Chris Cillizza sets the odds for winning Ames, one month out:

1. Bachmann – 3 to 1
2. Paul – 5 to 1
3. Pawlenty – 5 to 1
4. Cain – 20 to 1
5. Santorum – 25 to 1
6. Perry – 30 to 1
7. McCotter – 100 to 1

Check out his reasoning below the fold.
(more…)

Since the endorsements have been slowly trickling in this campaign cycle, I’ve held off on re-introducing a feature from Race42008 — the endorsement chart. Now it returns in all its glory.

As with four years ago, there are a thousand and one different ways to keep track of endorsements. Nobody can track all of them, and so ultimately endorsement trackers must decide what are most important to them. I’ve taken my chart from the 2008 race and updated it slightly to include five categories this time around:

• Group 1: Sitting Governors
• Group 2: Current U.S. Senators and Representatives
• Group 3: Current Lt Governors, Attorney Generals, other notable statewide officeholders
• Group 4: Former Governors, U.S. Senators, and U.S. Representatives
• Group 5: RNC Members

Note that this list does not include state Senators or Representatives, nor does it include celebrities, conservative icons, or advocacy groups. This is not to say that those endorsements are not worthwhile, just that I’ve made the decision to focus on the five groups listed above.

As always, these sorts of things are nearly impossible to stay completely on top of, which is where our community comes into play. If you see something I’ve missed on the chart, let me know in the comments.

And so without further ado, the first 2012 Endorsement Chart:

See the full list of endorsees below the fold.
(more…)

Bachmann responds to Pawlenty’s attack by releasing this statement last night:

“This is an election about the future of our nation – one where voters will have to decide who is best equipped to lead our nation by looking at our records, as well as our vision for the nation. Instead of negativity, I want to focus on my accomplishments.

“I have fought the cap-and-trade agenda, rather than implement it, and I will work to end cap-and-trade as President of the United States. I stood up against President Obama’s support of the $700 billion bailout rather than defend it.

“I was a leading voice fighting against Obamacare and the unconstitutional individual mandates; I did not lift my voice in praise of it. My message brought tens of thousands of Americans to Washington D.C. to oppose Obamacare. As President I will not rest until Obamacare is repealed. And I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling.

“People can count on me as a fighter; I am proud of my record of fighting with resolve, and without apology, for our free markets, for sane fiscal policies, and in opposition to the advancement of the big government left. As President, the American people can count on me to stand by my record of advancing pro-growth policies to put our nation back on the right track.”

Bachmann responded as perfectly as possible in this scenario – not getting sucked down into the fight, ignoring the attacker, and using the opportunity to talk about the parts of her “record” that Iowa voters will resonate with.

Pawlenty responds to her dismissal by continuing to attack her this morning on Fox and Friends:

It’s not a stretch to say that we need somebody in the Oval Office, who’s going to be president of the United States and commander in chief, who has executive experience leading a large enterprise in a public setting, getting results and balancing budgets, cutting taxes, doing health care reform the right way — no mandates, no takeovers. Not just talking about it, not just giving speeches at rallies, but leading as an executive.

With all due respect, she just doesn’t have that kind of experience. And secondly, her record in Congress, as I mentioned before, is, you know, again, great remarks and great speeches, but in terms of results and accomplishments, nonexistent.

As Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post notes, “With Pawlenty attacking Bachmann, somewhere Romney is sitting back and smiling.”

This is getting good…

Voter Consumer Research / TheIowaRepublican.com Iowa Republican Caucus Survey

• Bachmann – 25%
• Romney – 21%
• Pawlenty – 8.8%
• Cain – 8.6%
• Paul – 6%
• Gingrich – 4%
• Santorum – 2%
• Huntsman – 1%

Among the Most Attentive Voters:

• Bachmann – 32%
• Romney – 18%
• Cain – 12%
• Pawlenty – 8%
• Paul – 5%
• Gingrich – 4%
• Huntsman – 2%
• Santorum – 2%

Favorability Ratings

• Bachmann – 76/11
• Pawlenty – 60/12
• Cain – 54/12
• Romney – 66/25
• Santorum – 45/13
• Paul – 49/37
• Huntsman – 14/26
• Gingrich – 38/52

Survey of 500 likely caucus goers was conducted June 26-30 and has a margin of error of 4.4%.

(h/t Smack for the link and the info.)

Yesterday, Sarah Palin penned one of her trademark Facebook notes. This iteration involved a stinging, yet entirely substantive, rebuke of the Obama administration’s economic and fiscal policies. To provide the full effect, I pass along the entire text:

Barack Obama’s big government policies continue to fail. He should put a link to the national debt clock on his BlackBerry. The gears on that clock have nearly exploded during his administration. Yesterday’s terrible job numbers should not be a surprise because it all goes back to our debt. Our dangerously unsustainable debt is wiping out our jobs, crippling our economic growth, and jeopardizing our position in the global economy as the leader of the free world.

As a governor, I had to deal with facts, even unpleasant ones. I dealt with the world as it is, not as I wished it to be. The “elite” political class in this country with their heads in the sand had better face some unpleasant facts about the world as it is. They’ve run out of money and no amount of accounting gimmicks or happy talk will change this reality. Those of us who live in the real world could see this day coming.

Back in January 2009, as governor of Alaska, I announced: “We also have to be mindful about the effect of the stimulus package on the national debt and the future economic health of the country. We won’t achieve long-term stability if we continue borrowing massive sums from foreign countries and remain dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas.” Then I urged President Obama to veto the stimulus bill because it was loaded with absolutely useless pork and unfunded mandates. Everyone knows my early and vocal opposition to that mother of all unfunded mandates known as Obamacare starting back in August 2009, and many recall my objections to the Federal Reserves’ inflationary games with our currency known as QE2 from November 2010. It’s a matter of public record that I did not go to Harvard Law School, but I can add.

The same “experts” who got us into this mess are now telling us that the only way out of our debt crisis is to “increase revenue,” but not by creating more jobs and therefore a larger tax base; no, they want to “increase revenue” by raising taxes on job creators who are taxed enough already! As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” That’s where we are now. Hard working taxpayers have been big government’s Sugar Daddy for far too long, and now we’re out of sugar. We don’t want big government, we can’t afford it, and we are unwilling to pay for it.

This debt ceiling debate is the perfect time to do what must be done. We must cut. Yes, I’m for a balanced budget amendment and for enforceable spending caps. But first and foremost we must cut spending, not “strike a deal” that allows politicians to raise more debt! See, Washington is addicted to OPM – Other People’s Money. And like any junkie, they will lie, steal, and cheat to fund their addiction. We must cut them off and cut government down to size.

