Field Poll California Republican Primary

• Romney – 25%
• Giuliani – 17%
• Palin – 10%
• Paul – 7%
• Gingrich – 6%
• Cain – 6%
• Perry – 5%
• Bachmann – 4%
• Pawlenty – 3%
• Santorum – 2%
• Huntsman – 1%
• Johnson – *
• Other / Undecided – 14%

Survey of 322 registered Republicans was conducted June 3-13 and has a margin of error of +/-5.7%.

If Giuliani is not included, Romney’s lead jumps to 30-12 over Palin. (Numbers are not available on the Field Poll site yet; when they are, we will update the numbers that did not include Giuliani.)

UPDATE: Here are the numbers without Giuliani included:

• Romney – 30%
• Palin – 12%
• Gingrich – 8%
• Paul – 8%
• Cain – 7%
• Perry – 6%
• Bachmann – 5%
• Pawlenty – 3%
• Santorum – 2%
• Huntsman – 1%
• Johnson – *
• Other – Undecided – 18%

Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann, penned the following to her husband:

With five boys and sixteen grandchildren, we have a total of six fathers in the Romney household with whom to celebrate Father’s Day. That’s a lot of fathers. For me, though, today is not so much Father’s Day as Husband Day. My husband has been a great father to our boys, and they certainly know that and show that every day of their lives. But Mitt has been a remarkable husband to me. I married him when I was nineteen and for four decades he has been the most significant man (sorry Dad, I’ll always love you dearly, too!) in my life.

Like many families, we have had a lot of joy together. And like every family, we have had our share of hardship. I appreciate Mitt’s part in creating all the joy. He worked immensely hard to accomplish all that he’s accomplished in business and government. But it has been in the hardship and the testing that I’ve come to see who my husband really is and what he’s worth.

In 1998, I came down with a paralyzing illness. The physical symptoms of multiple sclerosis were devastating to me. But the psychological dimension was even more crushing. Modern medicine helped get me well. But it was Mitt’s love and support that truly healed me. My husband put everything aside for me. Devotion is a word that I now understand in a new way. Our five boys saw this side of their father, too. So did the one grandchild who was old enough to understand. If Father’s Day is a truly special occasion in our home, I hope you understand why.

-Ann Romney

Whatever your feelings towards Mitt Romney may be, there is no denying that he is a loving and devoted husband to a wife who truly adores him. You can see it in their eyes when they watch the other speak.

The world would be a far better place if every husband loved his wife and every wife her husband as the Romneys do.

“The most important thing a father can do for his children is to love their mother”  (David O. McKay)

In last week’s edition, the first edition, of Race42012′s polling averages and line chart, I explained that part of the reason I was doing this was because RealClearPolitics hadn’t yet brought back their line chart from 2008.  Just a few days later, RCP did post their line chart (I was obviously the key reason they did so…only joking).  However, they continue to leave certain candidates and certain polls out of their calculations.  Agree or disagree with them, if you want a more comprehensive look at the polling data for 2012, here’s R412′s weekly averages and chart.  I plan to post updated data every Sunday evening (just a little something to look forward to on slow news weekends):

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

If anything can be said about this highly fluxional race, it does appear Mitt Romney is solidifying his position as the clear frontrunner, Cain/Santorum/Bachmann are really taking off, and Gingrich/Pawlenty/Huntsman are having a bit of a rough start.  Of course, it’s still very early and these polls mean little other than name recognition.  Each candidate will have an opportunity to prove themselves, and no one, not even Buddy Roemer, should be counted out at this point.

Previous Editions:

6/11

Results from the 2011 Republican Leadership Conference (formerly known as the “Southern Republican Leadership Conference”) straw poll are as follows:

• Ron Paul 40%
• Jon Huntsman 25%
• Michele Bachmann 12%
• Herman Cain 7%
• Mitt Romney 5%
• Newt Gingrich 4%
• Sarah Palin 3%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Gary Johnson 1%
• Tim Pawlenty 1%
• Buddy Roemer 1%
• Thaddeus McCotter 0%

Perhaps the biggest surprises other than Ron Paul’s win (if Ron Paul’s winning of a straw poll can be called a surprise anymore) are Huntsman’s impressive showing, and Romney and Pawlenty’s surprisingly dismal showings.  It should be noted that neither Romney or Pawlenty decided to attend the convention, which just goes to show that no amount of “frontrunner” status can simply make votes fall in one’s lap — votes must be worked for — which is a truth the “lower tier” candidates seem to be grasping well.

That’s the takeaway from this piece on a potential Perry bid, the odds of which are now even money according to Perry confidants. In addition to the belief that Perry may be a bit too Southern-fried for the country at large, Perry skeptics seem to be questioning whether the fiery Texan has the fire in the belly for a presidential run:

Few Republicans will say it publicly, but many party elites believe Perry would have difficulty moving beyond the sort of sharply-delivered platitudes he’s honed before Texas’s conservative electorate.

Even in the Lone Star State, many GOP insiders don’t think their governor has the chops to take his game to the national stage.

For many Republicans, it’s also not clear whether the party and the country is ready for a Texas governor whose macho manner is almost a steroid-enhanced version of the previous one they elected president.

John Ryder, a longtime Tennessee GOP committeeman who attended Perry’s speech Saturday, said some in the party would like another candidate in the George W. Bush model.

But others would ask: “Do we want to do that again?” Ryder said. “That would be Perry’s challenge.”

The betting in Republican circles is moving toward a Perry run, but skeptics aren’t convinced he wants to do the unglamorous work involved in campaigning for president. In their view, he’s always enjoyed national attention and Washington invitations so an extended flirtation with a White House bid would seem to be a logical extension of this penchant for the spotlight.

