Could the first family of libertarianism be adding yet another name to its increasingly Kennedyesque dynasty of freedom fighters?  Ron Paul’s other son, Robert Paul, is considering launching a campaign to join Rand in the U.S. Senate, come 2012.  He’s begun making some speaking arrangements and has been talking to the press about the possibility.  Robert Paul already has an impressive Facebook following: over 2000 individuals “like” the idea of Robert Paul for Senate, and that number is quickly growing.

What do you think?  Love them or hate them, libertarians seem to have become a permanent “fourth leg” of sorts to the Republican stool, showing no signs of going away.  And the GOP’s sizable Tea Party contingent–while not explicitly libertarian–is heavily influenced by proto-libertarian philosophers like Hayek and Bastiat.  Would it be a bad thing if Texans chose a libertarian to represent them in the Senate?

PPP (D) 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Mike Huckabee 22%
• Mitt Romney 16%
• Newt Gingrich 15%
• Sarah Palin 12%
• Ron Paul 8%
• Michele Bachmann 6%
• Tim Pawlenty 6%
• Haley Barbour 3%

Let’s say Mike Huckabee decides not to run and the candidates for President next year were Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney. Who would you vote for?

• Mitt Romney 22%
  
• Newt Gingrich 20%
  
• Sarah Palin 15%
• Ron Paul 12%
• Tim Pawlenty 6%
• Michele Bachmann 5%
• Haley Barbour 3%

Let’s say Sarah Palin decides not to run and the candidates for President next year were Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney. Who would you vote for?

• Mike Huckabee 24%
  
• Mitt Romney 19%
  
• Newt Gingrich 18%
• Ron Paul 10%
• Michele Bachmann 7%
• Tim Pawlenty 6%
• Haley Barbour 2%

Let’s say neither Mike Huckabee nor Sarah Palin runs for President and the candidates next year were Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney. Who would you vote for?

• Mitt Romney 25%
• Newt Gingrich 23%
• Ron Paul 13%
• Tim Pawlenty 10%
• Michele Bachmann 8%
• Haley Barbour 4%

Here’s one last scenario: what if Donald Trump ran for President and the candidates were Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Donald Trump. Who would you vote for?

• Donald Trump 26%
• Mike Huckabee 17%
• Mitt Romney 15%
• Newt Gingrich 11%
• Sarah Palin 8%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Michele Bachmann 4%
• Tim Pawlenty 4%

(more…)

Ouch! Take a peek at this list of words Romney employed in a new op-ed directed at Obama: failures, inexperience, misguidance, incompetence, deceptive, dishonest, demagoguery, divisiveness, deception, impair, depressing, short-comings, fault, impugning, disheartening, dangerous… and then the two harshest of them all… wrong and bad.

This op-ed makes an interesting departure from Romney’s give-Obama-the-benefit-of-the-doubt tone of the past two years. Read for yourself:

America saw a different President Obama yesterday. Over the last two years, the president’s job was to repair the economy and to make us safer. He has failed at both but at least he appeared to be trying — his failures were arguably attributable to inexperience, misguidance, and incompetence. Yesterday, however, the president went from being wrong to being deceptive and intellectually dishonest.

The peril of our nation’s present fiscal course has been amply documented. The facts are settled. The president’s own bipartisan deficit commission proposed entitlement and spending reforms to restore fiscal responsibility. The Republicans in the House of Representatives and Chairman Paul Ryan have offered alternative reforms of their own. With the resulting national recognition of financial peril, the country was presented with a once-in-a-generation opportunity. As the president summoned the nation, change was hoped for. Demagoguery, divisiveness, and deception is what we got.

Read the full op-ed at NRO.

UPDATE: Just a few hours later another op-ed by Romney is release in the Orlando Sentinel “Rein in government – starting with Obama”

Romney gives Obama the old 1-2 with concurrent op-eds in two different publications. This newer one, by only a few hours, talks Tea Party (including the original one in Boston), GDP, ObamaCare, mind-boggling tax code, small biz and entrepreneurs.

Snippet from the Orlando Sentinel:

For the first time in the post-World War II era, there is a significant popular movement to scale back government and reduce the tax burden that has been stifling our economy. A lot of this is because members of the Tea Party are making their voices heard.

Almost 21/2 centuries after the original Boston Tea Party of 1775, the idea of limited government that inspired our forebears is very much alive. The growth of government is not some inexorable force. In a democracy, we the people decide. Thanks to the Tea Party, there’s real hope that we can rein in our profligate federal government.

But in order to make progress, we have to first rein in President Obama, whose spending binge is driving our national debt to historic highs.
[...]
These staggering new burdens are made worse by the fact that our system of taxation is killing our nation’s once-strong economic engine. The mind-boggling complexity of our tax system is only part of the problem. As of last year, the U.S. tax code had mushroomed into 71,684 pages that no one human being can fully understand. Along with complexity comes a dizzying array of perverse incentives.
[...]
A smart tax system would reward investment, savings and entrepreneurship, while providing job-creators with the predictability and stability they need to grow our economy. But our tax system is not smart; it’s quite the opposite. It needs urgent reform that reduces rates and restores a climate of confidence in our economy. With millions of Americans seeking but not finding work, a transformation of our approach to taxes is both an economic and moral imperative.

