Things are not looking good for those of us who are pining for the nomination of a Daniels/Christie/Ryan sort of Republican who will throw down the gauntlet over the issue of the national debt, and who is willing to speak truth to power, the power being aging Baby Boomers who are expecting the federal government to keep its entitlement promises in full. Buried in today’s PPP poll was this ominous statistic regarding Republican sentiments towards Mitch Daniels:
We also tested Mitch Daniels on this poll and he trails 48-34 but what might be most interesting is his favorability numbers with Republicans. Only 23% express a favorable opinion of him to 25% with an unfavorable one.
I am actually buoyed by those general election numbers. Most folks haven’t yet heard of Daniels, and the fact that he keeps the president under 50% means that Americans are at least willing to hear out the Indiana governor, something that can’t be said of Palin or Gingrich according to the same poll. But the fact that Daniels is underwater with the half of Republicans who have formed an opinion on the governor is very bad news. Daniels, despite being the most conservative presidential nominee the GOP would have sported since Ronald Reagan, if not Barry Goldwater, is in danger of becoming a polarizing force within the Republican Party, largely due to a rhetorical style and cues that GOP voters are used to associating with more moderate politicians.
Meanwhile, in the Garden State, Gov. Chris Christie gives his most Shermanesque statement yet on the race for 2012. Quoth Christie: “No, my God, I’m not running for president!” I wouldn’t want to be the reporter charged with asking him that question during his next public appearance.
Exit question: Is Paul Ryan the only hope of Republicans who care about the debt? Or will we end up with a choice between Romney and Pawlenty in order to avoid the “Cain Mutiny” that would result in the nomination of an unelectable businessman from Georgia whose sole claim to fame is that he “takes the fight to Obama,” or whatever phrase the talk radio types are using these days.
A key criticism of RomneyCare among conservatives comparing it to ObamaCare, has been that both impose mandates. A key component of Mitt Romney’s defense of his bill has been that mandates are okay at the state level, but not federally.
Unfortunately, it turns out that such was not always Romney’s position. A left-wing blog has dug up an interview in 1994 (when Romney was running against Ted Kennedy) in which Romney apparently stated his support for a bill proposed by liberal Republican John Chafee, which included mandates that every American had to buy health insurance:
The question about Romney is where he would stand in Congress’s internecine battles. Would he side with Republicans such as John Chafee who have tried to develop constructive alternatives to Democratic legislation or with Republicans such as Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich who have been willing to paralyze Congress for the sake of embarrassing the Clinton administration? Romney has indicated that he would side with the moderate wing. He endorsed the crime bill and refused to back Gingrich’s jejune “Contract with America.” He told me he would have backed Chafee’s health care bill. “I’m willing to vote for things that I am not wild with,” he said.
Some Romney supporters are trying to argue that Romney never said any such thing, which seems improbable. Judis, whatever his leanings, is a respected reporter, unlikely to make such things up. It also would be a very sensible thing for Romney to have said in Massachusetts in 1994 — positioning himself as a moderate alternative to Kennedy’s support for an all-out government takeover of the health care field.
According to Dave Weigel at Slate, a Romney spokesperson put out the following statement:
Governor Romney has made it very clear over the last many years, including during the 2008 presidential cycle, that he opposes a federally imposed individual mandate.
Note that the statement uses the present tense (‘opposes’) and does not deny Judis’s article. This could have two meanings: a) It’s true, or b) Romney’s staff is still trying to research it.
Unless it turns out to be false (unlikely, in my opinion, for the reasons stated above) this will be a problem for Romney. Admittedly, it was a long time ago, and it should be noted that he said of the bill that he wasn’t ‘wild’ about it. Nonetheless, it undercuts his current opposition to ObamaCare, and brings to the fore a principle objection of his opponents — an apparent willingness to take the politically easy path rather than stand for principle.
My own feeling is that there is a time for taking stands and a time for making compromises, and which was the case in this instance in 1994 (or which Romney thought was the case) is hard to say today, so I’m not going to crucify Romney over this. But politically this is going to be a very tough thing for him to finesse.
Rasmussen Political Ideology Survey
Many people have different ideological perspectives on fiscal issues and social issues. When it comes to fiscal issues such as taxes, government spending and business regulation, are you politically conservative, moderate, or liberal?
- Conservative 43%
- Moderate 38%
- Liberal 13%
When it comes to social issues like abortion, public prayer, and Church-state topics, are you politically conservative, moderate, or liberal?
- Conservative 36%
- Moderate 31%
- Liberal 29%
Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted May 5-6, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.
Inside the numbers:
Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans say they are fiscal conservatives. Among Democrats, 50% say they are moderate on money issues, while 28% view themselves as fiscal liberals. As for voters not affiliated with either party, 48% say they’re fiscal moderates, and 33% think of themselves as conservatives in this area.
When it comes to social policy, 66% of GOP voters say they are conservative, while 54% of Democrats regard themselves as social liberals. Unaffiliated voters are narrowly divided ideologically when it comes to social issues.
Male voters are more conservative than female voters on both fiscal and social issues. Younger voters are more liberal in both areas than those who are older.
Twenty-nine percent (29%) of likely voters characterize themselves as both fiscal and social conservatives. By contrast, only 10% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are liberal in both areas.
