University of New Hampshire/WMUR/CNN New Hampshire Republican Primary

• Romney – 33% (36)
• Paul – 9% (6)
• Gingrich – 7% (4)
• Giuliani – 6% (7)
• Pawlenty – 6% (2)
• Palin – 5% (4)
• Bachmann – 4% (4)
• Cain – 4% (-)
• Huntsman – 4% (*)
• Santorum – 2% (*)
• Johnson – * (*)
• Someone else – 7%
• Not sure/no opinion – 13%

Who is your second choice?

• Romney – 20%
• Palin – 10%
• Pawlenty – 8%
• Bachmann – 7%
• Giuliani – 6%
• Gingrich – 5%
• Paul – 4%
• Cain – 3%
• Huntsman – 2%
• Santorum – 2%
• Johnson – 1%

Survey of 347 likely primary voters was completed May 18-22 and has an MoE of 5%. Numbers in parentheses are from the April 15-May 2 poll.

They actually included Daniels for the first three days of this poll. He pulled 4% before he dropped out.

Obviously some great news for Pawlenty and Huntsman here. Surprising that Gingrich actually gained supporters given the week or two he’s had. And while Romney is maintaining his massive lead over the other candidates, Huck and Trump dropping out doesn’t look like it’s boosted him any in New Hampshire.

Don’t get too excited… this is another poll that was done before the big shakeup over the last eight days. Unlike the others (Gallup and Suffolk), though, Harris saw fit to not attempt any massaging of the data and just give it to us straight. So here’s your final snapshot of what the race looked like just before Huckabee, Trump, and Daniels decided to all sit this one out.

Harris Interactive Republican Primary Poll

• Romney – 14%
• Huckabee – 12%
• Gingrich – 10%
• Palin – 8%
• Trump – 8%
• Giuliani – 7%
• Daniels – 5%
• Paul – 4%
• Cain – 3%
• Bachmann – 2%
• Pawlenty – 2%
• Huntsman – 1%
• Johnson – *
• Santorum – *

General Election Matchups

• Giuliani – 51%
• Obama – 49%

• Obama – 51%
• Romney – 49%

• Obama – 55%
• Paul – 45%

• Obama – 56%
• Gingrich – 44%

• Obama – 57%
• Johnson – 43%

• Obama – 57%
• Santorum – 43%

• Obama – 58%
• Bachmann – 42%

• Obama – 58%
• Palin – 42%

• Obama – 58%
• Pawlenty – 42%

• Obama – 59%
• Cain – 41%

• Obama – 59%
• Huntsman – 41%

Who would you never vote for?

• Palin – 57%
• Newt Gingrich 41%
• Michele Bachmann 34%
• Ron Paul 31%
• Rick Santorum 27%
• Herman Cain 26%
• Rudy Giuliani 26%
• Jon Huntsman 25%
• Gary Johnson 25%
• Tim Pawlenty 24%
• Mitt Romney 23%

For the last two questions, survey of 2,184 adults was done May 9-16. For the primary matchup, no sample data was readily apparent.

Hat tip to The Argo Journal. Here’s hoping somebody has a post Huck, Trump, and Daniels poll out in the field so we can see where that huge 25% of the primary vote will go.

Brandon Kiser of The Right Sphere has the complete text of Pawlenty’s 2012 announcement as prepared for delivery. Here’s the text:

Thanks, Mary, for your very kind words and for your tremendous love and support. After serving eight years as Minnesota’s Governor, I was very much looking forward to life with Mary, and our daughters, in the Midwestern home we love. But with Mary’s encouragement and wise counsel, we came to a different conclusion. And that brings me here today with this announcement.

I’m Tim Pawlenty, and I’m running for President of the United States.

We live in the greatest country the world has ever known. But, as we all know, America is in big trouble, and it won’t get fixed if we keep going down the same path. If we want a new and better direction, we need a new and better President.

President Obama’s policies have failed. But more than that, he won’t even tell us the truth about what it’s really going to take to get out of the mess we’re in.

I could stand here and tell you that we can solve America’s debt crisis and fix our economy without making any tough choices.

But we’ve heard those kinds of empty promises for the last three years, and we know where they’ve gotten us. Fluffy promises of hope and change don’t buy our groceries, make our mortgage payments, put gas in our cars, or pay for our children’s clothes.

So, in my campaign, I’m going to take a different approach. I am going to tell you the truth. The truth is, Washington’s broken. (more…)

We have witnessed the most dramatic month to date for the race for 2012, however the drama has been centered more on who isn’t running than who is.  We now have three distinct groups of candidates; Nate Silver’s “Fairfax Five” which has been winnowed down to three remaining candidates who are certain to run.  The second group consists of Tea Party favorites, rhetorical bomb-throwers, and marginal general election candidates.  The third group I have dubbed the Draftees, consists of the highest profile candidates who are resisting both private and public draft efforts, but from which perhaps one or more alternatives may materialize.

Mitt Romney was seemingly off to a poor start with his widely panned speech on his Massachusetts healthcare reform law.  His attempt to explain away the differences between his plan and the reforms passed by President Obama was slammed by the conservative press with greater-than-expected enthusiasm.  Gov. Romney bounced back with a remarkable 24-hour fundrasing event that brought in over $10 million.  This flexing of financial muscle was a reminder of why he still is the man to beat in the race.  However, Romney’s biggest success this month had nothing to do with him and everything to do with who will not be challenging him in 2012. The decisions of Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels to pass on the race are a huge boost for Gov. Romney, simultaneously eliminating his biggest populist and establishment foes without a rhetorical shot fired.  Romney, along with the remaining Fairfax candidates, will now attempt to recruit and consolidate the talent that had been waiting for a Barbour/Daniels run.

Tim Pawlenty is the other huge beneficiary of the Huckabee/Daniels decisions.  The former Minnesota governor has built the second best team so far, and his early efforts in Iowa are likely to begin paying big dividends now that the previous Iowa winner is out of the picture.  Daniels was likely to become the main establishment alternative to Romney, a position that Pawlenty will now move quickly to secure.  As long as the Draftees continue to linger on the sidelines, Pawlenty will continue to have the clearest path to topple Romney and take the nomination.

