Newt Gingrich is hiring two lobbyists to work for his campaign in the state of Iowa. In other news, the Iowan House Majority Leader, Linda Upmeyer, has offered to work for him.

It is beginning to look like Newt may really be serious this time about running.

I’ve tried to be scrupulously fair to all the candidates in my writing here at race. I previously criticized Mitch Daniels, for actions which, I feared, created a narrative of him as an overly compromising figure. Nonetheless, Daniels is firmly within my top 3 candidates this cycle. Thus, I feel I need to also raise a worry about another one of my favorite candidates, Tim Pawlenty. Similar concerns have also been expressed recently by Ramesh Ponuru of National Review, who has written very sympathetically of Pawlenty in the past. I personally don’t think the typical “TPaw is boring” narrative holds any real water. You’re simply not going to out-charisma Obama; the only way we beat an incumbent like him is if the voters have “Obama fatigue”, and look for stylistic as well as substantive change. The “we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for” soaring yet oddly partisan rhetoric needs to sour for us to win. I would argue that a competent, steady candidate, thus, has the best chance of beating Obama. Pawlenty isn’t flashy, but he does seem competent.

On the other hand, there’s a difference between competence and excessive caution. America is facing some real, concrete problems that will need to be addressed boldly. Thus, at the same time, the nominee is going to have to be a steady, competent figure and a real policy innovator. My concern with Pawlenty is on these later grounds. Thus far–in this campaign–his policy prescriptions and statements have generally been cautious, perhaps even equivocal. I refer to his medicare proposal–which seems to be mostly tinkering around the edges–and some of the rumored details of his budget proposal, which Ponuru also mentions. Pawlenty has also shown a worrying tendency, thus far, to tell people what they want to hear; as evidenced by his comments to Nevadans about being “open” to moving nuclear waist away from Yucca mountain. My concern here isn’t about the merits of moving the nuclear waist sight–I’m not an expert on such matters and don’t claim to be–but rather on the perception it creates. Perception is reality in politics, and if Pawlenty is perceived as willing to say anything to anybody in order to get the nomination, I think he’ll fair very poorly in this climate. My sense is that the 2012 electorate is looking for sobriety, seriousness, straight talk and possibly even a bit of discomfort from political leaders. People know things are bad, and are willing to hear some unpleasant things, and make some unappetizing choices, in order to fix things. I’m not saying Pawlenty needs to hop on board with Ryan’s budget plan, but it might be helpful for him to role out a couple of tough proposals, defend them, and show some real steel.

I currently remain undecided as to my final preference for President, which I submit remains a reasonable position at this early date. However, if I were forced to choose right now, I’d probably still pick Pawlenty. He’s solid, he’s competent, and he governed a blue state fairly well. I also acknowledge that it’s early, and some of this may just be a result of the fact that his exploratory phase is only a month old. Like Daniels, I’ll give Pawlenty the benefit of the doubt, and I think he’s got time to spare. But, were I advising Pawlenty, I might flag this issue as a potential concern. It was certainly damaging to Romney 2008, and could be damaging again to Pawlenty 2012. I hope it’s not, but I am concerned.

American Research Group Iowa Republican Caucus

• Huckabee – 18%
• Romney – 17%
• Gingrich – 12%
• Trump – 10%
• Bachmann – 9%
• Giuliani – 8%
• Daniels – 4%
• Palin – 4%
• Rand Paul – 4%
• Ron Paul – 3%
• Santorum – 2%
• Pawlenty – 1%
• Barbour – *
• Cain – *
• Huntsman – *
• Johnson – *
• Pataki – *

Survey of 600 likely caucus goers was completed April 12-19 and has an MoE of 4%. An asterisk indicates a level of support below 1%.

More numbers below the fold…
(more…)

PPP (D) Iowa Democratic Presidential Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 79%
• Disapprove 16%

If the Democratic choices for President next year were Barack Obama, someone more liberal than him, or someone more conservative than him, who would you vote for?

• Barack Obama 66%
• Someone more liberal than him 7%
• Someone more conservative than him 20%

Given the choices of Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Russ Feingold, Brian Schweitzer, Mark Warner, and Oprah Winfrey who would you most like to see as the next Democratic candidate for President after Barack Obama?

• Hillary Clinton 44%
• Joe Biden 13%
• Andrew Cuomo 7%
• Russ Feingold 5%
• Oprah Winfrey 4%
• Cory Booker 3%
• Brian Schweitzer 1%
• Mark Warner 1%
• Someone else/Not sure 21%

Survey of 484 usual Democratic primary voters was conducted April 15-17, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.  Political ideology: 37% Moderate; 33% Somewhat liberal; 14% Very liberal; 11% Somewhat conservative; 4% Very conservative.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Gary Johnson will announce tomorrow that he is the first official candidate for the GOP Presidential nomination – skipping the exploratory phase that Romney, Pawlenty, Cain, Moore, and Roemer are currently in.

Johnson’s strain of libertarianism often looks much like Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas). Even though Paul has a devoted following, he rarely hits double digits in polling and isn’t considered a serious threat for the nomination.

Johnson, though, thinks he can mount a more credible effort.

“Ron Paul, last go-around, got 9 percent of the Republican vote, and I was one of those 9 percent. But it’s gotta grow way beyond that [to win the nomination].”

But what Johnson won’t answer is how his message is any more palatable to the party than Paul’s.

“I’ll leave that completely to your analysis,” he says.

Johnson, as many have noted, is about as extreme to the right end of the economic spectrum as you could get, but far to the left of the GOP base on most, if not all, social issues.

Even though Johnson is from New Mexico, his campaign headquarters will be based in Salt Lake City, home of his longtime friend and adviser Ron Nielson (who worked on both of his successful NM Gubernatorial campaigns). His campaign will focus, as expected, on the state of New Hampshire.

This announcement will presumably set up a situation where Ron Paul and Gary Johnson battle it out during the primaries for the 10% or so of libertarian Republican voters.

Pew Research 2012 Presidential Survey

Thinking about possible Republican candidates for president in 2012… Regardless of whom you might prefer, which Republican candidate have you heard the most about in the news recently?

