Bruce Keough led Romney’s New Hampshire steering committee in 2008, but when he was asked to join Romney’s 2012 team he declined. Afterwards, he ran to Mother Jones to explain why he isn’t re-upping with Romney:

Keough says Romney’s wishy-washy political identity and inability to stake out firm, consistent positions as a candidate were the reasons for his decision to cut ties with Romney. “He struggled with that in the last campaign,” Keough explains, “and to some extent I think he’s still struggling with it.”

That news was tempered a bit by the Romney campaign’s announcement of two new supporters in New Hampshire — former House Speaker Doug Scamman and his wife, former state Rep. Stella Scamman. Both worked against Romney in 2008 as they supported Rudy Giuliani. Politico describes the two as a “power couple” in New Hampshire politics and notes that their endorsement was highly sought after, explaining that “The Scammans’s New Hampshire farm has become a regular campaign stop for Republican presidential primary candidates.”

Earlier today, Gov. Mitch Daniels discussed his education reform bill with some folks at the American Enterprise Institute. The full presentation, including a Q&A session, is about 53 minutes long, but is definitely worth the time of anyone interested in the potential presidential candidate’s views, accomplishments, style, and demeanor.

Excerpt from SarahPac:

I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women—America’s finest—into harm’s way should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be in five points.

• First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.

• Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

• And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.

• Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.

• Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.

Governor Palin went on to stress the following additional point:

We are not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We are always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world. But with strength and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world because as the U.S. leads by example.

Very well put. Points two and three are points that two years ago, I would have said were self-evident. Our current President has proven otherwise.

Tim Pawlenty hasn’t yet officially announced his candidacy, but there he was yesterday talking to the AP and promising a relentless focus on Iowa.

AMES, Iowa – Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has aggressively laid the foundation for an Iowa caucus campaign, and on Tuesday he promised a relentless focus on the state with plenty of time for one-on-one meetings with activists.

“It seems to me that in Iowa, meeting people and retail politics matters,” Pawlenty told The Associated Press after a meeting with about 50 activists. “Getting to know them, and them you, matters. Part of the process is showing up and getting acquainted.”
…

Pawlenty has formed a presidential exploratory committee and has been the most determined of potential Republican hopefuls in building a network in Iowa. Last week, he named an Iowa legislator to manage his campaign in the state and hired a dozen other top staff to help him organize for the state’s leadoff nominating caucuses.

Other Republicans also have made moves in Iowa. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has also formed an exploratory committee, has identified a top staffer to run his Iowa effort, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has hired an Iowa director, and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has identified operatives who would be expected to organize her Iowa campaign if she opts to seek the GOP nomination.

But none has focused as intently on Iowa as Pawlenty, who made it clear that he would follow the traditional strategy of seeking to meet as many Republicans as possible.

(emphasis added)

Any hopeful in the top tier who takes Iowa for granted is a fool.

Quinnipiac National GOP Primary

• Romney – 18% (18)
• Huckabee – 15% (17)
• Palin – 15% (19)
• Trump – 12% (n/a)
• Daniels – 5% (2)
• Gingrich – 5% (15)
• Paul – 5% (n/a)
• Bachmann – 4% (n/a)
• Pawlenty – 4% (6)
• Huntsman – 1% (n/a)
• Johnson – 1% (n/a)
• Santorum – 1% (n/a)

Percentage of Americans who say they are “enthusiastic” about each candidate

• Romney – 15%
• Palin – 15%
• Huckabee – 13%
• Paul – 10%
• Gingrich – 9%
• Trump – 9%
• Bachmann – 6%

Percentage who say they would “consider voting for” each candidate

• Romney – 38%
• Huckabee – 34%
• Gingrich – 29%
• Trump – 26%
• Paul – 25%
• Palin – 24%
• Bachmann – 21%

Percentage who would “never” vote for each candidate

• Palin – 58%
• Trump – 58%
• Gingrich – 42%
• Huckabee – 32%
• Bachmann – 29%
• Paul – 27%
• Romney – 26%

Total of (Enthusiastic + Consider) / Never Vote For

• Romney – 53/26
• Huckabee – 47/32
• Paul – 35/27
• Bachmann – 27/29
• Gingrich – 38/42
• Palin – 39/58
• Trump – 37/58

Survey was conducted April 26 – May 1 of 1,408 registered voters and has an MoE of 2.6%. The GOP primary matchup question was asked only of Republicans and Republican leaners. Numbers in parentheses for the primary matchup are from the November survey.

Referring to comments President Obama made during the 2008 campaign that some bitter people were clinging to their guns and their religion, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee told the NRA conventioneers in Pittsburgh Saturday that “I want you to know I stand here tonight as a gun-clinger and a God-clinger, unapologetically.” He got a standing ovation from the crowd of 70,000 in attendance.  He added that like most of the crowd, his father and grandfather were gun-clingers, too.  And so was George Washington, who signed the Militia Act of 1792 requiring gun and ammunition ownership for all males over the age of 18.

