Dave G suggests that New Hampshire moving up its primary to (perhaps) December 6th would help Romney.

First of all, I doubt it will be that early and I certainly hope not. It’s my hope that Secretary of State Gardener get over his pique about Nevada holding its caucus 4 days after New Hampshire. In both 1996 and 2000, Delaware held an actual primary four days after New Hampshire and it did little to dampen New Hampshire’s impact.

But should the primary occur in New Hampshire will it help Romney? If you view politics as a football game, then the answer is yes. If your team is up by two touchdowns and 7 1/2 minutes come off the clock, the chances of your team winning, go up exponentially.

However, it’s more complicated in politics. It does help Romney in that it lessens the ability of his opponents to raise money to compete in New Hampshire and organize. It also lessens the window for Romney to make a gaffe or Rick Perry to recover from his errors. ‘

Indeed, if this whole thing hurts anyone, it certainly hurts Rick Perry, who had no idea how late he was getting into this thing when he got in.

However, all candidates who have been doing the work in Iowa and New Hampshire, moving the primary up won’t have a big impact.  Not all time in a Presidential campaign is created equal.  While political junkies of all stripes have been paying rapt attention, the average voter hasn’t. And a primary campaign reaches a point when voters decide to engage the process.

If we take a look back at 2007-08, this is backed up. Romney had taken a lead in New Hampshire in May and had led (usually by double digits) through December 17th.  The last five polls that ended on December 17th had Romney +12, Romney +15, Romney +13, Romney +13, and Romney +12.  McCain began to move as New Hampshire voters became engaged with the next polls being Romney +4, a tie, Romney +7,  and Romney +3.  The LA Times/Bloomberg released an outlier poll on December 26 that had Romney +14, but the next two results were tied.  Then on December 31st, McCain took the lead and with the exception of two polls, consistently held it until he won the Primary.

All that happened is that the voter engagement period will occur sooner. Another impact on this race if Iowa and New Hampshire occur in 2011, more three weeks out from the next contest in Nevada, they could diminish their role in the presidential process by blunting the momentum of the winner. A mid-december win in New Hampshire will be drowned out by the Holidays in the rest of the country. Already, the March 6 Super Tuesday and February Dead Zone (with only two non-binding Caucuses and two primaries occurring) threaten to weaken Iowa and New Hampshire’s power, being too early could imperil it even further and allow a candidate who wins neither state to take the nomination.

You know who this helps?

New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner said today he may schedule the first-in-the nation primary as early as Dec. 6, marking the first time ever that New Hampshire voters would pick a presidential candidate in December.

“Any Tuesday in December would be a possibility, but that’s one of them,” Gardner said today, when asked about a Dec. 6 primary. “It’s not something I would do lightly. It would be done regrettably, but if it has to be done, we’re going to comply with our tradition and our state law.”

And what would become of Iowa’s plans to hold the Hawkeye Caucii on January 3rd?

Drew Ivers, a member of the GOP Central Committee in Iowa, said the panel met last night to discuss a date for that state’s caucuses, and is leaning toward Jan. 3, the same date it chose in 2008. He said if New Hampshire decides to hold its primary in December, it would certainly spark some consideration of a new date for Iowa.

If memory serves me correctly, the Iowa Caucus is traditionally held eight days before the New Hampshire primary, which would move Iowa to November 28th, the Monday after Thanksgiving. That means that we could be a mere seven weeks away from the first votes being cast for the Republican presidential nominee.

Like I said, you know who this helps…

The Imaginary Campaign

“The Vice-Presidency isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit.”-John Nance Gardener, Vice-President of the United States 1933-41

While the real campaign for the Republican nomination, an imaginary one is going on in the minds of pundits and bloggers. It’s the campaign for the Vice-Presidency, an office that has elevated a few men to the highest office in the land, and has taken on increased responsibilities under recent Vice-Presidents such as Al Gore and Dick Cheney. Yet, is it really something people aspire to? Listening to the Internet chatter, the answer would be yes.

For the umpteenth time conservative superstar Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) has said no to a vice-Presidential run, and this time the “no” appears to have taken and some pundits have turned their focus to Governor Bob McDonnell (R-Va.).

Of course, in any Presidential campaign, the recurring myth pops up that certain candidates are only in the race to win the Vice-Presidency. This time, Perry supporters are starting a whispering campaign like this comment, “Cain is working for a position with Romney as VP.” The same chatter surrounded Mike Huckabee in 2008, being put forward by none other than Larry Sabato. Similar rumors in 2000, stated that Alan Keyes was running to be George W. Bush’s Vice-president.