• Donald Trump 26%
• Mitt Romney 9%
• Sarah Palin 4%
• Mike Huckabee 2%
• Newt Gingrich 1%
• Tim Pawlenty 1%
• Other 4%
• None/Don’t know 53%

Survey of 1,015 adults was conducted April 14-17, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

This is a topic that surfaces every now and then, and I don’t think there’s a clear answer. What I do think is that too many pundits dismiss the Perot Effect on the 1992 election due to the topline results, which featured Bill Clinton beating George H.W. Bush handily against the backdrop of a bad economy. Here’s Steve Kornacki’s take on the subject:

Next up: Ross Perot and 1992. Easterbook argues that George H.W. Bush lost because the Texas billionaire “siphoned off conservative votes.” False.

The endurance of this particular myth, regular readers will recognize, is particularly bothersome to me, and I’ve written about it several times. Easterbrook is hardly the only one who’s still pushing it. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard someone matter-of-factly make this claim in the past few years. Generally, it’s from conservatives who like to pretend that Bill Clinton’s ’92 victory was a fluke, but there are liberals who still fall for it too.

Instead of recounting all of the details of the ’92 race here, I’ll simply refer you to one of my previous posts on the subject. If you want the Cliff’s Notes version it goes like this: (1) Economic anxiety was high, causing Bush’s poll numbers to drop to poisonous levels — by the fall of ’92 he was not an incumbent who, on paper, should have won reelection; (2) Not a single public opinion poll from the middle of July (when Perot dropped out the race) through the end of September (when Perot returned) gave Bush a lead over Clinton — not even in the immediate wake of the August ’92 GOP convention. In fact, Clinton’s average lead in this period was double-digits — and the race was not tightening at the time Perot jumped back in; (3) A comprehensive national exit poll found that Perot voters were divided almost evenly on their second choice and that Clinton — in a two-way race — would still have beaten Bush by 5.8 million votes (his actual margin was 5.3 million in initial ’92 tally).

All of that may be true, but none of that means that Perot didn’t help to create a political climate that would ultimately lead to a Clinton victory.

First, Perot spent most of 1992 hammering President Bush over his stewardship of the country. He was free to attack the president unabated at a time when Bill Clinton was still batting away fellow Democratic challengers. So effective was his case to the American people that he topped many mid-summer polls in 1992, beating both Bush and Clinton. The wounds inflicted on Bush by Perot certainly helped take the president down several notches, making Clinton’s victory that much easier.

Secondly, Perot was solely responsible for making the national debt a major issue in 1992. No one really cared about the debt over the course of the ’80s, and had Perot not run, the eventual Democratic nominee, even if it were Bill Clinton, would probably not have come up with the issue on his own. As smart as Clinton was, without Perot showing that the debt issue had political legs, the Arkansas governor would likely have reverted to traditional Democratic talking points about how the Reagan/Bush tax cuts were a giveaway to the rich, and that taxes had to be raised in order to “invest in our country’s future,” or whatever drivel Democrats were peddling back then. Perot, by making the debt the centerpiece of his campaign, gave Clinton a new plank to his own campaign once Perot dropped out and flamed out — that taxes had to be raised to close the deficit. This argument, having been made by both Perot and Clinton, seemed a lot more sensible to voters than the usual Democratic argument that taxes had to go up so that Democrats could spend more money.

Finally, Perot siphoned off a lot of Reagan Coalition voters who were displeased with the Bush Administration. Perot’s economic nationalism appealed to Buchananites, who already had one foot outside of the GOP tent given Pat’s run against Bush earlier in the year. Ross’ seeming dismissal of social issues and isolationist stances were attractive to a lot of forgotten New England Republicans, which is why Perot ran so well in states like Maine, which gave Perot second place in the general election. And his focus on the debt made him the favorite of the green eyeshade types who felt that Reaganomics had been irrational in its projections of future growth. Additionally, I suspect there were a significant number of conservative base voters who cast ballots for Perot as a protest against the president’s perceived RINO-ism, even though Perot is pretty much the definition of a RINO, by today’s standards.

To be sure, the numbers do indeed suggest that Perot garnered his support primarily from Reagan/Bush voters from the 1980s. In 1984, the Republican share of the presidential vote was 59 percent. In 1988, it was 53 percent. In 1992, the combined Bush/Perot vote share was 56 percent. Democrats got 41 percent of the vote in 1984, 46 percent in 1988, and 43 percent in 1992. Bush won 51 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1988. Bush and Perot collectively won 53 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1992. Bush won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1988. Bush/Perot won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1992. Bush won Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 54 percent, 55 percent, and 51 percent, respectively, in 1988. Bush/Perot garnered 56 percent, 59 percent, and 54 percent of the vote in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, respectively in 1992. All in all, Bush’s share of the vote from 1988 and the Bush/Perot share of the vote from 1992 seem to overlap significantly, and this holds true in every region of the country and in most of the nation’s largest states. As such, it becomes difficult to argue that Perot hurt Republicans and Democrats equally in 1992. What Perot did was shatter the Reagan/Bush coalition, allowing Bill Clinton to pick up the pieces.

Marist has released the full results of the poll they announced yesterday. It does not look good for Obama.

First the question, “Do you definitely plan to vote for Barack Obama for re-election as president or do you definitely plan to vote against him?”. Here are the results for the last three polls:

A solid plurality is planning to definitely vote against Obama. That is down from a solid majority planning to vote FOR him just last January.

Next, the question, “If the 2012 presidential election were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are: Obama and XXXXX?”. Here are the results, their margins, the margins last January, and the change since the first of the year:

Romney does best, with Huckabee close behind. Palin fares worst with a margin of -22.

Finally, they asked the Republicans and the Republican leaning Independents, “If the 2012 Republican presidential primary were held today, whom would you support?” They gave them a list of names to choose from.

(more…)

Here’ a snippet from last night’s interview with Sean Hannity:

Every presidential cycle creates its own chemistry and follows its own political dynamic.

The last cycle was marked by two major circumstances. First, there was no incumbent running, so the nominations of both parties were up for grabs. Second, this circumstance led to a very early beginning in the respective party nomination contests.

This cycle has the Democratic nomination likely to be won again by Barack Obama, now the incumbent president. (His popularity is low enough and vulnerable enough, and his left base is beginning to be upset enough, however, that it is possible (but unlikely) he might yet face a challenge from his left.)

Conditions in the nation continue uncertain, although many are citing recent economic statistics as proof that the long current recession is over. Yet unemployment remains very high, home sales and values remain depressed, and the price of gasoline has soared to almost $4 a gallon (with little in sight to reverse it). Furthermore, the international arena has become once again filled with unexpected volatile events, most of which do not seem to favor U.S. economic, military or diplomatic interests.

