From the official release:

President Obama’s call for nearly a half-trillion dollars in more government stimulus when America has more than $14 trillion in debt is guided by his mistaken belief that we can spend our way to prosperity.

Like the president’s earlier $800 billion stimulus program, this proposal offers little hope for millions of Americans who have lost jobs on his watch, and taxpayers who are rightly concerned that their children will inherit a mountain of debt.

America needs jobs, smaller government, less spending and a president with the courage to offer more than yet another speech.

Herman Cain released his press statement response to the President’s jobs speech. Based on its size, I decided to put the quote below the fold (more…)

On the heels of President Obama’s joint address to Congress tonight, the Mitt Romney campaign released the following video:

Nicely done, if I may say so – straightforward, unambiguous, and persuasive. The Governor has assembled a fine ad team.

Judging who wins and loses a debate is a very subjective task, and in the case of a major party presidential debate, the subjectivity is often magnified by the judge’s (pundit’s) personal preferences.

I am not supporting any of the candidates who were on the stage last night, although I have repeatedly contended that Mitt Romney is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination (many respected colleagues do not agree with me on this, including my friend the dean of the DC press corps, Michael Barone). Indeed, over the past three weeks, the precipitous rise in the polls of newly-entered candidate, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, has seemed to signal that Mr. Romney is no longer the favorite for the nomination.

Most attention, therefore, was on Mr. Perry’s performance last night, and on the comparison with him and Mr Romney. My judgment is, and some will no doubt see it differently, is that Mr Romney once more demonstrated why he has been the frontrunner until now (and why he continues to be). His poise, command of the subjects raised, and quick rejoinder to Mr. Perry’s criticism was the most “presidential” of the evening. Moreover, his performance, I think, has temporarily halted Mr. Perry’s sudden momentum.

Governor Perry did well last night overall, although his lack of experience at these debates perhaps led him to miss opportunities to explain some of his controversial comments prior to the debate. Most notable of this was his failure to explain his allegation that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme.” This was a high-risk comment he made recently, and the debate was his opportunity to clarify what he meant. Yes, there are aspects of Social Security today that resemble the notorious scam (most notably the fact that recipients are receiving more than they put into the Social Security Trust Fund), but unlike a Ponzi scheme, Social Security can easily be repaired, albeit with some sacrifice, and further, it was not ever an intentional fraud making an individual perpetrator rich at the expense of his or her victims. Most damaging, by not explaining himself, Mr. Perry made himself vulnerable to both his Republican rivals and, eventually to President Obama, who will highlight Mr. Perry’s criticism of Social Security to millions of seniors (and voters) now receiving the program’s benefits, leaving the impression that he might try to end the program (which, to be fair, does not seem to be his intent). Nevertheless, Mr. Perry will have other opportunities to show his “stuff” in the months ahead.

Michelle Bachmann, whose own momentum was recentlly blocked when Mr. Perry entered the race (in spite of her having just won the Iowa Straw Poll), was relatively invisible at the Santa Barbara debate. But, while some have now dismissed Mrs. Bachmann as a one-day wonder, I think she still has cards to play in the caucuses and primaries ahead in February and March.

Newt Gingrich once again had the applause line of the debate when he criticized debate moderators for “trying to create conflict between the candidates on the stage,” and for not asking serious enough questions. He has served as a lone voice for improving the debates until now. (In full disclosure, I worked with Mr. Gingrich in creating and producing the 2006 Cooper Union dialogue between himself and former Governor Mario Cuomo of New York, and co-wrote a published op ed with him calling for a better debate system in 2008.] It’s clear to me that the quality of the questions depends on those who ask them, and on the moderators. Although the questions at the Santa Barbara debate were somewhat better than at earlier debates, the moderators and questioners (many of whom are politically hostile to the GOP candidates) are still too obsessed with sensational (but superficial) issues and constrained by their own biases in forming the questions. The lack of major neutral and conservative journalists as moderators and questioners at these debates so far is frankly a scandal, and I don’t know why more of the candidates (aside from Mr. Gingrich) are not complaining about this.

There were others on the stage, most notably former Utah Governor Jon Hunstman, but, barring some remarkable new development, they are not now likely to emerge as major contestants once the actual voting takes place.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie were the only major potential candidates not at the Santa Barbara debate. Neither are likely to enter the race in 2012, although if Governor Christie were participating in these debates, the whole race might be turned upside down.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

It couldn’t stay cordial for long folks… Perry does seem to have a point in the sense that Romney compared Social Security to a criminal enterprise in his book, No Apologies:

Mitt Romney’s Social Insecurity

Last night, Romney said, “Under no circumstances would I ever say, by any measure, it’s a failure. It is working for millions of Americans.”

However, in his book “No Apology: The Case For American Greatness”, which was published just last year, Romney compared those managing Social Security to criminals, saying:

“Let’s look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing. Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren’s education. Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for its own purposes, so that when the grandchildren turned eighteen, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years.”

Romney also says in his book, “To put it in a nutshell, the American people have been effectively defrauded out of their Social Security.”

