As regular readers of the site are aware, I’ve taken to comparing President Obama to former presidents such as Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, men who served a single term or less, and who were viewed by the public as cold, aloof, distant, well educated, but completely in over their heads as far as the presidency is concerned. I’ve never liked the comparisons between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter. The analogy is as sloppy as it is imprecise. Carter was a warm fellow with Middle American cultural cues who was more like a pessimistic, inept version of Bill Clinton. Obama’s problem is more similar to that of Ford or Bush 41 — individuals who were whisked from one ivory tower to the next for most of their lives, and who, as a consequence, never had to get their hands dirty, never had to learn the art of being a tough as nails negotiator, and never had to feel other people’s pain. Harry Truman, who never set foot inside a college classroom, ran circles around his opponents at home and abroad for nearly two full terms as president largely because he had those real world skills, skills that couldn’t be acquired at the Academy.
The president’s dearth of innate political prowess first became apparent to me during the 2008 presidential campaign, when Obama blew a fairly substantial summertime lead over McCain by essentially fiddling the dog days away, flying around the world and declaring himself a citizen of the globe with an almost apologetic demeanor. Americans wanted to repair the international relationships that Bush had damaged, of course, but most Americans did not believe this meant giving away the store. The average American was still proud to be an American. Obama seemed embarrassed to be one. That was the first signal to me that Obama just might be a paper tiger.
But under the right circumstances, even paper tigers can be elected president. One financial crisis and three debates later and Obama looked like the man running for Bill Clinton’s third term, while McCain looked like he just wanted to go home. But that wasn’t the last of Obama’s political miscalculations. There was the entire health care debate, where the president frequently voiced his true intentions to ration care for seniors, by suggesting that certain elderly Americans may not need certain types of care. And far more recently, there was the widespread discomfort with invasive TSA procedures that had surfaced during the holiday season, with every week bringing America a new horror story about abuse of power and travel plans gone awry. A savvy politician could have easily used this issue to turn lemons into lemonade. If Bill Clinton had been president, for example, Janet Napolitano would have been fired, the patdowns and other invasive procedures would have been put on hold pending further review, and the MSM would have run all sorts of stories about how the president just saved Christmas.
Not so with Barack Obama, though. The president seems to exhibit a certain political tone-deafness that surfaces every now and then, and that is once again coming to the forefront with his refusal not only to compromise with Republicans over Paul Ryan’s excellent plan to reform the tax code and the federal budget, but to even acknowledge that reforms are needed. The president, who Americans elected as a “different kind of politician,” is practicing politics as usual, hoping to kick the can of tectonic economic and fiscal reform down the road, preparing to instead use the issue to scare voters away from the GOP in 2012.
But the president, I think, is misreading the times, and the modern electorate. In the 1930s, 1950s, 1970s, or even the 1990s, the sorts of suggestions that the Republicans are floating, from the voucherization of Medicare to raising the Social Security retirement age to ending certain types of collective bargaining, would have resulted in Americans taking to the streets. But as Democrats’ now seemingly unsuccessful attempt to elect a judge in Wisconsin as a roadblock to Scott Walker shows, the America of the 21st Century is not the America of the 20th Century. The Greatest Generation has largely passed on, and with them has gone the unyielding refusal to modify the legacy of FDR. Today’s seniors are largely members of the Silent Generation, a much more conservative group, and Generation X, a libertarian-conservative generation, is beginning to take the reins of power. Fewer Americans depend on collective bargaining for their bread and butter, fewer medical professionals will treat patients with government health insurance plans, and more Americans are beginning to realize the price they will pay in terms of economic growth and tax burdens if the debt is not brought under control.
As such, the president’s hope that he will coast to re-election over an extremist Republican Party that hopes to tinker with Medicare, a la Bill Clinton in 1996, is probably mistaken. Instead, the president is going to have to actually propose an alternative plan to tackle the debt and resume growth in America, and that means killing a few of his party’s sacred cows. This is exactly what the president does not want to do, either because he hasn’t the stomach for it, or because he genuinely believes that the debt crisis will ultimately result in Americans embracing the Left’s long-awaited dream of social democracy on our shores, with a cradle-to-grave welfare state, a 50-percent tax rate, and a collectivist utopia for all.
The irony is that the president would probably be able to guarantee his re-election by cutting a deal with Ryan and the GOP on taxes and entitlements. The Democrats could trade some of Ryan’s cuts in domestic spending for cuts in defense spending, and could leave traditional Medicare as an option for seniors who don’t feel comfortable embracing the newer model. In order to keep the debt at Ryan’s projected levels, Democrats could agree to Ryan’s tax simplification, but at somewhat higher rates (e.g., a top rate of 30 percent instead of 25 percent, etc). Add to it all a reform of Social Security that raises the retirement age and means-tests the program and Obama could sign into law a bill that “cuts taxes for all Americans, saves Social Security and Medicare, and pays down our national debt, all while protecting our investments in education and infrastructure.”
Hey, that’s what Bill Clinton would do. And he would sail to re-election.
Quinnipiac Florida Political Survey
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?
