Per Hot Air, here is Rush Limbaugh’s endorsement of Mitt Romney in 2008:

RUSH: I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that’s Romney. The three stools or the three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives. The social conservatives are the cultural people. The fiscal conservatives are the economic crowd: low taxes, smaller government, get out of the way.

Of course, the foreign policy crowd is obviously what it is. I don’t think there’s anybody on our side who doesn’t care about national security, which is why I found it amazing that McCain gets the bulk of those, because the idea that Romney or Huckabee are going to punt national security? In Huckabee’s case, you might just say the things he’s saying about it represent an ignorance born of inexperience in the subject. I don’t think Huckabee has any deleterious intentions about the country. When it comes to the fiscal side, you cannot say — you just cannot say — that John McCain is interested. He’s even admitted he’s not interested in the social side. He’s not interested in the economic side. He said this, and when he has spoken up about it, he sides more often with liberal Democrats on fiscal issues than he does with his own side. That’s problematic. This is why I think — and why I have said — that the Republican Party, not conservatism, but the Republican Party is in big trouble if it is empowered and gets elected by attracting people who also hold liberal Democrat views simply because they like McCain because of his character, his honor, his prisoner of war story, and they don’t like Hillary or Obama.

Implicit in the second bolded sentence is Rush’s contention that Romney’s potential victory would not be the triumph of a liberal candidate.

A somewhat humorous reminder that every public statement made these days is preserved forever.

Economist Art Laffer, a former member of Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board and creator of the famed the Laffer curve has come out in support of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. Laffer referred to the plan as pro-growth and said that it would help stimulate the economy. Human Events has more here. Here’s a quote from Laffer:

“Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a vast improvement over the current tax system and a boon to the U.S. economy. The goal of supply-side tax reform is always a broadening of the tax base and lowering of marginal tax rates. Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9….such a system provides the least avenues to avoid paying taxes, yet also maintains the strongest incentives for work effort, production, and investment.”

This is a big endorsement from a supply-side hero for Cain’s plan that has taken a lot of heat lately.

EDIT: And Paul Ryan did too, thanks to commenter Walker for pointing that out. Here’s the quote from the Daily Caller:

House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan says he “loves” presidential candidate Herman Cain’s signature “9-9-9? tax plan.

Ryan told The Daily Caller in an exclusive interview that Cain’s plan shows the GOP presidential campaign season has entered into a more advanced stage where ideas — not just personalities — have come to the forefront.

“We need more bold ideas like this because it is specific and credible,” Ryan said. “I’m more of a flat-tax kind of a guy.”

The budget chairman went on to say that ideas like Cain’s plan could help shape the debate over tax reform moving into 2013.

“It’s great to see such bold ideas,” Ryan told TheDC.

_______________________________________________________

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

It’s ARG, so take a requisite grain of salt, but here’s your latest Florida poll fix:

American Research Group Florida Primary

• Cain – 34% (11)
• Romney – 28% (15)
• Gingrich – 11% (3)
• Perry – 5% (16)
• Paul – 4% (4)
• Bachmann – 3% (15)
• Huntsman – 1% (1)
• Roemer – 1% (0)
• Santorum – 1% (1)
• Undecided – 12% (12)

Survey of 600 likely primary voters (574 Republicans and 26 independents) was conducted Oct 7-12 and has a margin of error of +/-4%. Numbers from the July poll are in parentheses.

Among Tea Party members, Cain leads Romney 43-19. Among non-Tea Partiers, Romney leads Cain 38-23.

Anytime Rasmussen releases a new poll, I become like a Star Trek nerd at Comic-Con. Their huge samples, likely voter screens, and accurate weighting models make them the industry standard in political polling… and this morning, Rasmussen has leaked the top three spots of his new national primary poll to Drudge:

• Cain – 29% (7)
• Romney – 29% (24)
• Gingrich – 10% (9)

I added the numbers from their mid-September poll in parentheses. This is obviously great news for Cain and Romney, and horrible news for Perry who is apparently down in single digits in another national poll now.

We’ll post the full poll when it becomes available.

UPDATE: And here it is…

• Cain – 29% (7)
• Romney – 29% (24)
• Gingrich – 10% (9)
• Perry – 9% (28)
• Paul – 5% (6)
• Bachmann – 4% (8)
• Huntsman – 2% (2)
• Santorum – 2% (3)

If it were just Cain and Romney:

• Cain – 43%
• Romney – 42%

Survey of 1,000 likely primary voters was conducted Oct 12 and has a margin of error of +/-3%.

