The Pawlenty campaign sends along this transcript of their radio ad, now playing in Iowa:

Script:

Announcer: Minnesota.

Not exactly a conservative place.

Then came Tim Pawlenty, widely recognized as the most conservative governor in Minnesota history.

Here’s Tim Pawlenty:

Pawlenty:When I ran for governor I said, look, we have to tell the truth, and the truth is, the liberal approach has failed our state.

Announcer: For decades, Minnesota spending had grown at twenty percent. Tim Pawlenty shrank that down to one percent, and cut spending in real terms for the first time in history.

But that’s not all.

Pawlenty did heath care reform the right way. No mandates. No takeovers.

And on nominating judges?

Pro-life Pawlenty turned a liberal supreme court into a conservative one.

Pawlenty: If I can do it in Minnesota, we can do it in Washington.

I’m Tim Pawlenty and I approved this message.

Announcer: Tim Pawlenty: Results, Not Rhetoric.

Paid for by Pawlenty for President.

Pawlenty is certainly striking the right tone with these ads. Another solid entry by Team Pawlenty.

However, Ben Smith notes that this ad buy was only $14,000, and it will only play on news and Christian radio stations in the Des Moines market.

Back in my childhood, I used to watch a game show called Name That Tune. The final competitive round of the show was called Bid-A-Note and featured contestants bidding against one another for the chance to name a song based on the fewest notes possible.

It would usually come down to a contestant saying something like, “I can name that tune in 2 notes” and their competitor saying, “I don’t think you can. Name that tune.”

Bid-A-Note in action…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOgvLYaZdzU&feature=related[/youtube]

Fast forwarding to 2011, Tim Pawlenty has based the hopes and future of his nascent campaign on winning the Iowa Caucus. And to do that, he believes, he must win the Ames Straw Poll coming up in August — the same exact strategy Mitt Romney employed in 2007 on both counts.

Romney, who had experienced the thrill of a record-breaking victory at Ames only to watch the media focus the spotlight on Mike Huckabee instead, realized that Ames had nothing to offer in terms of benefits for him this time around. And so when Tim Pawlenty came on the scene and made a bid for victory in Iowa, in essence saying, “I can name that tune in 2 notes,” Romney gambled and responded, “I don’t think you can. Name that tune.”

It was a gamble that appears to be paying dividends. Romney is leading national polls by double digits now, and despite skipping Ames is still leading in Iowa as well. Pawlenty is clearly Romney’s strongest competition at the moment — if Perry or Palin jump in the race, or Huntsman somehow catches on, that could change — so minimizing Pawlenty means maximizing Romney’s chance of winning the party nod.

Iowa was set up to diminish Pawlenty’s chances, because even if he won there now, well, he was supposed to win there. The game of expectations was sent spinning into overdrive. Pawlenty cracked under the pressure and, seeing the lack of traction in the polls, went on the attack against the man who was consolidating fresh (if not tepid) support as the frontrunner. Followed by a weak debate moment that received a disproportionate amount of media scrutiny and the rumors of fundraising struggles, Pawlenty quietly faded back into the lower tier of candidates — an act in which his so-called “vanilla” personality aided.

But politics abhors a vacuum, and if Pawlenty wasn’t gaining traction in Iowa and Romney was a weak frontrunner who was skipping the major party event in the state, somebody had to catch fire there. That somebody quickly became Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann following a pitch-perfect debate and candidacy announcement. The day before her official campaign rollout, the Des Moines Register pegged her as trailing Romney by just one point in Iowa — essentially tied for first place in a state that she has visited just three times in the past three months.

But that means the narrative has now shifted. Pawlenty is no longer the favorite to win Iowa as he once was. Bachmann is now in the driver’s seat, as exemplified by this Chris Cillizza column descriptively entitled “Why Michele Bachmann is the Iowa frontrunner”. The expectations game has entered round two. Pawlenty is expected to lose. Bachmann is expected to win.

And that is great news for Tim Pawlenty.

Part of the problem with Pawlenty’s strategy early on was that he was employing a Romney strategy of being the best-organized, dominant force in Iowa but then hoping for and counting on Huckabee-like press coverage after his win. You simply can’t have both. If you are the dominant campaign in Iowa, you are expected to win. Huckabee’s lightning-in-a-bottle moment came because no one — nobody — expected him to come in second at Ames. And even if he lost to Romney by a record 13%, well, nobody cared. The story is expectations. And as long as Pawlenty was expected to win, his path would continue to be Romney ’07, not Huckabee ’07.

Now, however, Bachmann bears the burden of the weighty expectations game. And Pawlenty can continue trudging along in the trenches, consolidating evangelical support and trying to cobble together a coalition of voters in time for Ames in August.

In fact, Pawlenty’s miserable 6% in the latest Des Moines Register poll may be a blessing in disguise as well. Folks are more or less writing off Pawlenty now. Bachmann has the support (but may not have the organization to support it). Paul has the support and a better organization than 2008, and he’s raising a ton of money. Cain has the Fair Tax folks and his charisma. Those three are getting the buzz when it comes to Ames. Just placing at Ames now would amount to a comeback (at least on some miniature scale) for Pawlenty – and the media loves a comeback story.

If Pawlenty is unable to do it, it won’t be because of a lack of campaign organization: Team Pawlenty’s Iowa staff is literally larger than every other candidates’ Iowa staff combined. Pawlenty has been gifted with perhaps the best news of all: he doesn’t have to win anymore. He can place second to Michele Bachmann and get some level of the Huckabee-like press he has been hoping for.

Romney’s gamble may have been correct: Pawlenty might not be able to name that tune in two notes. But Pawlenty might still be alive if he names it in three.

We are now at, or are very close to, the critical moments in the various showdowns between governors and legislatures, and President Obama and the Republican house of representatives over taxes and spending.

Republicans so far are holding firm, but some of them are understandably nervous about the depth of public support for their conservative agenda. The majority of voters did speak, however, in the national elections of 2010 when Republican conservatives ran on the promise of imposing no new taxes, and dramatically cutting and transforming what and how the federal government spends. Similarly, in many states, conservative Republican candidates for governor and for state legislative seats ran (and won) on promises they would enact reform legislation. Republicans do remember 1994-95 when the GOP-controlled U.S. house brought the government to shut down when Democratic President Clinton refused to go along with their program. In that confrontation, voters seemed to blame the Republicans more than Mr. Clinton, and their momentum from the upset takeover of the House in 1994 was seemingly halted. Of course, President Clinton then co-opted much of the GOP program (and the economy subsequently boomed).

