The 2012 presidential election has officially begun, and the conservative activist class is picking their horses early. Already, we are breaking down into Rombats and Huckanuts, Palinistas and Paulites. And each of these nascent factions has a stark commonality; their candidate is conservatism’s one and only true standard-bearer. Only candidate X is the true heir to the legacy of Ronald Reagan, the right’s great hero. Candidate’s Y and Z are liberal RINO heretics. Only my candidate can save us!!

This takes me back to my first ever RINO-hunt, and it was quite a doozy. The year was 2004, the place was Pennsylvania, and the target was Snarlin’ Arlen himself. The man of the hour was…Pat Toomey? Yes, that cerebral, wonky, newly-minted senator from Pennsylvania was the original tea party RINO-hunter. While Sarah Palin was still on speaking terms with the Murkowski’s, while Romney and Huckabee remained far from national stardom, while Marco Rubio toiled in Florida’s legislative vineyards, Pat Toomey was Mr. Republican, the toast of conservatism.

Only, as a proud former Student for Toomey, I can tell you it was never about Pat as a person, but the vision he represented, and which his opponent, Senator Specter, never did. Toomey lost, heart-breakingly, by one percent. He very well could have taken his ball and gone home, scorned as he was by the entire Republican establishment, from George W. Bush, to “ultra” conservative Rick Santorum, to a vast majority of Pennsylvania’s county committee chairs. Instead, he worked, and worked pretty hard, for the very people who had spent the last several months ensuring that Benedict Arlen beat him in the primary. He did so because the alternative–standing bye while others fought for conservative principals–was not an acceptable option.  Ultimately, of course, Pat got the last laugh, and I’m confident he’ll make a terrific senator from Pennsylvania. But it was never about Pat Toomey. And Pat Toomey is, for all his strengths, not the kind of candidate to inspire die-hard personal devotion. His wonky style reminds one of an earlier Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal. Yet, in 2004, conservatives in PA flocked to his banner, because of what he stood for, not who he was.

I point this out not to single out Toomey as a special character. Quite the opposite. I point it out to hammer home a core truth of conservatism, one which conservatives need to learn, and relearn, and relearn again and again until we finally get it. The lesson is a simple one. Conservatism which functions as a personality cult fails. Conservatism which functions as a set of guiding principals for prudent citizenship succeeds.

Really, it is just that simple. Like any good conservative, I love Ronald Reagan, and kind of liked George W. Bush. I’m neutral to positive on Palin and Romney, neutral to negative on Mike Huckabee (but would support him in a general election), and open to most of the rest of the current 2012 field as well. But let’s keep in mind that none of these politicians actually managed to bring about the enduring triumph of conservatism. This is not meant as a critique of either Reagan or Bush. Both had their strengths and accomplishments. Both have benefited (or soon will) from history. Nor is it intended as a critique of Romney, Huckabee or Palin. Each has had successes and failures. But conservatives–better than members of almost any other political movement–should understand and recognize the fallibility of human nature and government.

There is one major contender I haven’t mentioned, and I will do so now, because I think he illuminates the dichotomy I’m driving at better than anyone else. You can say a lot of things about Newt Gingrich, but a cuddly inspirational speaker he is not, and never has been. A deeply cerebral intellectual, highly skilled political strategist, a man of large brilliance and equally stark flaws, all true. But the object of a personality cult? Not in 1994. All the love which the right had held for Reagan was directed, in 1994, into the contract with America, a list of principles and accomplishments on which Republicans promised to govern. The contract was all about principle and policy, not at all about personality. But something happened to Newt in 1995, and 1996. Gradually, his sense of self expanded, and the principals of 94 were left behind. Bluntly put, Gingrich became so identified with the movement that his personal flaws obscured the message. And gradually, the wheels began to come off. Bill Clinton won reelection in 1996, something which seemed highly unlikely in 1994. And, for Gingrich, things became personal. Does anyone else remember the election of 1998, in which the GOP came dangerously close to losing its majorities, and which set the stage for the Democrat senate of 2000-2002? The Republicans, in the 1998 election, abandoned the contract in favor of anti-Clintonism. In contrast, the Democrats put forward a list of issues and initiatives they would enact. There is a pattern here. And, because of his focus on Clinton, to the exclusion of the original principals of 1994, Gingrich was eventually forced to resign, for failing to live up to the standards he expected from the President. Too late, he realized, or was forced to realize, that the personal conflict between him and Clinton was taking the party away from doing the things it was elected to do.

Similar dynamics seized the Republican Party during George W. Bush’s second term. As the left was caught up in a reverse cult of personality with President Bush, defining themselves almost entirely by their opposition to him, so we became the anti-anti-Bush, willing to defend him even when we knew he was wrong. The left went off the deep-end. Did we let them pull us with them? Did we become so wrapped up in Bush (and Reagan nostalgia) that we forgot who we were? And did we become so protective of our majorities that we forgot why we’d elected them in the first place? I don’t blame the politicians for acting like politicians. Blame rather the conservatives who didn’t constantly and vigilantly hold them to our core principals.

What are these principals? I think they are four-fold: personal responsibility, limited government, traditional moral values and, underlying and tying all these together, a strong sense that something intangible but very real called the American ideal is worth preserving and defending from threats foreign and domestic. I think Ronald Reagan deeply understood and connected with these ideals, but he does not and should not define them.  In our search for “Reagan’s heir”, conservatives have been, I fear, guilty of a slightly milder but still pernicious form of the Obamamaniac cult of personality which has slain all before it on the left. There is something inherently unconservative about a cult of personality. Respect for great conservative leaders past and present? Absolutely. Search for a candidate who fits our principals very well? Without question. But even should we find “Reagan’s heir”, is there not a danger in becoming so defined by him (or her perhaps) that we lose sight of Reagan’s goals? Will we become like our friends across the partisan divide, eagerly lapping up empty rhetoric like “we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for”? Time, perhaps, that we stopped waiting for the perfect conservative messiah to come riding in on a white horse, and sleigh the dragons of progressivism for us.

Of course, there is an equal and opposite tendency to that of the cult of personality, and one which, I fear, often mixes with it in a toxic brew in our minds. For, even as many conservatives were too uncritical of our Republican majority, an equal number went the opposite direction. Any slightest deviation from conservative orthodoxy, any slightest hint of political calculation or compromise is taken as a personal betrayal. Politicians calculate and compromise. It’s what they do. To assume that we can hold up a politician, any politician, to the platonic ideal of a conservative statesman, which exists only in our minds but never in reality, is to engage in the very same utopian thinking which has led progressives down the garden path to disaster in the first place. Rather, let us seek, like Aristotle, for the candidate who best combines the virtues we need in our leaders, all the while knowing full well that they will, in the end, disappoint us. Should we call them on it when they fall short? Absolutely. Should we expect and be prepared for it? Yes. In short, as a friend once told me, disillusionment is good, cynicism is bad. We should have no illusions that we will ever see a perfectly conservative government. We should eschew false expectations about an implacably rock-ribbed congress ever rolling back the power and influence of leviathan. But that doesn’t mean we should give up hope, because as conservatives, our hope was never in government in the first place, and because even calculating compromising politicians can accomplish a lot, even if it’s to keep things from getting worse.