Huckabee made clear he understands that the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about preserving our freedom.  If in a time of civil unrest you have someone arrive on your property trying to steal your provisions and threatening your family, your command for the intruder to get off the land is a lot more effective when you are standing behind a 12-gauge or a Glock 40.   We are not just gun owners, he told the crowd, we are patriots who love our country.

Most of us were taught how to handle and use a firearm by a parent.  Huckabee’s worst fear as a child was not the gun, it was fearing his father if he ever misused a firearm.  It wasn’t a toy.  Huckabee’s father was an old fashioned patriot who laid on the stripes, and Mike Huckabee saw the stars.

Touching on the economy, Huckabee suggested that we as a society were paying an awful economic price for absentee fathers who abandon wife and children and leave the taxpayer to pick up the tab.   Two thirds of the children in poverty would not be in poverty if the mothers of those children were married to their fathers.  These issues cannot be ignored.

It is not about the expense of certain government programs, it’s whether they should exist at all.The government should not be the ones picking winners and losers among banks, car companies, and Wall Street firms.   Government officials are rather to be referee.

It’s not just about being gun-clingers.  It is also about clinging to God.  Without his blessing, our country would not exist.  Without Him, it will not survive.  Fathers and mothers raise kids better than government ever will.

Huckabee finished his speech by telling the story of his visit to the Yad Vashem holocaust museum in Israel with his daughter, who was 11-years-old at the time.  He was at first worried that it might be too traumatic.  Then followed the fear that she would not really understand the lesson that we should never look away as evil advances.  At the end of the tour, Sarah Huckabee signed the guest book with five words, which Governor Huckabee said he would never forget and proved she really did get it: “Why didn’t somebody do something?”

As we leave an unfathomable debt to our children, and see our own freedoms disappear, we should ask ourselves whether our children will see their children write the same words about our country.  He suggested that the crowd at the NRA convention were the somebodies that would do something to preserve our freedom.

The video of the complete speech can be found at the NRA’s website, 8th bullet* point to the right in the window of videos to the right**.

*No pun intended.    ** Also, no pun intended.

On one of the blog sites that I frequent a few supporters of other candidates questioned Huckabee’s FiCon credentials. On another site a contributor requested that someone “rank these same 4 as to who would be best for a poor economy?” I decided to give that a try using the data available at USGovernmentSpending.com. I’m hoping their information is accurate and am assuming it is from an unbiased source.

I’ll be posting only the information available during the years 3 of the 4 Governors (Huckabee, Romney, and Pawlenty) were serving together and include Daniels during the last two years of that time-frame so we can do our best to compare apples to apples. I hope I figured this correctly. Please feel free to check all the numbers and my math. (If the link starts working properly. I was having trouble with it most of the day.)

First we’ll compare the Gross State Product growth:

Arkansas GSP grew from $77.8 in 2003 to $97.6 in 2007 at an annual rate of 6.35%
Massachusetts GSP grew from $297.3 in 2003 to $353.8 in 2007 at an annual rate of 4.75%
Minnesota GSP grew from $212.4 in 2003 to $255.3 in 2007 at an annual rate of 5.05%
Indiana GSP grew from $239.6 in 2005 (when Daniels took office) to $263.1 in 2007 at an annual rate during the two years we can use to compare of 4.90%

Next we’ll compare the government spending in the state and local government for the four states:

Arkansas spending grew from $13.8 in 2003 to $19.1 in 2007 at an annual rate of 9.97%
Massachusetts spending grew from $40.7 in 2003 to $64.1 in 2007 at an annual rate of 14.37%
Minnesota spending grew from $37.6 in 2003 to $47.2 in 2007 at an annual rate of 6.38%
Indiana spending grew from $42.2 in 2005 to $46.7 in 2007 at an annual rate of 5.33%

Lastly, we’ll compare the Real State Growth:

Arkansas RSG was 3.0% in 2003, 3.7% in 2004, 2.9% in 2005, 2.7% in 2006 and 1.0% in 2007 with a 2.66% yearly average RSG
Massachusetts RST was 1.5% in 2003, 2.0% in 2004, 1.1% in 2005, 1.5% in 2006 and 2.0% in 2007 with a 1.62% yearly average of RSG
Minnesota 3.4% in 2003, 4.1% in 2004, 1.7% in 2005, 0.2% in 2006, and 0.7% in 2007 with a 2.02% yearly average RSG
Indiana 0.3% in 2005, 1.1% in 2006, and 3.1% in 2007 with a 1.50% yearly average RSG

In summary:
Huckabee saw the best annual rate of growth in Gross State Product. Daniels and Pawlenty saw the least growth in spending. Huckabee did the best in Real State Growth. Romney did the worst in all three categories.

I’ll be voting Huckabee for President 2012!

Note: If there is someone out there with the ability to put this in chart or graph form I would really appreciate it.

_______________________________________________________________

-Please visit Ms. Teubert’s personal blog here.

Newsweek/Daily Beast 2012 Presidential Survey

Among Likely Voters

• Barack Obama 42% [46%] (46%)
• Mike Huckabee 38% [43%] (46%)

• Barack Obama 42% [44%] (49%)
• Mitt Romney 36% [44%] (47%)

• Barack Obama 50% [53%] (51%)
• Sarah Palin 29% [35%] (40%)

• Barack Obama 53% [55%] (43%)
• Donald Trump 25% [30%] (41%)

(more…)

SurveyUSA/WABC-TV NYC Osama Bin Laden/War on Terror Poll

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as President?

