GraniteGrok, a conservative blog out of New  Hampshire, is reporting the results of two straw polls taken at the Americans for Prosperty New Hampshire event. Here’s the text of their post:

1) Before Cain: A paper poll run at the Concord Tax Day Tea party listed all the known contenders, and collected 300 ballots, about half of which were in before the keynote speeches had been heard, and thus largely reflective of pre-existing preferences:
17% Pawlenty
16% Cain
13% Paul
–% Trump / Bachmann
–% Santorum and Others…
<1% Roemer
(“–” signifies ranking reported, but not exact percentage)

2) After Domination: A text message poll run by AFP to rate the most effective speaker of the four candidates present received 975 responses and showed a striking jump:

62% Cain
17% Pawlenty
14% Santorum
7% Roemer

It’s interesting the huge jump after the speeches, especially with the number of participants and considering everyone who gave speeches at the event. Again, this is a straw poll – so take it with a grain of salt – but it’s an interesting look into what speeches worked and which ones didn’t among participants at the AFP event.

Hat tip to R.S. McCain

EDIT 4/30/11 07:46 PM EDT: Apparently this was before / after an event on April 15th, my mistake. Still interesting.

_______________________________________________________

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

Jimmy Carter: There He Goes Again

At a famous moment in their 1980 debate, Ronald Reagan responded to one of Jimmy Carter’s absurdities by saying, “There you go again …”

Unfortunately, Carter is still going as absurdly as ever. As usual in Carter’s universe, the United States is the villain, and this time we are guilty of ‘human rights violations’ because we cut off aid to North Korea.

Former US president Jimmy Carter, after a 48-hour visit to North Korea, has sharply criticised the United States and South Korea for their refusal to send humanitarian aid to the impoverished North.

Mr Carter said their deliberate withholding of food aid amounted to ”a human rights violation”.

I wonder if Carter is going to propose that the Nobel committee rescind its Peace Prize from human rights violator Barack Obama.

What Happens When Governments Mess (or Don’t Mess) with the Economy

Great chart detailing the performance of three South American economies over the past thirty years. During that period, Chile has significantly freed its economy; Argentina has stayed roughly the same; and Venezuela, of course, has turned hard left. The result, in terms of per capita GDP:

Best Marketing Gimmick Ever!

Having spent most of my adult life in marketing, I love a good gimmick, and it’s a well-established principle that there are few better than ‘Free!’

But typically it’s something boring, like buy a new car, get a hundred gallons of free gas; or buy tickets for a ballgame and get a free cap.

How about this one? Buy a house, get a free wife.

This actually is from 2009, but I just came across it: In China, where because of the country’s ‘one child’ policies there is a severe shortage of women (I’ve heard various figures, this says 20% more men), a Beijing real estate developer was offering buyers the opportunity to marry one of the saleswomen as an extra incentive. They’ll even throw in a dowry.

In a sign of increasingly desperate times for China’s property market, with housing sales plummeting by as much as 20 per cent – new ways to sell property are constantly being thought up- but this has to be the most novel idea yet.

The Ecological Bay website asks, ‘Planning to buy a house? Can we tempt you with the offer of a young bride – and a dowry as well?’

Once buyers decide to purchase a home, when they are on the site choosing kitchen colours and curtains to kit out their new pad, they can also browse the sales girls’ age, height and read information about their other…assets.

If a buyer and a sales girl date successfully and go on to marry, the company is offering a wedding present of £6,000 to couples who are still married after a year.

The company lured the sales ladies with a commitment to pay eight per cent in sales commissions as well as the opportunity to secure a wealthy husband.

Tweet of the Week

The trouble with his candidacy is that “President Ron Paul” is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and therefore is not allowed.

This Week at the United Nations

Among the current members of the UN Human Rights Council are Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and – my personal favorite – Libya. So guess who’s about to get elected for next year? Syria, of course.

No further comment required. Well, okay, no comment required, but I’ll comment anyway. Tell me again: Why do we give these people money?

A Word about Words

One of my passions is studying the etymology of words and phrases. Since this one, which I received through an etymology newsletter, World Wide Words, deals with politics, I feel justified in throwing it into this week’s miscellany.

A headline on Sky News read “Iron Lady’s bag to go under hammer”, a puzzling reference for anybody unversed in the oddities of English idiom or of British politics of the 1980s.

Former prime minister Baroness Thatcher is auctioning for charity her famous Asprey handbag, which she carried to meetings with Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev as well as to cabinet. It became so central an image of her notoriously tough approach to political opponents and to recalcitrant ministers (hence the epithet “Iron Lady”) that it led to a new figurative verb entering the language: to handbag. Some wit quipped that Margaret Thatcher used to keep order among her ministers by hitting them with her handbag.

From The Times of 13 June 1988, “The Foreign Office told her she could not get ‘our money’ back from the Common Market. Mrs Thatcher handbagged her way through an EEC summit in Dublin and won us rebates.” It’s still to be found; this is from a Reuters tennis report of 20 January this year: “The highlight came afterwards when the third seed handbagged the courtside interviewer over a text message that he had sent to another player.” As both the participants were male, it would seem that the verb has lost its original sexist overtones.

You’re Known by Your Enemies

Earlier this week, a Romney supporter objected to Fred Karger’s inclusion in a debate because (besides being a joke of a candidate) Karger would likely just use the podium to attack Mitt Romney and the LDS church over California’s Prop 8. In reply, I acknowledged that that might happen, but if it did it would probably benefit Romney, since few things are better for a serious candidate than being attacked by someone perceived as being on the fringe, particularly a fringe that is not popular with the party in question.

A similar example came up this week, as Mitch Daniels was attacked by environmentalists for his ‘quacky’ views (it being quacky to suggest that actual proof be required of scientific assertions and that ‘consensus’ is not proof) and presented this video from his 2009 commencement address at Rose–Hulman Institute of Technology, a highly-regarded engineering school in Terre Haute (the global warming remarks begin at 3:42).

A relentless project has inundated Americans for years with the demand that we must drastically reduce the carbon dioxide we emit as a society. It is asserted that the earth is warming; that this warming would have negative rather than positive consequences; that the warming is man-made rather than natural; that radical changes in the American economy can make a material difference in this phenomenon; and that utility bills in Indiana must double because no better or less expensive alternative to this policy is discussable.

Well. All these contentions may be correct. It may be that they will all be borne out over the coming decades. But the average citizen has no way to be sure of that for now. Although there are scientists, and scientific studies, that are deeply skeptical of all these claims, they are rarely heard in what passes for public debate. The debate, so far, has been dominated by “experts” from the University of Hollywood and the P.C. Institute of Technology.