Of course, any of these can change relatively quickly, and the current mood of high risk, danger and vulnerability could be replaced with new optimism and more positive prospects. But even if they were thus replaced, there is less and less time available in the presidential campaign which will end only 18 months from now. Common sense indicates that an economic and political reversal in short order is unlikely because the U.S. continues to fail to provide alternatives for its oil supply (such as building more refineries, offshore drilling, developing new energy capacities from sources that can provide significant energy supplies (these do not include wind and solar power technologies now in fashion, but limited in what they can provide). After the recent Japanese experience, it is almost impossible to imagine the U.S. returning to the construction of significant new nuclear power plants, at least in the short term. While several economic markers have recently turned more positive, the public remains extremely cautious in many of its buying habits, and lacking a dramatic decline of unemployment to 5-6%, the economy will continue to recover slowly, if at all.

Thus, the Republican nomination means something in 2012. In fact, incumbents in recent years have not done so well in winning second terms, including Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush. Those who have won second terms (Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) campaigned for their second terms during more positive economic times.

Yet the late-starting 2012 Republican campaign has been marked by the rise of fringe candidates receiving extraordinarily high poll numbers when measured against the so-called “serious” and “major” candidates. These latter include Georg Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour. How do we explain this?

I suggest the timidity and caution (they would argue that it’s prudence) of the major candidates to formally enter the presidential race has made this inevitable. Hemming and hawing, teasing and testing, these candidates have been constrained by all the new rules for a formal presidential campaign and the uncertainty of the economy and world situation. Although Mitt Romney is a nominal frontrunner, and Mike Huckabee (who does well in may polls), are well-known and potentially formidable in 2012, there is no GOP candidate who has any likely “lock” on the nomination. One so-called “dark horse,” Tim Pawlenty has already risen from second tier to first, and should he decide to run, Mitch Daniels could do the same.
Mr. Romney, Mr. Huckabee and Mrs Palin are already well-known from the 2008 campaign but one or two of them may not run. Both Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour, formidable figures already in their party, and, in Mr. Gingrich’s case, clearly very well-qualified for the presidency, have stumbled in their initial unofficial campaign efforts, as they and their colleagues are being quite careful what they say about each other and some of the controversial issues.

For the media and the general public, however, the campaign has already begun, and the both parties have powerful factions which want to hear what the candidates think about the controversial issues.

It was considered an absolute no-no for any GOP candidate to bring up the Obama “birther” issue, but a significant segment in the GOP base remains unsatisfied with the fact that, although a birth certificate in Hawaii allegedly exists, the president has not performed the simple act of making it public. Donald Trump, the New York real estate developer and TV celebrity, had nothing to lose by making this his issue. In fact, he shrewdly guessed that some voters would be grateful to him for it, even though it is really, at this point a non-issue and a diversion. Because of that, and his “impolitic” critiques of the other candidates and the Democrats, he has inevitably gained considerable media attention and, it goes without saying, temporary high numbers in the polls. As the GOP “establishment” denounces him as not a serious candidate, the public of course takes further interest in him.

While Congresswoman Michele Bachmann,, unlike Trump, is an elected official, her appeal to voters is primarily to “Tea Party” conservatives who emerged in the 2010 campaign, had an enormous impact on it, and remain a large if nebulous force in politics in 2011 and 2012. While her colleagues in Congress and fellow Republicans who are governors are making significant initial change in DC and many state capitals, their progress is slowed by the fact that Democrats still control the U.S. senate, the White House and many state legislatures. Thus provocative rhetoric seems more appealing than the apparent slow pace of actual change. Mrs. Bachmann, and to some degree Mrs. Palin, thus are turning on voters strictly with their rhetoric, as is Mr. Trump. None of them are actually doing much if anything to bring about the change voters still want.

The longer the “major” GOP candidates take to begin the formal hand-to- hand combat of the presidential campaign, the longer Mr. Trump and Mrs. Bachmann will capture the headlines and high poll numbers.

Mrs. Bachmann is a serious political figure, as her opponents in Minnesota have discovered in recent years, but her case for being elected president so far is very, very thin. Mr. Trump, an over-coiffed, boastful self-promoter is not, by any form of reasonable imagination, a serious political candidate. But he is, of course, laughing all the way to the bank, promoting his ego, his investments and his TV show.

In the short-term, these two figures, and any other GOP fringe candidates do not matter in the totality of the 2012 presidential campaign in that they are not going to be nominated. But they are having a secondary effect which could matter, that is, the longer they dominate the headlines and public attention, the more likely the Republican “brand” and the true conservative cause in 2012 is diminished.

That is why GOP strategists and candidates are likely to give Bachmann and Trump “the hook” sooner rather than later.

If they do not, it will be Barack Obama who will be laughing all the way to the voting booth.

_______________________________________________________________________

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

Most of you know that the Club for Growth came out against Donald Trump yesterday:

“Donald Trump for President? You’ve got to be joking,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “Donald Trump has advocated for massive tax increases that display a stunning lack of knowledge of how to create jobs. His love for a socialist-style universal health care system and his alarming obsession with protectionist policies are automatic disqualifiers among free-market conservatives. This publicity stunt will sputter and disappear just as quickly as the ‘The Apprentice’ is losing viewers.”

Not to worry. Running to his rescue was Mike Huckabee on his radio program today:

Huckabee, the former presidential candidate and current Fox News host who has said he is thinking about running another campaign, said he remembers when the organization made similar attacks against him in 2008.

“According to that group, I’m also a tax-loving socialist. During the 2008 election they cherry-picked some factoids out of context from the deals I had to make from a ninety percent Democratic Arkansas legislature,” Huckabee said in his daily radio commentary.

Huckabee also criticized the organization for being so focused on cutting taxes.

Trust Mike Huckabee to dwell upon past dirty dastardly dark deeds.

Jan Brewer has vetoed the Birther Bill passed recently by Arizona’s legislature:

“I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their ‘early baptismal or circumcision certificates’ … this is a bridge too far,” she said in a statement. “This measure creates significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona.”

Does this help or hinder the candidates trying to appeal to the Birthers?

I can see it hurting because it marginalizes them further, or helping by keeping the issue front and center (and inflaming their supporters).

The Washington Post, in conjunction with ABC News has just released a new poll. It shows President Obama continuing his slow sinking in the polls since January.

Obama’s job approval/disapproval rating is pegged at 47/50 — the worst this year for both numbers.

