So I know this is an election site, and the nuclear dangers in Japan aren’t exactly related to the 2012 elections…but I still think this CBS article is worth posting:

Since the disaster struck in Japan, about 800 workers have been evacuated from the damaged nuclear complex in Fukushima. The radiation danger is that great.

However, CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod reports that a handful have stayed on the job, risking their lives, to try to save the lives of countless people they don’t even know. The exact number of workers is unclear and has been reported to be anywhere from 50 to 180.

Although communication with the workers inside the nuclear plant is nearly impossible, a CBS News consultant spoke to a Japanese official who made contact with one of the workers inside the control center.

The official said that his friend told him that he was not afraid to die, that that was his job.

And later:

If the contamination threat isn’t contained in a few weeks, finding enough workers willing to face the risks could become a crucial challenge.

Dallas said he expects that in that scenario, the Japanese energy authorities may have to find volunteers willing to undergo similar dangers, which will be hard to do, but not impossible.

Keep in mind they’d be volunteering to head into a place so potentially dangerous, that anyone within 20 miles of it was just asked to evacuate.

Prayers for the survival and health of these brave people, and may God keep them safe.

PPP (D) Missouri 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Mike Huckabee 29% [27%] (32%)
• Newt Gingrich 19% [15%]
• Sarah Palin 14% [25%] (28%)
• Mitt Romney 13% [14%] (22%)
• Ron Paul 7% [5%]
• Mitch Daniels 4% [1%]
• Tim Pawlenty 3% [3%]
• Haley Barbour 2%
• Someone else/Undecided 10% [9%]

(more…)

Finally, some fighting going on between our 2012 hopefuls.

Last night during an event in Iowa, Haley Barbour said that we should be willing to cut defense spending along with the rest of the budget:

“Anybody who says you can’t save money at the Pentagon has never been to the Pentagon,” the Mississippi governor said. “We can save money on defense and if we Republicans don’t propose saving money on defense, we’ll have no credibility on anything else…”

Tim Pawlenty took issue with that idea today, responding that not only should the defense budget not be cut, we should continue increasing it:

“I don’t think we should be talking about cutting the Pentagon’s budget…” Pawlenty, siding with the defense hawks in his first trip to the Palmetto State this cycle, reiterated his past support for a defense budget that “continues to grow,” but added that it should grow “perhaps a little more slowly.”

I’ll be honest: Pawlenty is my number two guy right now, and Barbour doesn’t even register on my list… but I like what Barbour has to say here a lot more than Pawlenty. It’s time for conservatives to man up and realize that we’re going to need spending cuts across the board – including defense spending – if we’re going to make any sort of headway against the fiscal crisis we find ourselves in. To propose continually growing what amounts to more than a quarter of our federal budget out of one side of your mouth and then proclaim to be able to balance the budget out of the other side simply makes no sense to me.

It’s nice to finally see some back-and-forth between the potential candidates. It’s just surprising to me who I find myself agreeing with.

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 48% {47%} [49%] (48%) {44%} [47%] (45%) {46%} [46%] (45%) {46%} [46%] (44%) {46%} [49%] (47%) {48%} [47%] (48%) {50%} [52%] (49%)
• Mike Huckabee 43% {44%} [44%] (45%) {47%} [44%] (47%) {44%} [45%] (47%) {44%} [43%] (45%) {45%} [44%] (43%) {41%} [44%] (42%) {43%} [39%] (42%)

• Barack Obama 47% {46%} [48%] (47%) {46%} [45%] (43%) {45%} [46%] (44%) {44%} [45%] (44%) {47%} [48%] (48%) {48%} [47%] (49%) {48%} [53%] (50%)
• Mitt Romney 42% {41%} [43%] (46%) {43%} [42%] (46%) {42%} [44%] (45%) {44%} [43%] (42%) {42%} [43%] (40%) {39%} [40%] (40%) {40%} [35%] (39%)

• Barack Obama 50% {49%} [51%] (49%) {47%} [49%] (45%) {47%} [49%] (45%) [49%] (50%) {49%} [53%] (52%)
• Newt Gingrich 39% {40%} [39%] (43%) {43%} [42%] (46%) {39%} [42%] (45%) [41%] (42%) {41%} [36%] (39%)

• Barack Obama 53% {52%} [55%] (51%) {49%} [49%] (46%) {50%} [50%] (47%) {49%} [50%] (49%) {50%} [51%] (52%) {53%} [52%] (51%) {52%} [56%] (53%) <55%>
• Sarah Palin 38% {40%} [38%] (42%) {43%} [43%] (46%) {41%} [43%] (45%) {41%} [43%] (41%) {44%} [43%] (40%) {38%} [38%] (43%) {40%} [37%] (41%) <35%>

• Barack Obama 47%
• Tim Pawlenty 33%

• Barack Obama 47%
• Herman Cain 29%

(more…)

Although he “still hasn’t found what he’s looking for,” Erickson did single out one 2012 candidate that he feels is doing a good job addressing the issues that conservatives care about and advocating for idea of American Exceptionalism:

With Mike Pence out of the running, I think, in all seriousness, the guy who does it the best is Mike Huckabee. I’m not a Huckabee guy, but he resonates. He exudes compassion and love for country in a way the other guys do not.