Joining this discussion will require more than technical competence; it will take courage, too. In what has become less a scientific than a theological argument, anyone raising a contrary viewpoint or even a challenging question is often subjected to vicious personal criticism. Any dissident voice is likely to be the target of a fatwa issued by one Alatollah or another of the climate change theocracy, branding the dissenter as a “denier” for refusing to bow down to the “scientific consensus.”

Since it is sometimes said that all the leading Republican contenders have flirted with cap & trade and other climate warming silliness, I thank the greenies for their assistance in demonstrating otherwise.

Lost in the Planned Parenthood furor yesterday, another important piece of legislation passed the Indiana legislature in its closing minutes, an immigration bill. Daniels supported the bill, although he requested that it be toned down from its original form (basically a copy of Arizona’s law) and concentrate on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants. The sponsor agreed to the changes and the bill is expected to be signed soon.

Senate Bill 590, which now goes to the governor, requires most Indiana businesses check the immigration status of new employees, forbids distribution of state aid to illegal immigrants and prohibits local governments from refusing to abide by federal immigration law.

While I support Arizona’s law, I agree that cutting off jobs is the most important step in controlling the border, since if there are no jobs, there’s no reason to take that nasty and dangerous walk across the desert. And apparently most Americans agree:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% of Adults say if immigration laws were enforced, there would be less poverty in America.  Only 19% disagree with that assessment, while 20% are not sure.

Add your own miscellany in the comments.

We interrupt your regularly scheduled Mitch Daniels/Paul Ryan coverage to discuss Gov. Gary Johnson. I alert you to an article from the tablet news outlet The Daily:

A fitness fanatic who has participated in five iron man triathlons, he defied all odds to win the New Mexico governor’s race in 1994 as a 42-year-old political virgin, never having run for office. He twice defeated his Democratic opponent by 10 points in a state that is 2-to-1 Democratic. He funded his first campaign from his own fortune, acquired when he sold for $38 million his construction company, which he started with one person: himself.

…Johnson cut in half the 10 percent annual growth his state budget had been experiencing. He vetoed 750 bills, a third of them Republican, privatized government services and trimmed public-sector employee rosters. He lowered taxes and still exited with a tidy budget surplus.

…But Johnson is no populist. His strategy is to make pragmatic arguments for liberty. Thus he defends his embrace of immigration and opposition to the war on drugs, not on first principles but on fiscal grounds. He doesn’t give lectures on the importance of open borders to individual liberty. Or offer discourses on “your life, your choice” to defend drug use. Rather, he appeals to voters’ common sense. As governor, he tackled the illegal immigration issue by demonstrating that illegals pay more in state taxes than they consume in services. Likewise, he emphasizes how the drug war sucks up massive law enforcement dollars without reducing use.

This is a savvy approach because it allows him to be more pro-liberty on more issues and reach more people, especially independents for whom putting America’s fiscal house in order is a top priority.

The article, aptly titled “The Pragmatic Libertarian”, highlights the fact that during his time in office Johnson contradicted the weakness most often ascribed to libertarians: that they care more about ideology and purity than tangible results, that they stubbornly cling to principle over pragmatism, and that they sure can philosophize but cannot govern.

I would regard this trait of Johnson’s as a significant strength; after all, one can easily imagine Independent voters reacting rather strongly to the Governor’s tendency to frame issues in dollars-and-cents terms (i.e. “The United States now borrows 43 cents of every dollar it spends.”) – a practice that stems from Johnson’s firm belief in subjecting government spending and programs to cost-benefit analyses.

If you watch Gary’s recent interviews, he makes it apparent that he fully understands the reality of his situation (in fact, in a recent interview, he explicitly stated, “I am the underdog.”). He knows he has major work to do to improve his standing in the polls. He gets it. As he frequently notes, he faced the same situation when he began his campaign for Governor of New Mexico.

Obviously, the entrance of Ron Paul into the 2012 field complicates things for Johnson, as Paul will snatch away some of the media coverage that would have gravitated toward the Governor. Still, with New Hampshire’s history of surprising pundits and upending predictions and Johnson’s firm commitment to dedicating substantial time and effort to the state, perhaps the Granite State will yet again raise some eyebrows.

The Americans For Prosperity Foundation of New Hampshire is having a “Presidential Forum” starting tonight at 8:00PM EST. Participating are:

• Bachmann
• Cain
• DeMint
• Pawlenty
• Romney
• Santorum

It is supposedly being carried online at CSPAN here.

I do not know the format. I presume each worthy will be given ‘x’ number of minutes to say their piece.

h/t BOSMAN @ RightSpeak

*** Update***

Here is a link to the CSPAN recording of the event.

Paul Ryan has surely heard the tap, tap, tap of destiny over the last week, which has seen more than a half dozen major media outlets ramp up speculation that he will make a run at the White House, whether he likes it or not.  The grassroots pressure mirrors and, in some ways, surpasses that which followed Chris Christie for most of last year.  Ryan threads have garnered several hundred comments at Hot Air over the last few days.  Here’s Ryan receiving a standing O at one of his “contentious”, packed, townhall meetings.

Ace speculates that, really, Ryan has to run doesn’t he?

The better Trump does in early polling (and he just slid a little bit), the more likely it is that Paul Ryan will enter the race.That’s my suspicion. Ryan is all about the Plan and Trump has already rejected it as “too extreme.”

I think Ryan is going to realize that no one, no one will run on his plan, because no one else can. They will give it, at best, weak-tea “I’ll look at it” statements like Boehner does (“I’m not wedded to it”).

This is not purely a matter of courage. Ryan has spent eight or ten years becoming an expert on budget and entitlements and fiscal policy. No one else can simply become an expert in a few short months…

If he’s serious about this — and I think he is — he’s going to have to put aside personal concerns and do what a statesman does: Run, not because he wants to run, but run, because we need him to.

The obvious exception to this is Mitch Daniels.  Presumably, Mitch Daniels can, in fact, get up to speed on the budget in a few short months.  He was head of OMB earlier in the decade and a successful businessman in the 90s.  Transitioning back to national fiscal policy shouldn’t be too much of a stretch.  Daniels’ decision to sign that “sweeping abortion bill” is probably a sign that he’s running and maybe he’ll be “the guy”.  But it’s worth noting: Ryan has already risen.  Go to google news and you will find 100 pages of Paul Ryan news stories just in the last 4 days.  This is Donald Trump and Sarah Palin territory and without any of the gimmicks.  He has, in preliminary polling,  3 times Daniels support and he has a natural outlet to Chris Christie’s (who will certainly not run) base.  Mitch Daniels will be starting from his own 15; Ryan’s already in field goal range.  I’ll finish with a comment from the Ace of Spades thread.