His handling of the economy is 42/57, again the worst this year.  It’s the worse since September of last year.

In the poll, they asked all the leaning Republicans whom they would vote for if the GOP primary was held today. They made it open ended. They did not provide any names. Here are the results they got:

They asked everyone the  “vs. Obama” question for a number of top GOP 2012 hopefuls. The results are as follows:

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone April 14-17, 2011, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

Here are the main things I take away from this poll:

1. No mention of Herman Cain.
2. Romney is the only one that broke double digits.
3. Trump seems to be fading already.
4. We see the usual two man race between Romney and Huckabee
5. Sarah Palin continues to be well off the pace.
6. Pawlenty is still struggling to gain traction.

2008 Presidential candidate and former US Senator Fred Thompson wrote an excellent piece entitled, “The Dark Horse Effect.” In this piece he rips apart the media’s take on dark horse Presidential candidates and debunks the myth that Fred Thompson was a lazy candidate. Here’s an excerpt.

The media are beginning to get restless. They are ready for the campaign games to begin, but the contestants are not lining up in the starting gate. 

So, with space and airwaves to fill, we are now being treated to the speculative phase of the proceedings. Pollsters and pontificators tell us who is in, who is out, who may be in, who may be out, who is definitely out, and how the outs would do if they got in. Included is the obligatory “dissatisfaction with the field” phenomenon.

This results in another candidate category for the media — candidates who should not get in. These are your “dark horses,” recruited or drafted candidates who have obvious qualities, but who may not be committed to running for president, “deep within their bones.” Critics say these people sometimes wind up running out of a sense of civic obligation instead of an innate desire to spend endless hours in moldy basements with strangers. The pundits believe such candidacies never turn out well

This is the theme of Ed Kilgore’s recent piece in The New Republic, “The Fred Thompson Effect.” Perhaps you can tell from the title who is being used as exhibit A for Kilgore’s thesis. The dark-horse-as-savior topic is an interesting one, but there is also a collateral issue: In the minds of some commentators, the candidate who enters the fray late (by media standards) is by definition a dark horse, and therefore suspect. That is, the candidate would not be a dark horse if his heart were truly in it. If he had the fire in the belly, he would not be late entering the field. Some writers will go to extremes to make the facts fit their thesis.

Seriously take a read of the entire article – it’s well worth the read. As a once and future Fred-head, it’s good to see Fred Thompson address these types of accusations head on.

_______________________________________________________

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

It is PPP, so take it with the requisite grain of salt, but here are the latest numbers from Iowa:

Public Policy Polling Republican Iowa Caucus (PDF warning)

	Full Field	Field #2	Field #3	Field #4	Field #5
Huckabee	27%	30%	—	33%	—
Romney	16%	18%	25%	20%	28%
Trump	14%	—	—	—	—
Gingrich	9%	12%	15%	13%	19%
Palin	8%	12%	15%	—	—
Bachmann	6%	6%	10%	10%	15%
Paul	6%	6%	15%	9%	16%
Pawlenty	5%	7%	9%	5%	9%

Survey of 419 Republican caucus voters was done April 15-17 and has an MoE of 4.8%.

-Part 4 in a developing series of in-depth analysis by Dr. Jeff Fuller (See part 1 and part 2 and part 3)

Firstly, as an addendum to my last post (Part 3 about Romney opposing ObamaCare from Day one), Romney has upped the ante on his rejection of ObamaCare and his willingness to fight for it’s repeal.  In a brief National Review Online Op-ed on March 22nd entitled “If I Were President: ObamaCare, One Year in” he brought up a new angle that I hadn’t considered:

If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.

As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. Of course, the ultimate goal is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs. But since an outright repeal would take time, an executive order is the first step in returning power to the states.

Powerful, pragmatic leadership, with both experience and foresight.  That’s what our country needs in the White House, and that’s what Mitt Romney has in spades!

OK, now onto the questions of RomneyCare and Mandates.  Admittedly, this will be the stickiest subject for Romney and may be a stumbling block of gaining the support of some conservatives.  The individual mandate is at the crux of both ObamaCare and RomneyCare, really, the sine qua non of the respective plans.

Mitt recently defended the individual mandate.  This has been his consistent position since 2004-5 when the law was being crafted.  In fact, Romney was often questioned about the plan during the last GOP primary in 2007-8 and he provided solid answers about how an individual mandate could help solve the problem of “free riders” . . . those that could afford health insurance, but choose not to because current federal law MANDATES that emergency rooms assess/triage/treat all patients who present, irrespective of their insurance status or citizenship (EMTALA & COBRA laws: “It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.”)  Take 90 seconds and hear Mitt discuss the conservative side of the mandate issue:



(more…)

Roy Moore becomes the fifth candidate to make it official and file paperwork for an exploratory committee with the FEC:

Republican Roy Moore, who believes he was wrongly removed from Alabama’s supreme court, will file federal paperwork today to create a presidential exploratory committee, he said in an interview. And the Iowa co-chairman for Arkansas’s Mike Huckabee 2008 campaign is shepherding him around the state on a volunteer basis…

Moore will make 25 appearances this week on a 6 1/2-day tour of Iowa, home of the nation’s earliest caucuses, according to MoorePAC, a Gallant, Ala.-based political action committee…

Danny Carroll, a former state legislator who is a full-time lobbyist for the Family Leader, a socially conservative advocacy group, is Moore’s lead Iowa contact. “He’s my guy,” said Carroll, who worked for Huckabee’s campaign in the 2008 cycle.

The Boston Globe publishes an editorial today recounting and supporting Mitt Romney’s role in developing Health Care reform plans for Massachusetts while serving as it’s Governor:

“All in all, then, the role Romney played was of a governor sensitive to business concerns and worried about the state’s business climate. Now, conservatives have come to view that individual mandate as an intolerable imposition on personal liberty, rather than an insistence on personal responsibility. In no small part that’s because such a mandate also plays a central role in Obama’s health care plan. But if they weren’t hyperventilating about the national law, they might come to recognize that the role Romney played on the state level was skillful, creative, and business-friendly.”

The Globe editorial explains how Democrats wanted to impose a payroll tax on businesses who did not offer health coverage. Democrat House Speaker Sal DiMasi had set up the idea as a ballot question. The business community was very worried about such costs, as DiMasi was adamant about having businesses shoulder the expense, at a proposed rate of $800 to $1,000 per employee. Until Romney crafted an alternative plan, the Democratic policies were sure to be enacted.