We should become disillusioned about politicians; because they are fallible human beings and giving them our total trust, adoration and worship would be both blasphemous and a disservice to ourselves and the politicians in question. In addition, only if we begin with no illusions about our chosen standard-bearer in the first place, can we honestly hold them accountable when necessary. But we must not grow cynical about politics, because we believe our principals are true and the cause is far too important for despairing acquiescence to dangerous ideas. The challenges America faces are very real. Our debt is sky-rocketing, our communities are increasingly broken, our system of government, healthcare, education and even employment is based on an industrial society which is dead and gone. Our country faces a crisis of confidence in itself; half of us seem to think we are no longer capable of assimilating new immigrants, while the other half believes such assimilation to be undesirable.

We are a nation which, at it’s core, wishes only to be left alone, but which has been forced by circumstance into a role as global hegemon for which we will paradoxically only remain truly suited to the degree that we remain reluctant. Such challenges and paradoxes will not be solved through blind adherence to one fallible politician or another. We must be prudent. We must be thoughtful. We must seek leaders based on their ability to bring our nation safely through these crises with her character in tact, not based on how they make us feel. And, all the while, we must be prepared to curb the inevitable excesses of the politicians into whom we have poured our hopes, our dreams and our expectations when the power goes to their heads. In short, we must start acting like conservatives.

Let me begin this discussion with a couple disclaimers:

First, I come not from the perspective of an avowed Mitt Romney supporter. In contrast, I actually strongly opposed Mitt in the 2008 primaries, thanks to my deficient knowledge of politics at the time creating an incomplete and superficial opinion of the Governor for myself. However, since he conceded the nomination to Sen. McCain, the actions he has taken have done nothing but impress me; in short, he has done exactly what a 2012 hopeful should do to build a well-oiled organization and ground game and position him/herself in the eyes of the electorate.

And secondly, much of what I write would apply more to a general election than to the upcoming GOP primaries.

With the palpable swelling of combativeness and, sometimes, anger, within much of the Republican Party, it should come as no surprise that many of our prospective 2012 candidates have echoed these sentiments.

For instance, witness these highlights from the increasingly popular Tim Pawlenty’s CPAC speech:

Combative, assertive, almost militant. Sure, this may appeal to the diehard members of the party base (a sensible strategy for a candidate courting the Tea Party, like Pawlenty), but it may not sit well with the broader electorate, and especially Independents, who have probably spent enough time thinking about the difficulties in their lives and the country. It may also not particularly appeal to younger current and prospective Republicans, who want things to look forward to, not fear, in the future.

Contrast this approach with the one Romney has taken in recent weeks. Witness these videos his Free and Strong PAC have produced. First, from an event in New Hampshire:

And next, some of the reaction to his CPAC speech:

And to cap it off, his entire CPAC speech, fittingly entitled “Believe in America”:

As quite a few members of the R’4’12 community have reminded us, the most optimistic candidate in an election almost always wins. Mitt has apparently honed a highly appropriate message, focusing on the steps needed to revitalize the American growth engine, unleash our precious inherent entrepreneurial spirit, and remake our country into a shining city upon a hill.

Various items I’ve come across recently.

What You Can Learn About Wisconsin Dispute from Differences in Poll Questions

The subject matter, the Wisconsin stand-off, is of course of interest. But I thought this item was more of value as an more general example of how important it is to understand the question that is asked when interpreting poll results.

In a candidate poll, the question is generally fairly simple: “Are you going to vote for Smith or Jones?” But when polling about issues, the results can depend upon the wording of the question.

For example, Quinnipiac found a 45% to 42% national plurality in favor of the governor by asking, “In order to reduce state budget deficits, would you support or oppose limiting collective bargaining for public employees?” On the other hand, Pew found a 42% to 31% national plurality opposed to the governor by asking, “From what you’ve read and heard about the dispute between Wisconsin’s governor and public employee unions over collective bargaining rights, do you side more with the governor or the public employee unions?”

Quinnipiac put the collective bargaining rights dispute in context as a potential way to reduce the state budget deficit. Pew described the entire issue as a collective bargaining dispute and never mentioned the state budget deficit. When the deficit is mentioned, the governor does much better; when it’s all about limiting collective bargaining rights, the unions do better.

Move over Government, Walmart’s the New Regulator in Town

A great example of how the market can achieve goals more efficiently than the government. Some of the most important environmental gains are being achieved not through law, but through that bugaboo of the trendy left, Walmart.

Andrea Thomas, senior VP-sustainability for Walmart, the flagship U.S. retailer of the Walmart Stores, which also includes Sam’s Clubs and numerous chains overseas, said it’s really consumers setting the agenda, not the retailer. “Our customer is becoming much more articulate about needs in this space,” she said. “The best way to do it is to work together as an industry.”

28% of Voters Are Both Fiscal and Social Conservatives

Are you a SoCon or a FiCon? Rasmussen says 28% of us are both.

On fiscal issues, the breakdown is as follows:

• 46% Conservative
• 38% Moderate
• 14% Liberal

On social issues, it’s a bit closer:

• 37% Conservative
• 30% Moderate
• 28% Liberal

It’s also interesting that only 26% of government workers consider themselves fiscal conservatives. Wonder why that might be?

This is a poll of Likely Voters of both parties, so one would presume the split might be about even if only Republicans were polled. The FiCon count might also be up a bit because of our impending national economic meltdown. As Ben Jonson (I think) once said: “Nothing so concentrates the mind as the imminent prospect of the gallows.”

Mitch Daniels Sticks to His Call for Truce

Speaking of which, Daniels is still saying that we need to concentrate our minds on the gallows afore us:

“If you don’t believe that the American public is mortally threatened — as I do — by this one overriding problem we have built for ourselves, then of course I’m wrong,” Daniels said in an interview on “Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson.”

“All I was saying was, we’re going to need to unify all kinds of people, and we’re going — freedom is going — to need every friend it can get,” he said.

Reid: Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!

And speaking of fiscal issues, I’m sure that you agree that, while cutting the budget is important, we have to be careful to preserve essential government programs like the annual Cowboy Poetry Festival. Thank you, Sharron Angle.

“The mean-spirited bill, H.R. 1 … eliminates the National Endowment of the Humanities, National Endowment of the Arts,” said Reid. “These programs create jobs. The National Endowment of the Humanities is the reason we have in northern Nevada every January a cowboy poetry festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist.”

Gabrielle Giffords Plans to Attend Husband’s Shuttle Launch

Some good news on Gabrielle Giffords. Godspeed, Gabby.

How Blogger Stung Undercover Federal Sex Sting

Fascinating story on how an individual campaigner against child sexual abuse brought down a government website that was also trying to trap pedophiles. Very interesting picture of the ineptitude of Janet Napolitano’s DHS. Two particular quotes stand out:

The computer programmer also noticed that the “Precious Treasure Holiday Company” site appeared to have been designed using a 2003 version of Microsoft’s FrontPage. In retrospect, she remarked, the use of such outdated software should have tipped her to the fact that the site was a U.S. government production.