I’ve watched the rise of Cain’s poll numbers with some interest. To be sure as a Romney supporter, I have mixed feelings on this. While I would love to see Mitt remain at the top of the polls clear through November 2012, I am not altogether displeased. Why? Here are several of my thoughts on the matter:

1. So far this election cycle, we have not had a coronation so as much as a series of tryouts. First one, then another, and then another candidate has risen in the spotlight. Everyone tries on the new person for size. The person is then thoroughly vetted by both the legacy and the conservative media. Every candidate gets their fair shake.

The country is best served by having the best man at the top of the ticket. And this is the way to assure that.

2. I like Herman Cain. I truly do. Right now, he’s my #2 choice for the nomination. He has executive experience. He has fresh ideas. And most important of all, he’s honest. Rick Perry is not.

When Herman attacks Romney, he sticks to the ideas and the facts. Perry’s modus operandi so far has been to take Mitt’s words out of context, do some creative editing, and then present them making it appear that Romney is saying something he is not. This is deliberately bearing false witness against Mitt Romney. When he does that, it makes the numerous accusations of crony capitalism and similar corruptions against Perry all the more believable. If a man doesn’t think twice about twisting the truth in one area to further his ambitions, why would you assume he wouldn’t twist a code of ethics to do the same thing in another area?

Another thing to like about Herman is he is smart. Perry isn’t. Time after time Rick has proven that he isn’t exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. Herman could hold his own intellectually with anyone the Democrats throw at him. Unfortunately, that leads to my next point.

3. While Herman is smart, he is still rather green. He is still making a number of gaffes. His ideas are not fully fleshed out yet. He is still a work in progress. Intellectually he could take on anyone. Experience-wise, he is still learning about all the myriad of traps out there set to catch the unwary. Preparation-wise, his 9-9-9 plan seems about the extent of it, and that doesn’t seem to be all the fleshed out, either. Ask him a probing question about the details, and he punts. Ask him a probing question outside of it, and he punts. He needs to do better.

Compare this to Romney. During a break in the debate the other night, Charlie Rose queried Mitt about the crisis in Greece, expressing concern about it, and wondering what could be done. Mitt spoke completely off-the-cuff for five minutes describing the situation and detailing what actions were needed. Mitt’s ready now. Herman is still play catchup.

This lack of experience and preparation weakens Cain ability to remain on top of the leader-board. Will he remain there? Time will tell.

4. “Gentlemen prefer blonds, but they end up marrying brunettes.” Herman Cain is the latest exciting possibility. Mitt Romney is the tried, true, and steady choice. Cain is Ginger. Romney is Mary Ann. So it doesn’t bother me that much that the electorate is having a fling with the new exciting guy. It’s perfectly understandable. I suspect that they will return to the solid choice in the end. Mitt just has too much going for him. And if I’m wrong and they don’t, see my #2 point above. We could do a whole lot worse.

From the official release:

Manchester, NH – Statement from Matt David, Huntsman Campaign Manager:

“In an effort to preserve New Hampshire’s historic first-in-the-nation primary status, the Huntsman campaign will boycott the Nevada caucus as long as the state continues to jeopardize New Hampshire’s primary date. We call on the other campaigns to join us, especially Governor Romney’s campaign given their involvement in moving Nevada’s date forward.”

There have now been several debates between the major Republican candidates for president, and they have had impact on the contest for the GOP nomination. But they have not been true debates, and in many cases the formats, the moderators or the questioners have been notably unsatisfactory.

The primary criticism that I would make is that the candidates are given questions determined by the moderators or questioners, many of whom are neither sympathetic to Republicans or are unaware of the issues from the conservative point of view. The second criticism is that the candidates are forced to reduce their answers to variations of “sound bites,” and do not have sufficient time to explain their positions, nor to answer criticisms of their records or policy ideas.

Not all of this is “bad,” since a successful presidential candidate, and subsequently, a president needs to have a full ranges of communication skills, and these include the ability to be succinct and clear with the smallest amount of political rhetoric.

I also realize that a true debate format is difficult if not impossible when there are numerous participating candidates.

What might be a “truer” debate, and one that would give voters a more complete impression of a candidate’s viewpoints, knowledge and political intelligence as the “debate season” comes to a close before the individual primaries or caucuses?