To use your presidential campaign to play for a vice-presidential nomination, you have to be incredibly cunning to convince enough people to support your campaign as a serious candidate for President, while at the same time believing the only way you can get to the White House is after serving as vice-president. It should be pointed out that since 1968, only two of eight men to serve as vice-president became president. Further, in thirteen seriously contested nomination campaigns, a former presidential rival has been chosen only four three. (Reagan ’80, Dukakis’88, Kerry ’04, and Obama ’08).

So, to run a shadow campaign for vice-president by running a presidential campaign requires the most extreme Machiavellian cunning and deception coupled with the low self-esteem that thinks such a highly improbable road to the White House is worth a year or more of your life. I’d find that particularly absurd with Cain, because a Stage 4 cancer survivor knows exactly how precious and fragile life is. Plus by the end of a second Romney term, Cain would be 75 and unless you’re Ron Paul, that’s too old to make a run for a first term as President.

So why might Cain have problems with Perry? It may be that Cain doesn’t like Perry’s position on the issues.  It may be that Cain is competing for the same voters that Perry is and not for the same voters that Romney is going for. It may not feed our most cynical imaginations and impulses, but it does have the advantage of making sense.

Our imaginary runs for the Vice-Presidency are based on the convention system that dominated Presidential politics up until the last quarter of the twentieth century where a vast number of delegates arrived unpledged, candidates could run short campaigns of a month or so, gain media coverage and if a candidate couldn’t get enough support on the first ballot, deals could be struck. It’s a relic.

The real quest for the Vice-Presidency won’t start until after the nominee is known, and even then the majority of people who are cynically described as running for Vice-President really won’t be.

Update: An able reader corrected me that Lloyd Bentsen didn’t run for President in 1988. I’ve updated the post to reflect that.

Shortly after his major Foreign Policy speech yesterday at the Citadel, Mitt Romney sat down with Judy Woodruff of the PBS NewsHour for a no-holds barred interview. Here is the video:

It was a superb interview. Mitt’s not the least bit afraid of taking the hard-ball questions. Judy spends more than 20 minutes aggressively probing for weaknesses, trying to get Governor Romney to say something that can be trumpeted as soundbites everywhere to weaken him. She attempted several times to put words into his mouth trying to frustrate him and get him rattled. It did not work. She was a skilled adversary; she more than met her match in Mitt Romney.

Mitt’s superior preparation was very much in evidence throughout the interview. He repeatedly corrected her “facts” with the real ones, and was able to clearly articulating his careful and well thought out projected policies.

It was fun to watch as she tried several times to get some red-on-red action going. She would mention something one of his rivals had said about him or pointed out differences between them. She was hoping perhaps to get something they could take back to the rival and say, “Mitt Romney said this about you. What is your response?” He skillfully avoided it. The worst he did was point out that he had published detailed economic and foreign policy white papers and had given major speeches on the subjects; his opponents had yet to do as much.

No, Mitt focused like a laser beam on Barack Obama’s failed policies and for the most part left his rivals alone.

Which other GOP hopeful regularly goes into hostile territory for no-holds-barred interviews like this one? Which other candidate has the grasp of details, data, plans, and policies at his fingertips like Mitt Romney? Which of his rivals has shown as much discipline focusing their attention squarely upon the prize — removing Obama from the White House as Mitt Romney has?

It’s been said by many observers that Mitt’s strategy in the 2012 cycle is to be known as the adult in the room. So far he is succeeding.

For the last few days the Romney supporters here on Race42012 have expressed the utmost confidence that the race for the Republican nomination is in the bag for the Massachusetts Governor. And why not? After all, he has a huge lead in the NH polls, his last main obstacle to receiving the support of the Establishment is staying out of the race, and his new biggest opponent has never held public office before. So all should be sunshine and roses in Romneyland?

Not really. There are two significant problems for Romney going forward. First, are the national polls. According to RealClearPolitics, Romney’s highest poll numbers since November 3rd 2010 has been 25%. The Governor is currently polling at 21.9%. Yes, Romney does have a remarkably stable floor of support, but he also has a very low ceiling. Romney isn’t persuading the 75% of Republican voters who are supporting someone else or are undecided.