These sorts of criticisms are reminscent of the Fred Thompson candidacy from four years ago, which also began later than it should have, and which came complete with an uber-federalist candidate from Dixie who was supposed to save the party from its RINO frontrunners. Also, as this piece confirms in the case of Perry, both potential candidates even sported spouses who were reportedly pushing for a run. Whether Gov. Perry ends up being this cycle’s Fred Thompson remains to be seen.

Erick Erickson viewed Tim Pawlenty’s speech to Right Online in person and apparently came away pleased:

Consider that he arrived ten minutes before his speech after multiple flight problems and used neither notes nor the podium to make his case. The crowd responded extremely positively to a guy who could, unlike Obama, speak without a teleprompter and, unlike Bush, not make a series of unfortunate verbal gaffes as a result.

…His speech was like his campaign style — it was slow and steady, not boring, but not flashy, building steam to the end. By the end, he had the crowd cheering and denouncing Obama’s policies with him.

…Maybe it is the gradual evolution of Pawlenty on the campaign trail as he continues to build steam or maybe people are just noticing. But his speech, unteleprompted, without notes, and without time to decompress from his flight before taking stage, was the kind of speech a Presidential candidate gives who is the kind of candidate you must take seriously whether you want to or not.

With T-Paw obviously not having the best couple of weeks for a presidential candidate, he and his campaign should take some solace in making a favorable impression on an influential individual like Erickson (I know, I know, many people don’t particularly like Erickson, but he, nonetheless, does have a sizable following).

While he still has a path to the nomination, at the very least, if Pawlenty manages to turn around his campaign’s downward trend, he’ll keep himself in prime VP consideration. For those who (like me) view the ideal Veep as someone in the Cheney-Biden mode – specializing in advancing the President’s legislative agenda, Pawlenty’s background and record make him a compelling option.

Let me tell you how it ends…

The political world waits with bated breath as Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and Rudy Giuliani decide whether or not to run for President this year.

Ultimately, their decision won’t matter.

How can I say this with such certainty? Because something like this happens every primary campaign season.

Every primary campaign season, potential nominees generally announce their bids in three rather distinct waves. First, the little known longshot candidates who have to get their name ID up jump in before anyone else. Secondly, the serious, top tier contenders jump in. And finally, candidates who believe there is an opening in the field – candidates who want to capitalize on voters discontent with the current slate – will announce.

We could almost look at this wave pattern as the Wimpy, the Weighty, and the White Knights.

We can see this pattern emerging in the 1996, 2000, and 2008 GOP primaries as well as the 2004 Democratic primaries. In the interest of time and space, I’ll spare you the details of the Wimpy and the Weighty categories – (I’ve outlined the history of announcement dates in those campaigns here on R4’12 before) – because we’ve already got those two waves completed for the 2012 primary season. We are now into the White Knight wave, waiting to see who will attempt to be the savior of the Republican Party this time.

In 1996, Pete Wilson entered the race in September, five months after the Weighty Wave was ended. He believed the best path to electoral victory ran through California – and that as a Governor of the state, he was the candidate for the job. After Wilson, businessman Steve Forbes threw his hat in the ring, decrying the current candidate pool comprised entirely of politicians. It was time for an outsider to have a shot at running things, he claimed.

In 2000, Orrin Hatch entered the fray at the end of June, announcing that he had surveyed the field of candidates and found them severely lacking in experience. And of course, John McCain jumped in three months later to save us from Dubya.

In 2004, it was the Democrats’ turn at a competitive primary, and Wesley Clark was their White Knight. Spurred on by a massive draft movement made up of Democrats who were uneasy with the frontrunners Howard Dean (too liberal and was losing to Bush in a landslide in the polls) and Dick Gephardt (too old), Clark with his deep connections to the Clintons attempted to save the Democrats.

And in 2008 we had Ron Paul, Tancredo, and most of all Fred Thompson all enter the scene as White Knights. Paul and Tancredo, of course, never took off, and Thompson’s campaign famously fizzled out.

What do all these White Knights have in common? They all sized up the field after the frontrunners were in, saw a potential opening because of a perceived unhappiness of the electorate, jumped in the race, and… they all lost.

White Knights do not win nominations. Perry, Palin, and Giuliani can do what they will in the coming weeks and months, but we will not see any of them run against Obama in 2012. They may influence the race in other ways (McCain became Bush’s main competition in 2000, for instance, and Fred Thompson actually led the national polls for a little while in 2007), but history is simply not on their side if they want to be President.

Why is this? Orrin Hatch probably said it best after he dropped out in 2000:

“I got in too late. I regret having not gotten in earlier. I think it would have made a difference. To be honest with you, most every Republican was taken by the time. I don’t think you can do it in a six-month campaign. I think I’ve proven that.”

Despite what their passionate followers may believe to the contrary, even the most charismatic and sought after candidates need to surround themselves with talent, organization, and the nuts and bolts of a solid campaign in order to win.

So when the media continually hypes how unsatisfying our current field is and folks keep looking for the next new face to enter the race and save us all, remember: there is nothing new under the sun. This has all happened before. And we know how it ends.

Following up on my exploration of Jon Huntsman’s impending campaign, I wanted to pass along another article I came across, this time dealing with Huntsman’s governing style and record:

The GOP ticket [Huntsman and Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert] went on to win 58 percent of the vote, after which Huntsman began fulfilling his campaign promises, starting with expanding Gary Herbert’s portfolio. With that simple gesture he began building a legacy as a chief executive who kept his promises and began systemically practicing the politics of inclusion.