- Approve 44% (47%)
- Disapprove 52% (49%)
Among Democrats
- Approve 79% (83%)
- Disapprove 16% (12%)
Among Republicans
- Approve 13% (14%)
- Disapprove 84% (84%)
Among Independents
- Approve 39% (47%)
- Disapprove 55% (49%)
PPP (D) 2012 Mississippi GOP Primary Survey
- Haley Barbour 37%
- Mike Huckabee 19%
- Newt Gingrich 10%
- Sarah Palin 10%
- Mitt Romney 6%
- Michele Bachmann 5%
- Tim Pawlenty 3%
- Ron Paul 2%
- Someone else/Undecided 9%
Yes, yes, I know, the 2012 election season hasn’t really even started yet, and so it’s incredibly premature to even talk about 2016. But, that said, regardless of 2012, we can almost guarantee that the 2016 Democratic primary is going to be a crowded and interesting one. Whether they are vying to replace Obama after his second term, or knock off a Republican president after a first term, there will likely be a plethora of Democratic candidates for that race, many if not most of whom are at least blips on the radar right now. And two recent news articles on Democratic governors have caught my eye, because they deal with two of the most likely candidates for President in 2016. The first was also the most startling; a piece in National Review Online praising a Cuomo. In this case, the Cuomo in question was New York governor Andrew Cuomo, who has also one plaudits from none other than Chris Christie. Cuomo has been walking the walk on fiscal discipline in a way few if any Democratic governors have emulated, and unlike New York politicians from both parties over the past decade, has argued for slashing the bloated state bureaucracy. The other story was about Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, giving remarks roasting the self-same governor Christie for his budget-cutting ways in New Jersey. O’Malley trotted out every traditional talking-point used by the liberal wing of the Democratic party since time immemorial, and has governed Maryland in exactly the manner one would expect from such a blue state. For O’Malley, tax increases, not spending cuts, are the natural and even instinctive way of dealing with an unbalanced budget. O’Malley has catered to public sector unions, Cuomo has sought to curb them. O’Malley takes a combative tone with Republicans, and has picked an ongoing fight with Chris Christie; Cuomo seems to enjoy a fairly cordial relationship with his next-door neighbor, at least as much as governors from opposing parties can.
Now, O’Malley and Cuomo are, of course, not the only potential candidates for 2016; and five years is an age in politics. But with O’Malley’s perch at the Democratic Governor’s Association and fund-raising prowess, and Cuomo’s famous name and governance of what remains one of the nation’s biggest states, these are clearly two men to watch, and the contrast–even this early in Cuomo’s term–is fascinating. Is Cuomo likely to make some left turns when he’s more firmly in the saddle? Perhaps, but the fact is, he could govern as a textbook liberal Democrat in New York and, given the decrepit state of the New York GOP, probably get away with it. So it’s worth watching Cuomo to see if he emerges as the new consensus centrist Democrat, and an alternative to more fire-breathing liberals like O’Malley, or Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. And it’s worth watching O’Malley, because he seems to be so avidly positioning himself for a place on the national stage. It’s worth wondering whether this difference in style and substance between two Democratic governors in blue states will begin to show up more broadly throughout the Democratic party, as some new Democrats begin trying to earnestly grapple with the problems of their states, while others cling to their ideology. I might ironically note that, while the Democrats crow in delight about the ideological purity within the tea party, they may well have a brewing internal ideological battle on their own hands, in the not too distant future. If nothing else, watching Governor Cuomo right now is a good reminder that, however fleeting it may prove, there are some Democrats governing blue states talking and acting sensibly, and it’s worth watching Governor O’Malley to remind ourselves not to expect too much.
The latest Gallup poll shows a decline in his approval rates among blacks and hispanics — two groups key to his 2008 victory. His approval among blacks has dropped about 5%, from around 90% to 85%, in just a month. For that group, that is the sharpest monthly decline of his presidency, and has left him at his lowest number ever with them. For Hispanics, he ties for his lowest approval rate of 54% first reached nearly a year ago in mid-2010.
Gallup Data Chart
Mitt Romney has issued the following statement concerning Congressman Paul Ryan’s new 2012 Budget Plan:
“I applaud Rep. Paul Ryan for recognizing the looming financial crisis that faces our nation and for the creative and bold thinking that he brings to the debate. He is setting the right tone for finally getting spending and entitlements under control. Anyone who has read my book knows that we are on the same page.”
The results of Tuesday’s special election for the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin are in, and while the left-wing candidate is ahead by a hair, the results represent a glimmer of hope for those of us living in fear of a fully operational Democratic base coming to the polls next year. In what became a referendum on Scott Walker’s economic agenda, the pro-collective bargaining JoAnne Kloppenburg appears to have defeated Club for Growth-endorsed Justice David Prosser. The margin: 204 votes out of 1.4 million cast.
Given the power of the state’s high court to make or break Walker’s attempts to declaw public sector unions, this election was in many ways an up-or-down vote on Walker-nomics, and, on a grander scale, a contest between the competing worldviews of our two major political parties. A vote for Prosser was a vote for the implementation of Scott Walker’s domestic agenda to continue unabated. A vote for Kloppenburg was an attempt to stop the Republicans in their tracks. Both parties sported bases that were fired up, the result being, essentially, a tie.
Even if Kloppenburg takes the seat, these results do alleviate some of my concerns about the impact on the political landscape of an activated Democratic base in 2012. I had never bought into the theory that Democrats were going to “stay home” in 2012; Obama may have lost his mojo from 2008, but the GOP’s legislative agenda is so utterly terrifying to Democrats that there is simply no chance that they will sit on their hands or vote third party next year. Given the narrow margins by which Republicans claimed victory in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania last year, an election cycle during which Democratic turnout had been relatively low, it seemed at least plausible that a revived Left would be able to deny those states to the GOP next year.
But the fact that the pro-Walker and anti-Walker forces essentially fought to a draw in a state like Wisconsin means that Republicans may be in a better position for 2012 that many pundits anticipate. Over the past few presidential election cycles, Wisconsin has moved in a decidedly right-ward direction from its days as one of only 10 states that voted for Dukakis in 1988, but the state is still a few notches left of center overall. Wisconsin went for Kerry by 1, while the nation went for Bush by 3. It went for Obama by 14, while the nation went for Obama by 7. It appears to be a just-left-of-center state in a presidential election, which means that a tie in Wisconsin means a really good shot at a Republican victory in states like Ohio and Florida, both well to the right of Wisconsin in both 2004 and 2008, as well as Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Minnesota, which voted for Obama over McCain by 9, 9 and 10 points, respectively.