Second is more anecdotal evidence. In the last few days I’ve been talking with some of my fellow Republicans here in Florida who don’t follow this as closely as those of us who read political blogs. These are the types who might watch the debate (if there’s nothing else on), have heard about the polls but don’t really read them, and care about the candidates white papers and speeches on foreign policy as much as they care about what’s going on in the New Zealand Parliament (which is to say not at all). A lot of them are intrigued by Herman Cain, but want to hear more. But when the subject turned to Mitt Romney, here are some of the phrases used about him:

“He flip-flops”

“I don’t know what he believes”

“He seems like a panderer”

Romney’s problem is the same as in 2008; a lot of Republican voters just don’t trust him. These are the undecided Republican voters that Romney is going to have to persuade to support him over his competitors. Romney’s main issue with Republican voters is that intangible issue of trust. And for the former Massachusetts Governor, that’s a problem.

Tonight I attended an exclusive “cult” meeting at my local Mormon chapel (a.k.a. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) where I witnessed prescribed clothing, handshakes, ritual chants, hierarchical teachings, and special advancement ceremonies.

You may have witnessed one of these “cult” meetings yourself – it’s called Cub Scouts.

“Cult” is an extreme pejorative term that could subjectively be applied to everything from High School Football games to the Pledge of Allegiance.

I could spend this post defending Mormonism from attacks - like the one hurled today by Pastor Jeffress during his introduction of Governor Perry at the Values Voters Conference or I could simply point out the obvious: a religious litmus test is both unconstitutional in character and imprudent for a political stragegy.

You may think my belief in Mormonism warrants some political disqualification – that is your right as a free-thinking American… but know this… the Left thinks our shared belief in the soteriological powers of our Lord Jesus Christ disqualifies us both from political office and even public discourse.

In other words… if someone on the Right disses Mitt Romney because of his religious beliefs… the Left has a free pass to dismiss all Christian beliefs en masse and hold that precedent over our collective heads.

Those are just a few arguments in what I’m sure will be a lively discussion in the weeks and months ahead.

Cross-posted at iHartPolitics.com

At the time the phrase “the Gary Johnson rule” was coined by Slate columnist Dave Weigel, it was only semi-serious.  Now, it’s becoming blatantly apparent that there is in fact such a rule.  The rule is: Gatekeepers of the old media must find a way to just exclude Gov. Johnson, while including the less anti-establishment, but often lower-polling, Amb. Huntsman and Sen. Santorum.

The rule first came about in the run-up to the June 13th CNN debate, when CNN insisted that–seven months before the first votes were to be cast (and hence, about six and a half months before most voters start actually paying attention)–a candidate must earn an average of 2.0% in three national polls during a certain time period (because, at seven months out, it really matters whether a candidate is at 1.99% versus 2.01%).  Amb. Huntsman squeaked in, while Gov. Johnson clocked in at 2.0% exactly with a 1% Quinnipiac showing, a 2% CNN showing, and a 3% Gallup showing.  But alas, according to the more detailed numbers in the cross tabs, Gov. Johnson fell just short.  Maybe next time, right?

As the September 7th MSNBC debate approached, debate organizers must have been frantic.  Gov. Johnson was tying or outpolling Huntsman and Santorum in virtually every poll in which all three names were included.  How can they possibly justify including the latters while excluding the former?  Ah–by stipulating that the candidate must have achieved one, single 4% showing in any poll in the last year.  By a stroke of statistical luck, Huntsman had met that mark just once, in a single outlier poll a few months prior.  Gov. Johnson?  His highest showing was 3%.  Too bad, Governor.  Just short.

FOX News, having been the only network with a modicum of fairness and having been the only network to set reasonable inclusion criteria for this early leg of the race, welcomed Gov. Johnson onto the stage in the most recent, September 22nd debate.  Gov. Johnson gave a solid performance, delivered the most memorable single line of the election season thus far, and clearly scared the pants off of Bloomberg, who was to be the host of the next debate in October.

Gary Johnson supporters and sympathizers have waited on pins and needles since the FOX debate to see if Bloomberg would finally accept Gov. Johnson as a legitimate and qualified contender, or whether they would resurrect the “Gary Johnson rule.”  With today’s declaration of Bloomberg’s October 11th debate inclusion criteria, it seems we have our answer.

According to the Washington Post, to be included in Bloomberg’s upcoming debate, a candidate must have “participated in at least three nationally televised Republican presidential debates during the 2012 election cycle.”

How convenient (and rather cute, if I may say so).

Tell Bloomberg how you feel about it here, and let October 18th’s debate host CNN hear your thoughts also.

