No matter what he actually meant to say or what he truly believes regarding the President, Mike Huckabee has definitely had a miserable week. The media is hounding him over his Kenya gaffe and now about this anti-colonial shtick. Newt Gingrich is having the same problems regarding his… announcement that turned out to be something of a farce. Politico had an article blasting Gingrich as undisciplined. Mitt Romney is not immune to this either; every time a Republican with a title in front of their name says something bad about the Massachusetts health care system, Romney’s name is inevitably brought up.  

Now, is this press coverage fair? Really, it isn’t. After all, if Romney, or Huckabee or Gingrich gives a sober, well-thought out speech discussing serious issues, it might get two posts online, if that. So, these would-be candidates could with justification, claim the media is not fairly basing their coverage. To that, I have a simple answer; welcome to being one of the front-runners.

As front-runners, these candidates are going to get analyzed much closer than other candidates, although it will be excruciating for any involved. However, the media has a reason to pick on front-runners, and it has nothing to do with liking them or not. The media’s vested interest in going after the front-runners devolves into their simple desire for something new to write about. This is particularly true with Newt, Mitt and Mike, who have all been around for a while. These three’s views are pretty well known to the media, and to the political junkies looking into the 2012 race. Writing another story about another Republican bashing Obama is, frankly boring to people in the media and to everyone but each candidate’s acolytes.

When the primary and pre-primary campaigns kick off (with the latter starting sooner rather than later), the front-runners in particular are going to have to have masterful control of the words that come out of their mouth. More than trying to appeal to one constituency group or another, all the contenders are going to want to appear Presidential. They are going to be looked at by the American people and the people are going to have to want to listen/see/hear/watch /put up with this person for at least the next four years.

Being able to manage the press is not easy. In fact, it’s incredibly difficult, which is why the ability to do it is so important. For the front-runners and would be front-runners, the game of controlling the press is going to be one of the critical factors to determining how far they are going to get in the race to the White House.

p.s.: I didn’t mention Sarah Palin in this article not because of any personal dislike for her, but because she and the media have their own…umm…unique relationship, one that would take an article of its own to go through.

PPP (D) Wisconsin 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 48% (47%)
• Mike Huckabee 41% (41%)

• Barack Obama 49%
• Paul Ryan 40%

• Barack Obama 48% (46%)
• Mitt Romney 38% (42%)

• Barack Obama 51% (50%)
• Newt Gingrich 39% (41%)

• Barack Obama 54% (52%)
• Sarah Palin 35% (38%)

(more…)

PPP (D) Virginia 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Mike Huckabee 20% (21%)
• Mitt Romney 16% (15%)
• Sarah Palin 16% (17%)
• Newt Gingrich 14% (20%)
• Ron Paul 8% (7%)
• Mitch Daniels 7% (3%)
• Haley Barbour 4%
• Tim Pawlenty 4% (5%)
• Someone else/Undecided 11% (11%)

(more…)

Today, former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer announced he has opened an exploratory committee – the first step towards becoming an official Presidential candidate.

Since we are (finally!) entering the season of the campaign where candidates are announcing exploratory committees (or announcing that they are exploring the possibility of exploratory committees), it must be time to revive the old Intrade market updates from the 2008 race. For our first update, I’ve cut the list off at having a 2% chance of winning the nomination, and I have included Cain and Roemer since they have both filed exploratory committees. So without further ado: the first Intrade market update of the 2012 primary!

Future editions will include a third column with the change from the previous edition. As in 2008, a green cell indicates someone is an official candidate and a yellow cell indicates an exploratory committee.

Well, Huckabee is certainly going after the ratings if he’s not going after a Presidential nomination. Sounding more like a far-right wing talk show host than a Presidential candidate (oh, wait…), Huckabee today gave us this amazing moment in an interview with Bryan Fischer:

Fischer: I’d like you to comment on that; you seem to think that there is some validity to the fact that there may be some fundamental anti-Americanism in this president.

Huckabee: Well, that’s exactly the point that I make in the book… Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas.

This portion of the interview was Fischer giving Huckabee an opportunity to try and defend his indefensible comments about Obama growing up in Kenya, and during his explanation, Huckabee manages to step in it again. Big time.

Politico notes that:

This jab at Obama yesterday on Bryan Fischer’s (newsmaking) radio show taps into a strain of politics that Mike Huckabee had, to this point, largely avoided, and suggests that his garbled Kenya speculation wasn’t a one-off.

This is actually the sort of jab that is Huckabee’s specialty. The gem of this genre: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

What exactly is Huckabee doing here? Trying to shore up the loony faction of the conservative vote? Auditioning for Rush Limbaugh’s job? What kind of serious, mature presidential candidate resorts to these sorts of attacks?