To paraphrase Hemingway, people go broke slowly and then all at once. We’ve been slowly going broke for years, but now it’s happening all at once as the world’s capital markets are demanding action from us, yet Obama assumes we’ll just go borrow another cup of sugar from some increasingly impatient neighbor. We cannot knock on anyone’s door anymore. And we don’t have any time to wait for Washington to start behaving responsibly. We’ll be Greece before these D.C. politicians’ false promises are over. We must force government to live within its means, just as every business and household does.

We can’t close our $1.5 trillion deficit overnight, but we must get as close as we can as soon as we can. Little nibbles here and there over 10 years (spun to sound like they’re huge budget cuts) aren’t anywhere near enough. I know from experience that cutting government spending isn’t easy. As governor, I made the largest veto cuts in my state’s history, and I didn’t make many friends doing it. But we will never recover, we will never get free of devastating debt, unless we make tough choices now. We don’t hear talk like this from leaders in D.C. or from those running for office because they say what they think we want to hear rather than what must be said.

We are in desperate need of real leadership, but President Obama’s solution to everything is to grow government by borrowing more money, spending more money, printing more money, and taxing our job creators. He once said that he “believes in American Exceptionalism…just as the Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism.” Well, the path he has us on will make us just as “exceptional” as Greece – debt crisis, stagnation, permanent high unemployment, and all.

As we approach 2012, there are important lessons we can learn from all of this. First, we should never entrust the White House to a far-left ideologue who has no appreciation or even understanding of the free market and limited government principles that made this country economically strong. Second, the office of the presidency is too important for on-the-job training. It requires a strong chief executive who has been entrusted with real authority in the past and has achieved a proven track record of positive measurable accomplishments. Leaders are expected to give good speeches, but leadership is so much more than oratory. Real leadership requires deeds even more than words. It means taking on the problems no one else wants to tackle. It means providing vision and guidance, inspiring people to action, bringing everyone to the table, and with a servant’s heart dedicating oneself to striking agreements that keep faith with our Constitution and with the ordinary citizens who entrusted you with power. It means bucking the status quo, fighting the corrupt powers that be, serving the common good, and leaving the country better than you found it. Most of us don’t see a lot of that real leadership in D.C., and it’s profoundly disappointing.

But let me tell you where real hope lies. It’s not the hopey-changey stuff we heard about in 2008. Real hope comes from realizing how God has blessed our exceptional nation, and then doing something about it. We have been blessed with natural resources, hardworking entrepreneurs, and a Constitution that preserves the greatest form of government ever devised by man. If we develop those natural resources, allow our entrepreneurs to keep and invest more of what they earn, and adhere to the time-tested truths of our Constitution, we will prosper and endure.

But first and foremost we must tackle our debt. We don’t have the luxury of playing politics as usual. We need real leaders who will put aside their own political self-interest to do what is right for the nation. And if they don’t emerge… well, America has a do-over in November 2012.

I’ve commented before that I truly do hope Palin runs; although I worry that she would find it impossible to overcome the despicable hit job the media has performed on her and rectify her dismal favorability numbers among Independents, I at least want to see her try.

At her best, as in this piece, Gov. Palin really can masterfully communicate conservative ideals, principles, and philosophy. As I mentioned earlier, this missive included loads of substance, coming nowhere close to the simplistic, reflexive, intellectually shallow anti-Obama vitriol Democrats and their allies in the media have wrongfully attributed to her. Statements like this prove that the Governor is not “stupid”, as the Left would have you believe.

Sadly, the very people that Palin most needs to win over – Independents – don’t typically notice when she showcases her greatest talents, as she did with this note.

For several decades now, the Iowa Caucus has stood as the initial gateway to the Republican presidential nomination. The adage that there are essentially “three tickets” out of Iowa, and two out of the subsequent New Hampshire primary, may or may not be true, but as Rudy “Florida Strategy” Giuliani found out in 2008, ignoring the early states in the presidential nomination process is pretty much a death knell for a presidential campaign. Yet the Iowa Caucus’ transformation from a somewhat reasonable event, one that would often give fringe candidates like Pat Robertson a respectable silver medal while handing the gold to mainstream candidates like Bob Dole, to a litmus test to determine which of the candidates is most compatible with fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity is exactly the reason that it must lose its gateway status, while a contest more representative of the Republican electorate at large takes the place of the Hawkeye State.

To me, the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back was the pledge being circulated by uber-social conservative Bob Vander Platts, who is attempting to make victory in Iowa contingent on agreement with a number of positions that fall outside the mainstream of American cultural and political thought. This is not simply a document requesting that candidates commit to opposing abortion while in office. That is absolutely a mainstream view, as Americans are pretty much equally divided on that issue. Nor is this a pledge to advance “big ticket” social conservative policy positions, such as the appointment of conservative jurists, another issue that is, by definition, mainstream, given public opinion on the subject. Instead, this particular pledge asks the candidates to take positions that are far removed from the current social and cultural pulse of Main Street America, many of which are offensively worded and ill-conceived based on present-day cultural sensibilities. Signing off on such a document, while perhaps necessary for victory in Iowa, is almost certain to label the signatories as right-wing cultural extremists, just as many aggressive environmentalists and uber-feminists are viewed as left-wing cultural extremists.

In addition to the offensive language in the pledge towards gays, Muslims, and Black Americans, all groups that Republicans already have trouble with at the ballot box, the pledge also includes a promise to ban pornography, to affirm that married people enjoy “better sex,” and to prevent “seduction into promiscuity.” I’m not certain how these latter points are even enforceable on a policy basis absent some American version of the Saudi Religious Police. But perhaps that’s what its drafters truly desire for America.

These views are, by definition, extreme, given that the average “Main Street” American would not agree with governmental action in these personal areas of life, and given that many would find offensive the language of this document, especially as directed at certain minority groups. The document then is not only extreme from a policy perspective, its language represents a culturally homogenous, highly insular portion of America that is either too isolated to realize that such a document would offend Main Street America, or simply doesn’t care. Either way, the sorts of Iowa Caucus voters who approve of such a document currently have a disproportionate influence over the presidential nomination of one of America’s major political parties. They shouldn’t.

Instead of allowing a few voters who are not representative of America as a whole, or of the Republican Party, for that matter, to weed out the GOP field of presidential candidates every four years, the GOP should yank Iowa’s first in the nation status and give its place to a large swing state with a diverse, heterogenous population. Moreover, whichever state that takes Iowa’s place should be one with a primary, not a caucus, so that regular Americans are the ones deciding between the candidates, not only those who are ideological crusaders. Let’s replace the Iowa Caucus with the Ohio Primary.

***Author’s note***: Matt Coulter has already covered this story, but I wanted to offer my take. I ask that everyone give him his due deference and follow these posts in the order they got published – his first.