Voters continue to believe tax cuts and decreases in government spending will benefit the nation’s economy.
When it comes to abortion, 50% of voters consider themselves pro-choice, while 40% say they are pro-life.
–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.
Mike Huckabee opened a new website entitled, “Pray for Huckabee” where he’s setting up a mailing list asking people to pray for him while he tries to determine his decision on 2012. Here’s the statement by Huckabee:
As many of you know, I am prayerfully considering an important decision about seeking the office of President in the 2012 election. I am asking for God’s guidance now, and I humbly ask that you would join me in prayer as I seek to discern His will for my life.
When I look across America, I see a country looking for answers. The challenges facing our nation are monumental, and I see difficult days ahead. I am seeking God’s will concerning the role He wants me to play in His plan for America.
Together, let’s pray for God’s mercy on America. Pray that He will heal our land. Pray that I will hear the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit as He leads my steps according to His will.
Thank you. May God bless you and keep you.
Yours truly,
Gov. Mike Huckabee
Interesting approach. Thoughts?
UPDATE: This is not an official Huckabee site, Politico has a quote from Huckabee’s camp
This is not one of Governor Huckabee’s official websites nor does it have anything to do with Huck PAC. However, the Governor is overwhelmed and encouraged by the many people who pray for him as he prepares to make a decision about running for President.
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey
- Barack Obama 47%
- Mitt Romney 42%
- Barack Obama 49%
- Mike Huckabee 42%
- Barack Obama 48%
- Mitch Daniels 34%
- Barack Obama 52%
- Newt Gingrich 38%
- Barack Obama 54%
- Sarah Palin 37%
- Barack Obama 53%
- Donald Trump 35%
When Haley Barbour announced he wasn’t running for President, the big question quickly became: where will his campaign staff go? Specifically, Barbour made seven rather marquee hires during the run-up to his aborted bid that I am hereby dubbing “Haley’s Seven”:
As you can see, these seven folks represent a wealth of campaign talent spread over numerous different areas – from early states to establishment support to online presence. Where these seven folks will end up has been the topic of many postulations and guessing games since Barbour released them.
This morning comes news that the first one of them has signed on with a new suitor: James Richardson is going with Jon Huntsman.
Jon Huntsman has added former Haley Barbour communications aide James Richardson to his campaign-in-waiting… Richardson was the RNC’s online communications manager in 2008 and is the first former Haley Barbour staffer to commit to one of the other presidential campaigns.
A big (and somewhat surprising) “get” for Huntsman, on the tail of his visits to South Carolina and New Hampshire, provide his campaign-to-be with some great momentum. It’s no wonder he has rocketed up to third place on Intrade behind Romney and Pawlenty.
We’ll keep you posted as the rest of Haley’s Seven find other homes for this primary campaign. Until then, anyone else want to join the guessing game?
Romney will be in Iowa at the end of the month. This is the first time he’s visited the state since he announced his exploratory committee. WHOTV reports:
Romney adviser David Kochel says the former Massachusetts governor will speak at a May 27 event sponsored by the Greater Des Moines Partnership. He also will headline a reception in Linn County sponsored by the Linn and Johnson county Republican Party organizations.
From IowaPolitics.Com:
Potential presidential candidate Mitt Romney will kick-off the 2012 Presidential Candidate Series with an event to be held Friday, May 27, 2011, from noon to 1:00 p.m. at the State Historical Building in downtown Des Moines.
This series is being sponsored by the Greater Des Moines Partnership, Mediacom and IowaPolitics.com and in partnership with the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs. As the First in the Nation Caucus, Iowa falls under a global spotlight, and an open invitation will be extended to prospective presidential candidates to address Central Iowans as part of the series between now and the 2012 Presidential Caucuses.
Recent polls have placed Mitt within easy striking distance of Mike Huckabee in Iowa. Not to mention the fact that he is the projected winner if Mike Huckabee fails to run — which still is not a sure thing. Mitt also finished second there in 2008.
Writing off the state never made much sense. It didn’t keep a number of pundits from confidently predicting that he would, however.
Moral of the story: “Pundits are seldom as smart as they think they are.”
With many Republicans pining for a knight in shining armor to parachute into the 2012 race and save us from the (perceived) weakness of the candidate field, has the party overlooked an answer right under its collective nose? Stanley Kurtz, of the NRO Corner, thinks so:
“Wake up, Republicans! The answer to your prayers is already running. And if all the pundits would just stop fantasizing for a minute about everyone who’s not running, maybe they’d pay more attention to who actually is.”
…Tim Pawlenty has already beaten the Democrats in a government shut-down battle. He’s defeated public-employee unions in a high-stakes strike. He was regularly rated as one of the most fiscally conservative governors in the nation. And he managed to do it all in a blue state. Pawlenty is Scott Walker with experience. It’s just that nobody knows it because Pawlenty’s clashes with his state’s public unions and big Democratic spenders happened some time ago. If anything, Pawlenty ought to be getting extra credit for having faced down public-employee unions and profligate Democratic legislators before it was cool.
I like that analogy; just like Rudy Giuliani’s supporters profess, “He was Chris Christie before it was cool,” Pawlenty was Scott Walker before it was cool.