If I were on Huck’s campaign team, I’d advise him to just keep his mouth shut about this issue before he says something else he’ll regret. The media is having a field day with this one. This is almost as painful to watch as Huckabee flubbing question after question on foreign policy in December of 2008 – only this time, the media is watching and taking notice.

Newt Gingrich appears to be attempting to set a new record for worst campaign start.

He was supposed to travel to Georgia today to announce his exploratory committee, but some byzantine campaign finance laws and IRS regulations put an end to those plans.

But Newt still went to Georgia and did everything short of announcing his exploratory committee. He unveiled his new website, newtexplore2012.com. And he evidently parsed his language enough to just land on the side of legality: he didn’t announce his exploratory committee, but he did say he was “beginning the process of looking at a Presidential bid.”

A Gingrich spokesman attempted to clarify what exactly happened today by saying, “He intends to make it known that he will be exploring a presidential candidacy today.”

In other words, today Gingrich announced that he is exploring the possibility of exploring running for President.

Not exactly the big bang one hoped would kick off this 2012 GOP primary season…

Rumor I’ve been hearing is that Gingrich will be announcing the formation of his exploratory committee afternoon and his exploratory website going live later today. Here’s the reported link to the site: NewtExplore2012.com

CNN’s Gloria Borger has the scoop:

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty may be closer to making a decision on a presidential run than previously thought.

A source close to Pawlenty said he will form an exploratory committee in two to three weeks, significantly sooner than most political observers expected.

But the official comment so far from Pawlenty staff is that he won’t announce a decision until late March or April.

Full story here.

Most of you are likely aware of Mike Huckabee’s latest slip of the tongue. For those of you who aren’t, essentially he said that Obama was raised in Kenya and that that was the source of his anti-British feelings.

I am not going to discuss the contents of that gaffe nor the substance of the responses to it.  That part really doesn’t interest me that much. What we have here is  a typical example of verbal mistakes made all the time by politicians. (Think Obama’s 57 states, for example.) We are all human. We are all imperfect. What does intrigue me, however, is what it might possibly portend.

In 2007, Mike Huckabee was barely a blip on the radar screen until he came in second in the Ames, IA poll. When that happened, he instantly became the media’s darling. Up to that time, Mitt Romney was expected to easily win Iowa. When there is no drama, there is little interest. It is boring. Well now the media saw a chance of a real contest, an upset in the making. Everyone loves an underdog, and here we had a man out of Arkansas on a shoe-string budget going up against the well-oiled, well-financed Romney machine. It was a classic Americana story-line, and the Media ran with it. Mike Huckabee could do no wrong. Little mistakes were ignored. Big mistakes were minimized.

After Huckabee won the Iowa caucus, he still was badly under-financed and under-staffed. He got creamed in New Hampshire and Michigan. The last chance he had to make any kind of splash was South Carolina. When he came in second there and lost in Florida, it was all over for him.  John McCain had it sown up. Yes, Romney dropped out, and Mike kept gamely on, but any real drama was gone. The media lost interest. Huck was pretty much ignored except for the steady stream of anti-Romney rhetoric issuing forth from his mouth.

That was then. This is now. Now Mike no longer has the luxury of flying under the radar. He is one of the leading contenders for the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination. As such, he is a marked man. Everything he says and does (and everything he doesn’t say or do) will be weighed, parsed, sliced, diced, and mangled. This recent gaffe and the reactions to it are just a foretaste of the scrutiny that Huckabee is about to undergo if he chooses to run.

It will be interesting to watch. Can he hold up? Only time will tell. I am fairly certain of one thing, however.  If he does run, he is going to long wistfully for the days four short years ago when it was only Romney getting under his skin.

Gov. Pawlenty makes a slick video pitch to the Tea Party.

The congressman from Wisconsin could potentially save the GOP from missing its chance to defeat Obama next fall given his economic and fiscal roadmap for the nation, which puts Ryan squarely in the “courageous, competent truth-teller” camp, which I continue to maintain is the only kind of candidate who will be able to beat the president. But, unfortunately, Congressman Paul Ryan appears to be joining most of the other heavyweights in the GOP by taking a knee on 2012, hoping instead that Republicans can find a winner in one of their many accomplished governors:

Ryan said that in recent weeks he’s talked to Governors Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitch Daniels, but is keeping his mind open about a potential endorsement. “I don’t really have a strong preference right now,” Ryan said of the prospective 2012 field. “I want to wait and see what these people are made of and what they’re going to talk about.”

“To me, what matters most is someone who really has conviction in their heart and mind on these core principles,” he continued. “We can’t just give it to the next person in line or [have] a personality contest. We will lose a personality contest. We will win an ideas contest.”

Asked about the Massachusetts health care plan signed into law by Mitt Romney, Ryan said, “It’s not that dissimilar to Obamacare, and you probably know I’m not a big fan of Obamacare. I just don’t think the mandates work … all the regulation they’ve put on it.”

