%) {45%} [46%] (48%)

• Barack Obama 44% (47%) {47%} [46%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 42% (44%) {44%} [43%] (44%)

• Barack Obama 47% (48%) {50%} [48%] (46%)
• Newt Gingrich 42% (44%) {44%} [42%] (45%)

• Barack Obama 51% (51%) {50%} [52%] (48%)
• Sarah Palin 40% (41%) {41%} [38%] (43%)

(more…)

Openly gay, Republican Presidential candidate Fred Karger to formally file the documentation necessary to be a Presidential candidate. Here’s an excerpt from his press release:

Today is a very significant day for my community and me. I have just submitted my papers to the Federal Election Commission, making me the first candidate to file for the 2012 Republican nomination for President.

I am also the first openly gay person, in a major political party, to ever run for President of the United States.

After spending 35 years in politics behind the scenes, I want to be a participant and help shape the debate in the Republican Party and our nation.

While I intend to talk about many important issues, I dedicate today to the 6 teenagers who took their lives this past fall because they were bullied for who they were. They could not go on living for even one more day.

There is no place for hatred and bigotry in this country. We must all learn to respect each other and our differences.

I began this journey 13 months ago when I traveled from my home in California to Washington, DC, New York and then up to New Hampshire. It has been a whirlwind. I have traveled to 19 states, including 12 trips to New Hampshire and 6 to Iowa. I have talked to thousands of people, and I have been encouraged to take this to the next level.

Karger has not been included in any major polls yet, so it’s uncertain if he will have any impact on the primary. Here’s a link to his first, web-ad for New Hampshire. It’s unclear if this has been on the air.

_______________________________________________________

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

This day, March 23, is an important and historic date in the annals of Cold War history and America’s ultimate triumph over the Soviet Union.  For today is the birthday of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the legendary German-American rocket scientist who, in the last days of the war in Europe, gathered his key personnel and loads of documentation on rocket technology and trekked across Germany to meet the advancing American army while evading both the Nazi authorities and the Russian army advancing from the East.  Upon arriving in the US with his technical team, Dr. von Bruan led America’s early research and development program in ballistic missile and rocket technology and then became the architect, essentially, of America’s space program culminating with our historic landing on the Moon in 1969 and the development of the Space Shuttle.  In this capacity, von Braun played a very critical role in our successful strategic competition with the Soviet Union, especially with regards to rocket and missile development and concepts for the exploitation of space for national security purposes.  Had von Braun not demonstrated the bold initiative and leadership to get himself and his men to the American army in 1945, the contours of the Cold War may have been different—and not in a good way.

Thus, it is somewhat ironic, yet purely coincidental, that on this day in 1983 President Reagan formally initiated his now-famous Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)—or “star wars” as his liberal critics and much of the press labeled it.  Towards the end of a prime-time national television address from the Oval Office on the topic of national defense, Reagan surprised the world, and most especially the Soviets, with his call to make nuclear ballistic missiles impotent and obsolete by developing and deploying highly effective defenses against them by exploiting advanced technology and space operations.

Reagan’s SDI represented a paradigm shift away from our Cold War nuclear strategy of the previous 20 years that had been based entirely on the concept of offensive “mutual assured destruction” and that increasingly relied on arms control agreements with the Soviet Union that played to Soviet, rather than US, strengths and advantages.  Consequently, Reagan’s initiative was shocking to the US foreign policy and defense Establishment, for it was contrary to the status quo and prevailing conventional wisdom.  But, it was more than shocking to the Soviet Union as to them it represented a potential game changer of monumental proportions.