• Approve 59%
• Disapprove 35%

Among Democrats

• Approve 85%
• Disapprove 13%

Among Republicans

• Approve 31%
• Disapprove 62%

Among Independents

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 44%

(more…)

SurveyUSA/WFLA-TV Tampa-St. Pete Osama Bin Laden/War on Terror Poll

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as President?

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 48%

Among Democrats

• Approve 80%
• Disapprove 17%

Among Republicans

• Approve 13%
• Disapprove 82%

Among Independents

• Approve 47%
• Disapprove 50%

(more…)

NBC News and Politico tonight announced that they were moving their debate at the Reagan Library up a week to September 7th.

The debate was originally scheduled to take place on May 2, but was postponed when it became clear the candidate field was taking shape more slowly than anticipated. The debate was moved then to September 14th. However, that date put it just two days after the CNN/Tea Party Express debate. Moving it back to September 7 allows the Reagan Library to be the first post-Ames debate, as well as the first post-Labor Day event.

So our latest primary calendar looks like this:

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

The South Carolina GOP and FOX News have announced the official list of participants for their debate coming up on Thursday night, and they are:

• Herman Cain
• Gary Johnson
• Ron Paul
• Tim Pawlenty
• Rick Santorum

Not exactly the roaring start to the primary season we have all been hoping for… on average, these five guys get around 10-12% combined in the national polls.

No Gingrich, no Romney, no Trump, no Huckabee, not even Bachmann signed up for this one. What I will be watching to see is if Pawlenty can manage to come across as a first tier candidate, or if being on stage with a bunch of third tier guys will diminish his image.

Rick Santorum announced the start of a presidential exploratory committee today on Sean Hannity’s radio show. The timing allows him to participate in this week’s FOX News/South Carolina GOP debate.

This makes seven candidates-to-be with exploratory committees (Cain, Moore, Roemer, Romney, Paul, Pawlenty, and Santorum) and one officially declared candidate (Johnson).

ARG has just released their latest Horse Race poll on the 2012 Presidential Hopefuls in Florida:

ARG Florida 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Mitt Romney 26%
• Mike Huckabee 14%
• Newt Gingrich 11%
• Sarah Palin 9%
• Donald Trump 7%
• Rudy Giuliani 6%
• Michele Bachmann 5%
• Herman Cain 4%
• Mitch Daniels 3%
• Ron Paul 1%
• Tim Pawlenty 1%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Jon Huntsman 0%
• Gary Johnson 0%
• Buddy Roemer 0%
• Other 1%
• Undecided 11%

(more…)

PPP has released their latest vs. Obama poll in Arizona:

PPP (D) Arizona 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 48% [49%] (50%)
• Barack Obama 44% [43%] (43%)

• Barack Obama 46% [44%] (45%)
• Mike Huckabee 44% [48%] (49%)

• Barack Obama 47% [46%]
• Newt Gingrich 40% [46%]

• Barack Obama 49% [49%] (47%)
• Sarah Palin 38% [41%] (47%)

• Barack Obama 48%
• Donald Trump 36%

Trump appears to be sinking not so slowly in the West.
(more…)

Former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman today formed a federal political action committee that will permit him to begin raising money and traveling to early primary states.  In a quick move since his return from Beijing, Huntsman formed “H PAC”, a federal PAC that will join “Horizon PAC”, a group formed by allies of Huntsman based in two states.  Huntsman met with Republican lawmakers upon his return and also sat down with potential staff and fundraisers.   All signs point to Huntsman moving forward with a bid to challenge his former boss, President Obama, in 2012.

Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review was among a number of journalists who had the opportunity to sit down with Gov. Daniels today and pick his brain with regard to 2012. Ramesh believes that a run is in Daniels’ future, but also believes that the governor’s ambivalence has been genuine:

His conservatism is not combative. Daniels was pressed repeatedly about the role of the Bush tax cuts in building today’s federal debt, about the failure of his fellow Republicans to recognize the need for tax increases, about the nuttiness of his party’s birthers, and about its general “reality-denial problem.” Daniels politely disagreed on the Bush tax cuts, said that Republicans weren’t the only people with nutty ideas, and suggested that Obama’s budget was “disappointing” in its denial of reality. But there was no forceful pushback of the type one might have gotten from other conservatives.

He is passionate about cutting entitlement payouts to the affluent. “Why are we sending Warren Buffett a welfare check?” Universal programs have been defended as a means of building social solidarity. What Daniels sees, however, is “cynicism.” The theory that well-off voters won’t support programs to help the poor unless they get a cut themselves is “politically manipulative”: “People are led, still are led, to believe things that aren’t true.” He adds, “The assumption it makes about the American people”—that they are purely self-interested—“is very unfair.”