Former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman has quickly moved into contention with the remaining Big Two, receiving rave reviews from conservative leaders and the media alike.  It’s clear that Huntsman path to the nomination will follow closely to McCain’s 2008 path; downplay Iowa, score big in New Hampshire, and rally the establishment in South Carolina. The former Utah governor is off to a fast start and will also benefit from the departure of the Daniels/Barbour duo.  It’s not out of the question that Huntsman could supplant Pawlenty as the anti-Romney in the coming months if his performance continues at such a high level.

While the departure of establishment favorites have benefited the Fairfax group, the unintended beneficiaries of the Huckabee/Barbour/Daniels withdrawals are the Tea Party duo of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.  Both are beloved by the right wing base of the party and both have more dynamic personalities than the business-like Fairfax Three.  Each has the potential to rally the faithful in Iowa and mount an insurgent Tea Party campaign to topple the establishment, but as of now it seems only Bachmann is gearing up to do so.  Another Tea Party favorite, businessman Herman Cain, fits into this group and will likely get a boost, though after his dreadful interview performances he may fizzle faster than the Mamma Grizzlies, who are more media savvy and have higher name recognition.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich had perhaps the worst month of any 2012 candidate, complete with a shaky rollout and a massive backlash from nearly the entire party for his comments on Paul Ryan’s budget.  For all of Gingrich’s intellectual heft, he still lacks the basic discipline needed to avoid causing these sound-bite problems that follow him around.  His takedown of Ryan’s plan not only angered the GOP across the board, but in a far worse turn of events, gave the Democrats the ‘right-wing social engineering’ line of attack that will soon appear in attack ads in every GOP district. Worse than just the repudiation from the base, Gingrich is now also losing financial supporters and is struggling to regain his footing.  I find it hard to believe that he’ll make it all the way to Iowa next year if the next few weeks are anything like his first one.  He remains on this list due to name identification and past accolades that still earn him loyalists in some corners of the party.

The second half of the rankings are filled this month with the Draftees, candidates who are being vigorously pursued to jump into the race, but have yet to come around.  The Draftees include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.  Each of these potential contenders could quickly assemble the Bush/Barbour/Daniels network while receiving great fanfare and hype along the way.  Any one of these candidates would dramatically alter the race and endanger the fortunes of everyone currently in the field, particularly the remaining Fairfax Five.  Of the four, Jeb Bush has the largest network at his command and could quickly organize a late entry.  Gov. Christie is rumored to have given different hints in private to big New York donors than he has in his defiant public statements and is the most buzzed about and charismatic Draftee.  Gov. Perry is also rumored to be less Shermanesque in private than he is in public, with his people quietly testing the Iowa waters behind the scenes. Rep. Ryan has quickly become the focus of a number of boosters who were backing Gov. Daniels and see the congressman as the philosophical and intellectual equal of the Hoosier.  So far, all four remain on the outside looking in, but their potential to dramatically alter both the primary and general elections can’t be ignored by this list.  Of the four, Gov. Perry is probably best positioned to enter late and still win due to being the only true Southerner in the prospective field, so it is fitting that of the four he has been the least Shermanesque about his plans.

On a personal note, I was greatly disappointed that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels decided against a run, however my respect for him has never been higher.  To side with the convictions of his wife and children over the ambition and power of the presidency is a quality that I imagine will be harder to find in politicians in the years to come.  Gov. Daniels’ decision is the true embodiment of family values, and the many false-prophets of the Culture Wars, starting with Tony Perkins and on down the list, owe Mitch Daniels an apology.  His decision is a true loss for our party, our movement, and our country.

On to the rankings:

1. Mitt Romney
2. Tim Pawlenty
3. Jon Huntsman Jr.
   
4. Michele Bachmann
   
5. Sarah Palin
   
6. Rick Perry
7. Chris Christie
   
8. Jeb Bush
   
9. Paul Ryan
10. Newt Gingrich

Honorable Mention: Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, Rick Santorum

Presidential campaign cycles almost always bring surprises, and the 2012 cycle already has a major one. I had thought for months that former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee would not run this time (although he was doing very well in the early polls). But I was surprised at Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ decision yesterday also to take a pass on 2012. Both Huckabee and Daniels had strong followers; Huckabee’s had been developed since the 2008 campaign and later through his popular TV show; Daniels’ was less measurable, but had arisen from his excellent resume in government and his strong reform record as governor. Both of them clearly were interested, but each of them, when they reached deep into their motivational being, found that the fires were not sufficiently burning to bring them into the grueling experience of running today for president of the United States.

Because Huckabee had left many clues to his final decision over time, most 2012 scenarios were constructed without him in the race. In Daniels’ case, however, although he came into consideration only relatively recently. it seemed likely that he would enter the field of candidates. That field now stands surprisingly small considering the potential for defeating incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama’s re-election effort.

In fact, the field is now shockingly small, when adding up the most serious contenders, and only when including unannounced former Utah Governor (and U.S. ambassador to China) Jon Huntsman, does it total four (Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty). There are other candidates, of course, (including former Senator Rick Santorum, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, Congressman Ron Paul, and businessman Herman Cain), but the race is most likely to quickly settle into a contest between the strongest hopefuls.

I had thought that former Alaska Governor (and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee) Sarah Palin would not run, but now I’m not so sure. If she does not, then Mrs. Bachmann, hitherto likely to be a minor candidate, could emerge as a stronger contender, especially if Tea Party voters coalesced nationwide behind her.

Does former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who had taken himself out of a run in 2012, become under new pressure to reconsider? Does nationally popular and charismatic New Jersey Governor Chris Christie also receive pressure to run?

Even though he had not run for national office before, and was untested as a presidential candidate, Governor Daniels had seen unexpectedly strong interest in his candidacy recently emerge. Part of this was because the Republican field has turned out to be so small, and there was a growing feeling that a candidate of his experience and temperment was necessary for a better nomination race.

Daniels’ decision might also bring other potentially major candidates into the 2012 contest, but for the time being, we have to evaluate the primary and caucus system with the candidates we know are running, or are very likely to run.

So who is helped? And who is hurt?

The smaller the field, I believe, the better are the chances of the current frontrunner Mitt Romney. His advantages in name-recognition, fundraising and campaign experience are likely, with only a few opponents, to provide him with a larger number of delegates earlier than he might have expected if the field were larger. There will now be a greater urgency for Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Pawlenty, and possibly, Mr. Hunstman to demonstrate their appeal among GOP voters. With Mrs. Bachmann a major player in her home state caucus in Iowa, the first formal voting in the nation, Mr. Pawlenty must find a way to avoid coming in behind her in that tally. Mr. Gingrich’s gaffes and mistakes in the pre-campaign period now become magnified, as he must also demonstrate strength in Iowa (where he has appeared frequently in the past year) and in New Hampshire. Former Speaker Gingrich has been a busy man, writing books, giving speeches and running major public policy organizations, but it’s time for him to focus on running for president and restarting his campaign on a more positive note if he is to be a major contender. Mr. Huntsman is a political blank slate at this point, but he will have to create interest in his candidacy more quickly now.