Using information from the Heritage Foundation and the Urban Institute, Romney eventually made the individual mandate the centerpiece of health care reform. The idea of the mandate was born in Conservative and Republican circles as a way to combat the single-payer healthcare plans favored by Progressives. Romney was able to craft a compromise, which eased the burden on businesses, while allowing residents to purchase individual private insurance policies.

Some Conservatives have been assailing Romney for his role in Massachusetts Health Care reform, but as the Globe editorial points out:

”…conservatives might be more favorably disposed if they understood the part Romney played in warding off various schemes feared by business.”

Surely realistic voters will want someone who has the ability to make sound decisions, based on real experience in both the public and private sector, to lead and tackle the issues of the day, as they face a choice in 2012.

From the Washington Times, this morning:

The Club for Growth, an influential anti-spending group, is warning its followers that potential presidential candidate Donald Trump is a wolf in sheep’s clothing — calling him just another “tax-hiking liberal” and a “king of protectionism” who doesn’t deserve conservative support in the next election.

“Donald Trump for president? You’ve got to be joking,” Club for Growth President Chris Chocola said. “Donald Trump has advocated for massive tax increases that display a stunning lack of knowledge of how to create jobs. His love for a socialist-style universal health care system and his alarming obsession with protectionist policies are automatic disqualifiers among free-market conservatives. This publicity stunt will sputter and disappear just as quickly as the ‘The Apprentice’ is losing viewers.”

Read more>

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

What if the Republicans nominate Donald Trump? If the 2012 Presidential Election were held today would you vote for Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Barack Obama?

• Barack Obama 49%
• Donald Trump 34%
• Some other candidate 12%
• Undecided 5%

National Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted April 15-16, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Only 65% of Republican voters would vote for Trump over Obama. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 48% prefer Obama, 25% Trump, and 20% would opt for some other candidate.

Most voters (53%) offer an unfavorable opinion of the reality TV star and businessman, including 29% with a Very Unfavorable view of him. Only 39% offer a favorable assessment, with 10% Very Favorable.

Because of his wealth, Trump has indicated that he could finance his own presidential campaign if necessary and not have to be beholden to special interest contributors. Just over half (54%) of voters say a candidate’s ability to finance his own campaign is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for president, with 22% who say it is Very Important. Forty-two percent (42%) say an ability to self-finance a presidential campaign is unimportant to them, including 12% who say it’s Not At All Important.

Republicans value this ability more than Democrats and unaffiliated voters.

But then 61% of GOP voters have a favorable view of Trump. Seventy-one percent (71%) of Democrats and 58% of unaffiliateds regard him unfavorably.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

This morning Standard and Poors announced that it is placing the US government on “negative watch” for potential downgrade of its credit rating.  The announcement went on to say that, while they are retaining the AAA rating on the US for now, there is at least a 1 in 3 chance of a downgrade in two years:

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services Inc. cut its outlook on the U.S. to negative, increasing the likelihood of a potential downgrade from its triple-A rating, as the path from large budget deficits and rising government debt remains unclear.

“More than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis, U.S. policy makers have still not agreed on how to reverse recent fiscal deterioration or address longer-term fiscal pressures,” S&P credit analyst Nikola G. Swann said. He said the rating agency puts the chance of a U.S. downgrade within two years at least one-in-three.

The move comes amid continued hand-wringing over the balance sheet of the world’s largest economy and disagreement among politicians on how to address fiscal woes as economic growth remains tepid.

S&P said Monday it sees material risk that policymakers might not agree on how to address budgetary challenges by 2013, which would render the U.S. fiscal profile weaker than that of other triple-A-rated countries.

S&P said Monday the U.S.’s rating is supported by its flexible and highly diversified economy and a consistent global preference for the U.S. dollar, which gives it “unique external liquidity.”

A senior Treasury Department official said that Standard & Poor’s negative outlook underestimates the country’s ability to face fiscal challenges.

“We believe S&P’s negative outlook underestimates the ability of America’s leaders to come together to address the difficult fiscal challenges facing the nation,” said assistant secretary Mary Miller.

Ms. Miller said that it is well within the country’s capacity to address its fiscal situation and noted that both Democrats and Republicans agree it is time to start reducing deficits as a share of gross domestic product.

S& P said that it doesn’t take any position on the outstanding proposals from the White House and Congress to cut the deficit, but views proposals from President Barack Obama and House Republicans as a starting point.

In explaining its decision to put the U.S. credit rating on negative watchm S&P said the U.S. deficit “ballooned” to more than 11% of GDP in 2009 from a range of 2% to 5% from 2003 to 2008. It noted the gap between both Republicans and Democrats about how to cut the deficit “remains wide.” Even if an agreement is found between both sides, “there is a reasonable chance that it would still take a number of years before the government reaches a fiscal position that stabilizes its debt burden,” S&P said.

“We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond that time is possible,” S&P added.

House Republicans voted Friday to adopt a budget blueprint that would cut federal spending by $5.8 trillion over the next decade and fundamentally change the popular Medicare program for people under 55. The measure was approved on a party-line vote of 235 to 193, with four Republicans joining every Democrat in opposing it.

The measure will likely die in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and President Obama last week was sharply critical of the House GOP blueprint, saying there was “nothing serious” in its overall outlook and that it would reward “millionaires and billionaires” while hurting the poor and middle class.

S&P said that if an agreement isn’t reached and meaningful implementation is not begun by 2013, it would make the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of other triple-A-rated sovereigns.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time to cut the comedy, end the political theatrics, and get serious.  This will become as much a national security issue as a budget-financial issue, and it will effect everyone’s standard of living—make no mistake about that.  The wolf may indeed be nearing our door.

The New York Times has a story on a side of Chris Christie that does not often make the headlines:

In the throes of New Jersey’s financial crisis, Gov. Chris Christie vaulted into office as a strict fiscal conservative. In his first year in the job, he won national attention as a tough-talking manager whose budget-slashing, union-bashing ways seemed to be all about the money.

The National Review and Rush Limbaugh quoted admiringly from a document far from the usual political red meat: Mr. Christie’s 2010 budget address.

But the last few months have revealed a governor whose conservatism is not just economic. In his statements, budget moves and quiet administrative actions, Mr. Christie has taken strong positions on abortion and medical marijuana; while his positions on these issues had been clear, he had said or done little about them. And he has spoken up on matters he had previously not addressed at all, like family planning and global warming — suggesting that human activity may not be causing the planet to heat up.

