Romney hits Obama where it hurts – the economy and the deficit – again in a new op-ed piece set to appear in today’s New Hampshire Union Leader. It’s not on the UL website yet, but Mitt has posted in on his Facebook page. Here are some of the best passages, but as they say, read the whole thing:
America received a giant wake-up call when Standard & Poor’s, the bond rating agency, announced that it was changing the outlook on its highly prized AAA rating for U.S. Treasuries to “negative” from “stable.” This is the first ratings warning for the United States since S&P began evaluating our creditworthiness in 1941.
S&P’s action is a significant marker of our country’s deteriorating economic position.
Treasury bond ratings matter — they are measurements of the fiscal strength of the country. The better the bond rating, the lower the cost of borrowing. And the costs of borrowing by the federal government are, of course, ultimately carried by the taxpayer.
So, what was the White House response?
Obama’s top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, downplayed the event, saying, “I don’t make too much about it.” The President himself went on a weeklong campaign swing highlighted by six fundraisers and sharp partisan attacks against Republicans for their attempts at deficit reduction and entitlement reform.
The main job of any executive — whether a CEO, a governor or a President — should be to avert these dangers, or work to repair them. When I took office in Massachusetts, we faced job losses and a fiscal crisis that had the potential to shake the faith of the credit raters in our bonds. We went to work to convince S&P and the other rating agencies that we were committed to reducing spending to balance our budget. I met personally with these officials in my office in Boston, and I traveled to New York City to meet them in their offices. S&P responded in 2005 with a credit rating upgrade that acknowledged the state’s sound fiscal management and the improving strength of its revitalized economy…
Even more significant are the clear signs that the American people have had enough of a federal government that is increasing in size and dominance. We are a great republic in which change is possible. The Obama administration may not be serious about addressing the problems that have caused the S&P downgrade, but in less than two years the voters will tell us whether they will issue a decisive downgrade of their own.
As usual, Romney hits all the right notes — I get most excited about a Romney candidacy when he’s talking the economy. I do have a couple small issues with this op-ed: at one point Romney offers a series of indicators that are hopeful for the future, and in that list he includes “inflation is low” and “the dollar has preserved its position as the world’s currency of choice.” Both of those statements are treading on very shaky ground. CPI may be low, but actual inflation of energy and food prices are up – and many countries are going public about their desire to dump the dollar (or at least add other currencies to it).
Other than those quibbles, however, this is another excellent op-ed which plays directly into Romney’s strengths and Obama’s weaknesses.
Key: Blue states = Obama projected winner; Red States = GOP Challenger projected winner, Gray states = tossups
With 562 days until the 2012 U.S. presidential election, I am setting Race42012′s initial election projection at 247 to 191 for President Barack Obama with 100 electoral votes classified as toss-ups.
The following states are considered “safe” for President Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, and WI. This gives the incumbent an estimated “abchrome://cooliris/skin/new/mouseover.pngsolute floor” of 247 electoral votes as of this writing.
The following states are considered “safe” for the GOP challenger at this time: AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, and WY. This gives the Republican challenger an estimated “absolute floor” of 191 electoral votes.
Eight states are classified as tossups: CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NC, OH, and VA, which total 100 electoral votes. Our “no tossups” projection, which is based upon the President’s approval rating (as well as party registration) in the eight swing states, gives Barack Obama a 272 to 266 Electoral College victory. However, this is quite a precarious projection as one more poll out of Iowa (six electoral votes) or New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) with negative approval ratings for the President may flip the electoral college to his Republican challenger.
I resisted the temptation to throw Wisconsin in with the tossups states at this point, as the latest poll out of the Badger State has Obama’s approval rating at a healthy 52%-45%. Likewise, I made the decision that with the lack of polling data available, Obama’s -3.1% approval in the RCP average is enough to keep Missouri out of the tossup category. I will also need to see more data out of the Keystone State before I can give serious consideration to Pennsylvania being in play for the GOP.
Continued erosion of the President’s approval rating in PA and IA will lead me to conclude that the nation has indeed reverted back to the 2000/2004 “Red State/Blue State” electoral map, which is not exactly good news for a President with a political base consisting of the West Coast, New England, and large, urban centers. Of course, there is enough time for the President Obama’s approval ratings to recover to the point where he can enjoy a comfortable Clintonesque reelection.
However, it is also possible that the nation’s economic stagnation will continue or even worsen, which will result in further erosion of the President’s approval rating. In that case, the end result may be a map which more closely resembles Jimmy Carter’s reelection bid.
Note: R4’12′s current 2012 electoral projection can be found at its permanent location here.
I’ve been wondering about this because I’d written off Ryan (“My kids are too small and my ego’s not big enough”) and yet there continue to be these mentions of him as a prospect by the conservative media.
I asked Bill Kristol about this at Breitbart’s book signing — I keep hearing Weekly Standard people, particularly, hint that Ryan is entertaining the idea of a run.
Joking around, he said, “Oh, we all just say that to each other [at the Weekly Standard]” — meaning, “We’re all psyching ourselves up with that and/or attempting to put out that rumor out there.”
Funny.
But I asked another journalist type (I won’t say who since I didn’t tell him I’d be quoting, it was a personal type question) and he said, “Well, he rules it out in his public statements but in his private statements…?” Not so much.
I asked, to be sure, if he was saying “Who knows what he says in private?” or if he was saying “I’ve heard what he says in private, and he’s not as firm on it as he is in public declarations.” He confirmed it was the latter.
I think the situation he’d be willing to consider it is if there’s no unifying, consensus figure in the primaries.
Maybe it’s just wishful thinking, but I continue to believe that both Ryan AND Chris Christie are a lot less Shermanesque in private about ruling out a presidential run. That’s because there is a huge vacuum in the GOP field for a candidate who will aggressively take on the size-of-government/entitlement/debt issue, and the candidates who seem to be preparing to enter the race are largely ignoring the issue. Of course, Mitch Daniels, should he take the plunge later this spring, would absolutely make the debt the centerpiece of his campaign, which is why I expect both Ryan and Christie to lay low until August at the earliest. But if Labor Day approaches, and candidate Daniels is polling at around 8 percent, and no other clear frontrunner has emerged, the temptation to seize the moment may just be too much for at least one of the Christie/Ryan dynamic, debt-busting duo. The rumor that Ryan, then, might actually be leaving the door open a crack is welcome news to this pundit.
