After today’s record-breaking telethon, Mitt headed to nearby UNLV (University of Nevada — Las Vegas) where he treated a dozen Republican students to a meal at In-and-Out Burger — a popular fast food place in these parts. While eating, he talked economic policy. He chowed down his burger while his guests just nibbled on some fries. “Looks like I’m the only guy who wanted a burger at four in the afternoon”, he quipped. Of course, his body was likely still on Boston time (7:00PM).
I can’t help but contrast that with another Massachusetts resident who recently ran for President. The story is told of John Kerry’s 2004 campaign bus pulling up to a Wendy’s somewhere in New York state. Kerry and company got out and ordered food just like a regular Joe (chili and cheeseburgers). He and his entourage then took their orders and piled back onto the bus where they promptly tossed the peasant food into the trash and dined on gourmet takeout instead.
Some of Mitt’s comments this afternoon:
That comment about Mike Huckabee is interesting in light of what Mike said yesterday about Mitt:
“[L]et me tell you something. I’ve got a wonderful voice mail from Mitt Romney last night, which I thought was gracious on his part. You know, there has been a lot of talk about Mitt Romney and me. And we don’t socialize together. We’re not close, you know, in personal ways.
But I want to make it very clear today, if Mitt Romney is the nominee for our party, I will support him because I believe that Mitt Romney would be better president of the United States than Barack Obama on any day. And whether he is my first choice, I will support him if he is our nominee. And he very well may be.”
It would appear that Mike is at last intent upon letting bygones be bygones. Good for him. I wish him well.
Red State Editor Erick Erickson is hearing that Gov. Mitch Daniels will take the plunge into the presidential field.
As Matt Drudge would say, I’m certain this story is developing hard. For Erickson to put his reputation on the line like this makes me suspect that the scoop is in fact valid.
If Daniels is in, that almost certainly means Ryan and Christie are out, and that the search for an establishment candidate will come to an end (i.e., no late entries by Jeb Bush or Rick Perry). It also means that the doors to the field will slam shut, with only Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin still able to slip in at will.
Sunshine State Communications (R) Florida 2012 GOP Primary Survey
- Mitt Romney 16%
- Newt Gingrich 15%
- Mike Huckabee 11%
- Chris Christie 9%
- Sarah Palin 8%
- Mitch Daniels 3%
- Michele Bachmann 3%
- Tim Pawlenty 2%
- Jon Huntsman 1%
- Undecided/Someone else 32%
Note: This poll was conducted before Mike Huckabee announced he would not run for President.
Survey of 689 likely Republican primary voters was conducted May 11-13, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.73 percentage points.
–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.
Politico/GWU Battleground 2012 Survey
- Barack Obama 52%
- Mitt Romney 40%
- Barack Obama 52%
- Tim Pawlenty 38%
How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President? Do you approve or disapprove of the job he is doing?
- Strongly approve 34% (35%)
- Approve 18% (11%)
- Disapprove 10% (6%)
- Strongly disapprove 34% (45%)
Whether you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President, what is your impression of Barack Obama as a person? Do you approve or disapprove of him?
- Strongly approve 48% (47%)
- Somewhat approve 24% (18%)
- Somewhat disapprove 4% (6%)
- Strongly disapprove 15% (19%)
Dubuque, Ia. — Newt Gingrich got a not-so-nice welcome here today.
As he was getting ready to leave a speaking engagement Dubuque resident Russell Fuhrman approached him in the lobby of the Holiday Inn:
“Get out now before you make a bigger fool of yourself,” Fuhrman said directly to Gingrich.
Gingrich, visibly stunned, quickly moved forward to talk with other guests.
Fuhrman told The Register afterward that he just happened to be at the hotel. He said he’s upset with Gingrich’s disagreements with parts of the House Republican Medicare reform plan.
Fuhrman said he’s a solid Republican but that Ginrich “is a jerk.”
“I’m a strong Republican but he’s an embarrassment to our party,” Fuhrman said.
Prediction: Gingrich will be out well before the Iowa caucus ever takes place.
Need a reason to call Mitt Romney the frontrunner for the GOP nomination?
How about ten and a quarter million reasons?
The official news hasn’t been released yet (it probably will be soon), but Twitter is abuzz with the figures from Romney’s dial for dollars fundraiser today: over $10.2 million.
$10.2 million.
That is simply remarkable and unheard of. This is a major win for Team Romney today, blowing away expectations and setting Mitt up as the guy to beat now.
Can anyone else keep pace with this fundraising? Will they have to?
There’s been a lot of discussion about who benefits from Huckabee’s exit from the race, and whether his supporters will go to Pawlenty or Santorum, Romney or Huntsman, or fragment. I want to suggest an out of the box alternative, one that I’m not entirely convinced of, but which I think merits some consideration: might Huckanuts gravitate toward Herman Cain? And might Cain do a lot better than anyone is expecting right now?
