Middle East expert and Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, Kenneth Timmerman, details why the Obama Justice Department’s contention that the figures involved in the recently uncovered Iranian assassination plot acted without the knowledge and sanction of official elements of the Iranian government does not pass the laugh test (a sentiment which I wholeheartedly echo):

Buried on page 18 of the indictment is the following passage:

“SHAKURI advised ARBABSIAR that an individual whom ARBABSIAR understood to be the leader of the Qods Force (hereinafter “Iranian Official #3?), was aware of what ARBABSIAR was doing and that he (ARBABSIAR) could meet with Iranian Official #3 in the future.”

Shakuri is the other defendant in the case, and is currently a fugitive. He served as a courier for Arbabsiar’s cousin, and brought $15,000 in cash to Arbabsiar to cover his expenses while they were waiting for the $100,000 wire transfer to be made into the DEA informant’s bank account from a non-Iranian bank.

This passage clearly suggests that the plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was officially sanctioned by Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the notorious commander of the Quds Force, a man identified by the Guardian newspaper as the true power behind the Islamic Republic regime.

Be sure to read the entire piece over at the Daily Caller.

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

2012 Iowa Republican Caucus

2012 New Hampshire Republican Primary

New Hampshire – Not Displaying Romney

Almost everybody in the Mitt Romney camp blames Mike Huckabee for thwarting the former Massachusetts Governor’s opportunity to be president in 2008 and giving us John McCain.  They have suggested a secret whisper campaign in Iowa and elsewhere led Evangelical Christians to vote against “the Mormon”.

Even today these Romney supporters make no distinction between a political position and a religious one.  Governor Huckabee himself may have brought some of the criticism on himself by making an off-hand remark to a reporter in 2007 that he thought that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers (which they do).   But even if Huckabee believes that Mormonism is a false religion (or a cult) that does not mean that he would not vote for a Mormon (in fact he has endorsed Mormons in the past and affirmed that he would vote for Romney).  These are two separate issues, but the Romney supporters and mainstream press refuse to make the distinction. And there lies the rub.  Many pundits and political hacks have implied that if a presidential candidate believes that another candidate’s religion is false, it is THAT belief that disqualifies the candidate from office.

There is a religious test.   Talk show host Glenn Beck applied it to Mike Huckabee.  Beck once called Huckabee “the devil” because he refused to say that Beck (who also is a Mormon) is a Christian.   But Christianity and Mormonism have been at odds over that question since the very latter religion began during the days of Joseph Smith.   Smith and the Latter Day Saints have always maintained that only Mormons are saved, and that Christendom is false.  It is not a one-way street.  It is simple.   Each has in the past considered the other a false religion.

Neither Huckabee nor texas Governor Rick Perry have suggested for a moment that Romney’s religion should keep him from office.  Enter author and Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress, who introduced Perry at the Value Voters Summit earlier this month.  Jeffress later said that Mormonism is a cult and that Christians should only vote for Christians. I do not know if he was asked about this by a reporter or not, but he reiterated the statement from his church pulpit the following week.

John Huntsman, who is a member of the Latter Day Saints church, said the pastor is a moron for making the statement and then required a religious test of Rick Perry.  Romney also insisted that Perry repudiate the man.   Why?  What if Perry believed that Mormonism is a cult? Does that disqualify him from being president?   Are people who believe like Jeffress to be excluded from campaign positions or public appearances?  Should candidates ask each person what they believe about Mormonism before they become a precinct chairman or introduce the candidates at a political rally?

Why make the demands that Perry even declare his religious position then? Romney is rarely asked the religious question, about his actual belief, he is only asked about its effect upon his campaign. Perhaps that is as it should be.  But Perry shouldn’t be required to comment on his religioous belief either.  Sadly, Perry took the position that Mormonism is not a cult (which, of course, did not satisfy Huntsman):

This kind of talk, I think, has no home in American politics these days.  And, you know, anyone who is associated with somebody willing to make those comments ought to stand up and distance themselves in very bold language.  And that hasn’t been done.  And – and Rick ought to stand up and do that.

Apparently neither Beck, Romney, or Huntsman nor the mainstream will allow a candidate to punt on this issue. The implication Huntsman makes is that anybody who believes that Mormonism is a cult is disqualified to be president.  Now THAT is a religious test.

Cross-posted on Caffeinated Thoughts.

Politico has an interesting article listing what they consider the twelve endorsements most worth having in the Republican race:

• Kelly Ayotte
• Haley Barbour
• Jeb Bush
• Mitch Daniels
• Jim DeMint
• Rudy Giuliani
• Mike Huckabee
• Steve King
• Rush Limbaugh
• Sarah Palin
• Marco Rubio
• Paul Ryan

A few of these are clearly not party heavyweights (Ayotte, King) but are important because of their states. Others are big names and/or appeal to particular segments of the party. I think the list is reasonable, though I would probably add Nikki Haley.