…The construction of the 120-mile Legacy Parkway flanking the lake that began under Gov. Mike Leavitt had raised concerns among the environmental community, and rather than undergo a massive legal battle, Huntsman worked toward a settlement, so he brought together the conservationists and the Department of Transportation.

De Freitas explained that Huntsman was the instrumental figure in the completion of the deal: “It proved to be a far better transportation project than it would have been, with enhanced environmental mitigation that we felt was just for the impacts that it would create,” she told RCP.

…The 50-year-old Huntsman has a sparkling résumé, and his record as a former governor of Utah is rife with credentials that would make other fiscally conservative governors with national ambitions salivate. In fact, his four-and-a-half years in charge of the Beehive State were seen by some as so successful that, along with two Democratic governors, Tim Kaine’s Virginia and Christine Gregoire’s Washington state, – the Pew Center on the States listed Huntsman’s Utah as one of the nation’s three best-managed states in its 2008 Government Performance Project report.

…Part of Pew’s rationale in labeling Utah among the country’s three best-managed states as of 2008 was that the state administration kept careful watch over its budget even as the national economy fell on hard times. The state’s constitution calls for a balanced budget.

“Utah manages itself with savvy business acumen,” the report notes. “Financial decisions are made wisely, with an eye toward return on investment and long-term performance in all facets of state government.”

Jeff Hartley, a Utah political consultant and lobbyist who was involved on both of Huntsman’s gubernatorial campaigns, explained, “In terms of setting good fiscal policy for government and growing the economy, there are few who can show a better case study than Jon Huntsman.”

He continued, “The changes he made to state government vastly improved the economy and put the state on the map. Some were subtle and some were substantial, but he helped to facilitate a more friendly climate to businesses, and now they come here and thrive.”

…He oversaw a reduction in the sales tax on food and revamped the tax structure to create a flatter tax; the overall savings to taxpayers was $400 million. The document also lists increases in rates of tourism from 2004 through 2007, or roughly the first three years of his tenure as governor, and it cites specific benchmarks of job growth and capital investment.

What’s more, supporters of Huntsman’s have a five-page document that denotes scores of lists Utah has made for its better business climate.

In 2010, Forbes called Utah the No. 1 state in the country for business and careers. The American Legislative Exchange Council called Utah the top state for expected economic recovery and the best for future economic outlook. The Boston-based IHS Global Insight named Utah as the No. 9 state in the country for highest job creation projected through 2015. And that’s just a sampling.

Then there’s health care. Whether it’s a duel with Romney or Obama, the health care plan that Utah enacted under Huntsman in 2009 could be the feather in his cap – at least with conservatives.

Washington Post conservative columnist Kathleen Parker gushed about Huntsman’s health plan in 2009, writing, “Compared to what’s being trotted around the Asylum On The Hill, Utah’s bipartisan reform project sounds downright dreamy. Simple and geared toward the consumer, it was designed under the operating principle that Americans are capable of making their own decisions, whereas the Obama plan presumes that only government can solve the problem.”

Most of all, one particular sentence in this article stood out to me:

Diplomacy, vision and long-term planning tend to be the hallmarks of Huntsman’s leadership style, according to a handful of Utah activists interviewed by RCP for this story.

I would argue that the role of President of the United States, as specified by the Constitution, requires precisely those traits in the individual who assumes it.

It’s time for a mea culpa: in the past, I have taken a rather dismissive approach toward Ambassador Huntsman. However, the information about him I have discovered lately has led me to now view him as a rather qualified and intriguing option for the presidency. As someone who firmly believes the Republican Party must position itself as more amenable to urban- and surburbanites, Huntsman seems like exactly the kind of candidate who can appeal to the suburban swing voters who base their voting behavior largely on visceral impressions of candidates and sound-bites.

At the very least, Huntsman has to receive consideration as a top VP option for whomever wins the nomination, other than Romney (I don’t place much weight on the Mormon “issue”, but two at one time might just become too much for the party base to swallow). All of the announced and presumed candidates, with the exception of Huntsman, lack foreign policy experience. With no other high-level Republican offering the resume to address this gap (I doubt Petraeus would want the Veep slot, Condi Rice bears the Scarlet “B” – Bush, and Bolton would scare low-information voters with his hardline rhetoric), Huntsman almost by default becomes a favorite for a running mate. Couple that with his proven ability to work behind-the-scenes to advance initiatives and legislation and serve (literally) as a diplomat for an administration, and you have a fairly ideal potential Vice President.

Of course, this VP discussion assumes Huntsman cannot win the nomination. And after learning what I recently have, I no longer feel certain of that.

***Update***: I also just came across this clip, which contains some reviews of Huntsman’s early campaign activities in New Hampshire. Even though it comes from our favorite cable news channel, check it out:

Mitt Romney follows up his rejection of the Susan B. Anthony List’s pro-life pledge with a vow of his own:

I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench.

I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. And as president, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services.

I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy to ensure that non-governmental organizations that receive funding from America refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries. This includes ending American funding for any United Nations or other foreign assistance program that promotes or performs abortions on women around the world.

I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

And perhaps most importantly, I will only appoint judges who adhere to the Constitution and the laws as they are written, not as they want them to be written.

As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.

The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.

If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation’s next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America.

I agree with DaveG’s analysis – that Mitt primarily intended his denial of the Susan B. Anthony Foundation pledge as a means to increase his appeal to the ever-important suburban swing voters, who have become vital to the Republican Party’s electoral success and future viability.