Amazingly, there is no major Republican candidate now from the South which is the core (along with the West) of GOP and conservative strength in the all-important electoral college. Who will now win the critical early South Carolina primary?

The decisions of Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Daniels, and of the other major Republican figures who have chosen not to run this year, reflects in part how punishing a presidential campaign in the Unites States has become.

Certain traditional elements now will come more into play than before. Who wants the presidency most? Who has the most physical and psychological resilience and endurance to go through the exhausting and brutal process? Who can raise enough money to compete in all or most of the state primaries and caucuses? Who is self-disciplined enough to avoid careless mistakes and statements?

I think most of us who comment and analyze presidential politics anticipated a relatively larger field of serious GOP candidates. There were plenty of them out there. President Obama’s political vulnerabilty has seemed to grow, and not shrink, the economy remains in trouble, Obamacare is still very unpopular, and the Democrats are on the defensive in many public policy issue questions.

What will be the next surprise?

What will happen now?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

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

The Des Moines Register announced over the weekend that they are partnering with PBS, Google, and YouTube to host a debate on January 12, 2012. So our primary calendar now looks like this:

Did I miss an event? Let me know in the comments.

(Also note that CNN had released a date change that I missed for their New Hampshire debate next month; the correct date is noted now.)

Or, “Love the One You’re With.”

After Daniels bowed out, many looked to Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, and even Jeb Bush to swoop in and save us from what the media and establishment types deemed a lackluster field. However, Politico’s Morning Score has a nice wrap up of statements from those four fellows that points us toward the need to accept out current field (which I believe is still pretty strong).

JEB BUSH: “While I am flattered by everyone’s encouragement, my decision has not changed … I will not be a candidate for president in 2012.”

PAUL RYAN: “I’m not running for president, I’m not planning on running for president … My plan is to be a good chairman of the House Budget Committee and fight for the fiscal sanity of this nation.”

RICK PERRY SPOKESMAN MARK MINER: “The governor’s position hasn’t changed … He has no intention to run for president.”

CHRIS CHRISTIE ADVISER MIKE DUHAIME (asked if the governor is 100 percent not running): “Correct.”

So there you go. When it comes to whether or not someone will or can jump in this race late, I tend to agree with Hugh Hewitt’s new column:

[T]he reason various candidates are taking a pass this year is that the top two contenders –Romney and Pawlenty — have essentially locked up the campaign talent and the money commitments necessary to mount a traditional campaign, and that insurgent candidates are already in the hunt in the form of Bachmann, Gingrich and Santorum. Jon Huntsman also presents himself as an unusual sort of candidate taking even more space from the idea of a later entrant…

The political press always wants more candidates. They mean more copy. They love the idea of late entrants and dramatic runs and don’t let the example of Fred Thompson stand in their way…

Only Palin and Texas Governor Rick Perry remain question marks, and there are good reasons for both of them to pass, including the fact that Romney and Pawlenty have launched very well designed campaigns that will not easily be pushed aside. They have both been governors, and governors know how to plan. Palin and Perry know this and know Pawlenty and Romney well. 2016 is out there and both of them would be viable candidates if President Obama rallies and hangs on.

We will have an eleven-candidate field for this primary — twelve if Palin decides to jump in. All of them have flaws. None of them are perfect. But we do have some strong candidates who will be able to defeat Obama and get this country back on track. Instead of looking wistfully out the door hoping another girl shows up at the dance, it’s time to get out on the dance floor with the pretty girls who are already here.

As a nobody who never ran for public office before, clearly my opinion is the first thing on many 2012 contender’s minds. That said, I have an opinion – much like everybody else, on what some of the 2012 candidates should consider in the next stage of the election. Since I don’t generally talk “opinion” here at Race42012, I decided to…do that for once. Here are my comments:

Tim Pawlenty – Shake the appearance of boringness. People perceive him as a safe, boring candidate for President. Tomorrow is T-Paw’s opportunity to prove these nay-sayers wrong. An excited, energetic roll-out will help shake that image. Show active enthusiasm during interviews and display the passion that we all know he must have as a Presidential candidate. I saw him on Huckabee this weekend – he wasn’t bad, but he just did not seem that excited or passionate. He can do this – I have confidence in Pawlenty’s ability to do so. He also needs to reach out (now) to Daniels. Daniels had a built in, ready to go fundraising base / support base from Washington insiders / the old Bush machinery. If Pawlenty can tap into that, it would be a huge deal.

Mitt Romney – Keep doing what you’re doing. Romney’s been able to keep himself above the fray so far and is beginning to formulate an Iowa campaign. Romney isn’t really doing anything specific wrong that I’m seeing thus far. He’s acting the part of front runner well. Keep up the good work, Gov’nah.

Fred Karger – Stay serious, stop talking trash about Romney. Seriously – if Karger displays an air of seriousness, stops the Romney / Mormon bating, and talks about the issues – he could generate some buzz. At the very least, he could generate enough interest in his gadfly candidacy to turn it into a future bid for local office / Congress back in California. He has some serious, insider credentials – he needs to act the part of a serious contender.

Jon Huntsman – Don’t put all your chickens in the basket of Florida. Huntsman will have trouble in Iowa, as he doesn’t have the cultural connection or the social conservative credentials on certain issues: despite his incredibly pro-life views on abortion. Don’t write off Iowa and put more eggs into New Hampshire. A win in New Hampshire could prove pivotal. That said, I just don’t see a clear path to victory for Huntsman without some critical endorsements to boost his conservative credentials: ex. Rick Perry (who he’s reportedly courting) or Mike Huckabee.

Sarah Palin – Make a decision and stick to it. If you want to run for President, do so. If you want to run for US Senate in Arizona, as some are thinking she’ll do – then do it. Just make said decision and make the bid. Now. She needs to capitalize on this support base that she has before it whittles away to nothing – and, so far, it is. It will keep whittling away, especially if this next person enters into the race. The two of them would be competing for a similar base of voters.