The Politico article gives a bit about who might or might not get each endorsement and why, as well as which of these are most likely or least likely to issue an endorsement.

Let’s have a little fun with this: We’ll have a poll on which endorsement people think would have the biggest effect on the campaign.

This is not about which potential endorsers you like or don’t like, which would sway you the most, or which you think is most likely to endorse your candidate. Please try to put your own biases aside.

For discussion purposes, though I don’t put a lot of weight on endorsements in any case, I suppose Mitch Daniels’ endorsement would mean the most to me, since he seems to get it about entitlements and the deficit, and I don’t think he would endorse anyone without some assurance that that person also gets it. For similar reasons, I would value endorsements from Barbour, Bush, and Ryan.

Nonetheless, I think the most valuable endorsement (though it would mean nothing to me) would be Limbaugh’s, simply because he speaks to such a huge audience, many of whom think he knows what he’s talking about. Palin and Huckabee have similar followings and large (though not as large) microphones. Bush and Giuliani are also big names and therefore valuable endorsers.

It should be noted that context matters in endorsements. An endorsement from an establishment figure like Daniels or Bush would mean more to an insurgent like Cain than it would to fellow establishmentarian Romney. For the same reason, a Palin or Huckabee endorsement would be huge for Romney because of their Tea Party and SoCon credibility. But for this poll, we’ll stick with which endorsement would be likely to have the biggest impact on the overall populace of Republican voters.

In the third quarter, Michele Bachmann raised $4.1 million, she spent $6.1 million. This is a 150% burn rate for Bachmann and is unsustainable for the long term. Politico has more on the subject here. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Michele Bachmann spent $2 million more than she raised in the third quarter and her fundraising efforts are lagging far behind several frontrunners for the GOP presidential nomination.

 

Bachmann raised $4.1 million between July and September, but spent more than $6.1 million, according to her campaign filings. Her fundraising was split between the $3.9 million raised for her official presidential committee, and another $200,000 for her congressional committee, which is now raising cash for her presidential campaign.

Bachmann’s fundraising efforts pale in comparison to Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, who raked in $17.2 million and $14.2 million in the third quarter, respectively.

Her fundraising pace hasn’t picked up since the second quarter, when the congresswoman raised $4.2 million. In the second quarter, Bachmann raised $2 million in three weeks and made a $2 million transfer from her congressional committee.

_______________________________________________________

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

Herman Cain’s 3rd Quarter began with many feeling he had no chance, but towards the end of the third quarter, Cain won the Florida straw poll and came on strong to top his Q2 fundraising. Stacy McCain reports Cain may be on our far more prodigious fundraising pace for the 4th Quarter. McCain qutoes a Republican Political strategist who notes the possibilities:

“They launched some Web ads, banner ads … and they are proving effective. … As they’ve already said, they raised two million bucks in the first two weeks [of October]. You project that out over the course of the quarter and you’re talking … Romney-esque fundraising numbers. … If you’re raising a million dollars a week, times twelve weeks, you’re talking twelve million bucks…you’re conceivably looking at a campaign that hits January 1st with, potentially, ten million bucks cash on hand.”

Of course, there’s no guarantee that the fundraising will continue at this pace which would put Cain at similar fundraising levels to Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Fundraising may be more difficult because of the Holidays. On the other hand, Ron Paul raised $19.5 million in 4th Quarter 2007, so $12 or $13 million would not be an unachievable total for Cain.

Of course, raising money and spending it appropriately are two different things as Paul’s campaign illustrated. However, if Cain maintains this pace, questions about how he’ll compete in Florida, may fade away when 4th Quarter fundraising reports are released.

Jon Huntsman’s FEC report is finally out – the last of the candidates’ to be filed – and it is not pretty. He raised about $2.25 million and self-funded his campaign to the tune of another $2.25 million. After pumping $4.5 million in, all he has left now is just $300,000 cash on hand.

Ouch. Worse than that, though: the Huntsman campaign is carrying $3.15 million in debt — an amount that will surely put an end to his presidential ambitions.*

But it gets worse than that. Unbelievably worse.

Remember, Huntsman joined the race a week before the end of the second quarter, so he was not required to file a Q2 FEC report. However, his one week of fundraising was so amazing, his campaign released his numbers anyway: $4.1 million.

That’s right: Huntsman’s campaign claimed to have raised $4.1 million in his first week. Roughly half of that was outside fundraising, and half of that was self-funding loans from Huntsman. Remember that $4.1 million figure.

Here’s the rub: since Huntsman wasn’t required to file a Q2 report, that fundraising activity was required to go on his Q3 report. And so line 5 of his FEC filing states that the report is for the period of May 17, 2011 through September 30, 2011.

If Jon Huntsman raised $4.1 million by the end of June 30 — which his campaign says he did — that means he raised just $400,000 during the entire third quarter.