Tim Pawlenty made an appearance on Meet the Press today, where he took a rather combative tone toward Michele Bachmann and the deficit negotiations in Washington:

“I like Congresswoman Bachmann, I’ve campaigned for her, I respect her,” said Pawlenty on the program. “But her record of accomplishment in Congress is nonexistent. It’s nonexistent. And so we’re not looking for folks who, you know, just have speech capabilities, we’re looking for people who can lead a large enterprise in a public setting and drive it to conclusion. I’ve done that, she hasn’t.”

Pawlenty, who opted against seeking a third term as governor of Minnesota last year, declined to offer a direct response when asked if Bachmann — who currently represents Minnesota’s sixth congressional district in the U.S. House — is “too controversial.” NBC’s David Gregory presented the question to Pawlenty in the context of rhetoric Bachmann has used to criticize the Obama administration, such as her characterization of the federal government as “gangster government.”

“Well, everybody’s got different rhetoric that they use,” explained Pawlenty. “The federal government’s out of control. Let’s face it, it’s plain for everybody to see.”

The former governor said he’s “used similar terms” in criticizing the Obama White House. Asked if he believes the “gangster government” characterization was appropriate he said, “Well, I’ve called it incompetent, I’ve called them out of control, I’ve called them misguided, I’ve called them failed. I mean, pick your choice. But the point is, this is a group of people who are disconnected from the economic needs of the people in this country. People are hurting. We’ve got nearly $4 a gallon gas, we’ve got crushing levels of unemployment. We have a federal government that’s out of control.”

…”Well, with all due respect to, to David Brooks, this is not the time for Rockefeller Republicanism,” said Pawlenty. “We’ve got a country that is sinking. We’ve got a country that is on the verge of a crisis in the debt ceiling issue, and that’s just one symptom of much larger problems. And so, if the answer is just to split the difference with the Democrats and be for tax increases, be for more spending, but just a little less than the Democrats, that’s not what I believe.”

These comments struck me as surprisingly pointed toward another candidate for this relatively early stage of the election cycle. However, with regard to Bachmann’s record, Pawlenty essentially hit the nail on the head. Even a cursory review of Bachmann’s legislative accomplishments leaves plenty to be desired. And for a candidate like Pawlenty, trying to gain traction in the polls and media, contrasting records with Bachmann provides significant opportunity for gains.

The Governor also did a great job of succinctly summarizing the failures of the Obama administration in terms that the average lower-information voter can understand. Add to that the fact that his last highlighted comment, about the deficit negotiations, should resonate with the base and primary/caucus voters, and you have an impressive performance.

After his campaign encountered some widely discussed bumps in the road, Pawlenty has done his best to bounce back and return to the key strengths that have made him such a successful candidate in the past: hard work on the ground retail politicking and a rhetorical knack for distilling complex issues down into easily understandable terms.

Pundits have been wondering for awhile now when Pawlenty would recognize that the most immediate threat to his campaign was Michele Bachmann, not Mitt Romney. Well, after tip-toeing around the issue for several days by making remarks that certain candidates (without naming names) could win in Iowa but not elsewhere, Pawlenty used his Sunday morning talk show appearance this morning to launch a direct attack at Bachmann:

“I like Congresswoman Bachmann. I’ve campaigned for her. I respect her. But her record of accomplishment in Congress is non-existent. We’re not looking for folks who just have speech capabilities. We’re looking for who can lead a large enterprise in a public setting and drive it to conclusion. I have done that, she hasn’t.”

This attack shows us several things. First, that Pawlenty’s team is still not seeing him gain any traction in their internal polls. Otherwise, they wouldn’t risk going negative again on another opponent. Secondly, that Bachmann truly does have the aura of Iowa frontrunner – a blessing and a curse for her campaign; a curse especially if she can’t get the organization built to capitalize on all the support she’s receiving. And thirdly, Pawlenty is going to attempt once again to shed the “weak” or “too nice” label as he proves he can take it to his opponents. As with the attack on Romney, this will be a double-edged sword for team Pawlenty – it could work really well in driving down Michele’s favorable numbers, but Pawlenty also has to be careful of driving up his own negatives in the process.

Honestly, I feel for the Pawlenty campaign. I really do. This wasn’t supposed to be where things sat one month out from the Ames Straw Poll. On paper, Pawlenty is an infinitely better candidate than Bachmann. And when it comes to time and effort poured into an Iowa campaign, Pawlenty has run circles around her. The fact that she has more than three times the support in the state than Pawlenty does has got to be maddeningly frustrating.

The benefit Pawlenty has, though, is time. If Ames was held today, Pawlenty would be out of this race. Luckily, it’s not for another month – a lifetime in politics. Bachmann has a lot of time to be herself and implode from self-inflicted wounds. It will be interesting to watch how she responds to this attack – I think that will tell us a lot about which direction this is going to go.

Because if the two Minnesota Twins start going at it, the possibility then also arises that a Dean/Gephardt scenario unfolds and a John Kerry rises to the top in Iowa.

For the rest of us, sit back and pass the popcorn – this could get very interesting.

Politico brings us the story of an ever-growing serious non-campaign campaign effort by Rick Perry:

Rick Perry has started calling Iowa Republicans and a former RNC finance chairman is helping to convene a meeting of national donors later this month in Austin to discuss financing a potential 2012 campaign…

Republican activist Joni Scotter told POLITICO she got a surprise phone call this afternoon from Perry, asking about the political landscape as it relates to him.

“It was just a surprise,” said Scotter, of Marion, who’s well-known for her frequent appearances at Iowa Republican events and is a coveted worker bee on presidential campaigns. She said she didn’t know how Perry got her number.

“He sounded great and just asked if he should run,” she said. “And I said, of course.” …

Dave Carney, Perry’s top strategist, confirmed that the governor had been reaching out to Republican caucus-goers…Asked if it was activists or elected officials, he described the calls as going to “a mix of folks.”

At the same time, Peter Terpulek, a top bundler who President Bush appointed as ambassador to Luxembourg, has begun planning a gathering of some of the party’s top uncommitted donors for later this month in the Texas capital.

Rick Perry is calling GOP activists, party members, and caucus goers in Iowa. And fundraisers are being organized with those mythical “rainmakers” or bundlers. I know Haley Barbour made a lot of moves toward an actual campaign before he opted out, but this just feels different.

It seems like the last remaining question as to Perry’s Presidential campaign is: when will it officially begin?

P.S. Intrade investors like this news — Perry is now in second place behind Romney on the big bettor’s board.