By the early 1980’s, the existing “linear” competition in ballistic missiles between the US and the USSR had begun to favor the Soviets.  While we could develop and deploy more technically elegant missiles, their smoke stack industry could crank them out steadily in large numbers and their dictatorial political system did not have to debate endlessly on a particular modernization effort or new basing mode.  SDI leveraged America’s advantage and expertise in the technologies of microelectronics, advanced computation, and precision to counter the Soviet advantage in missile production and throw-weight.  The technologies and concepts of operation on which SDI was based were simply unattainable by the Soviet Union (even if they had the blueprints)—and they knew it; thus, the competition would shift to an arena in which the Soviets could not effectively play.  By threatening the Soviet Union with the devaluation and obsolescence of their nuclear ballistic missile force, Reagan was not only threatening their fundamental politico-military strategy of nuclear intimidation and coercion, but more importantly, their only real claim to world power status.

Throughout his political career, Ronald Reagan frequently encouraged his subordinates to think outside the box and to never be afraid of the unconventional approach.  The Reagan Administration spent approximately $35 billion on the SDI research & development program.  History may record that as being the most efficient and effective defense expenditure of all time.  Not only did it help bring about the end of the Cold War on our terms but many of the key technologies developed have since been applied to an array of advanced military capabilities in use today.  Although he quietly consulted with a very small number of advisors that included prominent Sovietologists, strategists, and the inimitable Dr. Edward Teller, the renowned nuclear physicist of the University of California (and “father” of the hydrogen bomb), the SDI decision was made solely by Reagan himself rather than being recommended to him by subordinates.  So close-hold was the impending announcement that almost no one in the government new what was about to happen.  Margaret Thatcher was informed only a few hours prior to the national television address; other close allied leaders were informed less than an hour prior.  Reagan and his senior staff wanted to avoid any advance leaks or detection by Soviet intelligence so as to maximize the shock value to the Kremlin as well as to minimize the opportunity of liberal critics at home to be ready with critical responses.

The Strategic Defense Initiative was Ronald Reagan at his very best.  It was a very key component of a set of initiatives designed to unhinge the Soviet Union.  To borrow from Alfred Hitchcock, SDI was Reagan’s “MacGuffin” in the US-Soviet drama of the 1980′s.  In retrospect, March 23, 1983, marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War.  Had Reagan not been successful in suddenly altering the Soviet’s perception of the nuclear-strategic “correlation of forces,” so-called conventional wisdom and status-quo Establishment politics would have ultimately prevailed and the Soviet Union and the traditional arms competition would have lasted a good bit longer.

The bold leadership, the out of the box, unconventional approach to policy—and politics—that Reagan’s SDI represented is likely to be required of the Republican Party and future presidents if we are to effectively address the current challenge of excessive debt, overspending, and too much government, as well as potential threats posed by emerging adversaries in the world.

As Mitt Romney continues to hone his message about the Health Care reform issue, a hurdle political prognosticator insist he needs to overcome should he decide on 2012 presidential candidacy, other possible GOP contenders need to seriously consider how they would address their own problematic issues.

In a National Review Online statement posted on March 22, Romney says he would use an Executive Order to provide states a waiver to avoid participating in ObamaCare. While recognizing this is not a cure all, Romney is showing how he would address the battle, until full reform could be adopted and signed.

Ever since President Obama passed his health care reform law, pundits have been writing Romney’s political obituary, citing the similarities between ObamaCare and Commonwealth Care, the plan Romney signed into law as Governor of Massachusetts in 2006. Seems everyone across a wide political swath, has been sounding off, giving advice or demanding apologies from the near certain 2012 Presidential candidate.

Obama tried to be uber-slick in his overt tainting of Romney. Mike Huckabee, still smarting and sour over the 2008 campaign, trashed Romney in his latest book. Then Haley Barbour, Paul Ryan, Rick “Someone please pay attention to me” Santorum, the recently shunned Mike Steele and eventually Rudy “Florida” Giuliani, all got into the act.

Romney to his credit remained relatively silent, opting not to take the bait of answering each and every charge directly. Such actions only prolong a negative story and create a perception of desperation and adolescent retribution. Rather, he has maintained a steadfast position since 2007, insisting the states of this great nation have the right to choose for themselves and enact health care reforms crafted for their own particular needs. Choosing when and where to address the issue, Romney has outlined solutions in his book ‘No Apology’ published in 2010. He recently spoke about reform during a speech at the Lincoln Day Dinner in New Hampshire, as well as in various points in between. With this statement at NRO, Romney clearly is not shying away from his signature legislation, of which he has stated he is very proud.