Michele Bachmann – Practice, practice, practice. Bachmann is not a stupid woman, but the media will make her look that way. The more she practices, the more she prepares ahead of time, the more she puts in the effort up front to prepare for debates – the better off she’ll be. She needs to come across as a polished candidate IF she announces to actually make any headway among non-Tea Party types.

Newt Gingrich – Drop out and save face. It may sound harsh, but I mean it. If Newt drops his bid now and focuses more on his PAC / supporting like minded candidates, he’ll probably be better off. His campaign roll out was awful. His play for the middle, so far, has been awkward at best. He does his best work in the role as a supportive wonk from the sidelines, as a Presidential contender – he’s not doing as well.

Ron Paul – Not sure what to say to Ron Paul. Paul doesn’t really follow any standard motif in his campaign – he’s running and will probably do exactly the same thing he did in 2008. I recommend he tries to convince Johnson to drop out OR endorse Johnson and join forces. The two of them joining forces and working trying to shore up some of the more libertarian endorsements within the party would be their best bet. They’re both courting the same set of voters, it’d be better for both of them if it was only one of them in the race. The only high profile endorsement Ron Paul will get is US Senator Rand Paul, who happens to be his son…and who would be a huge jerk if he endorsed anyone else.

Herman Cain – I’m going to close with Herman Cain. Why? Because as I’ve said before – I have a soft spot for the competent businessman style candidate and a specific soft spot for Cain. That said, the Cain campaign needs one, primary thing right now – a central foreign policy platform. Specifically, he needs to build up that part of his campaign team and be prepared to answer questions, in at least a philosophical sense, on foreign policy. Cain can articulate up and down fiscal and social issues; on the fair tax, he’s proven he can articulate it better than most supporters I’ve seen. That said, he needs to articulate an overall foreign policy philosophy and expand his camp with some solid, foreign policy related staff. It might be worth reaching out to people like John Bolton to discuss / craft a detailed platform. This is, currently, his greatest weakness. Yes, there’s the lack of political experience – but I don’t perceive that as an issue in the primary or general that people think it will be. I think this is the biggest weakness of the beginning of his campaign and he will need a better foreign policy platform to make more inroads among non-Tea Party types.

Some of this may seem obvious, some of it may seem silly – but it’s my opinion, it’s allowed to be silly. Thoughts welcome.

_______________________________________________________

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

Good stuff.  Excellent production values as usual (though once or twice the music drowned out the words) but a much better fit for the kind of campaign Pawlenty’s running than some of the earlier, hyper-kinetic ads.

With Mitch Daniels out of the race, a lot of eyes are now turning to Rep. Paul Ryan to fill the void of Republican debt-buster in the GOP presidential field. But Rep. Ryan’s statement to David Gregory this morning on Meet the Press should remove all doubt as to Ryan’s plans to stay out:

Note that Ryan seems to leave the door ajar a little when it comes to opportunities that may present themselves, as Ryan puts it, “way down the road.” It sounds as if Ryan is referring to the possibility of being Number Two on the ticket, or perhaps a 2016 run, as opposed to the 2012 plunge that supporters were hoping he’d take. I mean, come on, “way down the road” is not a June 2011 exploratory committee. Nor is it even a Labor Day 2011 campaign launch. “Way down the road” is, at earliest, a Summer 2012 veep invite.

Let’s face it, folks, the field is pretty much set in stone.

For those who missed it, on May 21, 2011, Herman Cain formally announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President. Here’s his announcement video.

Feel free to post your thoughts below.

_______________________________________________________

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

Mitch Daniels is not running for President — much to the unbridled joy of Pawlenty supporters and the collective groans of Romney folks. So where does that decision leave us as far as the state of the race now?

Well, the so-called “Fairfax Four” have been whittled down to three: Romney, Pawlenty, and Huntsman. In current reality, it would take quite a bit for Huntsman to rise to the level of Romney or Pawlenty now — I think it would have been easier for him had that top tier technocrat vote been split four ways rather than just three. So really, the top tier is mainly a knock-down drag-out between Romney and Pawlenty now.

This leaves a gaping hole in the electorate, however, who crave a social-issues first kind of candidate. And so from where I’m sitting, unless something drastic changes (Christie, Jeb, Ryan, Perry, etc), here’s what this race essentially boils down to right now: Mitt vs. T-Paw vs. So-Con.

The so-con will be whichever of Cain, Santorum, Palin, or Bachmann catch on first (if Palin even decides to run). These four will more or less have a sub-primary to determine who gets enough support to enter the three-way battle at the top.

We will most likely have eleven candidates in the race soon. Eight of them will not have a chance at winning. Mitt, T-Paw, and the so-con candidate will. Which is why, taking this hypothesis one step further, it will all come down to Iowa.

Specifically, it will all come down to how those three place in Iowa, and how close those places are. For instance, if Iowa ends up as Mitt one, So-con two, and T-Paw three, then Mitt walks away with the nomination. Or, if So-con places one, Mitt two, and Pawlenty three, advantage still goes to Mitt to win.

If, however, Pawlenty places two to Mitt’s three in Iowa, then it leans advantage Pawlenty. If Mitt takes first and T-Paw finishes a close second, the race probably becomes a 50/50 tossup depending on the expectations leading into the caucus.

If T-Paw places first in Iowa, then there’s a stronger chance he wins the nomination — depending on if Mitt is in second, and by how much. If Mitt places third in Iowa, he most likely does not get the nomination (again, unless it is really close – but even then, the headlines would be something he likely wouldn’t overcome).

I won’t belabor the point any longer here, but you can go through and play out each scenario of how those three will finish in Iowa, and see how it will ultimately affect the entire race now. And so, as much as I don’t like it as a Mitt supporter, the corn fields of Iowa may very well be where the trajectory of this race is determined this year.

By now, I’m sure you all have heard the news that Governor Daniels of Indiana is taking himself out of the race for President. As a longtime Daniels supporter, this was very disappointing to me. However, the reason why the Governor chose not to run is completely understandable. Here is a portion of the Governor’s email via Politico

In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one, but that, the interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all. If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry”.

So, the Governor put his family’s reservations over any desire to run for President. As anyone who has run for office or had a family member run for office will tell you, it is a tough experience on a family. Everything everyone in the family does is held under scrutiny and it becomes a rough endurance test both during the campaign and if they win, after the election. Having gone through it myself, I can’t blame anyone who doesn’t want to have to deal with it.