But the economic downturn in the 1990s was much shorter and milder (and more traditional) than the one which has overtaken the U.S. since 2007-08. Today, the nation is suffering chronic and prolonged high levels of unemployment, and the inability of an economic recovery to take hold. The bust of the housing bubble has been renewed in spite of extraordinary low interest rates, and entrepreneurs remain reluctant, facing more taxes and regulations, to create new businesses. Overall, there is a persistent lack of economic confidence and optimism. Commodity prices are soaring, bailouts seem to have exhausted their presumed effectiveness and capacity. At the same time, major U.S. entitlement and welfare programs face disastrous deficits, public and private pension funds have run out of money, and the “No Child Left Behind” and other federal educational system programs/mandates are clearly failing.

I contend that the public and the voters are in a completely different place than they were in 1994-95, or even in 2000-02. Democrats routinely turned back Republican attempts to reform Social Security and other federal entitlements through predictable scare tactics aimed at the poor and the elderly. Today, there is widespread acceptance across party and generational lines that something must be done to fix social security, entitlements and educational programs. In 2010, Republicans told voters they would do something about these problems, and contrary to skeptics who thought they might not try to deliver on those promises after the election, GOP leaders and legislators have begun to deliver on those promises. On the other hand, it is a very difficult task. First of all, Republicans do not control the White House and the U.S. senate. Second, in many states they do not control the governorship, or one or both houses of the state legislatures. Even where they do, as in Wisconsin, the established recipients of public largesse such as the public employees and their unions are desperately fighting back, throwing up everything they can (including the kitchen sink) to thwart reform.

Most states have constitutional requirements to balance their budgets, and the imbalance between state revenues and expenditures is now so acute across the nation, that many states are facing shutdowns. Similarly, the federal deficit has become so enormous that Republicans are saying they will no longer vote to increase the national debt ceiling, thus forcing a government shutdown similar to the one which occurred in 1995.

These confrontations have been brewing for several months as conservatives have gone forward with their plans for federal and state economic and educational reform. And now in the next 30-90 days, opposing forces and parties must either arrive at agreements or various levels of government will begin to shut down.

The price of conservative leaders and legislators (and presidential candidates) turning back from their promised reforms and transformations of government now will be massive (and deserved) defeat in 2012 and beyond. Yes, true change is by definition new territory, and no one knows with certainty how voters will react to each and every proposal, but the voters have spoken, and the need is as clear as it has ever been in decades.

There is no need to look over incessant political shoulders to make the changes and reforms happen. They should continue to enact them, and finish the job by winning the 2012 elections. They should take the care to explain effectively what they are doing (this is VERY important), but they should do it. Right now is the time.
___________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.

Mitt Romney keeps changing his identity.

Will the real Willard Mitt Romney please stand up?

Republicans recently have watched multiple Romneys at war with each other over abortion, ethanol, global warming, and more. Alas, this is nothing new. Various Romneys have battled themselves on issues as old as the Vietnam War.

• “I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam,” Hawkish Romney said in the June 24, 2007, Boston Globe while running as a conservative for 2008’s GOP nomination.

But Romney sang a softer song while campaigning for Senate in liberal Massachusetts. “I was not planning on signing up for the military,” dovish Romney said in the May 2, 1994, Boston Herald. “It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.”

• Just last week, Romney spooked pro-lifers by refusing to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s pledge to nominate anti-abortion judges and other federal officials. Romney properly noted that this promise might block, say, a pro-choice spy master from leading the electronic sleuths at the National Security Agency, which does not address abortion. Still, this dustup underscored Romney’s bipolarity on this key issue.

“I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother,” pro-life Romney wrote in the July 26, 2005, Boston Globe.

But less than three years earlier, in October 2002, pro-choice Romney disagreed: “Let me make this very clear. I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.”

• “Government under President Obama has grown to consume almost 40 percent of our economy,” pro-enterprise Romney said June 2. “We are only inches away from ceasing to be a free-market economy.”

– “I support the subsidy of ethanol,” rent-seeking Romney said on May 27 in Iowa, however. “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”

Four days earlier, former governor Tim Pawlenty (R, Minn.) bravely opposed ethanol subsidies in Iowa. Nonetheless, Romney bear-hugged this boondoggle — weeks before the U.S. Senate voted 73–27 on June 16 to terminate the ethanol tax credit.

– “I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” CO2-fighting Romney said on June 3. “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants, of greenhouse gases, that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you’re seeing.”

Romney earned a wave of the scepter from none other than the Pope of Global Warming, former vice president Albert Gore Jr.

“Good for Mitt Romney,” Gore wrote on June 15. “While other Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party.”

• “Governor Romney,” CNN’s John King asked at a June 13 GOP debate in New Hampshire, “constitutional amendment or state decision [to ban gay marriage]?”

“Constitutional,” replied traditional-values Romney.

Conversely, modern-values Romney, said in an Aug. 25, 1994 interview with Boston’s gay newspaper Bay Windows: “The authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.”

• Gun-toting Romney called himself a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association in April 2007. (Actually that “lifetime” began in August 2006.)

Gun-controlling Romney declared in 1994: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”

Huntsman Romney said in 2007: “I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life.” A spokesman clarified that Romney actually had hunted precisely twice: At age 15 and in 2006.

• “Ronald Reagan is . . . my hero,” Gipper-loving Romney said in 2005, as the Boston Globe’s Scot Lehigh noted on Jan. 19, 2007. “I believe that our party’s ascendancy began with Ronald Reagan’s brand of visionary and courageous leadership.”

“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush,” Gipper-bashing Romney said in 1994, while running against the late senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D., Mass.). “I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Actually, Romney is doing Republicans a huge favor by disappointing them now, when they can deny him the nomination, rather than waiting until after being inaugurated, as both presidents Bush so maddeningly did.

Daddy Bush spent eight years riding shotgun beside Ronald Reagan. Surely, two terms as the Gipper’s vice president prepared him to fortify Reagan’s victories. Wrong! Read my lips: George Herbert Walker Bush raised taxes, swelled spending, and wimpishly dissolved when challenged by a young governor of Arkansas making his maiden presidential bid.

Baby Bush “will be nothing like his dad,” his supporters promised. “He’s like Reagan’s grandson.” Wrong again! Tax cuts and the War on Terror aside, George Walker Bush spent America into a hole, nationalized companies like a teenage girl buying shoes, and steered the GOP into a ditch from which only the Tea Party could rescue it.

Republicans should expose a potential nominee’s fatal flaws before, not after, the primaries.