Kurtz concludes with the following:
If he does win, it will be the first time we’ve ever had a president from that kind of urban, blue-collar immigrant background. Reminds me of folks in Pittsburgh, where I grew up.
It also reminds me of Chicago, where I grew up; my parents fall into the category of “urban, blue-collar immigrant background”. Fortuitously for Pawlenty, so do the families of many people in the Midwest, a region undoubtedly essential to the GOP’s chances in 2012.
I also highly recommend the Ramesh Ponnuru piece referenced in the above article. It summarizes the Governor’s background and provides a balanced analysis of him as a candidate. At the risk of making this post too lengthy, I give you the following highlights:
Governor Pawlenty dealt with a Democratic senate for his entire two terms and a Democratic house for his second one. But “dealt with” may not be the best choice of words. Pawlenty set a record for vetoes, partly shutting down the government during a budget battle in 2005. During another budget fight, this one in 2009, Pawlenty withstood pressure from the two previous Republican governors of Minnesota — both well to his left — to agree to raise taxes. He took on the transit workers’ union, which believed that the state should have to provide its members with health insurance for life after 15 years on the job. It went on strike, and lost.
Pawlenty guided Minnesota’s political culture firmly and sharply to the right. From 1960 to 2003, when Pawlenty took over, the state budget grew, on average, by 21 percent every two years. Under Pawlenty that average fell to 4 percent. Some fees rose, and so did cigarette taxes, but Pawlenty managed to resist all income-tax increases. He is one of four governors to get an A on the Cato Institute’s most recent “fiscal-policy report card.” Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana is widely lauded in Republican circles as a budget-cutter. But in each year they were both governor, Cato ranked Pawlenty ahead of Daniels.
Larry Jacobs, who studies politics at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School, comments, “In Minnesota, Pawlenty was always seen as the state’s most charismatic and politically talented politician. Here’s a guy who was a conservative fending off often large Democratic majorities and [he] consistently had over 50 percent approval and dominated public debate. He had a remarkable knack for appealing to people on non-political grounds. . . . Mostly it was the way he talked about public policy and politics. People who fundamentally disagreed with him on public policy found him appealing.”
…The theme of Pawlenty’s presidential campaign so far is that Americans, especially those of middle income, are losing faith in the country’s future. Rising debt, the disappearance of the “strong back” jobs his father and his father’s friends once relied on, the suspicion that free markets are giving way to “crony capitalism”: All have eroded Americans’ confidence in their system.
He also adds some intriguing comparisons of Pawlenty to two other governors most often cited as his chief potential competition: Romney and Daniels:
Like Romney, Pawlenty was elected governor of a blue state in 2002. But there are at least five big differences between them that primary voters may find tell in the Minnesotan’s favor. First, Pawlenty was elected as a conservative whereas Romney ran as a moderate. Second, Pawlenty pursued a more confrontational strategy: He didn’t cut any grand bipartisan deal, as Romney did with Ted Kennedy on health care. Third, and as a result, Pawlenty’s record does not include anything as likely to offend conservative voters as Romney’s Massachusetts health-care law, which made the purchase of health insurance compulsory.
Fourth, Pawlenty won reelection in his blue state, even in 2006, which was a slaughterhouse of a year for Republicans. Romney, by contrast, left the governorship after one term: He was unable to position himself as a conservative for a presidential run while staying popular in his home state. Fifth, Pawlenty has an ability to connect to blue-collar voters that Romney has never demonstrated.
Governor Daniels could be competitive with Pawlenty in a side-by-side comparison. But Pawlenty is in some respects a more impressive political figure. Indiana is a red state that will almost certainly vote for any Republican nominee in 2012; Daniel has never had to win over blue-state voters as Pawlenty did. And Pawlenty has better relations with social conservatives than Daniels does.
Ponnuru may have something with his assessment of Pawlenty vs. Daniels; many individuals – myself included – would argue that T-Paw actually has a more impressive record on spending than Mitch. The primary difference between the two revolves around Daniels’ willingness – even eagerness – to deliver the cold, hard facts with no sugarcoating. To the cynics among us, this appears refreshing and charming. However, we must ask ourselves: do we really want to risk general election success simply for a desire to avoid “typical politician” behavior in our nominee?
In a time when the Republican Party hopes to enact reforms that fundamentally affect voters’ pocketbooks and lend themselves to easy demagoguery, we must not ignore Pawlenty’s blue collar credibility, especially when juxtaposed with Gov. Romney; on a visceral level, the average American will find him/herself more willing to evaluate and accept policy proposals like entitlement reform and corporate tax reductions when they come from a candidate who they feel understands their concerns on a personal level.
And for those who point to T-Paw’s supposed blandness, I offer a few responses:
1. Nobody in the GOP field can match up to President Obama when it comes to soaring oratory, pomp, and theatrics, especially when he has the media in his pocket, ready to assist with spin strategies.
2. Perhaps the American public will adhere to the theory that voters find themselves drawn to candidates that look, sound, and feel like the opposite of their current leaders.
3. Pawlenty can sling the red meat and rile up a crowd when he wants and needs to. Just take a look at this speech he delivered over two years ago (h/t to the amazing Matthew Miller, who passed this along to the Race community a long time ago):
IBOPE Zogby Interactive 2012 Republican Nomination Survey
If the Republican primary for President were held today, for whom would you vote?