I put the over/under on the number of comments on this thread at 125.

Another impressive campaign hire for Haley Barbour this morning, from the vital state of New Hampshire: Mike Dennehy.

Dennehy, a political veteran, was John McCain’s campaign manager in 2000 when he won the New Hampshire primary and served as the McCain campaign’s political director in 2008 (when he also won the primary). That he will now lend his knowledge and experience to Barbour is no small blip on the radar. Barbour is evidently serious about this thing and lining up a strong team to prove it.

Straw poll time – so throw in all the usual disclaimers about how these don’t really matter but are still fun to talk about or whatnot.

Yesterday, Republican Mayors and local officials from across the country descended on quietly went to Washington, D.C. for the National League of Cities conference. During the conference, they took a surprise straw poll (meaning that candidates did not know it was happening and couldn’t attempt to influence to voters). The results of these local GOP officials’ Presidential preference:

• Romney – 53%
• Huckabee – 9%
• Daniels – 6%
• Gingrich – 6%
• Barbour – 3%
• Christie – 3%
• Huntsman – 3%
• Palin – 3%
• Trump – 3%

It was a small gathering – around 50 people voted in the straw poll, apparently – but to win a surprise vote by this large of a margin displays some of Romney’s early strength.

The new ABC/Washington Post poll out this morning is causing quite a stir in the Republican blogosphere. In it, Sarah Palin’s favorability ratings continue their downward slide, while Romney’s favorability starts to take off. The numbers:

ABC News / Washington Post Republican Poll

Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings
Huckabee – 61/18 (+43)
Romney – 60/21 (+39)
Gingrich – 55/26 (+29)
Palin – 58/37 (+21)
Pawlenty – 28/15 (+13)
Barbour – 26/17 (+11)
Daniels – 22/12 (+10)
Huntsman – 20/12 (+8)

Favorability Ratings Among Self-Labeled Tea Partiers
Huckabee – 72
Romney – 68
Gingrich – 66
Palin – 66

Survey was taken March 10-13 of 1,005 adults, including 378 “leaned Republicans”.

The big story, of course, is momentum. In January 2008, Romney’s favorability rating stood at 55/36. Since that time, he has increased his positives by 5 and decreased his negatives by a whopping 15 points. Among self-labeled conservatives, he garnered a 68% favorability rating, and “very conservative” respondents gave him an impressive 71% favorability rating.

On the other hand, Palin continues to shed support. In September 2008, she reached her peak with an 88% favorability. In October, five months ago, that number was still up at 70%. Now, she is down to 58% and doesn’t appear to be able to stop the bleeding.

Last week, Maggie Haberman, of Politico, penned a highly informative article about the likely composition of 2012 Iowa Caucus voters. The key takeaways:

A political generation gap among Iowa caucus-goers is emerging as the 2012 campaign gets under way, with many younger voters citing the nation’s fiscal situation as their main focus, while older Republicans cite social issues.

Interviews in Iowa this week during the state’s first big event of the presidential campaign season, the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition forum, showed a trend — repeated references to the economy from voters under the age of fifty.

For those above that line, the majority said a candidate’s stand issues like abortion and gay marriage were their litmus tests.

One thought quickly came to mind after reading this: Tim Pawlenty has a real opening in the race, with his legitimate potential to “thread the needle” and appeal to voters on both sides of the divide. He has already begun attempts to do this, by tailoring his message to suit the multiple audiences he faces. His rock-solid gubernatorial record on spending and bonafide Evangelical credibility create a package that few in the field can match. Of course, his strategy could fall to pieces if a Tea Party darling like Michele Bachmann throws their hat in the ring.

The article also suggests that Mitt Romney may have an opportunity to surprise observers without dredging up memories of 2008 and walking the SoCon/authenticity perceptual tightrope. If he manages to position himself as the strongest candidate on fiscal issues in the minds of the younger caucus participants, and the social conservative vote gets divided among individuals like Huckabee (if he runs), Palin (if she runs), Pawlenty, Santorum, and/or Bachmann, he could string together enough votes to place well and maybe even edge out the others.

Get the popcorn ready, folks, we’re in for one wild ride.

PPP (D) Maine 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 49%
• Mitt Romney 41%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Mike Huckabee 39%

• Barack Obama 53%
• Newt Gingrich 37%

• Barack Obama 57%
• Sarah Palin 35%

(more…)

Here are the full results of the latest 2012 PPP poll which Matt posted earlier today (courtesy of The Argo Journal):

Would you be willing to vote for someone who’s a Mormon for President or not?

• Willing to vote for Mormon 65%
• Not willing 20%

Would you be willing to vote for someone who supported a bill at the state level mandating that voters have health insurance for President?

• Willing to vote for someone who supported insurance mandate 17%
• Not willing 61%

Do you think ACORN will steal the election for Barack Obama next year or not?

