The first official numbers we get from the Q2 fundraising race is from the man who doesn’t have to (and will not) file an FEC report: Jon Huntsman. He has reportedly raised $4.1 million (and remember, this all comes in the last week or so of the quarter after his announcement).

The twist: this total includes some of Huntsman’s own money — despite promising earlier in the quarter that he would not self-fund.

A Huntsman aide did say that “less than half” of the total was Huntsman’s own money — so Huntsman probably actually raised somewhere between $2 and $3 million.

Until someone else releases their numbers, this puts him at the top of the Q2 fundraising leaderboard:

UPDATE: CNN reports that just under $2 million of this is Huntsmans’ own money, meaning that Huntsman actually raised just $2.1 million. He only had 10 days to do it in, but this is still not quite the impressive entrance to the race he had been hoping for (especially considering his first fundraiser on the night of his announcement pulled in more than $1.2 million alone).

Thaddeus McCotter, US Representative from Michigan, will be the first of the “White Knights” to enter the 2012 primary race. The paperwork will be official tomorrow:

Thaddeus McCotter will file paperwork to enter the 2012 presidential race on Friday, a McCotter adviser told POLITICO, allowing the Michigan congressman to kick off his long-shot bid on the first day of the new fundraising quarter.

McCotter spent four days in Iowa this week and came away “feeling positive” about his reception, the adviser said. His presidential campaign website will go live around noon tomorrow.

The source said that former Iowa House Speaker Pro Tem Chris Rants will serve as McCotter’s senior adviser in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. Rants, who endorsed Mitt Romney early in the 2008 cycle, confirmed that he would be supportive of McCotter.

USA Today reported that McCotter’s formal campaign launch will come this weekend in his home state of Michigan.

McCotter tipped his hand by purchasing the second best piece of real estate for the Ames straw poll. The utter lack of attention that surprise purchase drew is probably representative of exactly how much of a long-shot his candidacy is. But hey, at least he will provide some good one-liners at the debates.

Well, he did it again…

In his press conference yesterday, President Obama resorted to his tried-and-true practices of demonizing Republicans, invoking scare tactics, and whistling the tune of class warfare:

Challenging lawmakers to make “substantial progress” by the end of this week or cancel plans for the July 4th holiday weekend, Obama upped pressure on Republicans by tying them to tax breaks for “millionaires and billionaires” while warning of default.

…But Obama, invoking the example of his daughters Sasha and Malia, told Congress to do its job: “They don’t wait until the night before. They’re not pulling all-nighters. They’re — they’re 13 and 10. You know, Congress can do the same thing.”

…Obama, echoing an argument his administration has made for weeks, sought to paint Republicans as siding with the rich and powerful over middle class Americans.

“If we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners … then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship,” he said.

Oh, where to start? Setting aside the fact that the President STILL has yet to propose a credible long-term plan to substantially reduce or, ideally, eliminate the national debt, yesterday’s press conference served as yet another example of his failure to follow through on the promise of his campaign (at least to voters on the center and left), rise above “old, tired Washington politics” (to use verbiage his ’08 backers loved so much), and become a transformational, generational leader moving the needle in a positive direction on the most pressing threat to America’s future.

For further analysis, I defer to the fantastic James Pethokoukis:

Recall: The president’s most recent budget plan would add $9.5 trillion in cumulative new debt over the next decade. Eliminating a tax break for the purchase of corporate jets – it’s called “accelerated depreciation” and Obama has endorsed the deduction twice before to boost growth and create jobs – would save $3 billion, or 0.03 percent of that total.

Yet this is the place where the president has chosen to stand his ground, to say “Here and no further!” Obama astride the bridge Khazad Dûm. He challenged the GOP to “go talk to your constituents, the Republican constituents, and ask them, are they willing to compromise their kids’ safety so that some corporate-jet owner continues to get a tax break.”

…The president perpetuated this myth: “You can’t reduce the deficit to the levels that it needs to be reduced without having some revenue in the mix. “ Yet Rep. Paul Ryan’ s Path to Prosperity does just that, even while assuming — to satisfy the Congressional Budget Office — the economy grows at a snail-like 2 percent pace year after year for decades.

Pethokoukis also notes that, a.) the August 2nd deadline Obama imposed for a debt ceiling deal does not truly exist, and b.) he declined to pass judgement on the National Labor Relations Board’s now-infamous Boeing decision, stating “he [doesn't] know all the facts of the case”. Funnily, that didn’t stop him from mischaracterizing the Path to Prosperity, assuring the American public their current healthcare coverage wouldn’t change under Obamacare, and commenting on the Cambridge Police’s arrest of Prof. Henry Louis Gates.

For a concise review of the press conference, I turn to the man who will hopefully become our 46th President, Marco Rubio:

“Quite frankly, I am both disappointed for our country and shocked at some of the rhetoric,” he says. “It was rhetoric, I thought, that was more appropriate for some left-wing strong man than for the president of the United States.”

That’s the word, according to Bloomberg:

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has signaled to White House officials that he’s considering leaving the administration after President Barack Obama reaches an agreement with Congress to raise the federal debt limit, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Geithner said speculation about his departure was being driven by his decision to commute to New York so his son can finish his final year of high school there.

…Geithner hasn’t made a final decision and won’t do so until the debt-ceiling issue has been resolved, according to one of the people. All spoke on condition of anonymity to talk about private discussions.

Geithner’s departure would add to the mass exodus of major figures from the Obama economic team; both Christina Romer and Austan Goolsbee decided to seek greener pastures in academic positions.