In short, if a fired up Democratic base can only beat the GOP by a couple of hundred votes in a proxy race over the two parties’ competing visions in Wisconsin, Republicans have a really good shot at winning the actual race over those competing visions two years from now in lots of states that matter in a presidential election.
The Hill has the story:
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, will stay out of next year’s presidential primary.
McCain said former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, his running mate of three years ago, would be competitive against other Republican candidates but stopped short of endorsing her.
“I intend, as is the tradition of losers, to remain out of the primaries,” McCain quipped to reporters Wednesday morning at a breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor.
On a more serious note, McCain added: “I just think it would be inappropriate for me to endorse in the primary.”
McCain said Palin would prove a formidable candidate if she ran.
Read the rest here.
The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll of “Republican primary voters” on the 2012 GOP nomination race had the following results:
| Romney | 21 |
| Trump | 17 |
| Huckabee | 17 |
| Gingrich | 11 |
| Palin | 10 |
| Pawlenty | 6 |
| Bachmann | 5 |
| Santorum | 3 |
| Barbour | 1 |
In a smaller field that didn’t include Santorum, Trump, Palin or Huckabee; they got these results:
| Romney | 40 |
| Gingrich | 20 |
| Pawlenty | 12 |
| Bachmann | 11 |
| Barbour | 3 |
Why they picked only those five, I do not know. Your guess is as good as mine.
PPP (D) New Hampshire 2012 Presidential Survey
- Barack Obama 47%
- Mitt Romney 46%
- Barack Obama 52%
- Newt Gingrich 39%
- Barack Obama 51%
- Donald Trump 37%
- Barack Obama 52%
- Mike Huckabee 38%
- Barack Obama 56%
- Sarah Palin 34%
Today is the birthday of one of my greatest heroes and a person whom I consider to be a living Saint: Gianna Jessen. I will not go into her compelling life story (you can read all about it here). Rather, I will post a speech that Ms. Jessen delivered in Australia in September of 2008.
Among all of the speeches that I have heard in my life (which have been delivered by Presidents, politicians, actors on TV or in movies, etc…), few have moved me as much as this one. And even though I have watched it many times, I can’t help but cry every single time I watch it again.
So a “happy birthday” to Ms. Gianna Jessen. And may there be many more for you to continue your blessed work.
Being extremely busy yesterday, I only got a chance to view Paul Ryan’s introductory video on the Republican House Budget Plan (it’s all available here http://www.budget.house.gov/ ). I thought it was a great, sober and serious wake-up call to the American people. Ryan puts in stark terms the fiscal crisis that confronts the nation. The Congressman from Wisconsin is quickly becoming the Republican leader in Congress on fiscal matters. If the GOP manages to get some of his cuts through (unlikely but possible), then Ryan might be seen as a prophet. I think we should see him as the next Vice President of the United States.
Beyond policy, Ryan adds a great deal to any Republican ticket. He’s young (he’ll be 42 in 2012) and he’s from the critical Midwestern battleground, more particularly the purple state of Wisconsin. Further, our nominee is going to be a Governor (sorry Newt, it ain’t gonna be you) and Ryan adds over a decade of experience in Washington. Also, if the Tea Party is as committed to cutting spending as they say they are, then they would cheer the thought of such a serious fiscal conservative on the ticket.
More importantly, having Ryan on the Republican ticket will throw down a gauntlet. It will show that our Party and our nominee is truly, deeply committed to putting this nation’s fiscal house in order and fundamentally reforming entitlements to make them solvent. It will show that we are the Party of grown-ups and are willing to tell it like it is to the American people. With Ryan as VP and a strong fiscal conservative as our nominee (interpret that as you will), we will be offering the American people a truly different path for our countries future than the willful blindness offered by the President and the Democratic Party. It would be a courageous move, the type of decision we should expect and want from the next President.
If the GOP is not interested in being serious, pick someone like Michele Bachmann and put her on the ticket. But if the GOP truly wants to give America a choice of our best and brightest, then we could do a lot worse than having Paul Ryan serve as Vice President.
CNN came out with two announcements regarding GOP primary debates this morning.
First, they are sponsoring a third debate, this one in Nevada on October 18th. The debate will coincide with the Republican Western States Leadership Conference, which is comprised of GOP party leaders and activists from 16 western states and is meeting in Las Vegas on the four days around the debate. The Nevada GOP Straw Poll will also coincide with the WSLC.
CNN also named September 12th as the date of their Tea Party Express debate (previously announced to be sometime the week of September 5th).
This means our primary calendar now looks like this (with updates from the previous edition in bold):
| May 5, 2011 | FOX News / South Carolina GOP Debate | Greenville, SC |
| June 7, 2011 | CNN / NH Union Leader / WMUR-TV Debate | Manchester, NH |
| August 11, 2011 | FOX News / Iowa GOP Straw Poll Debate | Ames, IA |
| August 13, 2001 | Ames Straw Poll | Ames, IA |
| September 12, 2011 | CNN / Tea Party Express Debate | Tampa, FL |
| September 14, 2011 | Reagan Library / NBC News / Politico Debate | Simi Valley, CA |
| September 22, 2011 | FOX News / Florida GOP Debate | Orlando, FL |
| September 24, 2011 | Florida GOP Straw Poll | Orlando, FL |
| October 11, 2011 | Washington Post / Bloomberg Debate | Hanover, NH |
| Week of Oct 17 (TBD) | Nevada GOP Straw Poll | Las Vegas, NV |
| October 18, 2011 | CNN / Western States Leadership Conference Debate | Las Vegas, NV |
| November 5, 2011 | Illinois GOP Straw Poll | Statewide |
| December 10-11 (TBD), 2012 | ABC News / Iowa GOP Debate | TBD |
| January 30, 2012 | FOX News / Iowa GOP Debate | Sioux City, IA |
| February 6, 2012 | Iowa Caucus | — |
| Between February 7-13 (TBD) | ABC News / WMUR-TV Debate | Manchester, NH |
| February 14, 2012 | New Hampshire Primary | — |
| February 18, 2012 | Nevada Caucus | — |
| Between February 19-27 (TBD) | FOX News / South Carolina GOP Debate | TBD |
| February 28, 2012 | South Carolina Primary | — |
| March 5, 2012 | Reagan Library Debate | Simi Valley, CA |
| March 6, 2012 | Super Tuesday | — |
| April 1, 2012 | First eligible date for winner-take-all contests | — |
Did I miss an event? Let me know in the comments.