• Think ACORN will steal the election 25%
• Think they will not 43%

Do you regularly watch Fox News or not?

• Regularly watch Fox News 69%
• Do not 31%

Would you be willing to vote for someone who’s been divorced three times for President or not?

• Willing to vote for someone who’s been divorced three times 45%
• Not willing 30%

Note: PPP erred in this question, as Newt Gingrich (and Rudy Giuliani) have each been divorced twice; not three times.

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Sarah Palin 61% (65%) {65%} [68%] (66%) {76%} [70%] (67%) {69%} [66%] (69%) / 26% (25%) {26%} [22%] (19%) {17%} [14%] (18%) {21%} [21%] (17%) {+35%}
• Mike Huckabee 56% (58%) {64%} [63%] (60%) {62%} [64%] (53%) {58%} [55%] (54%) / 22% (15%) {16%} [17%] (14%) {14%} [11%] (15%) {13%} [13%] (16%) {+34%}
• Mitt Romney 51% (55%) {52%} [56%] (57%) {57%} [59%] (57%) {54%} [54%] (58%) / 29% (25%) {28%} [24%] (21%) {21%} [14%] (14%) {19%} [24%] (17%) {+22%}
• Newt Gingrich 50% (55%) {58%} [57%] (57%) {65%} [63%] (58%) {57%} / 32% (26%) {24%} [28%] (25%) {19%} [14%] (18%) {21%} {+18%}
• Tim Pawlenty 26% / 19% {+7%}

Survey of 600 national Republican primary voters was conducted March 10-13, 2011.  The margin of error is +/-4.1 percentage points.  Political ideology: 40% (41%) Somewhat conservative; 38% (39%) Very conservative; 19% (15%) Moderate; 3% (5%) Somewhat liberal; 1% (1%) Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted February 11-13, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 14-16, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 19-21, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 10-13, 2010 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 6-9, 2010 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 9-12, 2010 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted June 4-7, 2010 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted May 7-9, 2010 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted April 9-11, 2010 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted March 12-14, 2010 are in parentheses.

Many attempts have been made to analogize President Obama to various Chief Executives of the past, with conservatives tending towards Carter comparisons and liberals drawing parallels to JFK or even Ronald Reagan. I don’t think that any of these comparisons really hold up though. Obama has yet to see approval rating plummet into the 30s, a la Carter, and while Reagan’s own chances at re-election looked far from certain in 1983, the Gipper oversaw a major sea change in national policy during his first few years in office, something that Obama has only dreamt of. Indeed, President Obama’s tenure thus far, and chances at a second term in office, may actually most resemble those of our 38th President, Gerald Ford.

Both President Ford and President Obama enjoyed a similar relationship with the American people, with both coming across as distant personalities, cold (which the MSM has spun as “cool” in the case of Obama), detached, with an arm’s length perpetually maintained between the executive and the people. Unlike, say, Harry Truman, or Ronald Reagan, or even George W. Bush, both Ford and Obama exude a sort of shielded personality that makes it difficult for the public to really develop an emotional connection with them. They’re not the sort of fellows that most voters would want to “have a beer with,” as the adage goes. Further, both Presidents Ford and Obama took office at a time when Americans had lost faith in their government and, more specifically, the American presidency. Both Richard Nixon and George W. Bush left office pretty much universally despised, for entirely different reasons, of course, and both Ford and Obama were heralded into office, expected to pick up the pieces in a manner that would have been difficult for any man.

Further, both Ford and Obama entered their re-election cycle with similar approval ratings. Since January 1st, President Obama’s job approval in Gallup’s daily tracking has not gone below 45 percent, and has failed to top 51 percent. Meanwhile, Gallup’s periodic polling of President Ford’s approval rating found that between 45 and 50 percent of Americans gave a thumbs-up to Ford’s performance at any given time in 1976 up until Election Day. Ford’s ultimate re-elect percentage was 48 percent in November of 1976, right about where one would expect it to be given Ford’s job approval. Yet a few thousand votes in a few states would have kept the Electoral College in Republican hands, and would have given Ford a second term. Is Obama headed for a similar fate?

Quite possibly. Both Obama and Ford faced a nation undergoing an especially poignant economic and geopolitical transformation, and both were plunged into the presidency in the midst of a once-in-a-generation period of econimic malaise and international strife. Further, both rose to power at a time when Americans, as Bonnie Tyler might have said, needed a hero, and neither possessed the skill set to follow through on those expectations. This isn’t to impugn the intelligence of either man. Indeed, the MSM has spent the better part of the past five years lionizing every single brain cell of Barack Obama, and Gerald Ford’s degrees in economics and law from schools such as Michigan and Yale makes for an impressive academic pedigree. But as has been shown time and time again, raw aptitude does not a great president make. There’s a reason that Harry Truman will go down in history as one of our nation’s most significant presidents despite never having set foot in a college classroom. The presidency is an office mastered by those with a specific kind of intelligence, one that leads to the mastery of persuasion, interpersonal relationships, and sound judgment. Truman, LBJ, and Reagan were overflowing with these qualities. Ford was lacking in these areas, and so is Obama.