“In his book, Romney compared Social Security to a fraudulent criminal enterprise, but last night he ran from his position,” said spokesman Ray Sullivan. “His evolving and inconsistent position on this important issue is curious, but unfortunately not unusual.”

Not only has Romney compared Social Security to a criminal enterprise, he said just two weeks ago in New Hampshire:

“I don’t know of any Republican whose running for office who said they want to cut Social Security or Medicare benefits to people who are retired or near retirement. Not one, I haven’t heard a word of it…so Republicans, like myself, are not gonna cut social security or Medicare for people who are retired or near retirement. And for the people who say we are, they are demagoguing an issue very much that harms America. Because we need to be truthful on this.” (8/24/11, Lebanon, New Hampshire)

“Governor Perry believes that Social Security for current beneficiaries, and those nearing retirement, can and must be protected,” said Sullivan. “Additionally, citizens of all ages, experts and elected officials must seriously discuss reforms to Social Security to make it financially sound and sustainable for the long haul.”

“Americans want a leader to speak honestly about the financial challenges facing our nation,” said Sullivan. “Traditional political rhetoric and tap-dancing don’t comfort Americans deeply concerned about the future of our nation.”

Will this turn into a replay of the Ron vs. Rudy feud of the ’08 campaign?

Dear Governor Perry,

After our campaign’s first ad highlighting your Big Government record and support for liberal Al Gore, your campaign is attacking Dr. Paul – missing the point of why your past is important.

We don’t think the fact that you used to be a Democrat is the big problem here.  The real problem is that, too often, you still act like one.  Even you yourself, Governor Perry, said of your party switch, “I will still vote the same principles, only with an R after my name.”

That’s the kind of thinking that has our country teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.  We cannot afford to nominate someone who thinks the letter next to their name is more important than what they believe.

Governor Perry, let me be clear: It is not that you supported Al Gore that worries us.

It is that you supported Hillary Clinton’s health care plan.

You pushed for a federal bailout and stimulus funds.

You support welfare for illegal immigrants.

You tried to forcibly vaccinate 12-year-old girls against sexually transmitted diseases by executive order.

You raised taxes twice.

And, state debt has more than doubled in your tenure as governor, pushing Texas to the brink of our constitutional debt limit.

It’s that you supported ALL of these bad ideas that are inconsistent with how most Republicans understand conservatism, yet you now try to swagger your way into the Tea Party.

Governor Perry, with all due respect, you have used great rhetoric.  But you will have to answer to the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and across the country as to why that rhetoric does not match your record.

Truth indeed.  By the way, here’s the ad again.

For Liberty,

Jesse Benton
Campaign Chairman

P.S. You can view a snippet of my exclusive interview with Mr. Benton here.

Rasmussen Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Survey

I’m going to read you a short list of people in the news. For each, please let me know if it would be more accurate to describe that person’s views as mainstream or extreme.

Mitt Romney

• Mainstream 64%
• Extreme 16%
• Not sure 20%

Herman Cain

• Mainstream 48%
• Extreme 19%
• Not sure 33%

Rick Perry

• Mainstream 50%
• Extreme 27%
• Not sure 23%

Newt Gingrich

• Mainstream 50%
• Extreme 29%
• Not sure 21%

Michele Bachmann

• Mainstream 50%
• Extreme 34%
• Not sure 15%

Rick Santorum

• Mainstream 40%
• Extreme 25%
• Not sure 35%

Jon Huntsman

• Mainstream 27%
• Extreme 27%
• Not sure 47%

Thad McCotter

• Mainstream 15%
• Extreme 21%
• Not sure 63%

Ron Paul

• Mainstream 29%
• Extreme 52%
• Not sure 20%

Survey of 862 likely GOP caucus participants was conducted August 31, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

The International Business Times has the scoop:

During the Sept. 7 Republican debate, Ron Paul clashed with fellow Texan Rick Perry once again.

This time, things got physical.

During a commercial break, Perry walked up to Paul’s podium, physically grabbed Paul’s wrist, and pointed at Paul’s face with his other hand.

Perry and Paul were placed next to each other at the center for the Republican debate.

Before the physical exchange, the war of words between Paul and Perry was perhaps even more heated.

Be sure to click the link and read the full report and to see the Reuters photo of the incident, which I cannot reproduce here due to copyright.

Yesterday, Conserative Home published an op-ed by former Race42012 contributor Dustin Siggins and me.  I initially posted this yesterday but then figured it made much more sense to wait until today, so we had time to discuss and process last night’s debate.  Without further ado:

With President Obama making a major speech about jobs this week, and the House GOP, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman putting forth their own plans in response, it appears employment will finally be on the forefront of the public debate. This year’s often vitriol-filled discussions of the United States’ bleak fiscal future, despite their intensive media coverage, have overlooked a stark reality: millions of Americans still sit out of work. Paul Krugman gets a rare cheer for a recent column in which he hammered Washington for replacing leadership with gamesmanship.

Let’s be clear: the national debt is the greatest issue facing America. However, to achieve long-lasting success, any plan to balance the budget must encourage job growth. A growing economy will do a great deal to shrink the deficit as it increases tax revenues, and it will enable more Americans to provide for themselves, control their own financial destinies and avoid government dependency. This especially matters to the 115 million Americans aged 5-30, who will become the Debt-Paying Generation (DPG) if our national debt continues to skyrocket.