That is a flop of massively epic proportions. Goodbye, Jon Huntsman.

*It should be noted that $2.25 million of that debt is Huntsman’s loan to his campaign.

The official FEC reports are beginning to roll in today, the Q3 filing deadline. The official Q3 fundraising leaderboard, with links to the FEC filings, is below! We will add candidates as their FEC reports become available.

¹Totals for Huntsman include Q2 numbers as well. See this post for more details.
²Self-funding

I found the following quote in an article by Steven Wayward at Powerline. He in turn is quoting someone else. See if it sounds familiar:

It was [the President]’s insistence upon the essential unity of his policies that inevitably brought into question his understanding of economics. . .  The first centered in a failure to understand what is called, for lack of a better term, business confidence.  Confidence consists, on the one side, of belief in the prospect of profits and, on the other, in the willingness to take risks, to venture money. . .  This [the President] refused to recognize.  In fact, the term “confidence” became, as time went on, the most irritating of all symbols to him.  He had the habit of repelling the suggestion that he was impairing business confidence by answering that he was restoring the confidence the public had lost in business leadership. . .

But, what had been done?  For one thing, the confusion of the administration’s utility, shipping, railroad, and housing policies had discouraged the small individual investor.  For another, the administration’s taxes on corporate surpluses and capital gains, suggesting, as they did, the belief in a recovery based upon capital investment is unsound, discouraged the expansion of producers’ capital equipment.  For another, the calling of names in political speeches and the vague, veiled threats of punitive action all tore the fragile texture of credit and confidence upon which the very existence of business depends.

Sure sounds like Obama, right? Well, the President being referred to in the above quote was not BHO but FDR. Wayward was quoting from Raymond Moley’s book After Seven Years. Wayward describes Moley as, “… a top aide and speechwriter for FDR from 1932 on“, and the book as recording, “… Moley’s growing disillusionment with both FDR and the New Deal that culminated in Moley leaving the White House in 1938.” The book came out a year later in 1939.

Hayward points out that FDR’s policies were what put the “great” in “the Great Depression”. FDR refused to listen to anyone who told him his policies were killing the business climate. Nobody wanted to invest. Nobody wanted to spend money. FDR was so convinced of his personal righteousness that he would contemptuously wave off any suggestion that his policies were to blame.

It is the same with Obama. As Mitt Romney has pointed out countless times, Obama may not have caused this recession, but his policies have prolonged it and made it far worse than it had to be. Yet this Narcissist-in-chief refuses to recognize this fact; or if he does, he refuses to change course. He continues to govern by whim with no discernible policy other than what feels good at the time. Obama habitually employs class-warfare, partisan name-calling, and other rhetorical tricks in his speeches and press conferences; secure in his own sense of self-righteousness.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

CNN reports that the Jon Huntsman campaign has exhausted its initial fundraising blitz and fallen deep into debt:

Jon Huntsman’s presidential campaign is verging on broke after burning through more than $4 million since the former Utah governor entered the race for the Republican nomination in June.

The Huntsman campaign, which re-trenched last month by laying off staff and moving its national quarters to the must-win primary state of New Hampshire, finished the third fundraising quarter in September with just $327,000 in the bank and $890,000 in debt.

Since joining the race on June 21, Huntsman raised $2.26 million and contributed $2.25 million of his own money to the campaign for a total $4.51 million.

But a campaign official told CNN Friday that they have spent $4.18 million, leaving Huntsman with a paltry war chest as the GOP nomination fights heats up.

However, the campaign still professes reason for hope:

After a rocky summer that saw the departures of a handful of senior campaign advisers, the operation has slimmed down and reduced spending by half since June.

And after an uptick in the polls in New Hampshire –Huntsman’s beachhead in the GOP race– the campaign says they have seen a 240% increase in fundraising since late September.

…Huntsman backers are hoping that television ads will help boost the campaign’s profile both nationally and in the Granite State, the underwhelming fundraising numbers suggest the campaign far from prepared to buy any airtime.

That leaves the task of going on television to “Our Destiny PAC,” a SuperPAC formed by Huntsman supporters to raise and spend unlimited funds on behalf of the candidate.

This looks like do-or-die time for Gov. Huntsman. With his ardent refusals to pony up any more of his personal wealth for his presidential bid, he’ll quite simply have to build on his momentum or close up shop. And while he has recently trended upward in New Hampshire polls, he has three monumental hurdles to overcome: 1. He still has middling personal favorability numbers among Republican voters, 2. Ideologically, he seems fundamentally out-of-step with the current mood of the Republican base, and 3. His tenure as Ambassador to China will – however unfairly – forever saddle him with the Scarlet “O”.