I attended a town hall meeting yesterday with Chuck Grassley…At the end, I had a chance to speak to him one on one, and my parting words were, “if you happen to bump into Paul Ryan, would you ask him to run for President in 2012?” He told me that at least 10 people a day tell him the same thing and he assured me he would…

Via the Indiana GOP’s Twitter site.

The bill would prohibit all abortions after Week 20 of pregnancy, or after viability, whichever comes first. It would also defund Planned Parenthood in the state.

This is almost certainly a sign that Gov. Daniels is prepared to take the plunge into the presidential field.

Update: Daniels has released a statement clarifying his position on the legislation.

“I supported this bill from the outset, and the recent addition of language guarding against the spending of tax dollars to support abortions creates no reason to alter my position,” said Daniels in a statement.

He had this message for Planned Parenthood, which had actively campaigned against the bill: “Any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions.

I thought of that wise old saying when I read this in the Washington Post:

A consistent theme among those who think Mitch Daniels won’t run (and among those who hope he won’t run, for one reason or another) has been that he has waited too long, and has done nothing to build a campaign organization.

I will admit that I have been concerned occasionally, although I suspected all along that the team Haley Barbour was building might be community property, so to speak.

So I was pleased to read this item by Erin McPike when MWS sent it to me. It argues that, even apart from any infusions from Barbour’s campaign, Daniels has at least the framework of a strong organization already in place.

With more than three decades in politics behind him, the governor has done more than develop a Rolodex he could deploy for fundraising, as most point out. The campaign operative in him also has built an organization ready to go whenever he tells them to — and the media doesn’t seem to know it yet. For the past year, he’s been playing its members like piano keys as he orchestrates his national rollout.

Anthony Dolan, the chief speechwriter for the entire Reagan presidency, knows Daniels well from the time they worked together and explained, “Mitch has always been a marvel with the news dynamic.” He added, “A year ago people were saying ‘Mitch who’ and then comes a rollout with more elaborate choreography than a Busby Berkley musical — we haven’t seen the synchronized swimming yet, but I’m sure it’s coming.”

Most of the article deals with the campaign infrastructure Daniels has in Indianapolis, but apparently there have been conversations with folks in primary states as well:

Then come the early nominating states, where Daniels has been talking to some key figures, albeit in an under-the-radar kind of way. He’s kept in touch with former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, whom he’s known for decades, and he recently spoke with Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad about education policy.

(Note: I question McPike’s inclusion of Branstad in this — I recall a recent article in which Branstad said they discussed nothing but education, and he sounded dubious about Daniels running). But she goes on:

One of the most prominent names in Iowa GOP politics, attorney Doug Gross, has been meeting methodically with all of the 2012 Republican contenders and hasn’t picked one to support yet. He was with Mitt Romney four years ago but is unlikely to return. He’s long thought highly of Daniels and has told him to make sure he calls him as soon as he figures out his plans.

And in New Hampshire, strategist Mike Dennehy is awaiting Daniels’ decision, too. Dennehy worked for both of Arizona Sen. John McCain’s campaigns and had signed on with Haley Barbour in March. But he had talked with other operations before choosing the now-defunct Barbour team and told RealClearPolitics this week after Barbour’s exit that he hopes Daniels runs.

Also in the Granite State, Sununu’s sons Michael and James, and Jamie Burnett, are partners in the Concord-based Profile Strategy Group. Burnett was Mitt Romney’s New Hampshire political director in 2008, but the trio is not working for a presidential candidate now and is open to advising a campaign this cycle. Michael Sununu has had long ties to some of Daniels’ advisers, and they indicated they could support Daniels.

When these operatives are combined with the Barbour team, they add up to an organization that would have the capability to get rolling pretty quickly — particularly under the direction of a couple pros like Daniels and Barbour. McPike concludes:

So the next time Daniels says he hasn’t been doing the things he needs to do in order to launch a White House bid, it’s probably best not to believe him. He could still wind up not running, but he has set himself up to do so if he gives his advisers the nod.

We’ll know in a few days, it appears.

Rasmussen 2012 GOP Nomination Survey (Dark Horse Edition)

If the 2012 Republican Primary for President were held today and you had a choice between Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Buddy Roemer, Gary Johnson, Thaddeus McCotter or John Huntsman for whom would you vote?

• Michele Bachmann 27%
• Rick Santorum 12%
• Herman Cain 9%
• Rick Perry 7%
• Jon Huntsman 3%
• Buddy Roemer 1%
• Gary Johnson 1%
• Thaddeus McCotter 1%
• Some other candidate 17%
• Undecided 22%

National survey of 1,000 likely GOP primary voters was conducted April 26, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Bachmann’s support climbs to 31% among unaffiliated voters who are likely to vote in a Republican primary.

Given this slate of candidates, however, 42% of Republicans who plan to vote in the primaries either want another candidate or are undecided, compared to 32% of unaffiliated primary voters.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Rasmussen 2012 Republican Nomination Survey

Suppose some of the bigger names decided not to run for President in 2012 and you had a choice between Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, John Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryan….for whom would you vote?

• Mitt Romney 27%
• Chris Christie 26%
• Paul Ryan 12%
• Tim Pawlenty 8%
• Mitch Daniels 4%
• Rick Perry 3%
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Some other candidate 6%
• Undecided 12%

National survey of 1,000 likely GOP primary voters was conducted April 26, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Romney, who unsuccessfully sought the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, has a slight edge among Republicans. But Christie holds a double-digit lead over the former Massachusetts governor among unaffiliated voters who are likely to vote in GOP primaries.

Tea Party members likely to vote in Republican primaries strongly prefer Christie to Romney. Those who are not members of the grass roots movement favor Romney by nearly as wide a margin.

Evangelical Christian primary voters are closely divided between the two, but other Protestants like Romney more. Catholics give the nod to Christie. Those of other faiths are evenly divided.

Those who earn more than $60,000 per year favor Christie; those who earn less like Romney more.

Across all demographic categories, Christie and Romney are the clear leaders in this pack of potential GOP presidential hopefuls.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

This informative, humorous, and spiffy music video really encapsulates the great debate of our generation: freedom and individualism vs. central planning and collectivism.  We are truly at a crossroads in this country.  One road leads to economic dictatorship, and another road leads to free market capitalism.  At this critical juncture in history, the old debate between deficit spending advocate John Maynard Keynes and the Austrian economist F.A. Hayek is more relevant than ever.

And the prequel to this video is also worth watching:

The Washington Post reports that at least five Democratic Senators are bucking the White House on whether or not to attach solid steps to cutting the deficit to the bill raising the dept ceiling.

A growing number of Democrats are threatening to defy the White House over the national debt, joining Republican calls for deficit cuts as a requirement for consenting to lift the country’s borrowing limit.