And in reality why shouldn’t he be?

As has been stated before, many times, he helped create a plan in a very liberal state, which has lowered the number of uninsured residents, provided people with the ability to purchase their own private health insurance and is currently supported by 84% of the populace. Even in Massachusetts there are not that many Socialists.

This most essential of conservative positions seems to be serving Romney quite well, as he continues to remain a top line polling leader and is improving his favorability amongst the GOP and the very conservative. This statement at National Review Online is Romney at his most efficient and effective best. It nails the issue on several points and offers a solution to what could be a legislative morass come 2012.

Critics of Romney remain unconvinced of his intentions repeal or in his ability to persuade voters to look past his role in health care reform and the perceived similarities to ObamaCare, in order to win the 2012 GOP nomination. Deciding Romney is unacceptable; these Conservative-Libertarians continue to search for a new candidate to lead them. Unfortunately for them, no candidate is ever perfect and all carry some degree of political baggage. How each handles their own liabilities raises many questions about their own political minefields..

What will eventually be tougher to explain to voters – a controversial policy decision, a controversial personal moral imbroglio, a controversial penchant for paroling violent criminals or a controversial decision to abandon one’s elected office mid-term?

Romney detractors suggest he’ll have a devil of a time addressing concerns about MassCare with primary voters, asserting he has no effective answer to placate conservative concerns about the similarities to ObamaCare. And yet candidates who would hope to benefit by seeing Romney trapped in a swamp of explanation, might very well find themselves mired in a defensive quagmire of their very own.

Exactly how resonant will be Newt Gingrich’s flaccid accounting of being “too patriotic” to remain faithful to his terminally ill, cancer ravaged wife?  Will Mike Huckabee be able to deflect concerns about his flabby resolve in keeping criminals incarcerated? Equally challenging will be the wilted defense of her resignation by Sarah Palin, a fighting Mama Grizzly, gamely proffering an “everybody was picking on me” alibi.

Given Gingrich’s palatable sleaze factor, Huckabee’s snarky and subliminal “I’m not as nice as I seem” demeanor and Palin’s rhetorical challenges in providing succinct, easily comprehensible answers, Romney’s “State’s Rights” riffs suddenly seem strong, well thought and very much in-tune with the smaller government attitudes likely to be prevalent among Republican voters in 2012.

Perhaps that is why this “anti-RomneyCare” bandwagon seems so overloaded of late.

Pew Research 2012 Republican Nomination Survey

• Mitt Romney 21%
• Mike Huckabee 20%
• Sarah Palin 13%
• Newt Gingrich 11%
• Ron Paul 8%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Mitch Daniels 2%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Haley Barbour 2%
• Chris Christie 2%
• Other 1%
• None 5%
• Don’t know 10%

(more…)

This wasn’t a huge surprise since Heck supported Romney in 2008 as well, but it’s always nice to see an endorser return to your guy for the next election:

Nevada Rep. Joe Heck is already backing Mitt Romney for president in 2012.

Heck, the Republican who beat former Democratic Rep. Dina Titus in 2010, also backed Romney in 2008, and Heck spokesman Darren Littell told the Associated Press Tuesday that he’ll do it again this time around.

As Politico notes, the side benefit of this early endorsement is that it is one less endorser for Barbour (or the other candidates) as they attempt to play in Nevada this time around.