The “Family Leader” organization’s “Marriage Pledge,” which they are asking presidential candidates to sign, is attracting supporters and detractors.  Among other things, the Pledge is controversial because it claims that homosexuality is a choice; it lumps homosexuality in with polygamy, polyandry, and adultery; it claims that homosexuality is a public health risk; it requires presidential candidates to affirm that sex is more enjoyable after marriage; advocates a ban on pornography; requires candidates to speak out against Muslims who would try to impose sharia law on Americans (a threat that many see as McCarthyist hysteria); and implied that blacks were better off under slavery (a blurb that was removed from the pledge and apologized for, a matter of hours ago).

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum both eagerly signed on to it within a matter of hours after the Pledge was made available.  Bachmann stated she had “no qualms with” the Pledge at all.  Santorum noted that he was “taken aback” a bit by some of the sections of the Pledge, but ultimately came down in favor of signing it.

Other candidates have tried to side-skirt it: Huntsman says he’s not signing any pledges whatsoever (but released a statement that he’s a strong supporter of the “traditional” definition of marriage), Paul said he had “reservations” about it, Pawlenty said he needed more time to review it, and Romney, Gingrich, Cain, and Obama are all ignoring it.

One candidate, however, launched an all-out offensive against it, calling it “offensive” and saying that it goes against the oldest, core principles of the Republican Party.  Gary Johnson released a statement saying, “The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded. We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the ‘public’s pocket book’.  This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.”

He also addressed the Pledge with a new web ad, entitled “Tolerance is American”:

Energy Secretary Steven Chu — you remember Chu, don’t you? He’s the guy who upon entering office remarked, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Anyway, he held a conference call with reporters last Friday. It concerned the new bill in the House that will lift the ban on incandescent light bulbs. The ban is due to take effect in less than six months.

This is what he told reporters:

“We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money”

This is coming from an administration that wasted nearly a trillion dollars of borrowed money on a stimulus package that failed to achieve a single one of its stated goals.

I guess they want to make wasting our money a government monopoly.

Sorry about the short hiatus. Lots of Miscellany has piled up in the bookmark file (it may take a few weeks to work through the backlog). Please add your own in the comments.

Re-Branding Al-Qaeda

According to The Telegraph, Osama Bin-Laden was considering a name change for his organization. Bob Garfield at Advertising Age takes off with that idea in a very funny short piece that begins …

To: Trevor@GloboMarque.com
From: OBL@ISI.gov.pk

Loved your work with Philip Morris and Comcast, Allah be praised. Looking for something more accessible, but not too touchy-feely. Wish to communicate: Global Caliphate. Crush Zionest Entity. Holy Struggle, blah blah blah. But downplaying exploding underpants and cave cowering. Doable?

Obama Admits That He Hates the US Military

From his ‘Twitter Town Hall’:

“We will have to make tough decisions about Defense spending, or even on programs that I like.”

Rick Santorum Admits That He’s a Hypocrite

“I believe that life begins at conception and that that life should be guaranteed under the constitution. … I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so. I’ve never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers, but I do for people that perform them,” said Santorum.

Interesting that while Santorum thinks abortion is murder, he doesn’t think that the woman hiring the hitman should be charged. Inconsistent much? Of course, even Rick realizes that advocating prosecuting women for getting an abortion would be politically untenable.

Public Education Falls Deeper into the Abyss

As if public schools weren’t sufficiently horrid already, Maryland has decided to waste still more of the school day indoctrinating children with environmentalist propaganda.

Maryland is the first state in the country to impose a new requirement to graduate from high school … environmental literacy.

And you knew this would be coming: Governor O’Malley says that such education will be a “foundation for green jobs.”

From the Miscellany Sports Desk

When the US Women’s team beat North Korea 2-0 in the first round of the World Cup last week, the Korean coach had a novel excuse.

“When we stayed in Pyongyang during training our players were hit by lightning, and more than five of them were hospitalised,” said coach Kim.

“Some stayed in hospital and then came to Germany later than the rest of us. The goalkeeper and the four defenders were most affected, and some midfielders as well. The physicians said the players were not capable of participating in the tournament.

Of course, if I stood a good chance of being thrown in prison for losing a game, I’d have my alibis all lined up in advance, too.

Death of a Kinda OK Magazine

During a period running roughly from 1960 through maybe the early 1980s, Newsweek reached the apogee of its success. This was a period when people would heap lavish praise on it, like “It’s really not much worse than Time”, or “It’s more interesting than US News.”

Unfortunately, those glory days are gone, replaced by this.

Diana at 50

Chilling with the Middletons. Tweeting from Davos. And still the people’s princess. If not for that tragic night, what her life might look like now.

Yes, I’m a Bad Person, but I’m Better Than the Other Bad People Who Do the Same Thing I Do, Because I Feel Bad about Being Bad

A sanctimonious vegetarian sanctimoniously justifies his decision to eat meat.

Well, unlike many other carnivores, I’m at least cognizant of the fact that I’m exploiting animals for my own well-being. While I have made the move to a diet that contains meat, I am not completely at peace with it. I am fully aware and respectful of the fact that the meat on my plate comes at [a] price, that being the life of another animal.

But I have my reasons. My decision to eat meat again was driven by health concerns. I was a vegetarian for over ten years and I did so primarily for ethical reasons. It was in the last several years of being a vegetarian, however, that I grew increasingly concerned about my health. An increasing number of studies started to point at the importance of meat protein and animal fat—not to mention the perils of soy (which was a staple for me). Moreover, my performance at the gym was stalling. My energy levels were consistently low and I was making very little gains. This was an indication to me that something wasn’t right.

So it’s okay to kill and eat animals because your workouts aren’t going well, as long as you’re ‘cognizant’ that that’s why you’re doing it.

Gov. Pawlenty continues his string of impressive bounce-back productions after his controversial Minnesota shutdown ad with a new web video:

I found this one extremely persuasive and compelling. It masterfully emphasized Pawlenty’s record of getting things done in a less-than-favorable political environment, mixed in uplifting oratory, and showcased his personal touch.

What do you think?

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is going through a difficult period in his quest for the Republican nomination for president, although only days ago he had acquired some positive momentum with a speech in Chicago on economic policy. This momentum was lost when he ill-advisedly attacked GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney for “Obamneycare” and then backed away from confronting the former Massachusetts governor. Since that time, Mr. Pawlenty has seemed less sure of himself, and is now the object of some negative media scrutiny.

I have long suggested, however, that Mr. Pawlenty has been generally lucky in this campaign, and that he he has shown not only some original rhetorical approaches, but a gift, already evident in his time as governor, for the felicitous phrase.

The fiscal impasse in his home state between a liberal Democratic governor who wants to “tax the rich,” and a conservative Republican legislature which refuses to raise taxes and wants to slash state spending may provide Mr. Pawlenty with another lucky break.