Governor Romney delivered his major address on foreign policy today at the Citadel in South Carolina. Before getting into a review of the Governor’s speech one disclaimer; I haven’t watched the speech, but I read the whole thing. With that, here are a few thoughts:

What was impressive: The Governor clearly believes and articulated the idea of American exceptionalism. He also rejected the idea of isolationism. Romney talked about the Special Relationship with Britain (which this President seems to think isn’t so special) and reaffirmed our need to have strong ties with Israel (which was mentioned 8 times). Perhaps most impressively, Governor Romney had a special emphasis on Latin America; which rarely gets mentioned anymore in discussions of foreign policy, even though it is a critical area of American influence. Venezuela was mentioned 3 times in the speech and Cuba was mentioned 5 times (although two of those were in reference to the Missile Crisis). Another important nation mentioned was Mexico, which was named 3 times as well. I was most impressed by this special emphasis on our Southern neighbors, although if the Governor had brought up Brazil, Latin America’s powerhouse, it would’ve been even better. Russia also received a good amount of attention. Finally, Romney also pushed for keeping the strength of the American Navy, which has historically been a Republican issue (Chester A. Arthur revitalized the Navy, as did Benjamin Harrison and Teddy Roosevelt sent out the Great White Fleet).

What was left out: A couple of the nations that Romney didn’t mention included: India, Japan, Turkey, Greece (outside of a rhetorical point), Syria or Libya. The Governor’s Middle East section of his speech was, aside from Israel, lacking and the Arab Spring seemed glossed over. This is not limited to Governor; most politicians when discussing the Middle East, focus almost entirely on Israel-Palestinian conflict and nothing else. The section on the Far East was bare. The need for even the Pentagon to deal with the age of austerity was not brought up. Perhaps most disappointing was the lack of attention paid to India. The world’s largest democracy is a nation that should be a high priority for any administration to cultivate. A strong relationship with India could pay the United States great dividends in Asia and it should’ve been at least been named in a speech on foreign policy by a future President.

Overall Grade: B+. The Governor’s speech tried to be a broad statement of Romney’s foreign policy and it by and large succeeded. Romney was also able to attack the President on some of his foreign policy failings. It was on the more specific areas where Romney could’ve shown not just a vision for a broader foreign policy view, but also an understanding of the nuances of the various regions of the world.

Rick Perry does not think Mormonism is a cult and did not pick the Pastor to introduce him. Perry spokesman Robert Black said:

“The governor does not believe Mormonism is a cult. He is not in the business of judging people. That’s God’s job…The conference picked someone to introduce the governor, not us.”

University of New Hampshire / WMUR TV Republican Primary

• Romney – 37% (35)
• Cain – 12% (2)
• Paul – 9% (7)
• Giuliani – 8% (7)
• Huntsman – 8% (2)
• Gingrich – 4% (1)
• Perry – 4% (4)
• Palin – 3% (3)
• Bachmann – 2% (12)
• Santorum – 2% (1)
• Johnson – * (1)
• Roemer – * (*)

General Election Matchup:

• Romney – 50%
• Obama – 42%

Survey of 345 likely primary voters was conducted Sept 26 – Oct 6 with a margin of error of +/-5.3%. Numbers from their July poll are in parentheses.

Without Giuliani and Palin in the mix, Romney leads with 42% to Cain’s 13%.

Mitt Romney delivered a major foreign policy speech today at the Citadel.

Click here for the text.

Click below for the video.

Conservative WaPo columnist Jennifer Rubin had this to say about it on her “Right Turn” blog (emphasis added):

As he did on his jobs plan, Romney’s foreign policy rollout is detailed, organized, professional and aided by very smart people. The logistics of assembling a big team of top advisors, crafting a short but bold speech and coming up with a detailed written document are daunting and impressive. The level of detail is unlike anything any other candidate has attempted, and far exceeds what we usually get in campaigns. This is Romney the executive, Romney the smart guy and Romney the polished professional. His message is clear: I’m prepared and I know what I am doing.

But what is surprising about his foreign policy effort is that unlike his economic plans and what has come top[sic] be seen as a character defect (e.g. lack of strong convictions) his foreign policy statements are bold, unqualified, and not couched for political advantage.

At the Citadel he offered himself as the not-President Obama

…

He repeatedly distinguished himself with Obama and timid voices in his own party: “I will not surrender America’s role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President. You have that President today. The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity….Let future generations look back on us and say, they rose to the occasion, they embraced their duty, and they led our nation to safety and to greatness.” It was the sort of language we are used to hearing from Sen. Marco Rubio (R- Fla.).

The speech laid out four core principles and eight steps he would take in the first 100 days. His principles repudiate nearly every premise of the Obama administration.

…

No wonder the DNC rushed out a counter video entitled: “Romney’s Foreign Policy Sounds Just Like Bush’s”. I don’t know about that, but one thing is for sure. It certainly doesn’t sound like Obama’s!