The main impediment to Obama’s re-election as of now, and the reason he seems to hover in the high-40s in terms of job approval, unable to close the deal with a majority of Americans, is the sense that despite the fact that the president is a bright guy, he just doesn’t know what to do to get America back on track. And that, I think, was probably the same sensibility that permeated the nation’s political psyche when Ford was president. While conservatives regularly roast Obama, the everyman still likes the guy on a personal level. The president’s favorability rating has always exceeded his job approval, and, like Ford, President Obama is not a particularly polarizing president, in contrast to say, George W. Bush, whom Americans either loved or hated. The average American views Obama as a decent guy, educated and well-intentioned, who is probably in over his head as president. The last president to run for re-election against such a backdrop was Gerald Ford. The 1976 presidential election went down to the wire, and was decided by a few thousand voters in a few key states. The 2012 presidential election may be headed for the same outcome.

There are only a few hours left in the Ides of March, but so far, Gadhafi’s rein has not been ended at the hands of his blonde amazon “Brute.”  So, on to more mundane events.  Ryan Streeter, editor of the website ConservativeHome discusses the wide-ranging popularity of NJ Governor Chris Christie across the entire base of Republican/Conservative voters.  As Streeter points out, should Christie decide to run in 2012, he would appear to be the only GOP candidate with support from establishment types, grass-roots conservatives, and Tea Party activists and thus appears to be the sought-after “dream candidate.”

But, why is this so?  I believe that his near uniform support is a direct result of his NOT being a candidate; therefore, he becomes the candidate everyone could support—supposedly.  It would be most interesting to see what would happen if he were to indicate a change of intention regarding 2012.  I would almost certainly be a strong Christie supporter as I think the man possesses many if not all of the qualities that would make him the most formidable GOP candidate as well as a very effective president.  But, were he to appear likely to run, his opponents and their ardent backers would be calling attention to every little wart they could find.  We would be hearing that he’s not really a conservative, his position on X was not quite good enough or that his commitment to Y is suspect, etc, etc.  And as sure as today is the Ides of March, some of the more blusterous talk show and blogger personalities would be once again labeling him a RINO as they did last year because of his support for Mike Castle over Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware Senate primary.  Christie is currently everyone’s “first choice” precisely because he is not running and no one is attacking him from the inside.

Human Events just published an article entitled “Trump Unplugged” which includes some lengthy, unedited quotes from his interview the other day. Here are some examples of non-foreign policy related quotes:

Trump on George W. Bush

George Bush gave us Obama whether you like it or not. George Bush gave us Obama, without George Bush we don’t have Obama. So I’ve never been a fan of George Bush.

Trump on ObamaCare

If I run and if I win there will not be ObamaCare because it’s ruining a lot of companies. I have friends who own small companies, and they’re going to close those companies up because they can’t afford ObamaCare. It will not exist very long if I’m president.

Trump on the budget

Something has to be done, but what I really would be strongly in favor of is having countries that are ripping us off contribute hundreds of billions of dollars back into this economy, and you wouldn’t have to worry so much about cutting too much out of the budget.

Trump on the Supreme Court Justice he most admires

I don’t think I want to get into that at this moment, I think it’s a little too soon to get into that. I’ll be answering questions such as that if I decide to run. I have to tell you, I know numerous of the Justices and I don’t want to insult any of them to be honest with you by saying that I particularly admire one. There is one that I admire very much, but I don’t want to insult anybody by discussing the one I most admire because I know a number of them.

Trump on pro-life conversion

I have changed my mind, yes. And a lot of people have changed their mind. And I’ve changed my mind because I’ve known people that have had children over the last number of years…I am pro-life.

Trump on the dollar

The dollar, just like the country, is no longer respected. The dollar you have to protect because otherwise people are not going to be able to eat, you’re not going to be able to get food. Everything is doubling, tripling. Look at what’s happening with the cost of food…Much of that stems from the fact that they have just let the dollar go to hell. We really have to protect and cherish the dollar.

Trump on whether New York City was better under Giuliani or Bloomberg

I don’t want to say that because they are both friends of mine. But they’ve both been great mayors. Michael’s done a great job, and Rudy did a great job. They really have both been outstanding mayors, so I don’t want to have to get into who did better, but they’ve both been great mayors. It’s a very interesting question, by the way.

Trump on the importance of religion to him

It’s very important. I am a Protestant. I am a Presbyterian within the Protestant group and I go to Church as much as I can. And I am a believer. Now I don’t know if that makes me conservative or not, but I am a believer.

As before, thoughts on Trump, his ideas, and whether or not he’s serious are always welcome. I’m especially uncertain about the last one.

EDIT: Just realized that this last statement could be taken to imply that I questioned Trump’s faith. I don’t, I question whether or not he’s seriously considering a Presidential bid. Sorry for the confusion.