With some ideas already on the table, and others still being hammered into actual plans, here are some proposals our leadership and potential leaders should embrace:

• Eliminate all tax loopholes and simplify the tax structure. Americans spent 6.1 billion hours and over $160 billion (equivalent to about 40 hours and over $1,000 per working American) complying with just the personal and corporate income tax code in 2010. Certainly, under a flat tax or the FairTax, taxpayers could redeploy these resources in productive activities that would expand the economic pie and thus increase tax revenues. Furthermore, such reforms would eliminate or at least shrink the IRS, taking up to a $13 billion dollar bite out of the deficit.

• Eliminate all subsidies from the government to private companies. The energy industries, for example, received direct subsidies of $37.2 billion in 2010, all at the expense of the American taxpayer— and some at the expense of the poor in this and other countries. Total corporate welfare totaled $92 billion in 2009. These and other subsidies only distort markets, essentially taking productive dollars out of the private sector and redistributing them at the whims of politicians and government bureaucrats.

• Utilize all of America’s energy resources without prejudice. Essentially, get the government out of the way and let each form of energy- from nuclear to oil to hydro to ethanol- stand on its own merits. This will create hundreds of thousands of new high-skill, well-paying, long-lasting jobs in the nuclear and oil industries alone. Additionally, allowing equal competition would create a smaller regulatory bureaucracy in Washington, and eliminate many of the above-mentioned subsidies. This would save the taxpayers money and increase tax revenues, creating a two-fold deficit reduction effect.

• Cut regulations with an axe. The size of the Federal Register, the official record of federal regulations, swelled to nearly 80,000 pages during the Bush administration. To name but a few egregious current examples:

1. The infamous light bulb law, which effectively bans standard incandescent bulbs, has already begun to drive jobs and capital overseas. It also restricts the choices free, law-abiding Americans can make regarding their energy options.
2. According to a 30-year veteran of business ownership interviewed for this piece, the minimum wage is a significant job-killer. Instead of helping low-skill workers, it actually crowds them out of the job market by making their cost to an employer more expensive than the benefit to an employer.
3. “Richard Gale,” a general contractor and member of the Debt-Paying Generation, told us a series of 2010 EPA lead regulations impose significant costs on his business. Formal estimates of the impact on businesses vary, but according to “Richard,” the “cost of training, licensing, lead testing and extensive precautionary measures make the cost of contracting services prohibitive to the customer,” and thus deprive “Richard” of approximately $20,000 in lost annual revenue.
4. Myriad rules and restrictions on energy projects caused a natural gas pipeline, which stretches from Opal, Wyoming to Malin, Oregon, to finish four months late and 23% over budget.

Ours is the longest-lasting recession in several generations, and it is likely to continue for some time— despite the influx of government debt over the last 4 years. At the current pace of job creation vs. debt creation, the Debt-Paying Generation is in serious trouble: according to August 2010 Bureau of Labor Studies statistics, 16-24 year olds have an unemployment rate of over 20%. An entire subsection of young people is losing the opportunities necessary to garner job skills, grow their retirement savings and purchase their first home. And while the spending cuts we recommend won’t balance the budget, they represent a serious down payment that will grant politicians a little more time to tackle the “big four” expenses of our federal government: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and national defense.

It heartens us to see influential public figures finally returning their collective focus to unemployment. Now, we challenge them to take matters one step further and offer credible proposals on how to get America back on the path to recovery.

Thoughts? Questions? Concerns? Let us know what you think!

This is what the election will turn on, not Social Security.

Many, including some here on Race42012, are ready to count out Perry saying that he can not win in the general in no small party because he compared Social Security to a Ponzi scheme. No one can ever win a general election with such a comparison, they say, it’s outrageous and silly to consider. But wait…someone did. In 2010. Defeating an incumbent US Senator in a swing state in fact. That man was Ron Johnson, who actually addressed it directly in a TV ad:

If Perry can articulate his stance like this during subsequent debates, I think the commentary will resonate and I think it will not lead to the massive defeat that some like to predict.

HT to Moe Lane

_______________________________________________________

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

Last night’s GOP debate featured 8 participants, but the show clearly centered on the two front-runners of the race. Perry, who currently leads in national polls, was tested on the big stage for the first time in the race. You could also say that Romney was “tested” for the first time, though he had attended a few debates already this year.

As an ardent Romney supporter you need not ask me which I thought had won the debate. Instead, I’d like to show how the media reporters and bloggers have responded instead, and provide a tally of what I found. I searched twitter, news feeds, anything and everything I could find that provided not just a recap of the debate, but instead some sort of opinion of who won the debate. Though there were a good number who put them at a tie, the remaining consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of Romney.

I tallied what I would call significant responses, meaning not people who work for, or were already leaning heavily towards, either camp. And they had to be someone of some sort of influence, ie. blogger, reporter, opinion leader etc. Results were not limited to just conservatives or pundits that I liked.

My tally:
For Romney: 16 news or blog articles, 7 tweets and 2 “other” factors
For Perry: 3* news or blog articles, and 3 tweets.