First, the case for Huck supporters backing Cain. Many of the attributes Huckabee has, Kaine has also. Both are southern, social conservative supporters of the fair tax. Both are extremely charismatic. In particular, both are excellent multi-media communicators, which is pivotal in an election process like ours. Both men were excluded from the list of “top four” candidates in their respective elections, but have a profile totally unlike the similar-appearing guys at the top. Finally, both Huckabee and Cain seem capable of passing the test that matters the most in politics, the “beer test”. If voters don’t think they could invite you to a family picnic, they’re going to have a hard time voting for you for President. It may not be a rational or wonky means of political decision-making, but it is a widespread and statistically-supported reality.
In addition, Cain has one advantage which has been under-discussed; he’s not a politician. Amidst the furor over Huckabee’s announcement, the West Virginia primary has gone somewhat unnoticed. A few months ago, I mentioned mining executive Bill Maloney for the first time; a big-spending businessman who spent a lot of money to get out his personal story of helping Chilean miners trapped in a mine collapse last year. At the time, Maloney was polling well behind prohibitive favorite, former Secretary of State Betty Ireland, but late PPP polling showed the race a dead heat, and when West Virginians voted on Saturday, they gave Maloney a double digit victory in the primary. I’ll be watching the Kentucky primary closely now; I still expect state senate president David Williams to win comfortably, but if his margin against businessman Phil Moffett is less than expected, we have some evidence that the Republican electorate remains in an anti-politician kinda mood.
This might give Cain an opening, and a real path to victory. Cain is easily distinguishable from other candidates in the race, partially because he’s African-American, but even more because he’s only run for political office once. If the narrative that the Republican front-runners are a bunch of middle-aged, white, technocratic, career politicians, Cain has a real opportunity to win over voters looking for something completely different. His strong social conservatism and fair tax bonafides could allow him to bring Huckanuts unpersuaded by other candidates into his camp, along with tea partiers who are still looking for a candidate.
I see three potential weaknesses for Cain. The first is a lack of foreign policy specificity in particular. Cain can probably make up ground pretty easily on most domestic issues, but he’s got to do better on foreign policy in 2012 than Huckabee did in 2008. Huckabee’s lack of depth on this issue was telling, and Cain could very well get bitten hard if there’s a major foreign policy crisis between now and the election. I think a lot of my foreign policy advice for Daniels is transferable to Cain, figure out your foreign policy decision-making style and staff up accordingly, but Cain needs to act fast. Second is fund-raising. Cain will need to build a national money apparatus, and he will need to do it quickly. Cain can’t count on a lot of the “big money” donors to gravitate to him, not right a way at least. He can probably make the best start on this by positioning himself as the “southern candidate”, which means he needs to get Newt Gingrich out of the way. Aside from Gingrich, there’s no real candidate running at the moment who could compete with Cain for the southern mantle, and if he can make a strong enough push, he may start getting some money from southern Republicans.
Second, Cain can try a small-donor strategy. Hiring Marco Rubio’s on-line fund-raising team might be a good place to start. The third issue for Cain is his previous loss in the 2004 senate primary, but this could potentially be an opportunity as well. Cain could argue that he was a tea party challenger long before it was cool, trying to beat the more moderate Johnny Isaakson in a primary (of course, this runs the risk of needlessly antagonizing Isaakson). The real issue here for Cain is that the Republican presidential primary electorate doesn’t like protest votes, or backing candidates who have demonstrated that they can win. Cain, therefore, will have to make a clear and powerful case that, while others can’t beat Obama, he can. It’s a hard case to make, but with the removal of the most well-known of the fair-tax-supporting social conservatives in the race, it may be a somewhat more possible one.
From the official release of Huckabee’s 2008 SC Chair, Mike Campbell:
“Like all of us who worked so hard for my good friend Mike Huckabee’s 2008 campaign, I was disappointed he decided not to run for president this year. However, in the quest to replace Barack Obama, we must quickly look to the future.
“On his recent visit to South Carolina, I had the opportunity to meet with Governor Jon Huntsman, and I was extremely impressed. As Governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman demonstrated he is the type of problem-solver our country needs. He’s a proven conservative who cut taxes, grew jobs, passed free-market health care reform, and signed strong pro-life legislation.
“Like my Dad, Huntsman was a popular Governor who kept his promises and left office with a powerful record of achievement. As more South Carolinians get to know Governor Huntsman, I believe they will come to the same conclusion I have — that he is the right leader for our party and our country in this important election.
“Governor Huntsman and I spoke on the phone today, and we had a great conversation. I strongly urged him to run for the Republican nomination for President and offered my enthusiastic support if he does.”
According to today’s Gallup daily tracking poll, President Obama’s approval rating stands at 46 percent.
The president’s approval rating immediately prior to the May 1st announcement that Osama bin Laden was dead: 46 percent.
In just two weeks, the bounce that the president received from the successful mission to destroy OBL has evaporated in its entirety.
Well, I could have told you that. In fact, I did.
“2012 Can’t Come Fast Enough,” is the title of a direct mail solicitation sent out by former governor Sarah Palin for her political action committee, SarahPAC. Around 400,000 solicitations were sent out nationwide.
“Taking back control of the House last year was only the first step,” Palin writes in the mailer. “Now you and I must fix our eyes on 2012. Our goal is to take back the White House and the Senate.”