_______________________________________________________

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

PPP has actually done something useful — poll the primary race with a full field, and then without Huck or Palin in it to see where their support goes. Still taking their results with a massive grain of salt, but here is what they came up with:

Public Policy Polling National Republican Primary

	Full Field	W/out Huck	W/out Palin	W/out Either
Huckabee	18%	—	22%	—
Romney	17%	20%	18%	24%
Palin	16%	19%	—	—
Gingrich	14%	18%	20%	24%
Paul	9%	12%	9%	12%
Pawlenty	5%	6%	7%	6%
Daniels	4%	5%	4%	4%
Barbour	1%	4%	3%	5%

Survey was taken 3/10-13/11 of 600 Republican primary voters, and has an MoE of 4.1%.

According to PPP, Huck and Palin’s support splinters among pretty much everyone if they decide not to run.

After you read this headline, many people will first ask the following question – who is Frank Keating? Well, let me tell you.

Frank Keating is a two term Governor of Oklahoma, the first Republican in State History to achieve that feat. Prior to his tenure as Governor he served as a State Representative, State Senator, and US Attorney. Under President Reagan, Keating served first as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and later as United States Associate Attorney General, the #3 person in that department.

Keating was Governor during the Oklahoma City Bombing situation. His resolve and response the crisis was lauded throughout the country. His two terms in office were marked by specific, achievable goals…most of which he was able to achieve. He pushed welfare reform in 1995, within 6 years the welfare rolls dropped 70%. He cut the income, estate, and sales taxes. He reformed and improved education standards, while keeping the state budget in check. He increased the options for parents, including an increase in charter schools. In 2001, Keating’s fight to make Oklahoma a right-to-work state became successful when the Legislature passed it as a ballot measure, and the people voted it into their State Constitution.

Following his tenure as Governor, Keating served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Council of Life Insurers. Most recently, Keating became the president and CEO of the American Bankers Association.

In 2008, he considered a bid for President, but decided against it due to the big head start of many of the other candidates. Which makes me wonder, why not now? Why doesn’t Frank Keating consider coming out now and running for President? I doubt he will – but his background is intriguing and, frankly, make him a qualified and worthwhile candidate for us to consider.

So, I ask again – what about Frank Keating in 2012?

_______________________________________________________

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

Gallup asks Republicans whether they recognize each potential candidate and, for each one they recognize, whether they have a strongly favorable, favorable, unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of that person. Gallup calculates a “Positive Intensity Score” for each person rated, based on the difference between strongly favorable and strongly unfavorable opinions among those who are familiar with him or her. This score provides an indication of the intensity of support among a candidate’s base of followers at any given point in the campaign.

Overall, none of the 12 potential candidates generates a high level of intensely positive opinions. Huckabee has the highest Positive Intensity Score at +25, with 27% of Republicans who recognize him expressing a strongly favorable opinion and 2% expressing a strongly unfavorable opinion.

Bachmann is next on the list, with a Positive Intensity Score of +20 — the difference between the 24% who have heard of her and have a strongly favorable opinion of her and the 4% whose opinion is strongly unfavorable. Her relatively high positioning on this list is noteworthy given her lower name identification of only 52%, indicating that she generates stronger-than-average reactions among those who know her.

The remaining 10 Republicans’ Positive Intensity Scores range from +17 for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to +5 for former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. Notably, former Alaska Gov. and 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s Positive Intensity Score of +16 puts her below the top scorers, despite her almost universal name recognition of 96%.

Full results and analysis here.

The Iowa Independent is reporting its own power rankings culled from “staff members, additional state political reporters, party activists, academics, elected officials, political consultants and other insiders”. Whether or not the fact that Mike Huckabee is atop the rankings is relevant is not the point here. I have stated elsewhere that narrow polls such as online polls, straw polls, email polls, and other self-selected polling give little or no indication of who is a front-runner or how well a candidate will do next year.

Nevertheless, there are two things to be gained from this article. First, it is the opinion of many within the Iowa Political Superstructure (even those who are not part of the Huckabee team) that his on-the-ground-organization is still intact. While a few leaders may have abandoned him, the rank and file apparently have not. Second, there is no reason to believe that this can’t be replicated in many other states. Perhaps, Huckabee was crazy-like-a-fox in 2008 when he continued to campaign in Virginia, Texas, Wisconsin, Kansas, and other states after Mitt Romney dropped out. Remember, Huckabee got the endorsement of the Dallas Morning News after Super Tuesday.

80% of those polled picked Huckabee to win, half the remaining (including former WHO-Radio talk show host, Steve Deace, left him off the ballot, believing he won’t run)

The remainder of the top five finishers were Tim Pawlenty (great news for him!), Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Michelle Bachmann.

Face it.  The general public doesn’t give two hoots right now about who the GOP puts up for president in 2012. Many people, even in Iowa, loathe what is about to happen to them.  They don’t want to hear another commercial for Mitt Romney already.  For some, when Mike Huckabee crowds their Pizza Ranch with TV cameras, it just irks them.  And nobody wants another pollster interrupting supper to ask about Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum’s favorability.