*One of the blog claims Perry won because “His total liberation from the constraints of reason give Perry a chance to represent the Republican id in a way Romney simply cannot match.” Not really a positive reason for winning. I’ll itemize all the results below. Let me know what I’ve missed – I’m sure more will come in throughout the day.

The Romney Round-up: (in no particular order)
1 – Mark Halperin of The Page: Halperin’s Take: Romney Wins, Perry Stumbles on SS
Grades: Romney A, Perry B+

[Romney's] Main Thing]: Came prepared with clear stats and a good attitude. Showed he won’t back down in the face of the Perry surge. Smart enough to retreat after Perry’s Social Security flap, increasing the odds that it will be the story of the night. Once again, looked fit, at ease, and more like a president than anyone on stage–including his main competition.

…

[Perry's] Main Thing]: Largely followed his advisors’ strategy: severe on Romney without being mean-spirited, solution-oriented when discussing the nation’s problems, adept at dodging unwelcome questions, appealingly loose and accessibly human. But his Social Security answer is sure to get a lot of scrutiny from the press, Democrats and Republicans (Romney included). The press will kill him on climate change, too. Not bad for a first debate, but second best is second best.

(more…)

Coming into last night’s debate, the stakes could not have been higher for Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Perry enjoyed an easy frontrunner status, overtaking Mitt Romney and well ahead in national, Iowa, and South Carolina polls. Romney had to do something to blunt his ascension. Perry had to do something to maintain it. The two men entered the ring, threw their punches, and when the bell rang, Perry left a little bloodied and bruised. He wasn’t KO’d – not by any stretch – but last night’s debate certainly altered the trajectory of this race in Romney’s favor.

Reflecting that, we now have a new (old) leader on top of the Intrade markets. Romney shined and Perry stumbled last night – at least that’s how the Intrade investors are perceiving it. For the first time since mid-July, Mitt Romney is back in the driver’s seat:

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

(By the way, for anyone keeping track: Bachmann has slid more than 12 points in the past two months. She has finally slipped below Ron Paul – next up, Newt Gingrich territory. It appears Michele Bachmann’s only use in this primary was taking down Tim Pawlenty.)

The moment of the night that everyone is talking about is the dust-up between Romney and Perry right at the beginning. Credit MSNBC for knowing how to get viewers sucked in and drive up those ratings. It’s pretty interesting to me to cruise around the internets and read half the pieces that say Romney clearly came out on top in that exchange, and then read the other half that say that exchange was Perry’s strongest moment in the debate.

Maybe those two things aren’t contradictory after all, though.

For me, the best moment for Romney in that exchange was when he listed all the favorable conditions Governor Perry inherited in Texas (Republican legislature, oil and gas in the ground, no income tax, right-to-work state, etc) and then unloaded with this:

“Those are wonderful things, but Governor Perry doesn’t believe that he created those things. If he tried to say that, well, it would be like Al Gore saying he invented the Internet.”

The audience laughter conveyed an obvious enjoyment of the zinger. As an old Communications major in college (graduated ten years ago now… ouch!), I applaud the use of jest and humor to drive a point home. Because of this joke, Romney will stand out in folks’ memories of this exchange more than Perry will. It was a great move, and even had shades of — dare I say it — Mike Huckabee’s one-liners in 2007-08. (Enter angry comments from ex-Huckabee supporters.)

The debate about the debate this morning seems to center around Rick Perry’s answers on two other questions: the death penalty and social security. Perry supporters are calling Romney and his supporters anti-death penalty or pro-entitlement program, big-government goons. In the process, they are completely missing the point.

Speaking for myself, I am pro-death penalty. I am also in favor of completely privatizing social security and getting the federal government out of the retirement fund business. So on paper, I align well with Rick Perry. But it’s not about positions, it’s about packaging. It’s about the messenger chosen to deliver a vision. And Rick Perry’s failing last night was that he was an incredible lousy messenger for conservative principles. He ticks the right boxes, but ticks off a majority of the country in doing so.

His underwhelming performance last night also did nothing to allay the stereotype of him being a dumb cowboy; indeed, it may have inadvertently boosted that image. Combine how he continually paused, searching for words, with his strangely cold defense of the death penalty, and you have exactly what his detractors have been saying from the beginning: a caricature of the worst of Dubya.

Luckily for Rick Perry, this debate isn’t the last before the primaries – it is the opening round in a long, twelve round title bout. And the next round will be held in friendlier confines for Perry: the CNN debate on Monday is co-sponsored by the Tea Party Express and will be somewhat hostile territory for Mitt Romney. Perry should be able to regain some of his lost footing on Monday – provided he does some intense debate prep between now and then.

With last night’s debate behind us, the conservative media has all but come to a consensus on the notion that Texas Gov. Rick Perry blew away his competition in a performance that has earned Perry the mantle of Zombie Reagan. AmSpec is on board. So is Hot Air and NRO. What’s so interesting is that many of these Perry victory laps are so vague, and so over the top, that it’s almost as if the result was pre-determined, and that short of flipping the bird to the audience, Gov. Perry was going to be declared the winner and heir to Reagan by these and many other right-wing sites and commentators.