His foreign-policy details are TBD. Daniels said that “it cannot be illegitimate to ask” if some of the country’s military commitments should be unwound, but he has not yet reached any conclusions about which should be—or, at least, any he is willing to share. On Afghanistan he refuses to second-guess the decisions of the president, to whose greater access to information he defers. On Libya he says only that he has not seen the case for intervention made. One gets the impression of someone who is much more cautious about foreign intervention than Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, but also cautious about saying so. He was asked if he were ready to debate President Obama on foreign policy. “Probably not.” (He is candid.)

His ambivalence about running seems real. “I encouraged four different people to run,” he says, and failed. (He wouldn’t name them but Haley Barbour appears to have been one of them.) At one point he used the words “if I talk myself into this” when discussing a run of his own. Why might he run? “I believe the country’s at a very perilous point arithmetically. And I haven’t yet—still hope to—seen anyone else step up to it. . . . So far my brethren have been a little hesitant.”

But he’s leaning toward running. That’s just the impression I got. If he does run, he says, there will be no exploratory committee, “nothing cute.” “We’ll just get on about it.”

I found it interesting that Ramesh felt it necessary to characterize Daniels’ conservatism as non-combative, as if such a tone is an oddity in national politics. Ultimately, I think this is a function of the comic book-style politics of our era, which requires prominent national figures to possess the pomp, pugnacity, or panache of the cast of any given HBO original series. Americans have come to expect a certain entertainment value from their politicians, and then turn around and wonder why the country is collapsing. It’s true that Mitch Daniels probably wouldn’t make a very interesting True Blood character, but let’s hope that Americans have developed no such litmus test for their Commander in Chief.

While I still harbor some suspicion that Daniels’ ambivalence is all “part of the plan,” so to speak, and that Haley Barbour’s brief run was intended to stall donors and talent in preparation for a Daniels bid, the revelation that our man Mitch attempted to woo four different candidates into the race may suggest otherwise. My guess as to the identities of these four candidates that Daniels tried to coax into the race: Haley Barbour, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush.

The Hill is reporting that Mitt Romney had a few more things to say about bin Ladin’s death.

“I think the killing of Osama bin Laden is an enormous success, and I don’t know if it helps or hurts the president politically, but I really don’t care,” Romney told reporters in New Hampshire, the host of the first-in-the-nation primary, according to video captured by NECN.

“The right thing is we got the bad guy, and the nation celebrates that,” Romney added. “We’re all Americans. This is not a Republican or a Democrat thing; this is an American thing.”’

…

“The bad guy took one in the eye,” Romney said of the attack.

Obama deserves praise and credit for the mission, but does that make him unbeatable in 2012? Romney replied, “I don’t think so”.

The latest polling seems to agree. While Obama has enjoyed a quick bounce in his foreign policy numbers, his handling-of-the-economy stats are still very low:

Obama’s bump in the polls has not extended to his handling of the economy. Just 40 percent of Americans approve of his handling to the economy in the Pew poll, while a majority — 55 percent — disapprove. That is virtually equal to a 39 percent-56 percent split in the March-April survey.

In the CNN poll, his approval rating on the economy is 42 percent, which is statistically equal to a 39 percent rating in mid-March. On the federal budget deficit, Obama’s approval rating is only 35 percent — virtually equal to a 36 percent rating in mid-March.

As a foreign policy neo-con, the thought of having our Party change course on foreign policy is more than a little discouraging. I firmly believe that the United States needs to be an active promoter of democracy and freedom in the world. However, the politics of foreign policy makes it so that this foreign policy viewpoint is not a winner anymore. After a decade in Afghanistan and almost as many years in Iraq, the American people are tired of interventionism and democracy promotion. These feelings have been accelerated with the death of Bin Laden “we got the S.O.B., let’s declare victory and leave.” So, with all the rapid changes taking place throughout the world, it’s time for the GOP to chart a new course on foreign policy.

Let me say at the start that isolationism is a nonstarter. Burying our head in the sand and ignoring the rest of the world is not an option. The GOP is not, nor ever will be the party of Ron Paul isolationism. As I stated previously though, we aren’t going to be the party of the neo-con foreign policy either. So, where do we go?

I think the best possible compromise for the GOP is to go back to the foreign policy ideas of the George H. W. Bush years. The first President Bush, with his vast experience in the foreign policy arena, was no isolationist, nor was he the idealist that his son turned out to be. President Bush’s foreign policy was above all practical and driven by what might be called enlightened self-interest. The first President Bush was not above intervention, look at the First Gulf War or Operation Just Cause in Panama, but he also didn’t deploy troops to help the Romanian’s as they toppled Nicolai Ceausescu. He certainly was delighted by the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union, but was also cautious about getting too optimistic about the events happening in Eastern Europe.

In short, I think the Republican Party needs to chart a middle way between a neo-con foreign policy and the isolationism of Ron Paul. Returning to George H. W. Bush’s enlightened self-interest may be just the sort of policy that the Republican Party can advocate and the American people will accept. It isn’t my ideal foreign policy, or that of most other Republicans, but it may be the type of foreign policy that can guide the Republican Party in the near future.