Here are the just released top level fundraising numbers for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign for Q3 and the primary cycle-to-date:

Romney is on a higher burn rate in Q3 now that the campaign is until full swing. While the number of itemized donors was down, the average dollar amount was up. In other words, Romney was able to bring in significant money with fewer high end contributors. Also note the decent uptick in unitemized contributions. An excellent sign that Romney can grab the Internet donors as well.

Here’s a select comparison of Q2 and Q3 disbursements with top dollar differences.

Notice the direct mail costs are kicking in which is common after 2 quarters. (For example, the mail cost billing can be deferred by the vendors for 90 days). Romney had about 30+ staff members in Q2 and is now pushing 60.

Bottom line: Romney is still in great position but needs to build on the momentum to win the money game in Q4.

Cross-posted on iHartPolitics.com

Mike Huckabee’s not buying the Perry family’s religion argument for why the campaign hasn’t gone well. And Bill O’Reilly is ticked off that Perry refuses to step into the no-spin zone.

Thanks to commenter Massachusetts Conservative for the Tip.

Herman Cain added to the Nevada boycott becoming the first front-runner to join up:

A spokesman for Cain confirmed Friday afternoon that “Yes,” Cain would join the Nevada boycott call, “if it interferes with the first in the nation primary in New Hampshire.”

Cain, unlike the others, does have a ground operation in the state.  And also given Cain’s potential to compete nationally, this does endanger the credibility of the Nevada contest.

Given Cain’s current standing and the shakiness of Rick Perry, it’s quite possible that by the time the Nevada Caucus rolls around that the only candidates competing will be Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

The state has always been a Romney firewall, with a slight opportunity for Rick Perry to capitalize on Governor Sandoval’s support.  This could be a set-back for Romney. A contest in which major candidates stay away has its credibility severely wounded. Whether it was the 1996 Delaware Primary or the 2008 Wyoming Caucuses (held while New Hampshire was holding its primary), contests without candidates don’t work out well. So Nevada definitely now has a dilemma.

It also could help Cain in New Hampshire, depending on how many New Hampshirites side with the Secretary of State. Romney had better hope for a quick resolution to this thing.

I remember back in 2008, my friend David Oatney and I were doing a podcast and he asked me to predict the outcome of the Primary and I went with a bold prediction.

I predicted Romney to take in a straight line: Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and South Carolina with a domino effect of momentum pushing him to the nomination. I dismissed the idea of Huckabee winning Iowa, despite polls showing a Huckabee lead. Polls of caucuses are very inaccurate, I reasoned and Romney has far superior organization that will turn out his people to vote.*

But something funny happened on the way to the coronation.

The race rapidly changed in all three states and Huckabee ran far better than I expected because I underestimated two important forces:

1) Earned Media: Huckabee racked up the equivalents of millions of dollars in media publicity through his appearances on a wide variety of programs, as well as the news stories his campaign generated.  He never caught up with Mitt Romney’s money, but he didn’t have to.

2) The Power of Grassroots Americans: When I imagined Huckabee’s Iowa organization, I thought only of the lack of paid staffers and County Chairman that were at Huckabee’s disposal. I forgot the Human Touch.  I knew nothing of the grassroots efforts that would be waged by folks like Huck’s Army.

Mark Lowe’s Matt Coulter’s  recent post reminded me of that  error. 

There is a paradigm shift going on in American politics. that traditional political analysis is missing where individuals are increasingly finding their voices in a variety of ways.  Interest in Cain has spread by word of mouth. I’ve seen emails and status message in support of Herman Cain from people who are not really political.

In regards to a couple specific points:

On  Herman Cain’s  book tour and schedule, I’d point out that it lasted five days and included stops in South Carolina and Florida. And all the other states that Cain visited, as well as Ohio are Super Tuesday states where Cain would do well to get acquainted. Many candidates can do well at the beginning of a campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, only to find themselves lesser known when the campaign comes down to big states they’ve never visited.

As to Cain’s lack of a national base comparable to Huckabee’s standing among Evangelicals, I’d point out that Cain’s rise is led by his domination among Tea Party supporters who were key to the victory in many Republican Primaries.

It’s still a little early to know for sure what Cain has or what Cain will get. By this time in 2007, Huck’s Army had not even been founded. 

It’s easy to buy into an establishment narrative based on the way things have always been, but after last time, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Herman Cain’s chances.

(more…)

Time Magazine recently concluded a poll. Among the data reported were the answers to the question:

Whom would you vote for in a race between Obama and _______???

	Obama	Candidate	Margin
Romney	46	43	-3
Perry	50	38	-12
Cain	49	37	-12

Obama barely beats Romney by three points (MOE stuff) and Perry and Cain each lose by double digits. But that’s not all that different from most other recent polls. This is the crosstab that really caught my eye (Cain’s numbers were not given):

Asked of Evangelicals: Whom would you vote for in a race between Obama and _______?