Charles Krauthammer used his column in today’s Washington Post to set the odds for the GOP 2012 nomination. I am only going to present the bare bones essentials. I encourage you to read the full article where he expounds upon each candidate.
Major Candidates:
Long Shots:
Likely not running:
Even less likely to run — the 2016 bench:
As Charles put it: “Remember: This is analysis, not advocacy.”
*** Updated***
Ogrepete pointed out that I had a couple of the odds wrong. A hat-tip to Pete.
ABC is reporting that the son of Billy Graham, the Reverend Franklin Graham told Christiane Amanpour that Donald Trump might be his preferred candidate.
“Donald Trump, when I first saw that he was getting in, I thought, well, this has got to be a joke,” said Graham. “But the more you listen to him, the more you say to yourself, you know, maybe this guy’s right.”
“So, he might be your candidate of choice?” Amanpour asked.
“Sure, yes,” Graham responded.
…
Amanpour also inquired about Graham’s feelings toward Romney. Graham replied, “No question he is a very capable person, he’s proven himself.” Despite the indications of approval, Graham did not outright back Romney.
He doubts that Sarah Palin will attempt to run.
“I think she likes speaking on the issues and I agree with many of the issues that she brings up,” Graham told Amanpour, “but I believe — I don’t see her as running for president.”
No mention is made of Mike Huckabee. How curious.
The Washington Post, the bastion of liberal thought in the Nation’s Capitol, has come down hard on Obama’s Syrian policy. The “Editorial Board” released an official editorial yesterday. In it they express their concerns in no uncertain terms:
FOR THE PAST five weeks, growing numbers of Syrians have been gathering in cities and towns across the country to demand political freedom — and the security forces of dictator Bashar al-Assad have been responding by opening fire on them. According to Syrian human rights groups, more than 220 people had been killed by Friday.
…
Massacres on this scale usually prompt a strong response from Western democracies, as they should. Ambassadors are withdrawn; resolutions are introduced at the U.N. Security Council; international investigations are mounted and sanctions applied. In Syria’s case, none of this has happened. The Obama administration has denounced the violence — a presidential statement called Friday’s acts of repression “outrageous” — but otherwise remained passive. Even the ambassador it dispatched to Damascus during a congressional recess last year remains on post.
Note the little tweak on the recess appointment pointing out that Obama wanted that ambassador in place so badly that he went around Congress last year to get him there.
The administration has sat on its hands despite the fact that the Assad regime is one of the most implacable U.S. adversaries in the Middle East.
…
Yet the Obama administration has effectively sided with the regime against the protesters. Rather than repudiate Mr. Assad and take tangible steps to weaken his regime, it has proposed, with increasing implausibility, that his government “implement meaningful reforms,” as the president’s latest statement put it.
…
As a moral matter, the stance of the United States is shameful. To stand by passively while hundreds of people seeking freedom are gunned down by their government makes a mockery of the U.S. commitment to human rights. In recent months President Obama has pledged repeatedly that he would support the aspiration of Arabs for greater freedom. In Syria, he has not kept his word.
The natives are getting restless.
Democrats for Abu Ghraib
The Democratic Party, the noted bastion of principle, is recruiting Ricardo Sanchez to be its Senate candidate in Texas. Sanchez certainly has a life story worthy of admiration. As a party spokesperson put it:
“General Sanchez has spent his entire life serving our country, and there’s no question he would be a strong candidate if he decides to continue to serve his country in the U.S. Senate,” Canter said. “He has a tremendous life story, growing up poor, rising to the rank of general in the Army, and bravely leading more than a hundred thousand troops in both Gulf Wars.”
However, the spokesperson left out the part about Abu Ghraib – Sanchez was in charge during that kerfuffle (though he was never charged with anything in regard to it, he has said that it led to his resignation). So what did Democrats have to say about Abu Ghraib at the time? How about Patty Murray (who, by coincidence, recruited Sanchez as head of the Senate Campaign Committee):
Senator Patty Murray, who steers the Democrats’ Senate campaign arm and vaguely teased reporters earlier this week of a top Texas recruit, said in 2004 that all those responsible for Abu Ghraib — no matter where they fell in the chain of command — must be held to account for their actions.
“These actions are a disservice to the thousands of American soldiers in the region who serve us honorably each and every day, and, sadly, are likely to make their efforts to calm a troubled region even harder,” Murray said of the controversy.
When former President George Bush tapped then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to fill the nation’s top law enforcement post, Murray joined Senator Maria Cantwell in opposing the nomination over his green-lighting of Sanchez’s interrogation techniques.
Or Patrick Leahy?:
In a 2004 statement, Senator Patrick Leahy accused Sanchez of authorizing “the use of techniques that were contrary to both U.S. military manuals but also international law.” “Given this incredible overstepping of bounds, I find it incredible that the reports generated thus far have not recommended punishment of any kind for high-level officials,” he added.
Another interesting point is that a leftist blog, ThinkProgress, says that Sanchez lied to Congress about his role:
Sanchez described the interrogation program as “a personal failure on the part of many.” Indeed, Sanchez himself wrote and signed a 2003 memo that included specific interrogation tactics approved for use despite noting that they may violate the Geneva Conventions. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sanchez denied signing off on these interrogation methods.
This should be fun to watch.
Obama Tries to Play Hispanics for Rubes Again
For two years, while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins, how much did they do about immigration? Squat: Near the end of their term, there was a Kabuki show about the Dream Act, and when it failed the Democrats heaved a sigh of relief and headed home to campaign.
So now Obama is promising ‘comprehensive’ reform.
President Obama is reviving the issue of immigration reform in the face of mounting political pressure as he readies his bid for reelection.
Obama is holding a meeting at the White House on Tuesday with current and former elected officials along with business and faith groups to discuss the “importance of fixing our nation’s broken immigration system for our 21st-century economic and national security needs,” according to his schedule.
I particularly like this part:
“The question is going to be, are we going to be able to find some Republicans who can partner with me and others to get this done once and for all, instead of using it as a political football?” he told Dallas-based WFAA-TV during one of four local television interviews on Monday.