From the Exoro Group and the University of Utah comes the hypothetical matchup of Romney versus Hunstman in Huntsman’s home state. The results — a 4-to-1 blowout:

Exoro Group and University of Utah GOP Primary

• Romney – 65%
• Huntsman – 16%

They also polled a hypothetical Senate primary including Huntsman, and he fares much better in that race:

Utah Senate Primary

• Huntsman – 40%
• Chaffetz – 30%
• Hatch – 26%

(h/t The Hedgehog Report)

When it comes to balancing the budget, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is one of the few Members of Congress willing to buck the trend of ignoring necessary reforms due to election concerns. I suspect part of this is due to his being a Senator, meaning he has six years to do a lot before facing any election consequences. Most of it, though, is his crazy idea that Congress should live within its means and that the Constitution actually limits the power of the federal government.

Paul’s new budget proposal is one such trend-bucking effort. Not only does it balance the budget by 2016 it eliminates four whole departments in the federal government and cuts some military spending. On top of his voting against the two short-term Continuing Resolutions, these are good signs for budget-cutting hawks such as myself.

Yet even this proposed budget does not go far enough. As cited at the link above, entitlements are not touched. The simple fact is that we need to begin entitlement reform, because if we continue at our current rate of entitlement (and other) spending we’ll only be able to afford Social Security and interest payments in 2040 without deficit-spending. This is not me talking, either; this is a January 2010 fiscal outlook estimate from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

I’ve said for months we need to balance the budget by 2013 or face fiscal disaster. This is an oversimplification of my view. To expand: since entitlement reforms are the most politically risky reforms in this country, balancing the budget by 2013 gives this country a couple of years of breathing room to explore various options. Additionally, since most entitlement reforms short of their elimination take some time to have a budgetary impact, balancing the budget via repeal of the health care law; military spending, waste/fraud/abuse/stupidity and department reduction/elimination reforms; and eradication of corporate welfare of  is the way to go on balancing the budget sooner rather than later.

However, my above points are partially negated if Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare reforms are made into law in the 2012 fiscal year. If House Republicans truly bring forth real entitlement reforms in their 2012 budget, as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has promised to do, balancing the budget by 2013 may not be necessary. Instead, the larger impact of entitlement reforms will give us the chance to slowly get away from fiscal collapse. This does not mean I don’t support balancing the budget by 2013; merely that the major drivers of our spending will be growing less rapidly as a share of the budget. There is hope in that strategy.

I don’t mean this post to be a criticism of Paul. I’m merely highlighting how even his politically brave, and necessary, reforms won’t save us from fiscal disaster. We must have entitlement reform if we are to prevent ourselves from becoming a much larger Portugal. Otherwise young people- the Debt Paying Generation- will continue their inexorable slide into high taxation without the end-of-life “benefits” from Social Security and Medicare. In other words, a lifelong recession and no retirement. Won’t life be fun?

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton has a new editorial on the situation in Libya, outlining four mistakes that he feels the President must not make for it to be successful. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

First, do not wait until it’s almost too late. Had America intervened in the opening days of Libya’s conflict, such a prompt and decisive move could have tipped the balance in the opposition’s favor. By thus demonstrating to Qaddafi’s loyalists he had no hope of retaining power, we might have ended his regime with far less risk of casualties and protracted engagement than we face today. Instead, by dithering for a month on whether to use force, Obama raised both the risks and the grave consequences of failure or stalemate.

Second, do not embrace confused and imprecise mission objectives. Obama, his key advisers, and our coalition partners are at sea on whether overthrowing Qaddafi is our ultimate objective. That should be the goal, and we should not hesitate to say so.

Obama confuses things when he says Qaddafi’s departure is a “political” but not a military objective, thus highlighting the glaring disjunction in his strategic thinking. Obama also said that “the writ of the international community must be enforced. That is the cause of this coalition.” What does that really mean?

Obama’s stated objective of “protecting innocent civilians within Libya” is actually more ambiguous than flatly endorsing regime change. As Washington has emphasized for weeks, the most acute threat to Libya’s people is precisely Muammar Qaddafi. How can the civilians be protected while allowing him to remain in power in any part of Libya? Moreover, on Friday, Obama demanded unconditionally that Qaddafi withdraw from three Libyan cities he already controls or where he is engaged. If Qaddafi fails to withdraw, but otherwise observes a cease fire, is Obama really prepared to continue using military force to drive Qaddafi from these cities? And why those cities and not others where Qaddafi has used military force indiscriminately?