But that doesn’t mean some people aren’t getting ants in their pants.  People who make themselves blood brothers to politicians (until a better job comes along!) can hardly hold their water three minutes. They are restless.  The country is falling part and needs them to fix it.  “Them”, meaning the operatives -  not the candidates.  The latter are as expendable as last week’s HyVee grocery bag.

Eric Woolson, who has supported Republicans and Vice-President Joe Biden in the past, had this to say to Huckabee:  “As you look at the monumental task of unseating an incumbent president, Republicans need to get about the business of getting that job done….And I want to get on with the task of getting that done.”

One anonymous Huckabee “loyalist” (Hah!) told Fox News yesterday “I love the Governor and I’ll wait as long as I can, but everyone wants to be part of the 2012 campaign and at some point all the jobs will be taken.”

Does anybody really think there are only 10 people available in the country to help run a campaign? And if a job is open, there will be plenty of applicants, some with fresh ideas, unthought-of in 2007.  I think the insiders flatter themselves.

Another group that can hardly wait is the press corps.  They need a story they can sink their chompers into.  Last weeks’ announcement about Woolson was a non-story.  Tim Pawlenty hasn’t offered him a job because Pawlenty hasn’t even announced he is announcing his announcement of his decision to consider exploration of a presidential exploratory committee yet (a la Gingrich!). Has anybody else noticed that with all the complaining that Huckabee has gotten for not “getting in”, nobody else has gotten in, either?

Big donors can’t give a dime, yet.   And a simple examination of the public record shows that donors sometimes give to more than one candidate (and sometimes to two parties!).   There is no hurry.  Relax.  Mike Huckabee said it this way, “My race, my pace”.

If all these people can’t wait, who will?   Those who are loyal to a candidate will wait.  Those willing to work the ground game, and stay out of the limelight, and who aren’t looking for a job or a story will wait.  What’s the rush?   Voting in Iowa isn’t for another 300 days or more.

In case you missed it, this series showcases the reasons why a Barbour 2012 ticket would go up in flames in a general election against Obama. To recap:

1.) The optics could not get much worse for Republicans. With the GOP hoping to shed its image as “the party of southern white men”, matching up one of them against the first black President in history would not help (an understatement if I’ve ever seen one). The media would foam at their collective mouth to cover that race.

2.) Barbour has a well-documented past as a highly accomplished lobbyist. President Obama rails against special interests (exhibit #1: lobbyists) almost as much as he uses verbal fillers. Squaring up against Barbour would provide countless opportunities to mention Haley’s past, creating a branding nightmare for the GOP.

3.) The Governor would never escape the “R” word: racism. Barbour has shot himself in the foot more than once on this topic. Again, the media would stop at nothing to remind voters that the man facing the first black President in history said the following about the tumult surrounding the Civil Rights movement in 1960s Mississippi: “I just don’t remember it as being that bad.” To a public that bases most of its voting decisions on sound bytes and fast-breaking news, this would speak volumes.

And now we come to the latest mix-up, this time involving Barbour’s now-former press secretary

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has accepted the resignation of his press secretary, just hours after it was reported that the spokesman sent e-mails with off-color jokes about issues ranging from the earthquake in Japan to former attorney general Janet Reno.

…In missives distributed to staff and supporters, Turner reportedly joked that Otis Redding’s hit “(Sittin’ on) The Dock of the Bay” is “not a big hit in Japan right now.” He also made cracks about Reno’s femininity, marijuana and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Could it get much worse for a candidate struggling to convince voters of his sensitivity? To steal a phrase from President Obama, let me be clear: I do not mean to paint Gov. Barbour as racist or unethical, I simply argue that perception matters more than reality in political campaigns, especially those for the highest office in the land, and this incident – even if it only qualifies as guilt by association – advances the notion of Barbour as prejudiced. While the Governor has a strong record and legendary political skills, you couldn’t try to come up with a much bigger P.R. nightmare for the Republican Party than a Barbour nomination.

Conventional wisdom, looking ahead to the 2012 race, says the economy and spending will be the issues that will decide whether or not President Obama will get a 2^nd term. In many ways that’s correct; after all, if unemployment is hovering at 8.5%-9%, the President is likely to fall to a standard Republican nominee. However, I believe that with what’s going on throughout the world might give the Republican nominee an opening on the foreign policy front.

Ever since President Bush left office, the United States has really not had a foreign policy. President Obama is letting America’s foreign policy drift because he seems fervently attached to the idea that we should not offend dictators and autocrats but we should admonish and offend our allies. The civil war in Libya is taking an ominous turn, with Qaddafi’s forces gaining the upper hand over the people fighting for their freedom, and the President has done…nothing. The so-called “talks” with the Iranians to stop their nuclear program have been only slightly more productive than the Munich Agreement. China owns enough of our national debt to be able to use it as leverage against us. Our allies, especially the British, have been routinely offended by the President for reasons that have yet to be explained. Afghanistan is in something of a quagmire and Mexico is fighting a drug war that is spilling across our border. In short, our foreign policy has no vision, no strategy, and no real plan for going forward.