One can hardly blame Geithner for wanting to relax a little. After all, he has toiled under more stress than virtually any other member of the Obama administration since the financial crisis of 2008 (yes, that happened before Obama took office, but Geithner worked hand-in-hand with then-Secretary Paulson).

Of course, Geithner has not made a firm decision, so he could opt to stay. But if he leaves, he’ll certainly have justifiable reasons.

Herman Cain’s got a new online web ad on Obama entitled, “A Failure to Lead.” You can watch the web ad below.

Movement is from the last update one week ago:

Only candidates who have announced an official candidacy or who have greater than a 3% chance at the nomination are included.

Releasing net-ads attacking Obama’s record on the economy is one thing. Holding a press conference outside the gate of a plant that was shuttered one year after Obama visited it touting his “stimulus” package is quite another. Doing it all on the same day that Obama is holding two fundraisers close by in the same state is really getting in the President’s face big time.

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized President Barack Obama’s jobs record in a key swing state on Thursday by spotlighting a closed factory that Obama once touted as a symbol of economic hope.

Taking aim at an issue that could be Obama’s key vulnerability in the 2012 election, Romney launched a 40-second Web video blaming the Democratic president’s economic policies for 100,000 job losses in Pennsylvania and the total of 470,000 jobless workers in the northeastern state.

The video, coming on a day when both Romney and Obama were due to visit Pennsylvania, focuses on the Allentown Metal Works that closed in January, just over a year after Obama visited the plant to tout his economic stimulus efforts.

Romney was due to hold a news conference at the factory site on Thursday.

From The Hill:

“The 2012 election is going to be a referendum on the president’s failure to turn around the economy,” Romney told the Philadelphia Inquirer in an interview previewing the showdown. “He’s grown detached and isolated from what people are feeling and experiencing.”

Romney’s assiduously focused his campaign on jobs and the economy, casting himself as the Republican candidate best-suited to address those issues. He’ll visit the same plant, Allentown Metal Works, that Obama visited in December of 2009 to tout his $787 billion stimulus. Obama talked up the plant in a subsequent Saturday radio address, too, but the 100-year-old plant eventually closed down this January after the stimulus dollars it had been promised didn’t come through.

…

Obama will have the perfect opportunity to take a shot at the nearby Romney at two DNC events. He’s generally avoided singling out Republican foes by name at fundraisers, but whether the president holds off on firing back at Romney could prove to be one of Thursday’s more entertaining plotlines.

This is not your 2008 Romney campaign.

FOX News National Republican Primary

• Romney – 18% (23)
• Perry – 13% (-)
• Bachmann – 11% (4)
• Giuliani – 10% (13)
• Palin – 8% (12)
• Paul – 7% (5)
• Cain – 5% (7)
• Pawlenty – 3% (5)
• Gingrich – 3% (7)
• Huntsman – 3% (2)
• Santorum – 2%
• Johnson – 1%
• Karger, McCotter, Moore, Roemer – *

Without Palin

• Romney – 20%
• Perry – 14%
• Bachmann – 12%
• Giuliani – 11%
• Paul – 7%
• Cain – 5%
• Gingrich – 3%
• Huntsman – 3%
• Pawlenty – 3%
• Santorum – 2%
• Johnson – 1%
• Karger, McCotter, Moore, Roemer – *

Without Giuliani

• Romney – 22%
• Perry – 14%
• Bachmann – 13%
• Palin – 9%
• Paul – 7%
• Cain – 5%
• Gingrich – 4%
• Huntsman – 3%
• Pawlenty – 3%
• Santorum – 3%
• Johnson – 1%
• Moore – 1%
• Karger, McCotter, Roemer – *

Survey of 324 GOP primary voters was conducted June 26-28 and has a margin of error of +/-5.5%. Numbers in parentheses are from their survey ending June 7.

I’ve read at least half a dozen articles just in the past week or so predicting what the GOP candidates were going to announce as far as Q2 fundraising numbers next week. Every single one of them stated Romney would be somewhere in the ballpark of $20 million – and that his efforts would be judged successful on not depending on if he clears the $23 million mark he raised back in 2007.

Every time I read one of those articles, I thought, “Romney is playing the expectations game perfectly. When he comes in with his near-$40 million haul, everyone will be amazed.”

But today I read two more articles on the topic that have got to have Romney supporters a little nervous.

First, the Romney campaign is telling FOXNews that they raised less than $20 million this quarter. Normally, this would be part of the expectations game, but…

These Romney Aides assure FOX News they are not playing the traditional ‘expectations game’ by saying the number will be less than $20 million now, only to announce within the next few days that they actually broke that barrier.

Then came this piece from the Associated Press as reported by Politico:

Romney is expected to report raising $16 million to $20 million for the quarter, said two advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss fundraising before the deadline. Romney, who pumped $42 million of his own fortune into his 2008 presidential race, was not planning to write himself a check this time…

If this is true and Romney raised less than $20 million this quarter, that is ridiculously bad news. He will still, undoubtedly, lead the fundraising tally at the end of the day, but this kind of underwhelming performance will be brutal to endure. Early on, campaign aides were floating numbers as high as $50 million, and then the general thought was that he would come in around $40 million. I thought that all the talk about meeting internal campaign goals meant that they set out to break Dubya’s $36 million fundraising record – a perfect headline to create an aura of inevitable frontrunner.