Jake Tapper of ABC News breaks the news on Twitter:
jaketapper
this will be the first time i mention him in a tweet: Donald Trump announces he’s not running for president. #shocker
5 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
UPDATE: More information from ABC News. Looks like Trump was ready to jump in and changed his mind at the last second:
“I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election,” Trump said in a statement. “I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half heartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”
Trump, who had contemplated running for president in years past, seemed poised take the plunge this year. He even had a tentative date set for a campaign announcement: May 25 in the atrium of Trump Tower in new York City.
According to Trump aides, the real estate mogual and reality telvision mogul had even settled on campaign consultants to help streer his potential presidential bid. Trump had already made two visits to New Hampshire within the last month and had a series of events planned in that state and in Iowa over the next few weeks.
Today is Romney’s big one-day fundraising event to kick his exploratory committee (and, presumably, his candidacy) into high gear. Hundreds of volunteers have already begun making phone calls from the Las Vegas Convention Center and will continue to do so all day today. The campaign’s official goal is $2-$3 million — a huge one-day haul, but certainly understated by at least half of what they’re actually expecting to take in.
Remember, the same event in 2007 was set to take in $1 million for the little known (at the time) candidate; they raked in $6.5 million. Pundits will be watching this event closely to see if Romney can pull above the $6.5 million mark this time around.
Meanwhile, over at NRO, Ramesh Ponnuru has had the same thoughts on a winning scenario for Romney that I jotted down yesterday — essentially, Mitt loves Michelle right now.
The core of Ramesh’s and my argument is this: Romney needs somebody other than Pawlenty (or, to a lesser extent, one of the other Fab Four) to win the Iowa caucuses. Romney’s best chance at the nomination is for Bachmann, Santorum, or Cain to win Iowa. And since Bachmann seems like the strongest potential candidate out of the lower-tier so-cons, she seems to be the best place to pin your hopes if you’re a Romney fan (as I am).
As Ramesh puts it:
I don’t believe Romney could win a Romney-Pawlenty contest. But he would almost certainly win a Romney-Bachmann race, and could well win a Romney-Pawlenty-Bachmann race. So to the extent he can boost her, it makes sense for him to do so. Having been on the losing end of this maneuver, Romney, I assume, knows how it’s done.
The “losing end of this maneuver” being, of course, when McCain allied himself with Huck in 2008 to stop Romney (just as Dole allied himself with Buchanan in 1996 to stop Gramm). Can Romney pull it off? Will Michelle play along? One thing is for sure: this is a radically different primary without Huckabee expected to win Iowa now.
We’ll keep you updated throughout the day as to how Romney’s shock-and-awe fund raising event is proceeding, and what it might mean for other potential candidates in the race.
Jennifer Rubin asks, cogently, why if Ryan is willing to consider a Senate run, he doesn’t simply run for President.
The question then remains: if Ryan could run for Senate, why not the White House? A Senate campaign would require increased time away from family and the House. A Senate campaign would risk leaving him with no elected position. A Senate campaign would fuel accusations that his House work is motivated by a lust for higher office. A Senate campaign isn’t a necessity; there are other able contenders.
You see, each of the excuses often advanced for not running for the presidency applies equally to a Senate run.
As for his job as House Budget Committee chair, the hard work is frankly mostly done. The budget was passed, the argument has been joined. Obama and the Democrats are uninterested in a grand deal, and it’s quite possible there will be no budget at all this year or next.
In truth, a presidential run makes a lot more sense for Ryan than does a Senate race. Ryan is already the de facto leader of the Republican Party on the most critical issues of the day. If he’s concerned about spending time with his family, what better way and better time (when they are little and not distressed teenagers thrown into the national spotlight) to bond with them than a family adventure seeing America followed by a job where dad could work from home?
One Senate seat is not vital to the republic, but Ryan himself has made the case how critical it is to address our looming debt crisis now. Without the White House and without someone exceptionally capable to advocate for it, it’s hard to see how the “The Path to Prosperity” is ever going to be enacted. I’m at a loss to think of another Republican who can bring together Tea Partyers, wonks, social conservatives, hawks, libertarians, Wall Street and Main Street Republicans and connect with a new generation of Republicans.
In a very practical sense, the question for Ryan is: Why not give his party and the country six months (September 2011 to February 2012)? By then he’ll either have failed to catch fire or he’ll have a clear path to the presidential nomination. Six months. Twenty-four weeks. For a politician constantly at work in Congress, in town halls and in media appearances, that doesn’t sound like that much. (In fact, I would venture that his schedule is more rigorous now than the average presidential contender’s.)
You see, there is no good reason for Ryan to avoid a presidential run. Sometimes, if you don’t see the opening and seize it, a better one never comes along. Bill Clinton understood this in 1992.
There is a lot of buzz that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) may finally throw his hat into the ring. Ryan and his staff may think, “Well Mitch can do it, we don’t have to.” Whatever you think of Daniels, he’s no Paul Ryan. Candidates aren’t interchangeable, least of all these two.