Check out the entire article. Worth a read.

_______________________________________________________

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

Could it be that another Paul run for the presidency will be headlined by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul?  Sen. Paul visited Charleston, S.C. Monday to talk about a possible presidential run as well as his fiscal and foreign policy positions.  Paul did not deny interest in a presidential bid, stating only that he would not run if his father, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, ran again.  Sen. Paul is visiting several early primary states and discussing the issues that made him a Tea Party hero in 2010.  With Rep. Paul turning 77 in 2012, 8 years older then the oldest president ever elected to a first term, he could choose to pass the torch of his movement to his son.  The younger Paul, who boasts the advantages of a senate seat, a strong fundraising network, and more mainstream foreign policy positions, could be far more viable than his elderly father.  One thing is clear, the Paul family will not be denied a role in the 2012 GOP primaries, and will attempt to wield their Tea Party influence throughout the contest.

Gov. Gary Johnson injects some sanity into the Libyan situation, in an email sent out to supporters today:

We’ve seen this movie before:  Spectacular photos of Tomahawk Cruise missiles being launched from American navy vessel, B-2 bombers piloted by amazing American crews making nonstop trips from Missouri to the Mediterranean…. And Americans of all political stripes asking: What’s the plan?

Make no mistake.  Muammar Gaddafi is a very bad guy.  He has been a bad guy for 40 years, and he has brazenly killed Americans on several occasions in attacks that fit any reasonable definition of terrorism.  The world would be better off without him.

(more…)

If the timing leads you to the conclusion that this book might be a campaign tool, Mitch assures you you’re wrong.

“The idea of writing a book came together well before anybody suggested to me that I was a candidate for anything. I can’t keep people from leaping to that conclusion, but they’d be wrong.”

The publisher’s description of the book, tentatively titled Keeping the Republic: Limited Government, Unlimited Citizens:

The publishing house is saying it will discuss “America’s urgent need for limited but more effective government, fiscal discipline at all levels, increased liberty for individuals, and a restoration of our national greatness.”

“This is … a way of trying to contribute some constructive thought to what I consider a very grim situation,” he said.

“The premise of the book, which maybe some don’t accept, is that we’re at a moment of real peril, not just to our economy, but to our freedom,” he said.

Let me begin this piece by assuring the reader that I have no recollection of the year 1976, largely due to the fact that I did not yet exist. Still, the study of American politics has been a hobby of mine for nearly 20 years, and in so doing, I’d like to think that I’ve absorbed the tenor or mood of various points in our nation’s political history. As such, I don’t think it is extraordinarily presumptuous of me to draw an analogy between the presidential candidacy of Jimmy Carter in 1976 and that of Tim Pawlenty in 2012.

Gov. Carter, of course, arose in 1976 as the chief executive of a mid-sized state that was essentially located in “enemy” territory. While the concept of red and blue states had yet to be hashed out, Georgia was part of the Deep South, the region that in the 1976 and 1980 Republican primaries saw a huge sea change in the composition of the electorate, with scores of conservative Democrats switching party registration in order to vote for Ronald Reagan in the GOP primaries. In other words, while Georgia wasn’t a red state, or a Republican state, it was a conservative state, just as Minnesota was and is a liberal state. The fact that Gov. Carter knew how to win elections amongst a conservative “red” population spoke volumes about his electability nationally, just as Gov. Pawlenty’s two wins in Blue Minnesota suggest that he too would be formidable on the national stage.

