If You Mean No, Why Not Say No?

Paul Ryan was asked by Neil Cavuto if he might run for president. He answered as follows:

“I want to see how this field develops. I think other people are going to be getting in the race. I was hoping Mitch Daniels would be getting in the race; he obviously didn’t do that.”

That doesn’t sound like “No”, does it?

Sizeable Majorities Favor Targeting Employers of Illegals

Janet Napolitano, with whom I seldom agree on anything, once made a wise observation about efforts to shut down the border to illegal crossings; she said, “Show me a ten-foot fence, and I’ll show you people with eleven-foot ladders.”

As long as there are employers willing to hire illegals and there are desperately poor people willing to endure the hardships and dangers of crossing the Arizona desert to find those employers, no fence or other impediment will stop them. The solution to illegal immigration is to make it extremely dangerous to knowingly hire illegals.

Most Americans recognize this fact, even if their government doesn’t, which is why it was so satisfying to see Arizona’s law against employment of illegals upheld recently. According to Rasmussen, strong majorities favor such crackdowns.

… 61% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a law in their state that would shut down companies that knowingly and repeatedly hire illegal immigrants. Just 21% oppose such a law …

In addition 82% think that companies should be required to use the government’s E-Verify system (which is part of the Arizona law).

Mae Klong Market, Thailand

Sphexish

It is commonplace to make the observation that repeatedly performing the same action and expecting different results is a sign of insanity. In fact, this is so common a statement that it deserves a word of its own. I have decided to perform an important public service by suggesting “sphexish” (sphex is classical Greek for wasp).

From a weekly newsletter, World Wide Words:

When such a wasp returns to its burrow with a paralysed cricket to feed its grubs, it will leave it at the entrance while it checks inside that all is well. It then comes out again and drags its prey inside. This gave a naturalist with a cruel streak an idea for a bit of behavioural research. He moved the cricket a little way away while the wasp was in its burrow. When the [wasp] surfaced and found its cricket was missing, it searched for it and returned it to the entrance to its burrow. It then repeated its search of the inside. No matter how many times the cricket was moved, the wasp repeated the same steps robotically without working out what was going on.

Douglas Hofstadter recounted the story in one of his Metamagical Themas columns in Scientific American in 1982 and coined “sphexish” for this unthinking deterministic or pre-programmed behaviour, in which the wasp was at the mercy of its instincts and environment. In a book derived from his columns, Hofstadter later suggested that humans might likewise exhibit such robotic behavior …

Quickly Noted

Apparently Money Isn’t Vital to Happiness. Heck, Food Isn’t Even Important: North Korea is the second-happiest country in the world, according to researchers. Well, it probably ought to be noted that that’s ‘according to North Korean researchers.’ No word on why China is happier. Passed on to Weekend Miscellany by MWS.

The Law Is an Ass: An interesting side story on Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent doings is that he is not legally liable for child support in the case. “Schwarzenegger fathered a child with Mildred Patty Baena, who was married to Rogelio Baena at the time. Under California law, Schwarzenegger wouldn’t be obligated to pay a dime in child support – but deceived husband Rogelio Baena would be.” It should be noted that Schwarzegger tried unsuccessfully to change this law.

Add your miscellany in the comments. No Weiner/Wiener jokes, however. If a known cheap-shot artist like me can resist the temptation, so can you.

Senator Marco Rubio recently released a YouTube video to accompany an of-ed in the Miami Herald on the importance of saving Medicare from bankruptcy and highlighting his support for the Ryan plan.  Rubio draws heavily on his family history and frequently refers to his elderly mother.  This is an excellent piece of media that combines policy substance with outstanding presentation skill.  The GOP leadership and the presidential candidates would do well to take a serious look at how Rubio addresses this volatile issue in a state with a very high senior citizen population.

Probably the least interesting, least informative part of the presidential primary process are the debates. As voters all we get to hear is a candidate condense an entire policy area into a 60-second sound bite. Now, you tell me that you can get a deep understanding of a candidate’s position on the important issues of the day and I’ll sell you beachfront property in Kansas. Other aspects of the debates are equally ridiculous; are we really to the point where we are asking the potential next President of the United States to raise their hands like they are back in high school? Finally, as Josiah pointed out in his post yesterday, the rules are just as absurd. Why would Rick Santorum be included when Gary Johnson or Buddy Roemer were excluded? In short, we need reform of the debate process.

This humble author has a couple of suggestions for making the primary debates far more enlightening, fair, and frankly better. First off, no more hand-raising, that’s just stupid. Secondly, if the debate is only an hour or two hours, not every issue is going to be addressed, there simply isn’t enough time with a wide field. So, instead of having one debate where everything is crammed, how about have a series of debates? The first one could be on the economy, the second on foreign affairs, the third on social issues and other domestic policy (education for instance). That way, those voters who aren’t particularly interested in foreign policy or social issues won’t have to sit through those issues to get to the ones they are interested in. Along with this, instead of having, say 10 or 12 questions cut it down to four or five. Lengthen the response time that each candidate gets; how about 2 minutes? Sure, you can’t get super-detailed in 2 minutes, but it’s better than 30 seconds or just 1 minute. A whole debate revolving around four or five questions will give the voters a much more in-depth look at each candidate’s position on these issues.

My other suggestion comes with deciding who gets to participate in the debates. Instead of arbitrarily deciding to apply the rules as to who gets to participate. So, here’s a novel idea; at the start of the primary process, invite all candidates polling at least 1% and all former or current statewide or federal officeholders. That’ll make for big early debates and give all the candidates an opportunity to sell themselves and their visions to the voters. However, as the primary process advances make the restrictions tougher. As we get closer to the primaries, whittle down those candidates who haven’t broken through and aren’t going to. That way, the closer we get to the primaries, the narrower the field gets and those candidates who are later excluded can’t say that they didn’t have a chance of making their case.

These aren’t perfect suggestions, but it seems clear that the debates need to be fundamentally reformed. It isn’t fair to the candidates or the voters the way these debates are structured. I’m sure there are other ways to make it so that we can get a real chance to see what these candidates are about.

So bad that the liberal mouthpiece, The Washington Post is running an article entitled: Economic news is bad for Obama’s reelection bid:

Any notion that President Obama’s reelection campaign was gaining momentum was shaken this week by a string of worrisome economic reports showing weakness in the job market and new lows for housing prices.

… [O]n Friday, a surprisingly grim employment report was a warning that Obama could face a more challenging economy than had been expected. The government said the economy had added far fewer jobs than analysts had projected.

The disappointing news posed a predicament for Obama…

Ya think?