It’s apparent that Daniels (most recently in suggesting he’d take the pro-choice, anti-Iraq surge, pro-North Korea engagement, pro-2006 Palestinian election, Condi Rice as a vice presidential choice) is hobbled, at the very least, by a tin ear and lack of sympatico with the GOP base. Daniels is older than Ryan (hence less attractive to young voters and less able to paint Obama as old-hat, the defender of the status quo) and less acceptable to hard-core conservatives…
To paraphrase the Jewish sage Hillel, if not Ryan, who? If not now, when?
Indeed.
Just four days after announcing his candidacy, Newt Gingrich decides he no longer wants to be President.
The former speaker had some harsh words for Paul Ryan’s (and by extension, nearly every House Republican’s) plan to reform Medicare, calling it “radical.”“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” he said when asked about Ryan’s plan to transition to a “premium support” model for Medicare. “I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”…
Gingrich also reiterated his previous support for a “variation of the individual mandate” for health care. “I believe all of us — and this is going to be a big debate — I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care.”
What’s the calculation here? Ryan’s plan is, if the GOP continues to be strangely feckless, potentially unpopular nationwide. But it’s never likely to all that unpopular among Republicans. And are the Republicans who do dislike it (re: moderates) going to jump for a polarizing former Speaker of the House? Doubling down on the mandate, after Romney did so to such wild acclaim, is particularly…strange. Newt tried, in the years leading up the ’08 election, to put on a moderate facade (American Solutions, Real Solutions, Green policies, etc)…only to abandon it rather ostentatiously soon afterwards. Is he looking for a do-over here? Really?
Huckabee has (quite gracefully) bowed out of the Republican primary race – so where does that leave things moving forward? What does a Huck-less race mean for the rest of our competitors?
To start with, I think it more or less guarantees that our nominee will be one of the Fantastic Four: Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, or Huntsman. In fact, the Intrade investors are currently giving that notion a 70% chance of becoming reality. There’s a huge dropoff after Daniels, at 11 points, and the second tier candidates who clock in around 5 points. So these four are where the action is going to be.
Secondly, I think it means Romney will have a more difficult time nabbing the nomination. With Huck in the race, Romney was never expected to win or do well in Iowa or South Carolina. His eyes were set on NH, NV, and FL as his must-win states. Plus, Mitt was able to write off some disappointing numbers in the south by pointing to Huck’s favorite son status there. Now, with no Huck (and no southern governor at all outside of Roemer!), Mitt will be expected to improve in his weakest region. Finally, with Huck in the race the anti-Mitt vote was splintered between other technocrats and Huckabee. With no first-tier social conservative in the race any longer, the anti-Mitt vote is more likely to coalesce around one of the other technocrats (such as Pawlenty, most likely, who has the ability to gain traction in the evangelical community). Mitt will need to adjust his strategy accordingly if he hopes to win this thing now.
Thirdly, as alluded to above, there is a huge gaping hole in the GOP field right now for a first-tier social conservative candidate. This is not to say Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty, and Daniels are not social conservatives, just that their primary identity is not seen as members of the evangelical voting base. This means a candidate like Cain or Bachmann or Santorum, who would have been relegated to second or third tier status had Huck stayed in the race, now have a large opening to become a major player in this race. Huck’s exit might even pump some life into Gingrich’s flailing young campaign.
Fourth, dovetailing with that point, is that this would be the best possible outcome for Mitt at this juncture. A Cain or a Bachmann still do not have a realistic path to the nomination, but they might have a realistic path to victory in the Iowa caucuses. If a candidate like Cain, Bachmann, or Santorum win Iowa, Romney will still be able to secure the nomination. If, however, the social conservative vote goes to Pawlenty, Daniels, or Huntsman and they end up winning Iowa, they could very well end up winning the nomination. At this point, Mitt has got to be hoping Bachmann throws her hat in the ring, because from my perspective she represents the most viable second tier candidate with a chance of winning Iowa.
And finally, here’s what I expect to see in the polls over the next few months: Romney will initially benefit the most from Huckabee’s exit and many polls will show him with leads in most of the early states. However, that lead will fade (and perhaps eventually disappear) as the name ID of the other three Fantastic Four (Fab Four?) rise. So my advice to Romney supporters is this: don’t get excited about leads in these earliest post-Huck polls that will be released soon. In a couple months, we’ll be looking at a whole new ball game as voters acquaint themselves with the choices for the anti-Romney candidate.
Those are the five major impacts I see caused by Huck dropping out of this race. Any other prognosticators out there want to put their predictions down on record?
One of the most interesting aspects of post-Cold War presidential politics is the extent to which both of America’s major political parties have managed to steer clear of candidates who could be classified as political “duds,” that is, candidates who belong nowhere near the top of the ticket as far as electability is concerned. This is one of the reasons that no major party candidate has achieved a double-digit popular vote victory since Ronald Reagan in 1984. And even Walter Mondale was no dud. He was a former senator and former vice president who found himself opposing the president who was remaking the country in accordance with the popular will. Indeed, the last two duds nominated for president were Barry Goldwater, selected by the GOP in 1964, and George McGovern, chosen by Democrats in 1972. Goldwater was a philosopher-king whose philosophy seemed alien to the average American of the 1960s; McGovern was a senator who ran as an unabashed leftist at a time when the country was beginning to question leftism. Both gave extremely lopsided victories to their opponents.