The tension is the latest illustration of how the tea-party-infused GOP is driving the debate in Washington over federal spending. And it shows how the debt issue is testing the Obama administration’s clout as Democrats, particularly those from politically competitive states, resist White House arguments against setting conditions on legislation to raise the debt ceiling.

The article goes on to mention as being among those raising concerns the following  U.S. Senators:

• Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)
• Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
• Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
• Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.)

Conrad is the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and as such carries a lot of weight.

The fly in the ointment is that the plan most favored by the Democrats calls for automatically raising taxes if the debt doesn’t stabilize by a certain date. It is the plan that is favored by Harry Reid. Republicans are understandably opposed to such a tactic since that would mean that all the Democrats have to do is drag their feet in cutting spending, and voilà!; we have a tax increase.

The White House, for its part, is making a show of resisting tying Deficit Reduction to Debt Ceiling Raising. Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney stated that it is a “… dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage … a vote on raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation.”

And the challenges to this President continue to add up. 557 days to go until Nov 6, 2012.

Fox News 2012 Presidential Survey

Republican Nomination

• Mitt Romney 19% (14%)
• Mike Huckabee 17% (15%)
• Sarah Palin 9% (12%)
• Donald Trump 8% (11%)
• Newt Gingrich 7% (7%)
• Ron Paul 7% (3%)
• Herman Cain 4% (2%)
• Tim Pawlenty 3% (4%)
• Michele Bachmann 3% (2%)
• Rick Santorum 3% (2%)
• Mitch Daniels 2% (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% (1%)
• Gary Johnson 1% (1%)
• Fred Karger 1%
• Roy Moore 1%
• Buddy Roemer 0%
• Someone else 1% (1%)
• Too soon to say 9% (5%)
• Don’t know 4% (8%)

Note: Rudy Giuliani was included in the April 3-5 poll, and received 9 percent of the vote.

(more…)

UNH/WMUR New Hampshire 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 50%
• Barack Obama 43%

• Barack Obama 46%
• Mike Huckabee 42%

• Barack Obama 45%
• Tim Pawlenty 38%

President Obama Job Approval

• Approve 44%
• Disapprove 52%

Survey of 504 adults was conducted April 15-26, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Magellan Strategies (R) Massachusetts Survey on RomneyCare

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Massachusetts Health Care Plan that was enacted by Governor Mitt Romney and the Massachusetts Legislature in 2006?

• Very Favorable 15%
• Somewhat Favorable 15%
• Somewhat Unfavorable 17%
• Very Unfavorable 34%

• Total Favorable 30%
• Total Unfavorable 51%

(more…)

Economic Growth Slows as Inflation Surges reads a lead business/financial story this afternoon from Reuters.   There is now growing recognition that we are in the early stages of stagflation, the combination of economic stagnation with rising inflation resulting in a net reduction in real income, especially for the middle class.  According to Keynesian economics (or what might be more contemporarily called Bush-Obamanomics), the phenomena of stagflation is supposed to be impossible–at least that’s what Establishment conventional wisdom believed (as Nixon declared in 1971 “We’re all Keynesians now”) until sometime in the late 1970′s when Jimmy Carter was presiding over steadily rising unemployment, double digit inflation and interest rates, and falling real wages.  Stagflation could only be explained by Austrian and Chicago Economics—the economic theories of Hayek and Friedman as opposed to those of Keynes—and thus its occurrence and the subsequent Reagan-Thatcher Revolution appeared to provide the final victory for Hayek and Friedman in what had been a protracted economic debate going back to the 1930′s.

While the Reagan Revolution and “Reaganomics” is usually associated these days with tax cuts, and maybe deregulation initiatives and restraints in discretionary domestic spending, a fourth but less remembered component was of equal importance:  sound, stable money and a strong dollar. As a result, the 1980′s and 1990′s were characterized by disinflation and a stable dollar; and, this had as much to do with the sustained economic expansion and growth in real incomes as did the tax cuts and deregulation initiatives.  In short, all worked together and were mutually reinforcing, but the disinflation and strong dollar were critical.  I’m guessing that most of the regulars on this site have never seen an officially acknowledged inflation rate of 14% (the real rate was higher) and interest rates of 19%+ on home mortgages and long-term Treasury bonds, but that was the economic climate of 1979-80 and it provided the perfect backdrop for Reagan’s famous closing line in the debate with Carter:  ”Are you better off than you were four years ago?”  So, if most of you guys were not around to disco dance and snort cocaine at Studio 54 to the tunes of Blondie and Sylvester, stay tuned—those days may be about to return.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s first of its kind press conference yesterday did not offer much in the way of comfort to those of us fearing that the Fed’s massive debt monetization campaign is likely to result in sustained high levels of inflation with disastrous consequences for both senior citizens living on retirement income AND for those trying to gain a foothold in younger adult life.  To hear Bernanke claim that the headline inflation rate is something under 3% and the core rate (minus food and energy) is under 2% reminds me of a Jimmy Carter press conference back in 1978 when he blamed the rising price of gold for weakening the dollar.  Consequently, inflation and the stability and value of the dollar may very well feature more prominently in next year’s election than previously expected.  I am not suggesting that in 2012 stagflation will be perceived to be as bad as in the Carter years (that may well come later, however) but it is likely to be an issue with the voters as they see the purchasing power of their earnings and their standard of living decline.

Earlier this week, Investment banker and conservative activist Lewis Lehrman penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing that Paul Ryan’s budget proposals will not succeed unless the Federal Reserve refrains from monetizing the debt and debasing the dollar.  Lehrman, who was an economic advisor to both Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, argues for a return to some kind of gold standard.  While I am somewhat sympathetic to his arguments, I do not believe that the fate of Ryan’s budget proposal is so dependent.  I strongly concur, however, that debt monetization, inflation, and what would amount to a “stealth” default of US debt obligation would seriously mitigate the positive pro-growth budget and tax reforms that Ryan proposes.  Fortunately, the GOP appears to be in intellectual recovery mode and presumably Ryan and others like him understand this.

In any case, everyone should read or re-read the chapter on inflation and the politics behind it in Milton Friedman’s classic Free to Choose. The 1970′s are back.

I sat in tonight on Herman Cain‘s blogger conference call tonight. It began with the bloggers introducing themselves and Mr. Cain wishing a happy birthday to Jimmie from the Sundries Shack. I’ll cross my fingers and hope I get a birthday wish from the man this summer.

This was then followed up by Ms. Ellen Carmichael giving a summary of where their organization is at the moment. Mr. Cain has been in 10 states, gave 12 speeches, over the course of 8 days. They have been garnering more national attention and has recently been in New Hampshire. Mr. Cain then began to talk about recent events. First, he told us that they’ve held a number of home parties – including one this evening with Mr. Ovide Lamontagne. Who’s that? The man who came in 2nd place in the US Senate primary in 2010 in New Hampshire and a Tea Party favorite who’s been building up a powerful base of support / organizational structure in New Hampshire.