Jimmy Carter, though, had arisen from seeming obscurity. He was on no one’s radar screen 20 months prior to the election, a time when Tim Pawlenty is busy making campaign ads and launching exploratory committees. How can this comparison hold up? I would argue that one cannot compare today’s electoral environment, with its perma-campaign cycle, awash in New Media, with the 1970s. Had the Internet been around in the 1970s, scores of liberal bloggers would have been floating Jimmy Carter’s name for president well before 1976, including him in online polls and creating unofficial “draft” websites. I can see it now: the 1970s version of Daily Kos would have sported a link to a blog comprised by Carter fans with the slogan, “Don’t let Jimmy dodge the draft!” And all of this attention would have forced his name into the opinion polls presented to the general public, where he would have registered in low single-digits, because the Everyman wouldn’t have heard of him. Just like Tim Pawlenty.

But the analogy doesn’t end there. One of the more significant similarities between Carter and Pawlenty is in their presentation and packaging, and in the stark contrast between these men and Presidents Ford and Obama, respectively. As I discussed last week, Gerald Ford and Barack Obama have a lot in common themselves. Both were cold, distant, aloof figures, with an arm’s length maintained between the Chief Executive and the American people, and both sported impressive academic pedigrees while seemingly clueless when it came to being president. Neither could connect, and both seem to lack the particular skills needed by an effective president, skills like judgment and the power of persuasion, that can’t always be measured in intelligence points.

By way of contrast, Carter and Pawlenty were warm, humble figures, both decidedly the Everyman, yet not in the way that, say, Christine O’Donnell is the Everyman. O’Donnell’s schtick was to claim that she deserved your vote because she was “you.” Most voters, however, wouldn’t consider themselves prepared to take on public office, and responded to O’Donnell’s campaign gimmick accordingly. In 1976, Carter wasn’t “you,” but he was someone like you, someone who the average voter could identify with, but who also seemed smart, accomplished, and qualified for high office. He had “your” values, but he actually deserved to be president, or so it seemed.

I would argue that if any candidate fit that description in the current cycle, it’s Pawlenty. His latest campaign ad speaks for itself. Pawlenty is a normal guy — a middle aged, Middle American Everyman — who is also self-made, with the accomplishments and traits that make him seem qualified for public office. He’s not “you,” but he’s the kind of guy that “you” can relate to. He is warm, while Obama is cool. He melts the ice that Obama creates, just as Carter melted the frigidity that emanated from Ford. Both Carter and Pawlenty seem to be organic products of their respective Middle American cultures, with Carter as the sweet, Souther farmer and Pawlenty as stoic as the Rust Belt’s steel, while both Ford and Obama seemed to spend their adult lives being whisked between the upper echelons of the Academy and the hallowed halls of government, never running a business, or going to a parent-teacher conference, or just sitting down at a hockey game. Both Ford and Obama seemed as if they were designed in a lab for the presidency, while both Carter and Pawlenty seemed like normal, regular men who could actually be president.

It is important to remember, of course, that the Carter nomination by the Democrats resulted in an exceedingly close election, which could have easily gone the other way, and perhaps would have had a few more weeks gone by. And it’s equally important to remember that the high point of the Carter presidency was Election Night, 1976, and that it was all downhill from there, as the Everyman president got eaten alive while in office. There are whispers coming out of the conservative commentariat that the GOP should actually hope to lose in 2012, in order to win with someone like Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio in 2016, someone who could make a great president, instead of the good president that someone like Tim Pawlenty would have a shot at being. I’m not part of this “lose to win” crowd, largely because there are too many big issues that will surface over the next few years, including the fate of ObamaCare and the probable retirement of Justice Kennedy. Still, I remain hopeful that if I’m right, and if Obama/Pawlenty is our generation’s Ford/Carter, that a President Pawlenty will ultimately navigate the presidency far better than President Carter.

President Obama took the right course in joining (even perhaps pushing behind the scenes for) the multinational effort to impose a “no-fly-zone” over Libya and to send missiles against Dictator Qaddafi’s military facilities as well as against Qaddafi’s army attacking Benghazi. Clearly, the overwhelming force of the air attacks by the French, British and American military demonstrates that the small Libyan military is no match for the United Nations sanctioned effort.