I cracked up when I read that. Then further along:

While expressing regret for inadvertently derailing the DHS undercover site, the woman said she could not understand why federal agents did not clue in the web hosting firm as to who was behind the “Precious Treasure Holiday Company” web site. Or why DHS did not simply place the site on a server it owned or better controlled (and to which it would easily have been able to mask its connection).

“I can’t figure out why they didn’t anticipate that someone might find the site and have a problem with it,” the computer programmer said.

It’s not surprising that Napolitano has the lowest ratings of any cabinet member:

… only 25% of Likely Voters have at least a somewhat favorable impression of Napolitano, down from 32% in June of last year. Forty-seven percent (47%) have an unfavorable opinion of the former Arizona governor, while 29% are not sure what they think of her. The new findings include seven percent (7%) with a Very Favorable view of Napolitano and 29% with a Very Unfavorable one.

Please add any other topics of interest in the comments.

As I’ve described before, we need to balance the budget by 2013. If we don’t, our debt will be so much greater than our GDP and our federal revenues that eliminating the deficit in my lifetime will likely be an academic question. Interest rates will rise, investment will fall – and the inverse ratio of entitlements to taxation for young Americans will be devastating.

Short of balancing the budget, we should enact serious entitlement and defense reforms (the former which House Republicans claim they will address in the 2012 budget, though I’m not holding my breath) by 2013 so that our debt can at least be near-manageable. We have a few years of leeway on entitlements left before they fall off the cliff (perhaps up to five, depending on whose numbers you look at). Defense reforms should include eliminating non-competitive contracts and getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP, as well as shutting down some of our international bases. Some of those savings should go towards upgrading our air and naval forces, and the rest should go towards paying back the national debt.

Unfortunately, neither party has shown the political courage necessary to do either of the above in the current government funding debate. Republicans want to save just over 15 days worth of debt for the rest of this year, which we add at $4 billion per day. Democrats want to save even less. Meanwhile, the Debt-Paying Generation mentioned in the Students for Daniels interview keeps seeing the light at the end of the tunnel get further and further away.

This means drastic solutions are needed from the American people. Conservative should urge Congress to shut the government down unless $500 billion is cut from current spending for the rest of the fiscal year. Does that sound too harsh? Consider the following:

1. The Congressional Research Service found $105 billion in a slush fund in the health care bill that was mostly unknown when the law passed.

2. We’ll spend over $40 billion on energy and other subsidies to the private sector.

3. Iraq and Afghanistan are a waste of lives and money, especially since most strategies our politicians use in those places are for their political survival, not for national security. The savings would be over $50 billion.

4. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report showed at least $100 billion in waste/duplication annually, meaning around $60 billion could be saved.

5. Medical tort reform would save anywhere from just over $10 billion to over $30 billion.

These are quick estimates based upon having 60% or so of the fiscal year left, taken from the annual funding levels in these areas. While they don’t add up to $500 billion, they do add up to a little less than $300 billion without addressing Medicare/Medicaid fraud ($100 billion per year), entitlements (well over $1.3 trillion annually), the Departments of Education, Agriculture and Energy or the Transportation Security Administration. In fact, other than Iraq and Afghanistan, these should be relatively non-controversial, especially if Republicans put the media to good use regarding number one.

The simple fact is that without entitlement reforms we can eliminate the entire discretionary portion of the budget and still count on being insolvent as a nation within several decades. The last Congress continued the previous ten years’ worth of egregious spending, and so far this Congress has failed to step up to the plate. We need to shrink the one-third of wages (including Social Security payments and the like) coming from the government; we need to enact tax reform that is fair, economically efficient and cuts out loopholes; and we need the federal government to stick within its Constitutional and affordable means (in that order) with regards to policy programs.

And before the fear-mongering starts…no, a government shut down would not be devastating. There are other, more substantive arguments in favor of this view, but this short Heritage Foundation fact sheet outlines the impact fairly well. I just hope this tag team of conservatives can hold the line in the Senate, and the 80-odd freshmen Republicans in the House can do the same. A controlled shut down now is far preferable to the chaotic shut down that will occur if we don’t fix spending soon.

Dot #1:

Hillary Clinton’s spokesman has launched a public attack on the Pentagon for the way it is treating military prisoner Bradley Manning, the US soldier suspected of handing the US embassy cables to WikiLeaks.

PJ Crowley, the assistant secretary of state for public affairs at the US state department, said Manning was being “mistreated” in the military brig at Quantico, Virginia. “What is being done to Bradley Manning is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid on the part of the department of defence,” he said.
…
Asked about the controversy at a White House press conference, Obama revealed he had asked the Pentagon “whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are.”

Dot #2:

[F]ormer president Bill Clinton came out strongly Thursday night for the controversial military measure [implementing a no-fly zone] to help the Libyan rebels in their struggle to topple Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

“We have the planes to make an appropriate contribution to this,” the 42nd president told an influential dinner crowd attending Newsweek & The Daily Beast’s Women in the World summit at Manhattan’s Millennium Hotel. “I wouldn’t do it if they hadn’t asked,” Clinton said, referring to anti-Gaddafi rebel leaders who have publicly and repeatedly requested the no-fly zone to stop bombardment from Gaddafi’s air force. “We should do it.”

Dot #3:

Gallup has just released a poll showing Obama’s approval rating dropping to levels not seen since mid December last year.

…

Obama enjoyed a bit of a bounce last January. All that talk about bipartisanship, shellackings received, lessons learned,  etc. helped. Unfortunately for him, reality has hit home.

Dot #4:

Any Democrat having thoughts on mounting a credible primary challenge for Barack Obama is rapidly running out of time.

I wonder if these four dots can be connected.

**Update**

Dot #5:

Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that delays in offshore oil and gas drilling permits are “ridiculous” at a time when the economy is still rebuilding, according to attendees at the IHS CERAWeek conference.

(h\t Daniel)

You’d almost get the impression that Haley Barbour will be running for President…

A few days ago, he hired Jim Dyke as a communications director.

Then, less than two days ago, he hired online communications manager James Richardson.

And now, news from New Hampshire is that he’s picked up veteran strategist Paul Young to “help the Mississippi governor build his operation there.”

Folks, Haley Barbour will be in our field of candidates in this campaign. (And it is increasingly looking like Mitch Daniels will not).

Rutgers-Eagleton New Jersey 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Mitt Romney 13%
• Chris Christie 12%
• Sarah Palin 11%
• Mike Huckabee 6%
• Ron Paul 3%
• Michael Bloomberg 1%
• Newt Gingrich 1%
• Tim Pawlenty 1%
• David Petraeus 0%
• Michele Bachmann 0%
• Scott Brown 0%
• Jeb Bush 0%
• Others 9%
• Don’t Know 42%

(more…)

We Ask America brings us the latest update from the state of Iowa:

If your caucus were held today, which—if any—of the following possible Republican candidates would you support?