Hey, Barack ol’ buddy, if it weren’t a political football, you might have tried finding some Democrats who were ‘willing to partner’ with you. So why is he bringing it up now, when there is zero chance of passing it? I suspect you know the answer:
The president’s renewed focus on immigration reform comes as Latino advocates are demanding that he do more to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, a goal he touted during his 2008 presidential campaign.
Do you think they’ll be dumb enough to fall for it again? My guess is no, but perhaps I have a bit more respect for Hispanics that Obama does.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Rasmussen finds that 63% Still Believe Border Control Is Top Immigration Priority.
Uncle Sam’s Books Would Land CEOs in Jail
I stole the title from a good item by Deroy Murdock which brings up, among other things, the way the Democrats double-counted the $500b they cut from Medicaid:
“Your law cuts $500 billion in Medicare,” Shimkus reminded Sebelius at a March 3 hearing. “Then you’re also using the same $500 billion to say you’re funding health-care [reform]. Your own actuary says you can’t do both.”
“So,” the eight-term congressman continued, “are you using it [the $500 billion] to save Medicare, or are you using it to fund health-care reform? Which one?”
Secretary Sebelius confessed: “Both.”
But actually this item is here just to justify my use of a favorite cartoon:
Leftists at Play
I struggled during the week with whether or not to post about the latest outrage from Wonkette, which published an attack on the Palin family that went so far beyond any semblance of decency that it left one wondering what sort of scumbag could think it was acceptable.
I was concerned that mentioning it would give the scumbag traffic and attention that he didn’t deserve. On the other hand, there is value to shining light into the dark corners of the leftist mind, so here’s a brief summary:
The Wonkette post called Trig “retarded” and “somewhat alive” and claimed Trig was not the child of Todd and Sarah Palin.
That last part is far too kind – Wonkette said that Trig is the result of incest between Todd and Bristol Palin, a step beyond what even Andrew Sullivan (and some of our own resident commenters) have claimed. To their credit, a few on the left, Dave Weigel of Slate most prominently, came out against the post.
A great number of companies responded to calls to remove their advertising from thewebsite. Wonkette, making a bad situation worse actually tried to justify the item and even tried to organize a boycott of Papa John’s Pizza (the first to remove its ads). Very much later, they removed the post with one of the most pathetically weak apologies of all time.
By the way, in case you want to know what scum looks like when it takes human form, at left is what wrote the post.
If I ran Georgetown, I’d sue to get the sweatshirt back.
Trump
Having taken a shower after writing about Wonkette, let’s conclude with a bit more fun. Scott Adams (Dilbert) wrote one of the funniest things I’ve read recently, about Donald Trump’s candidacy (Hat tip: Kavon). I won’t try excerpting it, because it really needs to be read in its entirety, and it isn’t long. Well, okay, I do need to quote one line, dealing with why the people who have been taken in by Trump will never admit it, even to themselves. How could they possibly say, “I thought I was a brilliant observer of politics but this new information proves that my brain is the size of a tiny mouse turd.”
By the way, in case you think that’s funny, I think it’s funny that some people who call themselves conservatives could support a guy who was all in favor of the Kelo decision: “I happen to agree with it 100 percent, not that I would want to use it.”
Oh, and if that’s still not funny enough, he did use it:
But the reality is, Trump did try to use the power of eminent domain to seize private property. He did this in Altlantic City, and it wasn’t to build an elementy school or even a “tremendous economic development.” He wanted to knock down an old lady’s home so he could build a parking lot for limousines near his casino.
As always, add your own miscellany in the comments.
The 2012 national election is likely to be a threshold election. The 2010 election points to it, just as the 2006 election signaled what would happen in 2008. The Republicans now control the U.S. house by a large margin, and although anything can happen, the GOP advantage in redistricting, as well as the momentum from 2010, points to the election in 2012 likely resulting in that party keeping control.
Control of the U.S. senate is very much another story. Republicans made dramatic gains in 2010, narrowing the Democratic total from the “magic” number of 60 (including two independents who organized with them) to 53. Republicans might have won 1-2 more seats if they had better candidates, but as the results turned out, they would not have easily won control (4 more seats).
The same advantage the GOP had in 2010, that is, many more Democratic incumbents up for re-election than GOP incumbents, will be repeated in 2012. (23 Democratic-held seats vs. 10 Republican-held seats.) A very early assessment of these races indicates that Republicans could well take control of the senate. Of course, this will depend a great deal on the presidential race, the state of the economy, and the political mood across the country, but the GOP does not have to win the presidency to take control of the senate and keep control of the house.
Incumbent GOP Senator John Ensign of Nevada has announced he will resign his seat in a few days. His seat would be up in 2012, although Ensign had earlier announced he would not seek re-election. Nevada has become a “swing” state recently, and this news actually enhances the GOP’s prospects to hold the seat. The Republican governor will likely appoint Congressman Dean Heller, already the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2012, and this should greatly strengthen his chances to keep the seat.
Elsewhere, the pattern of Republican strength is evident. Of course, surprising events could change this, but patterns tend to continue in cycles.
States that favor GOP pick-ups (some are currently rated as toss-ups) include Nebraska (Democratic incumbent Ben Nelson), Missouri (Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill), Montana (Democratic incumbent Jon Teeter), Virginia (Democratic incumbent retiring), Florida (Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson), and probably New Mexico (Democratic incumbent retiring). The seat held by retiring Democratis Senator Kent Conrad already appears as a very possible pick-up for the GOP. In addition, incumbents Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin in West Virginia could face very serious challengers. (Manchin, incidentally, is the most conservative Democrat in the senate, and already votes with the GOP much of the time.) Finally, incumbent Democrats in Washington (Cantwell) and Stabenow (Michigan) are vulnerable if there is a GOP landslide. In Hawaii, the long-time Democratic incumbent (Akaka) is retiring, but if former GOP Governor Linda Lingle were to enter the race, this seat would be competitive. If aging (and lackluster) incumbent Senator Herbert Kohl of Wisconsin (he will be 77 in 2012) were to retire, that seat would be competitive. Democratic seats in New York (Gillibrand), Pennsylvania (Casey), New Jersey (Menendez), now rated safe for the Democrats, also might become vulnerable. Thus, if all its stars were to fall into place, the Republicans might come close to 60 seats.