- Chris Christie 17% [19%] (27%)
- Herman Cain 14%
- Ron Paul 10% [7%]
- Mitt Romney 9% [9%] (17%)
- Newt Gingrich 7% [7%]
- Sarah Palin 4% [13%] (16%)
- Tim Pawlenty 4% [5%] (2%)
- Mike Huckabee 4% [8%] (14%)
- Donald Trump 4% [9%]
- Mitch Daniels 4% [4%] (5%)
- Michele Bachmann 2% [3%]
- Rick Santorum 2%
- Gary Johnson 1%
- None of these 9% [9%]
- Not sure 9% [8%]
Sen. Pat Toomey is one of my favorite new members of the world’s most deliberative body, but the man who showed that a conservative could still win in the Keystone State disappointed me today by spearheading a Senate Republican plan that purports to solve all of our fiscal problems without touching entitlements. Indeed, the Toomey plan actually increases Medicare spending relative to both the Ryan plan and the Obama plan, largely by ensuring that payments to providers aren’t subject to future reductions. Senate Republicans are touting this plan as one that brings the budget into balance in ten years.
The full plan can be found here. The details actually aren’t that bad, provided that one ignores the reality that Social Security and Medicare will explode the country in the long-term, regardless of what one does with the rest of the budget. The plan brings non-defense discretionary spending back to 2006 levels, freezes it for six additional years, and then allows it to grow with inflation. It enacts cuts at the Pentagon in accordance with the recommendations of Sec. Gates. It block grants Medicaid to the states. And it reforms the tax code by gutting lots of deductions and lowering the rates. The result is a balanced budget just in time for the entitlement explosion.
If Senate Republicans believe that a deal can be reached with Democrats on the non-entitlement elements of the budget and the tax code in 2011, and that entitlements are better addressed by a Republican president in 2013, then I have no qualms with that strategy. On the other hand, if Republicans are hoping to once again kick the can down the road, fearing the wrath of middle class Boomers, who are nearing retirement and who are planning to take what’s theirs whether it bankrupts the country or not, then the GOP is acting irresponsibly both substantively and tactically. As to that latter point, while entitlement reform never polls particularly well, the reality is that Republicans are on the correct side of the issue mathematically, and a Republican nominee who knows how to communicate this reality to the American people will make Obama look less serious.
Regulars here may know that I have a high opinion of Mitch Daniels. This is based on a number of points which are not relevant to today’s discussion. The question is, what could cause an already very high opinion to go way, way up?
It’s this article, a column by Ben Domenech, who is not a big fan of Daniels. The column mostly deals with a hit piece against Daniels by the leftwing Center for Public Integrity, in which CPI basically accused Daniels of being responsible for everything done by Eli Lilly while he was there. Most specifically, Lilly engaged in some questionable marketing tactics during that time and was sued for it; but Daniels wasn’t involved in marketing, as Domenech notes:
I’ve been critical of Daniels in the past on numerous topics. But connecting him to Lilly’s marketing practices is just incorrect. Daniels’ role at Lilly was handling numbers and high-level policy. He was never involved in the marketing process for the drugs at issue, nor did he have oversight of U.S. marketing of any drugs.
Daniels has never been questioned, never called as a witness, never mentioned in any litigation, and never challenged in court regarding the troubles Eli Lilly endured. It is simply shoddy hack journalism to suggest otherwise.
Thanks, Ben, nice of you to have a fellow conservative’s back. But this is obviously not a reason to raise my opinion of Daniels.
That comes in the conclusion to the column, in which Domenech notes that Daniels was personally involved in only one lawsuit at that time.
… the only lawsuit the CPI authors point to which mentions Daniels by name was brought by the notoriously litigious Church of Scientology Inc. v. Mitch Daniels, a lawsuit brought against him when he told the USA Today editorial board that “The Church of Scientology is no church. It’s a commercial enterprise.”
Way to go, Mitch. Much of my reason for supporting him is that he’s willing to speak the truth, and he just proved it again.
PPP (D) Virginia 2012 Presidential Survey
- Barack Obama 51%
- Bob McDonnell 43%
- Barack Obama 52% [51%] (49%)
- Mike Huckabee 43% [43%] (44%)
- Barack Obama 51% [48%] (48%)
- Mitt Romney 40% [42%] (43%)
- Barack Obama 55% [54%] (51%)
- Sarah Palin 40% [35%] (40%)
- Barack Obama 54% [51%] (52%)
- Newt Gingrich 37% [39%] (41%)
- Barack Obama 54%
- Donald Trump 32%
Judge Roy Moore has had a busy in Iowa today. The potential candidate for President, who earlier formed a presidential exploratory committee, started the day off on Jan Mickelson’s program on WHO-Radio. He made news with the statement that he does not really support the 20-week cutoff abortion bill currently being debated in Iowa. He is troubled by the contradiction of having a bill claim that life begins at conception, yet does not call for an end to all abortions, only those after 20 weeks. This position might ruffle some feathers in Iowa, but it one of principle. He believes as some other pro-lifers do, that this bill institutionalizes abortion in a way that compromises the legal standing of personhood for the unborn. He believes life begins at conception, or more accurately, fertilization. He does not consider himself an incrementalist, though he has been accused of being one because he supports the “heartbeat” bill in Ohio that reputedly would ban abortions after a heart beat is heard (about 21 days).