• Mike Huckabee – 20.33%
• Sarah Palin – 14.12%
• Newt Gingrich – 13.90%
• Mitt Romney – 13.33%
• Donald Trump – 9.04%
• Ron Paul – 4.52%
• Tim Pawlenty – 3.50%
• Haley Barbour – 2.60%
• Mitch Daniels – 1.81%
• Other – 6.10%
• Unsure – 10.85%

Poll was taken 3/10/11 among 885 likely caucus-goers, and has an MoE of 3.29%.

(more…)

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has told close associates that she is leaning toward running for president.

“She is leaning more toward doing it,” a Republican close to Bachmann told CNN. “The people she’s meeting on the ground, they love her. She is definitely more encouraged when she makes these trips.”

Bachmann has been traveling extensively to the early primary states and has been met by great enthusiasm among the conservative base.  This move by Bachmann could indicate that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will not be running, as a number of former Palin activists have been sending their resumes to Bachmann’s team.  With her fundraising prowess and her die-hard support among Tea Partyers, Bachmann would instantly become a  player in the Iowa caucuses.  With Palin and Huckabee likely out as of now, Rep. Bachmann, and others like former Sen. Rick Santorum, will push hard to fill the void they leave behind among the evangelical and Tea Party base in Iowa and elsewhere.

Recent front page writings on this site have offered the discreet suggestion that, as things now stand, defeating President Obama next year will be tough to say the least.  Since the first of the year, the president’s approval and reelect numbers, according to RCP,  have risen somewhat from those just prior to the elections last fall.  They do, however, now appear to be declining once again. Yet, I was recently told by a reliable senior national Republican Party source that Obama’s numbers vice the range of potential GOP challengers in several of the key states including Colorado, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, and Ohio resemble those of former President George W. Bush as he was heading into his 2004 reelection cycle–vulnerable but salvageable and that a linear projection of current structural trends, as they appear likely to play out, favors the president in the Electoral College.  This brought to mind Dave Gaultier’s post on March 2 2012 GOP Field Beginning to Resemble 2004 Dems suggesting that some of the leading GOP contenders may be having second thoughts regarding the probability of defeating Obama.

The task of unseating an incumbent president is daunting to say the least.  Consider the history of presidential elections.  Americans are generally reluctant to fire their president; they will do so, however, but the cards have to fall into place at the right time and in the right way.  Most importantly, the challenger has to be perceived as acceptable and as a better alternative to the incumbent by a portion of those who voted for the incumbent in the previous election. Since the end of World War II three incumbent presidents were turned out of office–Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush.  A fourth, George W. Bush survived a very close call–notable because, historically, incumbent presidents are either defeated or they are reelected by comfortable margins as opposed to a squeaker as was the case with Bush in 2004.

Of the three defeated, Gerald Ford was unique in that he had never been elected in the first place and thus had no original base of support and was someone who almost certainly would not have been nominated and elected on his own had he sought the office under normal circumstances. Having no natural base nor existing political organization of his own, he was highly vulnerable to a number of challengers, including the ubiquitous peanut farmer from rural Georgia.  Still, had that election campaign continued for another four or five days, Ford may very well have pulled it out as Carter’s margin was collapsing by the day toward the end as people were beginning to have doubts about the obscure, unknown and rather odd Carter. He was beginning to fail the test of being an acceptable and better alternative to Ford.

Of the three defeated incumbents, Jimmy Carter’s defeat was more “traditional” in that soon after taking office he began to be perceived as being in over his head.  During his second year he was quickly caught in a tidal wave of failed policies that dated back to previous administrations in both the domestic economic and national security spheres; then Carter’s own policies and general ineptitude compounded his predicament.  By mid 1978, a majority of the electorate was clearly fighting the idea that they had to reelect Carter.  By summer of 1980 it was only a question as to whether Reagan was an acceptable alternative to enough soft Republicans, independents, and some of those who had voted for Carter in ’76 to win the election.  Clearly, Reagan had to reach beyond—considerably beyond—his natural conservative base, attract voters who had never before voted for a Republican and also attract (and motivate) a noticeable number of previously disaffected voters who had essentially given up on the system.  Most everyone will agree that Reagan was an extraordinary candidate with rare skills, and all of the normal political indicators favored the challenger.  Yet, a month before the election the polls (including Reagan’s own internal polling) had the race close to dead even.  Many analysts say that election was not finally decided until the famous debate with Carter that served to reassure a decisive segment of the electorate that Reagan was indeed an acceptable and better alternative to Carter.

The case of George H.W. Bush was a bit unique perhaps in that Bush was one of the very rare examples of an incumbent vice-president being nominated and elected to succeed the president he had served for two consecutive terms.  Consequently, Bush was elected in 1988 largely by Reagan’s coalition as opposed to one of his own creation.  It is probably not unfair to say that voters were trying to give Reagan a third term as Bush essentially ran on Reagan’s coattails.  At this point in his first term (March 1991), Bush’s popularity was in the stratosphere largely as a result of the successful prosecution of Gulf War I.  Yet, six months later his numbers had dropped substantially and continued to decline throughout 1992, not as a result of any one or two specific issues but more from the general sense that he did not have a good grasp of the changes underway in the country and the economy or their implications.  There was also a perception by many that Bush was more of a manager than a leader.  Bill Clinton was perceived as an acceptable, credible alternative to Bush who had a better sense of the new era spawned by America’s victory in the Cold War and the information technology revolution.  Whatever the realities may or may not have been, Clinton was able to snare the support of a number of key demographic groups that had voted for Bush in ’88 and Reagan prior to.  It is also likely that with the Cold War successfully over, Americans were more willing to take a chance on a “new era” candidate from a younger generation.  But, in any case, the fact that Bush did not really have a strong base coalition of his own creation made him particularly vulnerable to the feeling of insecurity prevalent in the national mood and the allure of the charismatic Clinton.

Another feature of the successful challengers to incumbents in the cases discussed is the distinct asymmetry in the general characteristics between the candidates.  The successful challengers tended to represent the polar opposite of the defeated incumbent in style and persona, and also ideology in the case of Reagan.

So, what does recent history say about the prospects for unseating President Obama next year?  If the previous cases discussed here are any guide, it will be a very tough battle even if most of the general political indicators are in our favor as they were in 1980.  Unlike Ford and Bush, Obama was nominated and elected by a coalition of his own creation.  Unlike Carter, he has the knack for appearing to be more competent than he actually is, at least more presentable.  Obviously, most of the determinants have yet to play out—world events and how Obama deals with the unexpected, the general feeling about the economy, the characteristics and style of the GOP nominee, but most important perhaps will be the strength and durability of Obama’s 2008 support coalition and the extent to which our candidate can win votes from those who voted for Obama last time or simply did not vote.

Europeans don’t really like the US. That’s common knowledge among most people interested in politics, but a question rarely asked (or rarely really thought about) is… why? Why do we hate you?

Notice first of all that I don’t hate America, quite the other way around. Still, among most Europeans (no matter what country you are talking about, to different degrees), anti-americanism is so popular it is almost an end in itself.

Many say it’s the difference in policy. And that’s true, to some extent. Or the culture. And that’s true too. But it doesn’t explain why Europe is at the same time so welcoming towards other cultures and countries with policies more different from ours than American policies are.