This ad is the second of three that the Paul campaign has announced. Like the first one, it is running in all four early states and costing the campaign more than a million dollars. The third ad to be released was originally announced as an attack ad against Rick Perry, but given Perry’s recent downturn in the polls, we’ll see if the Paul campaign sticks to that plan.

Pastor Robert Jeffress, a Rick Perry supporter and megachurch leader selected to introduce the governor at the Values Voter Summit, made a very sharp and quite obvious distinction between Perry and his chief rival, Mitt Romney:

“Do we want a candidate who is skilled in rhetoric or one who is skilled in leadership? Do we want a candidate who is a conservative out of convenience or one who is a conservative out of deep conviction? Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person – or one who is a born-again follower of the lord Jesus Christ?”

Mormon card officially played.

UPDATE: Asked outside the ballroom if he was referencing Mitt Romney’s faith, Pastor Jeffress responded “Mormonism is a cult.”

The Iowa GOP Central Committee convened last night via conference call, and they tentatively agreed to set the Iowa caucus for Tuesday, January 3. The date will be voted on and become official when they meet together in 10 days.

The move is a shot across the bow of New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who is still threatening to set the New Hampshire primary on January 3rd. In the past (in 1996, for example), Gardner has interpreted the New Hampshire law requiring their primary to be seven days before a “similar” contest to apply only to other primaries and not to caucuses. This year, for whatever reason, he is throwing a tantrum over Nevada setting their caucus on January 14. Gardner said because of the law, New Hampshire cannot go on Tuesday, January 10.

The RNC disagrees, and is “encouraging” Gardner to reconsider this new interpretation of the law — by threatening to strip New Hampshire of its first-in-the-nation status unless he relents and goes on the 10th. This move by Iowa appears to be an attempt to strong arm New Hampshire into common sense compliance. The timing is interesting, though: Gardner has said he will not announce a date for the New Hampshire primary until at least October 17th, ostensibly because he wants to ensure no other states go rogue like Florida. With the Iowa GOP signalling they will not wait for his decision, he may be effectively boxed in now and will look like the bad guy if he announces the 3rd – or earlier – now.

So most likely, this will be our early state calendar – and we should know for sure in a little over ten days:

January 3 – Iowa
January 10 – New Hampshire
January 14 – Nevada
January 21 – South Carolina
January 31 – Florida
February 7 – Colorado, Minnesota
February 11 – Maine
February 28 – Arizona, Michigan

That’s 87 days until the party starts, folks.

Pew has released their latest poll on the 2012 national race. Here are the horse race numbers with some crosstabs:

	All GOP	Tea Party Yes	Tea Party No	A Lot of Thought	Less Thought
Romney	22	17	25	23	22
Perry	17	18	17	19	15
Cain	13	23	6	20	9
Paul	12	13	11	11	13
Gingrich	8	9	7	8	7
Bachmann	6	7	6	3	8
Santorum	2	3	2	2	2
Huntsman	1	1	2	2	1
Other	1	1	1	1	1
None/DK	17	9	23	11	21

(more…)

As I have previously stated, I don’t normally pay much attention to Intrade. I view it as perhaps one notch above a straw poll. I still feel that way. However, this piece of news does merit notice. Mitt Romney’s chances of winning the GOP nomination has just broken the 60% barrier on Intrade.

The current standings are:

• Mitt Romney – 60.0%
• Rick Perry – 19.6%
• Herman Cain – 7.2%
• Jon Huntsman – 3.9%
• Ron Paul – 2.3%
• Newt Gingrich – 2.0%
• Michele Bachmann – 1.4%
• Rudy Giuliani – 1.2%

All the rest are below 1%

My how Bachmann has fallen. From a high of over 18% back in July to less than a tenth of that today. The campaign of the winner of the Iowa Straw Poll continues to die a slow, lingering death. Perhaps she should put it out of its misery.

Huntsman hasn’t been doing that much better. From a high of around 18% back at the end of May, he’s lost 80% of his value with no upturn in sight. It is now approximately 90 days left before the voting starts. He’s running out of time to make an impact.

Here’s the data in graphical form:

It would appear that the only person with even a half serious threat to Mitt Romney is Rick Perry, and it’s not even a half of a threat. It’s actually a bit less than a third. The others aren’t even worth mentioning at this point in time.

Things can change quickly, however. Remember Perry was riding high scarcely a month ago. It’s been all downhill for him ever since. There are two debates coming up in the next two weeks. We will see if Perry can reverse course. If not, well at least he’ll have a great time spending that 15 million bucks he’s got in the bank on a losing campaign. I can think of worse things to be doing.