Mitt Romney has written a new Op-ed. Entitled “The Price of Inexperience”, it takes dead aim at Obama’s bumbling in foreign affairs:

Last year, when President Obama was pushing for ratification of his New START nuclear-arms treaty with Russia, I was reminded of a simple maxim: When you give something, you’re supposed to get something. But New START, as I wrote in the Washington Post, handed the Russians deep reductions in our nuclear capabilities in return for essentially nothing.

The Obama administration claimed at the time that the treaty was an excellent deal. This claim has been proven false. A new official accounting performed by the State Department acknowledges that the number of launchers and warheads in Russia’s nuclear arsenal was already below New START’s limitations when the treaty took effect, while the U.S. arsenal was well above them. In short: We’re the ones who now have to give, while Russia gets.

In agreeing to START, President Obama squandered an opportunity to extract a number of concessions from the Russians that would have advanced U.S. interests. He could have pressed for meaningful reductions not only in Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, but also in its tactical nuclear force, which outnumbers ours by an overwhelming margin. He could have tried to elicit Russian help in dealing with North Korea and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But instead he frittered away American bargaining chips and got nothing in return.

Unfortunately, that’s become a bit of a pattern. Before signing New START, he abruptly abandoned our Europe-based missile-defense program as part of his “reset” policy with Russia, leaving Poland and the Czech Republic in the lurch. In return? Nothing. He’s been pressing Israel for concessions to the Palestinians on settlements and borders even before negotiations between them begin. In return? Nothing.

There’s a price to be paid for inexperience in the White house. We are paying it.

582 days to January 20, 2013.

This guy’s starting to grow on me:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry vetoed 23 bills on Friday, including legislation that would have outlawed sending or reading text messages while driving.

Lawmakers approved the texting ban last month, but Perry called it an “overreach” and “government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults.”

Perry also struck a handful of spending lines in the state budget.

Unlike the most recent president from Texas, Perry is an authentic product of the Lone Star State, hence his curious cocktail of libertarianism and evangelicalism, a mixture that George W. Bush pulled off about as well as his urban cowboy schtick. Bush was always at heart a New England patrician in red state clothing; he was motivated by his Aristocratic sense of Noblesse Oblige, hence his authoritarian presidency.

Perry also knows how to use his veto pen, something that Dubya never did quite master. Should the Texas governor take the plunge, he will be an interesting addition to the race to say the least.

Much has been made of Herman Cain and Mitt Romney specifically being unwilling to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s Pro-Life Pledge. Before we attack the two of them as being wishy-washy on that issue, perhaps we should read the pledge and see if we can understand their logic.

The pledge has four bullet points. Here’s the four action items:

FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion

Now, the first three are less controversial to most pro-life candidates, unless they specifically know that they want someone like Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General. Despite his squishiness on abortion issues, as a pro-life Republican I’d be very comfortable with him as Attorney General. This pledge prevents him from being appointed.

The fourth bullet could be another sticking point. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a bill to restrict abortions after which point the unborn are capable of feeling pain, generally established at 20 weeks. While I understand the sentiment, I am uncertain if such an approach could work on the federal level. It’s been successful on a state level so far, but a federal version of the bill may not be the appropriate approach. This may be the view of some pro-life candidates who choose not to sign this pledge.

Is that their mindset? I am not sure. But those two points could turn some candidates off from signing the pledge and I’m willing to give both Romney and Cain the benefit of the doubt

EDIT 06/18/11 10:09 AM: Astute Race42012 reader Kevin Jameson pointed out this article from National Review Online about the potential unintended issues associated with the pledge. Both Cain and Romney could have potentially used that logic, also sound, when deciding not to sign the pledge.

_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.

Dude:

Romney is one of three Republican candidates who has declined to sign the pledge, which is sponsored by the Susan B. Anthony List, a Washington-based pro-life advocacy group. Candidates who signed the pledge have promised to nominate to the Supreme Court and federal courts only judges “who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench.”

Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson are the other two candidates who have refused to sign the pledge. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) have all signed it.

Romney’s spokesperson suggested that the reason behind Romney’s hesitation had to do with the wording of the pledge, which, Romney felt, may restrict his ability to appoint certain Republicans with less than stellar pro-life records to his Cabinet. Interestingly, few of the other candidates seem to share this concern, even though former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is likely on everyone’s short list for Attorney General. That’s because such a pledge is merely a symbolic gesture that the signatory intends to govern as a pro-life president, something that Romney has previously indicated as well.

So what gives? If I had to guess, Team Mitt views this demurral as an opportunity to send an under-the-radar message to swing voters, suburban women in particular, that President Romney won’t be beholden to the cultural elements of the Right. The fact of the matter is that this constitutes the second time this month that Romney has put forth such a dog whistle to soccer moms, the first being Mitt’s stated belief in man-made global warming a couple of weeks back. As a general election strategy, all of this might be pretty smart. But Romney has yet to win a single presidential primary this cycle, a fact that may make this strategy too smart by half.

Chris Cillizza’s column, The Fix in the Washington Post has put out “The Line”. It is his analysis on the “…ten men and women most likely to wind up as the Republican presidential nominee next year”.

It is the first such “line” in three weeks. He last put one out May 27. This month’s line is as follows:

1. Mitt Romney. Last time:1 (-)
2. Tim Pawlenty. Last time:2 (-)
3. Michele Bachmann. Last time:5 (+2)
4. Jon Huntsman. Last time:3 (-1)
5. Rick Perry. Last time:7 (+2)
6. Sarah Palin. Last time:4 (-3)
7. Herman Cain. Last time:8 (+1)
8. Rick Santorum. Last time:9 (+1)
9. Newt Gingrich. Last time:6 (-3)
10. Ron Paul. Last time:10 (-)

- Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich moved the most. They both dropped three places.
- Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry both jumped up two places.
- Herman Cain and Rick Santorum both improved by one.
- Jon Huntsman fell back one place.