But Republican have some vulnerabilities of their own. Incumbent Richard Lugar of Indiana faces a serious Tea Party challenge in his primary. A Democrat could win the seat of retiring incumbent John Kyl (Arizona), especially if Gabrielle Gifford recuperates sufficiently. An open seat in Texas, now held by the GOP, might become competitive, as might the seat recently won by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts (who already often votes with the Democrats). Surprise GOP senate retirements might also change safe GOP seats to vulnerable.
Nevertheless, just a look at the numbers indicate that the best prospects of the Democrats are to prevent the Republicans of winning so many senate seats that they approach the 60 needed to prevent filibustering.
From the senatorial elections point of view, the 2012 elections will likely be less about the presidential election than about whether voters in the states still want to overturn Obamacare, and continue to favor the GOP agenda of lower spending, lower taxes and smaller government. The fulfillment of that agenda is currently thwarted by Democratic control of the White House and the senate. An economic recovery during the next 15-18 months obviously helps the Democrats. But if the feelings that marked the 2010 election are revived and intensify, and the Republican candidate for president is quite strong (and wins), then a new political threshold in American politics will be reached.
Either way, 2012 should be one for the books.
_______________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog
A lot of longtime readers may remember my glee immediately following the 2008 presidential election, as the Bush Administration was essentially frog marched out of the White House and out of the upper echelons of the Republican Party. Many readers felt that I was being disloyal, and inappropriately giddy, given that Barack Obama was about to ascend to the throne. But I think that the last couple of years have demonstrated that, while I may not have been right about everything, I was justified in cheering the demise of the Bush toadies, and of the loosening of their death grip on the GOP and on American conservatism.
It is against that backdrop that I present to you the latest piece by former Bush policy guru Michael Gerson, who assails libertarian heroine Ayn Rand with all the fervor of a medieval Inquisitor:
Rand’s novels are vehicles for a system of thought known as Objectivism. Rand developed this philosophy at the length of Tolstoy, with the intellectual pretensions of Hegel, but it can be summarized on a napkin. Reason is everything. Religion is a fraud. Selfishness is a virtue. Altruism is a crime against human excellence. Self-sacrifice is weakness. Weakness is contemptible. “The Objectivist ethics, in essence,” said Rand, “hold that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself.”
If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others. Rand’s achievement was to turn a phase into a philosophy, as attractive as an outbreak of acne.
The appeal of Ayn Rand to conservatives is both considerable and inexplicable. Modern conservatism was largely defined by Ronald Reagan’s faith in the people instead of elites. Rand regarded the people as “looters” and “parasites.” She was a strenuous advocate for class warfare, except that she took the side of a mythical class of capitalist supermen. Rand, in fact, pronounced herself “profoundly opposed” to Reagan’s presidential candidacy, since he did not meet her exacting ideological standards.
Rand cherished a particular disdain for Christianity. The cross, she said, is “the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. .?.?. It is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.” Yet some conservatives marked Holy Week by attending and embracing “Atlas Shrugged.”
Reaction to Rand draws a line in political theory. Some believe with Rand that all government is coercion and theft — the tearing-down of the strong for the benefit of the undeserving. Others believe that government has a limited but noble role in helping the most vulnerable in society — not motivated by egalitarianism, which is destructive, but by compassion, which is human. And some root this duty in God’s particular concern for the vulnerable and undeserving, which eventually includes us all. This is the message of Easter, and it is inconsistent with the gospel of Rand.
I bolded two lines in Gerson’s piece because I think those lines sum up the manner in which Gerson views American conservatism. First, to Gerson, conservatism is essentially a populist movement. “The people” can do no wrong. If the people want to pay no taxes and get full health benefits, for life, and retirement security for three decades, roads, schools, law enforcement, and maintain a military that can fight three wars simultaneously, all while not accumulating a penny of debt, well, the government will just have to make that happen. The numbers don’t add up? Tough. The people want it, and the people are always right. If the people suggest that 2 and 2 add up to 5, then it must be true.
Secondly, Gerson seems to suggest that in order to be an American conservative, one must accept the theology of Christianity. This is evident in his suggestion that, since Christianity and Rand-ism contradict, in his view, one cannot be both a conservative and a follower of Rand. This is a foolish statement, and if it were true, it would also mean that practitioners of non-Christian faiths, such as Judaism and Islam, couldn’t properly be included in the conservative movement, with non-believers being excluded as well. Presumably there is no religious test embedded in a political philosophy, given that political philosophies deal with systems of government and the manner in which the state should interact with individuals and society, not with matters of religion and spirituality.
Finally, even if Gerson is speaking only to his fellow Christian conservatives in his plea to reject Rand, his appeal should be dismissed outright. One can easily adhere to one of the many strands of Christianity, and believe in compassion and generosity, while still rejecting the notion that such acts be the result of the coercion of the state.
Gerson, who was brought into the Bush inner circle in order to intellectually develop the former president’s “Christian Democrat” philosophy, is perhaps discomforted by the turn that the conservative movement is taking. Yet despite his attempts to lash out, in full leftist jacket, at the heartless Randians whose policies will lead to folks dropping like flies in the street, the reality is that the economic agenda being put forth by top Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan preserves the federal government’s major social insurance programs, reorganizing them in a manner that makes them fiscally sustainable and that provides individuals with more choices and options. Will some folks end up with more skin in the game in a post-tax reform, post-entitlement reform world? Of course. But again, the alternative is a world in which Congress can pass a bill requiring 2 and 2 to add up to 5. Last I checked, the national legislature lacked the power to change the reality of basic mathematics. That’s something Gerson should have learned during his own adolescent years.
Glenn Beck has suggested that Mike Huckabee is the perfect progressive candidate for the Republican Party. I think you’ll be a bit surprised at that claim if you follow the links.
I could go on-and-on but I think you get the picture. Beck has praised “the governor” linked above over and over again, but hypocrisy reigns in Glenn Beck’s deluded world. If this is the best Glenn Beck has, Huckabee will be the perfect candidate for the party, better than Ronald Reagan, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, or even Ronald Reagan, period. Next up, Beck gets out the chalk board and shows that Huckabee is really Woodrow Wilson’s grandson, and that Huckabee’s first cousin is George Soros.
The Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College just released a poll of New Hampshire registered voters. Among other questions, the respondents were asked the following:
“Recently, President Barack Obama has formally announced his intent to run for reelection for president. And, the New Hampshire primary election for the presidency of the United States is less than a year away. I am going to read you a list of potential Republican candidates for president who may run against President Obama. If the election for president were held today, which candidate would you choose?”
The results are as follows:
| (vs. Obama) | Obama | Hopeful | Margin |
| Powell | 28 | 48 | 20 |
| Romney | 39 | 47 | 8 |
| Huckabee | 45 | 37 | -8 |
| Pawlenty | 41 | 25 | -16 |
| Barbour | 42 | 23 | -19 |
| Paul | 47 | 27 | -20 |
| Trump | 51 | 29 | -22 |
| Palin | 54 | 27 | -27 |
Romney was the only active GOP hopeful that won a plurality. The good news for all Republicans is that all the hopefuls kept Obama under 50% except for Trump and Palin. Those two got creamed with Sarah Palin losing to the President by a staggering 2-to-1 margin.
During the week of April 11-14, 2011, students from The Nelson A. Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College conducted a telephone survey of registered voters in New Hampshire. Drawn from a statewide data base of New Hampshire registered voters, the sample survey respondents were asked a wide range of questions relating to the current political, economic, and social state of affairs in New Hampshire and the country as a whole. In addition, respondents were asked to select candidates for President in trial heats of the 2012 election. The 43-question survey took between eight and ten minutes to complete. Calls were made between the hours of 6:30 pm and 9:30 pm on Monday through Thursday evenings. Additional call-backs were made during daytime hours on Thursday, April 14 when specified by poll participants. Over the course of the week, callers made three attempts to contact each of the registered voters drawn in the sample. A total of 426 survey interviews were completed during the four-day calling period, yielding an error rate of +/-4.8 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval.
American Research Group (ARG) has released a telephone poll of 600 likely Republican primary voters living in New Hampshire (422 Republicans and 178 undeclared voters (independents)). The poll was taken April 16-21, 2011. Its MOE is ± 4 percentage points.
Here are the results, along with the crosstabs:
| Likely GOP Primary Voters | Reg. GOP | Ind. | Tea Party | Not Tea Party | Will Vote | Most Likely Vote | |
| Romney | 32 | 37 | 20 | 30 | 33 | 34 | 23 |
| Trump | 17 | 13 | 27 | 21 | 14 | 17 | 18 |
| Gingrich | 8 | 10 | 3 | 11 | 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Giuliani | 8 | 6 | 13 | 2 | 14 | 8 | 9 |
| Huckabee | 8 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 9 | 2 |
| Ron Paul | 8 | 5 | 15 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 8 |
| Cain | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Palin | 2 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 |
| Rand Paul | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Pawlenty | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Bachmann | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Daniels | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| Johnson | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Barbour | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Huntsman | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Karger | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pataki | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Roemer | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Santorum | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| UnDecided | 8 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 10 |
ARG has not had the best of reputations in the past, so take these figures with a grain of salt.
Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Survey
- Donald Trump 16%
- Mike Huckabee 16% (19%) {18%} [16%] [(12%)
- Mitt Romney 13% (15%) {16%} [19%] (19%)
- Sarah Palin 10% (12%) {16%} [16%] (16%)
- Ron Paul 6% (6%) {5%} [6%] (7%)
- Newt Gingrich 6% (10%) {9%} [13%] (9%)
- Michele Bachmann 4% (5%) {4%}
- Mitch Daniels 3% (4%) {3%} [1%] (2%)
- Tim Pawlenty 3% (3%) {3%} [4%] (3%)
- Rick Santorum 2% (2%) {2%} [1%] (2%)
- Haley Barbour 2% (2%) {3%} [4%] (3%)
- Jon Huntsman 1% (2%) {1%}
- Gary Johnson 0% (2%) {1%} [1%] (1%)
- Other 1% (2%) {3%} [2%] (4%)
- None/No opinion 14% (15%) {14%} [14%] (19%)
What better way to celebrate the end of the work week than with a little Intrade update? Movement is from the last update two weeks ago, as usual.
| Name | Value | Change |
| Romney | 24.4 | -2.2 |
| Pawlenty | 15.9 | -0.1 |
| Huckabee | 8.0 | +3.2 |
| Daniels | 7.9 | -0.6 |
| Trump | 6.8 | +0.8 |
| Bachmann | 6.8 | -0.4 |
| Palin | 5.3 | +0.4 |
| Huntsman | 5.1 | +0.5 |
| Barbour | 3.7 | -1.0 |
| Gingrich | 2.9 | -1.0 |
| Paul | 2.0 | -0.1 |
| Johnson | 1.7 | n/a |
| Cain | 0.4 | -0.1 |
| Roemer | 0.1 | -0.1 |
| Moore | 0.0 | n/a |
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.
According to The Hill, Huckabee’s 2008 campaign manager Ed Rollins is expecting Huck to jump in the 2012 race.
Rollins has pegged Huckabee’s decision timeline a little earlier in the summer than we’ve been hearing: “He knows he has roughly a June 1 deadline to decide… we’ll have plenty of time to put together a serious campaign team that can be very competitive.”
Personally, I think if Huck decides by June 1 then he will be a serious competitor. If, however, he follows BVP’s counsel, skips the Ames straw poll and jumps in the race in August, I think he will be Fred Thompson all over again.
I have to imagine there being a great collective sigh of relief from the Camp Huck supporters out there over this news. Intrade investors are reacting well also, rocketing Huckabee back into third place behind Romney and Pawlenty.
And so it appears we may very well have our three-man battle for the nomination after all.
If we want New Hampshire’s electoral votes next November, at the moment Romney is our only hope:
Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College New Hampshire General Election Matchups
- Romney – 47%
- Obama – 39%
- Obama – 45%
- Huckabee – 37%
- Obama – 51%
- Trump – 29%
- Obama – 47%
- Paul – 27%
- Obama – 54%
- Palin – 27%
- Obama – 41%
- Pawlenty – 25%
- Obama – 42%
- Barbour – 23%
Survey of 426 registered voters was done April 11-14 and has an MoE of 4.8%.