We interrupt your regularly-scheduled Bin-Laden posting to bring you news from our northern neighbor–and largest trading partner in the world–Canada. Canadians went to the polls yesterday, and the results are something of a shocker. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who previously headed up a minority government of the right-of-center Conservative Party of Canada, has gained a majority government, meaning that the Canadian cycle of no confidence votes and frequent elections is finally over. On the other hand, the Liberal Party of Canada, which virtually dominated Canadian politics for large chunks of the twentieth century, has been reduced to 34 of Canada’s 308 parliamentary seats. Aside from Harper, the big winners–and now the official opposition– are the social democratic New Democratic Party, or NDP, which made stunningly large gains based on a romp through Quebec. But given that many of their gains came at the expense of the left-wing, secessionist-minded Bloc Quebecois, while the rest came at the expense of the left-of-center but congenitally cocky Liberals, it couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of folks.

What does this mean for Canada, and for the US? First off, Canada is not–as some hyperbolic commentators suggest–going through a process of “political Americanization”. Rather, this process is akin to the disintegration of the British Liberals, and their eventual eclipse by the Labor Party. In fact, if this were an example of “Americanization”, the Liberals–a left-of-center party which tries to square the circle between government largesse and it’s close relationship with large corporations–would have retained their role as official opposition, as they are a much better analogue to the American Democratic Party. Rather, it’s fair to say that the Canadian system is becoming much more like the British. The trick for the NDP will be to convince Canadians that Harper is a combination of George W. Bush and Maggie Thatcher, while at the same time reassuring Canadians that they themselves are more like Blairite new Labor than the old Labor of Michael Foot or the disastrously incompetent new labor of Gordon Brown. Meanwhile, the Liberals can take a page from the British LibDems; it’s kind of fun to be a third party with a vaguely centrist reputation, that can also freely criticize government policies without the need to come up with robust alternatives. And, who knows, if you get to face a government leader as inept as.. oh, let’s just say Gordon Brown, you might get to be the junior partner in a coalition down the road. The real trick for Liberals will be convincing voters that they matter, as the right (read centrist) wing of the Liberals may well defect to the Conservatives while the left wing of the party has mostly already found a home in the NDP. Meanwhile, for Harper, the trick will be continuing to govern competently. Canadians came through the financial crisis in better shape than a lot of other countries, and the election results seem to show that Harper has gotten at least partial credit for this. Harper will now also give Canadians something they’ve been wanting for a while, an end to the seemingly endless cycle of elections they’ve been plagued with since Jean Cretien resigned as Prime Minister back in 2003. With a decisive majority in hand, Harper can pretty much keep Canada steady, without the need to bring Canadians back to the polls in another six months.

What does the election mean for the US, and (possibly) the US presidential race? In the short term, the effect should be positive. Harper’s Conservatives are basically pro-trade, pro-business, and supportive of an expanded Canadian role in NATO. All of these are–from a US perspective–very good things. However, there are some cautionary notes to be sounded in last night’s elections. Liberal party leader Michael Ignatief was hammered by blistering attacks from the NDP for, of all things, being too pro-American. Ignatief was a Kennedy school professor who has written some positive things about America’s role in the world in the past, which was sufficient grounds, in the minds of the NDP and their voters, to disqualify him from the prime ministership. The irony here is that previous Liberal leaders used very similar tactics against Harper in the 2004 Canadian elections. Should the NDP ever gain a governing majority or a plurality, which does not seem entirely implausible at some point in the future, it seems likely that they will bring this anti-American populism with them. Anti-Americanism is, and almost always has been, a component of Canadian identity, going back to the United Empire Loyalists who left the US after the American Revolution, and reinforced, strongly at times, over the subsequent centuries. To be sure, the US could survive an eventual NDP government in Canada, and probably could do so easily. But given just how much trade flows across the massive border we share with the Great White North, any move by a socialist government feeling it’s oats in five or six years to decouple the Canadian and American economies could be quite painful for everyone involved, particularly the economies of northern border states. So American conservatives should be cautiously optimistic about the newly-empowered Conservative government to our north, but it will be important to keep a wary eye on the new opposition party; it’s safe to say they don’t like us very much.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels told Fox News today that he had spoken to his old boss, President George W. Bush, about a 2012 presidential bid.  Daniels wouldn’t reveal the details of the discussion, saying that the conversation was ”between him and me”.  It seems clear that the former President favors his old budget director for the 2012 nomination and could be a huge asset in helping Daniels build up a front-running campaign.

Daniels also commented about the departure of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour from the race, and seemed to indicate that he would enter the race himself.

“We’re old pals, and we cut cards, and I drew a two.

No, actually, I was very interested in what Governor Barbour was thinking, but it would’ve been fun to be in it together.

I tell you what — you all would have had a little more fun, a few more laughs if we were both in there.

And it would’ve been very clean and upbeat, which I hope it will be, anyway.“

Daniels also took a moment to discuss the death of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, praising both President Obama and President Bush while giving most of the credit to the men and women in the military and the intelligence community.

“People care about the security of this country every day but absolutely on an occasion like this,” Daniels said. “Let’s hope it’s not too temporary, the unity, the spontaneous unity we saw is always great and we need it for other purposes in this country.”