I do not know if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton alone changed Mr. Obama’s hitherto opposition to U.S. participation in this coalition, but it would appear that her role was major and laudatory. No little credit should also go to the Arab League’s unprecedented plea for this action against one of its own member states. In short, the very visible and monstrous suppression of the Libyan revolt, including Dictator Qaddafi’s murder of so many of his subjects, stirred the conscience of the whole world, including the Arab world.

Of course, now that the first part of the UN’s goal has been achieved, the criticism of the effort has begun. This is what George W. Bush faced after the Iraq War ousting Saddam Hussein. Let us remember that Democrats and Republicans, our allies and many of the middle eastern Arab leaders broadly supported Mr Bush initially, and then peeled off his coalition to attack and criticize him. Mr Bush and his colleagues, ofcourse, did make mistakes, and over time these made the criticism more and more credible until he finally authorized the “surge” that ended the conflict and established the young Iraqi democratic republic.

So now Barack Obama knows even more what it’s like to be president of the United States, and make decisions about war and peace, military action and military inaction. It was easier for him to be a critic in 2007-08 when he sided with far left Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Now Mr. Kucinich want to impeach Mr. Obama.

The criticism of Mr. Obama in this matter comes from the left and the right. The pacifist left automatically opposes any military action. The conservative right wants to know what Mr Obama’s plan and goals are, remembering when liberals raised similar questions about Mr. Bush, and also having concerns that the U.S. is in another armed conflict. The latter is a legitimate concern.

Mr. Obama, who has been more visibly concerned with golf, attending Democratic fundraisers, following the national collegiate basketball tournament (apparently from the White House war room), and being a tourist to Rio de Janeiro during the critical moments of the Libyan crisis, has not shown himself to be particularly involved with the new U.S. actions, and thus feeds the doubts of those in his own party as well as the party of his opposition.

The second part of the UN goal in Libya lies ahead. That is to remove Dictator Qaddafi from power in Libya. This is much more complicated than the first, and already achieved first goal. Since it is very unlikely that U.S. troops will be sent to fight in Libya on the ground, and probably almost as unlikely that French and British (or other European troops will get into the battle), it is up to the Egyptians and other Arab nations to supply the Libyan rebel forces so that they can defeat Qaddafi themselves. This will involve also encouraging more and more Libyan soldiers to change sides. This is a very real possibility inasmuch as numerous Kaddafi-appointed diplomats and military figures have already abandoned him. (In fact, it appears that it was a regular Libyan air force pilot who gave his life to bomb the Libyan barracks, resulting in the death of Qaddafi’s son.)

Of course, members of the Arab League are now having second thoughts, and UN security council members who abstained of the resolution to stop Qaddafi are openly critical of the action. Sorry, boys, there is no going back. Play your predictable propaganda games, but that is all they are.

It is vitally important that President Obama, hitherto so sensitive to international criticism, learn from this “George W. Bush moment,” gather confidence in his own actions, and see this matter through to his own often-repeated goal, i.e. the removal of Dictator Qaddafi from power in Libya.

That is the only outcome allowable now.

_______________________________________________________________________

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

With Governor Tim Pawlenty now in the race for President, Mitt Romney’s problem is exacerbated. This problem comes with corn, evangelicals and 99 counties and goes by the name of Iowa. Simply put, Mitt Romney is the far-and-away frontrunner in New Hampshire but that is certainly not the case in Iowa. Now, Romney absolutely has to win New Hampshire this time which makes Iowa less important. But, Romney still has to have a strategy to address the Iowa issue. There are several possible answers, none of which completely solves the problem of what Romney needs to do with Iowa.

1.)    Skip it: Romney could just ignore Iowa and focus entirely on New Hampshire. This helps diminish Iowa and gives Romney a narrative for any sort of poor showing in the Caucuses. However, this has several drawbacks, first and foremost is that Romney is out of any story in Iowa and that leaves a vacuum for other candidates to step in. This would be most dangerous for a candidate who could have appeal in New Hampshire (I’m thinking most specifically of Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels) and give them a chance to gain ground.