Other numbers specifically related to New Hampshire state politics are included at the link above.
University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato has just posted his first-take on the 2012 Electoral College map. Including the leaning states, Sabato’s current projection is….
247 Democrat (Obama)
180 Republican
111 Undecided
Filtering out the leaners, the breakdown is….
196 Democrat
170 Republican
172 Undecided
I mostly concur with Sabato’s projection at this point but with a few exceptions: I would put Indiana as leaning Republican if not likely Republican; Virginia as leaning Republican; Wisconsin as tossup (maybe); and maybe even Pennsylvania as tossup. Other than that, I think Sabato is pretty much on target.
BELMONT, MA—Though Mitt Romney is considered to be a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the national spotlight has forced him to repeatedly confront a major skeleton in his political closet: that as governor of Massachusetts he once tried to help poor, uninsured sick people.
…
“Every day I am haunted by the fact that I gave impoverished Massachusetts citizens a chance to receive health care,” Romney told reporters Wednesday, adding that he feels ashamed whenever he looks back at how he forged bipartisan support to help uninsured Americans afford medicine to cure their illnesses. “I’m only human, and I’ve made mistakes. None bigger, of course, than helping cancer patients receive chemotherapy treatments and making sure that those suffering from pediatric AIDS could obtain medications, but that’s my cross to bear.”
“My hope is that Republican voters will one day forgive me for making it easier for sick people—especially low-income sick people—to go to the hospital and see a doctor,” Romney added. “It was wrong, and I’m sorry.”
…
“The major strike against Mitt Romney is that he not only tried to help people get medical care, he actually did help people get medical care,” conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg said. “No other Republican in the field has that type of baggage. And in the end, in order to defeat President Obama, the GOP needs someone who has a track record of never wanting to help sick people.”
Thus far, Romney is polling strongly in early primary states like New Hampshire and Iowa, but Republican strategists and voters agree that even in a general election, his sordid past would continue to dog him.
“I don’t think I can vote for someone like that,” Pennsylvania Republican Eric Tolbert said. “He says he’s sorry, but how do I know that’s the real Mitt Romney? What happens if he gets elected and tries to help sick people again?”
These few excerpts really don’t do justice to a terrific piece of satire. Be sure and read it all.
Mitt Romney has an op-ed in today’s National Review Online entitled Mission Muddle in Libya:
In a nationally-televised speech on March 28, President Obama defined the American military mission in Libya as humanitarian: We would enforce a no-fly zone to prevent Libyan forces from bombing civilians. I support that specific, limited mission. Last week, the president wrote in an op-ed with his British and French counterparts that “to succeed, Qaddafi must go and go for good.”
It is apparent that our military is engaged in much more than enforcing a no-fly zone. What we are watching in real time is another example of mission creep and mission muddle. In an op-ed in today’s Boston Herald, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton rightly notes that Obama has set himself up for “massive strategic failure” by demanding Qaddafi’s ouster “while restricting military force to the limited objective of protecting civilians.” Military action cannot be under-deliberated and ad hoc. The president owes it to the American people and Congress to immediately explain his new Libya mission and its strategic rationale.
Once again Mitt Romney focuses his fire squarely upon the incompetence of the current occupant of the White House and ignores distractions like Trump’s slamming his bank account.
Gary’s announcement speech, with introduction by New Hampshire Rep. Michael Harrington:
MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan:
CNN’s John King’s USA:
FOX News Insider:
ABC News Top Line:
Trippscott New Hampshire:
According to Politico, Senator John Ensign of Nevada is resigning his seat in the Senate tomorrow. Senator Ensign, you’ll remember, confessed to having an extramarital affair with a campaign aide.
If true, Senator Ensign’s resignation will lead to Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to appoint Ensign’s replacement. This seat is up for grabs in 2012 and Congressman Dean Heller, from the 2nd District is the likely Republican nominee. If Governor Sandoval appoints Heller to finish the rest of Ensign’s term, it may well give a leg up over Shelley Berkley, the likely Democratic nominee. If Heller is appointed, then there will be a special election for the 2nd Congressional seat where former Senate nominee Sharron Angle (and a couple of others) are either running or thinking about it. The 2nd is the most Republican district in Nevada and whoever the GOP nominee is will probably be the Districts next Congressman (or Congresswoman).
Listen, Paul Ryan needs to run for President. The GOP field is awful and getting worse (The Donald’s escapades). The base and the establishment pine for candidate’s so wildly different in style and (sometimes) in substance that no rapproachement is possible. Christine O’Donnell was an awful candidate. But there’s an argument, not entirely unpersuasive, that Mike Castle was so completely wrong for the moment that his on-paper strength just wouldn’t have translated. This is the sort of scenario we face. Paul Ryan, even if he’d never proposed the Path to Prosperity, is ideal for bridging this gap. The Republican establishment (even the moderates like Brooks) love him because he’s wonky and responsible (the TARP vote, the CR resolution vote) and the base loves him because he’s taken on President Obama, prominently, on several occasions and even without the stature of the Presidency more than held his own. But the fact is, he did propose the Path to Prosperity and last week 235 Republicans walked the plank in support of this plan of daunting liabilities. Consider the latest Washington Post poll. 65% of Americans oppose an almost neutral description of Ryan’s Medicare plan (it’s not quite a voucher plan). 78% of Americans oppose reductions in Medicare benefits. 69% oppose reductions in Medicaid. In contrast, the Democratic “solutions” of raising taxes on the rich and cutting defense spending garner 72% and 42% support respectively. Obama isn’t leading on the debt because the American people, despite talk to the contrary, show little sign of being ready for honesty on these issues. Democrats are likely to get a better deal by doing nothing, raking Republicans over the coals for the Path to Prosperity, and letting inertia do the rest.
So listen, Paul Ryan needs to run for President. There’s, I guess, some kind of idea that the Republican Presidential candidates can avoid being tied too heavily to PtP and most of them have been vague so far about which elements they support and which they don’t. This is silly. Practically every member of the House will be defending their vote, very publicly, for the next 18 months. This is not 2010 when Republicans happily attacked Obama for Medicare cuts and loudly disavowed Ryan’s first debt-fixing solution (The Roadmap). Republicans are locked in here. They’re locked in 235 times. For the next few months, and probably until the party gets a nominee, Paul Ryan is the de-facto leader of the Republican Party.