I agree that such a format is not practical early in the campaign process. As voters get to know the candidates through the early debates, media interviews and political advertising, however, the candidate field naturally gets smaller. Some candidates withdraw; others receive very low numbers in polls. Since polling is the standard for inclusion in even the earliest debates, it seems fair and consistent that a debate of two to four of the “major” candidates is reasonable just before the voting begins. Instead of thresholds of 2%, 5% or some other relatively low number as has been the standard so far, the percentage in a compilation of recent polls should be set higher, say at 10%, 15% or another higher number that reduces the number of participants to four or less.

Format is the next most important factor. While the sponsoring network or organization should be able to determine the theme (e.g. economic policy, foreign policy, taxes, immigration, etc.), after initial statements by the candidates, they should be able to ask questions of each other, with adequate time for replies and rebuttals. A moderator should only to serve as a timekeeper and referee. Moderators or newspersons should not ask the questions. (A debate is not a press conference.) Questions from the audience might be permitted, but should be chosen before the debate by a panel made up of representatives of the candidates or of newspersons representing both conservative and liberal points of view.

After numerous candidate debates, as we have observed now, such a new format might be very useful to voters in forming their opinions about candidates and issues. It is not necessary to hold an overlong debate, like the Lincoln-Douglas debates were. That format fit a time when there was no radio, TV, internet or other modern communications. It was not too long for a 19th century audience. Today, shorter formats are much more appropriate, but in recent years, the presidential debate formats have become too short and too confining.

In a campaign year when both parties have a true competition for their respective nominations (as was the case in 2008), there needs to be a sensitivity to each party’s perspective when organizing a debate. This year so far, only one party has an open contest. Media bias should not be allowed to be a factor in presidential debates.

After each party has selected their nominee for president, there will be a series of nationally-televised debates. Based on recent formats, I think we can improve these as well. But for now, I think there should be a concentration on the remaining debates for the Republicans.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.

Mitt Romney continues to dominate the Intrade board, expanding his lead over Rick Perry by another 16 points this week. The jump was due to Chris Christie’s endorsement as well as Romney’s commanding performance at the economic debate – coupled with yet another debate flop by Rick Perry.

However, that doesn’t tell the whole story. Yesterday, Romney very briefly touched 70.0 points, but then the investors began pulling back when three new national polls came out yesterday showing Romney at just 21, 22, and 23 percent. They are continuing that pullback this morning, and it’s clear that the investors want to see Romney break through that 25% (so-called) ceiling he has been stuck under.

Meanwhile, Rick Perry has been flirting with single digits ever since he bombed his fourth debate in a row. Threatening to overtake him to land in second place now is Herman Cain. Ironically, the inventor of the psychologically-driven 9-9-9 plan cannot seem to break through the psychological barrier into double-digits on Intrade and is stuck at just below 10 points.

The rest of the field is fading away. Huntsman is at his lowest point since January, as investors are finally coming to grips with the fact that – despite a brief flash of promise in a couple New Hampshire polls – he’s just not going to catch on. Michelle Bachmann has not been lower than this since 2010.

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

Conservatives like rail against our current anti-growth tax code. Despite loathing the tax code, conservatives invariably end up killing any fundamental overhaul of the system.

Witness the current controversy over Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax reform proposal with its 9% personal income tax, 9% corporate income tax, and 9% national retail sales tax.. Many of the objections raised to Cain’s plan are familiar to advocates of tax reform from Steve Forbes’ Flat Tax in the 1990s to the Fair Tax (which is Cain’s ultimate goal.).

The current criticism of Cain’s 9-9-9 plan goes along the same lines. There are two big thrusts:

The fear of the unknown: 9-9-9 has had an immediate positive response from voters, but opponents have questioned that 9-9-9 might lead to higher rates in the future. What, for example might stop 9-9-9 from beginning 18-18-18?

Others such as Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Mn.) are concerned that Cain’s 9-9-9 plan gives the federal government another revenue stream in the form of a sales tax, ignoring that Cain takes away four other revenue streams by abolishing taxes on capital gains, inheritance taxes, payroll taxes, and repatriated profits. 
Similarly, on the flat tax, it has been asked how the flat tax will remain flat? Columnist Mike Adams opines to flat tax supporters, “The IRS had changed the tax code 16,000 times in 22 years. They change the tax code twice as often as you change your underwear. How long do you think a flat tax would remain flat?”

With the Fair Tax, the worry is that after repealing the income tax and enacting a National Retail Sales Tax, that Congress would then bring back the income tax code unless the 16th Amendment is repealed, leading many to say that they won’t back the Fair Tax unless the 16th Amendment is repealed first with a 2/3 vote of Congress and 3/4 of the State Legislatures.