These two attended an event in New Hampshire recently leading to the photo op below. Could that be the 2012 ticket?

(more…)

According to Politico’s Mike Allen, Gov. Rick Perry has Texas-sized boots on the ground in Iowa, laying the groundwork for the governor to compete in the Iowa caucus. Whether Perry, an evangelical himself, will be able to compete with fellow evangelical Michele Bachmann in the Hawkeye State remains to be seen. Bachmann, a Midwesterner with a compelling personal story, which includes inviting 23 foster children into her home, may be a far better fit for Iowa’s religious voters than the bold, in-your-face Perry, who has a bit of an “anti-hero” vibe to him, and who is as much a libertarian as a social conservative. Whatever the case, I suspect that Perry is “in it to win it,” so to speak, and as Rich Lowry notes, why wouldn’t he be?

To not run for president at this point, Rick Perry has to really not want to run for president. There’s a gaping opening for him in the race. Pawlenty had a tough week. Bachmann has stolen whatever thunder he had, and now you have to think the Iowa straw poll in August could be a real threat to Pawlenty–if he doesn’t have a strong finish there, it could threaten the viability of his candidacy. Meanwhile, Bachmann is already surging and it’d be surprising if she’s not leading in Iowa very soon. But running from the House and having no executive experience–even if she runs a flawless campaign–will be drags on her over time. Thus the opening for Perry: he could potentially eclipse Pawlenty as an establishment alternative to Romney at the same time he eats into Bachmann’s Tea Party support as a limited-government conservative with a record of getting it done. Plus, there’s no Southerner in the race except Newt, who doesn’t quite count. Perry would have challenges as a general election candidate–another Texas governor? really–but he’s got a Texas-sized opportunity in the nominating contest.

Indeed. If Perry gets in, provided that he doesn’t come out with guns literally blazing, he will probably fill the hole in the GOP field that was supposed to be filled by Jeb, Ryan, Christie, Jindal, Daniels, or Pence. With Pawlenty on the ropes, Perry has a real shot at filling the “not a RINO, not a wingnut” space in the field. That makes Perry a serious competitor no matter how things ultimately shake out.

The Washington Post, that ever reliable liberal mouthpiece in our nation’s capital just slammed Obama’s foreign policy. In an editorial entitled “Silence on Syria” and credited to the “Editorial Board”, they tore into the President over his lack of response to the crisis in Syria.

IT HAS been four weeks since President Obama delivered an address on the Middle East in which he said it would be “a top priority” of his administration to oppose violent repression and support democratic transitions across the region, using “all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.” He singled out Syria, where the regime of President Bashar al-Assad has gunned down hundreds of peaceful protesters, choosing what Mr. Obama called “the path of murder.”

…

It seems fair to ask what Mr. Obama has done in response, given his pledge to employ all of the “tools” at the administration’s disposal. The answer can be summed up in one word: nothing.

…

The administration has excused its passivity by saying that it does not want to “get ahead” of allies in the region, and that it worries about the consequences of a regime collapse. But Mr. Assad’s violence is already causing serious problems for Turkey and for Israel, which has twice faced incursions on its territory from Syria by Palestinian refugees organized by the regime. Other U.S. Arab allies are observing Mr. Obama’s passivity with dismay: “Why doesn’t the United States have a policy?” one senior official from the Persian Gulf recently asked us.

Remember when the world was supposed to love America once again because Obama was President? Remember how his “smart diplomacy” as opposed to Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy” was going to make the world a better place? When Obama took over, the whole world was going to sit down in a circle holding hands and sing “Kumbaya” together.

That was three years ago — three very long years ago. Now Obama’s “leading from behind” in foreign affairs is increasingly wearing thin. Even his leftist allies are beginning to see it for what it is, a sign of weakness. It portends serious consequences for the world and for us.

Mitt Romney has released a new ad attacking the Obama Administration’s record on job creation. It continues the theme of his first one; Americans are not “bumps in the road”.

“Focus on Obama” seems to be the mantra of the 2012 Romney campaign. He isn’t running so much of a primary campaign as he is a general election campaign.  That’s one of the privileges of being the frontrunner.

By now, you’ve all heard about Mitt Romney’s, “I’m unemployed, too”, gaffe.  His opponents immediately pounced on it as proof positive that he is an out-of-touch, unfeeling elitist.

Me, I shook my head and said, “Not you too, Governor”.

You see, Romney isn’t the only person whose sense of humor gets him into trouble. I suffer from the same malady. Examples:

Suppose I met a group of guys at work, and my best buddy George is among them. I will say, “Hello gentlemen. You too, George”.

Or suppose  I am complimenting Cindy, a lady I truly admire and think well of, I’ll say, “You really are a good person, no matter what they say about you.”

This side of my humor never, ever comes out unless I like a person, and I am feeling completely comfortable around them. Unfortunately, it’s gotten me into trouble over the years. People don’t liked being slammed, even in jest. I’ve lost, or at best temporarily alienated more than a few friends because of it.

Am I excusing Romney’s gaffe? No, not in the least. If Romney wishes to play in the big leagues, he is going to have to play by the big league rules. Anything and everything he says or does is going to get scrutinized, parsed and dissected.  If there is any way whatsoever that his opponents can score points off his words or actions, they are going to do it.

“Them’s the rules, Pal.”

Being the frontrunner only makes it worse. Everybody is gunning for you.