UPDATE: The Florida GOP and FOX News announced their debate in Orlando will be on September 22 (moving up from the tentative “sometime in October” reported earlier this year). Also, the Florida GOP will hold a straw poll after the debate that weekend as well.
UPDATE #2: And now the Washington Post has announced today that they will be co-sponsoring a debate with Bloomberg at Dartmouth College on October 11. This has been quite a day for filling in the primary calendar.
In 2007, soon after Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House, Donald Trump sent her a personal note wishing her the best. It said:
Nancy — you’re the best. Congrats. Donald
Short and to the point. Now that he’s considering running for President as a Republican, this is being brought up with many questions being asked of “The Donald.” His response on the matter was noted by Politico:
“I met her a number of times and I liked her…And I really want her and everybody in office to do great. so because of the fact that i met her a number of times and really liked her, and then she became Speaker, I sent her a note. And I wanted her, and I continue to want her and everybody else in office, to do great for the country…I get along with everybody. I’m very proud of that. I get along with all of these people. Some I get along with better…When I send Nancy a letter, I want her to do a great job for the country, not for her party. OK, honey?”
It’s an interesting response. How does Trump deal with the fact that he has a long history of donating to politicians across all party lines? Or that he considered running for President under the Reform Party banner before Pat Buchanan took it over and made the party, mostly, irrelevant?*
These are all serious questions that Donald Trump will have to answer. Lucky for him, he has the money to address them in advertisements head on if he decides to run. Love him, or hate him, Trump has found a way to make himself relevant to the 2012 primary. Time will tell if he continues to do so or even formally explores a Presidential bid.
* Before the Buchanan fans attack me, let me say this – the Reform Party was the party of Ross Perot’s independent ideology. Pat Buchanan and his people’s takeover of the party completely reimagined the party to the point where it no longer resembled it’s former self, leading to a split in local parties, and, in a way, killing the national movement. So yes, the Reform Party is pretty much no longer relevant.
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
Dustin Siggins and I have an Op-Ed on the impact of the national debt on young Americans published at The Daily Caller today. Please head on over, take a look, and “recommend” it on Facebook if you feel it is worthy. Thanks!
As a middle-sized state, Minnesota sends only eight members to the U.S. House of Representatives. In fact, the state escaped losing one of those seats only by a few thousand persons counted in the recent 2010 census.
As sometimes happens, however, the state’s politicians seems to have an outsized importance in Washington, DC, and across the nation.
One noteworthy measure of this is that the state has two significant politicians in the running for the GOP nomination for president in 2012. (No other state has as many). One of them, recently retired Governor Tim Pawlenty, is already acknowledged to be one of the most serious contenders; and the other, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, has been gobbling up national attention as the “Tea Party:” candidate while she chalks up noticeable numbers in recent polls, and in fundraising cash in Iowa and New Hampshire.
But other members of the Minnesota congressional delegation, especially Republicans, are having impact on national public policy.
Most notable of these is the new dean of the state GOP delegation, Congressman John Kline of the 2nd District, a suburban and rural area to the north and east of the Twin Cities. Kline, a retired Marine colonel who carried the nuclear “football” for Presidents Carter and Reagan, has established himself as one of the heavy hitters in Washington. As the new chairman of the Education and Veterans Affairs house committee, he is the new power player dealing with the national education crisis. In a short time, he has already signaled that he will bring new ideas to the table, and be a force to be reckoned with. Kline brings a personal “likability” quality combined with strong intelligence and self-discipline, to the job, although it took him three tries to win the job in 2002. After the GOP lost the house in 2008, Mr. Kline continued to rise quickly in his caucus leadership, finally being named chair of the same committee previously led by the new speaker, John Boehner. With a personal integrity to match his “likability,” Kline is held in very high respect on both sides of the aisle, even as he maintains a solid conservative outlook on legislation (long before it became fashionable, he declared he would not promote earmarks in his district. Democrats thought he made a blunder, but in the next election found out otherwise).
Colin Peterson is the new dean of the Democratic (called the Democratic- Farmer-Labor Party or DFL) delegation from Minnesota, and although he is no longer chairman of the important agriculture committee, he is the ranking minority member with a conservative voting record (he was one of only two Democratic committee chairman who voted against Obamacare) Mr, Peterson represents what otherwise would be a GOP district and is likely to continue being one of the most conservative Democratic members in the U.S. house,
as well as maintaining some influence there.
Of course, Minnesota (like most of the other states) will now see some key changes in its congressional boundaries as a result of reapportionment. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in the 6th District, may see one of the largest changes her district’s borders. Bachmann, a former tax attorney and mother of 17 (5 natural children, 12 adopted), is easily the most outlandish (though not necessarily the most controversial) Minnesota member of Congress. She early embraced the so-called “Tea Party” and has now become one of its most popular spokespersons as she crosses the nation in a purported campaign for president. (She is causing Mr. Pawlenty nightmares in Iowa.) Next year, however, she will almost certainly have to return to her congressional race, unless she decides to run for the U.S. senate seat now held by Amy Klobuchar.