That is because, instead of dodging the impasse, Mr. Pawlenty has waded into it, recalling for a national audience his eight-year role of not allowing tax increases in the state, and for holding back spending increases. When a group of aging politicians, once prominent in state politics, formed a committee to propose a “third way out” of the impasse, Mr. Pawlenty pounced with one of his trademark political zingers, describing the proposals of the group as a “visit to Jurassic Park.”

These aging politicians included no less than former Vice President Walter Mondale, former Governor Arne Carlson and former U.S. Senator David Durenberger. The latter two served as moderate Republicans; Mondale, of course, served lifelong as a liberal Democrat. All three, however, have moved to, or remained on, the left since leaving office. Mr. Mondale, it should be remembered, sealed the fate of his 1984 presidential bid by proclaiming on national TV that he would raise income taxes. (In full disclosure, I endorsed both Carlson and Durenberger in a newspaper I edited and published in Minneapolis when they first ran for office, and I have praised Mr. Mondale for his long and distinguished public service, culminating with his superb job as U.S. ambassador to Japan under President Bill Clinton. Mr. Carlson, who served as Minnesota governor 1991-1999, was, in my opinion, an excellent governor.}

But that was then. Now these gentlemen have weighed in on the current crisis with sincere but outdated ideas of what constitutes a “compromise” to resolve the impasse. Much of their compromise proposal is conventional, i.e., raising the user taxes on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages, lowering the state’s (high) overall sales tax, but broadening it to include items not now taxed, and lowering state spending (the most realistic part). But a final and key component of their “third way” budget resolution is to add a temporary 4% increased income tax liability to all Minnesotans. Their rationale for this was that “everyone should be part of the solution.” Governor Dayton promptly thanked the group, composed mostly of those who supported him or his Independence Party opponent, but not the Republican candidate, in the last election, and strongly rejected the 4% tax increase, saying he wanted only rich Minnesota taxpayers to help pay for the budget shortfall. Republicans predictably rebuffed the whole proposal.

I do think this committee meant well, but being composed mostly of politicians of the past, they simply did not understand the nature of the dispute. Governor Pawlenty’s phrase describing the “third way” proposal as a visit to Jurassic Park captured the sense that those who see increased taxes as a viable component of a solution to the impasse are, in effect, political dinosaurs, living in a past age.

There seems to be some misunderstanding in the national media that Minnesota is still the “liberal” state it was twenty-five years ago in the era when Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale were national figures from the state. Mr. Pawlenty is being a bit disingenuous when he describes Minnesota as a “blue” state as, for example, Massachusetts still is. Until 2010, no Democrat had been elected governor of Minnesota since 1986. After 1990, Minnesota had numerous Republican U.S. senators, as well as U.S. members of Congress. Minnesota cannot be described as a “red” state, it is true, but it has become more of a centrist state. In fact, statewide polls reveal that the largest bloc of voters (about 40%) consider themselves independents. Since 1998 (when Jesse Ventura was elected governor), the centrist Independence Party has meant the difference in all of the gubernatorial races, as well as some of the senate and congressional races.

The lesson of the 2010 national and state elections was that most voters have reached the end of the road in their toleration of tax-and-spend post-New Deal economics. Accumulated entitlements over the past 50 years have brought the nation to the brink of economic failure, with deficits, unfunded liabilities and the cost of government and bureaucracy out of control. The imposition of Obamacare, or mandated federal health insurance, was the final straw as voters revolted, putting Republicans promising no more tax increases, reduced spending and smaller government back in Washington, DC and many state capitals.

Any resolution to the impasse in Minnesota will have to take this political reality into account. Accusing Republican legislators of being unwilling to compromise because they refuse to raise taxes is to try to pretend that 2010 did not happen. Mr. Obama and Mr. Dayton, are both proponents of “tax the rich” redistributionist economics that had a heyday in the 1930’s, but they sound increasingly “prehistoric” to the voters of today. Republicans in the U.S. Congress or in the Minnesota legislature who would accede to this kind of economics would almost instantly feel the wrath of the persons who count most in this whole confrontation, the electorate.
_____________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.

This is one of the first polls released by the newly incorporated, Texas-based Azimuth Research Group.  The poll obviously caught my eye because my horse in the race (Johnson) is doing quite well, but I’ll be honest and ask the reader to take it with a pinch of salt.  Azimuth polls both regular registered voters and “highly active” grassroots activists, rather than pulling names just from voter registration lists alone.  In this regard, it appears they are more of a hybrid between the traditional Gallup style poll and, say, National Journal’s Insider polls.  An interesting and perhaps risky methodology for a young polling company–they will have the chance to see their innovative methods either vindicated or discredited when the final ballots are cast on election day.

Azimuth Texas 2012 Republican Primary Survey

• Ron Paul 22%
• Rick Perry 17%
• Herman Cain 14%
• Newt Gingrich 11%
• Gary Johnson 9%
• Mitt Romney 8%
• Michele Bachmann 7%
• Tim Pawlenty 2%
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Undecided 7%

(more…)

Many people say his undiluted limited government viewpoints make him a long shot candidate, but the man sure knows a thing or two about growing private sector jobs.  Gov. Gary Johnson sends President Obama a jobs plan so effectively simple that it fits on a postcard:

July 8, 2011, Sante Fe, NM – Presidential candidate Gary Johnson has responded to today’s dismal jobs report by sending the White House and Congress a plan for kick-starting private sector job creation – and the plan fits on a postcard.

Urging three immediate steps: Eliminating the corporate income tax; cutting spending immediately by $300 billion to offset the temporary loss of revenue; and directing that regulations and their implementation meet a standard of creating certainty for employers, Johnson said, “With a June unemployment rate of 9.2% and the fewest new jobs added in nine months,  it’s time for Washington to stop fiddling while Rome is burning.  We’ve tried government ‘stimulus’ – all it did was bankrupt us.  We’ve heard a lot of talk about cutting spending and reducing job-killing debt, but it hasn’t happened.  And now we’re watching as our leaders quibble over tax loopholes and long-term spending reductions that may or may not actually happen.

“Americans can’t wait any longer for the hand-wringing to produce results.  If Congress would do three simple things, and they could do them next week with straight up –or-down votes, I guarantee that we would see historic job creation almost overnight.

“First, instead of giving lip service to the need to reduce the corporate tax rate, just eliminate the tax altogether.  It is double taxation, and the current 35% rate is among the highest of producing nations.  Eliminate it, and instead of watching jobs go overseas, we would see the U.S. become the undisputed job magnet of the world.

“Recognizing that eliminating the corporate tax may cause a temporary loss of revenue and increase the deficit – at least on paper, Congress and the President can, next week, mandate immediate spending reductions of $300 billion.  If they need help figuring out how to do that, I’m available.  One place to start might be the wars and nation-building we don’t need to be fighting or doing.  Clearly, more cuts are needed, and as president, I would submit a balanced budget for 2013.