It is a “predicament” of Obama’s own making. As Mitt Romney said in his announcement speech:

With the economy in crisis, his answer is to borrow money we can’t afford and throw it at Washington bureaucrats and politicians. …

Instead of encouraging entrepreneurs and employers, he raises their taxes, piles on record-breaking mounds of regulation and bureaucracy and gives more power to union bosses.

What exactly did Obama expect? It is just common sense that when you make things difficult for business, business suffers. When you make hiring more difficult and expensive, employment suffers. When you decrease the supply of oil through regulations and increase the cost through increased taxes, the price of gasoline rises which in turn sends ripples through the economy.

This isn’t rocket science. It is simple cause and effect.

All sectors except for education, health, mining and logging have had a net loss of jobs since the downturn began. We are now three years into this recession with little sign of us coming out of it soon.

“It’s the economy, stupid.” It is always the economy, stupid. Obama has to turn this economy around, or he will be booted to the curb. He is rapidly running out of time. The 2012 election is less than eighteen months away.

He has few options left. He has already squandered trillions of dollars of borrowed money. The nation’s credit card is maxed out.

And if he didn’t have enough troubles, the Democrats in Congress are beginning to defect.  From his Libyan adventure, to his throwing Israel under the bus, to his budget getting unanimously rejected in the Senate, to the overwhelming rejection of his unconditional raising of the debt ceiling in the House; his erstwhile allies are peeling off, heading for cover. They are trying to save their own skins in the debacle they see coming next year. The president is being abandoned to his fate.

What did Obama expect, genius that he is reported to be? He showed them little loyalty last November. Why should they show him any now?

And to think, this “genius” actually wanted the job.

Perot 2.0?

So much for dropping out — Donald Trump tells TPM he believes he can win the White House as an independent candidate, keeping his name in the presidential game despite declaring last month he would not run for the GOP nomination.

TPM caught up with Trump at the Faith & Freedom Conventionm after he left a closed door meeting with event organizer Ralph Reed and other social conservatives and asked how he figured he’d do as an independent.

“I think I’d do great,” he said, telling TPM he believed he could win the White House. As for whether he’ll run, he said it depended on the GOP nominee.

“Let’s see what happens with the Republicans, who they put up,” he said.

I’m going to go against the conventional wisdom here and suggest that a Trump third-party bid could help — yes, help — the Republican nominee in a general election against Obama. I realize that this is crazy talk to most observers, but there is a contingent of the punditocracy, Allan Lichtman being prominent among them, who believe that any third party candidate who garners double-digits in a race that includes an incumbent ultimately hurts the incumbent more than the challenger, regardless of ideological moorings or intent. The reason is that a race for public office involving an incumbent is pretty much always a referendum on the incumbent, and thus the presence of a major third party candidate will inevitably result in a sort of “tag team” between the major party challenger and the third party candidate against the incumbent. Even if the two non-incumbents in the race have nothing but contempt for one another, the very nature of a race that features an incumbent will lead to this sort of dynamic, where the incumbent is being battered and bruised by two opponents, loosening his grip on his softer supporters.

A real-world example of such a race can be found in the 1992 presidential election. Then, President Bush spent most of 1992 being assailed by both Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. This created the conditions for a weaker general election candidate in George H.W. Bush come November than that which would have existed had Perot not been in the race. That’s because Perot could use avenues of attack against the president that were unavailable to Bill Clinton. Given that Clinton was running as a pro-free trade Democrat, for example, it would have been difficult for him to attack Bush on this front. But Perot, who was running on a protectionist ticket, spent much of the campaign talking about the “giant sucking sound” that America would hear should free trade continue unabated. This resulted in a lot of blue collar swing voters second-guessing the president due to Perot’s argument. These voters were probably between the 45-yard-lines of the political spectrum and considered themselves to be reasonable people who weren’t going to vote for “crazy old Ross.” But once they considered President Bush unacceptable, where were they to turn?

That’s where Bill Clinton came in. By running as a broadly acceptable major party alternative to President Bush, Clinton was able to scoop up a lot of the voters in the middle who were knocked loose from Bush’s grip by Perot. It didn’t matter that Perot and Clinton were diametrically opposed on a lot of issues. All that mattered was that the Clinton/Perot tag team left Bush seeming so unacceptable to voters by November that the plurality pulled the lever for the president’s perfectly reasonable major party opponent.

Could this sort of scenario come to pass once again in a general election involving Trump? It’s unlikely, but not inconceivable. After his conversion on social issues, and his Birther campaign against President Obama, Donald Trump isn’t exactly going to be cleaning up among swing voters as a third party candidate. But what he may be able to do is attack Obama in ways that are unavailable to the Republican nominee, but that will ultimately be effective over the course of the campaign. In a race involving, say, Obama, Pawlenty, and Trump, T-Paw will be attempting to win blue collar voters via a strategy similar to Bill Clinton’s, by staying pro-growth and pro-globalization while at the same time assuring voters that he understands what it’s like to live in Blue Collar America. Trump, meanwhile, will likely attack Obama relentlessly over China and his perceived weakness in dealing with the Chinese on trade issues. This may cause a lot of swing voters to conclude, “Well, I’m not going to vote for that racist jerk with the bad hair, but he does have a point about Obama’s ineptitude. I guess it’s Pawlenty.”

This only works to the Republicans’ advantage, of course, if Trump fizzles out well before November, but not before he’s managed to deal a significant number of blows to the president’s popularity. If Trump ends up getting 30 percent of the vote in November, that will absolutely spoil the election for the GOP, as those are votes that would have otherwise gone to the Republican. But if Trump gets, say, 5 percent, it’s possible that he will have helped create the conditions for a Republican victory by dislodging lots of swing voters from the Obama column who will have nowhere else to go in November other than to the Republican ticket.

CNN/WMUR/Union Leader has been caught with a bit of egg on its face, after its bias against the “most fiscally conservative Governor in the country” was put on display.  CNN claims the debate inclusion criteria consisted of averaging 2% in at least three national polls in April, 2% again in at least three national polls in May, and an average of 2% again in New Hampshire polls during May.  They also released a list of polling companies whose polls would be taken into account (PPP was not one of them).

According to these criteria, the following invited candidates should not have been:

Former Ambassador Jon Huntsman (who declined the invitation):

• Never polled higher than 1% nationally in any poll during April.
• Has only been included in two acceptable national polls during May.

Former Senator Rick Santorum:

• Has only been included in two acceptable national polls during May.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (who declined the invitation):

• Was only included in one acceptable national poll during April.
• Was only included in one acceptable national poll during May.