Chip Cravaack came out of nowhere in 2010, and upset one of the “undefeatable senior Democrats in the house, 17-term Jiim Oberstar, then chairman of the powerful transportation committee. A solid conservative, Mr. Cravaack does represent a blue collar Democratic district, but redistricting is likely to help him. DFLers are already having trouble finding a home-grown opponent for him.
Senator Klobuchar, a first-term DFLer, has made a positive impression among her colleagues in the senate, where her party is still in the majority. She is expected to have a relatively easy re-election in 2012 because she quickly mastered the technique which marked the success of some of her predecessors in both parties, i.e., appearing to be more centrist than her voting record. She serves on the Judiciary committee, the Science and Transportation committee, among others. (A Klobuchar vs. Bachmann race in 2012 would be colorful spectacle nontheless.)
One of the least public members of the Minnesota delegation, Republican Erik Paulsen, is quietly building respect in the house, and like Bill Frenzel (who represented the district years before, might become a powerful behind-the-scenes member in Congress. Unfortunately, the DFL incumbents in districts 2 (southern Minnesota), 4 (St. Paul) and 5 (Minneapolis) have so far proved to be disappointments compared to their DFL predecessors. Tim Walz is no Tim Penny; Betty McCollum is no Bruce Vento; and Keith Ellison is no Martin Sabo. Nor is Mrs. Bachmann as significant as Vin Weber was.
Mr. Weber, incidentally, continues in private life to be a major player in the nation’s capital where he is a consultant. Mr. Weber was co-chair of John McCain’s 2000 presidential bid, principal policy adviser to Mitt Romney in 2008, and is expected to bring significant firepower to TIm Pawlenty’s 2012 campaign.
Finally, Tim Pawlenty has come from seemingly nowhere to be a major contender for the presidency in 2012. He was reportedly the other finalist for John McCain’s 2008 vice presidential choice. (Perhaps like John F. Kennedy’s failed 1956 bid to be Adlai Stevenson’s vice president, it was a stroke of luck. Kennnedy, if he had beaten Estes Kefauver in 1956, probably would not have been able to win his party’s nomination in 1960.) Losing vice presidential candidates are rarely heard from again (FDR was the rare exception).
It would be an historic irony if it were blue collar conservative Republican Pawlenty who succeeded where more liberal Minnesota historic figures Harold Stassen, Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale had failed.
What has changed about Minnesota’s national reputation in the post-World War II period through the 1980’s, personified by liberals Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Orville Freeman, is that its national influence is now primarily on the conservative side of the aisle. This could change again over time, but for now, it is Mr. Pawlenty, Mr. Kline and Mrs. Bachmann who generate headlines, controversies and stories across the nation.
_______________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.
PPP (D) Georgia 2012 Presidential Survey
- Mitt Romney 46%
- Barack Obama 43%
- Mike Huckabee 48%
- Barack Obama 45%
- Barack Obama 46%
- Newt Gingrich 45%
- Barack Obama 44%
- Herman Cain 39%
- Barack Obama 48%
- Sarah Palin 43%
Neighborhood Research 2012 Republican Iowa Caucus
- Huckabee – 21% (24)
- Romney – 14% (19)
- Trump – 9% (n/a)
- Gingrich – 8% (8)
- Palin – 7% (11)
- Bachmann – 5% (2)
- Pawlenty – 4% (4)
- Paul – 3% (3)
- Cain – 3% (0)
- Santorum – 1% (0)
- Barbour – *
- Daniels – *
- Moore – *
- Roemer – *
- Johnson – *
- Huntsman – *
- Bolton – *
- Undecided – 24% (27)
Without Huckabee, Palin, or Trump
- Romney – 21%
- Gingrich – 12%
- Bachmann – 7%
- Pawlenty – 6%
- Paul – 6%
- Cain – 3%
- Santorum – 2%
- Barbour – *
- Moore – *
- Daniels – *
- Johnson – *
- Roemer – *
- Huntsman – *
- Bolton – *
- Undecided – 41%
Without Huckabee, Palin, or Third Tier
- Romney – 24%
- Gingrich – 13%
- Pawlenty – 8%
- Bachmann – 8%
- Paul – 7%
- Undecided – 40%
Survey was taken March 29-April 4 of 319 likely caucus goers, and has a 5.5% MoE. An asterisk indicates less than 1% of the vote. Numbers is parentheses are from the January 3-8 poll.
PPP (D) Florida 2012 GOP Primary Survey
- Newt Gingrich 18% (18%) {15%} [23%]
- Mike Huckabee 18% (23%) {15%} [15%] (21%)
- Mitt Romney 18% (21%) {28%} [31%] (52%)
- Sarah Palin 15% (13%) {22%} [23%] (18%)
- Michele Bachmann 7%
- Ron Paul 6% (8%)
- Tim Pawlenty 6% (4%) {4%}
- Haley Barbour 3%
- Someone else/Undecided 8% (10%) {12%}
PPP/Daily Kos/SEIU (D) Political Survey
If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Donald Trump, who would you vote for?
- Barack Obama 47%
- Donald Trump 38%
Among Democrats
- Barack Obama 83%
- Donald Trump 9%
Among Republicans
- Donald Trump 65%
- Barack Obama 13%
Among Independents
- Barack Obama 45%
- Donald Trump 42%
Mitt’s Free and Strong America PAC has been busy. They announced today that they have donated $15,000 apiece to the Republican National Committee (RNC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) for use in the upcoming 2012 election cycle. That is a total of $45,000 today.