“I haven’t studied in depth the status of it,” he continued, “but I think it’s beginning to death spiral. They’re beginning to have to look at rationing decisions. I don’t think this health care system works. That’s why I’m a believer in a consumer-based medicine, in consumer-based patient-centered reforms health care reforms.”

…

“I feel I can do more for the country and the cause where I am right now,” he continued. “This is my focus. Like I tell people at home, my head’s not that big and our kids are just too small.” Ryan went on to emphasize that he couldn’t handle missing his kids on the presidential campaign trail for two years. “You would have to spend a year and a half running around the country in nice states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, but they’re not Janesville, Wisconsin,” he said. “Our kids are six, seven, and nine. I want to be in their lives. I’m away from them four days a week on average. I don’t want to be away from them seven days a week for two years.”

Given that Daniels continues to step back from the presidential precipice, this time by suggesting that he just might not have time to run with all of his duties as governor, my recent prediction that all eyes will ultimately focus on Gov. Pawlenty and Gov. Barbour may just come to pass.

Unless, of course, Rep. Ryan decides that his kids might actually enjoy growing up in the White House…

NBC News/Wall Street Journal 2012 Republican Nomination

1st Choice

• Mike Huckabee 25% (18%)
• Mitt Romney 21% (19%)
• Newt Gingrich 13% (10%)
• Sarah Palin 12% (14%)
• Ron Paul 6% (8%)
• Mitch Daniels 3% (3%)
• Tim Pawlenty 3% (5%)
• Rick Santorum 2% (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Haley Barbour 0% (2%)
• Other (VOL) 2% (2%)
• None (VOL) 4% (6%)
• Not sure 8% (8%)

(more…)

Akaka to retire. Another one bites the dust:

U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka announced today that he will not run for re-election in 2012.
Akaka, 86, has served in the Senate since 1990. He previously served 14 years in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rumors that former Republican Gov. Linda Lingle will run have worried Democrats for months, especially due to Akaka’s poor fundraising.  With his retirement, Lingle should now be considered at least even money to win the seat in 2012.

PPP (D) 2012 Rhode Island GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 39%
• Mike Huckabee 15%
• Newt Gingrich 13%
• Sarah Palin 10%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Tim Pawlenty 5%
• Mitch Daniels 4%
• John Thune 1%
• Someone else/Undecided 9%

(more…)

PPP (D) Wisconsin 2012 Senate Poll

• Herb Kohl (D) 49% (48%)
• Paul Ryan (R) 42% (42%)

• Russ Feingold (D) 49% (50%)
• Paul Ryan (R) 42% (43%)

• Herb Kohl (D) 51%
• Mark Neumann (R) 37%

• Russ Feingold (D) 50%
• Mark Neumann (R) 40%

• Herb Kohl (D) 52% (51%)
• JB Van Hollen (R) 37% (38%)

• Russ Feingold (D) 51% (52%)
• JB Van Hollen (R) 39% (41%)

(more…)

Buddy Roemer, former Governor of Louisiana, will announce his presidential exploratory committee tomorrow at an event in his Baton Rouge bank. Hotline has the details:

Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer (R) will announce Thursday he will explore a bid for president, according to a top Republican source…

Roemer served four terms in Congress as a Democrat between 1981 and 1988 before being elected governor in 1987. He switched parties to become a Republican in 1991, then lost a gubernatorial primary as a Republican to former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke.

That pretty much sums up what you need to know about Roemer. That, and he’s trading at 0.1 on Intrade with this breaking news. Heh.

Looks like we’re finally getting our lower tier candidates to kick this party off.

The confusion over the start of the exploratory phase of Gingrich’s candidacy is apparently due to legal issues regarding campaign finance laws and IRS regulations – and it all centers on how Gingrich planned to get down to Georgia to make the announcement.

Politico has the scoop:

Gingrich’s mode of transportation to the Georgia meetings at which he was expected to make his announcement on Thursday could have raised thorny legal questions.

If he was flying in a corporate jet, the transportation costs would have been considered an in-kind contribution to a campaign that didn’t yet exist.

If the plane was paid for by Gingrich’s think-tank, American Solutions for Winning the Future, which was the official sponsor of the Georgia event and is considered a charity under tax law, the costs could violate Internal Revenue Service regulations.

Gingrich’s allies said the former House speaker still intends to run and that he will make the announcement when all of the legal issues have been resolved.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have been suspended by Fox News. Why? Overt bids for President. So far, Palin, Huckabee, and Bolton, who are also Fox News contributors, have not been suspended. Here’s an excerpt from the article at Politico including some quotes from Fox News’ VP of legal and business affairs:

“We can’t have Speaker Gingrich on our payroll while he is in the midst of an exploratory committee to see if he’s going to run for office,” Fox News’s executive vice president of legal and business affairs Diane Brandi told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s a clear conflict.”Santorum, Brandi added, has indicated that he plans to attend Republican presidential debates, “so that leads us to believe he is seriously considering running.”