Gov. Johnson, who was included in last month’s debate in SC and has already been accepted for next month’s debate in NV, and who has consistently polled alongside Santorum and above Huntsman, however, did not receive such special treatment.  The several declined invitations proves that Gov. Johnson was not excluded for want of space on the debate stage.  Even if Gov. Johnson isn’t your #1 candidate, you can at least admit the blatantly uneven application of these inclusion criteria.  The left-wing, dinosaur media clearly doesn’t want to hear a consistently small government message.  Call them on it:

CNN
(404) 827-1500 or (202) 898-7900
Text: CNN (space) and your news tip to 772937 (don’t forget the space after CNN). http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html
Twitter: @CNN or @teamCNN

WMUR
http://www.wmur.com/contact/index.html
(603) 669-9999
Twitter: @WMUR9

Union Leader
publisher@unionleader.com
http://www.unionleader.com/tip
(603) 668-4321 Twitter: @unionleader

With Twitter, use hashtag #GJ2012 or #GJinNH.

(Charts updated to include the PPP poll of 5/23-25, which was inadvertently not included in the original version. I also added Ron Paul to the candidates charted. I’ve added/modified a few comments as well, where appropriate — these changes are noted),

The changes in polls will be watched closely to see how the recent withdrawals of two of the former leaders (Huckabee and Trump) and a potential strong contender (Daniels) shake out. Since there have only been two significant polls (Gallup and CNN/Opinion Research) after the withdrawals, the impact thus far is tough to assess.

Here is the updated chart showing the average of the most recent five polls:

I’ve added Bachmann (and now Paul), since she is now being included in most polls and I’m still including Huckabee and Trump, for comparison purposes, but showing their results as dotted lines.

Here are the same results, but showing only the five-poll average as of the end of each month:

I’m sure you’ll draw your own conclusions in the comments, but a few observations of my own:

Just as the inclusion of additional candidates earlier brought down everybody’s numbers, so the narrowing of the field has helped bump everybody up a bit. But in both instances, the effect is not evenly spread.

• Romney had practically no change from end of April to end of May.
• Palin and Gingrich, who had been dropping like the proverbial rocks, both rebounded.
• Palin, whose drop had been longer and sharper, also rebounded more — she had horrible numbers in Feb-Mar-Apr, but May wiped out the April losses. Gingrich had done OK in Feb and March, while April was awful. His May rebound wiped out only about half the April losses.
• For both, time will tell if they can keep up the gains, or if this is just what Wall Street calls a dead-cat bounce.
• Bachmann got a nice gain in May, but there’s still too little data to say much about it.
• Pawlenty continues to scrape along in the low to mid single digits. We’ll need a few more post-Huckabee polls before we see whether he got any gain from orphaned SoCons, but sooner or later he has to start moving or supporters will look elsewhere. (With the addition of the PPP poll, Pawlenty’s May performance improves notably — his April-May numbers are virtually identical to Bachmann’s).
• Paul got a sharp increase in May, and moved ahead of Gingrich into third.

As noted, May shook things up quite a bit, and there are only two three late polls, so let’s see how June polling breaks out. Anybody else surprised that all the polling companies didn’t rush out to do polls after Huckabee withdrew?

Public Policy Polling Minnesota Republican Primary (PDF)

• Tim Pawlenty 33% (24)
• Michele Bachmann 14% (-)
• Sarah Palin 11% (17)
• Mitt Romney 11% (15)
• Herman Cain 10% (-)
• Ron Paul 9% (9)
• Newt Gingrich 4% (11)
• Jon Huntsman 2% (-)

Without Palin

• Pawlenty- 38%
• Bachmann- 19%
• Romney- 11%
• Cain- 10%
• Paul- 9%
• Gingrich- 5%
• Huntsman- 1%

Favorables

• Pawlenty- 76/15
• Bachmann- 68/23
• Palin- 66/26
• Cain- 32/22
• Romney- 45/37
• Gingrich- 35/41

Survey of 574 usual Republican primary voters was conducted May 23-25, 2011. The margin of error is +/-4.1 percentage points.

Jon Huntsman tells the Daily Caller today that he will be announcing his candidacy for President “in the next week or two.”

Huntsman gave a great speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference, touting his pro-life credentials and telling the touching story of adopting his daughter from China, where she had been abandoned in a vegetable market. Stories like these are invaluable at illustrating leaders who put feet to the values they claim to espouse.

Although he is considered to be a moderate because of his stance in favor of civil unions and his support for cap and trade, Huntsman is a strong fiscal conservative when it comes to taxes and pro-business policies and a strong executive leader – and his pro-life credentials are solid.

He is currently my number three pick in this field behind Romney and Pawlenty (and may be moving into the number two spot soon depending on how trends continue to go), and I think he is going to surprise a lot of people in the coming months — especially when his fundraising numbers come in. Remember, the top money men of the party are lining up behind him, Romney, and Pawlenty.

It is generally believed that Huntsman is using his H PAC as his exploratory committee and will skip directly to an official candidacy when he announces.

The dean of the talk-show carnival barkers, His Honor Rush Limbaugh, devoted part of a recent program to challenging, in a sense, conservative commentators Charles Krauthammer and George Will, seeming to suggest that their respected status was the result of “insider positioning” rather than their philosophical bona fides or the fact that they usually have something intelligent to say and are insightful with their analyses.  Not surprising for  Limbaugh who often equates education and intelligence with elitism.

In the spirit of full discloser, I don’t always agree with Krauthammer—sometimes I differ with some of his more “neoconish” positions–but I find that I do agree with him 85+ percent of the time.  In any case, he is one of the most thoughtful and insightful political commentators on cable TV news.  As for George Will, I find him to be on the money 99% of the time and he is one of the very, very few political commentators in print or on TV these days who is not only articulate but, most importantly, who possesses intellectual depth and solid philosophical foundation.

This shot at George Will is off-base, yet amusing:

“George Will was not an early Reaganite, for example,” Limbaugh said. “He became a good friend and associate later on.”

In reality, George Will was a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan leading up to the 1980 race, and in fact, he was the only one from outside the campaign’s highest circles brought in to help prepare (and red team) Reagan for the seminal debate with Jimmy Carter.

I wonder if it ever occurred to Limbaugh that the reason people stop and pay attention to Krauthammer and Will (whether or not they agree with them in the end) might be because they have something intelligent to say in a calm manner—qualities that are becoming increasingly rare.  This commentary says tons about Limbaugh’s view of himself AND his audience.

From Jack Tapper at ABCNews:

Speaker Boehner Throws Down the War Powers Act Gauntlet On Libya

In the immortal words of the vice president, this could be a big $%^ing deal: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is throwing what one Republican calls “a legal and political hot potato at the President.”

