Yesterday, Mitt Romney walked into a phone bank in Ohio to visit with grassroots Republicans whose support he needs next year on Super Tuesday (and  if he’s the nominee, in the Fall.) They were making calls to fight a referendum to overturn Governor Kasich’s public employees union reform effort, but Romney declared himself strictly neutral on the ballot issues:

 Romney later told reporters: “I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues,” Romney said, according to CNN. “ “Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the efforts of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party’s efforts here.”

This looks like either a classic Romney flip flop. CNN’s Peter Hamby called it, “An Incredible Moment in Politics.”  He’s standing there after having visited the people in the phone bank and declares himself neutral he called about. Back in June, Romney posted on his Facebook page:

Of course, that was then and this is now. Now, Issue 2 is in real trouble which is why Romney’s campaign is putting out dodges, by saying this is a state’s issue. Apparently, it wasn’t a state’s issue in June.

In reality, what’s happening in Ohio and what happened in Wisconsin is part of fight to reign in out of control government employees unions who make fiscal responsibility impossible due to their outrageous demands. Romney had a chance to say, “I’m for reform.” and he didn’t. It was a total failure of intestinal fortitude.

And this is what will cost Romney in the end and why so many doubt them. Romney supporter will claim, “The guy is smart and experienced.” But being President doesn’t just take brains and experience, it takes guts. And a vast number of Republicans doubt whether Romney has the courage to be President.

From 44,000 individual donors.

Over at The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol claims that his dreams of a late entry to the presidential field ain’t licked yet:

CBS reports that “voters are not firm in their support of any of the candidates. About four of five voters said it is too early to say for sure who they support for the nomination, with just 19 percent saying their minds are already made up. That’s about the same as it was at this point in 2007.” …(So) mightn’t at least one of Mitch Daniels, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, or Jeb Bush be rethinking his decision not to run?

That led Quin Hillyer of The American Spectator to once again call on a Jindal entry, his second plea to the recently re-elected Louisiana governor today, the first of which Matthew Miller noted this morning. Hillyer also seems to think that it’s not too late for a deus ex machina candidate:

…if I were Karl Rove, I’d be looking at all of Mitt Romney’s weaknesses and thinking how vulnerable he would be against Obama, and I’d be picking up the phone and calling the Louisiana governor’s mansion.

You know, people say Bobby Jindal bombed in his only national speech. Well, the last time somebody famously bombed in a nationally televised speech, so badly that he was all but booed off the stage, was a guy in 1988 whose given name at birth was Billy Blythe. We know him as William Jefferson Clinton, and he bedeviled us for two full terms in the Oval Office (but not in the Lincoln Bedroom, because it was for rent). One ill-received speech does not break a career, especially when the candidate is an incredibly able debater and retail politician.

Jindal’s biggest problem with an 11th hour entry may not be money, organization, or endorsements, but his own decision to back Gov. Perry for president, something that will be very difficult to wiggle out of in any respectable manner. If Perry were to close up shop, and tag his friend Bobby into the ring, things could get interesting. And then there are those annoying filing deadlines for pivotal early states, of course, most of which are just days away…

Some impressive endorsement announcements from Team Romney today… first, from the state of Oklahoma, Mitt snags former Governor Frank Keating along with the Oklahoma State Treasurer, State Auditor, and five state legislators. (Keating endorsed McCain in 2008.)

And this afternoon, Mitt laid the smack down in the state of Florida when he announced the endorsement of 24 more state legislators, to join the group of 12 others who had already endorsed him. Romney now has the support of roughly 1/3 of the Republicans in the Florida state legislature, far and away more than any of his competitors. This show of strength bodes well for Romney in what is quickly becoming the must-win state of the primary calendar.

Full list of the endorsements are below the fold.
(more…)

Hard to believe that a candidate would fail to be impressed with the economic plan of one of his competitors, I know…

Unlike my plan to clean out the tax code entirely, Governor Perry takes the easy way out by leaving in place a broken system. Because his plan is optional it will maintain our outdated system of deductions and credits. I have offered a pro-growth plan that will actually reform our tax code for the 21st Century by eliminating loopholes, deductions, and corporate welfare entirely.

(cross-posted at Townhall.com and iHartPolitics.com)

Around the turn of the century I served as Director of Corporate Websites for a large international tech firm.  The legacy software we used to manage our websites was essentially unusable.  We were ready to scrap the entire platform but first we planned a teleconference “smack down” with the software company that sold us the lousy stuff to begin with.

My colleagues and I put together a massive list of shortcomings to throw at them.  We entered that teleconference room ready to rumble.  Our Chief Marketing Officer took us aside and said: “Here’s my advice.  I know that telling these guys off will make you feel better – but it’s not going to help your cause.”  I was floored: “But, we know we’re right?”  He tried to calm us down: “You may be right, but if you rub the genie’s lamp, you’ll never get him back in.”

He was right.  As we started through the litany of complaints they shot back with discounts and offerings which would have made it impossible to jettison the software.  We quickly backtracked and tiptoed around the other angry tidbits we had ready to hurl at them.  The conference call ended quickly, without incident and within a week, we had moved on.

I use this story to illustrate the current dilemma facing the Republican candidates for President: the red meat you throw at the base is so enticing but it can quickly come back to haunt you.  In short: why would you go there?