The suspensions will be lifted on May 1 if Gingrich and Santorum notify the network by then that they are not planning to run. If they do not announce one way or the other by the the deadline, their contracts will be terminated, Baier said.

“This is the announcement that’s being made today,” Baier said, but “it does not preclude other announcements that may be made in the future” about other Fox employees who are flirting with White House runs. “As soon as each of them shows some serious intention to form an exploratory committee, we would take the same action,” Brandi said of Palin, Bolton and Huckabee.

_______________________________________________________

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

Right now we seem stuck playing the “will they or won’t they” game with regards to potential Republican candidates. Newspaper articles, magazines and blogs are all looking through the would-be candidate’s proverbial garbage, searching for scraps to give us all a hint as to what’s going to happen. Well, turns out I found a scrap myself with regards to Haley Barbour.

I have a friend who is the legislative aide to a member of the Florida Legislature. Let’s call the aide “Adam” and the legislator “Smith”. Adam told me that he received a call from an aide to the Governor of Mississippi. The caller wanted to talk to Smith, and they wanted to discuss presidential politics with them. The caller was hoping Smith would endorse Barbour when Barbour throws his hat in the ring. Smith said no; they aren’t endorsing anyone this early on.

Now, if the caller spoke the truth, then Barbour is making the appropriate and entirely expected moves before jumping into the political fray. Regardless of the current flap over when Florida is going to hold our primary, the Sunshine State is going to be an important battleground in the primaries. We’re big, have a lot of delegates, and there are enough different groups of Republicans that it makes it hard to categorize. Anyone who wants to run in Florida is going to have to commit time and resources to the state.

What this call also shows is that Barbour is sticking with his bread-and-butter; courting the support of the Establishment wing of the Party. Smith is a pretty well established figure in Tallahassee and the Florida Legislature. Smith would definitely be on the list for anyone trying to ingratiate themselves with the politicians in the Florida Legislature.

So, there is my anecdote. Take it for whatever it’s worth.

PPP (D) Virginia 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 48% (48%)
• Mitt Romney 42% (43%)

• Barack Obama 51% (49%)
• Mike Huckabee 43% (44%)

• Barack Obama 51% (52%)
• Newt Gingrich 39% (41%)

• Barack Obama 54% (51%)
• Sarah Palin 35% (40%)

(more…)

Winthrop 2012 Southern States GOP Nomination Survey

• Mike Huckabee 21.9%
• Newt Gingrich 12.9%
• Sarah Palin 8.7%
• Chris Christie 7.6%
• Mitt Romney 6.9%
• Tim Pawlenty 6.2%
• Ron Paul 5.8%
• Mitch Daniels 2.7%
• Herman Cain 1.6%
• Michele Bachmann 1.1%
• Haley Barbour 1.0%
• Gary Johnson 0.3%
• Jon Huntsman 0.0%
• Rick Santorum 0.0%
• John Thune 0.0%
• Other 2.4%
• Not sure 20.4%

Survey of probable Republican primary voters was conducted February 21-27, 2011, in the following southern states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

On Monday, Red State contributor Dan Horowitz attacked Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) for being part of the Gang of Six. For those who don’t know, the Gang of Six consists of three Democratic and three Republican senators who are working together on debt reduction reforms similar to those of the flawed, yet decent, Debt Commission proposals.

I doubt Senator Coburn, who has taken criticism for his work as a Member of Congress throughout his time in the House and the Senate, cares much what one blogger things. However, since Horowitz is a front page poster for Red State, his misguided opinion is read by thousands of people every day. Thus, a correction is in order.

Horowitz completely misses the point in his first attack:

While we applaud Senator Coburn’s alacrity in trying to cut the budget deficit and tackle entitlement reform, he is misguided in his eagerness to empower those who plundered the treasury with the keys to ‘fix’ it.  Let’s be clear.  There is no revenue problem.  The budget crisis is a result of decades’ worth of greedy leftist politicians who squandered tax payer dollars on programs and handouts to special interests.

Coburn, to my knowledge, has never said there is a revenue problem. To the contrary- he has said on many news and opinion shows that he can identify $350 billion in waste with little effort. More importantly, however, Horowitz misses that these tax increases Coburn is talking about are part of a larger package that includes simplification of the tax code and lowered rates. Were Horowitz a true conservative, he would recognize that closing special interest loopholes is a good step to tax fairness. Coburn’s efforts would start the process of putting more Americans on a more even tax paying field. While it would raise taxes in the short run (over $700 billion in a decade), should conservatives really be supporting more special interest loopholes? As a supporter of the flat and Fair taxes, I do not think so.

Horowitz’s next point is a solid one:

Cutting the deficit is not an ends to itself.  It is a means to reinstate our government back to its constitutional mandate.