For a change, Republicans should heed a top Democrat. Like the proverbial busted clock that is right twice daily, Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada was correct Tuesday when he said of Willard Mitt Romney: “The front-runner in the Republican stakes now? Here’s a man who doesn’t know who he is.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

— New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. This piece was originally published on National Review Online.

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

It seems like Bachmann was the big winner this week.  Everyone else has pretty much tapered off for the time being, but the Congresswoman from Minnesota’s rise has been nothing short of meteoric since the New Hampshire debate.  Other questions: has Cain already lost his glow?  Can Gingrich ever become relevant again?  For all their big-name backers, will Pawlenty and Huntsman ever break out?  Are Perry, Palin, and Giuliani getting in, or are they just teasing?

Over the years, I have developed an increased interest in the influence of sociological and cultural trends on politics and their varying influence on the outcomes of particular elections at different times.  An excellent piece for Sunday reading is an op-ed by the respected political analyst Michael Brone in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. Titled “The Surprising Roots of Liberal Nostalgia,” Barone succinctly explains why America was not ready to elect a pro-freedom, limited-government conservative as president in 1964 but was fully prepared to do so in 1980.  Most interestingly, Barone suggests that contemporary liberals, characterized by Obama, seem to have a longing for the unquestioned confidence in big institutions (and thus authority structures) that characterized American politics in the 1940′s, 50′s and 60′s:

There’s a longing on the left for the golden years of the 1940s, ’50s and early ’60s. Income distribution was significantly more egalitarian than it is today, and Americans had far more confidence in big government, the wisdom of our elected officials, and the ability of Keynesian spending policies to stimulate economic growth.

Hence the search for policies that will somehow get us back to those golden years. The Obama Democrats have been desperately trying to increase membership in labor unions, to the point of threatening to close down Boeing’s new Dreamliner plant in South Carolina. They passed an $814 billion stimulus package and ObamaCare. And they’re still itching to raise tax rates on high earners, though they botched it when they had supermajorities in Congress.

But the America of the past is a different country to which we can’t return. As Andrew Levison recently lamented in the Nation magazine: “Doubts about the ability of government to create jobs reflect not only a disbelief in Keynesian remedies for unemployment but also the profound doubts many Americans have about government in general.”

Still, liberals pine for what I call America’s Midcentury Moment. It was the product of World War II, lasting from 1940 until the mid-1960s when the wartime experience wore off and the emerging baby boomers led culture and politics in another direction. For those of us who grew up in those years, the Midcentury Moment seemed the norm in American experience. But in fact it was the result of a unique time in U.S. history, when a united nation was mobilized for total war and Americans were, literally or figuratively, put into uniform.

It started in the months before Pearl Harbor, as President Franklin Roosevelt mobilized the nation and its economy for the war he believed necessary to eradicate the scourge of Hitler and fascism. In September 1940, he signed the bill instituting the military draft. One year later ground was broken on the Pentagon, which remains the largest office building in the world. American industrial firms were enlisted into war production. Rationing began soon after war was declared. Auto production was ended, with assembly lines turning out Jeeps and tanks and aircraft.

View Full Image

NY Daily News via Getty ImagesGrand Central Station, 1946

Unions agreed not to strike in return for government encouragement of unionization and higher wages. Government spending rose to 40% of gross domestic product, financed partly by confiscatory taxes on high earners and even more by mass voluntary purchases of war bonds. Big government, big business and big labor all united in the effort to deliver on what Roosevelt promised in his speech one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor: “[T]he American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.”

This massive mobilization reshaped our national mores for a generation in ways that we find hard to comprehend. At one time or another 16 million Americans served in the military. The equivalent proportion of today’s population would be 38 million Americans serving in the military over the next three and a half years—something none of us can imagine. Nor can we envision ourselves paying taxes at World War II rates, accepting rationing of butter and meat and rubber, doing without new cars, or putting most of our wage and salary increases into low-interest government bonds.

Only by keeping in mind those experiences can we fully appreciate the exhilaration that came from victory. In two words with catchy internal rhyme—”righteous might”—Roosevelt conflated the ideas that the American people were both strong and good.

Victory in World War II conferred enormous prestige on the leaders of the big units—big government, big business, big labor—who had led the war effort at home. No wonder that levels of confidence in the big units and their leaders remained high for a generation—higher, I suspect, than they had ever been before the Midcentury Moment and higher, certainly, than they have been since.

No wonder, also, that Americans in the Midcentury Moment were unusually conformist, content to be very small cogs in very large machines: They married and bore children at record rates for an advanced society; they worked as organization men and flocked to mass-produced suburbs; they worshipped in seemingly interchangeable churches. This was an America that celebrated the average, the normal, the regular.

The liberals who long to return to the Midcentury Moment seem to forget that it was a time of enormous cultural uniformity that stigmatized being unmarried or unchurched or gay. The huge menu of lifestyle choices from which we can choose today was a very short menu with very few choices then.

It could not last. Baby-boom children, raised in prosperity, were not content with being small units in large machines. The Berkeley student activists in 1964, before the major escalations in Vietnam, held signs reading, “Do not bend, staple, fold or mutilate”—I am not just another IBM card. The military draft, which more than anything else initiated the Midcentury Moment and was supposed to apply equally to everyone, was by 1965 so riddled with exceptions and loopholes that the sons of the well-to-do were largely exempt from military service in time of war. Similarly, the tax code in the early 1960s had enough exceptions and loopholes that high tax rates on high earners were eminently avoidable.

Vietnam, urban riots, Watergate, stagflation—all undermined confidence in big government, big business and big labor, and by the late 1970s the Midcentury Moment was long gone. It has not returned and it is hard to conceive of circumstances in which it could. Big labor is no longer big, except for the public-employee unions. Big business has been subject to enormous change to the point that the Fortune 500, fairly stable during the Midcentury Moment, has seen new firms enter and old ones disappear at record rates. As for big government, its prestige has never fully recovered, leaving the military as one of our few respected institutions and the civilian government largely concerned with transferring money from current earners to the elderly at rates that are economically unsustainable but politically difficult to alter.

So the Obama Democrats, partially successful in expanding the size and scope of government, largely unsuccessful in reviving private-sector unions, are on the defensive politically. As Mr. Levison and other liberals recognize, most Americans don’t accept Keynesian economics and don’t favor expansion of government as they did during the Midcentury Moment. Thus the Democrats’ 2012 campaign strategy seems aimed more at discrediting Republican alternatives than seeking endorsement of their own policies.

But there is a more fundamental contradiction here, for the Midcentury Moment’s confidence in big institutions was inextricably connected with an acceptance of a cultural uniformity that almost all of today’s liberals, and probably most non-liberals, would find unacceptable.