“He is absolutely the most conservative governor we have had in the modern history of the state,” said Ben Dworkin, director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University. “Christie has revealed a number of views that we didn’t see before, or barely saw, on things that were not on anybody’s radar screen in the 2009 election or his first months in office.”

In office, he eliminated the state’s Office of Climate Change, cut funding for clean energy programs and eliminated New Jersey’s share of financing for a 10-state greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program that is anathema to many conservatives.

But those were billed as pragmatic, budgetary moves. In November, Mr. Christie went further: He revealed that he was skeptical that human activity was responsible for climate change. Responding to a question at a public forum in Toms River, he said, “I think we’re going to need more science to prove something one way or the other.”

On March 11, he pulled New Jersey out of a multistate lawsuit aimed at curbing greenhouse emissions from power plants, and on March 24, he said he might also withdraw entirely from the cap-and-trade program.

Mr. Christie’s opposition to abortion has long been a matter of public record, but he has barely mentioned it unless asked. Then, in January, the governor addressed a large anti-abortion rally in Trenton, saying, “This is an issue whose time has come.”

In September, he vetoed state support for family planning clinics, a move strongly backed by anti-abortion groups because some of the clinics performed abortions. In February, after the Democratic-controlled Legislature approved a much smaller appropriation for family planning, backed mostly by federal dollars, he vetoed that, too. Mr. Christie also applied for federal money for abstinence-only education, something that the Democrat he unseated, Gov. Jon S. Corzine, had not done.

In February, Mr. Christie made a splash in the national news media with a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, weighing in on issues that are not the usual fare for governors, like changes in Medicare and raising the minimum age for Social Security. He derided President Obama’s talk of high-speed rail and electric cars as “the candy of American politics.”

Mr. Christie has not added New Jersey to the states that are suing to overturn the federal health care overhaul, but this year he has become more critical of the law.

On some issues, Mr. Christie’s general views have long been known, but only with time has it become clear how far he is willing to push them.

Read the rest here.

While an unlikely candidate for a keg stand, CNN has given the title of “big man on campus” to none other than Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels:

Borrowing a page from the 2008 playbook, the Students for Daniels organization uses social media to spread the word to chapters at 57 colleges and universities. Interest in the group spiked after it released a YouTube video featuring Knowles and former New York gubernatorial candidate Jimmy McMillan, who coined the phrase: “The rent is too damn high.”

…

“It’s not hope. It’s not change. It’s solvency. It’s, like, basic math. I mean one of the lines that Daniels said that really attracted me to him … he said, ‘You know, can we just agree it’s not about ideology. It’s about mathematics,’ ” Eden said.

…

His no-nonsense style has earned praise from across the political spectrum. Both Tea Party organizer Dick Armey and Time magazine columnist Joe Klein have urged him to run.

…

At Yale, the student effort to draft Daniels is a sign that Republicans have a shot at chipping away at one of President Obama’s core political strengths: the youth vote.

In 2008, Obama carried roughly two-thirds of younger voters, who rallied behind him on Facebook and with viral YouTube videos that declared a “Crush on Obama.”

Times have changed.

“I think he’s lost a lot of us,” said Yale student and self-described Democrat Danielle Tomson.

We will hopefully learn within the very near future whether Gov. Daniels decides to take the plunge.

The relationship between a president of the United States and the voters is a very complicated one, and difficult to measure. Nearly everyone has their own theory about who the good presidents are, the bad ones, and the ordinary ones. Evaluations change from generation to generation. The office itself evolves notably over time, especially as the communications environment is altered by more and more technology. Even the A-list, the historically most favored list, of presidents is continually be subjected to revision, re-evaluation and re-inquiry.

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are likely to remain as the most beloved and respected presidents, but there are ambitious scholars and politically-correct fanatics who even challenge them. After that, certainty is reduced. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan are often rated as superior presidents, but each of them has their critics. Ulysses Grant used to be rated very low, but recent scholarship indicates he may have been treated too harshly by Historians. And so on.

But this debate begs the question about what qualities make a good president. In fact, someone may not have the conventional qualities and yet turn out to be important. Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan come to mind in this category. And presidents with seemingly all the right qualities have turned out to be disappointing failures. Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter come to mind in this category.

I contend that because the nature of the presidency is changing so much, the qualities that make a good president also changes significantly.

The current president, Barack Obama, came into office with an unprecedented lack of experience and previous office holding. His advocates contended this did not matter because Obama was a “new politician” whose destiny was to bring change. Others will disagree, but I think his lack of background for the job has been an enormous impediment in his first term, and likely to keep him from a second one. It was also his “luck,” or lack of it, to become president at a time of huge crises in the U.S. economy and society, as well as in foreign affairs all over the world. Can his “on the job training” salvage his presidency? Perhaps, but so far we do not have much evidence that he has learned how the presidency works and how to solve our critical problems.

If the next president is not be the current incumbent, then what the qualities the nation needs to find in his successor?

I repeat: what will be needed in 2013-2017 will not what was needed in 1841-1845 or 1861-1865 or 1913-1917 or 1941-45 or 1981-1985.

I suggest that first of all the nation needs a man or woman who understands how economics and capitalism works. Not necessarily a scholar or an expert, but someone either with real business experience or management experience. Part of this also includes an ability to judge others, be they associates or foes, accurately, and to have the ability to manage the impacts of others.

Second, the nation needs a man or woman who knows about the world. Again, not necessarily an expert, but someone who has knowledge about world history, and the nature of other societies in the world, especially those which have military and economic power.

Third, the nation needs a man or woman who knows how to behave in the rarified air of international politics, someone who understands that international relations, be they economic or military, are equivalent to chess playing, and not to a game of checkers.

Fourth, the nation needs a man or woman who has not only basic communication skills, but extraordinary ones. A president is always speaking for and to the nation. A great inaugural speech isn’t enough. A president also has to choose exceptional persons to speak for him or her, and to create a positive understanding of administration policy.

Finally, the nation needs a man or woman whose character, leadership gifts and human compassion is as large as possible, so that he or she can meet the huge challenges of the next four years (with so much in danger to be found here and abroad). Presidents are not saints. Presidents always have large egos and great passions. Presidents make political mistakes. Presidents don’t always choose the best persons to advise them, or to act for them, But successful presidents get it right more often than not.