Rather than the reason for the hatred being differences, I think it lies in our similarities: We can relate to you, and yet we cannot understand you. Americans and Europeans are similar enough; most of us are white, listen to the same music/watch the same movies, we either speak or understand english etc.

We can relate to you. Therefore, we can hate you. Because despite the fact that you have such great taste in movies, music and so on, you have a really bad taste (from a European perspective) in choosing leaders. We expect more from you, because we know you’re not stupid.

With the Africans, it’s different, because we cannot relate to them. It may be racistic, but on some subconscious level I think we still see Africans as less intelligent and lower our expectations. Obviously, they are less educated, so maybe this is justified (not that they are less intelligent or anything). They may elect really corrupt leaders and act way worst than America, but these people haven’t even learned to watch Jim Carrey movies, so that’s really what one would expect from them. Same of course goes with muslim countries and muslim immigrants.

One of my best friends brought this up when I met him last night, and said the reason the early pentecostal movement in Sweden was hated was because they were like regular people, from regular backgrounds, only they believed differently. If they had been cultish, they could have been shrugged off more easily (“Those guys are just crazy, so [insert pentecostal practice here] is just what you would expect from them”). When people can feel they have something in common with you, and you still act in a way they just cannot understand, that is when they can sincerely start to hate you. You should know better, because you are like them in all other ways.

I’d love to have some discussion and hear what you think about this. I haven’t thought much about it before, but I was fascinated by what he said (he certainly isn’t the first to say it).

In the hard economic times we are currently in, the discussion right now is focused on cuts and austerity. This is rightly so; we as a nation have been spending far too much and have left entitlements that if not changed, could bankrupt our country. So, understandably our would-be Republican candidates and leading public figures are talking about cuts and sacrifice and austerity, but I also think that there needs to be another word in the Republican Party’s vocabulary: compassion.

Back in 2000, then Governor George W. Bush and his team coined the term “Compassionate Conservatism”. The basic premise was to take back the label of “compassion” from liberals who think that more government = compassion. Now, we can debate exactly what President Bush’s compassionate conservatism actually was and accomplished, but the main point, at least as it relates to this post, is that Bush was willing to talk about compassion and dealing with issues like poverty. This made it harder for Democrats to peg Bush as a “heartless conservative” because he clearly spelled out that he wasn’t.

I wrote a post a while ago about how the GOP needs to talk like optimists if we want the chance to win against President Obama. I also think that the Republican candidates need to talk about issues we don’t normally talk about such as poverty. This doesn’t mean talking about “abusing the welfare system” or “those who don’t want to work”. This means talking about the working poor, people who work hard and are playing by the rules, yet are still in poverty. How about talking about college students who are going to be going into the working world with crushing debts? How about discussing how to better educate children beyond taking tests and breaking the teacher’s unions? These are the kinds of issues that are often not talked about by Republican candidates.

Now, I certainly don’t have the policy subscriptions to solve these issues, but I think our Republican candidates need to talk about these issues. We as a Party are so often unfairly tarred as being cold or uncaring, and I think our candidates, as people who want to be the standard-bearer of our Party, have an obligation to tackle this perception problem.

Two key early states have lent Romney a couple more big endorsements: Florida and New Hampshire.

In Florida, former state GOP chairman and current state senator (“a powerful State Senator,” according to the Florida Times-Union) John Thrasher endorsed Romney today.

And in New Hampshire, Ruth Griffin has endorsed Romney. Griffin was an RNC member from New Hampshire for two terms and “one of Huckabee’s most respected supporters in 2008,” according to Politico. Interestingly, Griffin cites RomneyCare as one of the reasons she is switching her support to Mitt this time around.

These are two pieces of great news, from two highly important states, if you’re a Romney supporter at this early stage in the campaign.

Reuters reports a poll by Market Decisions on what the residents of Massachusetts think about MassCare (aka RomneyCare).  A whopping 84% of them are satisfied with it.

84%

Even after the damage that Deval Patrick and his Democrat cohorts have done to it.

84%

The poll by Market Decisions, a research and consulting group, found that 84 percent of residents are satisfied with the Massachusetts plan, which requires most adults to have health insurance.

…

The state health plan, launched under former Governor Mitt Romney, was given high marks for the range of services and the quality of care offered, according to the poll.

…

The survey was conducted from October 19 to November 30 and had a margin of error of 3.7 percent. It was released by the Massachusetts Health Connector, which helps individuals find insurance coverage.

84%

I have stated many times that the biggest difference between ObamaCare and MassCare is in the way they were constructed. Romney brought all sides to the table where everyone worked out their differences to their satisfaction. Nobody was 100% happy with it, but nearly everyone bought off on it. As a result, it was passed overwhelmingly by the Legislature with a majority of both parties supporting it. (The fact that it is only 72 pages certainly helped.) And the Massachusetts people still support it by a wide margin even to this day.

ObamaCare’s 2700 pages on the other hand, were formulated in secret; passed via legislative tricks, bribery, and extortion; and rammed down the protesting throats of the American people. THAT is the biggest difference between the two plans. It is not so much some “State vs. Federal rights” thingy that Romney has been touting so much recently. It is the fundamental American principle at the very heart of our nation, the consent of the people to be governed.

Americans like to be consulted, to feel part of the process of the making of laws. We don’t mind mandates if we have a say in the matter, and every law is a mandate in some form or the other. To have dictates rammed down our throats by an arrogant Congress and President against the expressed will of the people really sticks in our craw.

If Romney would emphasize THAT difference more than the federalism argument, I suspect it would work better for him.

National Journal has a poll of political insiders, in which they ask: “Which potential GOP presidential candidate’s stock has risen the most in the past few months?” They also ask who has fallen the most. The answers will not surprise anyone but the most ardent devotees of certain candidates.

Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty have, by any reasonable assessment, gained the most ground in recent months.  Mitt Romney and Chris Christie also get good support (Democrats put Romney in a virtual three-way tie for first, Republican have him in a virtual tie with Barbour and Christie for third).

And Sarah Palin’s recent performance is also crystal clear. It’s astounding that she has done so badly so can even put Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee in the shade. Again, there are some differences in the view of the race based on party, but both are totally agreed that Palin is falling like a rock.

“Every day, fewer Republicans take her seriously and are unafraid to mock her,” said one Democratic Insider.

Indeed, Republican Insiders were brutal in their assessment of Palin. “Looking attractive, and being attacked by the news media are not sufficient qualifications for President,” said one GOP Insider. “Her market niche is being filled by [GOP Minnesota Rep.] Michele Bachmann,” said another GOP Insider. “When people say Bachmann is like Palin, only smarter, that’s a problem.”

It’s interesting that Republicans rated Romney and Barbour third and fourth in terms of gaining the most ground, but also in losing the most.

National Journal didn’t net out the figures, but I thought that would be interesting, so I added that. Again, it’s interesting that the Democrats have Romney at a strong third in net terms, while the Republicans rate him as a net negative, tied with Huckabee. In fact, the view of Romney is the biggest divergence between the two parties’ insiders. The next biggest divergence is about Gingrich, with a surprising number of Democrats thinking he’s done well. I can’t help but wonder what leads them to that conclusion.