Mr. Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of “The Almanac of American Politics,” published by National Journal.

————————————————————————————

Barone’s piece tends to support a theory of mine that the roots of the Reagan Revolution  (to a reasonable degree) can be found in the rebellion of the Baby Boomers that began in the mid ’60s.

The much anticipated…

Des Moines Register Republican Iowa Caucus

• Romney – 23%
• Bachmann – 22%
• Cain – 10%
• Gingrich – 7%
• Paul – 7%
• Pawlenty – 6%
• Santorum – 4%
• Huntsman – 2%

Survey of 400 likely caucus-goers was done June 19-22 and has a margin of error of +/-4.9%.

This just in on AP:

NEW YORK (AP) – The best way to celebrate Peter Falk’s life is to savor how Columbo, his signature character, fortified our lives.

Thanks to Falk’s affectionately genuine portrayal, Lt. Columbo established himself for all time as a champion of any viewer who ever felt less than graceful, elegant or well-spoken.

Falk died Thursday at age 83 in his Beverly Hills, Calif., home, according to a statement released Friday by family friend Larry Larson. But Columbo lives on as the shining ideal of anyone with a smudge on his tie, whose car isn’t the sportiest, who often seems clueless, who gets dissed by fancy people.

As a police detective, Columbo’s interview technique was famously disjointed, with his inevitable awkward afterthought (“Ahhh, there’s just one more thing…”) that tried the patience of his suspect as he was halfway out the door.

Columbo was underestimated, patronized or simply overlooked by nearly everyone he met _ especially the culprit.

And yet Columbo, drawing on inner pluck for which only he (and an actor as skilled as Falk) could have accounted, always prevailed. Contrary to all evidence (that is, until he nailed the bad guy), Columbo always knew what he was doing.

Even more inspiring for viewers, he was unconcerned with how other people saw him. He seemed to be perfectly happy with himself, his life, his pet basset, Dog, his wheezing Peugeot, and his never-seen wife. A squat man chewing cigars in a rumpled raincoat, he stands tall among TV’s most self-assured heroes.

What viewer won’t take solace forever from the lessons Columbo taught us by his enduring example?

Columbo _ he never had a first name _ presented a refreshing contrast to other TV detectives. “He looks like a flood victim,” Falk once said. “You feel sorry for him. He appears to be seeing nothing, but he’s seeing everything. Underneath his dishevelment, a good mind is at work.”

…

Falk was already an experienced Broadway actor and two-time Oscar nominee when he began playing Columbo. And, long before then, he had demonstrated a bit of Columbo-worthy spunk: at 3, he had one eye removed because of cancer.

Then, when he was starting as an actor in New York, an agent told him, “Of course, you won’t be able to work in movies or TV because of your eye.” And after failing a screen test at Columbia Pictures, he was told by studio boss Harry Cohn that “for the same price I can get an actor with two eyes.”

But Falk prevailed, even before “Columbo,” picking up back-to-back Oscar nominations as best supporting actor for the 1960 mob drama “Murder, Inc.” and Frank Capra’s last film, the 1961 comedy-drama “Pocketful of Miracles.”

Paying tribute, actor-comedian Michael McKean said, “Peter Falk’s assault on conventional stardom went like this: You’re not conventionally handsome, you’re missing an eye and you have a speech impediment. Should you become a movie star? Peter’s correct answer: Absolutely.

“I got to hang with him a few times and later worked a day with him on a forgettable TV movie,” McKean went on, calling Falk “a sweet, sharp and funny man with a great soul. Wim Wenders called it correctly in `Wings of Desire’: He was an angel if there ever was one on Earth.”

“There is literally nobody you could compare him to. He was a completely unique actor,” said Rob Reiner, who directed Falk in “The Princess Bride.”

There is much, much more in the article. Read it all.

A truly wonderful actor and a wonderful human being. Definitely one of the greats. He will be missed.

H/T to frequent reader/commenter (and resident T-Paw champion) Smack1968 for what may be the numbers of a Pawlenty campaign internal poll of likely Iowa caucus goers:

Poll of unknown number of likely caucus voters

With leaners included:

• Mitt Romney 26%
• Michele Bachmann 18%
• Herman Cain 13%
• Tim Pawlenty 11%
• Ron Paul 10%
• Rick Santorum 6%
• Newt Gingrich 4%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Uncommitted/non-leaners 11%

Without leaners:

• Mitt Romney 20%
• Michele Bachmann 16%
• Herman Cain 10%
• Tim Pawlenty 10%
• Ron Paul 10%
• Rick Santorum 4%
• Newt Gingrich 2%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Uncommitted 27%

Hopefully this should tide some of us over until the release of the Des Moines Register‘s poll numbers, later this evening.

As most of you know, Jon Huntsman has decided to make his Presidential campaign’s headquarters in Orlando. The actual grand opening was this Thursday. While I was unable to go (work and all) a friend of mine did and was able to give a little on-the-ground report. There were according to him somewhere between 300-500 people at the Huntsman opening and the crowd was pretty enthusiastic (if you want to see pictures of the event here are some courtesy of the Orlando Sentinel) This is the first time in history that a presidential candidate has picked Orlando as the headquarters for his national campaign.

Later that evening, the county Republican Party had our monthly meeting. Who was the guest speaker? You guessed it, Jon Huntsman. It was a pretty smart move to come to this for Huntsman. Not just because this was a hard-core of Republican activists. This meeting was the one that selected delegates for our county to the Presidency 5 convention. For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, Presidency 5 is essentially a Florida GOP Convention, held here in Orlando, with delegates from all over the state. There’ll be a debate and straw poll to accompany it. On a purely personal note, this humble correspondent was chosen as a delegate.

Anyways, this county Republican meeting had about 200 people at it (more than double the number of normal people at our meetings) and I can give a firsthand account. I’ll start with the random and probably irrelevant. First off, Huntsman prefers to be called “Governor” instead of “Ambassador”, probably to remind voters that he was elected to something. Secondly, he’s not as tall as he looks on TV. Third, he has a very photogenic family; one that could give Mitt Romney’s a run for his money.

More substantially, Governor Huntsman, who spoke for only a couple of minutes, spent most of the time talking about the future and the next generation. It was generally boilerplate stuff “we might be the first generation that leaves a weaker nation than the one we inherited, our nation is adrift at home and abroad, I have the experience to get stuff done”, etc. The Governor sounded like a general election candidate, and to no one’s surprise, he didn’t deliver a ton of red-meat. At this stage, the Governor is still in the “hi I exist” phase of the race, so he’s still just trying to introduce himself even to Republican activists.