Now, turning to the so cons. Ever since Governor Daniels suggested that we put social issues on the back-burner until we get our fiscal house in order, many social conservatives have been calling for his blood. “He’s a liberal”, “he wants to put us on the back of the bus”, “he’s a RINO”, all these epithets were hurled at the Indiana Governor. Despite the fact that he signed one of the most profound pieces of education reform in the country, despite the fact that he signed a strong anti-abortion law in Indiana, despite his actual record, so cons just couldn’t get over that one little phrase. Even though Daniels has governed in a way that should please social conservatives, it was his rhetoric, not his record that they latched onto. To me, that shows a certain element of hypocrisy; I always thought that a person’s deeds counted more than their words. Apparently, it didn’t to the loudmouths who try and say they are in charge of the so-con movement.

Well, Daniels is out of the race, and he’s out because his family doesn’t want to go through the nonsense of a presidential campaign. Here, the Governor is putting the wants and desires of his family over ambition. Is not putting family first one of the biggest tenets of social conservatism? Or are words still all that matter?

The social conservatives who gleefully bashed Governor Daniels over his “truce” comment owe the Governor an apology. I doubt he’ll get it though.

From one governor to another:

“Mitch Daniels is a friend of mine and one of the best governors in the country. While he may not be running, he is an intellectual powerhouse and will continue to play a leading role in the Party’s politics and the Nation’s policies. Mitch and I agree that America’s out-of-control national debt is a threat to our nation’s future, and that the next president must restore fiscal responsibility in Washington, DC. Mary and I wish Cheri and Mitch all the best.”

Maybe it’s my limited experience with politics talking, but I really can’t understand why the Republicans pining for Daniels to enter the race don’t move to Pawlenty. T-Paw arguably has a better record than Daniels on spending – supposedly Mitch’s signature issue, offers a more appealing personal background and story, doesn’t have a history of potentially damning statements on health care and taxes, shows better political instincts, and displays greater interest in the issue most salient to a plurality of voters: jobs.

Other than Daniels’ history in Washington and Ivy League pedigree, why would the establishment display so much more enthusiasm for him than Pawlenty? I just don’t quite get it. Please, someone with more extensive political knowledge, help me understand.

Daniels Truce Turns Into Surrender.

Issuing an official statement by email to followers, Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana announced late last night that he is not going to run for President of the United States in 2012.   Sadly, Daniels had become most known for his truce comments and recently discovered older comments he made about avoiding wedge issues.   This will override the fact that he governed as a social conservative.  He was in my top three as a replacement for Mike Huckabee.

In the end he cited his wife’s veto power and his love for her as settling the decision for him.

Keep governing the way you have, sir.  We can use a few more like you.

Pence is out, Huckabee is out, Barbour is out.  (Bush, Jindal, Perry, Christie were never in)

Santorum is in.  Cain is in.  Romney is in.  Johnson is in.  Paul is probably in.  Judge Moore is in.   Bachmann, Huntsman, and Palin are neither in or out.

Pawlenty is in more than anybody.  Gingrich is in it.

Karger is way out.

Did I leave anybody out who should have been in?

Did I leave anybody in who should have been out?

Most probably already know about this, but Herman Cain has officially announced his candidacy:

“In case you accidentally listen to a skeptic or doubting Thomas out there, just to be clear … I’m running for president of the United States, and I’m not running for second,” he said.

“Let me tell you what the Cain Doctrine would be: We ain’t raising the debt ceiling,” he said, to loud cheers. “We are going to cut cut the spending.”

…Cain has said he supports a strong military, lower taxes, less regulation, a return to the gold standard and he has openly been critical of President Obama’s health care plan.

While I doubt the ultimate viability of a candidate with zero prior political experience, even in this environment of unprecedented levels of anti-Washington sentiment, I must admit that Cain seems almost tailor-made for talk radio-types and much of the Tea Party.

The South Bend Tribune had an interesting write-up on Mitch Daniels, in which they discussed his habit of boarding with his constituents, instead of in hotels, while traveling within Indiana:

Mary said the governor quipped, “Here comes Mitch the Mooch,” upon entering the house.
The Kahls, who described themselves as not very political, had never met Daniels before. That didn’t matter, though. Having him over felt like a low-key visit from a friend, they said.

Daniels and the family sat at the dining room table, eating chips and salsa and chatting until about 11:30 p.m. Ben and Gabe were allowed to stay up past their usual bed times.

They talked about their families, Indiana, garage sales, wrestling, the Kahls’ former home in Iowa. Politics and the presidency never came up.

“It was really easy to talk to him,” Kevin said.

“There were times during the conversation,” Mary added, “when I thought, ‘This is the governor sitting in our dining room.’ He’s just so down to earth.”

Although Daniels clearly avoided discussing the issues during his stay, this report nonetheless shows his impressive skills in retail politics. He’ll need them in the early states, should he choose to run.

And last but not least, Tim Pawlenty has made another noteworthy addition to his Iowa campaign organization:

Prospective presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty announced a key staff addition Friday: Ed Failor Jr., former president of Iowans for Tax Relief.

Failor, of Muscatine, will serve as a senior consultant to Pawlenty’s exploratory team.

Failor recently departed from Iowans for Tax Relief, one of the most powerful political action organizations in Iowa, and, for Republican presidential candidates, a much-sought pool of fiscally focused Iowans.

The article also mentions three other members of Pawlenty’s Iowa inner circle, including Eric Woolson, Mike Huckabee’s Iowa Campaign Manager in 2008.

Despite the relative lack of headlines he has received, T-Paw clearly intends to play for keeps in the Hawkeye State.

Governor Mitt Romney spent the day in South Carolina. From the AP:

He made his first trip to the state since forming a presidential exploratory committee, plying a crowd with mustard-based barbecue and boiled peanuts, photo ops with cute kids and meeting with business owners carping about jobless benefits and illegal immigration. He left with a pair of endorsements from state legislators.
…
The economy is what Romney emphasized Saturday. He met privately with about 30 business owners in nearby Chapin before the town hall and barbecue buffet at the plumbing business.

Romney said he’d spoken with South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, one of his backers in 2008
…
Romney, who’s expected to enter the race in the coming weeks, has laid more groundwork than others in a state where Republicans brag that they’ve picked the winner of the GOP nomination contest for 30 years.