But reform requires both understanding and leadership. Unfortunately, when it comes to those qualities, we are facing Washington’s biggest deficit of all.

Click here to read entire op-ed at Orlando Sentinel

I particularly like that last line. Washington’s worst deficit is its leadership. In 2008 we had epic levels of debt. Obama’s spend, spend, spend policies have moved those debt levels from “epic” to a completely new class: über epic.

You’d have a hard time finding someone who denies the Republican Party has a problem with young Americans. Therefore, the following article from CNN piqued my interest:

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.”

“The deficit is too damn high,” McMillan says in the Students for Daniels YouTube video, seizing on the Indiana governor’s message on fiscal discipline.

Eden, who volunteered for the Obama campaign in 2008, says he’s disappointed in the president’s approach to the mounting national debt.

“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.

…”I think he’s [Obama has] lost a lot of us,” said Yale student and self-described Democrat Danielle Tomson.

…With bleak job prospects for today’s college graduates, Eden predicted students will take a more sober approach to the 2012 field.

“Instead of having it for the candidate with the flash and the flair,” Eden said, students just might opt for somebody different.

“The kind of understated, kind of wonky guy with all the substance,” he added

If you read the rest of the article, it includes quotes from Daniels, in which he essentially states that young supporters like those mentioned above have inspired him. Perhaps their passion will act as the last straw that entices him to throw his hat in the race? Count me among those who hope so. After all, in his 2008 re-election, Daniels carried 51% of the youth vote, even when Mr. Youth Vote himself, President Obama, headed the opposition’s ticket.

In two decades, we went from President Reagan winning the youth vote by 20 points to about 2/3 of it going to Obama. As a recent college graduate, I can attest to the dreadful perception of the GOP most young voters now have; to put it nicely, they view the party as socially and religiously intolerant, overly aggressive militarily, and driven by stubborn tradition, not logic. These misconceptions must change, or the party risks long-term viability.

Perhaps a Daniels candidacy could achieve that goal, with the Governor taking every opportunity to contrast his vision for a free, prosperous America with reality, which the President has failed to improve.

For both the current and future health of not only the Republican Party, but also America, could it get much better than a Daniels-Ryan ticket in 2012?

The polling data provided by PPP and shown in the article below point to some troubling facts. Yes, Huckabee and Romney are fairly close to Obama. Yes, they both keep him under 50%. But individual polls this far in advance of an election aren’t really that indicative of what’s going on. It’s the trends that are important, the trends that show up when you take a number of those polls together. The trends showing up in PPP’s data since the mid-term election last year does not bear well for the Republicans.

Here are the margins of each of the top four GOP 2012 hopefuls vs. Obama over the last six months:

Notice how all the trends of all the GOP hopefuls are down. Romney managed to only drop 3 points in the past six months. Huckabee dropped nearly three times that amount — a fall of 8 points.  Gingrich dropped more than three times Romney’s drop — 10 points. Palin’s fall was an amazing four times that of Romney — an incredible 12 points drop since last year’s mid-term elections.

No matter how you slice or dice it, this is not good news for any of these four candidates. Mitt and Mike have at least remained within striking distance, but I am afraid that Newt and Sarah are rapidly approaching the  point of, “Stick a fork in them. They’re done”. Yet even Huckabee and Romney had better start turning things around or else they are going to be left behind just as badly.

What is really galling is that Obama’s polling numbers are way down, yet when polled against him, our top tier is gradually getting worse. This simply is not good.

PPP should start polling the 1st AND the 2nd tier candidates vs. Obama. The 1st tier isn’t exactly setting the house on fire against the President. Let’s see how the 2nd tier rates against him.

Since I’m our resident 3rd / 4th tier candidate tracker, let me tell you all a little something about another recent Republican convert. Jonathan “The Impaler” Sharkey is considering a Presidential bid as a Republican. Sharkey is a self-described Vampire – he ran for President (2004, 2008) and Governor of Minnesota (2006, 2010) before under the “Vampires, Witches, and Pagans” Party. City Pages has a good article on his 2010 campaign here. Here’s an excerpt:

Jonathon “The Impaler” Sharkey has big ambitions. The self-described king of the vampyres just got out of an Indiana jail cell after cooling his heels on a conviction for threatening a judge. He’s resting up in Tampa before heading home to New Jersey. Come spring, he plans to move back to Minnesota to run for governor on the Vampyres, Witches, and Pagans ticket.

“I’ve got my Rochester apartment all set,” he said. “I should be back in the state by February.”

He’s banking on the press showing up in huge numbers when he formally announces his candidacy. He plans to chomp the neck of a youthful female assistant, with cameras rolling.

“Let’s just say I prefer to sink my fangs into younger women,” he says.

Sharkey wants to run Minnesota with medieval tough-on-crime efficiency: Child molesters, rapists, terrorists, and drug peddlers will join the likes of George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, Mike Tyson, and Paris Hilton on his “impaling list.”

“They’ll be tried by me, beaten, tortured, dismembered, decapitated, impaled, and their heads will be put on display,” Sharkey says. “This is the Viking state. Start acting more like Vikings. You got a problem? Take it to the streets. People need to get a set of balls and a spine.”