This, I think, is an opportunity for the Republican candidates. Any nominee for President needs to display at least some understanding of foreign policy in this post-9/11 world. Further, most of our candidates are Governors, folks who usually don’t have a lot of foreign policy experience. The President’s lack of foreign policy leadership gives our nominee a chance to come out looking and acting presidential on this issue. What all our candidates need to do is articulate a vision for how they want America to act in the world.

The world has endured what seems to be more than its share of catastrophes in the past few years, both man-made and from Nature.

There is a provisional mood of alarm among the peoples of our little planet, including those we label “rich” and “poor,” “powerful” and “powerless.” Almost everyone feels it; it is disturbing and intuitive. Optimism and hope seem at a low ebb. The daily news, now instantly transmitted by computers using e-mail, Twitter, Face Book and their almost-instantly created succeeding phenomena, gets worse and worse by the hour. What the hell is going on?

At this very moment, two catastrophes are occurring on opposite ends of the earth. One is man-made, the civil war in Libya in which a pitiless dictator is slaughtering his own population to retain power; and the other is in Japan, where Nature has served up an unspeakable earthquake and tsunami that has devastated one of the most important industrial nations on earth.

For almost one hundred years, one nation has had the resources, capability and moral/ethical desire to provide relief on the scale of the greatest world catastrophes. In war and peace, the United States of America, the world’s first modern democracy/republic, and the longest-lasting, has reliably, and often heroically, stepped up to help its neighbors and even its adversaries. Without the United States, World War I, World War II, the Cold War, holocausts in Europe and Africa, countless earthquakes, hurricanes and cyclones, volcanic eruptions, floods and other major disasters, might have been much worse. Much, much worse.

We were always there, and when we came to help, we we were welcomed. In an all-too familiar pattern, when the crisis was over, or resolved, gratitude often became criticism and resentment. Perhaps that goes with the territory. But when the next crisis came, we were there again, putting up the blood of our soldiers, the storehouses of our food harvests, the medical and scientific technologies of our scientists, the toil and sweat of our aid workers, physicians and nurses.

Now we face two crises. In Libya, the people have clearly revolted against a cruel and murderous dictator after 40 years, but his army of paid mercenaries and his elite troops are proving difficult to defeat, and the idealism of the Libyan youth is no match for Kaddafi’s soul-less murder and cruelty. If the Arab, European and U.S. states do not intervene, Kaddafi will triumph and then exact unspeakable revenge on his own people.

(more…)

There is a new Conservative Home/Daily Caller poll out.

The survey was e-mailed to 2,500 participants who identify as conservative Republicans and are considered likely primary voters. The majority of the panel is politically active, with 70 percent having contributed money to a campaign or worked on a campaign. Thirty-five percent of the members on the panel self-identify as part of the Tea Party, while 58 percent say they sympathize with the movement. Participants were asked six questions and asked to choose their favorite from among 17 potential primary candidates. There were 736 members of the panel who responded to the survey.

The results are curiously all over the charts.

Who do you like the most?

1. 15% – Chris Christie
2. 14% – Sarah Palin
3. 12% – Newt Gingrich
4. 10% – Mitt Romney
5. 9% – Michele Bachmann

Who is most likely to win in 2012?

1. 27% – Mitt Romney
2. 15% – Chris Christie
3. 12% – Newt Gingrich
4. 10% – Mike Huckabee
5. 6% – Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty (tie)

Who is the most conservative?

1. 19% – Michele Bachmann
2. 16% – Sarah Palin
3. 14% – Ron Paul
4. 11% – Newt Gingrich
5. 7% – Chris Christie

Who would do the best job on the economy?

1. 16% – Chris Christie
2. 15% – Mitt Romney
3. 14% – Donald Trump
4. 10% – Newt Gingrich
5. 7% – Sarah Palin

Who would do the best job keeping Washington’s spending under control?

1. 20% – Chris Christie
2. 11% – Newt Gingrich
3. 10% – Ron Paul and Sarah Palin (tie)
4. 9% – Michele Bachmann and Donald Trump (tie)

Who would do the best job handling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

1. 25% – John Bolton
2. 24% – Newt Gingrich
3. 7% – Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney (tie)
4. 6% – Mike Huckabee

Christie leads three categories. Romney, Bachmann, and Bolton lead one each.

Gingrich is in double digits in all categories but leads none. Christie is in double figures four times. Palin is in double digits in three, the same as Romney. Huckabee barely makes it into double digits in only one category — likely to win in 2012.

Romney had a margin of 12% in “likely to win in 2012″. Christie has a margin of 9% in “Likely to get spending under control”. The rest are essentially statistical ties of 3% or less.

Curiously, Bachmann leads Palin by 3% in “Who’s the most conservative”.

Notice once again the disparity between Likability and Electability. Here it is in graphical form:

Bachmann who is fifth in Likability doesn’t show in Electability. Palin drops from a virtual tie in Likability to tied with fifth place in Electability. Romney jumps from a fourth place finish in Likablity (albeit only five points down from the leader) to far and way the best at Electability.