Mitt had the following comment:
“President Obama and his big spending allies in Congress have confused priorities for our nation. Instead of focusing on putting unemployed Americans back to work, they have raised taxes, expanded the size and scope of government and prolonged the recession. I believe that by electing Republicans, we will make America strong and prosperous again.”
They had announced a week ago a donation of $25,000 to the New Jersey Republican Party “…to help state legislative races this year.” Said Mitt on that occasion:
“It is important to help candidates who are fighting for conservative principles whether in Washington or in the states. I am happy to support the New Jersey GOP as its leaders fight to cut spending and stand up for the taxpayer.”
Here is the video of Romney speaking to the RJC Saturday in Las Vegas.
It was a very well crafted and delivered speech. He spoke for about 25 minutes with only occasional glances at a few notes and nary a teleprompter in sight. He drew a sharp line between the failed policies of the Obama administration both foreign and domestic, and the vision he had for America. He tackled health care straight on. He finished with a Q&A session that lasted another twenty minutes.
Several things impressed me about the speech. One is the way he called out by name a number of people in the audience. (I couldn’t do that. I am lousy with names and faces.) One got the sense that he was among friends. He was at ease in his skin.
He gave a rousing defense of free enterprise, capitalism, and entrepreneurialship. He called for a strong defense. Yes, cut the waste in military spending absolutely, but never lose sight of the fact that the world is a safer, more peaceful place when America is strong militarily and economically.
I was very impressed by his closing point. Please pardon my paraphrasing: Entitlement spending is supposedly the third rail of American politics. If you touch that, your campaign is dead. If that is the case, then so be it. The American people have always risen to the truth. They need to hear it.
He received a number of standing ovations, one of which came when he introduced his wife, Ann. Watch him when she is speaking. Now there is a man who deeply loves his wife.
One person who lived in Massachusetts when Mitt ran for Governor remarked that Romney had ran a gentlemanly campaign. Was he going to do the same against Obama? Mitt promised him that while he wasn’t going to engage in the gotcha style of politics, he was going to aggressively go after Obama’s failed policies and philosophies. I suspect his two blurbs yesterday are just a taste of what’s to come.
I highly recommend watching this speech. Even if you are a fan of one of Romney’s competitors, you will still want to see what you are up against in 2012.
As all readers should know by now, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled his long anticipated FY-12 and long-term budget reform proposal entitled The Path to Prosperity. The Committee website contains several documents that I would encourage everyone to read, especially the comparison of the GOP budget with the president’s budget. Also, take a look at Ryan’s short You-Tube video explanation of our current fiscal predicament.
The pro-government collectivist left is going crazy as Ryan and others predicted they would, but amongst responsible economists and political observers, Ryan is receiving rave reviews. David Brooks had an excellent column in today’s NYT entitle Moment of Truth.
To digress from Ryan’s budget proposal but in keeping with the subject at large. I re-read a short commentary in the Wall Street Journal from back in November of 2009 by Dylan Grice of Societe Generale on the subject of gold and how the price of gold is really a barometer on the soundness of government policy in general:
Inflation fear isn’t the only driver of gold demand, however. Fear that global policy makers don’t have a handle on trade, budget deficits, geopolitical conflicts, resource shortages and myriad other woes also is boosting gold.
“You are basically short trust in government when you buy gold,” says Mr. Grice, who suggests gold may be in the early stages of a long-lasting speculative mania. “Gold goes higher until policy makers get ahead of their problems.”
That was certainly the case during the 1970′s (the Nixon-Carter era) when there was a sharp rise in the gold price. Then gold declined sharply from 1981-1999 (the Reagan-Thatcher-Clinton era), then began rising steadily from 2001-present (the Bush-Obama era). Thus, watch the secular trend in the price of gold, it can be a strong indicator of whether or not governments and policy-makers are getting a handle on current problems.
That being said, now back to Paul Ryan and the GOP’s bold budget proposal.
Paul Ryan’s re-organization of Medicare should be garnering cheers from the Left, given that it saves the program, the foremost driver of our mounting debt, from collapsing in on itself. Here’s how Medicare 2.0 would work:
The plan would replace the current open-ended system of Medicare payments with one in which the federal government would subsidize people to purchase insurance. In health insurance jargon, this is called “premium support.”
Ryan would set up a system called “the Medicare exchange” in which beneficiaries would choose an insurance plan they preferred.
His summary of the Medicare proposal said, “Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.”
Under his plan, poorer and sicker people in Medicare in future decades would be more heavily subsidized by the taxpayers than would wealthier and healthier retirees.
The premium support payments would grow annually at the GDP growth rate, plus one percent. This would mean that Medicare spending would grow much more slowly than under the current system.
Ryan would apply his plan only to those who turn age 65 in 2022.
So Medicare is salvaged, the country doesn’t go over the fiscal precipice, seniors actually end up receiving better care than they otherwise would, given that a huge percentage of medical professionals will no longer accept Medicare patients, and the federal government has to approve seniors’ choice of plans, meaning the fear that seniors will be abused by those dastardly insurance companies is mitigated. What’s not to like? There is the possibility, of course, that Washington won’t be able to discipline itself, and will allow costs to grow beyond what Ryan is projecting, but that’s true of Medicare as it is presently structured as well. This should be a plan that the Left is applauding. Instead, Democrats are screeching. What gives?
The reality is that leftists are less concerned with access to, cost of, and quality of health care than they are with state control over health care. And the only way the state can garner such control is via the implementation of a single-payer health care system here in the United States. Ryan’s plan, by turning Medicare into a premium-support system, and shifting it away from single-payer status, would pretty much be a death knell for the Left’s dream of single-payer for all. Once Ryan’s plan is implemented, and Americans discover that they actually like it, there will be no turning back the clock.