But maybe it’s all true and not part of the game. Maybe Romney did raise less than $20 million. And if that’s true, then expect folks who are still sitting on the sidelines to smell blood in the water and jump in the race in a hurry. We should know one way or the other within the next week or so.

Suffolk University has released their latest New Hampshire Poll. They polled 400 New Hampshire residents who claimed to be at least 50/50 likely to vote in the upcoming Presidential primary.  Here are the top lines. Here are the crosstabs.

Three of their questions were as follows:

1. If the Republican Primary for President of the United States were held today … for whom will you vote or toward whom would you LEAN at this time?
2. If your first choice for the Republican Presidential nominee dropped out of the race, who would you vote for instead, for whom will you vote or toward whom would you LEAN at this time?
3. Despite who you’re personally voting for, who do you expect the next president will be – Barack Obama or one of the Republican candidates?

Here are the results:

(more…)

PPP has released their latest vs. Obama poll for Texas:

Romney leads the overall state comfortably. Perry comes in dead last. Palin ties him for last place, but does a bit better in the raw numbers.

Here are the ideological crosstabs:

Note the meme-busting data point where Palin does the best amongst the Very Liberals.

No mention of Gingrich or Huntsman.

Conclusions:

The race is far from sewn up. Romney does the best, but it is still close. It is interesting to note that Texans who know Perry the best, place him dead last compared with Obama. Perry does best in no category of ideology. The closest he comes is in the Very Conservative category where is six points behind the leader. That is good enough for a sixth out of seven place finish there. When six people are within six points, it’s very jumbled and is more or less a statistical tie.

NewsMax reports that the July 10th Las Vegas, Nevada debate cosponsored by The Daily Caller, Americans For Tax Reform, and YouTube, has been postponed in case some big names, particularly Rick Perry, will jump into the race this coming month.

MSNBC has a report out this morning that includes some further details on Team Pawlenty’s fiscal woes leading into the next fundraising quarter.

Specifically, the Pawlenty campaign has budgeted $1.75 million to compete at Ames. (Comparably, Dubya spent $1.1 million for Ames in 1999, and Romney is estimated to have spent between $1.5 and $3 million in 2007). The problem is, they don’t actually have the money yet:

The money could help, if it was there to spend. “They clearly don’t have it. So in the end I’m not sure how they’re going to implement their straw-poll strategy,” the consultant said. “I know so many of the vendors who aren’t getting paid. They are holding back so many bills.” (emphasis mine.)

The article goes on to note that Pawlenty has spent the equivalent of an entire month campaigning in Iowa so far, but has been unable to gain traction with voters. On the Today Show Monday morning, Pawlenty compared himself to Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain as competitors in 2007 who were not winning any polls at this point in the campaign.

But those analogies are flawed… Barack Obama “was raising huge amounts of money. He was drawing crowds that were filling massive venues very early on,” Collins recalls. As for Huckabee, he was “the only alternative on Mitt Romney’s right” in Iowa in a year with huge evangelical turnout. “I certainly wouldn’t write Pawlenty off. He’s a strong candidate. But those aren’t good templates,” Collins says.

Pawlenty may very well have the most amazing strategy to win Ames we’ve ever seen. But without the money to carry out that vision, it won’t mean much. Especially when you can’t even afford to pay the bills.

As a national journalist and columnist who happens to live in Minnesota, and long-time commentator about presidential politics (my first campaign covered was in 1972), I am frequently asked by DC-based colleagues what I think of the Minnesota “Twins.” These are not questions about the baseball team; they are about the remarkable fact that two of the five or six major Republican candidates for president in 2012 are from the Gopher State.

As it happens, I have known Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann for many years and observed their careers evolve from simple beginnings.. In Pawlenty’s case, I first met him in 1990 when he was working for a state gubernatorial campaign. He was then in his late 20s, but it was clear he was a “comer.” Soon after that, he was elected to the state house of representatives where he eventually rose to be majority leader. When he indicated that he would run for U.S. senate (against incumbent Paul Wellstone) in 2001-02, it seemed he could be a serious opponent, although not likely to defeat the well–known incumbent. Then-St. Paul Mayor Norman Coleman announced he would run again for governor (he had been the GOP nominee for that post in 1998, but had come in second behind Jesse Ventura).

Apparently then-Vice President Dick Cheney felt that Coleman would be a stronger opponent to Wellstone, so he called Pawlenty and “asked” him to switch to the governor’s race so that Coleman could run for senator. That phone call may have changed more American history than it did Minnesota history. As it turned out, Coleman defeated Walter Mondale, a last-minute substitute for Wellstone who had tragically died in an airplane accident only a few days before election day. Pawlenty won a close contest for the GOP nomination and went on to win the governor’s race by a plurality when the Independence Party (IP), as it had in 1998, drained votes from the Democratic (in this state, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party or DFL) nominee. In 2006, Pawlenty again narrowly won a plurality re-election when the IP again nominated a credible candidate.

Like Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann first drew public attention as a very conservative member of the state legislature (she was a state senator). A former tax attorney, mother of five (and foster mother of additional 23 children), Bachmann was always a conservative lightning rod in her eastern suburban Twin Cities district. The local media, typically liberal, found her early to be a favorite target, with a focus on her frequent verbal flubs (while, of course, ignoring the flubs of liberal legislators). In 2006, she decided to run for Congress, and won.