As a certain president is fond of saying, let me be clear: Rick Perry did not win last night’s debate. He didn’t win it on points, he didn’t win it on ideas, and he didn’t win it by proving that he’d be the best Republican to take on Obama. What Perry won last night was the title of “Marketing Ploy in Chief.” Rick Perry is now the preferred candidate of the carny barkers and right-wing print media because his scandalous nature and deep red cultural cues are sure to excite the people who buy conservative books and magazines and listen to talk radio, thus preserving the income level currently enjoyed by our trusted conservative commentariat, which no longer cares about ideas, ideology, or even winning elections, but which now cares solely about preserving its own power and influence.

If Rick Perry is nominated by the Republican Party next year, he will lose the presidential election to Barack Obama. It won’t be close. Up until now, polls have shown Gov. Perry winning red states like Florida and North Carolina, while losing blue states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. That initially seemed like a pretty good harbinger for a close election. But that was back when Perry was assumed to be a composite of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. Last night’s debate showed, however, that Perry possesses the worst traits of both while showing the charm of neither. Indeed, Sarah Palin would be a preferable nominee to Gov. Perry. At least Gov. Palin could be trusted not to lick her lips while bragging about the number of individuals her state had executed. That sort of approach to the issues will guarantee that Perry will do worse among educated, white collar voters than even McCain, during the worst year for Republicans in modern history. And unlike Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, and every other Republican who wants to dramatically reorganize entitlements, Perry’s attack on the existence of programs like Social Security, instead of on the structure of those programs, ensures that the nation’s most loyal voters, America’s seniors, will come out in full force to support Obama. Perry will be lucky to win 20 states. He’s Michael Dukakis, locked and loaded.

But none of that matters to the right-wing media, which is probably making a lot of money off of the Obama presidency, and which would benefit tremendously from a general election involving a hopeless, hapless nominee like Perry, who would run a campaign heavy on identity politics and who would present his ideas in the most base, boorish manner, preventing them from gaining any traction and ensuring Obama’s re-election, which the right-wing media could then blame on the fact that America just doesn’t appreciate a Southern, gun-toting evangelical like Perry, which in turn would lead to more book sales and a whole new generation of talk radio listeners from the supposed demographic groups who were “personally rejected by America” in Perry’s loss. The carny barkers know no bounds.

There are those who would analogize Perry to a great conservative candidate of the past, Barry Goldwater. That comparison is far from apt, as Goldwater was all about ideas and not identity. A much better comparison can be found between Perry and 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern, who was nominated to run for president by a Democratic base that would accept nothing less that year than the raw, unadulterated leftist id as their nominee. In so doing, Democrats got the election result that such a strategy deserved. Yet what was so interesting about McGovern’s loss is that the Left never quite “got” the reason that McGovern lost 49 states to President Nixon. In a famous quote, the left-wing film critic Pauline Kael, upon emerging from the gnashing of teeth that characterized the Upper East Side upon Nixon’s re-election, remarked that she couldn’t fathom how Nixon had won, given that nobody she knew had voted for him. I suspect that the same sort of sentiment may exist next year on the Right should someone like Rick Perry be the GOP presidential nominee, someone who has been declared the heir to Reagan by the right-wing echo chamber, but who will turn out to be absolutely abysmal when he takes his act to, yes, the real America.

Beth Reinhard over at The Atlantic declares that the question of the night is just how far the participants will go to knock down Rick Perry:

The biggest question looming over all of these matchups is whether Romney, who has watched Perry erase his months-long lead in national polls, will confront the newly minted front-runner. In two earlier debates, Romney declined to attack his rivals, saving his criticism for President Obama. It’s a strategy that has worked for him–so far.

“When you’re out ahead as far as Romney was, there wasn’t a reason to take the risk and alienate other candidates’ supporters, because ultimately you want to gather those supporters when you win the nomination. But that’s not his current predicament,” said Rick Tyler, a former spokesman for Newt Gingrich, one of the eight candidates who will be on stage on Wednesday. “Romney is going to have to demonstrate that he is a better choice than Governor Perry, and that’s a high hurdle…. I think those two will be center stage.”

Even before the Texas governor entered the race, Romney had started downplaying his own single term as governor of Massachusetts while highlighting his business career. That presents an obvious contrast with Perry, who has been governor since 2000 and was first elected to public office in 1984. “I am a conservative businessman,” Romney recently told a convention of veterans in Perry’s backyard of San Antonio. “I have spent most of my life outside of politics, dealing with real problems in the real economy. Career politicians got us into this mess, and they simply don’t know how to get us out.”

Expect to hear a lot more from Romney during the debates about the “real economy” and “career politicians,” although this strategy is far from foolproof. “Real” is an adjective not often applied to Romney, a buttoned-down multimillionaire from Massachusetts who recently has faced awkward questions about his plans to expand his beachfront house in La Jolla, Calif. Perry may be a “career politician,” but he is much better than Romney at connecting with an audience.

Still, the less-seasoned debater from Texas is new to the extraordinary pressures of a nationally televised debate with eight candidates on stage. His rocket-fueled trajectory in the polls demands that he back it up with a strong debate performance. He’s already come up with a snappy retort to Romney’s “real economy” line, insisting: “Texas is the real economy.”