	Obama	Candidate	Margin
Romney	39	51	+12
Perry	40	46	+6

Yes, you read that right. That is not a typo. Among Evangelicals,  Mitt Romney is leading Rick Perry in the fight against Obama. They both score higher than Obama, but Mitt leads Obama by double Rick’s score.

As Time put it:

But Perry’s most alarming area of under-performance is among evangelicals, a conservative faction squarely in Perry’s wheelhouse. This is a governor whose revival rally filled a Houston football stadium, who courts conservative bigwigs in language that reveals a Biblical fluency. Less than a week ago, a Perry supporter sparked a kerfuffle by suggesting that Romney, a Mormon, would not appeal to Evangelicals on the hunt for a true Christian candidate rather than an adherent to a “cult.” And yet in TIME’s poll, Romney outperforms Perry among Evangelicals, leading Obama 51% to 39%. Perry leads Obama among Evangelicals as well, but by a slimmer 46% to 40% margin. That head-to-head deficit in a prime Perry demographic may underscore the degree to which his faltering performance has sowed doubts among potential supporters.

Herman Cain is in second place nationally in the Republican primary by the count of most polls — and tied for first in one and in first place in at least one other. His campaign is clearly experiencing a groundswell of support, but is it support that will last, or support the flavor of Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry that ends up being a flash-in-the-pan? According to Cain’s campaign aides, Herman Cain plans on running a “nontraditional strategy” for the Republican nomination. Watching that strategy play itself out, however, one has to wonder if his campaign will be nontraditional or just a non-factor.

There is much we can now consider since Herman Cain re-emerged on the scene with his blowout victory at the Presidency V straw poll in Florida. (And I say re-emerged because, remember, back in June Herman Cain was in second place as well, being the only candidate not named Mitt Romney who scored in double digits. That first dream died in the lead up to, and aftermath of, a disappointing performance at the Ames Straw Poll. So this is actually Herman Cain’s second go around as the Romney alternative in this race.)

Herman Cain never expected to win P5. His campaign has admitted it was a complete surprise. Cain himself said before that victory he was tempted on at least two occasions to throw in the towel and end his campaign. But Florida changed everything – Rick Perry’s utter collapse gave Cain a second wind. The question ever since has been: how will Herman Cain use the opportunity handed to him on a silver platter?

The first signs were not good. Cain, expecting to still be a lower-tier presidential wannabe, had scheduled a book tour following the P5 straw poll. After winning the straw poll, many assumed he would cancel the book tour so he could do some campaigning in states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. But Cain (now famously) embarked on the book tour- during which he spent valuable campaign and fundraising time hawking his book in places such as Georgia, Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee. Cain quipped to the press, “I can sell books and campaign at the same time.” But questions lingered: just how serious was he about this Presidency thing?

When Cain took time out from his book tour, instead of heading to the early states, he went to Ohio to give an unrelated speech at a Christian college. And most recently, he’s traveled back to Tennessee for two days while his competitors plant themselves in Iowa or New Hampshire or travel to big money fundraisers.

In fact, fundraising may just be the major Achilles’ heel in Herman Cain’s rise. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney both have $15 million cash on hand heading into the homestretch of this campaign. Cain, on the other hand, says he will have “hundreds of thousands” of dollars — not even enough to match one single recent ad buy done by perpetual second-tier candidate Ron Paul. Unless Cain does fundraisers in conjunction with these speeches and book signings, it’s incredibly difficult to see how exactly he can “do both at the same time”.

Some pundits have compared Herman Cain to Mike Huckabee in 2007/08, when the Arkansas Governor/Pastor triumphed in the Iowa caucuses and several Super Tuesday states while being outspent exponentially by his opponents. However, the comparison doesn’t hold up well when you realize that Huckabee, as the only outspoken evangelical Christian in the race, largely rode on the back of unofficial evangelical church organization for his victories. Herman Cain has no such benefit this time around — the evangelical realm is split between several candidates now, and Cain (despite being in church leadership in Atlanta) does not seem a natural fit for that community in places like Iowa, at least not to the level Huckabee was.

So it’s not only money that’s the problem. Without money, you can’t make or run ads, and without money, you can’t put together a top notch organization, either. Cain currently has four campaign members working for him in Iowa. Even Ron Paul has more than twice that number in the first caucus state. And in New Hampshire, it’s even worse: Cain’s campaign has just two staffers in the Granite State, where Rick Perry and Mitt Romney both have ten. And again, Ron Paul has more of a campaign presence in New Hampshire than Herman Cain.

All of that wouldn’t be a problem, if Cain was capitalizing on the recent rash of popularity to hire some more talent that would surely join his team. But he’s not. It’s easy to understand why: staff requires cutting into that “hundreds of thousands” in his bank account. So does filing for all the primaries. South Carolina costs $35,000 to get on the ballot, for instance. For Cain, that’s a big percentage to take out of his cash on hand total. It also takes a lot of organization and feet on the ground to get the necessary signatures in states that require them to get on the ballot, something that Cain has so far seemed entirely unconcerned with.