The time might be right for a vampire governor. Vampires are everywhere. Author Stephenie Meyer has sold 45 million copies of her Twilight book series in the U.S. alone. The first movie based on the books grossed $350 million, and New Moon is close on its heels. On television, vampire lovers have their choice of True Blood on HBO or The Vampire Diaries on CW.

Sharkey says his own vampiric awakening came as a kid in New Jersey. He remembers going to the fridge for a snack at his uncle Louie’s house one day. There on the shelf next to the beer he found a bottle of blood.

“I’ve been feeding since I was five years old,” Sharkey claims.

He’s also making a documentary, which will chronicle his bid for the Presidency. Sharkey is…odd to say the least. His previous platform elements have included impaling terrorists on the White House or Governor’s Mansion lawn, whichever office he ended up obtaining. Will he get anywhere in this quixotic bid for President? No.

Should I even be giving this guy the attention? Probably not.

_______________________________________________________

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

The period 1963-1975 was one of social and political turbulence, the urban race riots, the social rebellion of the early baby boomers against all things associated with 1950′s materialism, the student disruptions and the national division brought about by the Vietnam War.   New Left communalism and its themes began to dominate much of the subtext of the political and pop culture of the period.  But during the mid and late 1970′s there were certain noticeable trend changes in the pop culture of the time that, looking back, may have portended the political change of the 1980 election.  Consider the popularity of three TV shows and a movie, each of which represented a rather dramatic change in pop cultural theme from what had typically characterized the preceding ten-year period.

The widely popular TV show Happy Days depicted the more carefree, less complicated life of middle-class teenagers in the late 1950′s, prior to The Beatles, Vietnam, and the associated social unrest.  The popularity of that show with the twenty-somethings of the mid-70′s seemed to offer a way for the boomers to reconnect with the Eisenhower 50′s after deciding that maybe America wasn’t so bad after all.  In any case, the highly popular Happy Days suggested that by the mid-70′s Americans had grown weary of hippies and the protest movement and were longing for a return to better times.

Next, consider the near instant popularity of the ’70s TV show Little House on the Prairie. This show emphasized the values of family, hard work, rugged individualism and personal responsibility as opposed to collectivism and government subsidy.  Interestingly, Little House was based on the  true story writings of Laura Ingalls Wilder (one of the daughters depicted in the show) about her family life as a child in the rural midwest during the 19th century. It also drew on the writings of her daughter the journalist and libertarian political theorist Rose Wilder Lane who was credited in each episode of the show.

In 1977, the movie Star Wars took the country by storm.  Star Wars was not only about future high technology space fantasy but also the triumph of good over evil.  Unlike the moral relativism that had characterized much of the pop culture and mind-set of the ’60s and early ’70s, the movie was based on the premise that there was good and there was evil in the universe and that good was worth fighting for and would ultimately triumph.

Early 1978 saw the premier of the TV show Dallas, a nighttime soap opera based on the legend of Texas oil wealth.  Filmed on location in the Dallas-Fort Worth area the show became one of the most popular and talked about TV programs of all time.  It’s popularity, which was at its peak during the election year of 1980, seemed to signal a renewed appreciation for business, wealth and strength and contrasted sharply to the pop culture of a few years prior which depicted those attributes as evil, militaristic, and anti-environment.  In fact, the popularity of the show and its main character, J.R. Ewing, offered a notable contrast to Jimmy Carter’s persona and politics of malaise and lower expectations.

So the question is:  Do changes in pop culture trends provide an early signal as to impending political shifts, especially among the under 50, or better yet, under 40 age group?  Looking back on the second half of the 1970′s that seemed to be the case as there were indicators that attitudes and interests were moving in a new direction, that America was gaining a new appreciation for individual enterprise, responsibility and achievement and turning away from the collectivism and moral relativism symbolized by the Woodstock Festival.  But are there any such clues today?  Or, were the examples of the 1970′s and the political shift of 1980 only coincidental?  The movie version of Atlas Shrugged premiers tomorrow.  Perhaps its box office strength will tell us something.  Perhaps.  Stay tuned.

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 48%
• Mike Huckabee 43%

• Barack Obama 47%
• Mitt Romney 41%

• Barack Obama 48%
  
• Chris Christie 39%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Rand Paul 38%

• Barack Obama 52%
• Newt Gingrich 38%

• Barack Obama 54%
• Sarah Palin 36%

(more…)

You remember Jimmy McMillan? The “Rent is Too Damn High” Party candidate for Governor of New York in 2006, 2010, and for Mayor in 2005, and 2009? If you had not heard, he has become a Republican and is running for President. You can check out his official website here. But there’s more. First, on April 21, 2011, McMillan will be speaking at Quinnipiac University. Check the link for more details / specifics if you are interested in attending. Also, in a recent interview with Gotham Talk Radio, McMillan said that he wanted to see Donald Trump as his running mate. Now imagine that, a McMillan / Trump ticket.

I can’t imagine a ticket less likely to win than that.

_______________________________________________________

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

From the official release:

GAIL GITCHO JOINS ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE AS COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR

Today, the Romney for President Exploratory Committee announced that Gail Gitcho, a well-respected, 10-year veteran of Republican campaigns and elections, will serve as Communications Director.