The original data is at the link, as well as the rest of National Journal’s assessment, and the list of “Insiders”.

Update: Wording change in second paragraph — see comment 1. Thanks, Ray.

It’s been one week since the last update, and in that time we’ve had a Presidential Forum in Iowa, seen Haley Barbour make a couple of key hires and court some potential endorsers, and watched as Pawlenty stole a top Iowa aide away from Huckabee. Who did the investors think last week favored?

Daniels’ slide over the past week was actually much worse than the movement above shows. He peaked at 12.0 early in the week, and then fell more than a point and a half when Barbour began making his hiring moves. Likewise, Barbour peaked near four and a half before cooling off and sliding back down to his current position.

The two big winners in all of this, though? Second place goes to Mitt Romney, who secures his frontrunner position in lieu of any moves by Huckabee, Palin, or Daniels to run. First place clearly goes to the insurgent Tim Pawlenty, who was trading at around 7 points three months ago and had a great week this week to jump up nearly 5 points. He is establishing himself as the anti-Romney in a field with little other serious competition and showing he is serious with his campaign hires and organization.

Agree? Disagree? Flap your gums in the comments, and put your money where your mouth is over at Intrade.com.

A representative of New Mexico’s “swingy” first district, considered a rising star and party favorite, against an up-and-coming Hispanic statewide office-holder. That’s the likely primary set-up for Democrats in New Mexico, as State Auditor Hector Balderas and first district representative Martin Heinrich both seem likely to run for the open seat created when Jeff Bingaman announced his retirement. And, not coincidentally, it also looks like the set-up on the Republican side. If Heather Wilson, former first district representative and Air Force officer, Rhodes Scholar and international relations Ph.D, thought her early entry into the New Mexico senate race would deter the competition, she seems to have been wrong. John Sanchez, the current Lieutenant Governor, has been reported as prepared to enter the NM senate race by David Catanese.

On paper, both candidates are attractive, and each has the same flaw. Sanchez, a conservative Hispanic businessman, comes off a recent victorious campaign alongside Susana Martinez, but has a depressing sixteen-point loss to Governor Bill Richardson in his past. Wilson’s star-studded resume and history of electoral victories–including a hard-fought win over Patricia Madrid in 2006–are marred by her narrow primary loss in 2008 to then (and now) second district Rep. Steve Pearce. Wilson has also been tangentially tied to the US attorney’s scandal–particularly by Democrats–though it’s hard to say how much this hurts her at such a late date. More damaging for Wilson may be her moderate profile, including a vote, near the end of her term, for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).

At the outset, Sanchez has to be seen as the slight primary favorite, though most pundits rate Wilson more highly in a general election. Sanchez’s previous statewide failures and conservative reputation, it is argued, makes it harder for him to win a general election. On the other hand, Sanchez would give the party a high-profile Hispanic recruit, in a state where improvement among Hispanic voters will be essential if the GOP is going to compete in the future. Additionally, it’s worth remembering that, in 2002, Richardson was a former energy secretary and ambassador with support from the Clinton machine, not the corruption-tarred political dead weight he proved in 2010. Sanchez has probably also improved as a candidate in the intervening decade.

Two endorsements could prove critical here. The first is that of Jim DeMint. Will this be one of the races in which DeMint–and his cash-flush and expanding Senate Conservatives Fund–decide to try and play? If so, it’s highly likely he would endorse Sanchez, assuming Steve Pearce doesn’t jump in and split the conservative vote (which I think is unlikely). The second, and less clear-cut, endorsement would be that of Governor Martinez herself. While Sanchez was her running mate, Wilson directed her transition team, meaning that either could reasonably hope to get the gubernatorial seal of approval.

My hope is actually that Martinez can broker a compromise. Both Wilson and Sanchez seem like fine candidates, who would do well in the senate. In addition, there should be a number of potential Democratic seats opening up, as every ambitious Democrat in the state thinks about running. The best scenario would be for one of the candidates to take a pass on running, with the understanding that they will receive the full support of the other candidate and Martinez in a race against Tom Udall. I think such a race would be far more winnable than it first appears; Udall is basically a no frills liberal Democrat swept in on Obama’s coat-tails. If Obama wins reelection, Udall is the kind of Democrat who could easily lose in a six-year mid-term election, the worst kind for a President’s party. If Obama loses, Martinez might very well get a cabinet appointment, leaving her number 2–Sanchez, unless he wins the senate race–as acting governor.

Whatever the permutations of this primary race, there is an important lesson the candidates should keep in mind. The 2008 Republican primary left Pearce–the eventual nominee–so bruised and broke that he was never effectively able to compete with Tom Udall. So, for both Wilson and Sanchez, there is a strong incentive to keep the primary as clean as possible. And, after all, there’s no reason that the problems of 2008 on the Republican side can’t be replicated between Balderas and Heinrich for the Democrats. However things shake out here, New Mexico has the potential to be one of the more interesting senate contests in 2012.

Rep. Paul’s statements in a radio interview with Lew Rockwell are, perhaps, his most candid ones yet regarding his intentions to seek the Republican nomination:

“I’ve been as up front as I can on this because there’s no doubt I’ve thought about it, because people make me think about it.” Paul told Libertarian radio host Lew Rockwell yesterday.

“I do feel a personal obligation to so many who have placed a fair amount of trust in me to continue this fight.” Paul said.

“So it is a possibility, as it always has been, but its also a major major decision on my part for personal reasons, for political reasons, and it just is very tedious.” the Congressman added.

Rumours of a presidential run have been bolstered by the fact that the Congressman is embarking on several speaking appearances this month, alongside other potential Republican candidates such as Newt Gingrich, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Paul is heading off on a tour of three cities in Iowa today, as part of a “Presidential Lecture series”.

Paul entering the race would certainly be a setback for Gov. Gary Johnson’s presidential hopes. Rep. Paul ad hinted in the past that he would not seek the Republican nomination should Johnson enter the race.

Read the rest here.

Bloomberg/Selzer & Co. 2012 Favorability Survey

I’d like to mention some major economic and political figures. For each, please tell me if your feelings are very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable. If you don’t know enough to answer, just say so.

Barack Obama

• Very favorable 22% (21%)
• Mostly favorable 33% (31%)
• Mostly unfavorable 19% (20%)
• Very unfavorable 22% (24%)
• Not sure 4% (4%)

Sarah Palin

• Very favorable 9% (9%)
• Mostly favorable 19% (24%)
• Mostly unfavorable 22% (24%)
• Very unfavorable 38% (33%)
• Not sure 12% (10%)

Chris Christie

• Very favorable 9%
• Mostly favorable 12%
• Mostly unfavorable 9%
• Very unfavorable 8%
• Not sure 62%

Donald Trump

• Very favorable 10%
• Mostly favorable 27%
• Mostly unfavorable 24%
• Very unfavorable 19%
• Not sure 20%

Scott Walker

• Very favorable 9%
• Mostly favorable 13%
• Mostly unfavorable 12%
• Very unfavorable 16%
• Not sure 50%

Newt Gingrich

• Very favorable 8%
• Mostly favorable 20%
• Mostly unfavorable 18%
• Very unfavorable 22%
• Not sure 32%

Survey of 1,001 adults was conducted March 4-7, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points.  Party ID breakdown: 30% Democrat; 22% Republican; 44% Independent.  Results from the poll conducted December 4-7, 2010 are in parentheses.