When each of them first came to my attention, I would not have even suggested that either of them might become serious presidential candidates. But Pawlenty had certain skills, specifically the ability to explain complex political issues in a way that ordinary voters could understand. Bachmann, on the other hand, seemed more interested in gaining public attention around provocative social issues, and this enabled her critics and most in the media to portray her as “light.” Nontheless, her base in the 6th congressional district remained quite loyal, and when she made a major blunder on national TV in 2008 just before the election, she still managed to survive. In 2010, the DFL opponent raised more than $4 million to defeat he, but didn’t really come close. Mrs. Bachmann seemed secure in her district, and likely to remain there.

After the 2008 election, Mrs. Bachmann formed a friendship with Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee. In 2010, Bachmann brought in Mrs. Palin for a fundraiser in Minneapolis, and, with both of them on the stage at the same time, I saw for the first time clearly that Mrs. Bachmann could match Mrs. Palin for charisma and excitement among conservative voters.

Speaking honestly, even then I did not see Michele Bachmann as a national figure, and when she indicated she might run for president in early 2011, I ranked her as a third tier candidate. She also then seemed to focus only on sensational social conservative issues, and sounded a bit shrill in her speeches. Her rise now to be a first tier contender happened almost suddenly as it became likely Mrs. Palin would not run in 2012, and conservative icons such as Mike Huckabee also would not run.

The question is then: Is there something different about the “new” Michele Bachmann? I’m certain she and her long-time supporters would argue she is the same as she was before, but I would suggest that, as sometimes happens when a political figure thrusts themself, or is thrust, on the national electoral stage, Michele Bachmann is showing off a new or expanded image of herself. Her speeches recently have lost most of the earlier shrillness, and particularly in her new video about the Middle East and in her kick-off announcement in her home town of Waterloo, Iowa, her words seem less sensational and more inspirational. There is also now no question she has a national base, although it remains to be seen if that base will turn out in the primary and caucus voting.

A recent minor flub about John Wayne’s home town received its usual mega-attention in the Old Media, but now this attention seems petty, especially since the Old Media totally ignores similar or worse flubs by President Obama and Vice President Biden, who makes them routinely. (On the other hand, Mrs. Bachmann might be well-served from now on to have her own fact-checker for her speeches.)

So when my media friends in DC asked me what I thought of the Bachmann candidacy, I answered that she was now a serious contender, but that the degree of her impact will be revealed ahead. Former Governor Pawlenty still has by far the larger, and more professional, campaign in Iowa, and in spite of his media-ballyhooed blunder in the New Hampshire TV debate, has personal and political resources that could easily put him again as Mr. Romney’s major challenger. Yet Mrs. Bachmann is the one attracting early more formidable poll numbers, campaign cash raised, and excitement in her home state. Mr. Pawlenty must somehow overcome this by the time of the Iowa Caucuses in January because if Mrs. Bachmann significantly outpolls him there, his campaign could be real trouble.

Liberal Democrats love to hate Mrs. Bachmann, and to single her out as a “right wing nut.” The Old Media is obsessed with making fun of her, and incessantly tries to marginalize her, but something is up with her candidacy right now, and her opponents ridicule and underestimate her at their peril.

________________________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Cassleman’s personal site.

Suffolk University New Hampshire Republican Primary (PDF)

• Romney – 36% (35)
• Bachmann – 11% (3)
• Paul – 8% (8)
• Giuliani – 5% (8)
• Huntsman – 4% (*)
• Palin – 4% (7)
• Cain – 2% (2)
• Gingrich – 2% (3)
• Perry – 2% (-)
• Pawlenty – 2% (5)
• Pataki – 1% (-)
• Santorum – 1% (2)
• Johnson, Karger, Moore, Roemer – *
• Undecided – 21%

Favorability Ratings

• Romney – 64/19
• Palin – 37/50
• Huntsman – 19/18
• Pawlenty – 34/15
• Gingrich – 24/56
• Bachmann – 44/22
• Cain – 24/15
• Paul – 36/36
• Santorum – 27/20

Survey of 400 likely primary voters was done June 25-27 and has a margin of error of +/-4.9%. Numbers in parenthese are from their poll ending May 4.

Marist teams up with McClatchy to win the award for most candidates polled at a single time:

McClatchy-Marist Republican National Primary

• Romney – 19% (18)
• Giuliani – 13% (9)
• Perry – 13% (-)
• Palin – 11% (8)
• Bachmann – 8% (3)
• Cain – 5% (2)
• Paul – 5% (7)
• Pawlenty – 5% (2)
• Gingrich – 2% (4)
• Huntsman – 2% (1)
• Santorum – 1% (2)
• Johnson – * (-)
• Karger – * (-)
• Roemer – * (-)

General Election Matchups

• Obama – 46%
• Romney – 42%

• Obama – 48%
• Giuliani – 41%

• Obama – 48%
• Perry – 39%

• Obama – 49%
• Bachmann – 37%

• Obama – 47%
• Pawlenty – 33%

• Obama – 56%
• Palin – 30%

Survey of 801 registered voters (for general election matchups) and 308 registered GOP voters (for primary matchup) was conducted June 15-23. General election matchups have a margin of error of +/-3.5%; primary matchup has a margin of error of +/-5.5%. Numbers in parentheses are from their poll ending April 14.

It’s not often that a poll can just scream “GO AWAY” to a politician.  But the latest from Alaska pretty emphatically does just that, as former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is now trailing President Barack Obama in her blood-red home state, 42-36.  Of course, this will lead to much whining from a small segment of the party about the pollster, the media, the liberals, etc. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that Alaska should not be in play in any poll at any time for a Democrat as left-leaning as Obama.   It is just another example of the unprecedented weakness of a certain politician who’s numbers have gotten increasingly embarrassing as the months have gone on.  Perhaps the title of her movie should be changed to Defeated Often.