Gitcho most recently served as U.S. Senator Scott Brown’s (R-MA) Communications Director in Washington, where she helped manage a barrage of press for Brown after he found himself in the limelight for his stunning, come-from-behind victory to replace Ted Kennedy.

She also served as National Press Secretary for the Republican National Committee from 2009 to 2010. Prior to that, she was Mid-Atlantic Communications Director for John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid. She started the 2008 presidential cycle as a Regional Press Secretary for Romney for President. She was also Communications Director for U.S. Representative Clay Shaw (R-FL) from 2004 to 2007.

Gitcho is a graduate of Ripon College.

Per Newsmax, The Donald will announce a press conference to regarding his presidential plans on the May 15th episode of The Apprentice:

If you wonder whether Donald Trump is serious about running for president, tune in to the finale of “The Celebrity Apprentice” on May 15.

Trump plans to say on the NBC show that he will be holding a press conference a few days after the May 15th show. At that press conference in the Trump Tower in New York, Trump will be announcing his candidacy for the presidency.

Read the rest of the Newsmax exclusive here.

The Fix has the scoop:

Tim Pawlenty has signed Jon Lerner as the pollster for his soon-to-be-announced presidential campaign, the latest in a string of high-profile hires for the former Minnesota governor.

“I took a lot of time to look at the candidates and the records of the candidates in the field,” said Lerner in an interview with The Fix. “The more I looked at it, the more I was impressed with what Tim Pawlenty was able to do in Minnesota.”

Lerner is one of the lowest-profile consultants in Washington but has a long list of wins under his belt. In the 2010 cycle, he helped elect Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), as well as Govs. Nikki Haley (R-S.C.) and Sean Parnell (R-Alaska). Lerner has also long been involved with the Club for Growth’s political activities.

Like Pawlenty, Lerner spent his formative years in Minnesota, but the two men’s paths never crossed before last year. (Pawlenty served as the vice chairman of the Republican Governors Association, and Lerner was one of the organization’s lead consultants.)

Lerner explained that he was drawn to Pawlenty because of his belief that the governor can effectively articulate the economic message so central to most GOP primary voters.

“The candidate who becomes the nominee of our party is the one who can most credibly speak to the cluster of voters that are heavily motivated by economic and size-of-government concerns, and Tim Pawlenty’s record and positions on those issues are very compelling,” said Lerner.

Lerner joins a rapidly-expanding senior political team for Pawlenty that includes Nick Ayers, the campaign manager, and Jon Seaton, the political director — moves that should put to rest any lingering doubts about whether the former governor is running for president.

The hirings, while largely ignored by most voters, will almost certainly build on the positive buzz for Pawlenty in the political chattering class. Success in the staff chase shows seriousness and, Pawlenty hopes, will help drive donors to invest in his campaign.

Be sure to read the entire column here.

Earlier today, Mark Levin interviewed Paul Ryan on the differences between Rep. Ryan’s re-organization of Medicare and the president’s approach to the issue. The clip is worth listening to in its entirety, as the congressman from Wisconsin absolutely eviscerates the president, in terms of both his ideology and his purported solutions to our entitlement crisis. Money quote:

I fundamentally believe that the role of government is to protect our natural rights, to promote equal opportunity, and to stick with the characteristics of upward mobility, of opportunity, of prosperity, so that we can make the most of our lives as we can see fit.

Contrast the philosophical coherence of Rep. Ryan’s vision for the conservative movement, the Republican Party, and the American future with that of George W. Bush, whose famous statement, “When somebody hurts, government has got to move,” was as statist as it was philsophically garbled. That’s because President Bush’s political philosophy was primarily an extension of his personal ethics, beginning and ending with the notion that government should “do good.” Paul Ryan, on the other hand, has articulated a philosophy of government rooted in classical liberalism, promoting a minimalist state that protects human freedom, unleashes man’s potential, and allows for maximum growth and opportunity.

If Paul Ryan won’t jump into the race for 2012, and I still think that he should at least consider a run, then Rep. Ryan should be at the top of the vice presidential short list for the ultimate nominee. My dream ticket: Daniels/Ryan 2012.

Suffolk University/7NEWS Florida 2012 Presidential Survey

Republican Nomination

• Mitt Romney 33%
• Mike Huckabee 14%
• Newt Gingrich 9%
• Donald Trump 8%
• Sarah Palin 8%
• Haley Barbour 4%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Ron Paul 2%
• Michele Bachmann 1%
• Other 2%
• Undecided 17%

(more…)

Politico reports that we could have seen a signal that suggests Mitch Daniels now leans toward a presidential bid:

But with her [Daniels' wife Cheri's] recent appearance at the Indianapolis Indians home opener and her plans to appear as the headliner at an Indiana state GOP dinner next month, Allen County GOP Chairman Steve Shine says that means Daniels is likely to enter the race.

“That’s an effort to put the spotlight on her and introduce her, not just to the people of Indiana in a different limelight but also to the people of the United States,” he told Indiana’s WISE-TV.

Now, I certainly don’t purport to understand the inner workings of the Daniels’ collective brain, but I nonetheless found this interesting. Perhaps it means something, perhaps it doesn’t.

The longer Daniels waits to make a decision, the more he risks losing out on top campaign staff talent. How does this square with the aggressiveness of one of Mitch’s closest political allies, Haley Barbour? Perhaps Barbour, as many have speculated, intends to more or less serve as a stalking horse for Daniels, opting to eventually throw his support (and staff, and organizational network, and fundraising clout…) behind Mitch.