But could such a candidate take the nomination of a major party today? It’s a question that Republicans are wrestling with in the wake of several right-wing “flavors of the month” that have caught the interest of GOP primary voters, and that have often shot to the top of the pack according to the polls, only to plummet once closer scrutiny takes place. We saw this with Palin, then with Trump, and now Herman Cain may have his chance at winning the hearts of the grassroots, given the reaction of the Fox News focus group to last week’s debate between several Republican candidates for president. But despite temporary flirtations with such candidates, the electorate always seems to return to more mainstream choices. All of which makes me wonder if the nature of the modern primary process has somehow “dud-proofed” the path to the nomination.
One example of a presidential race that should have resulted in a dud-like nominee was the 2004 race for the Democratic nomination, where Howard Dean seemed all but certain to clinch the nomination as of late 2003. At the time, President George W. Bush was still polling relatively well; his approval rating was 63 percent according to Gallup as of December of 2003. The conventional wisdom was that Democrats were going to lose, and Howard Dean was an ideal candidate with whom Democrats could go down swinging. He hailed from Vermont, one of the most left-wing states in the country, and he personified his state both personally and politically. Dean came onto the scene with a foot-in-mouth problem, with no apologies or qualifiers for his leftist ideas, and with a potential First Lady in tow who wasn’t certain that she would even join her husband in the White House due to her desire to continue her professional life. All of this represented a badge of honor to Democrats, as they had finally found a candidate who would take the fight to the Republicans, and whose decidedly blue cultural cues would irritate conservatives at a primal level. What better candidate to lead a party smarting over its previous electoral losses and foaming at the mouth to take on the president and his supporters.
But then something interesting happened. Democrats went to the polls, and voted against the ideological, unelectable guy, and for the boring, competent guy who could actually have a shot at winning the election. In a year that was tailor made for the nomination of a dud by the out-party, Democrats instead nominated someone who almost bested the sitting president. What gives?
It’s entirely possible that today’s 24/7, at-your-fingertips coverage of politics has made the nomination of a Goldwater/McGovern-style candidate obsolete, at least at the presidential level. Clearly this still goes on at the state level. Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell serve as evidence of that. But the presidential primary process is now a long, drawn out, ever-evolving endeavor in the modern era, with up-to-the-minute insta-polls and constant carping by the pundits on cable news, talk radio, and throughout the blogosphere. This allows your average Republican or Democratic voter to learn at any given time just how the various candidates are polling, against one another and against their prospective opponent across the aisle. And that may lead to a lot of strategic decision-making that wouldn’t have been possible in 1964 or 1972.
Democrats who went to the polls in 2004 knew that three things would happen if they nominated Howard Dean. First, they would be nominating a candidate who would promote their values unabashedly. Secondly, the would be irritating conservatives at a primal level due to Dean’s latte-sipping persona and post-modern marriage. And third, they would be re-electing George W. Bush. Democrats knew this because they would turn on Hardball every night and watch Chris Matthews report the latest poll showing Dean losing to Bush by a gazillion points, while other candidates actually seemed that they could potentially take down the president. They would see the same polls and analyses online when they logged onto CNN.com or headed over to Daily Kos. The result: Dean collapsed, and Democrats went with someone who could win.
The same thing is currently happening on the GOP side this year. There’s a reason Palin, Gingich, and Trump have all seen massive downward movement in polls of primary voters. It’s because the average Republican voter is tuning into Fox News, reading columnists like George Will, and determining that each of these candidates would be a non-starter in the effort to unseat President Obama. This sort of constant political coverage, available on all forms of media, with massive amounts of public polling and with the ability to interact with likeminded Americans across the country from the comfort of one’s home, simply did not exist in the days when the nominations of men like Goldwater and McGovern took place. Indeed, it is entirely possible that neither of those nominations would have taken place had the modern media environment been present.
As such, I think it’s entirely probable that Republicans won’t have to worry about any sort of “Cain Mutiny” occurring in the primaries this cycle. The Herman Cain boomlet that we’re seeing now will dissipate as soon as the first poll is released that shows the Georgia businessman being trounced by Obama. Keep in mind that the average voter, Republican or Democrat, does not eat, live, and breathe politics as we political junkies do. Many Republicans just tuning into Cain are probably thinking, “Hey, this guy thinks like me. He’s saying the things that I would say. He clearly shares my values. And he’s not just another old, white guy. We have to nominate this man!” These are folks who haven’t thought through the implications of nominating someone with no political experience. Or of running a candidate for president whose platform is abstract and philosophical, and who doesn’t have any nuts and bolts ideas and policies to bring to the table. And many are folks to whom the idea of running a non-Caucasian Republican candidate for office constitutes a real coup. They haven’t been through races like the Maryland Senate race in 2006, and watched as Michael Steele went down in flames. They haven’t refined their political instincts enough to differentiate a successful candidate like Marco Rubio from an unsuccessful one like Steele. To a lot of regular Republican voters, this is all new.