In a bit of news that is sure to warm the cockles of MWS’s* heart, the word is out that Jon Huntsman has won a poll. His total more than doubles Mitt Romney score, who came in second. In fact, his score was better than the next five people combined. That is quite the decisive victory for the former Utah Governor.:

Which ONE of the following people do you think is most qualified to be president?

• Jon Huntsman — 49
• Mitt Romney — 22
• Rudy Giuliani — 10
• Ron Paul — 9
• Chris Christie — 3
• Newt Gingrich — 3
• Herman Cain — 2
• Sarah Palin — 1
• Rick Perry — 1
• Rick Santorum — 0
• Michele Bachmann — 0

Where did Huntsman make his breakthrough? It was in the straw poll taken during the “Take Back the American Dream Conference 2011″ put on by the Democracy Corps/The Campaign for America’s Future people this week.

(more…)

This afternoon, Mitt Romney announced another Congressional endorsement – this time from US Representative Rodney Alexander (R-LA). This endorsement gives us a great excuse to trot out an updated version of the Endorsement Chart.

The endorsement categories are below, and the list of the endorsers are below the fold. Remember, this does not take into account every endorsement a candidate announces – it is simply an attempt to keep track of some of the more important ones. Therefore, it is not the end all, be all of candidate endorsements, but hopefully it is a useful tool.

• 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

Names are below the fold. As always, if I missed one let me know in the comments.

(more…)

Romney has released the list of folks that are on his Foreign Policy & National Security Advisory Team, and it is nothing short of incredibly impressive. For the full list of names, jump below the fold – here are some highlights:

• Cofer Black – Director of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center (1999-2002); United States Department of State Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism (2002-2004)
• Michael Chertoff – United States Secretary of Homeland Security (2005-2009)
• Paula Dobriansky – Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs (2001-2009)
• Eric Edelman – Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (2005-2009); Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs (2001-2003)
• Michael Hayden – Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2006-2009); Director of the National Security Agency (1999-2005)
• Robert Joseph – Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (2005-2007)
• James Shinn – Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs (2007-2008)
• Mary Beth Long – Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (2007-2009)
• Meghan O’Sullivan – Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan (2004-2007)

Again, the full list is below the fold. This is a highly and impressively experienced foreign policy team the likes of which I would venture to guess no other candidate will come close to replicating. This team is unveiled the day prior to Romney’s major foreign policy speech in South Carolina tomorrow.

(more…)

They just keep rolling in:

Mitt Romney today announced the endorsements of Justin Sayfie and Slater Bayliss.

In announcing his support, Justin Sayfie said, “We need a president who will create jobs, keep taxes low, and cut spending. Mitt Romney will bring leadership and experience to the White House that will be critical to solving our country’s economic problems. I am proud to support him.”

Slater Bayliss said, “Florida voters need a leader who will get our economy back on the right track. Mitt Romney understands how to create jobs and restore fiscal sanity. His record speaks for itself. His experience in the real economy will provide real leadership in Washington.”

Justin Sayfie co-founded Blosser & Sayfie In 2001. He recently was Florida Co-Chair for Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign. Previously, he served in Gov. Jeb Bush’s administration as a senior policy advisor, spokesman, and chief speechwriter…

Slater Bayliss is a partner at Cardenas Partners and a Florida Co-Chair of Maverick PAC… He recently served as Florida Co-Chair for Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign. Previously, he was the Executive Director of “Floridians for Responsible Spending” and served in Governor Bush’s Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development where he focused on business recruitment efforts. From December 2000 through November 2002, he served as personal assistant to Governor Jeb Bush. He also was Director of the Republican Party of Florida’s Committee of 100 and a Bush-Cheney 2004 Maverick.

Not only are these two big Florida names, notice all the ties to Jeb and George Bush hidden away in there.

Per the latest poll from Quinnipiac:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

	Approve	Disapprove	Margin
Total	41	55	-14
Republicans	7	91	-84
Democrats	77	18	59
Independents	38	56	-18
Men	36	60	-24
Women	46	51	-5
White	34	62	-28
Black	81	15	66
Hispanic	45	50	-5
White Protestant	26	69	-43
White Catholic	34	63	-29
White Evangelical	20	76	-56
Age 18-34	46	50	-4
Age 35-54	39	57	-18
Age 55+	40	55	-15
No College Degree	40	56	-16
College Degree	42	54	-12
<$30K	49	46	3
$30K-$50K	46	50	-4
$50K-$100K	35	61	-26
+$100K	37	60	-23
Military	34	60	-26

(more…)

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

And, for you visual learners out there:

Two names from the Christie fallout are being announced by Team Romney this morning: Paul Singer and Jim Nicholson.