The other problem is that Iowa – where Cain would have to do well, or perhaps even win, to remain viable – is a caucus, and caucuses require much more organization and groundwork than do primaries. But Cain seems to be largely ignoring the state: he hasn’t set foot there since the Ames straw poll, and has no plans to return to the state until mid-November.

By that time, he may find that instead of being the unlikely frontrunner, his victory is simply unlikely.

You have been trashing Mitt Romney quite a bit on your respective programs as of late. That’s fine. It’s your show, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But you have also been quite severe on the other GOP candidates for not taking it to Romney on RomneyCare during the debates. You’ve been more than a little scathing in your denunciations of them on the subject.

So here’s my question.

Why don’t YOU have Mitt on your program so YOU can take it to him?

Why don’t YOU put him on the hotseat and grill him? Don’t just sit around railing against the people who actually have to face him but can’t seem to do it to your satisfaction. Do it yourself, and show them how it’s done.

Mitt has shown over and over again that he is willing to defend MassCare anytime, anyplace. He would jump at the chance to defend it on your respective programs with your extensive audiences. So why don’t you make it happen?

This morning, Team Romney released their final Q3 fundraising number, and it is higher than earlier projections. Remember, toward the middle of October a Romney aide said the total was likely to be less than $10 million, then toward the end of the month they revised the figure to $11 – $13 million. This morning, they announced their FEC report will show $14.2 million raised for the quarter. That is about $2.8 million less than Perry raised in half the time – but far more than any other candidate is expected to report.

Meanwhile, Santorum verified that he will report less than $1 million once again, and Cain said he could not verify the earlier reports from his camp that he raised $2.1 million – virtually identical to his Q2 haul. Cain did, however, say that he had “several hundred thousand dollars” cash on hand that he was ready to spend. This is significantly less than the $15 million cash on hand that Perry and Romney are both reporting. The question now is: how will the candidates use that money heading into the home stretch?

It’s only 80 days to go until Iowa (assuming a January 3 caucus).

UPDATE: I know you’ve all been on pins and needles waiting for this information… Buddy Roemer is the only candidate who has filed his FEC report early – so you get the very first official numbers of the Q3 fundraising race right here at Race. Roemer raised $137,521 last quarter, and has $46,111 cash on hand. Now the question becomes: who raised less, Buddy Roemer or Gary Johnson? Remember, Johnson ended Q2 with just $6,000 cash on hand! The battle of the cellar dwellers is heating up, folks.

Economist/YouGov 2012 GOP National Primary Poll

• Herman Cain 33%
• Mitt Romney 18%
• Rick Perry 10%
• Newt Gingrich 9%
• Ron Paul 7%
• Jon Huntsman 4%
• Michele Bachmann 3%

Asked of registered voters who are likely to vote in a Republican primary or caucus among s ample 1000 General Population Respondents. Conducted October 8-11, 2011.

National Journal/Magellan Strategies 2012 GOP New Hampshire Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 41%
• Herman Cain 20%
• Ron Paul 10%
• Newt Gingrich 6%
• Jon Huntsman 6%
• Michele Bachmann 4%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Rick Perry 2%
• Gary Johnson 1%
• Undecided 8%

Survey conducted on October 12th and 13th. MoE is 3.61%.

In an effort to kiss up to New Hampshire voters, Jon Huntsman has decided to boycott the Nevada Caucuses on January 14th and was joined by Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum. All  are well back of the pack in Nevada and had no organization in the state, prompting Washoe GOP County Chairman Dave Buell to mockingly say, “On no, are we going to lose Gary Johnson too?”

The top three competitors in New Hampshire: Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul aren’t joining the boycott. Neither is Texas Governor Rick Perry (R-Tx)  who has the endorsement of the Governor. No one taking part in this boycott (other than perhaps Huntsman) has any shot at winning either Nevada or New Hampshire.

To be fair to the Nevada GOP, this situation and New Hampshire power play is quite unfair as told by Nevada GOP National Committeeman Bob List. “They told us to pick your date and as soon as you do, we will pick our date, and we complied with that request.”

At this point, it really looks like New Hampshire Secretary Bill Gardener is showing levels of power-madness not seen since Captain Bligh commanded the Bounty and is set to give us our first December presidential primary needlessly.  New Hampshire’s spot as first in the nation primary is not threatened by a caucus 4 days later, but its relevance is threatened by Gardener’s movie.

Rick Santorum was right when he warned what this will do to New Hampshire’s status. “It will make this primary irrelevant. You move this primary up to where you only have six or seven weeks to campaign, it becomes a big straw poll.”

Gardener does have a face-saving out and that is to hold the New Hampshire Primary on Saturday, January 7th, a full week before Nevada. Being first in the nation may be a requirement of state law, but holding the thing on a Tuesday isn’t.  It’s merely a preference. If New Hampshire voters had their choice, I’m sure they’d rather vote on the first Saturday of 2012, rather than right before the Christmas shopping rush.