Stay tuned.

The president missed a huge opportunity with today’s speech to chart a “Third Way” forward for the country on tax and budgetary matters. Instead of doing what I expected him to do — running up the middle between Ryanomics on the Right and the debt-denialists that comprise most of the Left — the president instead simply rehashed his failed proposals of the past. Instead of an agreement to work with Republicans on tax simplification, we got promises of tax increases. Instead of overall spending cuts in the non-entitlement realm of the federal government, we got a few domestic cuts and a few defense cuts, along with a ton of spending increases in order to, ahem, win the future. And instead of a serious plan to reorganize entitlements, we were sold a bill of goods in which Medicare would be saved both by the cost-control measures in ObamaCare, and by a full frontal attack on, get ready for it, waste, fraud, and abuse!

As most intellectually honest budget wonks will tell you, the single biggest threat to the fiscal solvency of the United States is the growth of its entitlements, particularly Medicare and Medicaid, with Social Security in tow (though the latter program is the easiest to make solvent). As such, a serious president would surely use this most serious speech to put forth serious structural reforms of these programs. Which is why Obama’s promise to solve all of our problems by appointing an independent commission and by running these programs more efficiently should insult every voter’s intelligence:

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.

Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs.

For some reason, I always tend to assume that Obama is politically smarter than he actually is. Going into this speech, my guess was that he was planning on cutting a deal with Republicans over Medicare that would involve a lot of political theater, but that would eventually result in something like the Domenici-Rivlin Medicare reform proposal, which essentially allows seniors to choose between traditional Medicare or a Ryan-style network of private insurers. Such a result would be far from ideal, but it would be the kind of thing that a Democratic president would do if he were trying to steal the issue from Republicans. It would essentially be welfare reform on a far grander scale. But President Obama never fails to remind us all that he is no Bill Clinton.

Mitt Romney – Romney called Obama’s speech, “too little, too late.” He said:

Instead of supporting spending cuts that lead to real deficit reduction and true reform of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the President dug deep into his liberal playbook for ‘solutions’ highlighted by higher taxes…With over 20 million people who are unemployed or who have stopped looking for work, the last thing we should be doing is raising taxes on job-creators, entrepreneurs, and small business owners across America.

Herman Cain – Cain released the following statement on Obama’s speech:

President Obama’s address proved yet again that he values ideology over basic economics and leadership.

His budget employs his typical class warfare tactics, insisting on taxing America’s job creators into oblivion for what he deems “fairness.” In doing so, he makes clear his willingness to further cripple our economy in exchange for pushing his wealth redistribution agenda and abandonment of the free enterprise system.

President Obama also took the opportunity to blame everyone but his own administration for this economic disaster, shifting blame to the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans and America’s highest earners, neglecting his own administration’s reckless spending.

Instead of using this speech as an opportunity to preview a budget that could significantly pay down our mounting debt through meaningful spending cuts and entitlement reforms, he again insisted on saddling America’s job creators with an even heavier tax burden to pay down the debt. Meanwhile, Congressman Ryan proposed his own budget that reduces the national debt by $6 trillion without raising taxes on a single American family or business.

Most importantly, actions speak louder than words. President Obama claims that his budget proposal would cut $4 trillion in just 12 years. Can we really trust a man who vowed time and time again that his administration would cut the budget deficit in half, but instead, brought our budget deficits to record levels in just half a term in the White House?

Indeed, since President Obama just filed his re-election candidacy papers, Americans today got their first televised campaign speech for 2012: all talk, no leadership

Tim Pawlenty – Pawlenty referred to Obama’s speech as “window dressing.” He said:

Today’s speech was nothing more than window dressing…President Obama’s lack of seriousness on deficit reduction is crystal clear when you look at the budget deal he insisted on to avoid a government shutdown.

The more we learn about the budget deal the worse it looks. When you consider that the federal deficit in February alone was over $222 billion, to have actual cuts less than the $38 billion originally advertised is just not serious…The fact that billions of dollars advertised as cuts were not scheduled to be spent in any case makes this budget wholly unacceptable. It’s no surprise that President Obama and Senator Reid forced this budget, but it should be rejected. America deserves better.

Mitt tells “Birthers” to get a grip:

Mitt Romney forcefully said Tuesday night that he believes President Barack Obama was born in America and that “the citizenship test has been passed.”

“I think the citizenship test has been passed. I believe the president was born in the United States. There are real reasons to get this guy out of office,” Romney told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow the day after he formally announced that he’s exploring a run for the White House. “The man needs to be taken out of office but his citizenship isn’t the reason why.”

Kudlow asked Romney about the issue because Donald Trump — the billionaire real estate mogul — has been all over TV questioning whether Obama was really born in in the United States and is therefore constitutionally allowed to hold the nation’s highest office. Trump’s claims have driven the “birther” issue back into the national spotlight — and a recent Fox News poll found that 24 percent of voters believe Obama wasn’t born in the United States, while 10 percent aren’t sure.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Redstate editor Erick Erickson had this to say regarding the Pawlenty campaign’s hire of Nick Ayers:

I have done my best to ignore Tim Pawlenty. He has never struck me as the most exciting politician. His global warming position made me squeamish. He’s always had an okay record as Governor, but around the edges he struck me as not really a movement conservative.