In last year’s elections, his political action committees poured more than $86,000 into campaigns, including $63,000 to Gov. Nikki Haley’s campaign.

She supported Romney last time when she was in the Legislature, but is remaining neutral so far. Her endorsement would be a major prize.

Romney came away with endorsements from Rep. Nathan Ballentine, an Irmo Republican who was Haley’s state House colleague and remains a close ally, as well as from state Rep. Chip Huggins of Columbia.
…
Romney says he generally supports the proposal offered by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan but details of what he will offer will be different.

“The Ryan plan and my plan are on the same page. We have the same objectives. My plan is different than his — it’s not identical,” Romney said.

I can’t help but think of all those so-called experts who declared categorically that Romney was going to skip Iowa and South Carolina this cycle. Moral of the story: Take what “experts” say with a grain of salt. The more certain their statements are, the bigger the grain of salt.

Conservatives are going apoplectic over the latest poll out of New York’s 26th Congressional District, showing Democrat Kathy Hochul besting Republican Jane Corwin by a margin of 42 to 38 percent, with Tea Party candidate Jack Davis taking just 12 percent. NY-26 is one of those ancestral Rust Belt Republican seats that were largely taken over by Democrats in 2006 and 2008, only to return to the GOP in 2010. But in the case of NY-26, Republicans managed to hold onto the district throughout the last decade, only now finding themselves on the verge of a loss. Is this evidence of a popular backlash to Ryanomics? Or something else?

The poll’s internals are fascinating, both in terms of how they shake out for this race, and what they portend for the presidential race to come. A 60 percent supermajority of voters care first and foremost about three issues: the economy, entitlements, and government spending. The voters who care about these three issues are divided fairly evenly between them, with 21 percent listing Medicare as their foremost issue, 19 percent opining that the deficit is most important, and 20 percent citing jobs. Incidentally, another 12 percent are primarily concerned with taxes, and an additional 12 percent is focused on health care. That’s 84 percent of the vote focused on economic and fiscal issues. Social issues and defense aren’t even on the radar screen this year.

The most ominous statistic for Republicans appears to be the fact that the 21 percent of voters who are voting on the entitlement question are breaking 38%-9% for the Democrat. Coming from a Republican district, that seems to suggest that Ryanomics is DOA coming out of the gate. But the statistic that everyone is missing is the fact that the 19 percent of voters who care most about the deficit favor the Republican candidate by a margin of 30%-9%. That suggests that the overall issue of spending/debt/entitlements is pretty much a wash. The results are a bit deceptive due to the way pollsters are asking the question. Of course the bulk of respondents who claim that their number one issue is “Medicare” are going to be the folks opposed to cuts or changes in entitlement programs, just as the folks who claim that their primary concern is “the deficit” are going to be the ones who favor those changes. A better way to look at the issue is that 40 percent of voters in the district are voting on the issue of the federal budget and all it entails, and they’re pretty much evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. This is still pretty depressing coming from a Republican district. But it’s not as bad as the topline results suggest.

The thing that’s really killing the Republican candidate in this district isn’t Ryanomics, but jobs. The 20 percent of voters who make jobs their number one issue are evenly divided between the Republican and the Democrat, 17%-17%. Meanwhile, the Tea Party candidate takes fully 44 percent of that segment of the electorate. That’s a larger percentage than the two major party candidates put together.

In this sort of environment, the Republican Party should be cleaning up on the jobs issue. But it’s not, largely because it hasn’t made a convincing case to the American people that it knows how to spur job growth in an America that appears to be in decline. The Republican message of tax cuts plus fewer regulations isn’t taking off this time around. It’s not resonating with the folks on the ground who feel that they don’t need another Republican tax cut, nor do they need another Democratic subsidy, they just need a job. The Tea Party in this sense symbolizes a sort of small-p populist sentiment that the establishment is either unable or unwilling to make the sorts of changes that will lead to job growth. And in this case, its standard bearer, former Democrat Jack Davis, is running on an anti-free trade platform, a stance he is known for given his previous runs in the district on the Democratic line.

Davis’ promise to put the genie of globalization back in the bottle is both unrealistic and ill-conceived. But it’s also a message that will resonate with regular folks on the ground in an environment like this one. To a voter in NY-26 who makes $45,000 a year, the Republican message of lower taxes and the Democratic message of greater spending probably seem equally inane, as such a voter is earning too little for additional tax cuts to provide any meaningful windfall, and is earning too much for any potential Democratic programs to favorably impact. Meanwhile, the protectionist Tea Party candidate is the only candidate offering a solution that entails real, actual, tangible jobs coming to the community.

Republicans shouldn’t blame the Tea Party candidate for their woes. This isn’t a Tea Party problem. This is a Republican problem. Republicans need an actual plan to bring real economic growth back to America. Republicans need to be able to explain to voters that globalization isn’t just inevitable, it’s here, and that America will only succeed if it learns to compete and win in a global economy, not by reverting to the 1950s. Republicans who ignore the issue of jobs because they don’t have an answer, or because their answer is to pretend this is 1981 and that they can run on marginal income tax rates, or because they think that the Democrats will implode on the economy on their own are missing the bigger picture. Americans want solutions on the economy and they aren’t convinced that the Republicans are going to be any better than the Democrats on this issue. If a Democrat wins in NY-26, it will be a wake-up call to Republicans not to abandon Ryanomics, but to focus on the thing that the average American wants most: a job.

Foreign policy has always stood out as one of my favorite things to debate or see debated here at Race. So, when I saw this AP article about China seeking to expand their influence in Pakistan, I figured it would prompt another stimulating, enlightening discussion from our community:

China has agreed to provide Pakistan with 50 more fighter jets in a deal clinched during Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s trip to Beijing, Pakistani defense officials said Friday.

Gilani’s four-day visit highlighted Pakistan’s warm ties with China at a time of heightened tensions with Washington over the killing of Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani town by American special forces.

Pakistan is seen as eager to show a demanding Washington that it has a strong diplomatic alternative in uncritical ally China.

…Defense cooperation is a major aspect of what Pakistan and China call their “all-weather friendship,” a term Islamabad accentuates in contrast to more fickle Washington relations.

…While both countries have troubled relations with the U.S., it isn’t clear yet whether warmer ties between them will diminish the importance of their links to Washington.

Pakistan is furious that the U.S. did not inform it in advance of the May 1 raid that took out bin Laden. Some U.S. lawmakers want the billions in American aid sent to Pakistan reviewed amid suspicions that elements of its security forces protected bin Laden.