It is for situations like this that a number of people stay out of the race. They know a Presidential run is nearly a two year long, 24/7 pressure cooker where everyone in the country is gunning for you — and that’s only if you lose. If you win, you are rewarded with the toughest job in the world for four, even eight years after that where everyone in the world is gunning for you. I don’t blame anybody one bit for deciding it’s not for them.

Mitt does have one thing going for him, though. He has the reputation for not making the same mistake twice. It will be interesting to see if he repeats this one.

Magellan Strategies / New Hampshire Journal New Hampshire Republican Primary

• Romney – 42%
• Bachmann – 10%
• Paul – 10%
• Palin – 7%
• Giuliani – 6%
• Pawlenty – 5%
• Gingrich – 4%
• Cain – 3%
• Huntsman – 3%
• Santorum – 2%
• Undecided – 8%

Favorability Ratings

• Romney – 69/21
• Bachmann – 55/28
• Giuliani – 53/35
• Pawlenty – 42/29
• Cain – 39/30
• Santorum – 33/36
• Paul – 40/47
• Huntsman – 14/36
• Gingrich – 29/62

Who won Monday’s debate?

• Romney – 39%
• Bachmann – 28%
• Paul – 8%
• Gingrich – 6%
• Cain – 4%
• Pawlenty – 2%
• Santorum – 2%

Survey of 727 likely primary voters was conducted June 14-15 and has a margin of error of +/-3.63%.

The New York Times asked Vin Weber, one of Tim Pawlenty’s advisors, how his candidate would make it through the bad press surrounding his flop at Monday night’s New Hampshire debate. TIME Magazine describes the carnage that followed:

When running for President of the United States, there are certain things you never want to hear your advisers saying to the press. “I have not yet seen the National Enquirer story,” is one. “The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding,” is another. “Something will happen. Anthony Weiner will resign. Something will happen,” is a third.

The New York Times‘ Michael Shear drew that last gem out of Vin Weber, a campaign adviser to Tim Pawlenty, to explain how the candidate gets out of the latest news cycle, which has cast Pawlenty as the candidate-who-couldn’t-follow-through. Weber also told Shear that he called his candidate after Monday’s debate to say “Hang in there.” Oof.

Oof, indeed. Pinning your hopes on a Weiner resignation so folks stop hearing about your lousy performance is not what I’d call a proactive form of campaigning.

Well, the “strategy” of sitting back and hoping a shriveling Weiner took the spotlight off of Pawlenty didn’t seem to be working, and so the campaign evidently devised a ‘new’ strategy. Today, Tim Pawlenty once again lashed out at Mitt Romney, using Twitter as his preferred method of attack:

On seizing debate opportunity re: healthcare: Me 0, Mitt 1. On doing healthcare reform the right way as governor: Me 1, Mitt 0

Then, he followed that up with an interview with Sean Hannity where he said the following:

Tim Pawlenty admitted tonight that he had erred by retreating from attacking Mitt Romney on “Obamneycare” during the debate Monday night.

“I should have been much more clear,” Pawlenty told Sean Hannity. “I don’t think we can have a nominee that was involved in the development and construction of Obamacare and continues to defend it.”

“I don’t think you can prosecute the political case against President Obama if you’re a co-conspirator of the one main charges against the president on a political level,” he added.

Two things stand out from this shift by Team Pawlenty today. First, Pawlenty has learned the completely incorrect lesson from all of this. The biggest mistake was not in backing down during the debate; his biggest error was making the attack in the first place. Negative attacks on the frontrunner – especially this early in the contest – are supposed to come from second and third tier candidates, not guys who are supposedly in the first tier. Pawlenty needs to research how Dean and Gephardt won the Iowa caucuses in 2004, or how Romney won them in 2008. His biggest hope in getting anywhere is to release as many positive messages about himself as he can — his biography, his plans, his vision for the future. An attack on Romney like the “Obamneycare” quip has nearly cemented his standing as a lower tier wannabe.

And the second thing that stands out from today is this: Tim Pawlenty has taken it upon himself to stretch the truth to ridiculous lengths in trying to come up with an attack that will stick to Romney.

I have a feeling that saying Mitt Romney “was involved in the development and construction of Obamacare and continues to defend it” will come back to haunt Tim Pawlenty for years to come as he looks back and ponders how he lost such a grand opportunity to be a serious contender in this GOP primary.

Tim Pawlenty has learned the completely wrong lesson and is now over-compensating – and it’s causing gaffes like the Hannity interview. Check out the comments on the National Review story (linked above) to see how folks are responding to it. After the interview, Pawlenty’s stock dove on Intrade — and even though Perry is down overall for the day, Pawlenty is now officially, for the first time since February, in third place behind Perry. Next stop: falling below John Huntsman.

If he continues this shtick at the Nevada debate, it will show that his campaign is increasingly desperate to gain some kind of traction in this race. But Pawlenty has painted himself into a corner now. If he doesn’t play the role of attack dog now, the electorate will view him as weak. But neither does the electorate nominate attack dogs to be President.

The next nationally televised GOP presidential debate is set for July 10th, to be held in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Cosponsored by The Daily Caller, Americans For Tax Reform, and Citizen Outreach, it will be moderated by Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson and ATR President Grover Norquist.  Citizen Outreach CEO Chuck Muth today posted an announcement that the debate would include all declared, leading candidates, including Huntsman and Johnson.  That would make nine candidates on stage next month:

• Michele Bachmann
• Herman Cain
• Newt Gingrich
• Jon Huntsman
• Gary Johnson
• Ron Paul
• Tim Pawlenty
• Mitt Romney
• Rick Santorum

Yes, really:

Newt Gingrich has a message for NBC: Lay off my wife.

The embattled Republican presidential candidate and ex-Speaker of the House demanded an apology from the network Wednesday night for a recent report that blamed his wife, Callista, for much of his recent campaign chaos.