Paul Singer is a major fundraiser/bundler who had been sitting on the sidelines. He was the top fundraiser for the NRSC and the RGA in 2010. Politico notes in the article linked above that every serious Presidential candidate has been courting Singer this year (and some since last year).

Jim Nicholson is a former RNC Chairman, which means he’s got the inside track to the party machinery, but perhaps more interesting at this moment is that he was a Cabinet Secretary under George W. Bush. He served as the Veterans Affairs Secretary from 2005 to 2007, and prior to that served as Bush’s Ambassador to the Vatican. It was the Bushies that were largely responsible for driving the Daniels/Ryan/Christie anti-Mitt chase over the past six months or so. If they start coming home to Romney, it could be an important signal as to the direction and trajectory of this race to any other big name undecideds out there.

Get ready for the Iowa caucuses in 2011, folks.

New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner was playing tough with the Nevada GOP this past week. New Hampshire law states that their primary must come seven days before any “similar” contest… in the past, it’s been assumed that wording meant other primaries, not caucuses. However, Gardner inexplicably went on a power trip this week, said the law applied to the Nevada caucus, and demanded that Nevada untether from NH and set their caucus date.

It was a game of primary and caucus chicken. And tonight, Nevada blinked.

They officially set their caucuses for January 14, 2012. Now, if Bill Gardner doesn’t relent of his tough guy shtick, he is expected to set the New Hampshire primary for Tuesday, January 3. And that, my friends, means an Iowa caucus in between Christmas and New Years.

Are you kidding me?

There is still a chance Gardner will come to his senses and just schedule the NH primary for January 10. If not, lots of folks will be spending Christmas in Des Moines this year.

Potential Early State Calendar:

December 28 / January 5 (?) – Iowa
January 3 / 10 (?) – New Hampshire
January 14 – Nevada
January 21 – South Carolina
January 31 – Florida
February 7 – Colorado & Minnesota (non-binding)
February 11 – Maine (non-binding)
February 28 – Arizona & Michigan

Liberal Tommy Christopher made an astute point about the campaign of Mitt Romney:

Romney is actually in big trouble here. As former Obama spokesman Bill Burton never stops reminding him, “They’re Just Not That Into You.” The neverending parade of gunslingers that the GOP townspeople keep bringing in to face Romney is stark evidence that they really don’t want him to be the sheriff.

A key point. Other than the rise of Herman Cain, perhaps the most shocking thing about recent polls has been the lackluster performance of Mitt Romney.  17% support in the CBS poll, 22% in the Quinnipiac poll, and 25% in ABC/Washington Post is a bit of an outlier.Compare  that to the the Titanic Giuliani campaign in 2007 which was consistently showing above 25% and more often or not at 30%, right up until mid-November.  The clamor for Romney for President may be strong among the political class but when upwards of 75% of GOP Primary voters are not on board.  This suggests that Romney’s ultimate victory is far from the sure thing that supporters make out.

Of course, it’s possible that Romney wins the nomination. It’s easy to imagine it occuring if Herman Cain can’t raise the money and Rick Perry can’t regain his footing.  In essence, Romney will not have so much as won the nomination, as everyone else lost it. And how would a President Romney govern?

Not very effectively. Base antipathy or ambiguity has consequences. Compare, for example, the Presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Reagan granted amnesty, passed tax increasing budgets, and had nuclear arms reduction costs with the Soviets. George W. Bush was shot down when he tried to pass his immigration reform, House Republicans revolted over the first TARP vote, and many who voted for Bush became distrustful of his actions in dealing with other countries, particularly Mexico.

Why the difference?  Conservatives trusted Reagan, because Reagan was clearly one of them and they believed he was achieving the most conservative outcome possible. On the other hand, there existed no such thought about President Bush. If Romney takes office as the “Nobama candidate” with no real enthusiasm from the Party base, what he will find is that his the base will be waiting for him to knife them in the back. And that any budging will be seen as flip flopping and betrayal that will light up the phones of GOP members of Congress, enough of whom will ensure that Romney loses whatever he’s trying to pass that the base objects to. The only type of President who can effectively negotiate and work with Democrats is one who has the buy-in of his party’s membership that he’s looking out for their values. Mitt Romney doesn’t have that and he never will.