This of course exposes the Left’s insincerity, given Democrats’ propensity to argue that what they really want is for all Americans to be able to enjoy the same access to, and quality of, care as Members of Congress. As Ryan himself notes, Medicare 2.0 would be designed very similarly to the health insurance system currently utilized by he and his colleagues. Yet now the congressional health insurance system, the gold standard of health insurance in this country, at least according to Democrats, isn’t good enough for America’s seniors.
A lot of this is partisan politics as usual, of course, inasmuch as one party’s loyalists will always reflexively oppose the plans of the other party’s loyalists. But the extent to which leftists fear the loss of state control over American health care should not be ignored.
PPP (D) New Hampshire 2012 GOP Primary Survey
- Mitt Romney 31% (40%) {41%} [31%] (39%)
- Mike Huckabee 15% (13%) {10%} [12%] (11%)
- Newt Gingrich 13% (10%) {12%} [14%] (11%)
- Ron Paul 10%
- Sarah Palin 10% (10%) {12%} [9%] (13%)
- Michele Bachmann 4%
- Tim Pawlenty 4% (4%) {5%} [3%] (3%)
- Haley Barbour 2%
- Someone else/Undecided 12% (19%)
Romney and Palin Supporters Protest
What is particularly funny is to hear this “advising” from supporters of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. I think those two “candidates” have visited Iowa a total of about 3 times between the two of them since the 2008 election. And while their supporters have admitted they must compete in Iowa, nobody has advised them that the approach they’ve taken has been “horrible” and an “incredibly bad move”. I know one regular commenter on here wants us to think that the lower Palin goes in the polls, the more she has us right where she wants us. That makes sense.
If Huckabee continues to poll well, it will not be difficult to find experienced staff in Iowa and elsewhere to help him organize once he gets in. I think the insider mentality, believing that only certain people like Wes Enos or I’ve-Forgotten-His-Name can help run a campaign, is really what the Tea Party movement is out to oppose. It is not the staff that runs the campaign, it is the candidate. If he runs, Huckabee has shown he knows how to campaign. And THAT is what his opponents worry about most – not that he will not get in soon enough, it is that he will get in at just the right moment.
Someone has said, that if Huckabee is not in a debate, it is not debate. That, of course, is an exaggeration. But did anybody else notice how the Ronald Reagan Library debate was moved from May to September? Is it any coincidence that the debate will be held after Huckabee announces?
Mitt Romney released the following statement on the “…Obama Administration’s announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged 9/11 co-conspirators will be tried at Guantanamo Bay:”
“An inexperienced and naïve president has finally reversed himself on Guantanamo and terrorist trials; let’s hope he sees the light on his other flawed policies.”
Remember when Romney would usually take at least 24 to 48 hours before commenting upon current political events? Slow and deliberate was his watchword.
What with this response and the quick Twitter message earlier today on Obama’s official announcement of running for reelection, it would seem that Mitt has shifted gears. He isn’t flying under the radar any longer.
In 2010, a lot of quite fiscally libertarian (and in several cases, even reasonably socially libertarian and noninterventionist-to-realist on foreign policy) candidates made it into the Republican primaries for House, Senate, and Governor. Largely a result of the Tea Parties, a whole slew of back-to-basics conservatives found itself running a platform arguably closer to the Old Right Republicanism of the Calvin Coolidge-Robert Taft era than ever before.
Some of the candidacies were quite remarkable: a no-name, Nevadan assemblywoman came out of nowhere in the last leg of the race, defeating two frontrunners in the primary, and coming very close to unseating the Democratic Senate Majority Leader; a self-proclaimed “libertarian Republican” actually dethroned an incumbent Republican Senator in his own primary, and is now the freshman US Senator from Utah; a “live-free-or-die” type constitutionalist conservative won a primary over a moderate, establishment Republican Senator in Alaska (though ended up losing the general election to her by an incredibly slim margin).
But perhaps the most fantastic and iconic of these candidates was the son of Ron Paul, the libertarian hero of the early 21st century, who, coming from obscurity, flew unashamedly on the wings of the Tea Party and used pure grassroots power to overcome a well-liked, mainstream candidate that had been handpicked and well-funded by the GOP establishment. Of all the candidates and candidates-elect that we saw in 2010, Rand Paul exemplifies this new-found, Tea Party-inspired “return to the Republic” wave that is washing over the Republican Party.
Was the election of Sen. Rand Paul a fluke? Or will there be even more Rand Pauls elected in 2012?