Perry is also expected to draw elbows from some of the lesser-known candidates as they bid for more attention. Rick Santorum has questioned the sincerity of Perry’s opposition to same-sex marriage, while Jon Huntsman has mocked his skepticism of climate change and evolution. Polls suggest that Huntsman’s criticism is unlikely to carry much weight with the conservative majority in Republican primaries, but it might complicate Perry’s path with better-educated GOP voters, for whom he has displayed a strong appeal in recent surveys.

Have at it in the comments!

PPP (D) Kentucky 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Rick Perry 34%
• Mitt Romney 14% (13%)
• Sarah Palin 12% (19%)
• Ron Paul 8%
• Newt Gingrich 7% (17%)
• Michele Bachmann 6%
• Herman Cain 3%
• Jon Huntsman 3%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Someone else/Undecided 10% (16%)

(more…)

Race42012′s Reagan Library Presidential Debate Open Forum will go live at 7:30pm EST. The debate will be broadcast on TV on MSNBC. I believe the debate will be streamed online at Politico.com. Please shoot me an email at kavon.nikrad@race42012.com if this information is incorrect.

Here is First Read‘s tease on the debate:

The obvious focus of tonight’s debate — which begins at 8:00 pm ET and which airs on MSNBC — will be on Perry. Will the newly minted front-runner hold up to the scrutiny? Will he mix it up with the other GOP candidates (especially Romney) as easily as he’s done on the campaign trail? Or will he try to try to be more statesmanlike in his national debut? As for Romney, he has been much more aggressive since losing his front-runner status. Do we see a different Romney than we saw at his previous two debates (in New Hampshire and Iowa), when he went unscathed?

Readers of The Prairie Editor by now have figured out that Governor Rick Perry is not high on my list of favorites for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. On the other hand, I do like to give credit when it is genuinely due, and I want to applaud the Texas governor for a press release today (presumably to be followed up at the next presidential debate) in which he exposes the hypocrisy of Congressman Ron Paul, a perennial fringe candidate for president who purports to be a “pure” libertarian and a straight-shooter.

Mr. Paul has been claiming the mantle of Ronald Reagan lately, extolling the former president and Republican icon, and obviously seeking the support of those who admire Mr. Reagan and his presidency. In fact, as Mr. Perry points out by producing the actual letter of resignation by Mr Paul from the Republican Party in 1987, stating that Ronald Reagan’s policy and “failures” were the reason in part for Mr. Paul to resign from the party then. (Mr. Paul subsequently ran for president as a member of the Libertarian Party before returning to the GOP so that he could hold a seat in Congress from Texas.)

For someone who receives relatively high numbers in the early polling across the country, not to mention coming in a close second in the Iowa Straw Poll, Mr. Paul advances some strange foreign policy views which are are not likely shared by many authentic conservatives and patriotic Americans. In the past, voters soon realized how kooky these views are, and he has faded fast. These views include retreating from supporting our historically strongest allies, and lowering our national defense shield by withdrawing our troops and our influence around the world.

There are many admirable views that libertarians hold, especially about the growing influence of government in the private sphere, both socially and economically. The Republican Party in the past 20 years has often been influenced by these libertarian ideas.

Libertarians are a segment of GOP politics, and I have noted that most of the major Republican candidates for president have been reluctant to take Mr. Paul on. To his credit, Mr. Perry shows no such reluctance, even though Mr. Paul is a Republican congressman from his own state.

A few more genuinely gutsy moves like this (and fewer bonehead off-the-cuff remarks as he has made recently), and everyone will have to take the governor of Texas more seriously.

I still think the nomination is Mr. Romney’s to lose, but fair is fair, and credit when it’s due should be duly noted.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Aaron Blake, of the Washington Post, set out to answer that question today, using some polling data we’ve seen released since Rick Perry threw his 10-gallon hat in the 2012 ring:

In recent weeks, national polls from Gallup, Quinnipiac University and CNN have all shown Romney faring at least a few points better than Perry. And the same dynamic has been borne out in polling taken in Florida and Pennsylvania – two states that could be very important in the 2012 general election.

Even though Perry has lower name ID than Romney, the AP-Gfk poll showed that more voters either feel “very favorably” or “very unfavorably” towards Perry than Romney. Even though 69 percent of people knew Perry well enough to rate him, nearly half of those people – 33 percent – felt strongly enough to rate him either very favorably or very unfavorably. For Romney, 80 percent know him well, but only 25 percent have more extreme opinions of him. For Perry, 21 percent of people already feel very unfavorably towards him, compared to 16 percent for the better-known Romney.

A new Politico/George Washington University Poll out today shows the same thing.

…Quinnipiac showed Romney leading Obama by six points among independents, while Perry trailed by two. And while Romney and Perry have similar unfavorable ratings among independents, Romney’s favorability (39 percent) is twice as high as Perry’s (19 percent).

The situation is the same with college-educated voters, who give Romney a 44 to 31 split on favorable-unfavorable ratings, but Perry a negative 22 to 34 split.