With NJ Governor Christie’s announcement that he is definitely not running for president, followed by Sarah Palin’s announcing today that she is not running, the GOP candidate field appears to be finalized.  Yesterday our Race42012 Managing Director/Editor, Kavon, made a persuasive argument for why he is now declaring his support for Mitt Romney.  Later in the day, Senior Editor Dave Gaultier did the same.  Other writers on this site have so far expressed various opinions as to the status of the race at this point and who they may be inclined to support.  So, I too shall offer my thoughts to our readers.

I find Kavon’s and Dave’s reasoning to be sound and very similar to my own; therefore, let it be known that as things now stand I will be supporting Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination and for president.  I arrived at this decision not as a gung ho “Rombot” but because I see no  other credible alternative.  Do I believe that Romney is the ideal candidate from my personal perspective—No.  He has pluses and he has minuses.  But, I do believe that of the various GOP candidates, Governor Romney offers the best fit for the current political climate and offers us the best chance to unseat President Obama.  I also concur with Kavon’s point that Romney is running a much better campaign than he did last time and he seems to have adopted a strategy and tactical approach that plays to his strengths.  Like Kavon, I am sure that we will not see any calls for V-chips in personal computers or anti-pornography web ads this time around.

Dave Gaultier’s points about the critical need to expand the GOP electoral map are compelling.  Winning back the support of the many educated suburbanites and members of the “creative class” who ceased to identify with the GOP post-Reagan/GHW Bush is a necessity, for this was key to our victories in 2010.   In addition, we must win significant support among other demographic groups that should be our natural allies but who were turned-off by the GOP’s heavy emphasis of southern Evangelical culture war themes over the previous 15 years.  Asians and younger voters (under 35) who are likely to respond favorably to themes of economic growth and upward mobility for all are an example.

It is not enough to just get elected.  A successful president must be able to govern effectively and command the respect of those who did not vote for him, and he must command the respect of the world.  This will be exceedingly important if we are to implement hoped for conservative reforms.  Of those running, Romney impresses me as having the highest potential.

Finally, a President Romney will be bolstered in the policy arena by our new intellectual-policy stars such as Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey among others in Congress—not to mention the likes of Governors Christie, Walker, and Daniels—all of whom have demonstrated a refreshingly new approach to what it means to be a conservative and a Republican.  In many respects, these folks can play a role for a candidate/President Romney similar to the role played by Congressman Jack Kemp and Senators Bill Roth (the Kemp-Roth tax reform bill) during the early Reagan era.  In those days, Reagan was emboldened by having Jesse Helms, Jim McClure, Malcolm Wallop and others of similar commitment in the Senate who were effective in carrying the spear for the Reagan agenda.  We are now beginning to regenerate some capable intellectual capital for a new Republican conservative reform agenda.  This makes me a little more comfortable with regards to what a Romney presidential agenda might look like.

So there you have my thoughts added to those of some of the other writers on this site.  While it will be my intention to support Romney in our Virginia GOP primary next year, you will not find me shilling for Romeny in my future writings.  I intend to continue to focus on the higher-level issues concerning the strategic positioning of the GOP and the conservative movement, flavored with some of my observations and experiences from my years in politics.

Interestingly enough, these statements did cause the Rubio for VP 2012 Intrade contract to tank, despite Rubio’s numerous protestations regarding the #2 slot in the past.

I still think he will be the Veep…

From ABC:

Wasilla, Alaska
After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.

Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.

In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.

Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country!

God bless America.

– Sarah Palin

Gallup 2012 GOP Favorability Survey

Among Republicans/GOP-Leaning Independents Who Recognize Candidate

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Herman Cain 75%/14% {+61%}
• Rudy Giuliani 76%/18% {+58%}
• Mitt Romney 72% 19% {+53%}
• Rick Perry 68%/21% {+47%}
• Sarah Palin 68%/29% {+39%}
• Rick Santorum 61%/23%  {+38%}
• Newt Gingrich 63%/30% {+33%}
• Michele Bachmann 59%/31% {+28%}
• Ron Paul 56%33% {+23%}
• Jon Huntsman 50%/31% {+19%}

(more…)

Two endorsements coming from Arkansas this afternoon: U.S. Representative Tim Griffin and Lieutenant Governor Mark Darr threw their support behind Mitt Romney.

This brings the total number of Lt. Governors endorsing Romney to 5, which happens to be 5 more than any other candidate; it brings the total number of Congressional endorsements to 21 (a number that is expected to double in the next couple months). The closest number of Congressional endorsements is Perry with 11.

What is equally interesting is the geographic location of the endorsements Romney has trotted out today: Alabama, Arkansas, and Florida. All southern states.