Here’s some candidates and potential candidates that might be joining Rand Paul in his Goldwateresque crusade next year:
 |
#1. Jeff Flake in Arizona
Flake, long regarded as one of the most individual liberty-oriented members of the US Congress, is making a strong run for US Senate in Arizona. Socially tolerant, with a deep sense of fiscal discipline, he stands a great chance of being elected. |
 |
#2. Jimmy Wales in Florida
The founder of Wikipedia, who has not yet put together any sort of official organization, has been dropping hints left and right that he’s interested in unseating Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson. Wales, who crafted the concept of Wikipedia from an essay by F.A. Hayek, and who unabashedly calls himself an “Objectivist” and “libertarian,” definitely has a good fundraising base. |
 |
#3. Sarah Steelman in Missouri
Former Lt. Gov. Steelman, dyed-in-the-wool conservative and friend of the Paul family, is already in the process of running a great campaign for Democrat Claire McCaskill’s Senate seat. “Freedom” being the buzz word of her campaign, she would certainly be an ally of Rand’s on the Hill. |
 |
#4. Kevin Cramer in North Dakota
Card-carrying member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, North Dakota’s public service commissioner Kevin Cramer, is making moves toward vying for the open Senate seat in North Dakota, now that it is clear Sen. Byron Dorgan will not be seeking re-election. His small government, low tax, constitutionalist philosophy would likely fall somewhere between Mike Lee and Rand Paul. |
 |
#5. Jason Chaffetz in Utah
This two-term US Representative has amassed a very respectable, small government record in Congress, even sharing Ron Paul’s disdain for what he calls “trivial resolutions,” voting against meatless “sense of the Congress” legislation in protest of what he sees as a constitutionally unauthorized waste of time when there are so many more pressing issues. He is seen as a likely choice for Senate. |
 |
#6. Jamie Radtke in Virginia
A popular Tea Party activist challenging a big, establishment Republican politician for the right to represent the GOP in a general election in an East Coast state? Actually, this isn’t necessarily Christine O’Donnell part deux. Radtke is an infinitely more suitable candidate for the fiscally conservative, socially modern middle-East Coast. At the very least, her presence in the race seems to be pushing George Allen in a more Tea Partyesque direction. |
 |
#7. Clint Didier in Washington
Didier ran a respectable primary campaign in 2010, conceding to Dino Rossi in the end, but seems likely to have another go at it in 2012, where his odds appear to have approved. One of last year’s Sarah Palin endorsees, this former NFL champion and Ron Paul fan would fit right in with Rand and the Tea Party Caucus. |
 |
#8. Cale Case in Wyoming
State senator Case has quickly become a hero of the conservative movement in Wyoming, being an ever-reliable vote against government regulation and spending. His status as an economics professor gives him credibility when he talks about free markets, and he has managed to unite a diverse fan base of traditional Reagan conservatives and more socially tolerant Goldwater conservatives. He hasn’t said one way or the other whether he’s interested in the US Senate, but there’s a quietly growing, grassroots draft movement coming after him, which he will have to address sooner or later. |
Nate Silver sees some striking similarities between the 1976 election and the coming presidential contest:
The 1976 Democratic field is the one that reminds me the most of this year’s Republican one.
The circumstances ought not to have been bad for Democrats. Richard Nixon had resigned in the face of impeachment, prompting big gains for the Democrats in the 1974 midterm elections. And there were plenty of brand names bandied about: of the 20 potential candidates whom pollsters inquired about in early 1975, a half-dozen had name recognition of roughly 80 percent or higher.
But all of them seemed flawed in some way, including the nominal frontrunner, George Wallace, who would have been an extremely problematic general-election nominee. Meanwhile, quite a few of the well-known Democrats declined to run. The candidate who eventually emerged was Jimmy Carter, who had only 1 percent of the support in early polls.
If you buy into the analogy with 2012, here are the lessons: First, the absence of a true frontrunner makes it easier for a dark-horse candidate to emerge — and that means not just a lesser-known name like Mitch Daniels, but also somebody whose chances are not being taken seriously at all so far. Second, though, the Republicans are not necessarily doomed in the general election just because their field looks weak right now: Mr. Carter did, after all, win the general election.
Then again, Mr. Carter won by only 2 points against Gerald Ford, an unelected vice president whose approval ratings spent most of their time in the low to mid-40s (and who barely survived a primary challenge). Mr. Carter got the job done, but there is a good case to be made that he underachieved and should have been a clearer winner.
Silver, of course, isn’t the first pundit to make such a comparison. It was just a few weeks ago that I penned a piece opining that Gov. Tim Pawlenty could be the “Carter ’76″ of this election cycle. Here was my take on the subject:
Gov. Carter, of course, arose in 1976 as the chief executive of a mid-sized state that was essentially located in “enemy” territory. While the concept of red and blue states had yet to be hashed out, Georgia was part of the Deep South, the region that in the 1976 and 1980 Republican primaries saw a huge sea change in the composition of the electorate, with scores of conservative Democrats switching party registration in order to vote for Ronald Reagan in the GOP primaries. In other words, while Georgia wasn’t a red state, or a Republican state, it was a conservative state, just as Minnesota was and is a liberal state. The fact that Gov. Carter knew how to win elections amongst a conservative “red” population spoke volumes about his electability nationally, just as Gov. Pawlenty’s two wins in Blue Minnesota suggest that he too would be formidable on the national stage.
Jimmy Carter, though, had arisen from seeming obscurity. He was on no one’s radar screen 20 months prior to the election, a time when Tim Pawlenty is busy making campaign ads and launching exploratory committees. How can this comparison hold up? I would argue that one cannot compare today’s electoral environment, with its perma-campaign cycle, awash in New Media, with the 1970s. Had the Internet been around in the 1970s, scores of liberal bloggers would have been floating Jimmy Carter’s name for president well before 1976, including him in online polls and creating unofficial “draft” websites. I can see it now: the 1970s version of Daily Kos would have sported a link to a blog comprised by Carter fans with the slogan, “Don’t let Jimmy dodge the draft!” And all of this attention would have forced his name into the opinion polls presented to the general public, where he would have registered in low single-digits, because the Everyman wouldn’t have heard of him. Just like Tim Pawlenty.
And all of this against the backdrop of an America in decline, rising gas prices, chronic economic problems, and a president with an approval rating in the 40s, who comes across as cold, aloof, and well-educated but completely in over his head with regard to actually performing the duties of the presidency. There are no perfect analogies when it comes to presidential elections, or to periods in American history, but the similarities between the mid-1970s and today are really starting to grab the attention of a lot of very adept political observers.
According to Politico, Gov. Gary Johnson may be the first major candidate to officially announce a 2012 presidential candidacy, on April 21st. He reportedly plans to skip the exploratory committee phase and jump in, head first. As someone who is working for Johnson, I shan’t divulge many details, but expect to hear a lot more specifics about his plans for drastically slashing the budget (including major entitlement reform proposals), and expect to see a lot of him in New Hampshire over the next year.