Some examples:

• Perry’s insistence that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme is probably accurate but so easy to turn against him.  Third-rail burns are the stuff of legend.
• Cain’s rhetorical whims of electrical fences at the border are fantastic fodder for those of us who abhor illegal immigration but this too can come back to shock him badly.
• Newt Gingrich calling for the prosecution and incarceration of sitting Democrat Senators brought huge applause but is easily turned into a black eye.

Like capitalism, an invisible hand oversees the transaction of political language.  Why would you bite the hand that feeds you? (more…)

Gallup 2012 GOP Favorability Survey

Among Republicans/GOP-Leaning Independents Who Recognize Candidate

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Herman Cain 74%/16% {+58%}
• Mitt Romney 66%/24% {+42%}
• Newt Gingrich 65%/27% {+38%}
• Rick Santorum 58%/25% {+33%}
• Rick Perry 60% /29% {+31%}
• Michele Bachmann 56%/34% {+22%}
• Ron Paul 55%/34% {+21%}
• Jon Huntsman 46% /36% {+10%}

(more…)

PPP (D) Wisconsin 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Herman Cain 30% [7%] (11%)
• Mitt Romney 18% [17%] (19%)
• Newt Gingrich 12% [10%] (14%)
• Rick Perry 12% [20%]
• Ron Paul 8% [6%] (11%)
• Michele Bachmann 5% [24%] (14%)
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Jon Huntsman 1% [1%] (3%)
• Gary Johnson 1%
• Someone else/Not sure 12% [11%] (14%)

Would you say you are strongly committed to that candidate, or might you end up supporting someone else?

• Strongly committed to that candidate 31%
• Might end up supporting someone else 69%

(more…)

PPP (D) Nevada 2012 GOP Caucus Survey

• Mitt Romney 29% [31%] (38%)
• Herman Cain 28% [8%]
• Newt Gingrich 15% [8%] (21%)
• Ron Paul 7% [11%] (10%)
• Rick Perry 6% [18%]
• Michele Bachmann 3% [14%] (14%)
• Jon Huntsman 2% [2%]
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Gary Johnson 0%
• Someone else/Undecided 9% [7%] (9%)

Would you say you are strongly committed to that candidate, or might you end up supporting someone else?

• Strongly committed to that candidate 43%
• Might end up supporting someone else 57%

(more…)

Politico has an interesting piece up about Perry’s campaign relaunch, as he attempts to resurrect his chances in the primary race. The relaunch begins with the tax plan announcement today in South Carolina, and then moves to stage two: a blitzkrieg of negative advertisements, focused like a laser at Mitt Romney.

A negative ad campaign is the specialty of Rick Scott’s campaign team — which Rick Perry hired yesterday. And according to Republican operatives, this thing is going to get ugly:

“[T]hey believe that if they can kill Romney, no one else can get the nomination but Perry,” Castellanos said. “I expect that a few Perry positives will soon hit the TV airwaves, but they will just be cover for a brutal assault on Romney from the Perry campaign and his super PAC.”

He warned: “Perry won’t just go negative. He’ll make your television bleed and beg for mercy.”

One Republican operative familiar with the work of Perry’s new team expressed concern that the coming campaign could be so negative as to “jeopardize the general election.”

“They want to destroy Romney, and they don’t care if there is no GOP elephant left,” the operative said. “Total destroy mission. And Perry’s bought into it.”

Another Republican braced for a savage assault on Romney that could weaken the GOP for the fight against President Barack Obama: “If there’s no party left, there’s no party left, and that’s what Axelrod and Obama’s guys are hoping for.” (Emphasis mine.)

Rick Perry has $15 million to spend on this “savage assault”… and whether you’re a Romney fan or not, you’ve got to be concerned about Team Perry’s attitude. This does not bode well for the party after the primary is over.

This morning, Rick Perry unveiled the tax plan that he is relying on to save his flailing Presidential campaign. The cornerstone of the plan: a 20% optional flat federal income tax.

Adam Graham, my colleague here at Race, and I don’t agree on much when it comes to primary politics — but leave it to Rick Perry to unite us this morning. I agree with Adam: this is a ridiculous plan that will be completely ineffective – at best.

Here’s the problem with the flat tax (and I’ve written about this for years, long before Perry or Giuliani or Romney came on the scene): it amounts to a tax increase on a vast majority of the American population. Back when Forbes was doing his thing, he suggested a 17% flat tax. Giuliani proposed the same thing in 2007-08. Now Perry proposes a 20% flat tax. But let’s take a look at the current tax rates for Americans (for simplicity’s sake, we’ll just take married, filing jointly for now):

According to the latest figures from the US Census Bureau, the average household income in America is $67,976. The median household income is $49,777. Either way you slice it, that means the majority of U.S. households pay taxes at a marginal rate far less than 20%.

But it goes even further than that. Here’s what most people don’t understand about the graduated income tax system in America: the marginal rates are much different from the effective rates of taxation. For instance, let’s say my wife and I make $100,000 a year. My marginal tax rate is 25% — but all of that $100,000 does not get taxed at 25%. The first $17,000 gets taxed at 10%, the income from $17,000 to $69,000 gets taxed at 15%, and only the remaining $31,000 gets taxed at 25%. Average all those rates together and you get an effective tax rate that is much lower than your marginal rate.

In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the bottom four quintiles of taxpayers in America pay an effective rate less than 20%. In other words, 80% of Americans would see a tax increase under a 20% flat tax. That 80%, according to the CBO, amounts to 92 million of the 115 million families in America.