I was able to secure a phone interview with Judge Moore on behalf of Caffeinated Thoughts and Race42012. Recognizing that our country is “in dire straits”, he began the interview with a portion of this quote from Noah Webster about electing just men to office:
The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.
The first thing he’d do to reduce the debt that is crippling our nation “is fire a lot of people”. The debt when Reagan was in office was a trillion dollars. The current debt is higher than all other deficits combined, over $14T dollars. Though he considers himself a constitutionalist, he does not consider himself a libertarian. He would maintain the ban on women in combat and wants to return the position of the military to the way it was BEFORE President Bill Clinton instituted the Don”t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy. That would allow the government to ban all known homosexuals from serving. He also opposes same-sex “marriages” AND civil unions.
He would eliminate the Department of Education, and opposes Race to the Top.
Judge Moore will be speaking this evening at Indian Hills Junior High in Clive, Iowa at 7:00 p.m. He was invited by Pastor Tom Colson. The speech is open to the public.
Public Policy Polling (D) 2012 Republican National Primary
- Mike Huckabee 19% (17)
- Mitt Romney 18% (15)
- Newt Gingrich 13% (11)
- Sarah Palin 12% (8)
- RonPaul 8% (5)
- Donald Trump 8% (26)
- Michele Bachmann 7% (4)
- Tim Pawlenty 5% (4)
With Different Fields of Candidates:
Full Field Field #2 Field #3 Field #4 Field #5 Huckabee 19% 20% — 24% — Romney 18% 21% 24% 22% 28% Gingrich 13% 15% 20% 20% 26% Palin 12% 14% 17% — — Paul 8% 8% 12% 8% 12% Trump 8% — — — — Bachmann 7% 7% 8% 9% 11% Pawlenty 5% 6% 8% 7% 9% Survey of 610 Republican primary voters was done May 5-8 and has an MoE of 4.0%. Numbers in parentheses are from the April 7-10 poll.
More below the fold:
(more…)
Here’s the official release:
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | CONTACT: Ryan Williams |
| May 10, 2011 | (617) 697-9072 |
Mitt Romney to Lay Out Plan to Repeal and Replace Obamacare
Reforms to Empower States and Reduce Healthcare Costs
BOSTON, MA — The Romney for President Exploratory Committee today announced that Mitt Romney will present his plan to repeal and replace Obamacare with reforms that lower costs and empower states to craft their own health care solutions.
Date: Thursday, May 12, 2011
Time: 2:00 PM EDT
Participants: Mitt Romney
Location: University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center
Danto Auditorium
1500 E. Medical Center Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5852
*Parking available at the corner of Main St. and Keech St., shuttle will be provided
Mitt Romney’s 2012 Principles for Healthcare Reform:
· Restore to the states the responsibility and resources to care for their poor, uninsured, and chronically ill.
· Give a tax deduction to those who buy their own health insurance, just like those who buy it through their employers.
· Streamline the federal regulation of healthcare.
· Reduce the influence of lawsuits on medical practice and costs.
· Make healthcare more like a consumer market and less like a government program.
Mitt Romney is planning to kick start his 2012 exploratory committee the same way he did in 2007: by inviting hundreds of his supporters to come together and raise millions of dollars over the phone.
On January 9, 2007, over 400 Romney supporters met in Boston to “dial for dollars” all day. Romney’s campaign set an initial goal of raising $1 million in order to show that Mitt would be able to keep pace with the two big names in the race (Giuliani and McCain). Using fund raising software known as ComMitt, which was developed specifically for Romney’s exploratory committee, the volunteers broke the $1 million goal in just four hours and ended up raising $6.5 million that day.
In a reprise of that event, Romney’s campaign is inviting supporters to come to Las Vegas next Monday, May 16, and “hundreds” of supporters have signed up. The fund raising calls will begin at 5:30 am Pacific Time to donors on the East Coast and continue all day. This time around, Romney has set an initial goal of $2-3 million, up to triple the goal in 2007.
This will be interesting to watch on a few different levels. In 2007, Romney did an event like this to prove he belonged with the big boys. In 2011, he is one of the big boys and is ostensibly doing the event again to prove he belongs on top. But it seems to me that this is a high risk-high reward proposition. If Mitt’s dialers come in under the $6.5 million figure of 2007, it will be seen as a big hit to his campaign no matter how Romney spins it. But if the final tally comes in over the $6.5 million, it may solidify Romney’s tentative and shaky standing as the field’s presumptive front runner.
We’ll keep you updated throughout the day on Monday as to how this latest attempt at “shock and awe” fund raising is impacting the race for 2012…
PPP/Daily Kos/SEIU (D) New York 26th Congressional District Special Election Survey
The candidates in the special election for Congress are Republican Jane Corwin, Tea Party candidate Jack Davis, Democrat Kathy Hochul, and Green Party candidate Ian Murphy. If the election was today, who would you vote for?