Regardless of whether New Hampshire does this crazy thing, Iowa’s better in that as the Caucus is run by the state parties, they have the luxury of being able to use their brains.  Just because New Hampshire to walk off into political oblivion doesn’t mean that Iowa has to follow them over the precipise.

Ed Morrissey is one of my favorite bloggers, but he’s simply wrong on two points about the 9-9-9 plan. First, point is on the Constitution:

The federal sales tax, at least without a Constitutional amendment, makes the limitation of federal authority to interstate commerce absolutely dead.  If they have tax jurisdiction on any retail sales transaction in America, then Congress has the explicit power to regulate allcommerce, not just the encroachments we’ve seen through Wickard.

The lack of explicit Constitutional Authority for a national sales tax as is collected in most states is a problem, but not an insurmountable one.  Consider that, as part of Obamacare, a 10%  tax was imposed on tanning sessions.  While conservatives want to repeal this, no one thinks  it’s unconstitutional. The reason? Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that states, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” An excise tax could be levied on all retail goods and services that would be paid by the retailer. The difference versus a normal state sales tax is that the Federal Tax would not show up on the receipt as it would be included in the price by the retailer. The Fair Tax also operates as a de facto excise tax.

Secondly, is some political advise for Cain:

Cain’s a smart man who knows how to adapt when a business plan doesn’t work out.  I’d prefer to see his 9-9-9 plan modified to a 15-15 plan, or a plan to just transfer to a constitutionally-based (and constitutionally-limited) Fair Tax without…

Cain is a smart man, smart enough not to follow this advice which would send him back to the political cellar.  The 9-9-9 plan has helped Cain rise because it’s a bold solution to a problem. If Cain radically changes in response to criticism from people who are unlikely to support him, it will do more damage to him politically than anyone’s alarm about the 9-9-9 plan. It will make him look wishy washy, indecisive, and just like another politician.  It could be that critics of 9-9-9 could gin up enough concern to kill Cain’s campaign, but Cain jettisoning will definitely kill it.

Also, Morrissey’s suggestion that Cain follow alternate proposals would take the Cain campaign down tried and failed campaign tactics, which Cain is quite familiar with. While Cain may be experienced in many policy areas, one area he is not inexperienced in is the politics of tax reform.

Cain served on the House GOP’s Kemp commission that looked at tax reform in the 1990s. Then in 2000, he supported Steve “Flat Tax” Forbes for President, and he’s been advocating the Fair Tax for several years.  The problem with the Flat Tax is that any single rate is too high. For example, if Cain were to propose a 15% Flat Tax with no deductions as Morrissey suggests, the rate would be intimidating with no deductions. If you add in exemptions and deductions, the rate ends at 17%.  

Many proponents of the Fair Tax have been defeated due to disingenuous  opponents who either 1) ignore provisions of the Fair Tax that help the poor and middle class such as the prebate, 2) pretend that the person is advocating a Fair Tax would be added on top of current taxes.  The Fair Tax needs explaining and if anything is far easier to scare voters about.

9-9-9 is a Sticky and simple plan that would be better than what we have now. 

It’s also important to remember while everyone is freaking out about the specifics of 9-9-9, that Herman Cain is not running for emperor. Any tax plan will have to go through Congress, where it will be fine-tuned. The important thing about Cain’s focus is that it gives momentum to the idea of ending our nation’s anti-growth tax code, something that no other viable candidate is proposing.

For several months, I’ve been tracking all the presidential polls and calculating a rolling five-poll average for each candidate, which I post here periodically. With the wild gyrations in the candidates’ standings in the past several weeks, I’ve been trying to make sense of it all. I’m not sure I can (I’ve been following politics a long time, and have never seen a campaign twist and turn like this one), so I put together this chart to help:

Rick Perry’s poll average peaked in the second week of September at 32.0; since then he has lost almost twenty points. Also since then, Sarah Palin, who had an average of 11.0 at the time of Perry’s peak, has announced she will not run. Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul have also dropped a bit (Paul’s -1.0 is probably just random movement within his normal range of 7-10). This totals to a collective loss of 34.4 points.

Where have these supporters gone? Overwhelmingly to Herman Cain, whose support has quintupled in a month. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have also gained, though more modestly. Of those who switched to one of the three beneficiaries, 72% went to Cain, 12% to Gingrich, and 16% to Romney.

The cumulative pick-up by these three, however, is only 27.0 points, meaning that another 7.4 have not decided yet on a new candidate. Perry’s amazing collapse, throwing into question the viability of his campaign, could mean that another 12.4 points might soon be up for grabs.