So listen, why don’t we make him the actual leader of the Republican Party? As a candidate for President, Ryan becomes a target, but Ryan is already a target. Gone are the days when Democrats and the MSM praised Ryan as a courageous leader and truth-teller. Now that they’ve tied the Republican Party to Ryan, this meme is no longer operative. Yes, it’s harder for a Presidential Candidate than for an anonymous budget committee chairman to broker compromise but Paul Ryan is no longer an anonymous budget committee chairman. In the most important sense he is already a Presidential Candidate- because no matter who the Republican nominee is, Obama will be running against Ryan and the PtP. He’s already started to.
“Well, look, Paul Ryan’s great, but we need him in Congress”. To that I answer, “why”? What is it you think Ryan can accomplish as the budget committee chairman that he can’t accomplish as President? Paul Ryan is not a whip. He doesn’t corrale votes. That’s for Boehner and Cantor and McCarthy. And as the now chief antagonist to the President’s re-election campaign, Ryan’s value as a negotiator is limited. It is in the President’s interest, and therefore the Democratic Party’s interest, to deny Ryan any sort of victory or acclaim. If Ryan eventually converts some Democrats he’ll manage it the same way he managed to convert his caucus- through political capital. And he can’t acquire much more political capital in the House.
Right now, Paul Ryan is tasked with defending his budget proposal from a full-scale assault from the President of the United States. And he’s doing so, as the NYT points out, to small audiences in Wisconsin. No matter who you are or what sort of argument you’re making, this sort of stature gap shows. Obama raises Ryan, and then easily talks over him.
So listen, why doesn’t Paul Ryan run? By doing so, he’d make the Republican case on the PtP every bit as prominent as the President’s broadsides. At least then we have a chance of winning the argument. If he doesn’t, the Republican field is going to spend the next year trying, unsuccessfully, to put as much daylight between themselves and Ryan as possible, all while the numbers in favor of entitlement reform fall.
PPP (D) Iowa 2012 Presidential Survey
- Mike Huckabee 45% (43%)
- Barack Obama 45% (47%)
- Barack Obama 45% (47%)
- Mitt Romney 41% (41%)
- Barack Obama 50% (51%)
- Newt Gingrich 39% (38%)
- Barack Obama 51%
- Donald Trump 35%
- Barack Obama 53% (53%)
- Sarah Palin 36% (37%)
CBS News/New York Times 2012 Presidential Survey
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Mike Huckabee 32% / 25% {+7%}
- Mitt Romney 28% / 24% {+4%}
- Tim Pawlenty 12% / 8% {+4%}
- Jon Huntsman 6% / 5% {+1%}
- Michele Bachmann 12% / 13% {-1%}
- Haley Barbour 6% / 7% {-1%}
- Mitch Daniels 5% / 6% {-1%}
- Rick Santorum 10% / 12% {-2%}
- Newt Gingrich 23% / 37% {-14%}
- Donald Trump 25% / 46% {-21%}
- Sarah Palin 26% / 55% {-29%}
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who started turning heads when he came in third in this year’s CPAC straw poll, has become the first major Republican candidate to officially jump into the 2012 presidential race. He announced his candidacy on the steps of the New Hampshire state capitol this morning, saying:
Let’s talk about America.
Today’s mess didn’t just happen. We elected it — one senator, member of Congress and president at a time. Our leaders in Washington, DC, have ‘led’ America to record unemployment, a devalued currency, banking scandals, the mortgage crisis, drug crisis, economic crisis, loss of our nation’s industrial might – and a long list of other reminders our nation is way off course. Why am I telling you this? Because America is better than this. And because I can help fix it.I’m a fix-it man.Before I was governor of New Mexico, I started a one-man fix-it business that I grew into an American dream with more than a thousand employees. My formula for success was simple. I showed up on time, did what I said what I’d do, and knew what I was doing. I did the same thing as governor, exactly. Within two terms, I’d eliminated New Mexico’s budget deficit and cut the rate of state government growth in half while reducing the state workforce by over 10%, without laying off a single qualified state worker. Saying no to waste, corruption and political games is easier than you think. During my two terms I vetoed 750 pieces of bad, unnecessary and wasteful legislation, and used the line-item veto to save millions of dollars. I was called “Governor Veto,” and accepted that nickname proudly.America needs a ‘President Veto’ right now – someone who will say ‘no’ to insane spending and stop the madness that has become Washington. That’s why I am here today to announce that I’m running for President of the United States. And I don’t do so lightly. President Obama is about to raise and spend $1 billion in a reelection campaign to keep America on the track it’s already on. I would ask: How much more of this track can we stand? How much more financial stress can we handle? How high do taxes have to go? How much deficit is too much? How much more of the Bill of Rights do we have to lose before we say not just no, but HELL NO?It’s time to put one of our own in the White House. I have the qualifications, the ability and the know-how to do the job. I also have a track record. I’ll do what I say I’ll do. I look at the rest of the field running for president, and that song by The Who comes to mind. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. You know the one. We ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again.’ What’s the definition of insanity? It is to keep doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome.I’m ready for a different America. I’m ready for the day when a person can build a good life on a decent income, and we can take our government at its word – when people have more to smile about. I’m ready for peace and prosperity and some American dreaming. I’m ready for America to be AMERICA again. Our current president will not lead us there. None of the professional Washington set will. We have to get there on our own.I’m here in New Hampshire today because I can – and will — do a better job for you as president. I’m optimistic about our chances. Winning freedom is what America does.We’ve got this.
While the media has given him much of his air time on account of his pro-marijuana legalization views, his new website, GaryJohnson2012.com, shows a far more rounded libertarian-conservative campaign, emphasizing budget issues, the debt, entitlements, taxes, monetary policy, and school choice. On his website, he dubs himself “The People’s President,” with the motto, “When Gary Johnson goes to Washington, everyone does.”
Gary has given every indication of making New Hampshire the tip of his electoral spear, commenting on Twitter post-announcement: “I love retail politics, and I won’t be out-worked in New Hampshire.” Gary showed no indication of worrying about his like-minded political ally, Ron Paul, also wading into the race, commenting that he’s looking forward to having two people championing libertarian principles in the debates.