Obviously, Steve Forbes was intelligent enough to realize that a 20% flat tax would amount to a tax increase for 92 million families, and so the other key component of the plan was put into place: the new flat tax rate is optional. Perry’s plan leaves the current tax code in place for anyone who still wants to use it — which, again, will be more than 80% of us — and then institutes the new 20% flat tax for anyone who would rather use that.

Well, guess who will opt to use the new 20% rate? Anyone who falls in an effective tax rate of more than 20%, of course — in other words, the richest quintile of Americans. So all Perry’s plan amounts to, effectively, once you strip all the hullabaloo away, is a unilateral tax cut for the richest of Americans while leaving the tax code the exact same for more than 80% of us. Let’s see how well that plays in a general election, shall we?

Left unanswered, of course – and for good reason – is whether or not this plan would be revenue neutral (it will not be, one would have to suspect, since the only thing it effectively does is cut taxes for the wealthiest 15-20%).

So when all the hype is stripped away, what we are left with is quite an anti-climactic “plan” that will land with a hollow thud among most of the electorate. Perry will undoubtedly hype this as a simple way to reform the tax code, when it is quite the opposite. If Perry is looking to revive his flagging campaign, to paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, this is not the tax plan he is looking for.

So much for Cain not having a presence in Florida. Sunshine State Sarah has the details of his Florida team and let me say, it’s more impressive than expected:

Statewide chairs: Former St. Petersburg Mayor (and Mitt Romney supporter) Rick Baker; former State Sen. (and expected Rick Perry supporter) Carey Baker; former Jeb Bush chief Kathleen Shanahan; state Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood.

 

Tampa-based media consultant Adam Goodman is a senior strategist and media adviser and Arlene DiBenigno, a veteran of Jeb Bush, Charlie Crist, and Rick Scott campaigns, is another senior strategist.

Deborah Cox-Roush, former state GOP vice chairwoman and current Hillsborough County Republican chairwoman, is director of county chairs…

Perry’s speech will go live at 11am EST.



Here are the details from his Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal:

The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.

This simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs. By eliminating the dozens of carve-outs that make the current code so incomprehensible, we will renew incentives for entrepreneurial risk-taking and investment that creates jobs, inspires Americans to work hard and forms the foundation of a strong economy. My plan also abolishes the death tax once and for all, providing needed certainty to American family farms and small businesses.

My plan restores American competitiveness in the global marketplace and provides strong incentives for U.S.-based employers to build new factories and create thousands of jobs here at home.

First, we will lower the corporate tax rate to 20%—dropping it from the second highest in the developed world to a rate on par with our global competitors. Second, we will encourage the swift repatriation of some of the $1.4 trillion estimated to be parked overseas by temporarily lowering the rate to 5.25%. And third, we will transition to a “territorial tax system”—as seen in Hong Kong and France, for example—that only taxes in-country income.

All of these tax cuts will be meaningless if we do not control federal spending. Last year the government spent $1.3 trillion more than it collected, and total federal debt now approaches $15 trillion. By the end of 2011, the Office of Management and Budget expects the gross amount of federal debt to exceed the size of America’s entire economy for the first time in over 65 years.

Under my plan, we will establish a clear goal of balancing the budget by 2020. It will be an extremely difficult task exacerbated by the current economic crisis and our need for significant tax cuts to spur growth. But that growth is what will get us to balance, if we are willing to make the hard decisions of cutting.

We should start moving toward fiscal responsibility by capping federal spending at 18% of our gross domestic product, banning earmarks and future bailouts, and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. My plan freezes federal civilian hiring and salaries until the budget is balanced. And to fix the regulatory excess of the Obama administration and its predecessors, my plan puts an immediate moratorium on pending federal regulations and provides a full audit of all regulations passed since 2008 to determine their need, impact and effect on job creation.

Be sure to read the entire piece here.

CBS/New York Times Republican National Primary

• Cain – 25% (17)
• Romney – 21% (17)
• Gingrich – 10% (8)
• Paul – 8% (7)
• Perry – 6% (12)
• Bachmann – 2% (4)
• Huntsman – 1% (2)
• Santorum – 1% (3)
• Undecided – 14% (18)

Survey of 455 likely voters was conducted Oct 19-24 and has a +/-4% margin of error. Numbers in parentheses are from the last poll completed Oct 2.

Echoing Sarah Palin’s facebook commentary the other day, Mitt Romney goes after the Obama’s record on “green jobs”, and the blatant crony capitalism it has bred (emphasis added):

First, the good news: President Barack Obama has finally created some “green jobs.” Now for the bad news: They are not in the United States, but in Finland.

The creation of environmentally friendly jobs has been at the top of Barack Obama’s policy agenda since coming into office. With the first of his now many jobs plans, the President set out to fulfill his campaign promise of spending $150 billion to create ten million green jobs. Alas, things didn’t quite worked out as planned.

First came Solyndra, the solar-panel maker backed by a major Obama campaign-funds bundler, which President Obama hailed as a “true engine of economic growth.” It turned out to be a true engine of bankruptcy. Even as the administration trumpeted its accomplishments, the firm was careening toward insolvency. Taxpayers were left holding a $500 million bill, and the firm was left facing an FBI investigation. Nonetheless, at least one Solyndra-linked fundraiser is helping to organize Tuesday’s presidential cash call in San Francisco.