- Kathy Hochul (D) 35%
- Jane Corwin (R) 31%
- Jack Davis (TP) 24%
- Ian Murphy (G) 2%
- Undecided 8%
Survey Methods
Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted April 20-23, 2011, with a random sample of 1,013 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.
In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as president?
- Approve 52%
- Disapprove 41%
Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing in handling the economy?
- Approve 37%
- Disapprove 58%
In a speech to the Economic Club of New York today, House Speaker John Boehner made his goals for the upcoming budget and debt ceiling debates crystal clear:
…what was most monumental was Boehner’s laying a marker that will set the stage for interesting negotiations with Congressional Democrats and the White House as they work to find a solution to raising the debt ceiling.
“Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase,” Boehner said. “And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given. We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions.”
…The rebellion he might see could come from Democrats in D.C., who are sure to seize on Boehner’s contention that there “really is no hard date when it comes to increasing the debt limit.” It will serve to embolden Democrats like Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who urged the speaker to guarantee a debt limit increase during his visit here. He didn’t come close to doing that. In fact, he emphatically said he wouldn’t allow a hike without reforms and cuts.
“As I said earlier, not increasing the debt ceiling would be irresponsible,” Boehner said in one of the night’s unscripted moments. “Having said that, I do not want to allow this moment that we have in our history to pass without real action to solve our long-term economic problems.”
That fact that Boehner took his case directly to Wall Street is significant — the Republican leader clearly wanted to send a message to the markets that he’s got a strong plan for a debt limit package that reigns in spending while allowing more debt to be accrued.
…The proposals Boehner unveiled in New York were bold in how far they tacked to the right and how high he set the bar for spending cuts. For example, under Boehner’s vision, Republicans would have to find more than $2 trillion in cuts if they wanted to raise the debt ceiling by that amount through 2012, according to the Treasury department’s estimates on the debt limit. But Republicans could also go for a more incremental increase in the debt ceiling, coupling that with a smaller offsetting cut in spending. Boehner’s preference is for immediate cuts, not promises to pare back spending in the future or set triggers for deficit reduction.
…Boehner said, “Everything is on the table … that includes honest conversations about how best to preserve Medicare, because we all know, with millions of Baby Boomers beginning to retire, the status quo is unsustainable. If we don’t act boldly now, the markets will act for us very soon.”
Defense spending, the speaker said, needs a “fundamental review” because the Defense Department “does not spend their 600-plus billion dollars every year as efficiently as you would spend your money or I would spend mine,” Boehner told Peterson in the question-and-answer portion.
As we here at Race and other news and commentary outlets have noted many times, Boehner faces the unenviable task of “walking the tightrope” between Washington and the Republican base – between his and the party’s governing duties and the rightward pull of the party grassroots and the House Republican caucus. However, to his credit, today’s speech represented him yet again coming his closest to achieving that near-impossible feat; after all, could we really hope for much more out of someone in his position?
I, for one, have felt heartened and encouraged by the Speaker’s performance since he picked up the gavel. He has done a masterful job of maintaining party unity, especially on key votes, continuing the GOP’s re-branding as the party of fiscal restraint, and prioritizing legislative efforts and resources.
It appears that the party leadership finally gets it. They understand that the Republican rank-and-file wants them to fight first and foremost for spending cuts, not “lesser of two evils” new entitlements or social crusades. And with his speech today, Spkr. Boehner continued to lead by example by defining the upcoming battle on his own ambitious terms.
For once, I feel confident that the Republican Congressional leadership has our best interests at heart. We should wish them well and stand behind them.
The Hill/Pulse Opinion Research Survey on the Killing of Bin Laden & the War on Terror
Which party do you trust more to keep America safe from terrorism?
- Republicans 45%
- Democrats 39%
Among Democrats
- Democrats 80%
- Republicans 8%
Among Republicans
- Republicans 76%
- Democrats 16%
Among Independents
- Republicans 51%
- Democrats 18%
That’s right, everyone’s favorite openly gay Republican Presidential candidate Fred Karger is on the air in New Hampshire. Yes, you heard me right – he will have TV ads airing on WMUR and on cable stations throughout New Hampshire. What’s the ad? It’s entitled Demon Frisbee…here’s the video below:
Watch the video and leave your thoughts below.
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
So fellow R4′ers, it has been 3 years since you last heard from me on this site. Back in 2008 I was licking wounds from a failed Huckabee primary victory, and to add insult to injury watched as our great nation opted for an unknown “change”, which has turned out to be alot of the same.
A lot has happened for the Passmore family, and a lot more has happened in Texas and around the Nation. During this time I have started a new IT Services firm, continued to work with my daughter Kirsten with her therapy (for those of you who do not recall, she has cerebral palsy), and did my best to stay apolitical around my friends. The latter has proven more and more difficult.
I look forward to this primary season. I do not have a horse in this race yet (seriously), although I will say that i have turned more and more libertarian in the last 24 months.
Let the Party begin.