“Finally, one can argue that the greatest obstacle to job creation in the private sector is uncertainty.  From the dark cloud of health care reform and its costs to a host of other regulatory machinations coming from Washington, investors and employers have no clue what their costs are going to be or what the competitive landscape will be going forward.  The President has tremendous power to adjust or even stop regulatory policies and enforcement that are preventing job creation, and the Administration and Congress need to focus like a laser on doing so.

“The politicians in DC like to make us think these types of actions are complicated and difficult.  They aren’t.  Certainly, we need comprehensive tax reform, such as a FairTax.  And we need to cut trillions, not billions, from spending and balance the budget.  And not all regulations are evil.  But right now, today, we are in crisis.  These simple, straightforward, steps will do more to create millions of jobs in America – quickly – than all the stimulus and budget hand-wringing Washington has ever dreamed of.  And yes, if they wanted to, Congress and the President could do these three things next week.”

Do you remember near the start of Obama’s term when he slammed people who went to Las Vegas? Twice? Business in Las Vegas immediately took a turn for the worse, causing even Obama’s ever faithful lapdog, Harry Reid, to criticize the President  for being so callous about the consequences of what he says.

Well, our Clueless-in-chief is at it again. This time, he’s demonizing those evil corporate jets. The all-too-predictable results?

Much has been made of President Barack Obama’s repeated demonizing of corporate jets and the people who fly on them in his June 29th press conference.

While pundits and politicians haggle over whether alterations in the depreciation schedule of corporate jets will actually have an impact on the deficit, those in the general aviation trenches are furious.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPO) President Craig Fuller told The Daily Caller that Obama’s comments have cast a pall over the industry, causing many who were considering buying a plane to back away from making a purchase.

“The industry has suffered terribly in the last two and a half years and it has just started to recover. Most of the signs were starting to look good,” said Fuller. “We are so angry as an industry and we have all come together to try to bring a more fair and balanced description to the debate.”

Tim Pawlenty has acknowledged that his campaign is entering a crucial time. Reports the AP:

AMES, Iowa (AP) — Trailing in polls and low on cash, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is betting the future of his presidential campaign on Iowa, where a late summer test vote could make or break him.

“We look to the Ames straw poll as a chance to show improvement,” Pawlenty said in an interview this week, acknowledging his lagging fortunes as he opened a 15-day Iowa campaign stretch a month before the state popularity contest that’s often a launch pad or cemetery for White House hopefuls. “We have to show some reasonable improvement at the straw poll, and then we’ve got to be in a position to win, or come close to it, in the caucuses.”

The Iowa Republican Party’s Aug. 13 straw poll has become Pawlenty’s sole focus six months before the state’s leadoff presidential caucuses, and for good reason.

By traditional measures, the low-key Midwesterner has little to show for his efforts to raise his profile and build a winning campaign since he first visited politically important Iowa in November 2009. He has the largest staff of any candidate for Iowa’s caucuses but registered support from just 6 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers in a recent Des Moines Register poll.

He acknowledged in the interview that this week begins a critical test for him in Iowa, where he’s supplementing his two-week visit with a new television ad and mailbox brochures all aimed at building support for the straw poll.

“You can’t really have an impact until you have a sustained concerted series of campaign activities, backed up by mail and media and that’s what we’re doing now,” he said.

It is hard to see how Tim Pawlenty can continue if he doesn’t do well in the Ames Straw Poll. Reports the New York Times:

AMES, Iowa — Tim Pawlenty was first in line to enter the Republican presidential race. He is now fighting to avoid becoming the earliest major candidate to be shown the door.

No contender for the Republican nomination has followed the conventional playbook more than Mr. Pawlenty, a former governor of Minnesota who began introducing himself two years ago during a prospecting trip to Iowa. Yet his path has been complicated by fresher faces, an unruly nominating contest and a handful of missteps that swallowed his summer momentum.

The voting will not open for at least six months, but Mr. Pawlenty knows that his performance at the Iowa Straw Poll on Aug. 13 — fair or not — will help determine whether his candidacy accelerates or lands in the annals of Republican presidential hopefuls like Elizabeth Dole, Lamar Alexander and Dan Quayle whose campaigns were extinguished here.

Pawlenty has been working his tail off in Iowa for two years now. According to Smack, our resident TPaw-head, his ground game in the Buckeye State is second to none. That is great, but it is also a two-edged sword. It improves his chances, but it also raises his expectations even higher. He should win Ames easily. If he doesn’t…

Question: What’s the worst finish Pawlenty can endure in Ames and still be considered a viable candidate? What is his floor? My gut feeling (and I’m certainly no expert on Iowa politics) is it has to be an extremely close second place; one that is a statistical tie with first place. If he does that he can labor on, hoping the winner is a flash in the pan. Any worse than that and I’m afraid it’s, “Thank you for playing. You’ve been a great contestant. We have some nice parting gifts for you on your way out.”

That would be a crying shame considering all the hard work he’s put in, but as the French say, “c’est la vie“. Such is life.

PPP has released the results of their vs. Obama poll in Pennsylvania. Here they are:

To nobody’s surprise, Mitt Romney does the best in the keystone state. Nobody is really surprised either by Sarah Palin’s last place finish. Bachmann and Pawlenty are neck and neck with Bachmann having a slight lead. Cain continues to have difficulty gaining much traction for his campaign. More on Santorum later.

PPP last polled Pennsylvania back in April. Here are April’s results side by side with this month’s results:

Everyone has slid back in the last three months. Romney dropped a point. Palin slid back three. Drops of one or three points are little more than statistical noise. The big news has to be how badly Santorum has stumbled.

Rick Santorum is a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. Dropping eight points in three months to where he now trails Obama by double digits in his own state has got to hurt. What has happened to Mr. Santorum?

In the wake of the unemployment rate rising to 9.2%, Gov. Mitt Romney has taken the opportunity to strike back at President Obama’s chief political strategist, David Plouffe.  Plouffe, who has lead a recent string of attacks against the former Massachusetts governor, seemed to step in it the other day when declaring that “unemployment won’t matter” when it comes to the President’s reelection. Team Romney has pounced:

“Today’s abysmal jobs report confirms what we all know – that President Obama has failed to get this economy moving again. Just this week, President Obama’s closest White House adviser said that ‘unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers’ do not matter to the average American.

“If David Plouffe were working for me, I would fire him and then he could experience firsthand the pain of unemployment. His comments are an insult to the more than 20 million people who are out of work, underemployed or who have simply stopped looking for jobs. With their cavalier attitude about the economy, the White House has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of indifference.”