The Franklin and Marshall College poll in Pennsylvania offered similar findings in regards to independents and educated voters. In that poll, Romney led Obama 47 percent to 34 percent among those making more than $75,000 a year, while Perry trailed Obama by four.

…For now, the limited polling we’ve seen endorses the contention that Perry is more polarizing and may have problems with more educated and affluent voters, who tend to come from the suburbs.

But this picture is still very incomplete.

This data predictably worries those (in the interest of full disclosure, I count myself among this group) who worry that Perry would, as Sean Trende’s analysis has suggested, move the Republican Party in a more rural direction, away from many of the emerging demographics in the country (most notably, the creative class and young voters).

Up to this point, many who have offered this argument have relied on subjective interpretations of Perry’s and Romney’s respective cultural positioning and orientation. However, now, as Blake has shown, some concrete evidence exists to support the connection.

As Blake also notes, the picture could change in the future. However, Perry seems to intimately understand that his candidacy depends on the intense frustration and discontent (indignation, as Perry himself has put it) personified by the Tea Party. Therefore, it would shock me to see him change tactics and adopt a more nuanced, technocratic, policy-focused approach to his campaign.

Washington Post/ABC News 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Rick Perry 29% (8%) {3%}
• Mitt Romney 23% (26%) {21%} [16%]
• Sarah Palin 14% (16%) {17%} [5%]
• Ron Paul 8% (7%) {6%} [2%]
• Michele Bachmann 6% (13%) {3%} [1%]
• Newt Gingrich 4% (4%) {6%} [2%]
• Herman Cain 3% (7%) {4%}
• Rick Santorum 2% (2%) {1%} [0%]
• Jon Huntsman 1% (3%) {1%} [0%]
• Other 1% (1%) {3%} [5%]
• No one/None of them 4% (1%) {5%} [12%]
• Would not vote 1%
• No opinion 4% (8%) {14%} [33%]

(more…)

Mark Miner, Rick Perry’s national press secretary, issued the following statement on Mitt Romney’s jobs speech:

As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney failed to create a pro-jobs environment and failed to institute many of the reforms he now claims to support.

Among all the candidates for President, Gov. Rick Perry has the strongest record of creating a climate of job creation by limiting taxes, burdensome regulations and the size and scope of government. Gov. Perry’s conservative leadership helped Texans create 40 percent of all the net new jobs created in America since June 2009. While President Obama has failed our economy, Gov. Perry has the strongest pro-jobs record and best philosophy to get America working again.

I have just returned from one of my periodic visits to my native State of Texas. As usual, I talked with family and longtime friends in the State (most all of whom lean Republican) about politics and their view of things related. As might be expected there is a certain buzz in the Dallas-Fort Worth area regarding Gov. Rick Perry’s presidential campaign. Also, as might be expected, Perry’s overt appeal to evangelical Christians has once again brought that agenda to the forefront in addition to the economy, the national debt, and other more secular topics. Late last week I took note of two interesting articles in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, one of Texas’ leading newspapers, that I thought to be particularly insightful and objective in tone.

The first article entitled Theology a Hot Issue in 2012 Campaign concerned the general topic of religion and politics and the trends over several decades. It was interesting because it discussed how in the last few election cycles politicians are evaluated not only by what church they attend, but also by what their congregation teaches and what their pastor says on Sundays. One salient quote is as follows:

“Candidates often have to make tough choices about their religion – whether to talk about it, what to say about it and even what to do about it – such as leaving a church,” said John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, Ohio. “These tensions are quite strong among Republicans as the presidential nomination contest heats up, partly because of religious disagreements among key constituencies, but partly because of differences in issue priorities – economic versus social issues.”

The second article of interest concerned Governor Perry’s meeting with evangelical leaders at A Call to Action, a private highly secured two-day retreat for evangelical leaders held last week in the Texas Hill Country. A brief summary reads as follows:

On a remote ranch more than 70 miles west of Austin, top evangelical leaders from across the country assembled last weekend for a private two-day retreat. It wasn’t a religious revival that drew the group of 200, which included luminaries of the Christian right but the chance to hear the personal testimony of one man: Gov. Rick Perry.
Inside an air-conditioned tent, Perry, a Republican presidential contender, was grilled about his beliefs and record in extraordinarily frank sessions. He responded by describing his relationship with Jesus and pledging to pursue the anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage agenda championed by the evangelical right, according to multiple participants.

Perry, a Methodist who worships at an evangelical megachurch in West Austin, already had a strong standing among many Christian leaders in Texas. But some of his past decisions as governor — including a push to vaccinate all sixth-grade girls against a sexually transmitted disease — made some evangelicals wary.

A Call to Action was held weeks after Perry hosted The Response, a massive prayer rally in Houston, underscoring his aggressive efforts to win over religious conservatives. Christian leaders agree that he has now solidified his standing in the community — which could prove especially valuable as he campaigns in Iowa and South Carolina, pivotal nominating states with many evangelical voters.

I will refrain from commenting on what may or may not be the implications here for the nomination contest or for the general election. Rather, to borrow a slogan, I report—you decide.