Note that Huckabee didn’t even make the top five in Likability — his supposed strong suit. Could that perhaps be the result of his recent gaffes?

Here is the list of seventeen hopefuls the panel chose from:

• Michele Bachmann
• Haley Barbour
• Josh Bolton
• Herman Cain
• Chris Christie
• Mitch Daniels
• Newt Gingrich
• Mike Huckabee
• John Hunstman
• Gary Johnson
• Sarah Palin
• Ron Paul
• Tim Pawlenty
• Rick Perry
• Mitt Romney
• Rick Santorum
• Donald Trump

All in all, a most interesting poll.

The primary calendar set in place last summer by the RNC and the DNC looks more likely to stand this morning, ending the chaotic game of leapfrog that beleaguered the 2008 primary campaign.

The RNC/DNC plan set the four early state primaries as follows:

February 6 – Iowa
February 14 – New Hampshire
February 18 – Nevada
February 28 – South Carolina
March 6 – First day for proportionally-awarded delegate contests
April 1 – First day for winner-take-all contests

Obviously, there is some wiggle room in this calendar — New Hampshire will likely move back to be further ahead of Nevada, for example — but the whole thing appeared to be ready to fall apart when Florida GOP officials insisted their primary be held on January 31.

Now, those officials are saying Florida will move their primary back behind Iowa and New Hampshire, as long as they get an early slot in the calendar. Legislation will be introduced to move the Florida primary to mid- or late February — still out of compliance with the RNC rules (and potentially before Nevada or South Carolina), but symbolically a step back away from the precipice of primary leapfrog.

It will be interesting to see where Florida lands in February (or if they finally agree to move it back to March), what the RNC will do to sanction them, and where New Hampshire ends up moving as a result. For now, thankfully, it looks like the 2012 primary contests will officially begin on February 6, as planned by the national parties.

Over the weekend, Meg Whitman, gubernatorial candidate in 2010, announced she has no plans on running for Senate in 2012. Instead, she said, she’ll likely be busy campaigning for Mitt Romney for President.

Not a huge surprise, since Romney worked incredibly hard for Whitman in the 2010 campaign, but this is still a nice get for Team Romney in California.

Jason Mattera at Human Events has a fascinating interview with Donald Trump. In the interview, Trump outlines a lot of, predominantly, foreign policy related positions and says what we’d expect from a President Trump. What’s that? A more predominant America on the world stage in terms of trade and less foreign involvement in foreign wars. Here are some quotes from “The Donald:”

“I have a big ID, big recognition, maybe the highest there is among any candidate, some say of any candidate including the President.”

“I know what I’m doing. I’ve made a tremendous amount of money, and I’m willing to put that skill to use in this country. I know for a fact that our country is being ripped off by every intelligent country in the world, whether it’s China or India. I can name so many of them.”

“I see us being totally manipulated and controlled by Russia telling us how many missiles to make and when to make them. Since when does Russia start telling this country what we can produce in terms of the military?”

“Let me give you an example…South Korea. We send our ships to protect them. Do they pay us? They don’t pay us. Why are we protecting them, and if we’re going to protect them, why aren’t they paying us?”

“…[H]aving countries that are ripping us off contribute hundreds of billions of dollars back into this economy and you wouldn’t have to worry too much about cutting the budget.”

Read the entire article, it’s a fascinating look into an open, wealthy man seriously considering a bid for President. I’ll be honest, I’m still not sure what to think of Trump’s potential candidacy and if it’s merely posturing or a serious bid. But, that said, he’s outlining some interesting ideas that will set him apart from the mainstream. One thing’s for sure – he won’t be a cookie cutter candidate if he runs.

_______________________________________________________

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

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(more…)

Gov. Mitch Daniels discusses the criticism he has received regarding a “truce” on contentious social issues, as well as defense spending cuts, on Uncommon Knowledge:



The full interview will be released later in the week.

Hat-tip: Big Government.

When did Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee start to hate each other?

As we all know, Mike Huckabee once lost a lot of weight and wrote a book about his experience; “Quit digging your grave with a knife and fork”. Something I noticed, looking at the back of the cover, was this review of the book by… wait for it… Mitt Romney:

“Governor Huckabee’s inspiring story is a call to action for anyone who has ever struggled with managing their weight.  His good-natured humor and understanding shine through, and his advice is sound, straight-forward, and easy to follow.”

If they always hated each other, why put Romney’s review of your book on the cover of it? Of course, it could have been a decision by the editor, but why Mitt Romney? He was hardly known back then, still polling in single digits. Also, to my knowledge, he has never struggled with his weight. And he probably didn’t write that review for a newspaper or something; he was busy being governor of Massachusetts and I can’t imagine him having time to read that many books. So someone must have asked him for a comment, and someone must have decided to put it on the cover.

I kind of want to believe these guys used to be friends before a vicious presidential campaign got in the way of it – but I’ve probably just watched too many movies.

Any theories? Sorry if I’m bringing up something old, I haven’t seen it discussed before.