But it won’t be new to these voters for long. Not after they read a dozen columns on why Herman Cain would be a horrible candidate. Not after three polls come out during the same week showing Obama beating Cain by double-digits. My guess is that the broader electorate will get up to speed quickly on the wisdom of nominating someone like Herman Cain, or any of the unelectable flavors of the month that follow him, for president.
As such, Republicans are probably going to nominate a fairly mainstream conservative for president this time around, and will likely avoid any of the duds that would give an embattled president an easy re-election. Given the manner in which the field is shaping up, the nominee will probably be one of four men: Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, or Jon Huntsman. GOP voters may prefer someone like Cain, but at the end of the day, they will pick their pragmatic poison.
The Prairie Editor’s instincts were correct, after all, as expressed in his current post on barrycasselman.com, that is, that Mike Huckbee would NOT be a candidate in 2012 for president. Some classic hype in the past 24 hours, however, signaled that he might have changed his mind, and I sent each of you a notice that I might have to rewrite my current assessment of the candidates.
After attracting what I am sure was a huge audience to his TV show, and playing everyone along for most of the hour, Huckabee said he would not be a candidate. We have to remember that in his deepest being, Mike Huckabee is an entertainer. It’s his right, of course, and there was no harm done except to the nervous systems of certain announced GOP candidates for president who had much to lose if Huckabee suddenly changed course and got in the race. Most of all, Huckabee’s decision restores the suspense about the Iowa Caucus, and preserves the opportunity for several candidates, including Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney to perform there better than expected, and thus begin to propel themselves to the nomination.
Huckabee, who unexpectedly won Iowa in 2008, would have been the story coming out of Iowa, and his current strong numbers in many northern state polls might have provided him with more success outside the South than he had last cycle, thus upsetting plans of Mr. Pawlenty and Mr. Gingrich each of whom would be most likely competing for his base of voters. Mr. Romney, too, benefits because he might do better in Iowa than expected, and combined with his expected win in New Hampshire, could provide him with critical momentum early in the game. Some will disagree with this, but Mr. Huckabee for all his preacher’s charm and strength in the polls, if he ran, was most likely destined to be a spoiler, and not ultimately his party’s nominee.
Nontheless, credit is due to him, on reaching deep down into himself, to resist the many sirens of ego gratification and vanity that someone in his position is always tempted with. Since 2008, he has shown new political skills, and it is possible in 2016 or 2020 that he might be a better fit for his party at that time. Meanwhile, the contest goes on, without Mr. Huckabee and presumably without Sarah Palin, the two main figures from 2008 (along with Mr. Romney who now maintains himself as a quasi-frontrunner). Attention next shifts to Indiana where the incumbent governor Mitch Daniels has yet to announce if he is in he race or out. If he’s in, he may be a force to be reckoned with.
_______________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.
From the official release:
Governor Mike Huckabee emerged in 2008 as a new star for the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Over the last 3 years he has used his gifts to create a popular Fox News TV show, produce an amazingly successful radio commentary, write best-selling books, and deliver thought provoking speeches. All have increased his stature and his influence.
Had Governor Huckabee decided to run, there is no question he would have been a frontrunner in the 2012 campaign for president. He has achieved that prominence without a campaign simply based on his personal appeal and the attractiveness of his views and his character.
His statement tonight emphasized the spiritual dimension of his life and his decision process. It is a wonderful example for all Americans of someone trying to do the right thing.
Governor Huckabee will remain a major force for conservatism and he will play a major role in shaping America’s future. Callista and I wish him and his family a wonderful, happy, and successful future.
Mike Huckabee used the final few minutes of his Huckabee show to announce to Fox News viewers that he is not going to seek the Republican nomination for President.
This has been a much anticipated decision as it affects other potential candidates who have not yet declared. Mike Huckabee will be on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace where he will further discuss his decision.
As a strong supporter of Mike Huckabee in 2008, I had hoped that he would run again in 2012. Mike Huckabee had asked his supporters to pray for him-discernment-so that he would make the right decision.
As I was driving to go hear him speak in Dallas this week, I did just that, I prayed that Mike Huckabee would hear what God’s will was for him. That if God had other plans for him, that Mike Huckabee would clearly hear that calling. For believers in Jesus Christ, we know that when God closes one door, he opens another.
Mike Huckabee not only consulted his strategists, family members and friends, but he more importantly consulted God. And as many of us know, it is easy to take time to pray to God, but it is harder to take the time to sit and listen to what God has to say.Mike Huckabee gave a thoughtful, well thought out reason for not seeking the nomination. I for one am proud that he acknowledged that he sought the Lord in this major decision. Mike Huckabee said that he found peace once he came to his decision. Now his supporters must do the same.