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake penned an enlightening analysis of the Des Moines Register poll that hit the newswires Saturday:

The new Des Moines Register poll provides some clues — by defining what GOP voters don’t want.

At the top of the list of no-nos is a candidate who support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Nearly six in 10 respondents described such a position as a “dealkiller”.

Other problematic positions for potential candidates include backing tax increases, as well as spending cuts to reduce the debt (51 percent “dealkiller”), favoring an increase in the debt ceiling (49 percent “dealkiller”) and support for an individual mandate in health care (44 percent “dealkiller”).

…Kim Alfano, a Republican media consultant who made the ads for Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad’s (R) successful 2010 campaign, said the key to Hawkeye State GOPers’ hearts in 2012 will be “battle-ability”.

“Iowa caucus-goers may have conceded deep in the recesses of their brains that maybe none of these guys can beat a billion dollars, but they will then choose someone who will constantly and relentlessly take it to Obama on his failed economy and failed moral drive to the left,” Alfano explained. “The more vitriol and fire, the better.”

Clearly, if these early preferences carry into Caucus-time, they look promising for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry (should he run), Sarah Palin (should she run), Herman Cain, and, to a lesser extent, Ron Paul, as they have displayed great willingness to assume confrontational, not conciliatory, attitudes toward President Obama.

These numbers also should concern those Republicans who accept the likelihood that any significant long-term plan to address the U.S.’s perilous fiscal situation will have to include both spending cuts and at least some tax increases, in addition to debt ceiling raises, in order to garner sufficient political support.

To invoke a well-known analogy, in a Christine O’Donnell/Mike Castle-type situation, Iowa Republicans would seem to prefer O’Donnell.

I suppose you could also call this “What If Palin Did It, Part 51″:

No one in mainstream media seems inclined to mention Barack Obama’s horrifying mistake last Thursday when, speaking at Fort Drum, he said that SFC Jared Monti was “the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.” Alas, he was mistaken. He awarded the Medal of Honor to Jared Monti posthumously in 2009 and awarded the Medal of Honor in person to SSG Sal Giunta in person in 2011.

Of course, since this error came from the smartest man ever elected President, we can simply overlook it and chalk it up to a brief mental lapse. After all, unlike his predecessor who read 95 books just in the year 2006, Obama actually knows what a library is.

PPP (D) Montana 2012 Republican Primary Survey

• Sarah Palin 20% (23%)
• Michele Bachmann 18%
• Mitt Romney 17% (12%)
• Newt Gingrich 9% (16%)
• Ron Paul 9% (9%)
• Herman Cain 8%
• Tim Pawlenty 7% (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 4%
• Someone else/Not sure 9% (10%)

(more…)

PPP (D) Oregon 2012 Republican Primary Survey

• Mitt Romney 28%
• Michele Bachmann 18%
• Sarah Palin 16%
• Ron Paul 9%
• Herman Cain 8%
• Newt Gingrich 6%
• Tim Pawlenty 6%
• Jon Huntsman 0%
• Someone else/Not sure 9%

(more…)

For the first time in history, major presidential candidates will participate in a (unofficial) debate entirely via the Internet–particularly, the social media site Twitter.  The event is hosted by the Republican Liberty Caucus and a Tea Party PAC called “Stop This Insanity, Inc.”, and will take place July 20th, from 3:00 to 4:30 PM Eastern time.  Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain have already accepted invitations, and more are expected to join.  Very interesting, to say the least.  Both the transitions to radio broadcasted presidential debates, and then televised presidential debates, monumentally transformed presidential politics–some might say for the worse.  Could the introduction of real-time debates conducted merely via text (with no audio or video) have an enriching effect upon the dialogue, or will Twitter’s 140 character limit spur even less thoughtful debate?

-Unapologetic:  Mitt Romney’s Book Reveals a Pragmatic, Patriotic Problem-solver.

As the race for 2012 develops, it has become clear to most observers that Mitt Romney is the early front-runner for the Republican nomination. Yet, many find themselves asking exactly who Romney is, and what he means to do with the country. This narrative was rather succinctly summed up by a strategist working for Jon Huntsman, who quipped: “Which Mitt are we on now: Mitt 5.0 or Mitt 6.0?” Romney, so the story goes, is an opportunistic politician who lacks core convictions, and who will embrace whatever position is most advantageous at the time.

This is not the Mitt Romney one meets if one reads No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. This policy-heavy book has been on my to-read list for a while, and over the past two weeks, I finally got the opportunity to dig into it. I found many detailed policy prescriptions on subjects as diverse as healthcare, defense, increasing worker productivity and promoting a “culture of citizenship”. And, at the core of it all, I saw a unifying theme among Romney’s solutions: pragmatic, free-market-oriented problem-solving and an animating philosophy deeply informed by his belief in American exceptionalism.