There is no perfect candidate for president in any campaign year, and 2012 is no different. None of the contenders likely to run in 2012 is without warts and shortcomings, But there is at least one, and probably two or three who do have what it takes, and hopefully, one of them will be chosen.

Insofar as the 2012 presidential campaign becomes fixated on extraneous qualities and extraneous issues, the outcome becomes more and more problematic, and the success in the next stage of our national life more in peril.

_______________________________________________________________________

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

Today, Sarah Palin delivered a fiery (to say the least) speech at the steps of the Wisconsin State Capitol:

Some commentators, such as James Pethokoukis, had some laudatory words to say about it:

Will she run? Even many of those close to Team Palin have no idea. Palin herself may not have made a decision and may not feel she needs to until the autumn. But as it stands, she arguably represents the purest expression out there of Tea Party passion and free-market populist rejection of Washington’s bipartisan crony capitalism. If she ran, her high-wattage appearance in Madison shows just how dangerous her candidacy would be to a field of solid but stolid opponents.

As most of us here at Race42012 have stated over and over again, Sarah has a TON of work to do if she does intend to run (and win). Her poll numbers have sunk lower than ever, and she hasn’t displayed the necessary desire to reform the public’s perception of her.

So, all in all, I remain skeptical of the prospects of a Palin run, but her speech today showcased her doing what she does best: firing up like-minded audiences from behind a podium. And when she does that, it remains a sight to see.

In case you missed it, Wisconsin state election officials have finished tallying the votes from Justice David Prosser’s re-election bid, and it appears that he has won:

Tallies from each of the state’s 72 counties show Justice David Prosser defeated challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg by 7,316 votes. State election officials said they will wait to declare an official winner until the deadline for Kloppenburg to seek a recount passes. She has until Wednesday to call for one. Kloppenburg’s campaign is weighing whether to seek a recount.

If Kloppenburg opts against a recount, it will amount to an enormous victory for Gov. Scott Walker, as many have rightly noted that the election represented a referendum on his attempts to combat the state’s teacher unions.

Perhaps, as others have postulated, it will also go down in history as the unsuccessful last stand of public education unions.

Explain to Me Again Why We Give Money to These People

A proposal has been entered at the UN to … get ready for it … give Mother Earth and all her creatures the same rights as humans.

As soon as you’ve finished laughing, we can continue.

This article treats the subject with far more seriousness than it deserves:

Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to “dominate and exploit” — to the point that the “well-being and existence of many beings” is now threatened.

The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia’s Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.

That document speaks of the country’s natural resources as “blessings,” and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.

Read the whole thing, it’s priceless. Perhaps the best part is where Bolivia’s ambassador trips himself up by trying to be ‘reasonable”:

“We’re not saying, for example, you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow,” he said. “But when human activity develops at a certain scale that you (cause to) disappear a species, then you are really altering the vital cycles of nature or of Mother Earth.

But … but … isn’t the cow being treated as a second-class citizen?

Weekly Off-Topic Rant

College football is corrupt. Hope that doesn’t shock you.

The Fiesta Bowl has been caught giving bribes illegal campaign contributions to politicians, as well as bribing college officials with trips and gifts.  Nothing new there, except that they got caught – most of  the other major bowls apparently do much the same things.

In a complaint filed with the IRS last year, Playoff PAC accused the Orange, Sugar and Fiesta Bowls of violating their tax-exempt status, while finding no irregularities with the Rose Bowl. In a supplemental letter to the IRS last December, the group took particular aim at a “Summer Splash” cruise to the Bahamas that the Orange Bowl hosted for athletic directors, conference commissioners and their spouses. The PAC called the trip a junket that was problematic under federal tax laws; the bowl said it was “100 percent in compliance with IRS guidelines.”

What’s always amusing about these things is watching the hypocrites try to distance themselves. Here’s Ohio State’s athletic director:

Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith served on the Fiesta Bowl board when he was at Arizona State. He remains an emeritus member of the board.

He said he was shocked by the Fiesta Bowl scandal, particularly the allegations made against Junker.

“I did not see him as the type of person who would lead the organization that way,” Smith said. “When I was on the board, I never heard any rumors or rumblings about that type of behavior.”

Sounds like Smith didn’t do his job as a board member. But to have someone from Ohio State express horror at corrupt practices is kind of like hearing Obama complain about elected officials not providing leadership.

And the Good Taste Award Goes to …

Here’s an update on Gabrielle Giffords’ condition. Mostly positive, thankfully. But don’t you just love this quote from Giffords’ former campaign manager?

“Let’s say that she’s 90 percent [recovered],” says Mike McNulty, Giffords’s last campaign chairman. “Well, we’ve had congressmen in Arizona who didn’t even have a brain. So, it’s not like you have to be as talented as she is to be good at it.”

Let’s hear it for the New Civility.

Hat tip: EspressoPundit.

Family Values in Guatemala

A number of Latin American countries, having long histories of Caudillos, have laws against multiple terms for Presidents – an violation of such a law was what set off the recent Honduran crisis. Guatemala goes a step further, forbidding the election of close family members, to avoid the common dodge of installing a wife (a practice that is particularly popular in Argentina).

Politicians, however, are endlessly creative – at least when serving their own interests.

Sandra Torres Casanova – formerly Sandra Torres de Colom – is no longer the Guatemalan First Lady. The 51 year old has officially divorced from her husband, Alvaro Colom, the Guatemalan President, elected in 2007. She had previously revealed her will to succeed Colom – to whom the Constitution does not allow a second term – after his time in office comes to an end in 2012.

Weekly Economics Gloom

More people, even the MSM, are noticing that the government’s unemployment numbers (even if not deliberately fraudulent, which I think they may be) are hiding the real depth of the problem:

The share of the population that is working fell to its lowest level last year since women started entering the workforce in large numbers three decades ago, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record.

And here’s a particularly cheery piece:  5 Things That Will Happen To You When America Goes Bankrupt. Read it for the details, but to summarize:

1) Your life savings could be reduced to nothing almost overnight.

2) Your taxes will skyrocket.

3) Your life could be in danger.

4) Your payments from the government will dramatically decrease or stop altogether.

5) You will have a dramatically reduced standard of living.

Rick’s in It to Win It

Rick Santorum doesn’t quite qualify as one of our Freak Show candidates, but he’s close, and he’s my favorite laughingstock. So I had to note that he announced this week. You did notice, didn’t you?