Cain then began to talk about the reactions he’s been getting. The reactions? Have been positive and people are frustrated with the current administration, they’re frustrated with Obama stating that he wants to become Brazil’s best customer if they off-shore drill. Cain said, “America better become its own best customer…” regarding energy independence and that “…people are sick and tired of ignoring the resources we have here.” He says that the people he’s talking to feel as though the budget plan offered little to no progress and are excited about the Ryan plan. He also said that people are liking the idea of seeing a business approach used to address our current issues. Cain said that people are looking for a problem solver. As he moves forward in deciding whether to run or not (a decision he said is weeks, not months away), he have only been encouraged by the people he’s been meeting.

After that, Cain opened the floor for questions from the bloggers on the call. Here’s some other choice quotes from his responses:

“We can solve our social security system problem, we just need the right leadership.”

“Nobody else, no other candidate is going to out work me.”

Regarding energy independence / oil prices: “It’s as simple as that…supply and demand. If we don’t get serious about contributing to the supply side, we are always going to be the ones on the short end of the stick when it comes to demand.”

Regarding small donations: “Every dollar is a big impact.”

To the youth of America: “Don’t stay on the sidelines because when you become a productive adult, there may not be any sidelines.”

Regarding the EPA, Government Regulations: “We have gone regulatory crazy…We need some regulations, but we don’t need to have regulatory gridlock like we have now.”

Cain also said that he’d like to do a detailed assessment with the heads of all the federal departments. He said that we need to drill down each of the agencies within the government and identify whole programs to eliminate. He promises to identify overlapping / duplicate programs. He said that he would be directly involved in what whole programs need to be cut.

When asked more explicitly about the EPA / Department of Education, he first said that he’d unbundle the Department of Education. He’d start by looking at programs that are unfunded mandates; any unfunded mandate on the states, he wants to unravel it and if they can’t be unravel it…they would be eliminated. He would want input from the states because he wants the department to interact with the states appropriately.

Cain referred to the EPA as the most abusive agency in Washington, DC, hindering economic growth and government resources. Cain said he would create a regulatory reduction commission with a focus on the EPA and specifically look for people who had been abused by the EPA to help find ways to reform it.

The birthday boy got the last question. He asked about Haley Barbour and if Mr. Cain would be seeking him out for help. His answer? Yes. He knew Barbour from his days in the National Restaurant Owner’s Association and respects him / would seek his advice.

It was a pretty Cain friendly crowd, so the event was very amicable. That said, it was a very informative event and Mr. Cain was open, honest, and ready to answer whatever we asked. It was refreshing and fun to participate in and I’d be more than happy to do so again.

_______________________________________________________

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

Jeff Fuller recently published an article entitled “Moving the Needle; Why Some Conservatives Disingenuously Reject Romney”. He also published it over on Mitt Romney Central. Now I am not going to rehash what Jeff said. I would, however, like to draw attention to a very well written comment to Jeff’s article over at MRC. It is a very frank analysis of Romney’s perceived weaknesses. It was written by someone named “Bill”.

It impressed me enough that I asked for and received permission from MRC to republish it here in its entirety so Racers can appreciate and discuss it:

I disagree with your premise. [Jeff's Article] I also believe that any article starting with a David Frum quote will be hard to bring back to some degree of intelligence. I think Mr. Romney has several problems that keep people from wanting to gravitate to him.

The first is the Massachusetts health care law. I knew many conservatives who were citing that law as reason not to support him in 2007 and 2008. References to the Heritage Foundation and anything else were irrelevant to them. They were not going to vote for Mitt Romney because he supported “socialized medicine” in Massachusetts.

The second is abortion. These same people can cite all kinds of statements that Mr. Romney made nominally in support of abortion prior to his 2008 campaign beginning. They aren’t interested in explanations or the possibility that he changed his mind. To them, he was just saying whatever the base wanted to hear in order to be nominated.

The third is the Second Amendment. While Mr. Romney ran in Massachusetts on the promise not to change anything about gun laws, different statements he made over the years were cited as evidence that he wasn’t a Second Amendment supporter. Anything he said in support of the Second Amendment in 2007 or 2008 was considered to be insincere political promises to win the nomination. Even in the first few debates, he didn’t handle Second Amendment questions as well as I would have liked.

The fourth is religion. Many people have grown up learning that Mormonism is a cult and have invested a great deal of time and energy into believing that position. To support a GOP presidential nominee who is a Mormon would force them either to admit that they were wrong or to say that they were supporting a cult member for our nation’s highest office. Many people who were actually swayed by this issue hid behind the first three issues to justify their opposition to Mr. Romney.

The fifth is wealth. Many people consider anyone with that much money to be part of “The Establishment” regardless of anything else. No matter how hard Mr. Romney worked for that money, his having that money made him “not one of us.”

The sixth is family. Mr. Romney’s father may have gone from rags to riches. Mr. Romney may remember humble times as a child. However, he still comes from a family that is big in GOP politics. Coming from that kind of family makes him part of “The Establishment” in some ways.

The seventh is education. Harvard and Yale are some of this nation’s oldest schools, and they’ve produced plenty of presidents. We’ve had a Harvard or Yale graduate in the White House for over twenty years now. To folks who went to state universities, community colleges, and trade schools, a Harvard or Yale degree makes someone part of “The Establishment.”

The eighth problem is still the management versus employee gap. Mr. Romney is saying the right things about compassion for people who have lost jobs. He’s even saying the right things about removing government barriers to business in this country being competitive. However, he still comes across as a management type who will move the jobs to China if that move means the most for the bottom line. The management type always seems to be part of “The Establishment.”

The ninth problem is around passion and specifics. He says that we need to get tough with China on the value of their currency and intellectual property protection, but he doesn’t give specifics. He doesn’t come across as being as tough or as passionate about the issue as Donald Trump does. In all of his statements, he has such an aversion to tariffs that we don’t see him using this tool if necessary to deal with the problem. Donald Trump comes out and says that he’ll slap a tariff on Chinese goods if a tariff is necessary to make the Chinese play fair. I don’t trust Donald Trump, but he’s saying the right things on the trade issue. He probably has a good reason for holding back, but holding back makes him appear to be part of “The Establishment.”

Even in 2008, many people saw Mr. Romney as “The Establishment.” He wasn’t in Washington, but he was still considered an insider because of his wealth and social standing. He’s not going to escape that perception. He’s going to be rich, white, and good-looking as long as he’s healthy enough to run for office. Right now, plenty of people see that image as being part of the problem. They see people who have tried to cultivate that image as the people who have created the leviathan government that we have today.