No Apology is not, first and foremost, a biography, but rather part philosophical reflection on the greatness of America, and part pragmatic guide to improving its governance. Romney begins and ends the book with some philosophical musings on America. In many ways, these chapters help frame the policies presented at the heart of the book. The beginning of the book provides a historical assessment of why great powers decline, which he largely attributes to bad, and often excessive government. One might quibble with some of the history in this section—a more nuanced case could be made regarding the Ottoman Empire for example— yet the amount of historical ground Romney seeks to cover in what is essentially a future presidential campaign blueprint is quite impressive. By contrast, the final chapter is a fairly traditional homage to America, her greatness and the greatness of her people. Though seemingly a bit boiler-plate, Romney manages to carry this off with a certain amount of grace, style and sincerity. Personal anecdotes are woven throughout, but perhaps most heavily emphasized in this last chapter. These two chapters tie Romney’s often diverse policy prescriptions into a complete package, focused around the need to prevent America from declining, as so many have before. Like most American politicians, and Republican ones in particular, Romney believes that America has a special role to play in the world, and that the country must change course if this place is to be preserved. For Romney, American primacy, in all fields, is not only a grand strategy, but a national imperative. The second chapter of the book is dedicated to what he sees as the four paths to power pursued by nations today: American liberal democracy, Chinese capitalist autocracy, Russian autocratic energy dominance and the radical Islam of Iran and the jihadists. Again, this is something of an over-simplification—bureaucratic, market-oriented and democratic India is hardly mentioned in Romney’s book at all—but it does underscore the necessity of American hegemony. It is hard to imagine, as Romney points out, that Chinese, Russian or jihadist hegemons would create a more benign world order than would the United States, and certainly not one as favorable to our nation. Equally, given the trans-national post-military, post-modern utopianism which thoroughly dominates so many of the other liberal democracies, it is difficult to imagine another democratic hegemon on the near horizon (India may be a horse to bet on in the future, but probably not yet). Romney, then, is spot on in his assessment that the next American president will need a grand strategic vision, both foreign and domestic, which will preserve American primacy.

To be sure, such visions are plentiful among commentators of the left and right. Conservatives favor a massive scaling-back of the federal government in all spheres of life, for ideological as much as grand strategic reasons. For progressives, it is precisely the lack of government that prevents America from achieving her full greatness. Though Romney’s policies do place him firmly on the small government side of the question, those looking for an ideological small government crusader who will take a buzz saw to the federal government are likely to be disappointed. Romney’s prescriptions reminded me less of the Jacksonian Democrats or Jeffersonian Republicans than the Federalists, that great old Yankee political movement known for their mercantile conservatism. This is not to say that Romney is a corporatist or, (gasp), a big government conservative. If given a choice, he prefers market-oriented solutions. However, Romney does see the government as having a role to play in a market economy, much to the horror of libertarians everywhere. The most ardent Tea Partiers may find themselves biting their lips a time or two, particularly as Romney discusses the need for a “properly regulated” market, where the government ensures compliance with a consistent set of rules. He is not above using tax incentives and other government solutions popular with some conservatives to help alleviate problems. Nor is he above criticizing, at times, the policy prescriptions and prevailing attitudes of his own party.

Still, Tea Partiers will find quite a few surprising things to like about the Mitt Romney revealed in his book. Romney is strongly committed to entitlement reform, talking at length about the need to get social security, Medicare and Medicaid under control. His chapter entitled “the worst generation” makes a hard push for many of the kinds of reforms currently being championed by conservatives. His desire to make the federal government publish a yearly balance sheet—as corporations are required to do—should please fiscal conservatives, and his evisceration of the negative role played by so-called campaign finance reform accords strongly with conservative thinking on the issue (Romney would replace it with a system which allows for unlimited campaign contributions but requires total donor disclosure). Romney also has a strong federalist streak (in the modern rather than the nineteenth-century sense of the word), lauding the states as “laboratories of innovation”. His chapter on education is extremely strong, packed with data, and supportive of many ideas beloved of the education reform community. And Romney pulls absolutely no punches when it comes to unions and the incredibly negative influence he believes they exert on the body politic. Though his harshest judgment is reserved for public-sector unions, he has some sharp words for both union leaders and corporate executives for a labor-management culture which, he feels, places point-scoring above cooperation for the good of their industry. Finally, what Tea Partier couldn’t love Romney’s second-to-last chapter, on promoting a culture of citizenship, in which he discusses the virtues our republic requires to survive, and the ways in which they can be promoted? Romney is also unequivocal on the need for defense spending. He painstakingly demolishes many of the arguments made by fiscal hawks for cutting defense spending, and argues that an increase may in fact be necessary. This is an issue which sharply divides conservatives, but Romney is firmly on the side of those who argue that defense must remain a spending priority. Here, Romney could have discussed, in greater detail, ways to reform the defense department, to make each dollar count. A real, effective civil service reform, which would make it possible to fire under-performing or non-performing federal employees, would drastically decrease the need for DOD contractors (though not eliminate it altogether), and probably bring about huge savings for the defense department. Given that one of Al-Qaeda’s stated goals is to bleed the US into bankruptcy, good government reform at the defense department, and throughout government, could rightly be seen as a national security issue. Nevertheless, Romney is broadly correct in arguing that we must not throw the baby out with the bath water, where defense is concerned.