Washington Post Virginia 2012 Presidential Survey
- Barack Obama 51% (48%)
- Mitt Romney 44% (46%)
- Barack Obama 53% (50%)
- Mike Huckabee 44% (46%)
- Barack Obama 55% (51%)
- Tim Pawlenty 35% (38%)
- Barack Obama 61% (54%)
- Donald Trump 30% (35%)
- Barack Obama 61% (55%)
- Sarah Palin 30% (36%)
Newt Gingrich will become the second major competitor to declare his candidacy this primary campaign cycle — doing so on Wednesday via Facebook and Twitter:
Gingrich’s spokesman Rick Tyler tweeted the news Monday that the former congressman from Georgia will first declare his candidacy on Facebook and Twitter, rather than more traditional venues like on television or at a rally.
Sean Hannity will have the first interview with candidate Gingrich Wednesday night, and Newt’s first post-announcement speech will come on Friday during the Georgia GOP convention.
This hasn’t received much coverage here at Race, so I wanted to bring it up for discussion:
Apparently, we may see a shake up in the Iranian government in the near future:
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has given President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an ultimatum over the reinstatement of the country’s intelligence chief, a local website reported Friday.
Khamenei, who, according to the constitution, has the final say on all state affairs, vetoed Ahmadinejad’s decision last month to dismiss Heydar Moslehi.
The website Ayandeh quoted presidential advisor, Morteza Aqa-Tehrani, saying that in a meeting this week between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, the ayatollah has pushed the president to either accept Moslehi or resign.
Ahmadinejad has not yet responded with a final decision on the supreme leader’s ultimatum, Agha-Tehrani added.
Perhaps someone better-versed in Iran and international affairs can comment on the implications of this news. Who appears next-in-line if Ahmadinejad does, indeed, resign? Do the histories of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei suggest that they could reconcile if the former remains? And what other ramifications might this have for the U.S.?
This week on The Chris Matthews Show, Time Magazine’s Richard Stengel reported that the “Republican money guys” are still in search of a candidate for 2012, attempting to woo folks like Mitch Daniels and Jeb Bush into the race due to dissatisfaction with the field, and the desire to get behind an establishment alternative to Mitt Romney. This piece seems to confirm that report:
Some of Iowa’s top Republican campaign contributors, unhappy with their choices in the developing presidential field, are venturing to New Jersey in hopes they can persuade first-term Gov. Chris Christie to run. The entreaty is the latest sign of dissatisfaction within the GOP over the crop of candidates competing for the chance to run against President Barack Obama in 2012.
Bruce Rastetter, an Iowa energy company executive, and a half-dozen other prominent Iowa GOP donors sought the meeting with Christie, the governor’s chief political adviser, Mike DuHaime, told The Associated Press. The get-together is set for the governor’s mansion in Princeton, N.J., on May 31.
The meeting speaks to what some Republicans nationally say is a lack of enthusiasm about the emerging roster of contenders. It’s also unusual because candidates typically court Iowans, who get the first say in presidential nominating contests, and not the other way around.
Christie, who was elected in 2009 and has drawn national attention for his tough talk and battles with Democrats, has explicitly and repeatedly rejected the idea of running for the White House. Yet that hasn’t deterred these Iowans.
“There isn’t anyone like Chris Christie on the national scene for Republicans,” Rastetter told the AP. “And so we believe that he, or someone like him, running for president is very important at this critical time in our country.”
It’s not the first instance this year of Iowa Republicans seeking to widen the 2012 field. A former state party chairman, Steve Grubbs, approached Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ top aide in Indianapolis last month. Daniels expects to say in a few weeks whether he will enter the race.
For what it’s worth, Jeb is still a definite “no” according to Stengel. Whether Christie can be persuaded remains to be seen.
Up until now, Obama’s strategy, or, as George W. Bush would say, “strategery” for his re-election bid has confused me. The president appeared to be fumbling the ball whenever it was passed his way, and seemed to be walking into an uphill battle for re-election against the backdrop of a weak economy and a crushing debt, all of which could be used against the president by a halfway credible, fiscally-oriented Republican nominee. The president’s approval rating was underwater in key Northern states needed by the Democrats to get to the magic number of 270 electoral votes, including New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. Indeed, President Obama’s election in 2008 began to appear more and more as if it were a fluke, the result of Bush fatigue, the financial collapse, and an especially weak Republican nominee.
Especially perplexing was President Obama’s approach to the debt issue. With economic and fiscal issues seemingly at the core of the coming election cycle, Obama’s decision to don full Paul Krugman jacket on entitlements and spending made little sense. Given that Republicans had thrown down the gauntlet at their endzone, embracing Paul Ryan’s plan to re-organize entitlements in a way that would individualize, means-test, and devolve to the states many of Washington’s most popular programs, Obama would have been far better off, it seemed, had he cast his lot with the folks at the 50-yard-line, perhaps by embracing, in a serious way, one of the centrist deficit reduction plans, such as Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin. In so doing, Obama would be essentially “pulling a Bill Clinton,” and stealing the issue of entitlement reform away from the Republicans, as Clinton did with welfare reform. The president’s base would have nowhere to go, and Republicans would have to decide whether to compromise with the president, and allow him to be the president who “saves” Social Security and Medicare, or stand their ground and make Obama seem reasonable to swing voters.