That’s why so many people are seeking candidates like Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and Allen West. They are stuck on the image issue, and these guys don’t project the image of the consummate politician like the images of those who got us into this mess. If we look at substance, none of them are as likely to do what must be done as Mr. Romney is, but they don’t “look like” the people who got us into this mess. For those who just want symbolism rather than substance, touting Trump/West, Christie/West, or Christie/Rubio is much easier than thinking about the situation that we really face.

For those who think about substance, there is still a search for someone who has the substantive qualifications to be president but doesn’t have the image that Mr. Romney does. Mitch Daniels is proof that if you’re short enough and bald enough, you won’t seem like “The Establishment” even with degrees from Princeton and Georgetown and having broken into politics as a member of Richard Lugar’s staff. Tim Pawlenty’s father was a truck driver and not a governor. After twenty years of Ivy League presidents, a University of Minnesota graduate has appeal to many people. For those who want a “The Mighty Ducks go to Washington” story, he has tremendous appeal. However, his generally mild manner and conventional looks give him the same “looks like” problem that Mr. Romney has. He’s not the conservative tough guy that many Republicans want.

Ultimately, I think Mr. Romney will get past these problems. Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee will probably realize that they gain nothing by running. Donald Trump either won’t run or will be knocked down in the vetting process. Michele Bachmann will get many of the frustrated conservative votes. She raises money well enough to stay in the race for a while. Mitch Daniels will get some support from college students, but he won’t raise that much money or do well enough to get that much attention. Newt Gingrich has too much baggage. He can raise enough to stay in the race for a bit, but he’ll quit when the votes obviously aren’t there. If Tim Pawlenty does well, he’ll position himself to be VP and be the frontrunner for 2016 if the worst happens and Obama stays in office.

In the general election, Mr. Romney will lose some votes because he is seen as “The Establishment.” I hope most of those votes will be in states where the GOP either can’t win or can’t lose. He’s currently ahead of Obama in Michigan. He should be able to take back Nevada. He has a good chance of winning New Hampshire. He’s within margin of error in North Carolina. I think he’s close in Florida, but I don’t remember. If he chooses Jim Talent as a running mate, he should pick up Missouri and might even have an inside track on Iowa. If he picks Tim Pawlenty, he’d have a chance at Minnesota and Iowa. He plays well in the West, so maybe he gets Colorado back in the GOP column as well. We still have to win Ohio and Florida, but Mr. Romney gives us a chance to win.

Quinnipiac Pennsylvania Political Survey

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

• Approve 42% (51%) [44%]
• Disapprove 53% (44%) [43%]

Among Democrats

• Approve 76% (81%) [72%]
• Disapprove 18% (14%) [17%]

Among Republicans

• Approve 9% (15%) [18%]
• Disapprove 89% (80%) [75%]

Among Independents

• Approve 37% (50%) [41%]
• Disapprove 57% (46%) [42%]

(more…)

Movement is from the state of the race one week ago:

Only candidates who have announced an exploratory committee or a candidacy, or who have greater than a 2% chance at the nomination are included. Yellow indicates an exploratory committee; green indicates an official candidacy.

PPP polled a possible Sharron Angle/Dean Heller primary matchup for next year’s Senatorial race. Keep in mind that those two went head-to-head in 2006 and Angle lost by one lousy point — 36/35.

She didn’t do quite so well this time:

When was the last time you saw someone losing by 76 points in a two man race? I think it is safe to say that Nevada Republicans have had their fill of Sharron Angle.

Speaking for myself, I voted for her in the primaries. I have no regrets. She ran a nearly flawless primary campaign. Her two main opponents, Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian ran campaigns that would have made the Three Stooges proud.

But then came the General Election. What a change! Where before she did very few things wrong, she now had difficulty doing anything right. Gaffe followed gaffe. Stumble followed stumble. She ran such an inept campaign against a highly beatable Harry Reid, it was embarrassing.

Sorry Sharron. You had your shot. You blew it. Thanks for playing. Goodbye.

Hawkeye/University of Iowa Republican Iowa Caucus

• Mike Huckabee 16%
• Mitt Romney 15%
• Sarah Palin 10%
• Tim Pawlenty 5%
• Newt Gingrich 4%
• Michele Bachmann 3%
• Ron Paul 2%
• Mitch Daniels 0%
• Not sure / Someone else – 37%

Among Republicans

• Mitt Romney 24%
• Mike Huckabee 23%
• Sarah Palin 15%
• Newt Gingrich 9%
• Tim Pawlenty 8%
• Ron Paul 2%
• Bachmann – 0%
• Mitch Daniels – 0%
• Not sure / Someone else – 19%

Among Non-Republicans

• Mitt Romney 17%
• Mike Huckabee 16%
• Ron Paul 13%
• Sarah Palin 11%
• Newt Gingrich 9%
• Michele Bachmann – 3%
• Tim Pawlenty – 3%
• Mitch Daniels – 1%

Survey of 352 voters was taken April 4-11 and released on 4/27. The MoE is 5.2%.

In a recent article which I read on National Review, election analyst Michael Barone says of the presidential primary process that “giving eternal first dibs to Iowa and New Hampshire is intellectually indefensible”. On balance, I’m tempted to agree with Barone. This is not to say that Iowans and New Hampshirites don’t make important contributions to the process, but the unwillingness of candidates, campaigns or political parties to acknowledge that these two states should not have a determinative say in the presidential nominating process every single election cycle is somewhat bewildering. Though an argument could be made–on the Republican side–that socially conservative, economically protectionist Iowa and fiscally conservative, socially moderate New Hampshire are smallish swing states that balance one another relatively well, could the same balance not be replicated with, say, Ohio and New Mexico, or Wisconsin and Nevada?

This leads me to the following thought experiment, and I hope all you political science and process junkies out there with me will also appreciate it; if you had the ability to redesign the presidential primary process, from scratch, with relative carte-blanche from the RNC and all state party committees to do so, which states would you pick? Would you privilege deep red states, in order to accurately gauge the feelings of the base, or swing states, in order to appeal to moderates? Would you award delegates proportionally, based on a candidate’s voting percentage in the state, winner-take-all, or let each state decide? How should the relative merits of primaries versus caucuses be accurately weighed? Or, would we be better off with a national primary day?

For what it’s worth, my recommendations are as follows. I think it makes sense for the first four primaries to be, in no particular order, a deep red state, a deep blue state, and two swing states (with vote totals within, say, five points of the national average in at least two of the three most recent elections). It would also make sense for at least one of the first four to be a “large” state–meaning twenty electoral votes at least–but the other three should be “medium” or even “small” states. Regional balance is also key, but I’m not sure how it could best be weighted. I tend to think primaries are better at measuring a candidate’s ability to win a nation-wide election, but that’s a normative judgment, rather than an empirical one. However, I’m extremely skeptical of the idea of a national primary, since the presidential election is, at it’s core, a series of fifty state elections to choose pledged electors, and the primaries should reflect this as well, to a degree. Plus, a national primary would be a poor means of judging a candidate’s retail political abilities, which are advantages conveyed by small state primaries.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Defenses of the IA and NH-dominated primary system we have today? Please post them in the comments section.