Key aspect of Mike Huckabee’s statement from HuckPAC:
When people asked me what it would take for me to run, I would tell them the same thing—pray for me to have clarity in the decision. I don’t expect everyone to understand this, but I’m a believer and follower of Jesus Christ. That relationship is far more important to me than any political office. For me, the decision is ultimately not a political one, a financial one, or even a practical one —it’s a spiritual one.
The past few weeks, the external signs and signals and answers to many of the obstacles point strongly toward running. When I am with people encouraging me to run, it’s easy to feel the strength of their partnership and commitment to help me to the finish line. Only when I was alone, in quiet and reflective moments did I have not only clarity, but an inexplicable inner peace—a peace that exceeds human understanding. All the factors say GO, but my heart says NO. And that is the decision I have made and in it have finally found resolution. I don’t fully understand it myself—but I’m sure the pundits will. But I know that under the best of circumstances, being President is a job that takes one to the limit of his or her human capacity. For me, to do it apart from an inner confidence that I was undertaking it with God’s full blessing is unthinkable. I can’t know or predict the future, but I know for now my answer is clear and firm. I will not seek the Republican nomination for President this year.
Crossposted at I Like Mike Huckabee 2012
From the official release:
“Mike Huckabee is a friend and colleague, and an important leader within the Republican Party. Mike and I agree our nation is facing big challenges and desperately needs new leadership, and I plan to work hard to earn the support of the millions of Americans who have supported him. Mary and I wish Mike and Janet all the best.”
Gov. Jon Huntsman:
“Our country has been very fortunate to have Mike Huckabee as a leader and public servant. His commitment to this country and its core values — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — is a model to which all elected officials should aspire. It is unfortunate that we will not have his voice — or his bass guitar – in the presidential debate, as our party would have benefited from his involvement. Yet I’m confident that he will continue to be a positive force in the national conversation no matter his future endeavors and I look forward to his continued friendship.”
As many readers already know, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee announced this evening on Fox News that he will not run for the 2012 Republican nomination for President of the United States. While our readership’s views on a potential candidacy by Gov. Huckabee run the gamut, I think we can all agree to offer our best wishes to Gov. Huckabee and his family as he continues his endeavors in private life.
Is he is in or is he out? You all know where I put my money…
Have at it in the comments.
P.S. I am asking everyone with front-page posting privileges to please refrain from posting to on frontpage until the conclusion of tonight’s show.
Will Liberals Ever Learn?
Apparently there are 31,000 vacant housing units in San Francisco (about 8% of the city’s total housing supply), because landlords have given up trying to rent them in the face of SF’s extremely repressive rent-control laws.
“Vacancy rates are going up because owners have decided to take their units off the market,” said Ross Mirkarimi, a progressive member of the Board of Supervisors. He attributes that response to “peaking frustrations in dealing with the range of laws that protect tenants in San Francisco that make it difficult for small property owners to thrive.”
Perversely, that is hurting the city’s renters as well, as a large percentage of the city’s housing stock is allowed to just sit vacant, driving up rents that newcomers pay for market-rate housing.
I would comment on how just about everybody except a liberal would understand that this is pretty much the inevitable result of rent control laws, but Mark Perry (an economist at AEI and University of Michigan) has, not surprisingly, done it much better than I could:
As we know from basic economic theory, rent control laws are doomed to fail with many predictable unintended consequences in the long run: fewer new rental units are built or made available, many apartments are removed from the market, a decline in the quality of housing, lower rental rates for long-term tenants but much higher rents for new tenants, inefficient use of housing space, etc. In other words, rent control laws guarantee that there will be less affordable housing in the long run, not more.
Baja Arizona?
A group of leftists in Tucson, led by the former state chairman of the Democratic Party, is trying to secede from Arizona and create a new state, Baja Arizona. While most folks from Phoenix (e.g., me) would consider the departure of Tucson to be an instance of addition by subtraction, the idea is unlikely to get very far.
Silly Laws of the Week
How far are the nanny-staters willing to go? How about putting warning labels on your underwear?
Brazil’s Congress just passed a bill requiring manufacturers to add a warning to all bras, panties and men’s underpants about the importance of screening for breast, uterine and prostate cancer respectively. For good measure, it threw in the requirement that underwear for adult women should also suggest use of condoms.
I think it should say, “If You Can Read This Message, It’s Time to Put on Your Condom.”
Your Weekly Dose of Irony
Julian Assange is making employees of WikiLeaks sign nondisclosure agreements:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange now makes his associates sign a draconian nondisclosure agreement that, among other things, asserts that the organization’s huge trove of leaked material is “solely the property of WikiLeaks…”
Obama Goes to El Paso to Lie
President Obama does most of his lying in Washington, but periodically he likes to spread the, er, wealth. This time the subject was immigration and the venue was El Paso, Texas. There he touted his administration’s accomplishments, noting that the border fence was now ‘basically complete’ (about one-third of the border has some kind of fence, much of it suitable only for stopping vehicles, but not people walking), and boasted of how secure the border now is, despite a report by the GAO that “1120 southwest border miles have not yet achieved operational control” (the whole border is about 2000 miles). One short excerpt:
Yuma sector officials reported achieving operational control for all of its 126 border miles; however, the other eight southwest border sectors reported achieving operational control of 11 to 86 percent of their border miles.