With having a day to digest the bin Laden killing, news outlets from around the globe have started to publish treasure troves of information. First and foremost, a report from ABC News details the events leading up to and during the fatal raid:

Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, detainees in the CIA’s secret prison network told interrogators about an important courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who was close to bin Laden. After the CIA captured al-Qaida’s No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he confirmed knowing al-Kuwaiti but denied he had anything to do with al-Qaida.

Then in 2004, top al-Qaida operative Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq. Ghul told the CIA that al-Kuwaiti was a courier, someone crucial to the terrorist organization. In particular, Ghul said, the courier was close to Faraj al-Libi, who replaced Mohammed as al-Qaida’s operational commander. It was a key break in the hunt for in bin Laden’s personal courier.

…The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA’s so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.

Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.

It took years of work before the CIA identified the courier’s real name: Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a Pakistani man born in Kuwait.

…But in the middle of last year, Ahmed had a telephone conversation with someone being monitored by U.S. intelligence, according to an American official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive operation. Ahmed was located somewhere away from bin Laden’s hideout when he had the discussion, but it was enough to help intelligence officials locate and watch Ahmed.

In August 2010, Ahmed unknowingly led authorities to a compound in the northeast Pakistani town of Abbottabad, where al-Libi had once lived.

…By mid-February, the officials were convinced a “high-value target” was hiding in the compound. President Barack Obama wanted to take action.

…Options were limited. The compound was in a residential neighborhood in a sovereign country. If Obama ordered an airstrike and bin Laden was not in the compound, it would be a huge diplomatic problem. Even if Obama was right, obliterating the compound might make it nearly impossible to confirm bin Laden’s death.

Said Brennan: “The president had to evaluate the strength of that information, and then made what I believe was one of the most gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory.”

…Before dawn Monday morning, a pair of helicopters left Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. The choppers entered Pakistani airspace using sophisticated technology intended to evade that country’s radar systems, a U.S. official said.

Officially, it was a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn’t kill unarmed people trying to surrender. But it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering, two U.S. officials said.

…Thanks to sophisticated satellite monitoring, U.S. forces knew they’d likely find bin Laden’s family on the second and third floors of one of the buildings on the property, officials said. The SEALs secured the rest of the property first, then proceeded to the room where bin Laden was hiding. A firefight ensued, Brennan said.

Ahmed and his brother were killed, officials said. Then, the SEALs killed bin Laden with a bullet just above his left eye, blowing off part his skull, another official said. Using the call sign for his visual identification, one of the soldiers communicated that “Geronimo” had been killed in action, according to a U.S. official.

A few things came to mind when I read this article:

1. I don’t care if Obama is a Democrat, he deserves all the credit in the world for his performance as Commander-in-Chief of this mission.  He executed it almost perfectly; he waited to take action until the U.S. acquired credible, actionable evidence, took a major risk by authorizing a surgical strike in a sovereign nation, and insisted on a plan that resulted in no civilian casualties.  Domestic policies aside, my respect for and trust in the President when it comes to foreign policy and national defense has skyrocketed.
2. This mission demonstrated once again that the men and women of the United States armed forces merit nothing but the utmost respect and gratitude from us.  No other fighting force in the world can measure up to our troops and the technology at their hands.
3. The event also reflected tremendously on the U.S. intelligence community.  After years of negative publicity and declining public approval, it heartened me to see our intelligence organization, especially the CIA, score such a decisive and significant victory.
4. Hollywood couldn’t script a more exciting turn of events.

In other news, the Navy SEAL team that carried out the mission also recovered a gold mine of intelligence regarding al-Qaeda, such as computer files and hard drives.  Let’s hope this leads to further dismantling of the terrorist organization.

The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that bin Laden produced another of his famous videos shortly before his demise.  Time will tell of its contents, but al-Qaeda will no doubt pay extra close attention to this one.

And, last but not least, it appears that Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahri has become the heir apparent for leadership of al-Qaeda.  Thankfully, signs indicate that the U.S. now plans to scour the data retrieved from bin Laden’s hideout for clues as to al-Zawahri’s location.  Perhaps we’ll see another al-Qaeda leader bite the dust in the near future?

All in all, my heartfelt thanks go out to Presidents Obama and Bush and the U.S. military and intelligence community.

(h/t to Drudge for all the links)

It was nearly a decade ago that foreign invaders attacked the American mainland for the first time since Pearl Harbor, propelling the U.S. into a global war on terror that has taken many twists and turns, but that has culminated in the death of the mastermind of the Islamist assault on America, Osama bin Laden. While the demise of OBL most certainly does not end the threat of Islamist terrorism against the West, the fact that this mass murderer of thousands of Americans, and countless others, has finally been brought to justice serves as a sort of benchmark victory in the nation’s ongoing struggle against OBL’s violent ideology. And, as such, it is time for America to re-assess its approach to the war on terror.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the war on terror can no longer be waged appropriately against nation-states. This wasn’t always true. A decade ago, the Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan, where they gave refuge and allegiance to bin Laden and al Qaeda, and in Mesopotamia, a tin pot despot with a blood grudge against the U.S., Saddam Hussein, was believed to possess weapons of mass destruction that he could easily pass off to Islamist terrorists. At that point, it was entirely appropriate to view the war on terror as a war against two nation-states, or at least two governments, those of Afghanistan and Iraq.