Instead, the president dithered for months following his massive midterm losses and then gave a speech in which he set himself up to be the unabashed defender of the legacy of FDR and LBJ, suggesting that entitlement reform was necessary, and then proceeding to take off the table every possible manner in which to reform entitlements. In so doing, the president retreated to his own endzone on the debt issue, resulting in polls showing that Americans were evenly divided as to whether Ryan and the Republicans or Obama and the Democrats should be trusted on fiscal matters. Entitlements, which had long been a Democratic issue, now seemed up for grabs. None of this made any sense. It was like Obama wanted to lose.
But given the events of the past week, the reasoning behind Obama’s moves are becoming far more clear. With Osama bin Laden dead, and with the subsequent attempt to kill Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, it’s becoming evident that the president is following the Richard Nixon playbook from 1971, and is attempting to introduce a foreign policy element into a campaign that would otherwise center on domestic issues on which the president simply could not win.
In Allan Lichtman’s book, The Keys to the White House, Lichtman dubs Richard Nixon, “The Turnaround President,” due to Nixon’s ability to pivot from a fairly lackluster first term in office to an easy re-election. Lichtman argues that Nixon entered his third year in office with bleak re-election prospects. His party had received a drubbing in the midterm elections, his domestic accomplishments had been sparse, and he was presiding over an economic recovery that wasn’t hitting home with the American people. Moreover, Nixon continued to be mired in an endless land war in Asia. Nixon turned things around by using 1971 and 1972 to focus on two things: foreign policy and job growth. In terms of foreign policy, Lichtman argues, Nixon pulled off a coup via detente with the Soviet Union and by opening the door to China, resulting in eased tensions with these Communist nations, a welcome development in an America where perpetual military conflict to contain Communism seemed inevitable. Nixon’s foreign policy successes boosted his case for re-election, making him seem like a serious president.
The other plank of Nixon’s re-election strategy, according to Lichtman, was to get the short-term economy moving again. The recovery of the early ’70s had finally reached the average American in 1972, just in time for Nixon to reap the political spoils. Now, I think most economic conservatives would argue that Nixon’s policies of price controls and economic stimulus had little to do with the economic recovery, and may have actually hindered the recovery, in the sense that the recovery may have been quicker and more robust had Nixon not employed Keynesian economics. But none of that matters to the bulk of Americans, who arbitrarily reward or punish the sitting president based on the economic conditions on the ground.
Fast-forward to the present day. President Obama, like Nixon, is attempting to introduce a new foreign policy element into this election cycle through a series of attempted foreign policy successes. Instead of detente with the Soviets and “Nixon going to China,” though, we’re going to get a series of dead terrorists. The optics will be this: Obama the Ditherer becomes Obama the Terrorist Hunter.
Further, the president will claim credit for the American economy’s recovery, presuming that jobs continue growing at least at their current pace. April marks the third month in a row in which over 200,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy. Pretty much every economist agrees that this is a paltry sum, and that an economy at this stage of recovery should be adding far more jobs. But unfortunately, Americans won’t be able to compare an alternate universe, where President Nikki Haley is presding over 400,000 new jobs a month, with the actual universe in which Obama is president, and in which the federal government is stepping on the nation’s toes. Instead, the message by fall of 2012 will be that Obama is “creating” between 2 and 3 million jobs a year, and that Republican promises of greater fortunes would constitute the uncertainty that comes with “changing horses midstream.”
Finally, President Nixon had one final advantage in 1972, and that was the Democratic base and its insistence that its presidential nominee be the most extreme, abstract, unelectable nominee possible, i.e., someone designed to “send a message” as opposed to win an election. Indeed, the nomination of George McGovern turned what would have been a modest Nixon re-election, based on the economic rebound and foreign policy accomplishments, into a 49-state rout. Similarly, the nomination of one of the GOP base’s flavors of the month, such as Herman Cain, Donald Trump, etc, would lead to an extremely lopsided election result, as Obama’s bad ideas defeat the GOP nominee’s lack of ideas, other than the idea that “Obama sucks.”
Further, even if Republicans can be pulled away from the psychologically satisfying act of going down in flames with Herman, Sarah, Donald, or Michele, the introduction of a strong foreign policy component into the campaign mixes the field up a bit, and does so in a way that makes it harder for someone like Paul Ryan or Mitch Daniels to win the nomination. Races that involve foreign policy generally lower the stock of wonky, green eyeshade types, and raise the stock of candidates who exude strength and/or gravitas. This may lead candidates like Rudy Giuliani, who previously may have stayed out of the race, to jump in, while Ryan and Daniels, who were flirting with getting in, decide to stay out. And that of course complicates the Republican calculus even further. It was hard enough before adding a foreign policy element to find an understated social conservative with a primary focus on economic and fiscal issues who could make both the base and swing voters happy, and who was an excellent politcian and serious policy wonk as well. Adding the foreign policy prong makes a hard task seem nearly impossible.
To sum up, Richard Nixon bet the farm in 1971-72 on the notion that short-term job growth and a few big foreign policy triumphs would salvage a lackluster first term and yield a second term for the president. President Obama is likewise putting all of his re-election chips on continued job growth and as many dead terrorists as possible. Team Obama is wagering that jobs and dead terrorists beat either austerity or red meat, and that swing voters will allow Obama to kick the entitlement can down the road as long as things appear to be moving in the right direction. Whether the American people will see through this strategy is anyone’s guess.