Overall, the Governor received a polite reception, not overwhelming, but polite. It’s obvious the Governor is courting Florida, particularly Central Florida, which is smart if you want to win this state. In the 2010 gubernatorial election, 40% of the votes cast in that race were in the I-4 corridor (Tampa to Orlando to Daytona Beach and everything in between). I don’t know how Governor Huntsman is going to do in Central Florida or in the primaries, but we already know that those of us in Central Florida will be seeing a lot more of him before all’s said and done.

The Atlantic reports that Jon Huntsman will no longer define himself as a Mormon, only going so far as to say that he’s a “spiritual person” and “proud of his Mormon roots“.  When asked if he’s still a Mormon, he could only say, “That’s tough to define.”  Is Huntsman the ultimate flip-flopper, or is he just trying to sell himself as Romney Lite?

We interrupt your NHL draft coverage (okay, so maybe I was the only on here watching it!) to bring you the following:

New York lawmakers narrowly voted to legalize same-sex marriage Friday, handing activists a breakthrough victory in the state where the gay rights movement was born.

…Gay rights advocates are hoping the vote will galvanize the movement around the country and help it regain momentum after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.

…The New York bill cleared the Republican-controlled Senate on a 33-29 vote. The Democrat-led Assembly, which previously approved the bill, passed the Senate’s stronger religious exemptions in the measure Friday, and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who campaigned on the issue last year, has promised to sign it. Same-sex couples can begin marrying 30 days after that.

Other than the gay community, Cuomo has emerged as by far the biggest winner in this battle. His close involvement in pushing the legislation, in addition to his recent performance on budgetary issues, already have pundits singing his praises for 2016:

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has positioned himself as a centrist, rebuffing liberal demands for a “millionaires tax” and cutting his state’s budget substantially (while cutting deals with key unions). But he’s also, Shrum notes, put himself in position to wow liberal Democratic voters in 2016 by being the candidate most fully committed to same-sex marriage, and the one who got it done. Cuomo is currently out stumping for, among other things, same-sex marriage, which he’s straightforwardly supported for several years. The measure stands a decent chance of passing the state legislature, particularly if he works it.

“I don’t want to take anything away from the sincerity of his conviction on this and I assume it’s real, but if he’s thinking about a national campaign somehwere dow the road, he is in exactly the right place for a Democrat right now,” Shrum said. “If he actually gets this done in a big state like New York, it’ll be historic, it’ll be a landmark, and not only strengthen him with the gay constituency – which is important in Democratic politics – but also for younger voters.”

Against, the wishes of many in the Democratic Party, Cuomo’s father, Mario, never ended up running for president. Andrew appears to harbor every intention of proceeding in a different direction.

The following has appeared on Mitt Romney’s site:

In 1978, Saatchi and Saatchi, then an up-and-coming advertising agency hired by the British Conservative Party and their campaign for Margaret Thatcher, created a historic political poster depicting the negative economic conditions and the government’s failed attempts to correct that path. Labeled the poster of the century by the magazine Campaign, the image pointed to Britain’s economic climate of rising unemployment, rising inflation, and a large and growing national debt. Those conditions and the public discontent throughout the country during that election and the parallels that Americans face today cannot be ignored. With unemployment rising from 3.6% in 1974 to 5.3% in 1979, the British knew there was a problem. Now, America faces 9.1% unemployment, record deficits, a soaring national debt, and millions of struggling families. One thing is clear – Obama isn’t working, either.

Mitt is certainly no Maggie, but the point is well taken. Obama is definitely not working.

He’s too busy golfing.

According to MSNBC, gossip emanating from the White House suggests that POTUS is so convinced of his status as The One that he is already planning a presidential comeback should those irritating American voters deny him re-election in 2012:

Most obviously, if Barack Obama loses his bid for a second term he will almost certainly “pull a Grover” and run to recapture the White House four years later.

In 1888, Democrat Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re-election campaign to the GOP’s Benjamin Harrison (he actually beat the Republican in the popular vote, 48.6 to 47.8 percent, but Harrison carried the state of New York and with it won the Electoral College). Just 51 years old when he suffered this heart-breaking defeat, “Grover the Good” began planning his comeback before he even left the White House. While bidding farewell to the executive mansion staff on inauguration day, the glamorous and popular first lady, Frances Folsom Cleveland, told the head butler: “Now, Jerry, I want you to take good care of all the furniture and ornaments in the house, for I want to find everything just as it is now, when we come back again…We are coming back four years from today.” Sure enough, in 1892 former President Cleveland seized his party’s nomination against feeble and divided opposition and swept to decisive victory over the hapless Harrison, becoming the only president to serve non-consecutive terms.

One of the most telling things about this line of thinking is that President Obama seems to actually believe his own marketing ploy. As a rather cynical fellow, I tend to assume that, more often than not, politicians are similar to performance artists, and that their theatrics are just that — gimmicks and misdirection designed to persuade, compel, and convince the audience to buy into a pre-determined narrative. To me, Obama’s hope-and-change campaign was nothing more than schtick, the kind of thing that the president and his inner circle likely chuckle about when the doors are closed. But reports like this one suggest otherwise; indeed, the president and his sycophantic followers may honestly buy into the mythology of their own Potemkin presidency.

But more to the point, an attempted Obama comeback in 2016, following a loss to the Republicans in 2012, may set the stage for the political rematch to end all political rematches: one between former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While it’s possible that the Clintons may retire altogether from public life once Hillary’s stint at the State Department is over, it’s equally plausible that the campaign for the Clinton Restoration will begin the instant Mitt Romney (or whoever) reaches 270 electoral votes in November of 2012. And while a popular GOP presidency may dissuade both Obama and Hillary from making another bid for the White House, continued, 1970s-esque economic sputtering along with tough choices to close the deficit have the potential to take a toll on whichever Republican manages to unseat the president next fall. A GOP president that looks like a one-termer may re-activate both the Houses of Clinton and of Obama.

I doubt that I’m alone in my sentiment that an Obama/Hillary rematch would be downright pornographic for most political junkies. In many ways it would mirror the Ford/Reagan grudge match in 1980, following Ford getting the better of Reagan in 1976 and then losing to Carter. By 1980, of course, Reagan had managed to consolidate his support among Goldwaterite Westerners, Southern conservatives, and Midwestern Reagan Democrats in order to take the nomination for himself. It would be interesting to see whether Democrats have experienced enough buyer’s remorse over the Obama presidency to give Hillary the upper hand in what would prove to be a contest for the history books.