He also laughably, asked if Republicans next would ask for a moat. He did this standing near a moat called the Rio Grande (the President of the 57 United States has never been noted for his grasp of geography).
Of course, I doubt that Obama really cares. If he actually cared about the immigration issue, he would have pushed it when he had a big majority in Congress. This is just posturing for the Hispanic vote.
Albatross Watch
Ah ! well a-day ! what evil looks
Had I from old and young !
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.– Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’
Mitt Romney’s speech Wednesday was supposed to be his albatross-repellent – finally ridding him of the burden of RomneyCare. Unfortunately for Romney, his speech has received a very tepid response. National Review ripped him, starting by pointing out the many similarities between RomneyCare and ObamaCare, and concluding: “You can see the difficulty for Romney in arguing for the one and against the other.” Read the whole thing.
And NR was kind compared to The Wall Street Journal, which led off their review of his speech with a similar point to NR’s:
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote that “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” If we may judge by his health-care speech at the University of Michigan yesterday, Mitt Romney is a very smart man.
Romney has been building his campaign on his appeal to two very important and somewhat inter-related groups, businesspeople and the Republican political establishment. The first is his natural base – he’s one of them – but the attitude of the WSJ, their voice, indicates that they may not be as solid for him as thought. A number of indicators recently show that the political establishment, which seemed likely to close ranks behind Romney as the best alternative to Palin and Huckabee, have been nervously eying the albatross and wondering if there might be an alternative to the alternative. With the albatross still firmly in place, the establishment seems likely to grow more nervous.
The Weekly Mitch Pitch
The big news this week in the Daniels ‘campaign’ has been about Cheri, not Mitch. Indiana’s First Lady gave a speech (the first of her career) to the Indiana Republican Party. As a measure of its perceived importance, the event outdrew last year’s, when the speaker was Chris Christie.
Mitch Daniels has said that he received permission to run for governor only by promising that Cheri would never have to attend any political function – a promise he kept until this event. Mrs. Daniels is not a shrinking violet (she won the State Fair watermelon-seed-spitting contest with an impressive 15’1”), but hates politics. Given that most of us know by now about the Daniels marriage saga, one can understand why. We saw an example in our own comment threads yesterday how low some people can go – would anyone want to expose themselves and their children to people like that?
At the same event, there was a short video presented that summarized the record of accomplishment on which Daniels will presumably run, if he gets permission from his family.
Add your own miscellany in the comments.
Mark Halperin of Time’s The Page obtained a copy of a personal email Huckabee sent to his inner circle. Here’s the text:
Tomorrow night (Saturday) I will announce the next step in my plans for 2012 during my show on the Fox News Channel. I would like to be able to call you or email you personally and in advance of the announcement, but due to the fact that the decision was not finalized until today and that I committed to Fox that I will absolutely not release it prior to doing so on the channel, that became impractical.
A lot of information and speculation was already rampant in the press today, and it frankly isn’t fair to you to tell you the details and then put you in the awkward position of saying you didn’t know (which at that point wouldn’t be true) or saying you did know, but couldn’t reveal or discuss it.
It was this afternoon before I could even get word to all of my own children and even now, the executive producer of my show and the staff and crew of the show don’t know and won’t until I actually do the final preparation literally minutes before I share the decision live Saturday night.
I will look forward to speaking with you soon and once I fulfill my sworn obligation to Fox, I will be free to discuss things that I can’t now due to promises to them and to some possible legal considerations of the announcement.
Many friends have said, “how can we help you in the decision?” My answer has consistently been, “Pray that I have clarity.” I have it and will share it Saturday night during the show. Please be patient if I don’t respond immediately to an email because I expect that once I pull the trigger Saturday night, things will get even crazier, as if that’s possible.
My heartfelt thanks for your friendship, prayers, and support,
Mike Huckabee
Feel free to speculate below.
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
All the speculation comes to an end at 8pm EST this evening. Join Race42012′s Huckabee Announcement Open Forum (which goes live at 7:30pm EST) for instant reaction and to give your own two cents.
PPP (D) Missouri 2012 Presidential Survey
- Mike Huckabee 49% [49%] (49%)
- Barack Obama 44% [43%] (42%)
- Mitt Romney 45% [44%] (47%)
- Barack Obama 43% [43%] (41%)
- Barack Obama 46% [44%] (44%)
- Newt Gingrich 44% [44%] (45%)
- Barack Obama 46%
- Donald Trump 41%
- Barack Obama 48% [48%] (46%)
- Sarah Palin 43% [43%] (43%)
Note: In 2008, John McCain received 50% of the vote in Missouri. In 2004, George W. Bush received 53% of the vote in MO.
PPP (D) West Virginia 2012 GOP Primary Survey
- Mike Huckabee 21%
- Mitt Romney 15%
- Sarah Palin 15%
- Newt Gingrich 12%
- Ron Paul 9%
- Donald Trump 9%
- Michele Bachmann 4%
- Tim Pawlenty 3%
- Someone else/Undecided 12%