(more…)

I believe this video is from Mr. Cain’s live event last evening:

Students for Daniels is an organization attempting to draft Indiana governor Mitch Daniels to run for President. They have produced a number of videos in their effort, and made an appearance at CPAC. Founded by four students at Yale, they have spread to 60 universities across the country. Students for Daniels Political Director Michael Knowles was kind enough to sit down with Race42012 for a few minutes for an e-mail interview on why he and Students for Daniels believe Governor Daniels is the man to beat President Obama in 2012 and prevent America from falling over the fiscal cliff they believe we are heading towards.
________________________________________________________________

Race42012: Why does Students for Daniels exist? What did he do to bring himself to your attention?

Michael Knowles: Students for Daniels exists because four college students came to the same realization at the same time: the unprecedented, unsustainable, and unnecessary national debt that President Obama and former Speaker Pelosi have accumulated threatens the future of our generation and of the United States. Governor Daniels brought himself to our attention by doing the one thing that every other potential candidate has failed to do: he’s been doing his job properly. The Students for Daniels have spent the past three months raising the Governor’s profile through television commercials, Op-Eds, and interviews because Governor Daniels, unlike certain potential candidates such as Governor Romney, has not spent the past six years trying to raise his national profile. Candidates like Romney have shown time and again that they are willing to do or say anything that will help them get elected, while Governor Daniels has shown himself willing to confront difficult issues like entitlement reform, education, and public sector unions. He has turned enormous deficits into surpluses and is the only candidate discussing the $26.4 trillion debt that our generation is poised to inherit within ten years.

R4’12: Daniels has a lot of support among elite thought leaders- for example, the founders of Students for Daniels formed the organization at Yale. He’s been popular in Politico; the New York Times; American Spectator; National Review; Weekly Standard; and spoke at the CPAC banquet dinner. However, he’s done little grassroots outreach. Why is that, and should he do more outreach to grassroots conservatives?

M.K.: To be clear, Governor Daniels has not been leading grassroots outreach across the country because he’s been doing his job in Indiana. As a result, the Students for Daniels have been doing that outreach for him, and—despite claims to the contrary—we are the only grassroots conservative movement of its type in the country. Other candidates have begun their own “Students For” organizations, but these astroturf groups can hardly be described as grassroots. The effort among those who oppose Governor Daniels to label him as the “heartthrob of the elites” is perhaps an even more outrageous mischaracterization than Mitt Romney’s recent, desperate attempts to explain away his failed healthcare plan in Massachusetts, which became the prototype for President Obama’s similarly dangerous healthcare law. And while the Student Initiative to Draft Daniels PAC did form at Yale, we have now spread to sixty chapters across the country and continue to gain more chapters every week.

R4’12: Can you explain for our readers why Governor Daniels supports ethanol subsidies- something Al Gore is backtracking on, and that we spent $7.7 on last year? Wouldn’t that be an easy way to cut inefficient spending?

(more…)

Romney and his loyal supporters love to point out his business experience, claiming that it would make him a better president.

Would it really?

In business, there isn’t all that much ethics. “Business ethics” is really just another word for “not (openly) doing stuff that creeps our customers out”. Business ethics cannot be different than contemporary ethics, because then, the business will lose its customers. But if you just agree with contemporary ethics… are you then really ethical, or are you going with the flow?

It’s impossible to make a moral “statement” as a company, since that would mean losing customers which shareholders won’t tolerate. You have to let someone else make the statement, then you can follow (in other words, someone will have to convince customers that child labor is bad, then businesses may follow suit and stop using it).

Businesses cannot have principles, outside of the fluffy vague terms such as “First class customer service”, “Always the lowest prices” and other things that sound more like advertisement slogans than moral values. A business has to change its model to survive, and it’s natural. After all, the main responsibility for upholding moral values in society does not fall on businesses (although some unethical practices of course should be outlawed).

Here’s the problem: If you spend 30 years in a place with no real ethics, chances are you’ll forget what it really is. Mitt Romney spent three decades of his life being deep fried in business thinking. He might have been like the healthiest carrot in the beginning, but if you deep fry a carrot for 30 years, there won’t be many vitamins left.

Some may say that I’m anti-business. I’m absolutely not; I’m a finance and economics student after all (also minoring in business). This isn’t about being anti-business, it’s about understanding business. Businesses more or less have to act like this. It is their role in society to maximize profits.
How do you maximize profits in politics? Romney, who has worked with restructuring companies, knows that you cannot hold on to a product which isn’t profitable and which no marketing in the world is going to turn profitable. In politics, you maximize profits by maximizing votes. And a position – such as, being pro-choice – which you won’t be able to sell no matter how many campaign ads you roll out about it (the Republicans of Iowa will never be convinced), you drop. Remember, Nokia started as a paper factory.

But isn’t a background in business important for balancing the budget? Not really. Organizational experience is much more important, and while you can get such experience while running a business, you can also get it while being president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, while being a pastor, while running a television station and so on. And, organizations have to balance their budgets as well or they will cease to exist. Being able to organize, making sure you have an organization which can respond quickly to crises and emergencies is very important – just look at what happened to George W Bush after his slow response to Katrina.

Romney was a great businessman (and before someone mentions it; yes he is a christian and has lived up to high moral standards in his personal life) but that doesn’t translate into politics. Based on his record in ethical issues like abortion and gay rights, he has applied his business skills a bit too much in politics. And therefore, I find him unsuitable for the position as President of the United States.

Newt Gingrich has an explanation for his infidelities:

There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn’t trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them. I found that I felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness. Not God’s understanding, but God’s forgiveness. I do believe in a forgiving God. And I think most people, deep down in their hearts hope there’s a forgiving God.

Somebody once said that when we’re young, we seek justice, but as we get older, we seek mercy. There’s something to that, I think. I feel that I’m now 67 I’m a grandfather. I have two wonderful grandchildren. I have two wonderful daughters and two great sons-in-law. Callista and I have a great marriage. I think that I’ve learned an immense amount.

And I do feel, in that sense, that God has given me, has blessed me with an opportunity as a person. Forget about all this political stuff. As a person, I’ve had the opportunity to have a wonderful life, to find myself now, truly enjoying the depths of my life in ways that I never dreamed it was possible to have a life that was that nice.

So let me see if I parse this correctly. Newt is saying that the reason he was unfaithful is because he was working so hard for his country.

I think John Podhoretz said it best: Seriously, Don’t Even Bother Running.

Columnist George Will is perhaps the last remaining classical conservative political commentator.  In matters of US foreign and national security policy he is neither a modern day “NeoCon” nor is he an isolationist; rather, he is best described as a prudent conservative in the tradition of Goldwater.  His column in today’s Washington Post “On Libya Too Many Questions” raises a series of questions concerning possible US intervention in response to those who are advocating some form of full-throated US intervention, including imposition of a no-fly zone.  As Will notes:

Some interventionists are Republicans, whose skepticism about government’s abilities to achieve intended effects ends at the water’s edge.