If you’re not too familiar with who Governor Johnson is, check out this supporter-created video that the Governor posted on the front page of his campaign website:
Nikki Haley, the new Governor of South Carolina, is not endorsing anyone in the 2012 race just yet. In an interview with the Washington Post, she praised several of the hopefuls.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Haley offered praise for Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Haley Barbour, among others.
She was a little more circumspect with her assessment of Newt Gingrich.
When it came to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, though, she suggested his best years may be behind him.
“There was a place and time for him,” Haley said. “I think that there is a respect for him that he’s been there and done that.”
When asked whether she was saying Gingrich’s time had passed, Haley laughed it off.
“Don’t read into my words,” she said. “You know, I’m just being very honest with you.”
We all know the story. Romney endorsed her when she was trailing badly in fourth place. Mitt’s endorsement and his badly needed cash infusion helped keep the lights on and her in the race. She was then able to make steady progress until Sarah Palin’s endorsement two or three months later help put her over the top.
She made it clear that that doesn’t necessarily mean either Mitt or Sarah can count on her endorsement.
Haley insists she’s not favoring anybody in 2012 and won’t engage in any kind of political payback.
“Not at all,” she said. “That is something that I will always be appreciative of and grateful for, but this is not a quid pro quo.”
…
Haley said she has exchanged e-mails with Palin, but that the contact between the two has been limited — as it has always been. She noted that she hadn’t heard from Palin’s team for a year before the former Alaska governor’s husband, Todd, called and offered the endorsement.
And finally, the level-headed Haley pooh-poohed any talk about her being the VP candidate.
As for her own national ambitions, Haley deflected talk that she would be on anyone’s short list for vice president.
…
She said she needs to focus on being a good governor first and suggested such speculation is fleeting. The more important thing, she said, is getting the best nominee at the top of the GOP ticket.
“It’s not about the flavor of the month,” Haley said. “You’ve got to be focused on the top of the ticket first.”
I am very impressed with this woman. I remember early last year when Mitt went out on a limb to endorse her when she was dead last in a field of four. That caused me to read up on her. I was very impressed with her track record. I then watched some of her debates. This is one smart, intelligent, articulate lady.
She knows that as the Republican Governor of South Carolina, her 2012 endorsement is a valuable commodity. She isn’t about to throw it away by revealing her cards too soon.
She has a great future in the Republican Party.
If this is just a publicity stunt, I want to hire The Donald to do my publicity:
Donald Trump is planning a trip to New Hampshire on April 27th, a trip to Nevada on April 28th, a trip back to New Hampshire on May 11, and then will appear in Iowa for the first time on June 10.
Quite the choreographed travel plans to early primary states if he’s not really running.
Trump executive Michael Cohen may have let some details slip while talking with the Des Moines Register yesterday afternoon. When asked why Trump wouldn’t be in Iowa prior to the June date, Cohen replied, “You will know prior to his arrival in Iowa whether he’s decided to run… You will already have known for almost two weeks whether he’s running.”
Well, that sets a Trump announcement date for sometime around Memorial Day. My guess would be the Trump team is aiming for Tuesday, May 31. And if he’s not running, why go to Iowa to a campaign dinner ten days later? Of course, Trump does march to his own drummer, so it’s more difficult to try and read the tea leaves with him than with other candidates.
Tim Pawlenty isn’t giving up New Hampshire without a serious fight: this morning he is set to announce eight new hires in the state who will lead his New Hampshire steering committee. They are:
A handful of former McCain folks drifting over to Pawlenty this morning, along with Huck’s New Hampshire co-chair (to mirror Huck’s loss of his Iowa co-chair a couple days ago).
All in all, an impressive announcement from Pawlenty, who continues to follow nearly the exact same path this primary season as Romney did in 2008 — focus on Iowa and New Hampshire and hire huge teams of people in both states.
In contrast, Romney’s campaign announced last night that they added just one person to their New Hampshire team: the familiar face of Ryan Williams. Williams worked for Romney’s 2008 NH campaign, and in 2012 will fill the role of regional press secretary.
James Pethokoukis has done us yet another wonderful service by comparing Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity to the President’s “Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility” (collectivists, eat your collective – pun clearly intended – heart out). His conclusion?
So a back-of-the-envelope estimate — adjusted for similar economic assumptions — finds the Obama Framework would only save $3 trillion vs. $6.9 trillion for the Ryan Path over ten years. And nearly 2/3 of Obama’s savings comes from higher taxes (net interest).
Earlier in the article, he explains the research he utilized to arrive at that destination, along with the numerous sleights-of-hand the Obama administration employed to produce their numbers.
Sadly, we cannot count on the media to relay this information to the American public, which makes the challenge of selling the Republican proposal all the more arduous.
Will the true leaders with a proven ability to communicate the necessity of the Republican approach please step forward?
Dittman Research Alaska Political Survey
Overall, would you say you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of former U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller? …and is that very or just somewhat?
- Very favorable 6%
- Somewhat favorable 12%
- Somewhat unfavorable 20%
- Very unfavorable 53%
- Total Favorable: 18%
- Total Unfavorable: 73%
And what about former Governor Sarah Palin, would you say you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of her? …and is that very or just somewhat?
- Very favorable 13% (20%)
- Somewhat favorable 23% (26%)
- Somewhat unfavorable 22% (21%)
- Very unfavorable 39% (31%)
- Total Favorable: 36% (46%)
- Total Unfavorable: 61% (52%)
How would you rate the job Senator Mark Begich is doing….would you say: excellent, good, not very good, or poor?
- Excellent 9%
- Good 48%
- Not very good 17%
- Poor 16%
- Excellent/Good: 57%
- Not very good/Poor: 33%
How would you rate the job Senator Lisa Murkowski is doing?
- Excellent 16%
- Good 55%
- Not very good 15%
- Poor 12%
- Excellent/Good: 71%
- Not very good/Poor: 27%
How would you rate the job Congressman Don Young is doing?
- Excellent 12%
- Good 51%
- Not very good 20%
- Poor 12%
- Excellent/Good: 63%
- Not very good/Poor: 32%
Survey of 400 Alaskans was conducted March 3 – 17, 2011. The margin of error is ± 4.9 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted April 2010 are in parentheses.
–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.