But the governments of those states have been deposed. Saddam Hussein is dead. So is OBL. Their allies are scattered. The nations that they or their allies once ruled are now being fought over internally by disparate factions and interests as the U.S. attempts to referee and nation-build. This is not a smart use of our finite resources given our goal of preventing and eliminating Islamist terrorist threats to the United States and her allies and interests.

But wait, says the committed NeoConservative, doesn’t the establishment of Western-style democracies in these countries create the conditions where Islamism will be eradicated from within? Theoretically, yes. If you could turn Iraq into the reddest red state in the United States, you would absolutely have a population hostile to Islamism in all its forms. But to embark on such an idealistic quest is a fool’s errand. These nations, with histories and cultures far different than ours, are not going to transform into lands filled with mall-going, beer-guzzling, all-American Homer Simpsons just because a few American rifles are pointed in the right directions. Hearts and minds cannot be changed with the sword.

Americans are going to have to realize that turning Baghdad into Peoria just isn’t going to happen. And thus we have two options. We can either eject ourselves from these countries and let their societies continue to develop organically, giving Iraq and Afghanistan the self-determination that we’ve long promised them, or we can continue to occupy those nations as semi-permanent vassal states, giving them the freedom to do what we tell them to do. Yes, if we get out, and if true democracy takes root in these countries, that means that the huge chunk of the population that hates the West, hates the United States, and hates Israel will get to elect likeminded men and women to government. Just like in Egypt, we’ll have to wait and see to what degree anti-Americanism takes hold, to what extent Islamic law is imposed, and what plans the people of these nations have for Israel. But the only alternative to this is occupation in perpetuity, something that the U.S. simply can’t afford, and that diverts resources away from the actual intelligence gathering and covert missions that really will move the ball forward in the war on terror.

As such, the United States should withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and leave those nations to their respective populations, just as we’re leaving Egypt and Syria to their populations. Then, we should use those resources to improve our intelligence capabilities, our homeland security, and towards targeted missions to capture or kill specific terrorists or terrorist groups. Indeed, it did not take a full-scale invasion of Pakistan, complete with toppling of governments and multiple years of nation-building to take out Osama. All it took was a few bullets, a few brave men, and the right intelligence.

The Arab world will sort itself out. The manner in which it does so is not the concern of the United States of America. What is our concern is defending our nation and our allies and interests against foreign threats. Those threats are best addressed in the present environment not through conquest of nations, but through the demise of individual terrorists plotting against the U.S. That’s why it’s time for the American military to withdraw from Mesopotamia, to withdraw from Afghanistan, and to once again learn the lesson that land wars in Asia never end well for anyone involved.

In 2008, 26 incumbent Republicans won House seats in districts Obama carried.  For the most part, these were narrowly Republican districts which flipped to Obama along with the rest of the country, but 7 of the 26 leaned Democratic according to the Cook Partisan Index.  On the whole, Obama won these districts by an average of 7 points (identical to his national popular vote margin- true swing districts).  Paul Ryan’s WI-1 is one of these districts (CPI=R+2).   In 08′  he carried the district by 29 points while Obama eeked out a 4 point victory.  So a 33 point swing.  Curious, I took a look at the other 25 winning Republicans to see just how unusual Ryan’s margin was.  It turns out, that exactly 2 Congressman outperformed Ryan; Mike Castle, in Delaware’s at large district (he ran 48 points ahead of John McCain) and John McHugh, in NY-23 (35 points ahead of McCain).  The average in this group was 23.27 points ahead of John McCain.  So Ryan ran nearly 10 points ahead of the average popular swing district Republican- popular because they survived, when dozens of others in similar districts lost.  If we knew nothing else, this would be sufficient to demonstrate Ryan’s appeal, but as it happens we know a good deal more.  We know, for instance, that ideology matters.  Median Voter Theory tells us that candidates who are closer to the center, ideologically, will fair better all else being equal.

So I divided our list of 26 candidates into 3 groups, based on ACU scores.  Movement Conservatives, with ACU’s above 90, Mainstream Conservatives,  with ACU’s between 75 and 90, and Moderate Republicans, with ACU’s below 75.  Ryan, with a lifetime ACU of 92.67, belongs to the first group.  Unsurprisingly, given that these are the Republicans who survived, this is the smallest of the 3 groups, boasting just 7 members.  On the whole, this group outperformed McCain by, 19.9 points.  The Mainstream Conservatives outperformed McCain by 20.1 points and the Moderate Republicans outperfomed McCain by 28.5 points.  But the variance between the first and the second group is larger than it at first appears for two reasons.  First, Ryan’s included and he performs distinctly better than others in the Movement Conservative category.  Second, two of the Congressman in this group are in districts where Obama performed unusually well.  Peter Roskam in IL-6 won by 16 points, while Obama carried the district by 13 points.  But IL-6 is not a very Democratic district.  In fact, it’s ordinarily more Republican than Ryan’s district- Bush carried it by 7 points in 04′ and 9 in 00′.  Even with Obama’s massive victory there in 08′, it still rates a CPI of 0 (no more Democratic than Republican).  What could account for Obama’s overperformance here?  Well, it turns out that Obama is actually from Illinois.  Go figure.  The other district is VA-4 (held by congressman Randy Forbes) which Obama carried by 1%.  This district is ordinarily more Republican than either Ryan or Roskam’s district- Bush carried it by 14 points in 04′ and 10 in 00′.  But like IL-6, VA-4 is uniquely suited to Obama- to wit, 1/3 of the population is black.