And later:

The objective of entitlement reform is not to make a Democrat-run program solvent.  Our objective vis-à-vis entitlement reform should be focused on returning the wealth to the American worker and taxpayer by promoting more liberty and prosperity.

He essentially points out that it is shortsighted to merely cut the budget if it leaves extra-constitutional bureaucracies and programs intact, and individuals are still controlled by an enlarged state. Horowitz is right, which is why any plans to reform entitlements (whether through making them affordable, putting them on the state level or modifying them to serve the very poor, the destitute, orphans etc.) should end up with them being entirely zeroed out of the federal budget.

Where Horowitz misses is that Coburn has always been on the side of those empowering individuals, including by supporting legislation that would audit the Federal Reserve. The current first step to Social Security reform is to either make it affordable (as Coburn is now trying to do) or put it on the state level, especially in the political environment that exists after the financial crash of 2008. Simply put, privatization didn’t work because cowardly Republicans shot it down in 2005. It is unreasonable to think it would happen with liberal Democrats in charge of the Senate and the White House, especially with the financial crash so fresh on people’s minds.

Furthermore, Coburn introduced the Patient’s Choice Act, along with Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) and Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA). While an imperfect bill, it addressed many of the concerns most conservatives have with our current health care system. Too, despite the bill’s failure to move forward, Coburn was at least as articulate as Ryan in opposing the Democratic health care plans as they moved through Congress.

Third, Horowitz had this to say:

There is no doubt that Senator Coburn intuitively opposes tax increases and supports private accounts for Social Security.  However, it seems that his motivation to immediately negotiate any deal that could possibly close the budget gap outweighs his conviction to be dogmatic for the sake of liberty.  Most of all, he is willing to offer concessions that will enable the very people who started this mess to perpetuate it.

Coburn did support the Debt Commission’s recommendations, but it’s a laughable concept that Coburn will “negotiate any deal” to close the budget gap. Would Horowitz have preferred Coburn support the tax deal that passed in December 2010 that increased the debt for a paltry two-year extension on most of the Bush tax cuts? I doubt it. To take from a friend, be as conservative as possible but also be flexible. That’s what Coburn is doing.

It’s simple- not only has Coburn led the charge against just about every big government concept since the Republican Congress of the 1990s, the Gang of Six is starting the process to gaining liberty from the fiscal crisis heading our way. Again, unfortunately, short of a revolution we have to work with the Democrats to pass legislation. The legislation the Gang of Six will hopefully provide will give us the fiscal breathing room to allow a conservative Congress and President to enact major entitlement and (hopefully) defense reforms. (Coburn is one of the few Republicans to support the latter.) While Coburn is an imperfect politician (he supported TARP and helped vote Ben Bernanke in for a second term as Federal Reserve Chairman), he is one of the conservative movement’s most intellectually honest and most realistic.

To be fair, Horowitz made certain to credit Coburn on his excellent work on pushing the new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that came out today. (See Coburn talk about the report here with Dylan Ratigan.) In that report, the GAO found somewhere between (according to Coburn, quoted in the WSJ article linked in the line above) $100 and $200 billion in duplicity and overlapping organizations and goals in the federal government. Kudos to Horowitz for his even-handed treatment of Coburn in this latter post.

I’d like to close with two bits of fiscal information for Horowitz that explain my support of Coburn and his efforts at workable legislation, despite my extreme views on spending issues:

First, some information I ran across yesterday by National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olsen: “In 2008 alone, taxpayers spent $163 billion complying with the individual and corporate income tax rules.” You can’t tell me simplifying the tax code (thus eliminating special interest loopholes and lowering this amount spent on tax compliance) and lowering tax rates (thus spreading out the base and promoting economic fairness and efficiency, as Krauthammer pointed out very adroitly on February 18) isn’t conservative. Too, the nearly-142 million taxpaying Americans spent 6.1 billion hours on tax preparation last year, which is absurd.

Secondly, and lastly, a January GAO report on America’s fiscal footing found the following: that by 2020 92% of tax revenues will be spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the debt. Further, by 2040 all revenues will be swallowed by interest and Social Security. Horowitz wants to increase individual liberty? Compromise without betraying your principles when you have to (again, to take from a friend, be as conservative as possible but also be flexible), such as when Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency. Prevent us from sliding into the fiscal abyss Greece, Britian, France and other nations are slamming into. Then work on phasing out Social Security and Medicare while working towards a fairer tax system. That’s how you help your country, your movement and individual freedom. Not by kicking your feet like a petulant child while those who want to take away liberty continue on their inexorable path towards fiscal, social and cultural disaster.

For two months running, Townhall online news magazine and commentary site has been running an online poll for the GOP presidential nomination. Sarah Palin has won two months in a row. Ron Paul finished second.