I am not necessarily opposed to some form of US assistance to those fighting to overthrow Gaddafi.  But, I do believe that how we go about that and in what form should be carefully thought through, and in this respect Will raises some very good points.  It would seem to me that the clandestine employment of some combination of Navy SEALS and CIA para-military units might be more effective than the much touted no-fly zone.  An even better alternative might be to provide effective armaments to the rebels as we have done in past similar situations.

PPP (D) Missouri 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mike Huckabee 49% (49%)
• Barack Obama 43% (42%)

• Mitt Romney 44% (47%)
• Barack Obama 43% (41%)

• Barack Obama 44% (44%)
• Newt Gingrich 44% (45%)

• Barack Obama 48% (46%)
• Sarah Palin 43% (43%)

(more…)

Chris Cillizza, as usual, has the scoop:

Eric Woolson, a top aide to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.) in the 2008 Iowa caucuses, has signed on with former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty for the coming 2012 contest, according to two sources familiar with the decision.

Woolson was at the center of Huckabee’s stunning victory in the 2008 Iowa caucuses and his decision to switch camps will be read as an indication that the former Arkansas governor is leaning against a return run for president.

Huckabee allies insist that idea is misguided, noting that while Woolson was a trusted ally in 2008, he is not part of the governor’s inner circle…

Woolson’s hire is also a sign of Pawlenty’s big bet on Iowa where his team clearly believes he must win — or perform above expectations in order to have a real shot at the Republican nomination.

Pawlenty is assembling quite the impressive team in Iowa thus far:

Woolson, who served as communications director in Iowa for the caucus campaign of then Texas Gov. George W. Bush in 2000, will join Annie Kelly on Pawlenty’s Iowa team. Kelly, who served as deputy campaign manager for Pawlenty’s 2006 gubernatorial race and ran his Freedom First PAC, moved to Des Moines a few weeks ago.

And, Pawlenty has several other Iowa aces up his sleeve — most notably Terry Nelson who, for a time, managed John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, and former Bush White House political director Sara Taylor. Both are Iowa natives.

It’s clear that Pawlenty is following a similar strategy as Mitt Romney in 2007/2008: lavish attention, time, and money on Iowa and hope a strong finish there propels him to victory elsewhere. If Huckabee ends up not running, as this hire may suggest, Pawlenty might have a good shot at succeeding at that strategy.

UPDATE: Woolson’s decision to join Team Pawlenty comes after a private meeting with Huckabee last week, as Huckabee’s book tour passed through Iowa…

Gallup has just released a poll showing Obama’s approval rating dropping to levels not seen since mid December last year. Here is the trend for the last four months, since the Novemenber ’10 election:

As can be seen, Obama enjoyed a bit of a bounce last January. All that talk about bipartisanship, shellackings received, lessons learned,  etc. helped. Unfortunately for him, reality has hit home. To better illustrate that point, here are the numbers from just a month ago as compared to today’s:

He’s lost ground with everybody. This a totally predictable response to his failure to lead. Presidents aren’t allowed to vote “Present”, and that is precisely what he has been doing with the debt crisis, the Middle-East flareups and other major issues.

Vivian Schiller, the President and CEO of NPR who fired Juan Williams last year has just been pushed out by the NPR board in wake of the video sting on Ron Schiller (no relation). Early details here.

Apparently they are taking seriously the threat of defunding by the Republican House.

As Gov. Pawlenty attempts to curry favor with the small government, Tea Party wing of the GOP in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, I feel it is important we do not let Tim Pawlenty 2.0 erase his true colors from our collective memory.

Here’s some choice quotes from the Wall Street Journal‘s 2008 article, “Pawlenty’s Record“:

“The era of small government is over . . . government has to be more proactive, more aggressive.”
— Tim Pawlenty, 2006

…

But in 2005, signs of his “progressive” instincts emerged. In a quest for new revenue, Mr. Pawlenty supported a 75 cents per-pack cigarette tax. He called it a “health impact” fee. No one was fooled. User fees are generally charged to ensure that those who use a government service pay for the cost of providing that service. In this case, however, it was obvious that smokers were just being tapped to fund health-care entitlement programs.

Following the tax hike, the governor pushed through a state-wide smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars. Aggressive, Nanny-state government seems to be big with Republican governors these days — although policies such as smoking bans do little to stem the costly tide of state-run health care.

…

Mr. Pawlenty responded with a more limited proposal to expand the state’s child health-care program, Minnesota Care, to cover all children. More recently, the governor’s Health Care Transformation Task Force recommended imposing a mandate — à la Massachusetts — on residents to buy health insurance.

…

The South St. Paul populist also advocated a temporary ban on ads paid for by pharmaceutical companies. Not exactly the stuff of which markets are made.

…

Nevertheless, Mr. Pawlenty has presided over back-to-back biennial budget increases of 12.4% and 9.8% respectively. Last year the governor’s proposed budget survived essentially intact but still spent the state’s $2 billion surplus, with half the general fund increase going to education. Minnesota, with five million people, now has a biennial budget of nearly $35 billion.

Mr. Pawlenty’s proactive government stance extends to support for mass transit and sport stadium subsidies, as well as for hiking the state’s minimum wage, which is now $6.15 an hour for large employers (the federal minimum wage is $5.85). But it is education and the environment where Mr. Pawlenty hopes to establish his progressive bona fides.

…

Mr. Pawlenty has courted the unions, telling the Minnesota Business Partnership that “I can’t have the Republican governor talk about changing the school system without having the support and help of the teachers’ union and my friends on the other side of the aisle. It just won’t work.”

On the environment, Mr. Pawlenty imposed some of the most aggressive renewable energy mandates in the country. Other states will be requiring, in coming years, that energy producers get 20% of their electricity from “renewable” sources such as wind, solar or animal manure. In Mr. Pawlenty’s Minnesota, the state’s largest utility will be required to generate 30% of its power from renewable sources by 2020.

…

In April, Mr. Pawlenty delivered the remarks that probably best reveal his views on the environment. “It looks like we should have listened to President Carter,” he told the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. “He called us to action, and we should have listened. . . . Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don’t think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices that say it’s not real.”

…

Mr. Pawlenty responded by calling for a state gas tax increase.

Muhlenberg/Morning Call Pennsylvania 2012 Presidential Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Obama has handled his job so far?

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 44%

Do you feel that Barack Obama deserves to be re-elected?

• Yes 40%
• No 45%

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

• Barack Obama 37%
• Republican 33%
• Depends on the Candidate 22%

If the 2012 election for President was being held today and the race was between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, who would you vote for?

• Barack Obama 53%
• Sarah Palin 25%
• Neither 13%

Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney?

• Barack Obama 43%
• Mitt Romney 36%
• Neither 7%

Barack Obama vs. Mike Huckabee?

• Barack Obama 44%
• Mike Huckabee 34%
• Neither 6%

Survey of 395 registered voters was conducted February 9-28, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.