In a resolution to be voted on in the House tomorrow, Boehner is giving the president two weeks – until the Pentagon Appropriations bill comes up – to either:

a)  Ask for authorization for the military intervention in Libya, or

b)  Figure out how to disengage the US from the NATO operation in Libya.

Or else what, Mr. Speaker?

The resolution states: “The President has not sought, and Congress has not provided, authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of the United States Armed Forces in Libya.  Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.”

The problem with resolutions is that they are little more than strongly worded statements — rather like stinging letters to the editor. They allow the signers to go on record as being for something without the bother of actually doing anything about it.

Speaker Boehner has increased the level of threat, to be sure. Yet it is still only a threat. Whether or not he actually carries through on that threat remains to be seen.

Things just might get interesting.

WMUR releases the full guest list for their debate coming up on June 13, and it will involve seven candidates:

• Michelle Bachmann
• Herman Cain
• Newt Gingrich
• Ron Paul
• Tim Pawlenty
• Mitt Romney
• Rick Santorum

Despite some rumblings earlier in the week, Giuliani declined an invitation to participate in the debate, as did Sarah Palin and Jon Huntsman. Johnson, Moore, and Roemer, as the third tier, were not extended invitations.

Mitt Romney sat down with Sean Hannity today after his announcement. The result is a very good interview. I dislike hyperbole, but I have to say that this is one of the best interviews that I have seen Romney give.

It’s a FoxNews video, and I have yet to figure out how to link those here. So here is another page you will have to go to in order to view it. Sorry about that.

After the interview, Hannity’s “Great American Panel” made up of Nina Easton, Robert Ehrlich, Jim Norton and of course Sean Hannity himself agreed this was a very solid interview with Governor Romney – one of his best. (Nice to know they agree with me.) Ehrlich also supported Hannity in giving Mitt high marks for his answers concerning MassCare, aka RomneyCare.

h/t Hotair

An alternate headline: Hoisted by Their Own Petard

In their eagerness to destroy Sarah Palin and everything she stands for, the liberal press created a monster. They gave birth to it, fed it, nurtured it and sustained it. Can they really be all that surprised when they are treated with the contempt they have so richly earned?

She avoids talking to them. She provides very few photo-ops. She doesn’t even give them an itinerary of her trip. Yet there they are, following her every move, hanging on to her every utterance, continually asking again and again the same question, “Are you going to run?” How many times does she have to repeat, “I haven’t decided yet”?

I am of two minds on this. On the one hand, I enjoy seeing the media who tried so hard to tear her down being reduced to a pack of paparazzi scum. There is justice in that. On the other hand, I am troubled by it. A penchant for settling old scores is worrisome quality to be found in a president. The job is far too important to place anyone in the office who has the slightest hint of pettiness.

It was that streak of pettiness that I found most disturbing in John McCain. I worried a great deal about his tendency to hold grudges. He seemed almost to relish them. That is NOT the sort of person you want at the head of the United States Government. Sarah Palin isn’t nearly as bad in that department as the senior Senator from Arizona, but she does seem to like to even the score a bit too much for my comfort level.

The bottom line is I truly like and admire the lady, but she still has a ways to go before I could feel comfortable seeing her sitting behind that big desk in the Oval Office.

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.

Hotline has revealed the latest iteration of the National Journal’s regular “insiders” polls, and the results bode well for the GOP’s chances 17 months from now.

First, the question asked of GOP insiders: who is most likely to be the GOP nominee? The top answer: Mitt Romney.

Next, the question asked of Dem insiders: who would be the GOP’s strongest candidate against you in the general election? In other words, which candidate do you fear the most? The top answer: Mitt Romney.

Doesn’t seem to be much more to it than that.

The GOP insiders chose Pawlenty as the second most likely to win the nomination, and after him there is a massive dropoff. The Dem insiders chose Jon Huntsman as the second most-feared nominee. Pawlenty came in third, and no other realistic candidate even made the list.

Mitt Romney’s campaign announcement speech has already received its fair share of analysis. On the whole, the reaction appears positive (the downsides I’ve seen most cited revolve around his failure to delve into MassCare and specifics of his campaign platform). Many reviews have highlighted the fact that Mitt has permeated his public appearances, including today’s address, with three potent themes: economic growth, optimism, and American exceptionalism.

In recent weeks, I’ve made it no secret that I think very highly of Governor Pawlenty and his electoral prospects. Pawlenty’s urban blue-collar background grants him a significantly better chance of connecting with voters on a visceral level and thus attracting support for the reforms necessary to shape up America’s balance sheet. I still wholeheartedly believe that.

However, the emphasis that I’ve placed on this argument may betray a fatal flaw among political junkies: our tendency to project our opinions, wishes, and views upon the rest of the population. I consider the debt and deficit an existential threat to America and the country’s most pressing national security issue. In reality, most Americans don’t see things the way I do.

As our Dave Gaultier has eloquently explained, jobs and the economy matter first and foremost to a plurality of Americans. They worry about the debt, but they worry more about putting food on the table and supporting their families. This plays right into Romney’s hands.

Just today, Jonathan Till penned a fantastic summary of the branding strategies of the Romney, Pawlenty, and Huntsman operations. As he – along with countless other astute pundits – contends, Mitt has built his entire campaign around economic issues. At every opportunity, he hammers President Obama on the state of the American job market and ties renewed growth to a sense of optimism about America’s future and the country’s inherent greatness. Want a prime example? Just witness a video Team Romney produced yesterday:

With his extensive business experience, Gov. Romney undoubtedly understands and appreciates the value of branding. And he has chosen to put his expertise in this area to good use for his campaign, painting himself as the resident expert on the economy. His upbringing as the son of a wealthy executive and progression into one himself may still open him to attacks aimed not at head but at the heart, but if voters continue to place job growth head and shoulders above the other issues, it may not make enough of a difference to take the wind out of his sails.

To add food for thought, it comes as no secret that we Republicans remain on the constant lookout for comparisons of candidates to Ronald Reagan. Chris Cillizza, of the Washington Post, fed our appetites today with a column, that, fittingly, bears the title “Mitt Romney Channels Ronald Reagan:

The similarities between Romney’s announcement speech and Reagan’s 1980 announcement speech are everywhere.

* On American exceptionalism: Romney — “I refuse to believe America is just another place on the flag”; Reagan — “I don’t agree that our nation must resign itself to inevitable decline, yielding its proud position to other hands.”

* On states’ rights: Romney — “This president’s answer to every problem is to take power from you”; Reagan — “The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well.”