Caffeinated Thoughts, at the end of 2010, ran a poll for Conservative of the Year. We made it clear that it was not just a presidential poll but open to any conservatives. I am pretty certain none of us here at CT took it too seriously. It is what our readers and those who found us on the internet thought. (Paul won that one, too.)

Last week I posted a parody mocking, not Ron Paul supporters, but those that think online polls or straw polls can give any indication of a candidate’s strength among the general populace.

Then along comes Townhall. Today I got an email. Two things I observed. First, this is what is found at the bottom of the “polling place”:

” Submitting your vote entitles you to receive conservative alerts from Townhall.com”

In other words, you must give an email address so that we can email you stuff. I don’t have any problem with the strategy, but it effects results of the poll. If folks don’t want emails from Townhall, don’t bother voting.

More importantly was this gem in the email:

“With rumors flying about potential candidates officially announcing, this could be a very exciting month for GOP presidential politics. Maybe some candidates are using this poll as a factor on whether they will run or not. It’s up to you to show your support to let them know that you want them to be the next President of the United States!”

I am not sure I would vote for any candidate who used “this poll as a factor on whether they will run or not”.   I would not want to belong to any club willing to have me as a member.

Straw polls aren’t much better.  Even the touted Ames Straw Poll doesn’t tell you much.  Romney won it in 2007.  McCain finished somewhere below Ron Paul.    That poll takes huge amounts of money just to compete.  First, it requires tickets in order to vote.   Campaigns often buy a huge amount of tickets to give away.   Second, rental spots for land, I understand, cost between $25,000 and $100,000 each, just to set up.  And if you are going to have roller coasters, merry-go-rounds, and ferris wheels, you’ll need that much land.  If it seems more like a circus than a way to choose a president, it is.

Just for the record, I’d say the same thing if Mike Huckabee won a straw poll or online poll.

Previously posted on Caffeinated Thoughts

The comparison isn’t perfect but it is at least unforced. The year began with pretty much every Republican in the country seemingly prepared to throw his or her hat into the presidential ring, and now, just two months later, would-be-candidates seem to be climbing over one another in order to get to the exits. With Chris Christie issuing yet another denial that he’s running today, this time suggesting that he’s not ready to be president, and with Mitch Daniels comparing a presidential run to leaping from a cliff, it’s becoming harder to find a candidate who can fit the “right man at the right time” narrative, i.e., a proven spending-conqueror with the courage to call for sweeping entitlement reform.

The manner in which the heavyweights are taking a knee on ’12 is comparable to the way that Gore and Hillary, two candidates who probably could have beaten President Bush in 2004, opted out of the race that year. The former Clintonites fit the bill in 2004 because of the “restoration” argument they could have made with regard to the Clinton White House, which Democrats felt had been robbed of a third term, and which swing voters compared favorably to the waning economy and foreign policy messiness of the Bush years. Indeed, had Hillary run in 2004 instead of 2008, she might very well be Madame President right now, something that Chris Christie should think about. But it’s going to be awfully hard for Christie to claim that he’s not ready to be president in March of 2011, and then to decide that he is ready to be president in, say, August of 2011. Let’s face it, he’s not running. And ultimately, the Daniels/Ryan/Walker/Kasich team of debt busters is probably going to sit out the race in its entirety.

That leaves a field very similar to the one that faced Democrats leading up to the 2004 primary season. With the heavyweights out, the heir apparent in that race became former vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman, a candidate who was just too far out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party to win the nomination, especially given the manner in which foreign policy had moved to the forefront of the national debate, accentuating Joe’s moderation. Similarly, a race without the GOP heavyweights of today makes Mitt Romney the crown prince. But Mitt has always been suspected of being a closet RINO, and the prominence of health care as a national issue has exacerbated Romney’s problems, highlighting RomneyCare and its similarities, imagined or real, with ObamaCare.

At the other end of the field is Sarah Palin, the GOP’s answer to Dean ’04. Palin and Dean were both beloved more for who they are than for what they stand for. Liberals cheered, for example, when Dean’s professional wife refused to commit to even living in the White House, let alone being a traditional First Lady. And conservatives see Palin’s frontierswoman schtick as a symbol of anti-elitism. But ultimately, neither could win a general election, and primary voters knew that on the Democratic side in 2004, and know that on the GOP side in 2012.

The Republican field in 2012 even has its own Dick Gephardt in Newt Gingrich, the aging parliamentarian who would have made an interesting candidate about a decade ago. Meanwhile, the role of Kucinich is played by Michele Bachmann, or perhaps Rick Santorum. But the million dollar question is: who is John Kerry? And John Edwards?