The AP is reporting:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Hiring slowed to a near-standstill last month. Employers added the fewest jobs in nine months and the unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent.

The Labor Department says the economy generated only 18,000 net jobs in June. And the number of jobs added in May was revised down to 25,000.

High gas prices and supply-chain disruptions stemming from the Japan crisis and the weak housing market have slowed the economy. Average hourly wages declined last month. After-tax incomes, adjusted for inflation, have been flat this year.

Businesses added the fewest jobs in more than a year. Governments cut 39,000 jobs.

Hiring has slowed sharply in the past two months. The economy added an average of 215,000 jobs per month in the previous three months.

This is certainly bad economic news, which is never good news for a sitting President. However, if you look closely, you will find really bad news for Barack Obama buried within the article.

Read through the article again. See if you can see that really bad news for the President might be?

It’s simple. Nowhere in the article do they use the word “unexpected”. Almost always before when reporting bad economic news, the media has tried to soften the impact on the administration by describing it as “unexpected” or by using similar words. It has become a running joke in conservative circles.

Well, not this time. Is it possible that even the sycophants in the news media are starting to realize that bad economic news is the norm under this administration and not the exception?

Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

Dave P. wrote the following over at Mitt Romney Central:

Let’s say that you, the reader, live in a town. This town has fifty families or households residing in it. Out of the blue, your kids start ignoring their homework and doing other activities instead: texting, playing video games, chatting on their favorite political website (…), or whatever it might be. As a responsible parent, you see the need to create a plan to get them to do their homework. You know what ultimately motivates your children, so the plan you institute begins to work and your kids start completing their homework again. It’s not perfect, but it works 98% of the time.

Meanwhile, the mayor of your town had actually desired to pass a law on how families enforce homework completion for quite some time. Without talking to you or asking you about what worked and what didn’t in your plan, the mayor passes an ordinance requiring all families to use methods similar to the ones you developed for your kids. He also throws in a bunch of other invasive requirements as well. Next, the mayor starts publicly praising the plan you created for your home and says that it was the inspiration for his law. Naturally, many of the people in the town are angry about being forced to adopt the new methods and are looking for someone to blame. Who should they rightfully be upset with about this new law, you or the mayor?

Interesting question, no?

This is not the way you want to start your Friday off, as the narrative begins to solidify and Pawlenty just adds more fuel to the fire.

First, opening up the New York Times this morning, Pawlenty will read this:

“Tim Pawlenty was first in line to enter the Republican presidential race. He is now fighting to avoid becoming the earliest major candidate to be shown the door.”

They go on to compare him to Elizabeth Dole, Dan Quayle, and Lamar Alexander, who all dropped out of their races after poor showings in the Ames Straw Poll. Not exactly parallels you’d like to draw as a candidate.

Then, flipping over to the Des Moines Register, he will read their write-up of an interview he did with their editorial board — an interview which is bound to have all of his aides banging their heads against a wall.

In the interview, Pawlenty explains that he’s trailing in the Iowa polls because he hasn’t really been campaigning in the state yet. In fact, he says, “this week is the first time that I’ve campaigned in earnest in Iowa.” I imagine the DMR editorial board had to withhold guffaws of laughter at this point; indeed, the quote is so preposterous they decided to headline the piece with it.

Consider that since the beginning of 2011, Pawlenty has held at least 26 different campaign events in Iowa. And he’s actually been campaigning in Iowa for two years now, making over 50 stops in the state dating back to 2009. The DMR editorial board points out that Pawlenty has actually spent more time in Iowa than any other candidate other than Rick Santorum.

But that’s not the worst of the self-inflicted damage from the DMR interview. No, that probably comes while fielding a question about Minnesota property taxes, which increased 54% statewide under Pawlenty’s governorship. The charge is that because Pawlenty cut state funding to cities and counties, they had to raise property taxes to make up the difference. Pawlenty explained that the localities didn’t have to raise property taxes, however. They had a choice. What could they have done with their newly acquired budget shortfalls?

“They could have laid people off.”

That is, quite literally, Pawlenty’s response.

Hey, don’t blame me. They didn’t have to raise taxes. They could have laid people off.

Brilliant move, Governor Pawlenty.

But maybe the Pawlenty campaign doesn’t have to worry so much about those stray comments, because voters will be busy reading… an AP article reported by CBS that notes Minnesota’s bond rating is being downgraded because of the budgetary mess there. In fact, Jim Schowalter, who is currently the Management and Budget Commissioner but served as the State Budget Director from 2004-2010, blamed the budget problems on “years of temporary budget fixes.”

Temporary budget fixes that were utilized by none other than Tim Pawlenty.

Ouch. Well, there is still hope. Maybe Pawlenty will get lucky and voters will just ignore all three of those articles — and focus instead on the USA Today one where he reveals that he likes Lady Gaga. And maybe he should stick to those kinds of interview questions for the next five weeks or so.

The second quarter of fundraising is behind us (though we still await the numbers from Santorum, Johnson, and Bachmann – and await the official numbers from the FEC). Traditionally, after this round of fundraising, at least one candidate drops out of the race after they realize they don’t measure up: in 2000, Smith and Kasich both hung up their cleats, and in 2004 Jim Gilmore waved the Presidential campaign trail goodbye in mid-July.

At this point in the 2012 primary campaign, we still have three potential White Knights waiting in the wings, too. The political world awaits to see if Giuliani, Palin, or Perry will jump in the race to “save” the GOP.

So I offer you, our readers, a prediction challenge. Which event will occur first – a currently announced candidate dropping out of the race, or a White Knight jumping in?

For bonus points, tell us who it will be, too. My prediction will be in the comments.

Senator Rubio recently spoke on jobs. He really nails it:

Let’s stop talking about new taxes and start talking about new taxpayers, which means jobs. This debt is the No. 1 issue on everyone’s minds and rightfully so. It is a major issue, but everywhere else, in the real world, the No. 1 issue on people’s minds is jobs. And I tell you, every other problem facing America — a mortgage crisis, a home foreclosure crisis, this debt problem — all of these issues get easier to deal with if people are gainfully employed across America. And the impact that unemployment is having across this country is devastating.

…

We don’t need new taxes, we need new taxpayers, people who are gainfully employed, making money, paying into the tax system and then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again.

…

So you look at all these taxes that are being proposed and here’s what I say: I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue No. 1 in America. I want to know which one of these taxes they’re proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs will be created by the planes tax. I want to know how many jobs will be created by the oil company tax that I’ve heard so much about. How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires that the president talks about? I want to know! How many jobs do they create?