“I believe NBC owes Callista an apology,” Gingrich told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.

Exit question: will Newt still be in the race after Labor Day, 2011?

Hermaboom?

PPP (D) National Republican Primary

• Mitt Romney 22% (16%)
  
• Herman Cain 17% (12%)
• Sarah Palin 15% (16%)
• Tim Pawlenty 9% (13%)
• Newt Gingrich 9% (9%)
• Michele Bachmann 8% (9%)
• Ron Paul 7% (9%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% (4%)
• Someone else/Not sure 12% (12%)

If Sarah Palin does not run:

• Mitt Romney 27% (20%)
  
• Herman Cain 20% (12%)
• Michele Bachmann 13% (13%)
• Newt Gingrich 12% (13%)
• Tim Pawlenty 10% (13%)
• Ron Paul 6% (11%)
• Jon Huntsman 3% (4%)
• Someone else/Not sure 11% (13%)

Survey of 544 usual Republican primary voters was conducted June 9-12 and has a margin of error of +/-4.2%. Numbers in parentheses are from the PPP (D) survey conducted May 23-25.

With all the recent buzz about Texas governor Rick Perry’s potential entry into the race, it’s worth asking who the Texas governor hurts and helps if he does decide to take the plunge. In my mind, there’s one clear and obvious beneficiary: Mitt Romney. The Massachusetts governor benefits for three reasons: the damage Perry would do to Pawlenty, Perry’s ability to shift expectations and Perry’s particular slant on conservative ideology. Of the three, I submit that, in actual fact, this last point is the most critically important, and subtle, aspect for Romney.

1. Perry blocks Pawlenty. Tim Pawlenty is, in a one on one match-up, the most formidable opponent to Mitt Romney. Like Romney, Pawlenty’s background as a good governor of a blue state makes him a potentially strong general election candidate, who can beat Obama. Additionally, Pawlenty is probably a bit more conservative than Romney on some of the biggest issues of the day. All the other major Romney challengers either suffer from electability concerns or, in the case of John Huntsman, are perceived to be more moderate than Romney. However, Rick Perry mutes many of Pawlenty’s strengths. Like Pawlenty, Perry can make a strong case to being both a fiscal and a social conservative. Perry has also been very vocal and active in opposing President Obama, and his three terms governing one of the nation’s largest states gives him a natural competence/experience advantage. This combined with his frequent and robust outreach to the Tea Party movement makes Perry a possible power-house in Iowa and beyond, particularly if he can snag the endorsement of his friend and sometime political ally, Sarah Palin.

Unlike Pawlenty, however, Perry’s governance of Texas–one of the most conservative states in the union–could be used by Romney as a powerful electability argument against him. Romney, after all, governed pretty conservatively in the bluest state in the nation, and he could argue this puts him more in touch with the concerns of swing state and even blue state voters than Perry. Ergo, if Perry blocks Pawlenty from gaining traction, this is all to the good for Romney.

2. Southern-fried expectations. A Perry run also helps lower expectations for Romney in the south, which is a major advantage. As the only “southern candidate” in the race, Perry will be expected to over-perform all comers in South Carolina, Georgia, and the southern super Tuesday states. This expectation helps Rommney immensely; if he can sneak by Perry in any of the pre-Super Tuesday southern contests, it seems likely he’ll be the nominee. Additionally, in a Romney/Perry one on one, it seems probable that Haley Barbour–not a close Perry ally to say the least–would endorse Romney, which could help him a great deal in the south.

3. Rick Perry, uber-federalist. The most important way in which Perry helps Romney, however, has nothing to do with campaign organization and everything to do with ideology. Rick Perry is one of the staunchest advocates of federalism in the Republican field. Time and again, he has argued for the federal government to leave more and more to the states, and it seems implausible that a Perry campaign won’t rely heavily on this line of argument. This is a huge plus for Romney, whose primary line of defense against the Mass-care Obamacare comparison is, of course, federalism. If Perry is in the race, expect to hear Romney say “I agree with Governor Perry about federalism” as many times as possible, particularly in the healthcare and mandate context. And how vigorously can Rick Perry, uber-federalist, attack a state-level mandate in Massachusetts that is not applied to any other state. In his book, Romney makes much of the states as “laboratories of democracy” and “laboratories of innovation” on healthcare. One would assume that candidate Rick Perry would sound a similar note. Ergo, Perry potentially provides cover to Mitt Romney on one of the most damaging issues Romney faces in a primary. And, if Perry attacks Mass-care, Romney need only question how the outspoken states-rights governor of Texas can presume to say what is good for Massachusetts?

In the end, I think Romney, Perry or Pawlenty would all probably make pretty good presidents. I am neither a “Rombot” or a “Romnot”, but more of a “Romneutral” at this point. My aim here is not to spell out my ideal scenario, but rather to extrapolate the likely outcome of a Perry entry into the race. Agree? Disagree? Please let me know in the comments.

We will have somewhere around a dozen candidates in our 2012 primary field when all is said and done. (We currently have 9, and are waiting on some combination from the pool of Roemer, Moore, Giuliani, Perry, and Palin to jump in.) But if history is any guide, then only about half of them will make it to the Iowa caucuses.

In 2000, we had a field of 12 candidates as well. Only six made it to Iowa. In 2008, we had 11 candidates and seven made it to Iowa.

What happened to the others? Two things, largely: failure at fundraising or at the Ames straw poll.

In 1999, two candidates (Smith and Kasich) dropped out when the Q2 fundraising numbers were released. In 2007, one candidate (Gilmore) did. Here in 2011, we are now less than a month away from the Q2 fundraising numbers being made public. So the question is: who drops out this time?