So I haven’t paid attention to Tim Pawlenty. Then he went and hired Nick Ayers.

For those of you who do not know Nick Ayers, he just finished a very successful tenure as Executive Director of the Republican Governors Association. Wunderkind is a word typically associated with Ayers.

He is a young, principled conservative grounded in an unapologetic faith in Christ. I know him pretty well. He started out in politics and I just took him for being a bright kid in the right place at the right time for Georgia’s Republican tidal wave back in 2002. But he kept being successful. At some point, people like me who were willing to assume it had all been about being in the right place at the right time had to realize Nick Ayers is sharp.

~snip~

This is all a long way of saying that this hire forces me to pay attention to Tim Pawlenty and you should too now. Putting a twenty-something in such a position is a bold and risky move. But Nick Ayers’s track record suggests Pawlenty is suddenly a force to be reckoned with — especially for guys like me who were counting him out before he really got started.

Single staff picks are rarely, if ever, game changers. But they can be game starters. To me, that’s what this is. Tim Pawlenty is in it to win it in a way I didn’t think he really would be.

Be sure to read the rest here.

A new poll from the Associated Press-GfK shows PPACA’s support dropping to an all-time low:

WASHINGTON – Amid a budget debate that will affect the health care of virtually every family, a new poll finds support for President Barack Obama’s overhaul at its lowest level since passage last year.

But in a ringing defense of Obama’s policies, Medicare chief Donald Berwick pleaded Tuesday for more time on the health care law, and branded a leading Republican plan “unfair and harmful” and “a form of withholding care.”

The Associated Press-GfK poll showed that support for Obama’s expansion of health insurance coverage has slipped to 35 percent, while opposition stands at 45 percent and another 17 percent are neutral. That nearly ties the previous low in September 2009, when after a summer of heated town hall meetings dominated by critics, only 34 percent supported Obama’s approach.

The worry this time appears to be federal budget deficits driven by unmanageable health care costs. Among seniors, whose views are critical in any debate over health care, support for the law dipped below 30 percent for the first time in AP-GfK polling.

Read the rest here.

PPP (D) Pennsylvania 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 43% (42%)
• Barack Obama 42% (46%)

• Barack Obama 45% (47%)
• Mike Huckabee 44% (44%)

• Barack Obama 45% (48%)
• Rick Santorum 43% (40%)

• Barack Obama 47% (50%)
• Newt Gingrich 39% (40%)

• Barack Obama 50% (51%)
• Sarah Palin 39% (36%)

(more…)

PPP (D) National Congressional Survey

If there was an election for Congress today, would you vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate from your district?

• Democrat 46%
• Republican 41%

Among Independents

• Democrat 42%
• Republican 33%

Among Men

• Democrat 44%
• Republican 43%

Among Women

• Democrat 47%
• Republican 39%

(more…)

PPP (D) 2012 Georgia GOP Primary Survey

• Mike Huckabee 23%
• Newt Gingrich 22%
• Herman Cain 16%
• Sarah Palin 10%
• Mitt Romney 8%
• Michele Bachmann 4%
• Ron Paul 3%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Someone else/Undecided 11%

(more…)

Apparently so, as he stated in no uncertain terms tonight on Piers Morgan:

“I’m running for president. I’m not putting my hat in the ring rhetorically or ultimately for vice president. So, I’m focused on running for president.”

I couldn’t figure out how to embed the video, so click the link if you’d like to see it with your own eyes. While this surprises no one, with T-Paw forming his exploratory committee three weeks ago, it still represents the most formal public declaration he has made.

(h/t to Drudge)

Rasmussen Reports National General Election Matchup

• Huckabee – 43%
• Obama – 43%

• Romney Obama – 45%
• Obama Romney – 40%

• Obama – 42%
• Paul – 34%

• Obama – 42%
• Barbour – 34%

• Obama – 45%
• Pawlenty – 35%

• Obama – 48%
• Palin – 38%

• Obama – 42%
• Huntsman – 31%

• Obama – 49%
• Gingrich – 37%

• Obama – 45%
• Daniels – 32%

• Obama – 43%
• Cain – 25%

Surveys were done throughout the month of March of 1,000 or 2,000 likely voters. For the matchups with 2,000 likely voters the MoE is 2%; for the matchups with 1,000 likely voters it is 3%.

The good news is that anyone on our side holds Obama under 50; the bad news is that only one none of our candidates actually beat Obama.

Despite skepticism from much of our readership, I believe that Kavon is exactly right in his assertion earlier today that Donald Trump could easily become a sort of Ross Perot 2.0. The similarities between Trump and Perot are legion. Both are eccentric, wealthy businessmen who blamed our economic problems on a foreign competitor, who urged America to take scandalous actions in the Middle East in response to widespread fatigue over our country’s presence in the region, and both headed populist campaigns, complete with a conspiracy theory or two.