* On the economy: Romney — “With the economy in crisis, [Obama’s] answer is to borrow money we can’t afford and throw it at Washington bureaucrats and politicians”; Reagan — “The people have not created this disaster in our economy; the federal government has. It has overspent, overestimated, and over-regulated.”

* On the future: Romney — “The principles that made us a great nation and leader of the world have not lost their meaning…I believe in America”; Reagan — “I believe that you and I together can keep this rendezvous with destiny.”

There are more rhetorical similarities between the two speeches but the examples cited above prove the point that Romney was heavily channeling Reagan in his speech. And, in the context of a Republican primary, it’s a sound strategy.

Positioning yourself as the go-to guy on the issue of the day, making Americans feel proud about their country, and taking a page from the Gipper’s playbook? Sounds like a pretty smart campaign strategy to me.

One of the quintessential queries that seems to surface whenever an aspiring politician goes national has been traditionally summed up by the age-old adage, “Will he play in Peoria?” Peoria, an Illinois town, was meant to symbolize Main Street America, the sort of place that can and will make or break the fortunes of even the most self-assured wunderkind of the Right or Left. But in 2011, with Illinois far from a national bellwether when it comes to the political winds, the better question, at least for Republican candidates, is whether any given candidate will play in Pennsylvania, particularly in the eastern counties of the state that gave Kerry a meager victory over Bush, and Toomey a bare majority over Sestak. Toomey played well in Pennsylvania. Bush, not so much. Given that Barack Obama simply cannot win a second term without the Keystone State’s electoral votes, this question is more poignant than ever.

It is against that backdrop that I present to you the following video of potential candidate for the GOP nomination, Gov. Rick Perry. In this clip, which is now going viral throughout the left-wing blogosphere, Perry discusses the possible spiritual reasons behind our nation’s economic woes:

Note that this clip is currently spreading across the Twitter-verse, with left-wing commentators giving it descriptions like, “Rick Perry: God Caused the Bad Economy.” That’s a very crude representation of what Perry said, of course, but this is absolutely what our candidates are going to have to expect in a wired world. This is why Mitch Daniels fared so poorly in the pre-game, as every verbal gaffe he uttered was instantly transported throughout the globe via several dozen armchair pundits. Let’s face it, we are no longer living in an era in which a politician can “play” to various audiences with differing lingo. Every word that a public official now puts into the universe has the potential to reach a million homes in a matter of seconds.

Now, what Perry actually said of course isn’t exactly explosive. It’s just packaged in a way that appeals to an evangelical audience, and that will ultimately distract and terrify audiences that are less religious, or less public about their theology. Heck, Mitch Daniels could easily have said what Perry is saying, just without the religious inferences. Perry is absolutely correct that, when a nation sets its expenditures at one level, and its revenue at a lower level, and then expects something other than a debt crisis, it is living in a fantasy world. But Perry, by suggesting that there is a spiritual component to all of this, as opposed to a basic mathematical (and perhaps moral) flaw, will absolutely lose the war of ideas with the Democrats in the Northern suburbs, where religion is a private, not public, affair, and where Christmas-and-Easter Catholics and Mainline Protestants decide elections.

Note that I am certainly not suggesting that evangelical candidates need not apply for high office. Indeed, my preferred candidate at this point in the race is the evangelical former governor of Minnesota. But Gov. Pawlenty, unlike Gov. Perry, has spent his career communicating with voters who don’t see a Biblical analogy in every turn of events. Pawlenty would know better than to refer to the government as “Pharaoh,” something that makes suburbanites shudder just as much as it causes evangelicals to swoon. And my guess is that if Pawlenty does win the nomination, he will likely discuss his faith via a goopy, feel-good interview with one of the nation’s prominent inclusive evangelical leaders. Perry, on the other hand, is someone I can envision sharing the stage with a man of the cloth of a more fire-and-brimstone variety. Fodder for suburban women this ain’t.

When Gov. Perry’s name was first floated as a potential candidate for president a couple of weeks back, my gut instinct was that whatever strengths the governor brought to the table would be outweighed by his deep red cultural cues, which would be a distraction at best for swing voters in the Rust Belt. Clips like this, twisted by the left-wing chattering class as they may be, confirm my view that Perry would have almost no shot at winning the counties that Republicans will need to win to deny Obama a second term. Rick Perry is an attractive, strong, pro-growth Sun Belt governor with a solid conservative record under his belt. But he simply won’t play in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

With Governor Romney officially jumping into the race for President, the Fairfax Three is almost complete. Governor Pawlenty has already jumping into the race and Governor Jon Huntsman looks extremely likely to run. Based on their recent remarks, speeches and interviews it seems that these three candidates will be presenting three unique priorities for America in the next four years. This is good for the GOP because it gives us as voters a real choice to make as to what our priorities are as a party.

Since he announced today, I’ll start with Governor Romney. It’s clear from his announcement that Governor Romney’s main priority is restoring the American economy. This really shouldn’t be surprising; after all, as a businessman and entrepreneur, the Governor gravitates towards these issues. After all here are a few lines from the Governor’s speech that represent an indictment of the current administration:

“Three years later, over 16 million Americans are out of work or have just quit looking. Millions more are underemployed.
Three years later, unemployment is still above 8%, a figure he said his stimulus would keep from happening.
Three years later, foreclosures are still at record levels.
Three years later the prices of homes continue to fall.
Three years later, our national debt has grown nearly as large as our entire economy.”

A Romney candidacy would put jobs and the economy as the main priority for the GOP and the next Republican administration.

Governor Pawlenty, based on his remarks about ethanol, bailouts, and entitlements, is making spending and the budget as the main issues of his campaign. A Pawlenty nomination would show that even ahead of boosting the economy, the Republican Party is fully committed to getting America’s fiscal house in order. This shouldn’t be too surprising, since as Governor, Pawlenty was focused mainly on fiscal matters. His battles with the DFL-legislature over the budget in his final year are a testament to the Governors concern with fiscal matters. Here is what Governor Pawlenty said in his announcement speech:

“Government money isn’t “free.” You and I either pay for it in taxes, or our children pay for it in debt. The reforms we need are not in the billions, but in the trillions of dollars. And the cuts we need to make – the cuts we must make – can’t just be to somebody else’s programs.”

Governor Huntsman seems to be focusing on trade and America’s place in the world. Again, with his background in foreign affairs; Ambassador to Singapore, Deputy Trade Representative, and Ambassador to China, it shouldn’t be surprising that Huntsman’s focus would be more international. A Huntsman nomination would show the Republican Party is placing a priority on expanding our overseas market. According to an interview he gave to RealClearPolitics :

“We have no pro-growth policies,” he replied in a lengthy interview with RealClearPolitics when asked what was wrong with Obama’s approach to growing the economy and supporting business.