“I think Gilani hopes that by cozying up to Beijing, Islamabad can hedge its bets both vis-a-vis Washington to take it seriously and vis-a-vis New Delhi as a big power supporter against India,” said analyst Hugh White, a former Australian Defense Department chief.

Does this information support the frequent assertion by neo-conservatives that if the U.S. retreats from global commitments and ties, other, less benevolent, nations will fill the void – that America can shape global events or get shaped by them? Or does it simply suggest that the U.S. needs to revamp its diplomacy operations and objectives, with more concern and effort dedicated to advancing clear messages and goals and maintaining strategic support for allies?

Have at it!

Sarah Palin was on Greta Thursday night. Greta asked her if she had the “fire in the belly” to run. Sarah replied:

“I think my problem is that I do have that fire in my belly. I am so adamantly supportive of the good traditional things about America and our free enterprise system and I want to make sure that America is put back on the right track and we only do that by defeating Obama in 2012. I have that fire in my belly”

That statement almost perfectly encapsulates both why I like and admire Sarah Palin and why I have doubts about her running.

First, there is that wise old saying, “If you’ve got to SAY you’ve got it, you ain’t got it.”

Second, read Governor Palin’s statement again more carefully. I will agree 100% with Palin that she does indeed have fire in the belly for “…the good traditional things about America and our free enterprise system”, for “… mak[ing] sure that America is put back on the right track”, and for “…defeating Obama in 2012″.

I have been watching Governor Palin closely for nearly three years now, and I will gladly testify that she has indeed displayed fire in the belly for those things many, many times. That is why I truly admire and respect this lady.

However, nowhere in her answer does she actually claim to have the “fire in the belly” for becoming President. And therein lies the problem. I have just not seen that strong of a drive in her to toss her hat into the ring. Her many fans certainly have the drive. There can be no question about that. Yet does she? Of that, there is doubt.

I love that recent comment by Ed Rollins. It should become a political proverb. “The candidate has to want it at least as bad as the supporter”, or words to that effect. Does Sarah Palin have a desire to become President that is just as strong (if not stronger) as her supporters’? My apologies to Sarah’s many fans on this board and elsewhere, but I have just not seen it so far this cycle. It’s just not there. Sorry.

It’s a question that I’ve been pondering for months now. The former Utah governor doesn’t fit neatly into any Republican niche, and seems ill-suited for a year in which the grassroots is angry, the party has moved right-ward, and huge vacuums exist for candidates who appeal to one or more of the following three groups: a) Republicans whose first priority is size of government/deficits/spending, b) Republicans who want a candidate who exudes strength, courage, and fortitude, and c) Republicans who demand a culturally “red” nominee (i.e., Southern, evangelical, rural, etc). Not only does Jon Huntsman appeal to none of these groups, he’s actually pretty close to the opposite of what these groups are looking for. Indeed, Huntsman seems to add yet another wonkish, establishment-oriented GOP governor to a field chalked full of such candidates.

As such, I think Andrew Sullivan is correct that Huntsman is running for 2016. Sullivan points to the analysis of center-left columnist Ezra Klein, who has rounded up Huntsman’s actual positions on the issues:

So he doesn’t oppose cap-and-trade because global warming is a hoax, or the science is unsettled. He opposes it because a) any solution will have to be international and b) we need to be worried about the economy right now. He’s not against stimulus in theory, but he thought the specific stimulus Obama passed was poorly designed. He doesn’t defend the specifics of Ryan’s changes to Medicare, but supports them because the mounting national debt has forced us to consider “proposals that would’ve been laughed out of the room” at another time.

Note the backhanded compliment that Huntsman gives to Ryanomics. It’s almost as if Huntsman is saying that Republicans are right about the entitlement problem, but are offering completely crazy solutions. That makes me think that Huntsman knows that he’s not going to get anywhere near the nomination in 2012, and that the governor is embarking on a bit of a gamble. Huntsman is betting that Republicans will lose next year, and lose big, and that their loss will be attributed to swing voter concerns with the Ryan plan, as well as the angry, abrasive politics of the grassroots. Huntsman can then ride in on a white horse in 2016 as the anti-Tea Party, anti-Ryanomics candidate, with a Third Way approach to the issues and with a cerebral, wonkish style that GOP voters will finally have learned to appreciate.

If this is Huntsman’s plan, I think he’s going to be disappointed. Even if the president is re-elected next year — heck, even if it’s a rout, with Obama besting Michele Bachmann by a dozen points — it’s unlikely that the GOP electorate will experience any sort of seismic shift, either in terms of ideology or with regard to the sort of candidate that appeals to the various factions of the base. Tea Party angst may subside eventually, but the Republican electorate will still want essentially the same things that it wants today, just delivered and packaged a bit differently. An angry Republican Party that loses in 2012 may be replaced with an optimistic Republican Party in 2016, for example. But that doesn’t mean that Republicans will all of the sudden begin to believe in man-made global warming, or will cease to prefer Southern candidates. If Republicans lose in 2012, the GOP nominee in 2016 will likely be a positive, forward-looking Sunbelt politician who checks all of the boxes required by the base. Someone more like Marco Rubio than Jon Huntsman.

Gov. Gary Johnson’s statement on the arrival of the 60 days War Powers deadline for congressional authorization of the Libya War:

Maybe, just maybe, they forgot.  Or maybe they actually  believe that what the U.S. is doing in Libya somehow doesn’t constitute the use of our armed forces — $750 million worth of bombs and missiles notwithstanding.  Whatever the reason, it is obvious that the President has no intention of  complying with the War Powers Act with regard to our military intervention in Libya.

(more…)

From the AP:

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is running for the GOP presidential nomination and will announce his bid Monday in Iowa.

That’s according to an adviser with direct knowledge of the plans. The adviser tells The Associated Press Pawlenty will declare his candidacy at a town hall style event in Des Moines, Iowa. The adviser disclosed the information on condition of anonymity.

As quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

ARLINGTON — Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney dropped in at a barbecue restaurant Thursday, taking jabs at President Barack Obama for his economic and healthcare policies and newly espoused stance on a Palestinian state.

Romney also heaped praise on Gov. Rick Perry, whom commentator Rush Limbaugh has been advancing as a candidate for president in 2012.

“He’s done a heck of a job,” Romney said of Perry, citing the state’s business-friendly environment. “The rest of the country could learn a lot of lessons from Gov. Perry.”