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has released another ad. As all the others, it attacks Obama on his poor economic record. This one begins by calling attention to the President’s very own words and their disconnect with reality. It focuses on the plight of one individual trying to earn a living in Michigan. It really drives home the shallowness and the hollowness of Obama’s lofty rhetoric.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6oJMr1R92c[/youtube]

I remain skeptical of Pawlenty’s chances after the debate disaster but there’s no question he still has a few cards to play.  This 700 Club interview, with Pat Robertson, is I think stunningly effective.  Every one of Pawlenty’s strengths is on display.  He’s warm, sincere, and seems quite religious without being remotely scary (he says Lord without any discomfort at all).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tssWjireAPY[/youtube]

I’ve heard people argue that Bachmann and Perry seem more in the evangelical line and this is true enough; if you have in mind a caricature evangelical.  If you have any experience with actual evangelicals, well, the truth is more complicated.  I can’t imagine any CBN viewer watching this interview without feeling, instinctively, that Pawlenty is a manifestly decent guy who loves the Lord.  That’s not a bad impression to make when you’re running in the Iowa caucuses.  Count Pawlenty down but, for now, don’t count him out.

And we get some more pieces to the puzzle… Politico has a nice rumor roundup pertaining to the second quarter fundraising race. Here are some of the highlights – let the educated speculation begin!

• Romney – The Romney campaign is beating their own internal goals for fundraising, and as such, Romney will not put any of his personal money into his campaign this quarter. “Top advisers” are saying his total will be around $20 million, but this in undoubtedly an attempt to play the expectations game. Most GOP insiders expect him to bring in upwards of $40 million. If he raises more than $36.2 million, he will have set a new quarterly fundraising record, beating Dubya’s 2000 totals.
• Pawlenty – Pawlenty aides are claiming they will report just $2 million total, but again, this is part of the expectations game. Or at least it better be, if Pawlenty wants to survive any longer in this race. GOP insiders estimate he will “almost certainly” report less than $10 million, with just $5 million being the common expectation. One major difference between Romney and Pawlenty is that Romney is raising funds only for the primary while Pawlenty is raising for the primary and the general — a tactic some candidates utilized in 2008 in order to pad their numbers. (If Pawlenty does not win the primary, the general election funds have to be returned to donors.) That breakdown will be important to note when the numbers are released.
• Bachmann – Bachmann will be transferring $2 million to her campaign from her congressional fundraising account. Even with that infusion of cash, her numbers are still expected to be under $10 million. Most interestingly to me, she appears to be taking the long view of this campaign and is investing energy in fundraising practices that won’t turn dividends until the third quarter.
• Huntsman – Since Huntsman just got into the race, he is not obligated by law to file an FEC report for the second quarter… but he may, depending on how good his numbers look. He has 18 fundraising events scheduled between his announcement and the end of the quarter, which puts Huntsman in a good spot to decide: if he raises a ton, he’ll release the numbers; if the fundraising doesn’t impress, he can say he’s not required to file a report. Huntsman is raising primary only dollars as well.
• Gingrich – To almost no one’s surprise, a Gingrich aide reports that the campaign will have no cash on hand and will show a large debt at the end of the second quarter.
• Cain – Cain told Politico directly that he will report less than $5 million raised.

There you have it. Anyone care to update their guesses from a couple days ago?

One of the definitions of the word ‘epiphany’ is “[a] comprehension or perception of reality by means of a sudden intuitive realization“. I had one of those about thirty-five years ago. I shall never forgot it.

I had a roommate at the time with whom I could not get along. Try as I might, he just kept doing things that seemed calculated to annoy me. I was starting to hate his guts. And as is often the case, it was obvious that he was feeling the same way towards me.

Well, it was impossible for us to get out of our living arrangements for some time. We were stuck. Faced with the prospect of several months of miserable living, we both sat down and decided to try to see if we could work out our differences. To get things started and to have some basis of discussion, we decided that we would each make a list of things that really bugged us about the other. We would then prioritize the list, placing at the top the thing that bugged us most, then the next worst thing, then the next worst thing, and so on.

It took me only about a minute to quickly write down five items. It then only took me a couple of minutes more to prioritized them. My roommate did the same thing.

The moment of truth had arrived. We compared lists.

They were the exact same list! They were the exact same items listed in the exact same order. What bugged me about the other person was exactly what bugged him about me and to the same degree.

I learned an important principle that day. When I see something that bugs me, really bugs me in another person, I first make very sure that I am not guilty of the exact same thing. And guess what? Nine times out of ten, I am.

You can see this phenomena quite easily on our board. A supporter of candidate “A” will criticize a supporter of candidate “B” for something, yet just one or two comments earlier the first supporter was doing the same exact thing.  Either that, or one poster will attack another poster, and the target will retaliate by turning around and attacking the first poster. Either way, they are guilty of doing the same thing as the other guy.

Some call it hypocrisy. While it is true that you could call it that, I seldom do. Instead, as I learned nearly four decades ago, I tend to call it just plain old human nature.

Some of the rhetoric on this board does get to be rather heated at times. We are a political site, after all — a political site that caters to Republicans and conservatives of all stripes. So we tend to have differing opinions about things that we are passionate about. That is a recipe for flame wars. So let’s be careful that we don’t contribute to them.

A word of caution needs to be interjected here. Kavon has a fairly high threshold before he will pull the trigger and ban someone. But he will ban them. With the 2012 campaign heating up, so are the tempers and the rhetoric. Be extra careful. Never forget that this is his site. We are his guests. If he issues a warning, you best give heed to it. Otherwise you will find yourself on the outside looking in. Please don’t let it progress to that point.

Remember, we choose the way we respond to people. It is our choice, nobody else’s.  And the choices we make reflect directly upon us. Dumbledore perhaps said it best. “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”

What do your choices show about you?

I’ll take how not to win over Hispanic voters for $500, Alex:

Not Laughing in San Antonio

Gov. Rick Perry received a tepid response when he addressed the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials on Thursday, joking about the pronunciation of a Hispanic appointee’s last name…

A joke about how perfect it was to appoint Jose Cuevas to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission because his name sounds like Jose Cuervo – a brand of tequila – fell flat. Perry struggled to regain his confidence as he described Texas as a land of opportunity.

Wow. Just… wow.

Commentary, an online magazine not exactly known for its favorable coverage of Mitt Romney, has an article entitled: Bulger’s Arrest Recalls Romney’s Finest Hour:

The FBI’s arrest of Boston crime boss James “Whitey” Bulger ended a 16-year-old hunt for a notorious career criminal who was immortalized by the Martin Scorsese film The Departed, loosely based on his story. But it should also remind us of one of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s finest hours.