Of all the issues with which Romney deals, the three which have given him the most headaches are probably health care, climate change and abortion. This last issue is hardly mentioned at all, save for Romney’s reaffirmation of his pro-life convictions. It might have been worthwhile for Romney to take a bit more time here explaining his conversion on this issue, and discussion of his veto of a Massachusetts human cloning bill could only have helped him with social conservatives. On climate change, Romney’s answer was very strong. He professes ambivalence on the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which seems to me to be an entirely reasonable position for a layman not schooled in the vagaries of climate science, and the scientific politics which attend them. However, his discussion of cap and trade and the carbon tax, and the general global warming hysteria, is absolutely devastating. In particular, his assessment of the impact government attempts to limit carbon emissions would actually have relative to their costs, compared with much cheaper and more life-saving efforts such as universal access to clean drinking water, the elimination of malaria and HIV/AIDS prevention, is something that all progressive-minded people should read. For a popular discourse which all-too-often jumps straight from a hysterical discussion of the world’s warming trends to an urgent appeal for cap and trade now, Romney’s cool-headed assessment of the policy pros and cons is refreshing. His conclusion, that we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels for national security reasons and, if it reduces green house gas emissions, all well and good, is one with which conservatives would be hard-pressed to object.

By far Romney’s biggest hurdle is, of course, Mass-care. Here, it is important to note that this review refers to the 2009 version of the book, which was the only one available on audio book from the National Library Service, not the second addition with revised healthcare language. Will Romney’s treatment of his health care law satisfy his critics? Probably not entirely. He does not repudiate the health insurance mandate, nor argue that the law itself was a mistake. However, he does make a few important points that I expect we’ll here from him again. The first is that, by preference, he would like to see health insurance decisions made at a state level, with the ability for residents of a given state to shop across state lines. He makes no bones about the fact that our current employer-driven health  care system is broken, with which Republicans all ought to agree. Second, Romney emphasizes that Mass-care was designed to bring about universal coverage, and would not, left to itself, lower costs. Romney’s plan for lowering costs is much heavier on tort reform and other cost-saving measures by no means included in Obamacare. Finally, Romney explicitly criticizes the practice of writing bills to get positive CBO scores over ten years, one of the things about Obamacare which most dramatically irritated Republicans. It remains to be seen whether these and other points made by Romney will be sufficient to turn away the bundling of Obamacare and Romneycare in the minds of many Republican voters.

Based on this book, then, what could we expect from a President Mitt Romney? First and foremost, he would be a problem-solver. No Apology reveals a candidate ready and willing to tackle tough issues like entitlement reform, and prepared to make the case to the American people of just how bad things really are in that regard. His emphasis is less on shrinking government for its own sake, and more on making it less wasteful, more efficient and dragging it kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. This has led some small government conservatives to distrust him, but in practical terms, doing what Romney wants to do will necessitate shrinking government. I could see a President Romney going in two directions. On the one hand, he could turn out to be a technocrat, nibbling at the edges of our 1940s-style government, and trying to make the old thing run through a liberal application of spit, gum and duct tape. On the other hand, he might well be a transformer, who can systematically revamp our federal government into a leaner, meaner twenty-first-century instrument, thereby helping to ensure America’s long-term success. Part of this, of course, would depend on environmental factors entirely out of his control. Like many, however, I think the country is nearing the point at which it is really ready for transformation. Everyone seems to know that Washington is broken, and we can only hope that the constant political game of desperately defending the status quo through shibboleths about starving grandmothers, oppressed teachers and malnourished children resulting from any kind of government reform has, at last, warn thin. If that is the case, I think the Mitt Romney revealed in No Apology might be able to seize that moment, and make it his own. Undoubtedly, there are other candidates in the field who would do as well, or perhaps even better. But if reading No Apology didn’t fill me with an instant desire to quit my job and  start volunteering for Romney in Iowa, it did reassure me that, if he does become our nominee, Mitt Romney is a man I could comfortably, perhaps even enthusiastically, support against Barack Obama. For those who maintain that they cannot support Romney under any circumstance, or that he would be a disaster as bad as Obama, I highly recommend reading No Apology, thoroughly and in full. If nothing else, it may help you sleep better at night if he wins.

_________________________________________________________________________

-Cross-posted at AlmostDoctorSomebody

Maggie Haberman, of Politico, reports that Sarah Palin’s associates have begun making overtures to influential Iowa Republicans:

Sarah Palin’s camp is reaching out to activists and operatives in Iowa about setting up meetings while she’s in the state Tuesday for the screening of a documentary about her — including with Chuck Laudner, a former Iowa GOP executive director and prominent conservative.

Laudner confirmed to POLITICO he’d gotten a call from a Palin backer either Friday or during the weekend asking about meeting with him while she’s in Pella for the screening of “The Undefeated.” Laudner later clarified that Palin’s team was talking about a group of people attending a post-film mingling session, and not one-on-one get-togethers. He said they reached out to tell him he was on the list for that.

If Gov. Palin decides to end her kabuki dance and finally enter the race, I, for one, eagerly anticipate seeing whether the argument espoused by so many Palinistas – that she’ll at last find the ability to drastically reshape her standing among the American public, and the race will change – has any basis in reality.

Has the Cain Train derailed?  Herman Cain’s campaign for the White House is getting a bit of the Gingrich treatment, reports the NH Union Leader, which announced that Cain’s New Hampshire campaign director and regional field director have resigned over “strategic differences”.  Cain now has exactly zero presence in New Hampshire, though they have assured supporters they will get around to rebuilding it soon.

A poll was taken of the attendees to last week’s Netroots Nation convention. The results are quite interesting. Here are a handful of them:

Please indicate if you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as
president?

• Strongly Approve – 27
• Somewhat Approve – 53
• Somewhat Disapprove – 13
• Strongly Disapprove – 7
• Total Approve – 80
• Total Disapprove – 20

Now please read the list below and indicate which ONE you think should be the TOP priority for
President Obama:

• Job Growth – 66
• Protect Health Care – 9
• Bank Regulation – 6
• Finish the military mission in Afghanistan – 4
• Greenhouse Gas Regulation – 4
• Immigration Reform – 3
• Reduce Deficit – 1
• Other – 7

Which of the following people would you MOST like to see as the Republican nominee for president
in 2012?