Now we may be in for more of the same. The Obama administration has shoveled $1 billion out the door to two California-based electric car manufacturers. Fisker Automotive got a $529 million loan from the Department of Energy; Tesla got $465 million. President Obama has hailed such subsidies as a “historic opportunity to ensure that the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks are made in America.”

(more…)

The pro-Cain Super PAC the 9-9-9 Fund (AKA Americans for Cain) has a new ad they’re putting up soon attacking both Romney and Perry. RedState had a preview of the ad. Here’s the video:

Well, my preferred Presidential Nominee from day 1 (even ahead of Ryan), has finally received a draft mention from a prominent conservative writer.  Much too late I suspect.  The American Spectator’s Quin Hillyer makes the case:

But as a hypothetical, if one were to create from scratch a near-perfect presidential candidate, one might come close to creating Bobby Jindal, who just won re-election in Louisiana this past Saturday with a phenomenal two-thirds of the vote against nine (!) opponents…

In this contest, you would want somebody fairly youthful and energetic because Barack Obama’s youth otherwise remains an advantage. You would absolutely, positively want somebody who can beat Obama like a drum on the issue of health care — and there is no elected official in America, not even Paul Ryan, who knows health-care policy better than Jindal does. He was head of Louisiana’s health department at 24, where he almost single-handedly fixed the state’s horrendous Medicaid problems. He was executive director of Bill Clinton’s Medicare commission, headed by Louisiana Democratic U.S. Sen. John Breaux and California’s Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Thomas, which garnered bipartisan support but fell victim to the politics of the Lewinsky era. He can explain “premium support” and market solutions better than anyone in the business, especially in a debate, where — unlike, perhaps, in a formal speech setting — Jindal absolutely sparkles.You would want somebody acceptable to cultural conservatives (he’s solidly rightward on cultural issues) without the rhetoric or mannerisms that make some candidates scary to otherwise right-leaning independents who may be culturally a bit center-left (Yuppies, Bobos in Paradise, whatever you want to call them). You want somebody with a fiscal record Tea Partiers would absolutely love. (Try a rare “A” on CATO’s report card and, as Geraghty describes, a 26 percent overall cut in state spending.) You would want somebody with a good record of economic development who leads a state with better-than-average unemployment figures…

Jindal already has endorsed Rick Perry for president. Party leaders still looking to recruit another candidate might want to consider convincing him to renege on that endorsement. This nomination battle is still volatile enough for one more candidate to blow into the race with hurricane force tailwinds.

Read the whole thing.  Now, I’m no political maven, but I’m not sure how Jindal could go about “reneging” on his Perry endorsement.  Even if he could theoretically meet the filing deadline in Florida by the 31st and South Carolina by the 1st (both rather important states for a southern conservative), the whiplash of unendorsing Perry would surely complicate his first few days in the race.  Yes, Jindal’s a nigh perfect candidate.  Yes, it was a mistake for him to nix the idea ages ago and a mistake for conservatives to take him at his word- they didn’t take anyone else at their word.  And, yes, as Monday’s enormous victory showcases, Jindal probably could have flirted with running without significantly impeding his reelection chances.  But unless Perry drops out today and endorses Jindal- which would be an odd thing to do the day you unveiled a flat tax proposal- I can’t conceive of a scenario where Jindal parachutes in and ends up anything other than embarrassed and ineffectual.

Mitt Romney filed his official papers yesterday in Concord, NH, declaring himself to be a candidate for the office of President of the United States. ABC News picks up the story:

CONCORD, N.H. – A crush of supporters, media and protesters met Mitt Romney today at the New Hampshire Statehouse, where the presidential candidate filed his paperwork for the state’s primary …

Stopping to shake hands on his way into the office of Secretary of State Bill Gardner, Romney said, “Big day today, we have to make sure it takes this time.”

…Gardner has yet to set the date for the New Hampshire primary and has said he won’t until the filing deadline, which is Oct. 28. But it is widely expected that he will choose Jan. 10 as the date, securing New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status.

“President Obama and his friends believe America should be a nation led by government. They’re wrong,” Romney said. “Government has become too intrusive, too big, too fat and that’s why it’s been so difficult for this government to turn around.”

While he was there, he also picked up the plum endorsement of Former New Hampshire Governor John H. Sununu. Sununu had this to say:

“I want to thank you all for taking the time to come out this morning and since I like to be as efficient as possible, let me introduce the gentleman I believe will be the next President of the Unites States and the man I’m endorsing in that endeavor, Gov. Mitt Romney,” Sununu said to cheers from the crowd.

Polls in the last month have shown Mitt with leads well into the double digits. One such survey had him up by more than 30 points over his nearest competitor.

“It ain’t over until it’s over”, Yogi Berra used to say, but I think it’s safe to point out that those trying to contest the state against Mitt have really got their work cut out for them. His lead is formidable, and his support in the state has stood the test of time. They know him well there. There just isn’t that much time left for anyone else to make their move.

Rick Perry is out with his tax plan which features a 20% Optional Flat Tax. The difference between optional flat tax and a regular flat tax is that filers can choose to file a simple tax return-or not.