Those who think Trump’s playbook is anything original need to brush up on the Perot campaign. While Trump’s solution to America’s economic woes lies in his plans to “tax China,” Perot alerted Americans to the “giant sucking sound” that would emanate from south of the border if trade with Mexico were allowed to continue. And while “The Donald’s” view that we should “take the oil” from Iraq seems to be in a league of its own, Perot, too, had designs on Iraq that were rather extreme, suggesting that Saddam Hussein should be assassinated by the U.S. and Israel to prevent the expenditure of any further American blood and treasure in Mesopotamia.

But the similarities don’t end there. Perot was a culturally conservative Texan, with the drawl to prove it, who ran a pro-choice, pro-gay rights campaign, probably to win disgruntled Democratic voters who wanted to beat Bush but were displeased with the weak Democratic field that year. Trump, on the other hand, is a culturally modern New Yorker, with the attitude to prove it, who is running a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage campaign, probably to win disgruntled Republican voters who want to beat Obama but who are displeased with the weak GOP field this year. Both were attempting to unseat a cold, cerebral incumbent president who failed to connect with the nation, presiding over an economy in the gutter.

In order to understand the appeal of men like Perot and Trump, one has to be able to appreciate the potency of populism during tough times. Populism essentially holds that “the folks” can do no wrong, and that the woes of society can be traced back to a villainous cabal, wielding its disproportionate influence to enrich itself at the expense of the masses. The more “foreign” the villains seem, the easier they are to demonize. Hence Perot’s fascination with Mexico, Trump’s China fetish, and the focus of both men on the Middle East, and on conspiracy theories, such as Trump and Birtherism, and Perot’s belief that the Black Panthers once tried to assassinate him. Note that in all of these cases, the Everyman is never to blame for any of life’s problems. Instead, the Everyman is the victim of “the other.” This is textbook populism. It works the same in every age and in every society.

Contrast the Perot/Trump approach to politics with that of someone like Mitch Daniels, who is in many ways the perfect anti-populist. To Daniels, the problem isn’t that the Everyman is being persecuted; the problem IS the Everyman. It’s the Everyman who wants to pay a few thousand dollars in taxes a year and, in return, to receive roads, the post office, full retirement security for nearly three decades, a lifetime of health benefits for only a small monthly premium, top-notch public schools for his kids, law enforcement on every corner, and a military that can fight three wars simultaneously. When informed that the numbers don’t add up, the Everyman responds that we should tax corporations, or the rich, or that we should cut foreign aid. Candidates like Daniels are the ones who are telling the Everyman that he has no clothes. Candidates like Perot and Trump wrap their arms around the Everyman and assure him that he is indeed wearing ebullient garments, which will go unsullied by foreign opponents if they have anything to say about it.

But while Beltway types and high-information readers of sites like this one prefer the Daniels approach, the folks on the ground are far more easily swayed by the trump card of populism, especially during times like these. An array of least-worst options, such as a choice between a Social Security lockbox or private accounts, is palatable to the folks on the ground during times of peace and prosperity, when the sky appears to be the limit, and when the American economy, American society, and America’s place in the world seem to be structurally sound. But at a time of chronic unemployment and underemployment, when the average person is watching his income go down and energy prices go up, the last thing that the Everyman wants to hear is a debate between voucherizing Medicare and raising taxes. Instead, what the Everyman wants is to be able to solve all of the nation’s problems in a way that is emotionally and psychologically satisfying given the Everyman’s anger and frustration. I can hear the Everyman now as he is pumping gas into his SUV: “We’ve been in the Middle East for ten years and this is the thanks we get. Maybe we should take their oil!”

I’m not saying that Trump-ism eventually wins the day. I think 1992 suggests otherwise. Clinton, after all, ran a rational campaign, arguing that globalization was inevitable, and eventually defeated Perot’s populism. But Perot remains one of the most successful third party presidential candidates in history. The Donald could be next.

Wow… Just wow…

CNN/Opinion Research 2012 Republican Nomination Survey

• Donald Trump 19% [10%]
• Mike Huckabee 19% [19%] {21%} (21%) [14%] {24%} (17%)
• Sarah Palin 12% [12%] {19%} (14%) [18%] {15%} (18%)
• Newt Gingrich 11% [14%] {10%} (12%) [15%] {14%} (8%)
• Mitt Romney 11% [18%] {18%} (20%) [21%] {20%} (22%)
• Ron Paul 7% [8%] {7%} (7%) [10%] {8%} (8%)
• Michele Bachmann 5%
• Mitch Daniels 3% [3%] {3%}
• Tim Pawlenty 2% [3%] {3%} (3%) [3%] {2%} (5%)
• Rick Santorum 2% [3%] {1%} (2%) [2%] {3%} (5%)
• Haley Barbour 0% [1%] {3%} (3%) [3%] {1%} (1%)
• Someone else (vol.) 3% [4%] {5%} (7%) [6%] {5%} (8%)
• None/No one (vol.) 4% [3%] {4%} (4%) [0%] {5%} (2%)
• No opinion 1% [2%] {2%} (6%) [4%] {1%} (3%)

(more…)

What began as a substantial political defeat in 2010 of President Obama’s so-called progressive program, including a rebuke by the voters of Obamacare legislation perpetrated by the duo of Pelosi and Reid in the Congress, is becoming a rout of the whole attempt to revive a left program in American politics.

President Obama does not need to read tea leaves to know what is happening, and is continuing to adapt at least some of his economic program to try to remain competitive for 2012. The far left, of course, will have none of this, and remains stubborn in its interpretation of the 2008 elections as a mandate for radical change in a neo-Marxian and European model.