Since Mike Huckabee has been at or near the top of most polls for the Republican nomination over the past year, the growing whispers that he’s not running beg the question: what happens to all those supporters if Huckabee indeed does not run?  Thankfully, Public Policy Polling has given us some data on that, with polls that ask the same respondents whom they would vote for with Huckabee as an option and without.

The way that I’ll lay out the data is by giving the names of the other candidates, then showing how many points they gain after Huckabee’s name is taken out of the poll, and then in the third column show the magnitude in terms of percentage that the candidates’ support expanded by after Huckabee’s name was taken out.

(The purpose of the third column is because, hypothetically speaking, when Huckabee is removed, Candidate A’s support could increase by 6 points while Candidate B’s support increases by 5 points–but Candidate A could be going from 40% to 46%, which would be a modest gain for Candidate A, while Candidate B might be going from 6% to 11%, which would represent a near doubling of support.  Therefore, simply stating how many percentage points a candidate gains, when Huckabee is removed, might not entirely do justice to the significance of some candidates’ post-Huckabee poll number movement.)

These results are fascinating, because they show in extremely striking terms that Mike Huckabee’s supporters are not a monolith.  They are a very diverse lot, and their composition varies markedly from state to state.  While many pundits seem to think that Huckabee’s supporters are interchangeable with Sarah Palin’s (probably because Huckabee = folksy evangelical & Palin = folksy evangelical), that’s definitely not the case.  Nor do Huckabee’s supporters all gravitate toward a fundamentalist Christian candidate like Santorum, or a Southern candidate like Barbour.

So, what is the pattern here?

The pattern is that there is no pattern.  Mike Huckabee’s exit from the race would be more akin to a billiard break than a predictable migration of swallows.

In the first state of the primary/caucus season–Iowa–stunningly, the greatest benefiter by far is Congressman Ron Paul, whose support blossoms 150%, taking him up 9 notches and into second place, just 10 points below Romney.  Paul has carefully crafted a quite socially conservative strain of libertarianism for Iowa voters: the deliverer of 4000 babies emphasizes his opposition to abortion, and the man who has been married to the same woman for over 50 years stands behind his support for the DOMA.  This is consistent with other polling data showing Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul the two most popular candidates in Iowa.  Iowans clearly appreciate Ron Paul’s fiscal and social conservatism, and don’t really seem to mind his anti-war stance (I recall seeing polling from 2007-2008 showing that up to half of Iowan Republicans were actually not pro-war).  If Huckabee declines to run again, it could have the peculiar effect of making Ron Paul seriously competitive in the first-in-the-nation caucus–a first place victory in Iowa for Paul might even not be out of the question.

New Hampshire is a different story.  Mitt Romney makes more room between his first place position and the rest of the pack, but–relatively speaking–Michele Bachmann feels the most benefit.  The Bachmann-Huckabee overlap is more self-explanatory than the Huckabee-Paul or Huckabee-Romney ones.  Bachmann is the folksy, evangelical Christian type–but she comes across as sharper than Sarah Palin.  Perhaps that’s why Huckabee’s Granite State supporters prefer Bachmann over Palin.

By the time we get to the Florida numbers, it is clear that all hope for any semblance of a nationwide pattern is lost.  Huckabee’s absence boosts Newt Gingrich the most in nominal terms, but once again it is Ron Paul that feels the biggest bounce.  Ron Paul’s rosy, old-fashioned home life, coupled with his very culturally conservative approach to libertarianism would be the most logical explanation for Paul’s popularity amongst Huckabee supporters of course, but your guess is as good as mine as to what Huckabee’s Florida supporters see in thrice-married, Catholic Newt.

In the overall tally, it seems as though Huckabee’s exit would give Romney a bit more breathing room, but would–interestingly–also make Ron Paul significantly more competitive.  It would seem that Huckabee’s supporters aren’t quite as concerned with the “faux con” “threat” that libertarians ostensibly pose to the Republican Party, as Huckabee himself is.  Also, while Huckabee and Romney did their fair share of sparring in 2007-2008, my guess is that most of the Huck supporters who head on over to the Romney camp are those for whom general electability is the key quality.  Huck and Romney are currently polling better against Obama than other Republican candidates, so it makes sense that there would be such an overlap in that area.

For my last comment: The wrench in all these gears is, of course, the fact that these polls were taken before Trump fever hit.  While I suspect Trump fever will soon fade, this polling doesn’t tell how much support Huckabee’s followers would throw behind The Donald, if given the chance.  Huckabee lost about 3-ish percentage points, on average, when Trump entered the race, so the overlap between Trump and Huck voters is probably modest.

How about our resident Huck supporters, here at Race42012?  Where will you go, if Huckabee doesn’t throw his hat into the ring?

“How could a bunch of Hillbillies possibly buy a mansion like this?”

This was the opening punch line in the 1962 pilot episode of the situation comedy, The Beverly Hillbillies, but it could also be yet another pundit in 2011 suggesting Governor Mike Huckabee and his wife will not give up their new home in Florida to finance another Huckabee stab at running for president.

Wishful thinking leads many writers to conclude Governor Huckabee won’t run.  They have their picks and Huckabee is competition.   Many of the them don’t understand that while having a dream home is appealing to most any American, the Christian is not a materialist who thinks this life is all there is.  We’ve got a home in glory.

An underlying contempt for Southerners in general and for those living in the Ozarks in particular seems to drive the conclusion that the Huckabees are the new Clampetts.  Max Brantley even thought it important to know that Grannie (Mrs Huckabee) “is often seen in town, recently at an upscale design store picking out furnishings for the new Florida home”.   Most of this is subtle.  The idea is that these Hicks from Arkansas didn’t even know what the word “million” meant until Governor Jed struck oil, on Fox News.

Charles Krauthammer added earlier this week: “Mike Huckabee: Has a good life – hosting a popular TV show, making money, building his dream house in Florida. He’d be crazy to run. Doesn’t look crazy to me. “

New York magazine adds that he “is building a multi-million-dollar, 8,224-square-foot mansion in Florida—won’t be willing (or can’t afford) to part with the fat paychecks he is pulling in from Fox, the lecture circuit, and various travel-related ventures” (emphasis mine).