The claim by the Perry camp that this could save $483 billion in compliance costs is fatuous. You’ll have the same amount of paperwork sent out regardless. Showing me how this will save one penny in compliance costs anywhere. At least with Herman Cain’s plan, he: 1) gets rid of some taxes and 2) has the ultimate goal of getting rid of the Tax Code and replacing completely. There’s simply no reason to believe any compliance would go down under Rick Perry

Of course, the attack from liberals who say the plan benefits those who can afford to file their taxes twice is also silly. With most of us e-filling our taxes, good computer software can easily calculate whether it makes more sense to go under the Flat Tax or the normal system, just as my $20 Tax Software can calculate whether it makes sense for me to itemize or take standard deductions. However, the use of e-file also means the popular flat tax image of us filing our taxes on a postcard is also outdated because most of us don’t file paper.

Michael Dougherty of Business Insider lambasts the plan:

Perry’s tax plan would preserve all the confusion, waste, and market distortions in the current code, and add another layer. The politicians who manage that would get a new tax code to fiddle with as a bonus — one that has little substance beyond massively cutting taxes for the wealthy. Perry is selling simplicity to the GOP’s base voters — that’s the most appealing thing about a flat-tax — but most of these voters would actually pay less under the current more confusing code. ..

It’s difficult to imagine that Perry has the capacity to explain his plan with any sense of confidence. Mitt Romney’s economic plan may be over 50 pages long, but Romney can recite PowerPoint-style presentations spontaneously. Rick Perry forgets his one-liners halfway through delivering them.

Perry’s editorial outlining his plan didn’t even mention whether his team believed it was revenue-neutral. Does he care? Probably not. Does it matter? Of course not. This plan is only good for disqualifying the candidate who bothered to suggest it.

In theory, the optional nature of optional flat taxes are based on the idea that if people are given the choice they’ll choose the simpler code. In practice, what it represents is a way for politicians to act like they’re supporting tax reform without offending any of the interests that have learned to game the current code. Herman Cain raised a serious issue with his bold tax reform and Rick Perry provided an unserious response typical politician response just as Fred Thompson did.

The idea of an optional flat tax pretends that the problem with the current tax code is that it makes it hard for some individuals to do math. The true problem with the tax code are macroeconomics: It’s costly to the whole economy, retards economic growth, discourages investment and thrift, and has huge compliance costs.

Rick Perry’s tax plan won’t bring down the cost of taxes.

Rick Perry’s tax plan won’t lead to job growth.

Rick Perry’s tax plan won’t bring down the cost of compliance.

Rick Perry has given us the tax plan that won’t do anything.

Well, Herman Cain seems to be getting nothing but bad press lately, and much of it has been at his own hand.

This morning on Fox and Friends, he had a very friendly and easy interview with Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, and Brian Kilmeade. They talked about race, his tie, his 9-9-9 plan, and generally gave him one of the most softball interviews I’ve ever seen. But when it came time for the softball on abortion, Cain managed to muddy the waters yet again on the issue:

Carlson: “I know you’ve had some difficulty with the abortion issue. Here’s my question for you this morning: Should abortion be a part of the political discussion?”

Cain: “No, it should not, quite frankly.” He added, “But, my position is real clear, Gretchen, and it’s been consistent: I am pro-life.”

Cue another round of bad headlines for Cain, who now apparently believes politicians shouldn’t even be talking about abortion. Cain has a knack for not letting an issue die, that’s for sure.

That was followed up by Karl Rove appearing on Fox News with his whiteboard, listing one-by-one all the ways Herman Cain has shot himself in the foot recently. Rove declared Cain finished, which prompted an angry Cain to accuse Rove of “trying to destroy me.” Rove fired back that Fox pays him to call balls and strikes, and he was just calling the primary race like he (and many others, I might add) see it.

The bad news continued for Cain, as Mark Benjamin published a piece over at TIME’s website entitled, The Mystery of the Missing Presidential Campaign: Cain Operation MIA in Key States. The piece again draws attention to the fact that Cain’s staff in virtually nonexistent in the early states of New Hampshire, Florida, and South Carolina, and uses some pretty harsh quotes from Republican operatives to do it:

Well-connected GOP operatives in New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina say they see little or no evidence of Cain’s campaign in those key early primary states, and some are even unable to name who is leading his localized efforts just a little more than two months before voters are expected to cast the first ballots.

“There is no sense of a tangible organization that you can point to,” says Rich Killion, an uncommitted GOP strategist in New Hampshire, who’s unsure of the location of Cain’s Granite State base of operations, or even if there is one. “If you said, ‘Rich, tell me who is running the effort here?’ I could not even give you that person.” Matt Murphy, Cain’s original state director, resigned in June.

“There is good will towards him, but there is almost no organization to speak of,” says Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party. “If there is a local group who wanted to invite him to speak, it is unclear whom to call…

A prominent Republican operative in Florida says the Cain campaign is similarly invisible in his state. “If somebody called here and asked to volunteer for Cain, I would not know whom to talk to,” he says. Cain won a major Florida straw poll in late September, but he’s been largely absent ever since. “He came and worked the crowd. He got a few state reps. to endorse him” and then he left, the operative says. “It boggles the mind. I don’t know any of the usual suspects who have been called, asked or much less hired. There is no grassroots. The guys in key counties, none of them are getting talked to.”

“We see nothing to resemble a real campaign,” says another GOP operative, who is based in South Carolina and knows of only one Cain staffer there. According to him, both of South Carolina’s U.S. Senators and one member of its House delegation sought assistance with reaching out to Cain, but the strategist said he’s been unable to get the campaign to respond.