Former Gingrich staffers are reporting that Newt has raised barely $3 million this quarter so far, and probably won’t raise much more than that given all the negative publicity he’s receiving (in addition to his hatred of personal fundraising). But that probably won’t force him out yet. I think Newt stays in at least another quarter, although I’d be surprised if he makes it to Iowa at this point.

T-Paw is reportedly having financial issues of his own, but his decision to camp out in Iowa for June and July and focus his operations on that state means he is definitely not going anywhere at least until after Ames.

Ron Paul is having some good fundraising success this quarter with a couple $1 million+ moneybombs, so he’s not going anywhere. Likewise, Bachmann and Cain will have some cash to sit on as their numbers get boosted by being grassroots favorites.

So who will it be? My guess is that Johnson sees the writing on the wall and gets out in July, throwing his “support” behind Ron Paul. And perhaps Roy Moore aborts his longshot campaign-to-be after realizing he can’t raise the necessary cash, either. (He did just lose his major campaign leader in Iowa, and said he doesn’t have enough money to compete at Ames.)

What say you? Who will drop out in July after the numbers are released? Who will make it to Ames, and who will make it to Iowa in February?

Our friends at HuffPo have given us an idea of what Jon Huntsman’s New Hampshire campaign will look like:

“We are going to run the most aggressive campaign in modern New Hampshire political history,” John Weaver, Huntsman’s campaign manager, told HuffPost in a phone interview.

Weaver said since Huntsman returned from China on April 29, the candidate has already done 40 events over 12 days in New Hampshire — and that this is only the beginning.

“Huntsman more than any other candidate will be standing in people’s living rooms and local meeting halls taking questions from all comers, and that sense is already out there,” Weaver said.

The missive also provides some statistical arguments supporting Huntsman’s prospects:

Charlie Arlinghaus, a former state GOP executive director who is now at the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy in Concord, said that the numbers show Huntsman has an opening.

“Probably 80 to 85 percent [of voters] are functionally undecided. In addition, there is probably an opening for a moderate,” Arlinghaus said. “In 2008 exit polls, 55 percent of GOP primary voters identified themselves as conservative or very conservative. That leaves 45 percent who self-identified as moderate.”

“Further, the 2012 electorate is likely to include a broader range of people,” Arlinghaus added. “In 2008, the breakdown was 65/35 registered Republican/Undeclared. With no Democratic primary, I would expect more undeclared to vote GOP this year, moving the breakdown closer to 60/40,” he said. “This is only the beginning of the beginning.”

Huntsman appears to have his own version of the McCain New Hampshire strategy in the works, intending to take his case directly to voters with the hope that they will come to value his hands-on approach more than Romney’s polished, more media-focused strategy.

I, along with countless other political followers, eagerly await the early fundraising reports. If Huntsman manages an impressive showing, it will tell us a lot about the viability of his often quixotic underdog campaign.

Last week’s update showed little change as the investors waited for the next big shakeup in the race. Well, this week they got it… Change is from the previous update one week ago:

Only candidates who have announced an exploratory committee or a candidacy, or who have greater than a 3% chance at the nomination are included. Yellow indicates an exploratory committee; green indicates an official candidacy.

The very first post-debate poll we have comes from Rasmussen:

Rasmussen Reports National Republican Primary

• Romney – 33% (17)
• Bachmann – 19% (-)
• Cain – 10% (-)
• Gingrich – 9% (9)
• Paul – 7% (8)
• Pawlenty – 6% (5)
• Santorum – 6% (-)
• Huntsman – 2% (-)

Survey of 1,000 likely primary voters was conducted June 14 and has a margin of error of +/-3%. Numbers in parentheses are from the Rasmussen survey ended April 26.

H/T to SteveT for this poll.

Mark posted some trendlines from this PPP poll yesterday, but here are the full numbers:

Public Policy Polling General Election Matchups

• Obama – 47%
• Romney – 45%

• Obama – 48%
• Cain – 38%

• Obama – 50%
• Pawlenty – 39%

• Obama – 52%
• Gingrich – 39%

• Obama – 52%
• Palin – 38%

Survey of 520 registered voters was taken June 9-12 and has a margin of error of +/-4.3%.

If Romney is within two points among registered voters, he’s winning among likely voters. Great news for the GOP, and a great chance to talk about the different kinds of polls we will see over the next year and a half.

Polling companies, generally speaking, can survey three different constituencies: adults, registered voters, and likely voters. Again, generally speaking, polls of likely voters are the most accurate because only somewhere around half of the registered voters will actually get out and vote – and polls of people who aren’t even registered to vote are more or less worthless when it comes to predicting electoral behavior. Also generally speaking, the tighter the voter screen the more conservative the survey pool becomes — thus, results of a survey of adults will give Obama a larger lead than a survey of likely voters.

There are two reasons polling companies will survey adults or registered voters rather than drill all the way down to get the more accurate likely voters pool. First and foremost is cost: it is a lot cheaper to just take the opinion of whoever answers the other end of the phone instead of having to filter out people and make more calls to get a reasonable sample of likely voters. Secondly, organizations know that very few people will check out their survey information (how many people were polled, who they were, and the margin of error). Here at Race, we put that information in italics at the bottom of every poll we post — if the information is readily available. But polling companies create news with their topline numbers, so to get numbers more favorable to Obama they may poll adults, release the numbers, and their will get reported and help set the narrative.

So always pay attention to which group is being polled – adults, RV, or LV. That simple difference alone can account for a lot of the discrepancies among all the polls we’ll see this campaign season.