…

I have never met a job creator who told me that they were waiting for the next tax increase before they started growing their business. I’ve never met a single job creator who has ever said to me I can’t wait ’til government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job. I’m curious to know if they say that in New Hampshire because they don’t say that in Florida. So my view on all that is, I want to know how many of these tax increases the president proposes will create because if they’re not creating jobs and they’re not creating new taxpayers, they’re not solving the problem.

Here is a man who truly gets it; who can lay it out in simple and direct terms. Whoever our nominee for President eventually is, I can’t think of a better person right now for the Vice Presidential slot than U.S. Senator Marco Antonio Rubio of Florida.

Unlike someone else we could mention.

This was in the NYTimes:

Mr. Romney told reporters that he was in London for meetings with officials. He met Wednesday with former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his wife, Cherie, as well as Britain’s minister of defense, Liam Fox, with whom, he said, he discussed “global affairs.”

A British government official who requested anonymity to discuss a private meeting said Mr. Romney would also be meeting with Britain’s national security adviser, Peter Ricketts, and other officials Thursday afternoon. Prime Minister David Cameron “might stop by,” the official said, though there were no concrete plans for the two men to meet.

Mitt was able to meet with Prime Minister Cameron. Here’s a picture of the meeting:

And while he was in London, he attended a fundraiser:

Mitt Romney told reporters outside a lavish town house in the heart of the upscale Mayfair neighborhood on Wednesday evening that he was “meeting a few friends” while in London. The invitation from his campaign to attend an evening reception, on a street where a house was listed recently for $26 million, was more candid: “Suggested contribution to Romney for President: $2,500 per person.”

The event’s co-chairmen and co-chairwomen included the hedge fund billionaire Louis Bacon, the New York Jets owner Woody Johnson and two dozen others, mostly drawn from London’s still-booming financial sector. The perfectly coiffed guests were deposited by a series of sleek limousines.

…

A statement about the reception from the Romney campaign referred to his support among “Americans living abroad,” and touched on issues like the weak economy and slow job market in the United States, but did not mention fund-raising outright.

Hmmmm. Have you ever noticed how the NYTimes likes to portray Republicans and conservatives as either the rich elite or ignorant bare-footed country bumpkins clinging to their Bibles and guns?

Be that as it may, Mitt had a very busy trip. He’s flying home this evening.

The Pawlenty campaign just released this video:

Aside from the fact that the Governor’s remarks become difficult to hear at times, this represents a nice bounce-back from the somewhat-controversial “Results, Not Rhetoric” ad.

After an initially rocky start to the deficit negotiations between President Obama and Congress, chronicled by none other than this blog, the proceedings have reportedly taken a positive turn, with an unexpected figure – President Obama – leading (dare I say?) the charge:

President Obama said Thursday that a new round of deficit-reduction talks with congressional leaders from both parties was “very constructive” but produced no immediate breakthrough. He also announced that the negotiators will reconvene at the White House on Sunday to try to break a stalemate over raising the nation’s debt limit.

…The White House meeting, which began shortly after 11 a.m., came as Obama pressed lawmakers to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

…Before sitting down for the negotiations with Obama, Vice President Biden, top aides and Democratic lawmakers, House Republican leaders emphasized Thursday morning that progress toward as much as $2 trillion in deficit savings has already been made. But they also renewed their pledge to oppose the inclusion of any tax increases in a final deal.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), one of the participants in the talks, said Republicans will insist that spending cuts in a deficit-reduction package “exceed the amount of the debt ceiling increase.”

…In private talks with the White House, Boehner has discussed various options for tax policy. One idea under discussion, according to aides in both parties, is a proposal to jump-start a thorough rewrite of the tax code.

Under that scenario, Republicans would agree to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class, leaving open the possibility that the Bush tax cuts that benefit the nation’s wealthiest households would expire next year. That would be a huge win for Democrats, who have long pledged to end tax breaks for the wealthy.

In return, Democrats would agree to a rewrite of the tax code that would eliminate dozens of tax breaks and use the cash to lower income tax rates, a GOP priority. But skeptical aides in both parties said it would be difficult to craft a mechanism that could force lawmakers to follow through.

Of course, skepticism still looms large among the punditocracy. James Pethokoukis suspects that a massive portion of the spending cuts will come simply from reductions in baseline defense outlays:

Instead, I would expect more than $1 trillion in savings from defense cuts, most of which will be tweaking the baseline of projected spending, which assumed perpetual war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And Grover Nordquist’s influential Americans for Tax Reform cautions us that Republicans have fallen victim to hollow promises to cut spending by Democrats in the past:

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush was promised $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes by Congressional Democrats. That’s not what happened.

…All $137 billion in tax hikes went through…Not only did the $274 billion in promised baseline spending cuts never materialize–baseline spending was actually $22 billion higher than what CBO projected it would be before the deal. This despite another tax hike/baseline spending cut deal in 1993 (the Clinton tax hike) and the GOP takeover of Congress in 1995.

Me? I just feel grateful that we might actually see some reform of our ridiculously convoluted tax code. That alone would free up billions of dollars frittered on tax compliance and avoidance to flow to value-added activities.

However, on the downside, a “grand deal” would go a long way toward improving Obama’s chances for re-election. While he would still have the economy to worry about, he would give himself more ammunition to advance the “gutsy when the going gets tough” argument his campaign will formulate (see: health care, bin Laden, deficit).

A long-term deal to address the U.S.’s fiscal situation would provide a field day for the media, which loves to trumpet Obama’s actions with favorable headlines (you can see it now: “Obama Brokers Deficit Deal”), further enhancing his appeal among the lower-information Independents who largely decide presidential elections. This type of voter may find themselves drawn to the media narrative that may arise: “Obama knows how to rise above partisan bickering and get things done on the most pressing issues of our time.”

Still, if the budget talks continue on their upward trajectory, I, for one, will largely put my political concerns aside to appreciate the potential for a plan to, quite literally, save our country.

PPP’s latest vs. Obama poll for New Hampshire is out. Here are the main results:

Romney is the only one that leads Obama in a state the President took by 10 pts in 2008.

Bachmann and Pawlenty both trail the President by seven points with Bachmann just a little better on the raw data.

Obama defeats Palin and Cain without even breaking a sweat.

Don’t feel too badly for Sarah Palin. Even though she is dead last again, she has showed a marked improvement from the last time PPP polled the state back in April.

That is an improvement of seven points in only three months. At that rate, she will tie with Obama somewhere around Thanksgiving this year.

All Republicans showed an improvement over Obama in the past three months. Back then, all were negative with only Romney being in negative single digits.  This time around, Mitt is in positive territory, and Bachmann and Pawlenty are both in single digit negative territory. Our current fourth place finisher, Hermann Cain, still finishes three points ahead of April’s second place finisher.

Things are definitely looking up for the party.