Most Perry defectors and  Palin orphans who have chosen seem to have switched to Cain thus far. Though we don’t know that that trend will continue, if it does, then Cain would pick up about another fourteen points, Romney three, and Gingrich two.

I have noted that Romney supporters have (quite understandably) been gloating over Perry’s collapse. They might want to reconsider that response. Mitt Romney’s prospects would be best served by Rick Perry righting his ship and staying strong enough to serve as a counterweight to Herman Cain.

From the Christian Scientist Monitor (emphasis added):

Watching Rick Perry’s debate performance Tuesday night, [the author] (along with many observers in the press) was struck by how itching-to-get-out-of-there uncomfortable he looked. It was like watching someone’s half-hearted attempt to engage in polite conversation at a dinner party he was only attending as a favor to his wife.

Which has led us today to this fundamental question: Does Rick Perry really want to be president? Or, more specifically, might the Texas governor regret his decision to jump into the race?

Tellingly, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie offered up his reasons for passing on a White House run, he said he’d tried to imagine himself in a hotel room in Des Moines “and it’s 5:30 in the morning and it’s 15 below, and it’s time for me to get up and go shake hands at the meatpacking plant.”

His point? To subject yourself to the true grind of a presidential campaign – with the loss of privacy, the discipline of having to be always on message, the tedium of giving the same speech over and over, and the out-and-out hard work required behind the scenes - you have to really, really want it.

And almost by definition, a candidate who jumps in only after some arm twisting by supporters – as Perry did and Christie did not – probably doesn’t want it that bad.

Last time around, we had Fred Thompson. There was a great clamor for him to get in the race, too, but anyone watching real close could see that his heart just wasn’t in it. So when he finally did jump in, his campaign just slowly withered on the vine.

Perry simply was not ready. Everyone convinced him that all he had to do was show up, swagger a bit, talk real big, sling a few half-truths about Mitt Romney, and the nomination was his. He was in no way ready. And it has blown up in his face. Now he’s stuck with sinking polls, $15 millions in the bank, and seemingly hating every minute of it. Now what?

We’ve had a number of candidates this time around whose supporters did everything they could to convince them to join the race, but were wise enough to know that it wasn’t for them. First, there was Mike Huckabee. He was leading the polls when he let it be known that he was not running this time. Mitch Daniels was another. And let’s not forget Haley Barbour and Jim DeMint. Both of them had supporters begging them to run. Even Jeb Bush got some action.

(more…)

PPP (D) West Virginia 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 54% [49%] (50%)
• Barack Obama 33% [37%] (37%)

• Rick Perry 52% [49%]
• Barack Obama 36% [38%]

• Michele Bachmann 52% [48%]
• Barack Obama 37% [39%]

• Newt Gingrich 51% [45%] (49%)
• Barack Obama 36% [40%] (39%)

• Ron Paul 48%
• Barack Obama 34%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 56% of the vote in West Virginia. In 2004, George W. Bush also received 56% of the vote in WV.

(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Herman Cain 29% (7%) {6%} [9%] (10%)
• Mitt Romney 29% (24%) {18%} [22%] (33%) {17%} [24%] (20%)
• Newt Gingrich 10% (9%) {5%} [6%] (9%) {9%} [11%] (13%)
• Rick Perry 9% (28%) {29%} [18%]
• Ron Paul 5% (6%) {9%} [10%] (7%) {8%} [4%] (5%)
• Michele Bachmann 4% (8%) {13%} [16%] (19%)
• Rick Santorum 2% (3%) {1%}
• Jon Huntsman 2% (2%) {1%} [2%] (2%)
• Not sure 7% (11%) {16%} [9%]

(more…)

(cross-posted at iHartPolitics.com)

Rasmussen Reports has a new poll of primary voters for the top GOP Presidential contenders against Obama.

Let’s take a look cross-tabs between Romney and Cain. First, the top level results:

There seems to be a bit of a gender gap. Men prefer Cain, Women prefer Romney?

By age we notice some other interesting details:

Younger voters go for Romney, the volatile 30-somethings have pushed to Cain, retirees are Romney’s.

Here’s the most obvious demo on the cross-tabs. Question: Member of the Tea Party?

Lastly, with the other candidates out of the way, who gets whose votes?

Make of it what you will.

Quinnipiac University New Jersey Republican Primary

• Romney – 28%
• Cain – 17%
• Paul – 11%
• Perry – 7%
• Gingrich – 5%
• Bachmann – 4%
• Huntsman – 2%
• Santorum – 1%
• Undecided – 18%

General Election Matchups:

• Obama – 47%
• Romney – 41%

• Obama – 47%
• Cain – 38%

• Obama – 49%
• Perry – 36%

Favorability Ratings Among All Voters

• Romney – 35/31
• Cain – 25/20
• Perry – 19/39

Survey of 1,186 registered voters was conducted Oct 5-10 (prior to Gov Christie’s endorsement) and has a margin of error of +/-2.9%.