Jed Clampett and Mike Huckabee do have one thing in common (besides a taste for squirrel).  They can’t be bought.  Money never once robbed Jed Clampett of his family values.  All the “Mr. Drysdales” and real estate moguls and their wheeling and dealing didn’t lure Clampett into thinking things were more important than people.  Governor Huckabee isn’t buying it either.  If he doesn’t run, I doubt it will be because of that new home in Beverly Hills.

PPP has released the results of their most recent 2012 GOP Horse race poll for Nevada:

PPP (D) Nevada 2012 GOP Caucus Survey

• Mitt Romney 29% {31%} (34%) [34%]
• Newt Gingrich 17% {18%} (21%) [28%]
• Sarah Palin 12% {19%} (16%) [16%]
• Michele Bachmann 9%
• Mike Huckabee 9% {14%} (11%) [11%]
• Ron Paul 7% {7%}
• Tim Pawlenty 7% {1%} (2%)
• Someone else/Undecided 9% {8%} (13%)

Pawlenty has to be pleased. He’s flirting with double digits in one of the first four states.

Romney’s second state is still going strong for him. This is a marked contrast from Huckabee’s second state where Mike is clinging to a one or two point lead.

More data below the fold:
(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 Republican Nomination Survey

If the 2012 Republican Primary for President were held today, would you vote for Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich or Mitch Daniels?

• Donald Trump 19%
• Mitt Romney 17% [24%] (20%)
• Mike Huckabee 15% [17%] (19%)
• Newt Gingrich 9% [11%] (13%)
• Sarah Palin 9% [19%] (19%)
• Ron Paul 8% [4%] (5%)
• Tim Pawlenty 5% [6%] (6%)
• Mitch Daniels 3% [3%] (3%)
• Some other candidate 5% [6%] (7%)
• Not sure 11% [10%] (8%)

National survey of 1,000 likely GOP primary voters was conducted April 26, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted January 18, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 1, 2010 are in parentheses.

(more…)

Within a few weeks we’ll know officially most of the major candidates for president, A few may hold back for strategic reasons, but it’s time to begin the campaign in earnest and redirect the voters to the problems the nation faces (and what we might do to solve them).

In my view, there has been a bit too much “positioning” in the period leading up to the present by the various Republican hopefuls, and that’s a game in which the media and the political consultants hold sway. It has lead to distraction for distraction’s sake, and to poseurs claiming they are candidates for president of the United States. Positioning, or a preoccupation with the strategies of game-playing with issues, fills cable TV, assorted blogs, gossip columns and campaign strategist’s paychecks, but does not often inform voters about whom to vote for.

Let’s take social security reform as an example. There are only a few practical and worthy steps to take to make social security stable over the coming decades. Most political figures know what they are, and that eventually they will be applied to the problem. The game playing is somehow to gain advantage with certain voters by making it seem one’s opponent is for the unpopular solutions. One “unpopular” solution that will happen, sooner or later, is that the age at which a worker is eligible for payments will be extended from 65 to 70 or 72. This is inevitable, but a candidate might hope that if he or she can get an opponent or opponents to advocate this change, some voters will turn against him or her. Perhaps a few voters will be influenced by “scare” tactics on this issue, but most voters already understand that this kind of change is inevitable. I suggest key voters will be drawn to political candidates who are straight-forward about matters like this one, and do not play political games.

The evidence is that this is what the public wants more than anything else in these troubled economic times when traditional ideas and institutions have failed are understandable solutions that will work and are fair.

If a nascent presidential campaign became preoccupied by a birth certificate, it is because no one was really talking about the key issues on the voters’ minds. Of course, some issues are much less conclusive than social security reform, and a real debate is needed to clarify what can and should be done. But GOP candidates, it seems to me, risk becoming preoccupied with how narrow religious, ethnic and social issues will impact their chances in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Let me say here that, with this potential field of candidates, the nomination is not likely to be decided in the early primaries and caucuses, conventional wisdom and past campaigns notwithstanding. In 2012, it is likely to be late primary-to-late primary combat, with the victor being the contestant who establishes himself or herself as the person most likely to provide a credible alternative to the incumbent. In the Democratic race in 2008, Mrs. Clinton almost caught up to Mr. Obama as voters in the late primaries reassessed the candidates. In the Republican race in 2012, there may be more than two finalists after the First Four primary/caucuses, and if this is so, the race may be undecided until the end of the campaign season or even at the convention in Tampa.

Most of the serious Republican candidates are going to agree generally about the largest issues. No pro-choice Republican is going to be nominated, nor is anyone who advocates raising taxes or enlarging government. Even in foreign affairs, no GOP nominee will favor U.S. isolationism or abandoning our strongest allies (including Great Britain and Israel).

There are several talented, capable and nominatable candidates in this field, and the campaign, as I have been suggested for months, will soon narrow down to them.

The Iowa Straw Ballot in August will be here before long, and a series of debates among the candidates. It’s probably going to be a protracted political show this time, so let’s get this show on the road.

______________________________________________________________________________________

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

Denials aside…

Reince Priebus has begun exploring whether a presidential bid by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would have any impact on Priebus’ ability to remain at the helm of the Republican National Committee, according to sources with intimate knowledge of the discussions.

Multiple sources who work for Ryan and speak with him on a regular basis said that the Budget Committee chairman has no intention of running for president in 2012. If there is any consideration at all within the Ryan camp about a 2012 run — and that clearly remains a big if — they are not ready to start talking about it.

“Paul is focused on representing his employers in Congress and serving as the Budget Committee chairman. His priorities are being the best husband and father he can be and doing his job to the best of his ability,” said Susan Jacobson, finance director of Ryan for Congress. “He is not interested in running for president.”

Read the rest here.

Fred Karger is the openly gay political consultant running for the 2012 Republican nomination. He has a vast and impressive record of behind the scenes work for the GOP, including some state level advertising / coordinating posts on the Presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole. That said, the average voter doesn’t know who he is, his views are centrist for the most part, and he’s not gained much traction in polling. As such, he will be excluded from the upcoming Presidential debate in South Carolina. My thoughts? Let him in.

I know, Karger may be viewed as a gadfly candidate – an outsider without a real chance at the top. That said, what’s the harm in letting him in? He’s an officially filed candidate for President, one of the only ones at present. He’s serious about his campaign, treating it with the same level of seriousness that the other contenders do. He’s actively attending local GOP events / straw polls to try to build up his name recognition. And if he’s truly a crazy gadfly candidate with no chance at beating Obama, it will come across that way in the debate. Letting him in is win-win. If he’s truly a worthless candidate, we’ll see that in the debate. If he actually has something to offer, we’ll see that too. Either way – the process wins and voters become more informed.

I see no harm in letting Fred Karger debate – he’s got just as much name recognition nationally as Buddy Roemer at this point, and Roemer’s in the debate. Again, I say why not…

_______________________________________________________

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