The Washington Post was very kind and presented an article detailing ‘The Case for Rick Santorum’. They note:

With all that in mind, we thought it a good time to take a look at why he is worth keeping an eye on – the case for Santorum. Tomorrow, we look at why he isn’t – the case against him.

I can summarize that article in three words: He’s Rick Santorum.

Weekly Daniels Item

Scott Walker calls Daniels his model and indicates there could be an endorsement coming for Mitch or a couple of the other governors running:

“There’s a lot of governors I draw inspiration from. But I think Mitch, if I look at a model, close to what I had in Wisconsin, he’s probably the closest,” said Walker in an interview with POLITICO after testifying on Capitol Hill before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms.

On issues like collective bargaining, the creation of an economic development corporation and installing budget controls, Walker said he had most in common with Daniels.

Walker also name-dropped Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has formed an exploratory committee and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who is still seriously mulling a White House campaign but noticeably left out front running Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.

He also left out Mike Huckabee, but that’s hardly a surprise.

Regarding our conversation, based on the Peggy Noonan article, about the danger (I think overblown) of nominating an unelectable candidate, Daniels had this exchange with the Indianapolis Star’s editorial board:

Even more helpful is the low caliber of the opposition, which one colleague in Tuesday’s meeting noted has been described as a “freak show” by some critics.

“It’s always good to be held to a low standard — ‘At least he’s not a freak,’ ” Daniels said, laughing.

Which could make a great campaign slogan:

Add your own miscellany, rants, and other stuff in the comments.

Democracy Corps/CAF (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

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

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

• Approve 44% (47%)
• Disapprove 50% (47%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job in charge of the House of Representatives?

• Approve 38%
• Disapprove 55%

I know it is a long way off, but thinking about the elections for Congress in 2012, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic House candidate or the Republican House candidate?

• Republican candidate 47% (47%)
• Democratic candidate 45% (44%)

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted April 10-12, 2011, by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps and Campaign for America’s Future. The margin of error is +/- 2.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 38% (34%) Democrat; 36% (34%) Republican; 23% (28%) Independent. Political ideology: 43% (42%) Conservative; 34% (34%) Moderate; 18% (18%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted January 9-12, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Former presidential speechwriter and now political commentator, Peggy Noonan, penned what I think is a very insightful column yesterday entitled Obama Likely to Lose.  Ms. Noonan dug a bit beyond Obama’s superficial approval/disapproval numbers and looked at how people tend to feel about his leadership:

Let’s start with the immediate and go to the overarching. The president is immersed in another stressed and unsuccessful spring after a series of losing seasons. Internationally, he’s involved in a confused effort that involves bombing Libyan government troops and sometimes their rebel opponents, leaving the latter scattered and scurrying. Responsibility to protect is looking like tendency to deflect. Domestically, the president’s opponents seized the high ground on the great issue of the day, spending and debt, and held it after the president’s speech this week. In last week’s budget duel, the president was outgunned by Republicans in the House and outclassed by Paul Ryan, who offered seriousness and substance as a unique approach to solving our fiscal problems.

In this week’s polls: An Ipsos survey says 69% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, up five points since March. Zogby has only 38% of national respondents saying Mr. Obama deserves re-election, with 55% wanting someone new. Mr. Obama carried Pennsylvania in 2008 by double digits; a poll there this week shows only 42% approving his leadership, with 52% disapproving. Gallup had the president’s support slipping among blacks and Hispanics, with the latter’s numbers dramatic: 73% supported him when he was inaugurated, 54% do now. Support among whites on Inauguration Day was 60%. Now it is 39%.

Now here is what I believe is the most salient part of her thesis:

We’re all so used to reporting the general trend of these polls that we fail to see their significance: The more that people experience his leadership, the less they like his leadership. There’s no real reason to think upticks in this direction or that will seriously change this. Another way to say it is that there have been upticks that might have benefited the president, and so far they haven’t.

Ms. Noonan offers a more speculative explanation of why Obama’s personal numbers are higher than his leadership numbers:

At this point everyone mentions Mr. Obama’s personal approval numbers, which are consistently higher than his leadership numbers. The RealClearPolitics average puts his personal approval at 47.6%, which doesn’t sound bad. But let me offer a hunch based on conversations with people from many walks of life and all regions the past 18 months. The president’s personal numbers are probably lower than the polls report. Not that the polls are dishonest, but the American people don’t want to not like Mr. Obama. They don’t want to tell a young pollster that hey don’t like a man they elected two years ago, with excitement and hope, by a margin of 9.5 million votes….I suspect, and it’s only a suspicion, that there’s a degree to which people tell pollsters they like Mr. Obama to take the sting out of the fact that they just told the pollster they don’t approve of his leadership.

I suspect that she may be on to something here because one of the common critiques of Obama that we hear is that he is aloof, stilted, and professorial.  Those are not qualities usually associated with personal likability, so it does seem probable that more people say they like Obama personally than is the actual case.  Ms. Noonan concludes her column with a discussion of what could very like save President Obama’s hide next year—lack of GOP seriousness:

You would think Democratic professionals, who read the same numbers Republicans do and pick up similar trends, would be hanging their heads in despair.

They are not. They have hope. Their hope is that Republicans in the early caucus and primary states will go crazy. They hope the GOP will nominate for the presidency someone strange, extreme or barely qualified. They hope that in a mood of antic cultural pique, or in a great acting out of disdain for elites, or to annoy the mainstream media, Republican voters will raise high candidates who are unacceptable to everyone else. Everyone else of course being the great and vital center, which hires and fires presidents. The Democrats’ hope is that centrists will look at the Republican nominee and, holding their nose, choose the devil they know. Especially if the one they don’t know seems to have little horns under his hair.

The great question of the coming year is not, “Will Obama reignite his base?” or, “Will the Democrats outraise and outspend the GOP?” It is: Will the GOP be serious? Will Republicans be equal to their history, their tradition and the moment? If they are—if they recruit and support candidates who can speak to the entire country, who have serious experience and accomplishments, who are grounded and credible, then they will win centrist support. And with it they will likely win the thing without which they cannot achieve the big changes they seek, and that is the presidency.

I agree.  As I observed in a posting on this site several weeks ago, the principal challenge to unseating an incumbent president is to persuade a decisive portion of those who voted for him the time before that there is a better and more credible alternative.

Best. NR. Cover. Ever.

Incidentally, for those who have been waiting for its release, Atlas Shrugged is now playing in select locations across the U.S.