Comparing everyone to the CPI instead of Obama yields more uniform distinctions.  Again Ryan’s ranks 3rd, behind Castle and McHugh (although he’s now much closer to Castle) but this time he laps the rest of the field.  Ryan outperforms the CPI by 27 points, Roskam and Forbes outperform by 16 points, and the other movement conservatives are at 10 or below (Dan Lungren in CA-3 actually does worse than the CPI).  When all is said and done, Ryan essentially matches the performance of two moderate Republicans (Castle ACU 51.69, and McHugh ACU 71.55) without giving up anything ideologically.  He stands out even among a particularly persuasive group of swing district Republicans.  And if we can drag him into the 12′ contest, we can expect at least some of that persuasiveness to carry over (more on that later).

The Economist/YouGov 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 46%
• Mitt Romney 37%

• Barack Obama 49%
• Donald Trump 32%

• Barack Obama 52%
• Sarah Palin 34%

(more…)

From Facebook:

Along with the rest of the country, I commend our military forces and intelligence community for their amazing skill and courage in obtaining a measure of justice for all those who lost loved ones on 9/11, and for our entire nation. Terrorism did not die yesterday, but it suffered a serious blow — and a strong message was sent.

Reuters is reporting the following:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Likely Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney is skipping the first debate with his rivals in South Carolina this week, an aide said on Monday.

So far the only people showing up are:

• Tim Pawlenty
• Rick Santorum
• Buddy Roemer
• Ron Paul.

You can’t really blame Mitt.  If it were just Pawlenty there, I suspect Mitt would have gone. But when you include the other three guys who are strictly third and fourth stringers, there really isn’t much point in Mitt taking part in it beyond feeding the egos of last three candidates. He would have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Now the question becomes — will they continue to hold the debate this week, or will they postpone it?

I began doing this a couple months ago because there was a lot of commentary about ‘Romney’s decline’. What I found then was that Romney was indeed in decline — along with all the rest.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. They’re all still in decline. Here’s the data through the end of April (each point in the chart represents the candidates’ standing, based on a rolling average of the most recent five polls):

I’ve added Pawlenty and Trump to the chart. Pawlenty because there’s now a long enough string of data points to be worth tracking; Trump because, although we don’t have many data points, he’s obviously having a big effect on the race — though that is likely to be temporary, in my judgment.

Because there are varying numbers of polls each month, causing the chart to distort time on the x-axis, here’s the same data, showing the candidates’ standing as of the last poll of each month (there were no polls in late ’09-early ’10):

Because he has only one data point in this format, I designated Trump with a dot.

The results: There’s little change. All candidates continue to decline (in large part, of course, because of the growing field). Romney has re-taken the lead (by 0.3) because he fell less this month than Huckabee did. Huckabee’s short bounce seems to have ended dramatically, and he’s back in line with where he was late last year. Palin and Gingrich continue their race to oblivion, or Pawlenty, whichever they reach first.

In regard to the question of whom Trump hurts worst, it’s interesting to see who dropped how much this month:

Though other factors no doubt affect these numbers, it appears that Gingrich is hurt most by Trump, followed by Huckabee. Palin has a bigger percentage drop than Huckabee, but her April drop is not that much bigger than preceding months — she has fallen from 17.2 at the end of December to 9.6 now, a cumulative fall of 44.2%.

From HuckPac:

It is unusual to celebrate a death, but today Americans and decent people the world over cheer the news that madman, murderer and terrorist Osama Bin Laden is dead. The leader of Al Qaeda— responsible for the deaths of 3000 innocent citizens on September 11, 2001, and whose maniacal hate is responsible for the deaths of thousands of US servicemen and women was killed by U.S. military. President Obama confirmed the announcement late last night. DNA tests confirmed his death and his body is in the possession of the U. S.

It has taken a long time for this monster to be brought to justice. Welcome to hell, bin Laden. Let us all hope that his demise will serve notice to Islamic radicals the world over that the United States will be relentless in tracking down and terminating those who would inflict terror, mayhem and death on any of our citizens.

Via Facebook:

A Grateful Nation

Americans tonight are united in celebration and gratitude. God bless all the brave men and women in our military and our intelligence services who contributed to carrying out the successful mission to bring Bin Laden to justice and who laid the groundwork over the years to make this victory possible. It’s a testament to the hard work and dedication of these brave Americans who relentlessly hunted down our enemy.

This is a victory for the American people, for the victims who were heartlessly murdered on September 11 and in Al Qaeda’s other numerous attacks, and for all the peace-loving people of the world.

May God bless our troops and our intelligence services, and God bless America!