It turns out that Speaker John Boehner is a fine political chess player who is transforming the popular will into direct (and, so far, successful) confrontations with the White House. Mr. Boehner has developed a near-perfect pitch in combining substance and public relations, and has put the Obama-Pelosi-Reid cabal decidedly on the defensive. In fact, by avoiding the government shutdown and winning $38 billion in spending cuts, the whole debate has been transformed in much the same manner that President Reagan changed the economic debate in the 1980’s.

Just as the far left is now attacking their own for this state of affairs, so, too, is the far right beginning to attack Speaker Boehner and his congressional colleagues as “sell outs.” If Mr. Boehner and congressional Republicans had failed to follow through on 2010 with a genuine beginning to lower spending, smaller government and no new taxes, I would have agreed. In fact, combined with the dramatic political/economic revolution begun by outstanding Republican governors in New Jersey, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, the congressional leadership has bit the bullet and firmly begun the job that can only be finished by the election of 2012, and GOP victories in the U.S. and for the White House.

As my readers know, I have supported the Tea Party emergence in U. S. politics, and refused to join in the conventional criticism of them. I have supported Sarah Palin in her efforts to become a national figure (though not necessarily as the 2012 presidential candidate), and given her due for political acumen. I have also not attacked Michele Bachmann, as have so many on both the left and in the GOP, nor pooh-poohed her efforts to become a national figure. But I draw the line if they and other self-styled spokespersons attack Speaker Boehner as a “sell-out.” In my opinion, he is just the opposite, and he should be receiving the praise of conservatives for his leadership so far, a leadership which is setting up an historic conservative victory in 2012.

It’s simply a fact that conservatives cannot insist on full transformational change in the federal government until they win the White House, and control both houses of Congress. Nevertheless, Republican governors, legislatures and the GOP house leadership in Washington, DC have fulfilled the voters wishes, clearly stated in 2010, and begun that transformation of American politics.

Politics is not an art and business which functions in pure forms. The voters do not ever act unanimously. Public opinion is always divided. The greatest politicians understand how to navigate through the complexity of this. They have to be chess players. The far left and the far right want to play checkers. for them it’s double jumps, wipe outs, and all or nothing. Conservatives should thank their stars that Mr. Boehner, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Ryan, and Governors Christie, McDonnell, Daniels, Walker, and Kasich are their leaders. Their attention now should be to finding the right person to nominate for president, and to win back the all-important executive branch of government.

Self-promotional and heavy-handed back-biting does not befit a party seeking to transform the government.

_______________________________________________________________________

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

From the most bizarre campaign roll-out in modern history comes this announcement:

Newt Gingrich is likely to miss the first presidential debate of the campaign season, a spokesman says.

The former House Speaker probably won’t make the May 5 debate because the hosts, the South Carolina Republican Party and Fox News, have stipulated that participants need to have formed a presidential committee of some kind first. Gingrich has said he’s in the “explore phase” and is testing the waters, but he has yet to create an actual exploratory committee or presidential candidate committee.

Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler told the Greenville News it’s “highly unlikely” Gingrich will make the cut — the implication being he won’t form his exploratory committee in the coming weeks.

Gingrich had already committed to participating in the debate prior to the qualification rules being announced. So what is stopping Gingrich? What made him do this 180 and cancel? He was supposedly ready to start his exploratory committee, but got hung up on legal fundraising issues and postponed the announcement. So why won’t he get in now? Is he going to do this thing or not? Is he getting cold feet? Has he decided not to run?

Speaking of debates, there’s another one coming up in June in New Hampshire, and so far four folks have committed to participating. But good luck figuring out exactly who they are, with the exception of one:

Even though he is not yet an official candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum on Monday became the first Republican to announce he will participate in New Hampshire’s first scheduled presidential debate. A source close to the debate said three other major likely candidates have told organizers that they will be there.

No word on who the other three “major candidates” are, but you’d have to assume two of them are Mitt and T-Paw. The fourth would be… who? Do Paul, Roemer, or Cain count as “major” candidates? Has Gingrich calculated to skip the SC debate and then do his first debate in NH?

The Wall Street Journal reports that Donald Trump is considering a third party run if he doesn’t win the Republican nomination:

Donald Trump will “probably” run as an independent candidate for U.S. President in 2012 if he does not receive the Republican party’s nomination, he told the Wall Street Journal in a video interview on Monday.

…

“I am very conservative,” said Mr. Trump. “The concern is if I don’t win [the GOP primary] will I run as an independent, and I think the answer is probably yes.” Mr. Trump said he thought he “could possibly win as an independent,” adding, “I’m not doing it for any other reason. I like winning.”

I rather suspect he is just being a publicity hound stirring up controversy. He can’t be so stupid as to think he could win such a contest. He would virtually guarantee a second term from Barack Obama.

Or maybe he is hoping to extort something out of the Republicans? “That’s a great looking 2012 campaign you’ve got there. I would hate to see something happen to it.”

Or he could be like a number of rich people in the past. He’s got boo-coos of cash? What to spend it on. “I know! Let’s run for President as a third party. I will really get in the history books then. Think of all the attention I would get.”