“When was the last time we had a free-trade agreement?” Huntsman asked.”

None of these priorities are contradictory, in fact, they are complimentary and our nominee will have to talk about all of them if they want to make a credible, coherent case against President Obama’s mismanagement of the United States. And while all three will talk about these different issues, their prioritizing of them offers Republican voters a genuine choice. Now take your pick.

The first Mitt Romney 2012 ad as a candidate has been leaked and will soon be on the air everywhere. Check it out below the fold.
(more…)

Via email, Rick Santorum let supporters know he’ll be making an “important announcement regarding 2012″ at the Summerset County courthouse on Monday at 11:00 AM. Santorum plans to “start a new kind of conversation” and not just “bash President Obama [or] offer more of the same in a new rapper.” He plans to focus on faith, freedom, and the courage needed to advocate them, which he argues he can bring to the table. From what I know of the Senator, I expect a speech with plenty of bread and butter so-con talk, and a very healthy dose of American exceptionalism.

The question for Rick is a simple one: can he unite the so-con coalition in Iowa which propelled Mike Huckabee to victory in 2008, with some hawks who may look favorably on his recent work at the Ethics and Public Policy center. Of course, he’ll need an economic policy as well, and here the question is a straightforward one. Will Santorum embrace the free-trade plus austerity orthodoxy of the moment, or strike a more populist tone in order to win over rust-belt voters? With the exit of Trump from the race, Santorum could make a populist play, but will he?

Many people write Rick off because of his 2006 loss, in a horrible year for Republicans during which he was the DSCC’s number 1 target. And, to be sure, it’s an uphill climb for Pennsylvania’s former junior Senator. But, having grown up in Pennsylvania and watched him over-perform expectations many times, I’m not prepared to entirely disregard Rick. He has a natural charisma and an ability to speak plainly, boldly and from deep conviction that may well appeal to a Republican base not sold on it’s front-runners. All that said, Santorum needs a big, successful splash on Monday to move himself up the Republican pecking order; it will be interesting to see if he gets one.

Here are his remarks from today’s announcement:

Thank you for coming. And I want to thank Doug and Stella Scamman for hosting us on their beautiful farm.

You know, everyone here today can tell a different story. We have different backgrounds and we wake up in the morning and go to different jobs … or, look for different jobs. We go to different churches or maybe don’t go to church so much. I bet some of you have families who go back 200 years or more in New Hampshire. And there must be some who just snuck in across the border, from Massachusetts. I hear the taxes are better over here.

But here we are on a beautiful June day coming together to begin a process that we often, quite naturally, take for granted. But it is really one of the great achievements in the history of the world. For all of our country’s wealth and influence, those are not the source of our greatness. The true strength of America is self-rule, and a government that answers to a free and independent people.

We live in the most powerful nation that ever existed. And it all goes back to a few men and women who had the courage to stand – and even die – for their belief in liberty and equality. Because of their vision, the United States of America is not ruled by a monarchy or controlled by an aristocracy. Though sometimes folks in Washington might act otherwise, we don’t have a House of Lords with inherited power. And as the Red Sox like to remind the New York Yankees, there are no dynasties in America.

Who rules this great nation?

You do. Every four years you decide who will give that State of the Union address, who will set the course of the country, who will be Commander in Chief.

What’s true right here in this New Hampshire farm has always been true in America. Though each of us is different, though each of us will choose to walk a different path in life, we are united by one great, overwhelming passion: We love America. We believe in America.

Today we are united not only by our faith in America. We are united also by our concern for America.

This country we love is in peril. And that, my friends, is why we are here today.

A few years ago, Americans did something that was, actually, very much the sort of thing Americans like to do: We gave someone new a chance to lead; someone we hadn’t known for very long, who didn’t have much of a record but promised to lead us to a better place.

At the time, we didn’t know what sort of a President he would make. It was a moment of crisis for our economy, and when Barack Obama came to office, we wished him well and hoped for the best.

Now, in the third year of his four-year term, we have more than promises and slogans to go by.

Barack Obama has failed America.

When he took office, the economy was in recession. He made it worse. And he made it last longer.

Three years later, over 16 million Americans are out of work or have just quit looking. Millions more are underemployed.

Three years later, unemployment is still above 8%, a figure he said his stimulus would keep from happening.

Three years later, foreclosures are still at record levels.

Three years later the prices of homes continue to fall.

Three years later, our national debt has grown nearly as large as our entire economy.

Families are buried under higher prices for food and higher prices for gasoline.

It breaks my heart to see what’s happening in this country.

These failing hopes make up President Obama’s own misery index. It’s never been higher. And what’s his answer? He says this: “I’m just getting started.”

No, Mr. President, you’ve had your chance. We, the people on this farm, and citizens across the country are the ones who are just getting started.

I visited with a family, Kathy and Dave Tyler, who live in a suburb north of Las Vegas, Nevada. You probably know families just like them. They’re in their early forties, a couple who had worked hard, sacrificed to buy a home in a good neighborhood, the sort of place they wanted their daughter Allie to grow up. But now that neighborhood is being crushed by this Obama economy. First their neighbors started losing their jobs…and then their homes. And all around them now are abandoned houses… and abandoned dreams.

When the Tylers wake up in the morning and get Allie off to school and then go to work and do everything they can to make it to the end of the month and hold their lives together, it doesn’t matter if they are Republican or Democrat, Independent or…Libertarian. They’re just Americans. An American family.

And across the richest, greatest country on earth, there are millions of American families like the Tylers. Folks who grew up believing that if they played by the rules, worked hard, that they would have the chance to build a good life, with steady work and always that possibility to work a little harder and get ahead.

And in that America, you don’t wonder if your children will have a better life. You know they will. You know it the same way we know that tomorrow morning the sun is going to come up in the East right over this field.

That confidence in a better tomorrow defines us as Americans.

When generations of immigrants looked up and saw the Statue of Liberty for the first time, they surely had many questions and doubts about the life before them, but one thing they knew without a doubt is that they were coming to a place where anything was possible—that in America, their children would have a better life.

I believe in that America. I know you believe in that America. It is an America of freedom and opportunity. A nation where innovation and hard work propel the most powerful economy in the world. A land that is secured by the greatest military the world has ever seen, and by friends and allies across the globe.

President Obama sees a different America and has taken us in a different direction.

A few months into office, he travelled around the globe to apologize for America.

At a time of historic change and great opportunity in the Arab world, he is hesitant and uncertain. He hesitated to speak out for the dissidents in Iran, but his Administration boasts that he is “leading from behind” in Libya.