The piece bookends the evidence that Cain has zero (or close to zero) organization in these states with a simple question that’s on everybody’s minds: is Herman Cain running for President, or running to sell books and get speaking gigs? A South Carolina operative ends the piece by asking point blank: “Is it a campaign, or is it a book tour?”

Then came the news that Team Cain began running a huge radio ad campaign. At first, Iowa websites reported it and wondered if it was just an Iowa buy. But eyebrows were raised when the Cain campaign announced that the ad was not just running in Iowa – nor was it just running in the early states: no, Herman Cain has launched this radio ad in all 50 states. However, add to that bewildering move the fact that the radio ad touts a new website – 999meansjobs.com – that wasn’t even up yet today. When folks tried to go to 999meansjobs.com, this is what they were greeted with:

Apparently, 999 means Brian’s stuff. When reporters contacted the Cain campaign, they redirected the URL to Herman Cain’s site and said they would have the new site up tomorrow. Somebody needs to tell Herman Cain that he’s playing JV ball in the big leagues now. By itself, this would be something little, but when combined with everything else that’s gone wrong for Cain lately, it becomes just another way that Herman Cain proves he’s not ready for primetime.

But to close out the day, National Review has a new editorial up which is featured as their front page headline: The Hermanator Stumbles. In the piece, Mark Steyn excoriates Cain for his recent missteps, and attempts to put his finger on the cause of all this commotion:

The foreign policy, hostage-trading, abortion stuff is becoming more difficult to ignore. I don’t think Charles Krauthammer’s assertion that Cain’s “winging it” fully explains it, nor does the Pundette’s that he is “incoherent.” Cain’s boast that he can’t name the president of Beki-beki-beki-beki-beki-beki-stan gets closer to it…

But the ’stan shtick is a glimpse of the greater truth – that there are whole areas of public policy in which he simply has no interest. None. You ask him a question and from the recesses of his mind swim up half-recalled phrases from some panel discussion he caught once long ago, and he hopes he grabs the conservative line (“I’m proud to stand by Israel,” “we don’t negotiate with terrorists,” “life begins at conception,” whatever) but just as often he doesn’t (with Gretchen Carlson this morning: “No, abortion should not be a part of the political discussion”).

His fans say he’s being set up with “Gotcha” questions. But these aren’t the Hoogivsastans way out on the fringe of the public policy map. They’re the first stops on the central thruway of American politics, and have been for most of Cain’s adult life. And it’s becoming harder to avoid the obvious truth that he hasn’t given them a moment’s thought.

No, today was not kind to the Cain campaign. And its difficult to see how things get any better unless Cain takes some time out to do some serious policy studying and stops winging it out on the campaign trail. Of course, if he was out to just sell books and get speaking gigs, he’s doing just fine.

NRO has the sccop:

A group of tea-party activists in Texas will host a “modified Lincoln–Douglas debate” between Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich next month.

Bill O’Sullivan, the treasurer of Texas Tea Party Patriots, tells National Review Online that both candidates have confirmed their attendance at the forum, which will focus on fiscal issues.

O’Sullivan says the event, which will be held on November 5 at the Woodlands Resort near Houston, will also feature Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa) as an emcee.

In background conversations, both campaigns say they look forward to the discussion. A source close to Gingrich tells NRO that the former speaker will speak at length about his policy proposals and will, “in a friendly way,” illustrate his differences with Cain.

“We initially wanted a forum with all of the candidates,” O’Sullivan says. “But when we heard Gingrich say he wanted a more serious debate, like the Lincoln–Douglas debates, we wanted to do that, especially since watching the recent superficial debates has been frustrating.”

Be sure to read the entire piece here.

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 44% {41%} [42%] (39%) {42%} [43%]
• Herman Cain 38% {43%} [39%] (34%) {35%} [25%]

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted October 21-22, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted October 14-15, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 6-7, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 26-27, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted August 23-24, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted March 26-27, 2011 are in square brackets.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

One Rick hires another Rick’s team:

As his campaign seeks to re-establish itself in the top tier of the Republican presidential nomination fight, suggest that Texas Gov. Rick Perry is hiring on a series of consultants who last worked together on the 2010 campaign of Florida Gov. Rick Scott.

Curt Anderson… and Nelson Warfield will bulk up Perry’s media and advertising operation while Tony Fabrizio will help direct polling. Anderson, Warfield and Fabrizio were the strategic core of Scott’s operation in the last election — a race where the one-time health care executive spent tens of millions on ads that blanketed the Florida airwaves and delivered him a somewhat unexpected victory.

It has long been known (or at least strongly suggested) that Rick Perry will get Rick Scott’s endorsement (if Perry is still in this thing by the time Florida rolls around), so that angle to the story is no big surprise.

The interesting aspect is that this would suggest Perry is doubling down on Florida as the last great hope for his flailing campaign. Given the final primary calendar, it makes sense (although, if he can’t win Iowa or South Carolina, he’s going to find himself in Rudy Giuliani ’08 territory). Also, as Hotline notes, the fact that Perry has extended his inner circle to include these three guys would seem to indicate that Perry knows he’s flailing and needs some help that his current team cannot provide to him.