Romney drew an enthusiastic midafternoon crowd at Rudy’s Country Store and Bar-B-Q off Interstate 20 in Arlington, after local Republican groups publicized the appearance over the weekend. Dressed down in bluejeans and a button-down shirt, he reeled off a string of one-liners, signed autographs, and posed for pictures before sitting down to a $9 lunch of a pulled pork sandwich, cole slaw and beans with several of the restaurant’s managers.

Romney accused Obama of having “thrown our ally Israel under the bus” after Obama on Thursday laid out his vision for the Middle East, including a Palestinian state based on borders in place before the Six-Day War of 1967, in which Israel seized the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

“You stand by your friends,” Romney said, drawing one of several ovations.

Romney also poked fun at Obama’s handling of the economy, telling the crowd “it helps if you’ve had a job.”

And the lunch with the restaurant’s managers?

Andy Sedino, managing partner and operations director for the Rudy’s franchise in North Texas, said Romney asked the restaurant managers about the local labor market, sales in comparable stores and the company’s growth during lunch, which Romney paid for.

Is the governor a big tipper? That one will have to wait.

“We don’t take tips,” Sedino said.

What is being billed as the “…first TV ad targeting a GOP 2012er this cycle” is now running in South Carolina. The ad is being run by Priorities USA Action, a Democratic group with close ties to the White House. It is aimed at Mitt Romney on Medicare and the Ryan budget.

One of the leaders of the group, former Obama White House aide Bill Burton, says the ad will run at election-year levels across the state this weekend, which just happens to be the first weekend that Romney is spending in South Carolina.

Romney’s campaign was quick to pounce. His spokeswoman Andrea Saul responded:

“President Obama and his team are desperate to change the subject to anything other than jobs and the millions of Americans out of work. With 9.6% unemployment in South Carolina, voters are looking for a jobs plan not a smear campaign.”

Mitt has really taken the lessons of 2008 to heart. As he is wont to say, “Focus, focus, focus”.

So we already knew that six campaigns have committed to playing the Ames game at the straw poll in August:

• Michelle Bachmann
• Herman Cain
• Newt Gingrich
• Ron Paul
• Tim Pawlenty
• Rick Santorum

And we also knew that Huntsman will probably skip the event. But what about Romney? Daniels? Moore?

Well, yesterday nine campaigns sent representatives to a Straw Poll meeting with the Iowa GOP. This meeting was to discuss the rules, the layout, and the process for the actual event on August 13. The six campaigns above were joined by representatives from the following three camps:

• Fred Karger
• Roy Moore
• Mitt Romney

So is Mitt planning to play Ames? If attendance at this meeting is any indication (and at some level, it is), then it would appear so. As interesting as who was there is who wasn’t: Daniels, Johnson, Roemer and Huntsman. One has to wonder if Johnson and Roemer’s hearts are really in this thing anymore. And what Daniels is thinking. Not attending this meeting doesn’t mean that they can’t contest Ames, but it certainly sets them at an unnecessary early disadvantage.

Obama gave a speech today talking about America’s new policy towards Israel. Once again he shows his utter lack of competence in negotiation. He proposes that Israel starts by pulling back to 1967 borders. It only gets worse after that.

It didn’t take long for Republicans to pounce. Quoting from The Hill:

President Obama “disrespected” Israel and threw it “under the bus” in a wide-ranging speech on the Middle East on Thursday, GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney charged.

Romney strongly criticized Obama, who, in a speech at the State Department, called for Israel to return to its border lines as drawn before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace,” Romney said in a statement.

“He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends,” added the former Massachusetts governor.

The Hill went on to quote other Republicans:

“President Obama has betrayed Israel and made a grievous mistake by suggesting borders of Israel go back to pre-1967 borders. This is an outrage to peace, sovereignty of Israel, and a stable Middle East,” former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), a 2008 Republican presidential candidate who’s been a staunch supporter of Israel, said in a statement.

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), meanwhile, suggested Obama’s stance could represent “the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.”Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, another Republican presidential candidate, declined to comment on the Obama speech during an appearance on the Rush Limbaugh radio show this afternoon, explaining that he hadn’t yet been able to listen to the speech or digest its contents.

The speech didn’t go over too well with our closest ally in the Middle-east, either.

The political battle lines emerged quickly on Thursday afternoon after Obama’s speech, especially after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the president’s call for a return to 1967 borders.

Netanyahu will meet with Obama on Friday at the White House, and he’ll stay in Washington over the weekend before addressing the AIPAC conference Monday and a joint meeting of Congress on Tuesday.

The sheer depth of this administration’s incompetence is truly staggering. Does Obama not know that in negotiation, one starts from a position of strength and only slowly pulls back as the other side pulls back. You give a little, they give a little. You don’t begin by giving away the farm.

Yet that is precisely what that community organizer from Chicago is suggesting Israel do. The sooner we kick him out of office, the better.

More Daniels news from the National Journal; looks like the governor’s financial operation is full steam ahead:

Beginning late last year, the two-term Republican flipped the switch on a long-dormant political committee, Aiming Higher, that is qualified to accept donations in unlimited amounts. Since late last year, he has raked in more than $675,000 in contributions from individuals and organizations across the country, including $250,000 from the American Federation for Children, a group that promotes school vouchers. Meanwhile, Daniels’s better-known political fundraising arm, the Aiming Higher PAC, raised $2.2 million last year, when the term-limited Daniels was not on the ballot.

According to a new report from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, the haul puts Daniels ahead of every other potential presidential candidate when it came to fundraising from state-level PACs. Only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came close; his state PACs raised a combined $1.6 million. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s state PACs raised $337,000.

Team Romney has made a couple eyebrow-raising hires in the past couple of days.

Yesterday he hired Mark DeMoss, an evangelical leader and founder of The DeMoss Group (the nation’s largest public relations agency serving Christian leaders) and DeMoss News. DeMoss will serve as a senior adviser to the Romney campaign.

This morning, Romney announced the hire of David Raad in South Carolina. Raad served as George W. Bush’s regional director in South Carolina for the 2000 election, and then led W’s re-election efforts in Missouri in 2004.

These hires are particularly interesting because of all the chatter about the problems Romney has with evangelicals and the questions of whether or not he will fight to contest South Carolina. While the pundits are busy talking and speculating, Romney is busy building a campaign team.