That’s where Pawlenty, Barbour, and the governors who are sort of in the middle of the Republican Party, halfway between the RINOs and the Tea Partiers, come in. In a race absent any stand-out candidates, and it looks like there aren’t going to be any, with a handful of unelectable ideologues and a candidate or two that the base just can’t stomach, the search for an electable conservative will result in the nomination of a candidate who is far from a show-stopper, but who would have at least a reasonable shot at beating Obama. If Barbour were from Missouri or Montana instead of Mississippi, he would probably have the best shot at being the John Kerry of the field. But I just can’t see Republicans nominating a former lobbyist who resembles a Dukes of Hazzard character to run against the first Black American president. Note that I’m also assuming Huckabee isn’t running. Despite all of the hedging, the fact remains that the governor just isn’t making the moves that one would expect out of a presidential candidate, and is making the moves that one would expect out of a man who intends to stay in private life.

That leaves Pawlenty as the last man standing, once again. He’s every Republican’s third choice, but he just may end up with the nomination if the only other choices are Raging RINOs, Tea Party Purists, and draft movements for candidates who refuse to run. As unlikely as it seems, Pawlenty just may be a dog who’s about to have his day.

In a new poll released by respected pollsters at Winthrop University, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is polling well ahead of the Republican field with 21.9% of likely Southern primary voters in 2012. States polled were Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

The next highest candidate was former Georgia congressman and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who is expected to announced his candidacy later this week and polled at 12.9%. Sarah Palin was third at 8.7%, with Mitt Romney coming in fifth at 6.9%, barely ahead of Tim Pawlenty. The two biggest surprises are fourth place finisher and North-Easterner, Chris Christie with 7.6% and sitting Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, who only got 1% of the vote. Texas native Ron Paul finished at 6%, while Rick Santorum didn’t break into the 1% range and Mitch Daniels was just under 3%. About 20% haven’t decided, yet.

Other questions by Winthrop showed that the economy was the number one issue not just for Republicans, but for all Southland voters.

Correction: I originally misidentified Barbour as the governor of Alabama.

PPP (D) Rhode Island 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 54%
• Mitt Romney 37%

• Barack Obama 56%
• Mike Huckabee 31%

• Barack Obama 60%
• Newt Gingrich 27%

• Barack Obama 65%
• SarahPalin 24%

(more…)

PPP (D) North Carolina 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Mike Huckabee 24% (27%) {18%} [25%] (19%) {30%} [30%] (33%)
• Newt Gingrich 18% (18%) {21%} [17%] (23%)
• Mitt Romney 18% (11%) {18%} [10%] (14%) {27%} [25%] (25%)
• Sarah Palin 16% (16%) {21%} [21%] (19%) {30%} [27%] (27%)
• Ron Paul 6% (6%) {7%} [7%]
• Tim Pawlenty 5% (7%) {3%} [4%] (4%)
• Mitch Daniels 2% (3%) {1%} [1%] (2%)
• John Thune 1% (1%) {1%} [2%] (0%)
• Someone else/Undecided 11% (10%) {12%} [12%] (16%)

(more…)

Yesterday, I had opportunity for a sit down interview with Governor Mike Huckabee during the bus tour for his book, A Simple Government. He also offered a press avail at book signings in Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, Iowa. Governor Huckabee was his usual personable self, taking a moment to chat with each person passing through the line or have his picture taken with them.[1]

I asked the governor to address those who say the mortgage payment on a home he is building in Florida will make it impossible to run for president in 2012. Governor Huckabee was transparent in his answer. First, it is not really a mortgage, but rather a contract to build a home. Privately built homes aren’t ready for a mortgage until they are appraised, which can’t happen until after they are a built. Second, the land appraises higher than his purchase price, and the construction contract was also entered into at below current market rates, suggesting that if he decided to make a run for president this summer he could still sell off the property at a significant profit. No, a mortgage payment won’t stop him from running for president.

Besides disclosing things that were really none of my business, he was also candid about his dream home. Anybody would be foolish to give it up on a whim, he says.[2] His decision is a matter of prayer and determining by Providence what God would have him (and by extension, his family) do[3]. Will he have the support and backing needed to possibly win?

I also asked him about his Fox News contract. Again, he was particularly honest. First, he is free from his Fox contract, if and when he announces, even informally, that he is a candidate for any nation-wide office[4]. He must walk off the set of his Fox News show Huckabee an unemployed man and would have to immediately give up his 3-times-daily ABC News radio show.

Huckabee listed several practical reasons why waiting until summer is best. Why would anyone who might want to run for president (or have an impact on the country) give up an opportunity to freely convey his views until the last possible moment? Should he trade that platform for a few extra speaking engagements? Other than getting to share the spotlight in a debate with twelve other candidates (and get maybe five minutes to answer three questions of a moderator’s choosing[5]) what advantage is there in that?