Bulger was part of an extraordinary Irish-American immigrant family who represented the best and worst of the American experience. While Whitey became the head of the Irish mafia in Boston, his younger brother William went to college and became a lawyer before going into politics. Billy Bulger spent 35 years in the Massachusetts legislature, including 18 as the powerful president of the State Senate. In 1996, he was appointed president of the University of Massachusetts system, a position of enormous prestige and power.

…

What we do know for sure is Billy spoke with his fugitive brother via elaborate procedures designed to evade police detection and made no effort to help the authorities bring him to justice. In 2003, Bulger was summoned to a congressional hearing to testify about the case. But even though he was granted immunity from prosecution, when probed as to his connections with his brother, Billy gave evasive answers and demonstrated selective memory loss.

That such a morally compromised person could continue as the head of a state university system was considered nothing exceptional in the world of Irish Democratic politics in the Bay state. Billy could, after all, count on the support of Senator Edward Kennedy, Michael Dukakis and a host of other Massachusetts power brokers. But neither Billy nor his friends counted on the determination of Mitt Romney to make good on a campaign promise to oust the UMass president. Romney conducted a relentless campaign of pressure on Bulger to resign his office. He finally succeeded in August 2003 when Bulger quit.

…

[Mitt] refused to play ball with the corrupt crowd running Massachusetts for decades. In bringing down Billy Bulger, he succeeded where other well-intentioned politicians and law enforcement officials failed. Though he hopes to achieve greater things in the future, the Bulger case may have been Romney’s finest hour to date.

h/t: RightSpeak

Romney had this to say about it:

“I hope the capture of Whitey Bulger brings some measure of relief to the families of his numerous victims. It brings to a close a sad and sordid chapter in recent Massachusetts history”

Some much-needed good news for the Pawlenty camp:

Among evangelical leaders, Tim Pawlenty leads the list of preferred 2012 Republican presidential candidates. In the monthly poll of leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), 45 percent said they would name Pawlenty as the Republican candidate. Mitt Romney trailed Pawlenty with 14 percent. Twenty-two percent were undecided.

Obviously, this appears promising for T-Paw, who has placed all his eggs in the Iowa basket. Mike Huckabee proved that strong evangelical support can propel a candidate to impressive finishes in the Hawkeye State. Time will tell if Pawlenty can translate this early support into votes.

We had quite a bevy of intriguing news today. First and foremost, President Obama’s Gallup approval numbers have dropped to 43/50, not far from his all-time-worst of 41/50. Could this have played a large role in his decision to release 30 million barrels from the Strategic Oil Reserve?

Today, Mitt Romney released another video indictment of the Obama administration’s economic record, this time using the President’s own words against himself:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0ecuS8tWs&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

The Governor shows no signs of easing off his strategy of positioning himself as the inevitable nominee and relentlessly hammering Obama on the economy. For a candidate like him, this is the way to go.

Also on the Romney front, a group of supporters has announced their formation of Restore Our Future PAC, a super PAC intended to compete against Obama’s Priorities USA Action group:

“This is an independent effort focused on getting Romney elected president,” said Charles R. Spies, the super PAC’s treasurer, who served as Romney’s general counsel in 2008. “We will do that by focusing on jobs and his ability to fix the economy.”

…“We just want to show that we’ve got more dough than anyone,” said one major Romney donor, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

With the President’s campaign having no choice but to resort to the most emotional negative attacks possible next year, Romney will need as much money as he can get to counter if he takes the nomination.

Bipartisan deficit negotiations led by Vice President Biden broke down today, with Majority Leader Eric Cantor refusing to sign off on tax increases:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) said he wouldn’t be attending Thursday’s scheduled meeting of the deficit-reduction leadership group because he believed it was time for the talks to move to a higher level. After Mr. Cantor’s remarks, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) also withdrew from the talks, and the Thursday meeting was canceled.

“We’ve reached the point where the dynamic needs to change,” Mr. Cantor said in an interview. He described Wednesday’s session with Mr. Biden as contentious. “It is up to the president to come in and talk to the speaker. We’ve reached the end of this phase. Now is the time for these talks to go into abeyance.”

Also in deficit news, Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) has introduced a balanced budget amendment, and it appears to have Cantor’s full support.

Finally, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke made waves at the news conference he held yesterday:

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told reporters Wednesday that the central bank had been caught off guard by recent signs of deterioration in the economy. And he said the troubles could continue into next year.

“We don’t have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting,” Bernanke said. He said the weak housing market and problems in the banking system might be “more persistent than we thought.”

It was the Fed chief’s most explicit warning yet that the economy will face serious challenges next year. For several months, he had said the factors working against economic growth appeared to be “transitory.”

The Fed cut its forecast for economic growth this year to a range of 2.7 percent to 2.9 percent from an April forecast of 3.1 percent to 3.3 percent. It also cut its forecast for next year to a range of 3.3 percent to 3.7 percent from an earlier 3.5 percent to 4.2 percent. The Fed also said unemployment would stay higher than it had expected earlier.

Surprise, surprise: the Keynesian measures embraced by Washington the past few years haven’t worked! Surely, no one could have seen THAT coming…

For the sake of our future, let’s hope that the stagflation (in the best-case scenario) caused by these policies prompts the public to grow weary of Keynesian economics, like they did in the ’70s.

The bidding for the parcels of land at the Ames Straw Poll is going on today… In short, the land around the convention center where the straw poll is held is parceled out and auctioned off to the various campaigns. It is on these parcels of land where the candidates set up their tents, stages, and bouncey houses; where they hand out flyers, buttons, hats, and lots of food.

The winner of the straw poll has usually had the best piece of land – the biggest one, closest to the main entry. In 2000, George W Bush snagged it for a price tag of $63,000. In 2008, Romney scored the best piece of land with a bid at half that price. (There is a minimum $15,000 bid for any land.)

Pundits are watching the auction today with interest for a couple reasons: first, it will tell us who is actually planning on competing at Ames; secondly, it will tell us who has the cash to plunk down for that prime real estate. Will Pawlenty go all out and shoot for the best spot? Or will he allow Bachmann to take the prime location and save some money to bid on another location?