2.)    Go through the motions: Using this strategy, Romney would make appearances in Iowa but not invest too much time or too many resources in Iowa. This way, if he loses, he still has an explanation for what happens and he’s still in the news out of Iowa. The problem with this approach is that a loss is still a loss and it still gives an opportunity for another candidate like Pawlenty or Daniels to slip in.

3.)    Try for the strongest possible showing: Under this idea, Romney would campaign hard in Iowa and work to get as good a position as possible in the Iowa Caucuses. This way he would be able to beat some of the 2^nd tier candidates and prevent them from gaining a foothold. There is still a problem with this strategy; he isn’t going to win both IA and NH. No one has in 30 years and these included much stronger frontrunners than Romney. The other problem is that Romney would not have a good explanation for what would end up being a loss. Not to mention the loss of money, time and other resources that would be used in Iowa.

Now there could be other strategies (like a stalking-horse candidate or something like that), but I really have no idea what is the best way for Romney to slice through the Gordian Knot of Iowa.

I apologize for the sensationalist title, but this was too good to pass up.

By my count, the coalition that joined the U.S. in Iraq in 2003 consisted of 30 countries. The group that has followed President Obama into Libya? Sixteen countries. Quite the shocking development from a President who once decried Bush’s “unilateral actions” and failure to sufficiently consult with Congress (oh yeah, in case you haven’t already heard, Obama told Congress he planned on launching strikes into Libya).

So, I ask our friends on the left, once again: How’s that change working out for you?

PPP has recently released their Ohio horserace numbers. Here they are in tabular form along with their last set of Ohio numbers from last December:

To help put them in perspective, here is the same data in graphical form for those in double digits:

Paul shot up a most impressive nine points. That allowed him to rise from fifth place to tie with fourth. Romney increased his showing by three points and rose from fourth place to second. Huckabee did nothing, yet moved from second to first place to replace the fading Palin. And what a fade it was. Sarah dropped six whole points. That is three times the drop Gingrich experienced. She dropped from first place all the way down to tying with Ron Paul for fourth.

Yes, these early polls are only snapshots in time. Yes, the campaigning really hasn’t begun yet. Yes, there have been no ads run yet. Yes, there has been no debates. There hasn’t even been a true stump speech given yet.

All the above is true. Yet there is simply no denying that all trends for Sarah Palin right now are bad and have been bad for quite some time. Take a look at her national polling trend for the past thirty months courtesy of Pollster.Com:

Her numbers show one long, slow, steadily worsening trend with no real sign of turning around. With numbers like these, she could be the second coming of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thacher combined, and it would do her little good.  Sooner or later those numbers have to start improving, or she isn’t going anywhere in this cycle. As of yet, there really is no hint of that happening anytime soon.

Maybe her trip to India and Israel will help. Maybe it won’t. We will just have to wait and see.

***Updated ***

There was a bad datapoint for Ron Paul. It has been corrected. (h/t Steven S.)

Okay, he’s no “Papa Grizzly,” but T-Paw does hit a lot of the right notes with his first campaign ad of the 2012 election cycle. Take a gander:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B8BKJV6Xyg[/youtube]

I think the tone and tenor of the ad are about right for an election cycle like this one, when Americans want to feel good about their country again, but can’t bring themselves to embrace a goopy, “Morning in America” message. The manner in which Team T-Paw fuses stoicism and optimism together in this ad is quite adept, as the observer comes away with the sentiment that a new dawn for America can be a part of our future, but only if we’re willing to do what it takes to get there. Pawlenty may be overdoing it a little, especially with the camera work that attempts to turn T-Paw into the second coming of Russell Crowe’s “Gladiator,” but running as the “serious and courageous” candidate is pretty much the only game that Pawlenty can run, as he doesn’t exactly exude the charisma of a silver-tongued orator. All in all, it’s a good ad, with its focus on the economy, government spending, and entitlements, and with imagery that will satisfy both nostalgic conservatives and the Everyman on Main Street who just wants to get back to work.