He speaks with firmness and clarity, however, when it comes to Israel. He seems firmly and clearly determined to undermine our longtime friend and ally. He’s treating Israel the same way so many European countries have: with suspicion, distrust and an assumption that Israel is at fault.

To his credit, the President ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. In Afghanistan, the surge was right, announcing a withdrawal date was wrong. The Taliban may not have watches, but they do have calendars.

Here at home, the President seems to take his inspiration not from the small towns and villages of New Hampshire but from the capitals of Europe.

With the economy in crisis, his answer is to borrow money we can’t afford and throw it at Washington bureaucrats and politicians. Just like Europe.

Instead of encouraging entrepreneurs and employers, he raises their taxes, piles on record-breaking mounds of regulation and bureaucracy and gives more power to union bosses.

Instead of recognizing the states rightful authority to solve problems, he seizes power from them and rams through a disastrous national health care plan.

This President’s first answer to every problem is to take power from you, your local government and your state so that so-called “experts” in Washington can make those choices for you. And with each of these decisions, we lose more of our freedom.

You and I understand this. We look at our country, and we know in our hearts that things aren’t right, and they’re not getting better.

President Obama’s European answers are not the right solution to America’s challenges.

In the campaign to come, the American ideals of economic freedom and opportunity need a clear and unapologetic defense, and I intend to make it—because I have lived it.

Twenty-seven years ago, I left a steady job to join with some friends to start a business. Like many of you, it had been a dream of mine to try and build a business from the ground up. We started in a small office a couple of hours from here and over the years, we were able to grow from ten employees to hundreds.

My work led me to become deeply involved in helping other businesses, from innovative startups to large companies going through tough times. Sometimes I was successful and helped create jobs, other times I was not. I learned how America competes with companies in other countries, what works in the real world and what doesn’t.

I left my business in 1999 to help put the Salt Lake City Olympics back on track. And when the Games were over, I came home to Massachusetts and served as governor.

I’d never held office before but I went at it like I ran businesses and the Olympics: ask tough questions and take on the toughest problems first, because they’ll only get worse.

When I took office, I faced a nearly $3 billion budget hole. My legislature was over 85% Democrat. The expectation was that we’d have to raise taxes but I refused. I ordered a review of all state spending, made tough choices and balanced the budget without raising taxes. That sent a message that business as usual was over.

Over the next four years, we consolidated agencies, cut programs, sold state property and cut taxes nineteen times. The state was giving away over a billion dollars in free health care, much of it to people who could have paid something but were gaming the system. You won’t be surprised that a lot of Democrats thought we should be giving away even more.

I took it on and hammered out a solution that took a bad situation and made it better. Not perfect but it was a state solution for a state problem. At the end of four years, it took over 800 vetoes but we balanced every budget, restored a $2 billion dollar rainy day fund and kept our schools first among all 50 states.

All of these experiences — starting and running businesses for 25 years, turning around the Olympics, governing a state — have helped shape who I am and how I lead. Of course, if I ran through a list of all my mistakes, Ann would find it hilarious, and we’d be here all night. But I’ve learned a lot.

Turning around a crisis takes experienced leadership and bold action. For millions of Americans, the economy is in crisis today, and unless we change course, it will be in crisis for all of us tomorrow.

Government under President Obama has grown to consume almost 40% of our economy. We are only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy. I will cap federal spending at 20% or less of the GDP and finally, finally balance the budget.

My generation will pass the torch to the next generation, not a bill.

I will insist that Washington learns to respect the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment. We will return responsibility and authority to the states for dozens of government programs – and that begins with a complete repeal of Obamacare.

From my first day in office my number one job will be to see that America once again is number one in job creation. You know, if you want to create jobs, it helps to have had a job. I will make business taxes competitive with other nations, modernize regulations and bureaucracy and finally promote America’s trade interests. It’s time for a president who cares more about America’s workers than he does about America’s union bosses.

Over the last thirty years, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a situation is hopeless. But I’ve never been very good at listening to those people and I’ve always enjoyed proving them wrong.

It’s one of the lessons I learned from my Dad.

My father never graduated from college. He apprenticed, as a lath and plaster carpenter, and he was darn good at it. He learned how to put a handful of nails in his mouth and spit them out, point forward. On their honeymoon, he and Mom drove across the country. Dad sold aluminum paint along the way, to pay for gas and hotels.

There were a lot reasons my father could have given up or set his sights lower. But Dad always believed in America; and in that America, a lath and plaster man could work his way up to running a little car company called American Motors, and end up Governor of a state where he had once sold aluminum paint.

For my Dad, America was the land of opportunity, where the circumstances of birth are no barrier to achieving one’s dreams. Small business and entrepreneurs were encouraged, and respected, and a good worker could almost always find a good job.

The spirit of enterprise, innovation, pioneering and can-do propelled our standard of living and economy past every other nation on earth.

I refuse to believe that America is just another place on the map with a flag. We stand for freedom and opportunity and hope.

These last two years have not been the best of times. But while we’ve lost a couple of years, we have not lost our way. The principles that made us a great nation and leader of the world have not lost their meaning. They never will.

We know we can bring this country back.

I’m Mitt Romney. I believe in America.

And I’m running for President of the United States.

As long as the world doesn’t stop spinning, gravity remains in place, and the end is not nigh, Newt Gingrich will not be the Republican nominee. This is very important, because sans Gingrich, our field of candidates had no part in the Clinton Wars. Even more importantly, none of our candidates were major figures in the Bush administration or really deeply rooted in the fights of the Bush years. In other words, our field is probably as fresh as any Republican field since 1980, if not earlier.

What this means is that in 2012, if we win, the Republican Party will have a golden opportunity, one that doesn’t come around very often. The GOP, with a Republican President, House and Senate, will have the chance to remake the political landscape. Voters have short memories, and by January 2013, they won’t remember the Bush years, at least not real vividly. This means that the Republican Party can remake itself. The Democrats had this same opportunity in 2008 under President Obama when he was elected. He could have made the Democratic Party into the party of the future and of reform, one that reformed and appealed to a great majority of the public. He and his party have failed miserably in that. The public doesn’t see new Democrats; they see the same old stuff they’ve seen out of the Democrats for the last 30 years. The Democrats failed to remake themselves. In 2012 it’ll be our turn.

Victory in 2012 will be an important sea-change for the Republican Party. Our leaders in Congress are no longer Trent Lott and Tom DeLay. Names like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Lott are fading. At the national level, the party of Compassionate Conservatism is morphing into the party of Responsible Reform. A new generation is coming in, people like Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and Marco Rubio to name a few. These are men with ideas and a vision for fundamentally changing the welfare state as we know it. With a Republican President to couple with these Congressional leaders the opportunity is ours. We Republicans could be responsible for making the 21 Century’s first great age of reform flare into life. 2012 could be a new dawn for the Republican Party. All we have to do is win.