This year, there has already been added intrigue at the auction, due to the fact that a mystery man showed up for the bidding and didn’t reveal until later in the day that he was a representative of Thaddeus McCotter. Hmmmm…

In other big news from Iowa, the primary season’s first Des Moines Register poll is due out on Saturday. Anyone following politics for at least a primary season or two knows that DMR polls are more than simply a gold standard of polling – their polls are more or less carved in stone by the finger of God they are so accurate. Political junkies (like all of us) go nuts when a DMR poll is released, and that doesn’t happen more than two or three times each primary season. So get ready for some huge news on Saturday when the DMR releases their numbers. This poll will be vitally important for a lot of candidates, certainly not least of all the Pawlenty campaign.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register confirms that at least seven campaigns are represented at the auction this afternoon:

• Bachmann
• Cain
• Gingrich
• McCotter
• Paul
• Pawlenty
• Santorum

Reports are conflicting as to whether or not it is a McCotter representative at the auction, or McCotter himself — but regardless, the Des Moines Register has also confirmed that McCotter (or his representative) has placed a bid on real estate at the auction. This is potentially some big news…

UPDATE II: And the winner is… Ron Paul!?!

That’s right, Ron Paul has won the prime spot at the straw poll in August. Here’s how things shook out:

1. Ron Paul – $31,000 for the best spot
2. McCotter – $18,000 for the second best spot
3. Bachmann and Cain – $17,000 each
4. Santorum – $15,000
5. Pawlenty – $15,000 “for a less desirable lot”
6. Gingrich – ended up not bidding on real estate

Santorum and Pawlenty both entered the minimum bids, Pawlenty got the worst lot for sale. McCotter has more or less telegraphed his intention to run for President with this purchase, hasn’t he?

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

It should be noted that Perry spiked to nearly 25 in the middle of the week before sliding back down to his current value.

Okay, pardon the cheesy play on words, but Johnson’s campaign has received a major shot in the arm following the recent National Review report rating the Governors running for the GOP presidential nomination on their jobs record.  The report showed Johnson far and away the best jobs Governor of any announced candidate, presiding over a job creation rate of 11.6% — twice as high as the guy in second place (Huntsman, at 5.9%).

Gov. Johnson, however, responded to the report by stating, “I didn’t create a single job,” perhaps showing his superior wisdom in pointing out that government doesn’t create any jobs.  All government can do is get out of the way, and let the private sector create jobs.  Johnson’s unconventionally honest, and economically literate, take on his own record has been making the rounds in the media:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZs50RyrAk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0UZaJeR98o[/youtube]

While ratings-hungry media pundits still try to peg Johnson as the “pot candidate,” the recent revelations about just how good his economic track record is could turn “Gov. Johnson the pot candidate” into “Gov. Johnson the jobs candidate”.

Mixed messages continue to emanate from sources close to Gov. Rick Perry regarding a potential presidential run:

A Republican campaign veteran tells us that Texas Governor Rick Perry has decided to run for President, though the official word from Team Perry is still a definite maybe.

Our normally reliable Republican source reports that Mr. Perry has surveyed the field and decided to get in the race later this summer, perhaps around the time of the national prayer meeting that Mr. Perry is hosting on August 6 at a Houston football stadium. Our source also reports that Mr. Perry is aiming to compete in the Iowa Straw Poll, even though it occurs just a week later, on August 13. The thinking is that apparent front-runner Mitt Romney “does not reflect the Republican Party” and is therefore vulnerable to a credible challenge from the right, especially after Mr. Romney’s recent squishy remarks on global warming.

Beyond simply the August 13 event in Ames, Iowa, a big question for Mr. Perry is whether a compressed schedule would allow him to attract enough money and primary voters to win the nomination. Perry campaign adviser David Carney says that question still hasn’t been answered, and even a positive verdict doesn’t necessarily mean the Texan would enter the race. “Then he’s got to saddle up and do a gut check” to determine if he’s ready for the rigors of a presidential run, says Mr. Carney.

Pressed on whether these decisions have already been made, Mr. Carney adds, “We don’t have to cloak our intentions, because we don’t know what our intentions are.”

If Perry expects to jump into the race a week prior to Ames and then compete effectively in Iowa’s most famous presidential straw poll, I really have to question what sort of advice the governor is receiving. I think there’s a sentiment in a lot of conservative circles that the GOP presidential field is essentially wide open due to the tepid performance at this point of all of the candidates not named Mitt Romney. But what folks like Perry’s advisors are missing is that it takes more than nominal dissatisfaction with the frontrunner in order to win a major party’s presidential nomination. Without securing political talent, a fundraising base, and organizational strength down to the precinct level, no candidate is going to be able to go to the distance, regardless of the candidate’s potential strengths, or how well the candidate mirrors the ideology, tenor, and priorities of the conservative base. Indeed, at this point Mitt Romney could be caught high-fiving Al Gore and would still win the nomination absent a real organizational, on-the-ground, precinct-by-precinct challenge to Romney, not just a half-hearted belief that the grunt work of a campaign can be dismissed this cycle and that the nomination can be won by parachuting into the race at the last minute. It can’t.

PPP has released their latest Florida Horse Race poll:

Romney has a double digit lead over both Bachmann and Palin if Palin is in the race. If Palin is not running, Bachmann comes within 7.

Pawlenty continues to be down in the mud, fighting it out with Huntsman for dead last place. He at least picks up two of Palin’s percentage points if she isn’t in the race.

Huntsman continues to be a solution looking for a problem. The only people pushing his campaign seem to be the news media and Harry Reid.

According to the Washington Post headline, “Some of Tim Pawlenty’s top aides [are] working for little or no pay”:

KSTP TV/SurveyUSA 2012 Minnesota Republican Presidential Survey

Who would make the best Republican nominee for President? Tim Pawlenty? Ron Paul? Mitt Romney? Michelle Bachmann? Herman Cain? Rick Santorum?Jon Huntsman? Rick Perry? Or Newt Gingrich?

• Mitt Romney 29%
• Tim Pawlenty 23%
• Ron Paul 13%
• Michele Bachmann 13%
• Herman Cain 4%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Newt Gingrich 3%
• Rick Perry 2%

This poll contains interviews with “cell phone” respondents who do not have home telephones. 600 state of MN adults were interviewed by SurveyUSA 06/15/11 through 06/17/11. 27% of respondents use cell-phones to make or receive calls. The remaining respondents were interviewed on their landline (home) telephone using the recorded voice of a professional announcer. Of the 600 adults interviewed, 558 were registered voters in Minnesota.

(more…)

Denno Research Michigan Republican Primary

• Romney – 28.7%
• Palin – 5.8%
• Bachmann – 4.5%
• Pawlenty – 2.8%
• Gingrich – 1.8%
• McCotter – 1.7%
• Undecided – 28%
• None – 6%

Survey of 600 likely primary voters was conducted June 16-17.