A bit of opinion commentary here… there is only one word to describe what Romney has unleashed today: epic. In a speech at 3:30 PM Eastern this afternoon in Las Vegas, Nevada, Romney laid out the basic principles of his jobs plan. Along with the speech came the real bread and butter of his plan, though: a 160 page document that outlined 59 actions a President Romney would do to get our economy back on track.

Part I of the document is a list of ten actions he would take on the first day of his presidency — five bills he would introduce into Congress and five executive orders he would sign. Part II of the document excoriates Obama for his failure, replete with graphs, charts, and data galore. Part III delves into the nitty gritty details, dividing his 59 proposals into seven different areas:

• Tax policy
• Regulatory policy
• Trade policy
• Energy policy
• Labor policy
• Human capital policy
• Fiscal policy

Mitt Romney’s plan for jobs and economic growth is available in PDF form from his website, and is available to read on your Kindle as well. You’d be doing yourself a huge favor to download it and read it. This is easily the most detailed, comprehensive, and impressive plan I have ever seen from a political campaign.

I have a feeling that Obama’s team is unloading in their pants right now, wondering how to make their little speech on Thursday night pale a little less in comparison. Well done, Team Romney.

P.S. After his Las Vegas speech this afternoon, Romney appeared on FOX News’ On the Record and on CNBC to discuss his plan. He will make another appearance on CNBC with Larry Kudlow tonight at 7 pm eastern.

WBUR Massachusetts 2012 Senatorial Survey

• Scott Brown (R) 44%
• Elizabeth Warren (D) 35%

• Scott Brown (R) 45%
• Alan Khazei (D) 30%

• Scott Brown (R) 45%
• Bob Massie (D) 29%

• Scott Brown (R) 46%
• Setti Warren (D) 28%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Scott Brown 54% / 25% {+29%}
• Elizabeth Warren 17% / 13% {+4%}
• Bob Massie 7% / 8% {-1%}
• Setti Warren 6% / 7% {-1%}
• Alan Khazei 9% / 13% {-4%}

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted August 30 – September 1, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 36% Democrat; 12% Republican; 52% Independent.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

In response to Ron Paul’s new ad attacking Rick Perry, Perry’s campaign posted Ron Paul’s open letter to the Republican Party chairman in his capacity as the Libertarian Presidential nominee in 1988. It’s a JPG scan of the original letter, so check out the whole thing. Here’s a quote:

In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan’s program and was one of teh four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts. Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits and astoundingly a doubled national debt…Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimick, we hear the President and Republican Party call for a balanced-budget amandment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.

He closed the piece by saying:

If Ronald Reagan couldn’t or wouldn’t balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. This is the message of the Reagan years. I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America’s direction. I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.

This was in 1988, when Perry was supporting Al Gore as a member of the Democratic Party. Doesn’t sound like a man who was loyal to the President that he was building up in the ad.

_______________________________________________________

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

Gallup 2012 GOP Favorability Survey

Name Recognition

• Sarah Palin 97%
  
• Rudy Giuliani 90%
• Mitt Romney 88%
• Newt Gingrich 86%
• Michele Bachmann 84%
• Ron Paul 79%
• Rick Perry 74%
• Rick Santorum 52%
• Herman Cain 48%
• Jon Huntsman 46%

(more…)

Nick Searcy, who plays Chief Deputy Art Mullen on Justified, has endorsed Herman Cain with a fun, 3 minute web video that you can view below:

_______________________________________________________

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

NBC / Wall Street Journal National Republican Primary Poll

• Perry – 38% (11)
• Romney – 23% (30)
• Paul – 9% (9)
• Bachmann – 8% (16)
• Cain – 5% (5)
• Gingrich – 5% (8)
• Santorum – 3% (3)
• Huntsman – 2% (2)

Survey of 1,000 adults was conducted August 27-31 and has a margin of error of +/-3.1%. Numbers from their July 17 poll are in parentheses.

Politico/GW Battleground National Republican Primary

• Perry – 36%
• Romney – 17%
• Bachmann – 10%
• Paul – 10%
• Gingrich – 5%
• Santorum – 5%
• Cain – 4%
• Huntsman – 1%
• Undecided – 11%

Survey of 400 likely GOP voters was conducted August 28-Sept 1, 2011.

MSNBC has the scoop:

The new super PAC backing Rick Perry has drawn up plans to spend $55 million as part of an ambitious campaign strategy aimed at blowing away the Texas governor’s rivals in early primary states and securing him the Republican nomination by next spring, according to internal committee documents obtained by NBC News.

They also show that the strategists behind the new Perry super PAC, led by a longtime Perry confidant and backed with infusions of cash from major Perry donors, are preparing to mount a full service political operation — complete with TV advertising, direct mail and social media outreach.

If it realizes its goals, the super PAC — which calls itself “Make Us Great Again” — will likely eclipse the financial operations of Perry’s official presidential campaign committee, according to some Republican consultants.

“The super PAC will probably outspend the legal presidential deal,” said Scott Reed, a veteran GOP strategist. “Look, these super PACs have changed the way presidential campaigns are run.”

The internal documents outlining the group’s plans were distributed within the last week to some Perry supporters and campaign consultants; a source with access shared them with NBC News.

Full story here.