One of the more common critiques of Mitt Romney we hear from conservative pundits employs a metaphor that says Mitt Romney equals Michael Dukakis or John Kerry. After hearing the hundredth iteration of such a charge over the weekend, I thought I’d offer some thoughts on why this, to me, seems to be nothing more than an intellectually lazy comparison.

There are reasons to compare the three men, of course. All served as Governors or Lieutenant Governors of Massachusetts. Dukakis and Romney are/were both known as stiff ‘technocrats’. Kerry and Romney are/were both known for switching positions on key issues and touted as figures who appeal to an argument of electability in national elections.

But beyond those surface level similarities, there’s not much else there to recommend the comparison. In fact, there are more dissimilarities among them than similarities once you scratch the surface of presidential history.

The comparisons are made by detractors of a Romney candidacy because they believe the similarities will extend to how well Romney performs on election night: Dukakis lost in the 1988 landslide to George H.W. Bush; Kerry lost 16 years later to Bush’s son — and therefore, Romney will lose to Obama.

But why did these men lose? It will be instructive – especially for our younger readers – to re-examine these elections.

Let’s start back in 1987. At first, Michael Dukakis was an afterthought in the Democratic primaries – a liberal Governor in a crowded field of also-rans led by the former Senator from Colorado, Gary Hart. Hart was far and away the favorite to win the nomination. Four years earlier, he had finished second to Walter Mondale in the primaries, and after Mondale’s crushing defeat in the infamous blowout of 1984 (Reagan won every state except Washington, DC and Mondale’s Minnesota) the Democratic Party was anxious to move away from the liberalism of the past and embrace a centrist candidate. So the party embraced runner-up, and moderate, Gary Hart. Hart led in most of the primary polls until news of an extramarital affair sidelined his candidacy. He dropped out of the race, leaving the field muddled and with no clear frontrunner at all. Nobody knew who was going to win Iowa or New Hampshire until the contests actually took place.

When Iowa rolled around, Dick Gephardt ended up winning thanks to some huge endorsements and get-out-the-vote efforts from labor unions. To blunt Gephardt’s momentum, Dukakis aired negative ads against him in New Hampshire. The ads were so effective it actually caused the labor unions to withdraw their support from Gephardt, leaving the primaries essentially a three-man race between Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, and Al Gore (and we all know who was heading up Gore’s efforts back in Texas). Dukakis ran as the proud liberal in the race, taking the left flank of the party; Gore ran as the southern centrist and got a lot of attention because many thought he represented the new course the Democratic Party was looking to chart: young, attractive, southern, and moderate. Gore, however, was defeated by Jesse Jackson in South Carolina and his campaign would never recover. Gore went on to win five primaries on Super Tuesday, but it was Michael Dukakis, proud liberal, who would win large states such as Wisconsin and New York – and thus secure the nomination.

On the GOP side of the equation, George H.W. Bush was locked in a tougher-than expected primary battle against Kansas Senator Bob Dole. Despite having the endorsement of Ronald Reagan, more than a half dozen candidates stepped up to challenge Bush. He was largely stereotyped as a wimp, a moderate northeasterner in a (relatively new, but now solidly) party of southern religious conservatives. Additionally, no sitting Vice President had ascended to the Presidency in about a hundred and fifty years. Dole quickly became the leading challenger to Bush, along with Pat Robertson, and both men beat Bush in Iowa. Bush responded by airing negative ads against Dole in New Hampshire, won the Granite State primary, and then relied on his fundraising and organizational advantages to win the nomination.

In the 1988 Presidential campaign against Bush, Dukakis was skewered for his liberalism. He famously quipped he was a proud “card-carrying member of the ACLU”. He was a staunch opponent of the death penalty in any circumstance, and during the second debate with Bush gave the answer that may have doomed his candidacy — a cold, emotionless response to the question of whether he would desire the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife. And the final straw that lost Dukakis his chance at the White House was Willie Horton. Massachusetts had a prison furlough program in place whereby prisoners could be released for a weekend as part of rehabilitative treatment. The idea (ridiculous on its face) was that the furlough program helped prisoners re-enter society. The courts got a hold of the program and said that if you granted any prisoners furlough you had to grant all prisoners furlough – even first degree murderers. The Massachusetts legislature attempted to fix the law and ban furloughs for first-degree murderers, but Dukakis agreed with the courts and blocked the attempts. Willie Horton, a first-degree murderer, was released on one such weekend furlough – and never came back. He went on to brutally rape and murder a woman and torture and murder her husband before he was caught in Maryland. Conservative groups and the Bush campaign alike ran ads demolishing Dukakis for this program and his decision.

In the end, Bush won by a large margin over Dukakis. Michael Dukakis was simply too extreme for America. He was a proud liberal at a time when the Democratic party recognized they needed a moderate to win. Plus, Bush ran as a quasi-incumbent, promising to continue Reagan’s policies during a time of economic strength and relative quiet on the foreign policy front after the defeat of the Soviet Union.

2012 couldn’t be a starker contrast: we have the farthest thing from quiet on the global stage, and our economy is in shambles. And if you are looking to make some lazy comparisons to the 1988 election, I would suggest Romney as Gary Hart would be a much better metaphor: a moderate/centrist candidate running against the extreme elements of his own party. Hart would undoubtedly have had a much better chance against Bush in the general election than Dukakis, and could have even begun the “new” Democratic renaissance (which instead began under Bill Clinton four years later). Yes, if a comparison to 1988 is what you’re looking for, then let’s say that Mitt Romney is Gary Hart with morals.