He expanded on this idea both in private and in a public press conference. Why would a boxer fight a 15-round fight when he could win as easily in a 10-round fight? The process in the Republican party is much different than the 2008 season. Last time, because of winner-take-all rules in the GOP, the die was virtually cast after the first four or five primary and caucus nights. This time proportional apportionment will likely mean a much longer campaign season. Remember the Clinton and Obama race? Both the candidates and the people wear themselves out. The masses of voters don’t really care when you get in, as long as you spend time with them[6] [7]. They only care that you show up and care about their questions and concerns. Last time, pundits and political insiders underestimated his campaign, Huckabee says. He will start off with name recognition this time. No one appears too antsy to get in. If he runs, it will be on his time schedule, not theirs.

Here are a couple of videos that I took at the book signings:

MOV00018

MOV00019

ABC News has the scoop:

The 2012 presidential campaign is about to get its first big-name Republican.

ABC News has learned that Newt Gingrich will make the leap this week. Confidants close to the former House speaker say he will announce his intention to form a presidential exploratory committee before the end of the week.

Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler would only say that the former speaker will make an announcement by the end of the week on forming a presidential exploratory committee. But friends of Gingrich say he has already made up his mind. Gingrich’s travel schedule is already looking like that of a presidential candidate. He will be in Iowa on Mar. 7 and ABC News has learned he will in New Hampshire Mar. 17.

Gingrich’s advisors say his campaign will have a “major presence” in Georgia, which Gingrich represented in Congress for 19 years, though they have not decided yet where his campaign headquarters will be. Gingrich has lived in northern Virginia for years.

He has been preparing and talking openly about a possible run for months.

Read the rest of the report here.

There are a couple of recent news items which, while worth writing about, are probably quick enough that they can be combined into one post. Here, then, are some quick hits for this first day of March, 2011.

1. I can remember a time when a freshman governor made extremely unpopular decisions to close a statewide budgetary short-fall. This governor was considered DOA in the next election, in his first two years on the job. He certainly wasn’t on anybody’s list of potential rising stars, and his obituaries are widely reported. Of course, by the end of his first term, Mitch Daniels won reelection by double digits in a year in which Barack Obama carried his state. It’s important to keep in mind that Daniels messed with something absolutely _nobody_ ever touches: toll roads. This is one of those issues which, if mishandled, can absolutely kill a governor’s career, and in 2005 and early 2006, it looked as though Mitch had indeed mishandled the issue. Why didn’t it sink him? Because, in the end, what he did worked.

Fast-forward to 2011, and we see another freshman governor in seriously hot water for trying to close a budget loophole, and make his state more economically competitive, in the teeth of public sector union opposition. Gleeful Democrats and union hacks (or is that redundant these days) are writing his obituary, citing recent polls which show his popularity in negative territory. Walker should heed the lessons of Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie and other governors faced with tough challenges in their first term; nothing succeeds like success. If Walker manages to get the majority of what he wants, and if it has the effect he intended, voters will rally around him. If he fails, or if the benefits he argues the state will receive from his actions don’t appear, he may well be a one-term governor. Governor Walker should therefore ignore the momentary polling and the conventional wisdom about the popularity of his actions, and win the fight in front of him.

2. Nebraska Attorney General John Bruning took questions from Jim Geraghty over at the Campaign Spot, including one about his liberal law school writings. When asked what led him to move from liberal to conservative positions, Bruning cited: paying taxes, starting a family, and the fact that his parents paid for his college. This got me thinking: how much of the liberalism of 18 to 35-year-olds– my politically moronic generation I’m afraid– comes from a sociological trend I’ve heard described as extended adolescence. That is to say, it seems like society now only treats a person as fully “adult” when he or she actually reaches thirty. People are living with their parents longer, receiving funding for education from their parents more, and if it’s not paid for by parents, the government steps in. Not to mention the fact that it creates an expectation that tens of thousands of personal debt are nothing to worry about. Does this have a political effect? Hopefully Bruning is but the first of many graduate students who wise up to the disastrous consequences of a fiscally profligate personal life, and state.

3. In New York 26, the Republican county chairs have chosen assembly woman and small business owner Jane Corwin as their special election nominee, and she has also received the endorsement of Karl Paladino (I still maintain she’s some sort of wizard). Yet rumors of a tea party challenge persist; apparently NY tea partiers are irritated at not being consulted. The thing is, Corwin’s actually pretty conservative. The NY Conservative Party claims she’s the second most conservative person in the NY assembly, and her only deviation appears to be that she supports abortion in the first trimester (which, given the current status of Roe V. Wade, is probably irrelevant for a congressperson anyway). Corwin does say, as I recall, that she would have voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Corwin has also gotten flack for a donation to Dede Scozzafava, however I suspect this will turn out to be an example of Republican assembly collegiality more than any real ideological affinity. All in all, NY 26 doesn’t look like a good fit for a tea party challenge.

4. Ever heard of Buddy Roemer? I hadn’t, until he announced his intention to consider running for president. If Roemer, Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee all run, I think it’ll be the first time (in recent memory, at least) that all three deep south states (Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi) have been represented with candidates for president.