…to being the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. Politico has the story and here’s the excerpt:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who said last month that he had reached the decision not to enter the 2012 race after intense prayer, says that doesn’t take him out of the veepstakes. 

“Everything is still open. I haven’t closed doors. I found long ago that that’s not the smart thing to do,” Huckabee told reporters in Little Rock, after a speech at the Clinton Presidential Library.

Huckabee opted against a run for the GOP presidential nomination in mid-May, telling viewers of his Fox News show “My heart says no.”

_______________________________________________________

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

The news that U.S. private sector payrolls added just 38,000 jobs in the month of May has economists scratching their heads, and has even left-wing commentators raising the possibility of a double dip recession on the horizon. Those who put their money where their mouths are remain very pessimistic:

Wall Street is having a hard time figuring out what to do now that the U.S. economy appears to be sputtering and yields are so low, Peter Yastrow, market strategist for Yastrow Origer, told CNBC.

“What we’ve got right now is almost near panic going on with money managers and people who are responsible for money,” he said. “They can not find a yield and you just don’t want to be putting your money into commodities or things that are punts that might work out or they might not depending on what happens with the economy.

“We need to find real yield and real returns on these assets. You see bad data, you see Treasurys rally, you see all bonds and all fixed-income rally and then the people who are betting against the U.S. economy start getting bearish on stocks. That’s a huge mistake.”

Stocks extended losses after the manufacturing fell below expectations in May and the private sector added only 38,000 jobs during the month.

“Interest rates are amazingly low and that, thanks to Ben Bernanke, is driving everything,” Yastrow said. “We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. The [Federal Reserve] knows it.

If the economy goes into recession on Obama’s watch, look for Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Rick Perry, and pretty much every other Republican who remains on the fence to leap into the presidential race. Also, the possibility of a major third party candidate at that point, particularly someone who could feasibly run on an anti-free trade platform, such as Donald Trump, should not be discounted.

Alexander Bolton of The Hill has the story:

Based on the wording DeMint is using here, it seems like he’s reluctant to pull the trigger, but is considering it “out of respect” for the activists who’ve asked him to do so. While the likelihood of a DeMint run isn’t super high, his entry into the race would be a game-changer in a couple of ways:

1. DeMint would be the early odds-on favorite in South Carolina, with a real possibility that he could unite the southern wing of the party around him.

2. DeMint would immediately give those in the GOP primary electorate looking for the most combative conservative someone to rally around, making it more difficult for candidates like Cain or Bachmann to break out of the pack. What this would mean for a potential (though IMO still highly unlikely) Palin candidacy is anyone’s guess.

3. Another candidate who could suffer if DeMint enters the race is Governor Pawlenty. Pawlenty’s greatest strengths are his governing record, his ability to appeal to all segments of the conservative movement and his recent habbit of truth-telling. DeMint could potentially neutralize two of these strengths.

4. Even if he doesn’t end up running, the fact that DeMint is thinking about it–after indicating earlier this year that he wasn’t–will shake up the race, as other candidates vie for DeMint’s support. DeMint has previously said that opposition to a “clean” debt ceiling increase is a cine qua non for his endorsement; it will be interesting to see what other milestones he may lay down. Paradoxically, thinking about running, but not actually doing so, may make DeMint’s endorsement in the primary even more important.

5. To say that the GOP establishment won’t welcome a DeMint run is a massive understatement. DeMint’s endorsement of a host of senate primary challengers in 2010 hasn’t made him many friends in the caucus (with the exception of those DeMint endorsees who won, of course), and he has a habbit of bucking the party. Unlike many senators running for President, DeMint probably can’t count on a lot of support from within his caucus.

On the whole, the DeMint factor should lead to some interesting times indeed.

Public Policy Polling Iowa Republican Caucus (PDF)

• Romney – 21% (16)
• Cain – 15% (-)
• Palin – 15% (8)
• Gingrich – 12% (9)
• Bachmann – 11% (6)
• Pawlenty – 10% (5)
• Paul – 8% (6)
• Huntsman – * (-)
• Someone else / Undecided – 8%

Without Palin:

• Romney – 26%
• Cain – 16%
• Gingrich – 15%
• Bachmann – 14%
• Paul – 11%
• Pawlenty – 10%
• Huntsman – 1%
• Someone else / Undecided – 8%

Favorable / Unfavorable

• Bachmann – 53/16
• Pawlenty – 48/18
• Palin – 59/31
• Romney – 51/34
• Cain – 38/24
• Paul – 42/29
• Santorum – 29/18
• Gingrich – 39/41
• Johnson – 4/18
• Huntsman – 7/23
• Roemer – 4/21

If the nomination came down to a two-person race:

• Pawlenty – 41%
• Romney – 41%

• Romney – 48%
• Palin – 41%

• Romney – 48%
• Cain – 34%

• Romney – 46%
• Bachmann – 38%

Survey of 481 likely primary voters was conducted May 27-30 and has a margin of error of +/-4.5%. Numbers in parentheses are from their previous poll done April 15-17.

Public Policy Polling (they of the Kos crowd, so add the requisite grain of salt here) is set to release their new Iowa poll later today. It will be the first poll from the Hawkeye State since Huck, Trump, and Daniels all announced their non-intentions, so it will be met with great anticipation.

Last night, PPP leaked the numbers for four of the eight candidates they polled. Huntsman will receive the dreaded asterisk, as just one respondent chose him. The other three are more interesting:

• Romney – 21%
• Cain – 15%
• Palin – 15%

This is great news for Romney, as his Iowa numbers and the margin of his lead are running ahead of his national numbers since the big trio dropped out. Plus, it appears the “split the anti-Mitt vote” is working as Palin and Cain keep Pawlenty out of the top three. To me, the most interesting number when the actual poll gets released will be Pawlenty’s. If he is in fourth place, he will be doing okay. If he falls below Bachmann, Paul, and/or Gingrich, though, there may be talk of his inability to gain traction in a must-win state for him.

This poll comes at a great time for Romney – on the heels of a fantastic interview he did on NBC, a great article on MassCare in the Boston Globe, and the investors over at Intrade bumping him up to a full ten point lead over Pawlenty (T-Paw has slipped to 19 while Mitt, who was briefly up over 30, has settled at 29).

If you get the chance, the interview and article area must-watch and a must-read. We will post the full PPP Iowa poll when it is released later today!