Or if you wanted to continue with the comparisons, you could say that Romney = George H.W. Bush: a rich, Ivy League moderate northeasterner in a southern religious party. One that wins the nomination on the back of fundraising and organizational strength against surging challengers. And one that goes on to win the general election with over 400 electoral votes and 53% of the popular vote. In the 1988 election, Mitt Romney = Michael Dukakis may very well be the weakest comparison one could make.

And what about 2004? Do we have a case where Romney=Kerry because both are flip-flopping Massachusetts politicians? Let’s explore why John Kerry was nominated and why he lost.
(more…)

From my inbox:

Governor Sununu,

Over the course of this campaign you have made it abundantly clear that you would endorse a conservative governor – a laudable criterion.

However, I am surprised that you believe Mitt Romney meets that threshold. Consider some of the fundamental issues:

• While Mitt Romney opposed the Bush tax cuts and raised taxes and fees by $750 million in Massachusetts, I signed the largest tax cut in Utah history which helped our state lead the nation in job growth.
• While Mitt Romney implemented government healthcare in Massachusetts – which included an individual mandate and became the blueprint for Obamacare – I signed free-market healthcare reform described as “the other end of the spectrum” from the Obama-Romney approach.
• While Mitt Romney once declared that he does not “line up with the NRA” and pledged to not “chip away” at Massachusetts’ onerous gun control laws, I signed landmark legislation to defend the Second Amendment.
• While Mitt Romney was once ardently pro-choice – stating in 1994 that “abortions should be safe and legal” – I am proud to be a lifelong defender of the sanctity of life.
• While Mitt Romney proudly declared himself an independent during the Reagan-Bush years – even saying during his Senate campaign that he was “not trying to return to Reagan-Bush” – I am proud to have served in President Reagan’s administration which ushered in a golden era of prosperity in America.

When you look at his past statements, positions and voting record, the idea that Mitt Romney is a principled conservative is an impossible conclusion. It is more than his one term dealing with a liberal legislature; it’s a lifetime and record of inconsistent and liberal positions.

One last thing I almost forgot to mention: while we both served President George H.W. Bush – you as Chief of Staff and me as ambassador to Singapore – Mitt Romney supported and voted for Democratic presidential candidate and potential Bush opponent Paul Tsongas.

Mitt Romney and I have two very different records and visions for America’s future, which I look forward to sharing with voters in New Hampshire and across the nation. I even look forward to sitting down with you at some point if you ever care to learn the truth.

Sincerely,

Jon Huntsman

Magellan Strategies Nevada 2012 Republican Presidential Caucus Survey

• Mitt Romney 38%
• Herman Cain 26%
• Newt Gingrich 16%
• Ron Paul 7%
• Rick Perry 5%
• Michele Bachmann 2%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Jon Huntsman 1%

Magellan Strategies are pleased to present the topline results of a 673n autodial survey of likely 2012 Republican Caucus voters in the state of Nevada. The interviews were conducted on October 19th and October 20th, 2011. This survey has a margin of error of +/? 3.77% at the 95 percent confidence interval. The survey response data was weighted based upon past voting demographics of Nevada Republican primary election cycles.

Inside the numbers:

Since our last survey at the end of August, Mitt Romney has increased his overall support by 14 points from 24% to 38%. Looking at the ballot test by voter subgroup, we find Mitt Romney with very large margins among women (+22), seniors (+18), and not surprisingly Mormon voters (+67). Among all respondents, 16% identified themselves as Mormon. The race is much tighter among male voters (Romney +2), self-identified Tea Party members (Romney -2) and voters that did not vote in the 2008 Nevada GOP Presidential Caucus (Romney -1). We consider the latter two populations “Sharon Angle” voters, and if Mitt Romney can remain competitive among these two groups he will be in a strong position to win.

According to a spokesman for Gov. McDonnell, an official endorsement will not happen tomorrow. But it appears to be just a matter of time (a month to be specific):

FAIRFAX, Va. – Some volunteers at Fairfax County Republican Party headquarters working on next month’s statewide elections will be getting a special thank you on Wednesday. But it will be anything but routine.

Gov. Bob McDonnell will be stopping by with former Mass. Gov. and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.

“It helps [Romney] to attach himself to a very popular Governor such as Bob McDonnell, who might be considered for a vice presidential nomination next year,” says George Mason University Public Policy Professor Mark Rozell.

Rozell says it’s also good for McDonnell.

“Bob McDonnell has been more clear than most of the usually cited names about his availability to be a vice presidential nominee” says Rozell.

“It’s no surprise to me that he’s attaching himself to Mitt Romney on this trip to Virginia right now,” he adds.

The appearance also comes a week after a swing through the state by President Obama. Rozell says both trips emphasize how important Virginia may be in next year’s election.

A spokesman for the Governor says McDonnell will not make any endorsement in the Presidential race until after the statewide elections in Virginia next month

Hat-tip: Mitt Romney Central

Mr. Forbes discusses his endorsement, as well as Gov. Perry’s economic plan, on FOX News:



Gov Perry comments, “Steve Forbes is a well known fiscal conservative, and provided strong support and advice throughout the process of drafting my economic and jobs plans,” said Gov. Perry. “I am honored to have Steve’s endorsement of my candidacy for president.”

P.S. You can read my exclusive interview with Mr. Forbes from the ’08 cycle here.