• Palin – 32
• Bachmann – 27
• Paul – 12
• Romney – 11
• Santorum – 6
• Gingrich – 5
• Pawlenty – 3
• Ryan – 2
• Christie  – 2

Which of the following people would you LEAST like to see as the Republican nominee for president
in 2012?

• Romney – 39
• Palin – 14
• Christie – 12
• Bachman – 12
• Pawlenty – 7
• Paul – 5
• Santorum – 4
• Ryan – 4
• Gingrich – 3

And who do you believe the GOP will nominate for President?

• Romney – 72
• Pawlenty – 12
• Bachmann – 8
• Christie – 3
• Palin – 2
• Santorum – 1
• Ryan – 1
• Gingrich – 0
• Paul – 0

First, remember that this is a straw poll. You must take it with a grain of salt. Second, note that they did not include Perry, Huntsman, Giuliani, or Cain in this poll.

That being said, it is an interesting glimpse into the minds of the hard-core activist left. Note how their concerns over job growth coincide with their fears of Romney becoming the Republican nominee. They are sensing that time is running out on the Obama administration. He has got to turn the unemployment figures around, or his reelection chances will be slim to none.

(h/t CF. Thanks)

I’m sure most of you know by now that Michele Bachmann officially entered the race for President today. She did the big, official roll-out in Waterloo, IA, the town where she was born.

While there, the congresswoman from Minnesota got a quick introduction to the level of play expected in this arena. In her exuberance of her hometown, she made the following comment:

“Well what I want them to know is just like, John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That’s the kind of spirit that I have, too.”

There are a couple of problems with that statement.:

1. John Wayne was indeed from Iowa, but he was born in Winterset, which is nowhere near Waterloo. Wayne’s only connection to Waterloo was his parents lived there for a very short time when first married. They moved to Winterset where they eventually gave birth to The Duke.
2. The only John Wayne of any note who had anything to do with Waterloo was serial killer John Wayne Gacy who started his life of crime in Waterloo.

Bachmann’s campaign issued the following statement:

“John Wayne is from Iowa, his parents lived in Waterloo.”

Gaffes are a fact of life for politicians. They cannot avoid them. They are only human after all.  However, too many of those slips-of-the-tongue on the campaign trail can make it difficult to take the candidate seriously. That is especially true when said candidate is running for President of the United States.

One of the reasons Republicans tend to prefer candidates who have already run for President at least once before is because they tend to make fewer gaffes. They aren’t immune to them by any means, but they generally have learned to avoid the worst of the embarrassing word-slips.

Interesting news from South Carolina and Florida this morning regarding the early primary schedule…

First, from South Carolina where fiscal issues might turn their primary into a caucus:

South Carolina’s much-watched first-in-the-South Republican presidential primary could become a far less important first-in-the-South caucus.

Without the help of the state, the party may not legally be able to hold a primary in early 2012, Chad Connelly, the recently elected chairman of the S.C. GOP, said Friday.

Gov. Nikki Haley is expected to veto part of a state budget proposal, now on her desk, that could partially pay for that primary. Connelly is concerned that veto would mean the State Election Commission could not help run the GOP primary, forcing the party to opt for a caucus.

Lots of punditry already explaining how switching to a caucus hurts or helps various candidates, with folks divided on Romney’s fate. Some predict it will hurt Romney because caucus goers tend to be more conservative and less moderate – especially, it is guessed, in a state like South Carolina; others saying it would help Romney’s chances since he tends to overperform in caucuses as compared to primaries.

My bet? South Carolina finds a way to pay for the primary. I don’t think they’ll give up their “first in the south” status this easily… but who knows?

Then, news from the Sunshine State as the Florida GOP puts forward their new compromise proposal:

The calendar remains unsettled, and the Florida date is to be set by a commission whose members will be named by Scott and state legislative leaders. Haridopolos and Republican state Chairman Dave Bitner tell USA TODAY they are floating the idea of setting the primary March 1, 2 or 3.

That would be after the first four states but before the Super Tuesday primaries March 6.

This seems to be one of the best options advanced by either side thus far in this FL/RNC battle. As Ben Smith notes, “In the March 1-3 option, everybody saves a little face. Florida gets to hold an early primary, even if that just means voting three days earlier than a slew of other states. The RNC gets Florida to back away from its current date of Jan. 31, as well as its original negotiating target of mid-February. It also helps Florida plant a flag as a special state for future GOP primary calendars, which is a big part of the objective here.”

What remains to be settled would be whether or not the RNC would penalize Florida delegates if they choose to go before March 6.

On the day that Michelle Bachmann and her campaign rollout is getting all the attention, Tim Pawlenty is making it clear he’s not going down without a fight. This morning, his campaign unveiled the endorsements of ten Iowa legislators:

• Rep. Erik Helland, Majority Whip
• Sen. Randy Feenstra
• Rep. Linda Miller
• Rep. Steve Lukan
• Rep. Chris Hagenow, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Oversight
• Rep. Matt Windschitl
• Sen. Rob Bacon
• Sen. Shawn Hamerlinck
• Rep. Chip Baltimore
• Rep. Joel Fry

In terms of organization and party support, Pawlenty is simply running circles around Bachmann (and every other candidate) – which has to make his lack of support in the polls all that more frustrating.