Cain’s answers on how he plans to check nightmare scenarios on 9-9-9 haven’t satisfied critics. While Cain would like to get Congress to require a 2/3 majority to increase the rates, Congress has been very reluctant to limits its taxing authority. Cain also promises to veto any increase in the 9-9-9, but Cain could only be President for up to eight years.

The hard truth about tax reform is that there is no tax system that can remain solidly pro-growth without the vigilance and involvement of the American people to hold Congress’ feet to the fire. This is not a good reason to retain a tax code that’s not working.

The fear of some people losing: Whenever a major tax overhaul proposal is offered, opponents never make the argument, “This plan will be bad for our overall economy.”  Rather, they pick specific instances where somebody will be a loser or appear to lose.

In a recent debate, a moderator asked Cain what the sales tax would do to the nation’s automobile industry as used cars are not subject to the tax, and the car industry manufactures new cars. The question was born of the mindset of our current tax code which picks winners and losers.

The tax code includes a myriad of deductions and credits that are supposed to boost various industries and activities such as housing, oil exploration, green energy, higher education, and retirement.

Advocates of tax reform have the simple view that the purpose of a tax code ought to be to collect revenue in a way that allows the economy to grow.

However, tax winners seek to hold on to their deductions. Not all of these winners are on the left. Many businesses chafe against government overregulation and over-taxation, but would very much like to hang on to tax loopholes that have been won through expensive lobbying.

Perhaps the most common complaint is from those earning $50,000 or more who take advantage of the $200 billion  Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. Hugh Hewitt has dismissed the Fair Tax because of its lack of a home mortgage interest deduction, and any flat tax that has that has that mammoth deduction included will have such a high rate as to be unpalatable to the American people.

The sheer number of sacred cows protecting the tax code on both the left and the right frustrate any efforts to achieve serious reform.

Cain deserves credit for taking on this political hot potato and realizing the serious problem presented by current tax code and why reform is essential, even if it is politically difficult.

The cost of our current tax code is embedded in every product that we ship overseas which hurts our exports.  It makes the United States a less attractive place to do business, and discourages investment and economic achievement. Compliance with the code costs the U.S. Economy $340 billion pear year.

The tax code is holding back the U.S. economy and if it’s not replaced, our long term economic growth and prosperity will be at risk.

Rather than trying to imagine what horrors may come upon us from a future Congress or getting upset about what tax write-offs we’ll no longer be able to take, Conservatives should evaluate if a tax reform proposal is good for America as a whole. Will it create an environment where the economy can grow again and where businesses can hire people again?

The question we should ask about 9-9-9 is not , “Is this tax reform proposal perfect?” Instead we should ask, “Will this new tax system be better for America than what we have now?”

We now interrupt your regularly scheduled Republican nomination discussions to bring you the following:

The Obama administration on Wednesday sought to reconcile what it said was solid evidence of an Iranian plot to murder Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States with a wave of skepticism from some foreign leaders and outside experts.

Senior American officials themselves were struggling to explain why the Quds Force, an elite international operations unit within Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, would orchestrate such a risky attack in so amateurish a manner.

…American officials offered no specific evidence linking the plot to Iran’s most senior leaders. But they said it was inconceivable in Iran’s hierarchy that the leader of the shadowy Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, was not directly involved, and that the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was not aware of such a plan.

Iran’s leaders marshaled a furious formal rejection Wednesday of the American accusations, calling the case a cynical fabrication meant to vilify Iran and distract Americans from their severe economic problems. A senior member of Iran’s Parliament, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said he had “no doubt this is a new American-Zionist plot to divert the public opinion from the crisis Obama is grappling with.”

If the intelligence regarding this plot proves true, one has to question the rationality and downright sanity of the Iranian government. Why chance drawing international ire and a backlash of retaliation to achieve a goal rooted solely in vengeance and anger?

The Obama administration finds itself stuck between a rock and a hard place on this matter. If they begin saber-rattling too loudly, they risk violating the image they have attempted to create around the world – of a group of calm, cool, collected statesmen who understand and take into account the viewpoints and circumstances of all parties. They also expose themselves to the negative ramifications of the intelligence having little or no basis in fact. Conversely, if they take an overly cautious route, they may come off as aloof, inept, and weak. As such, expect to see the President and his officials attempt to straddle the fence on this as long as possible.

NBC/WSJ 2012 Presidential Poll

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Herman Cain 27% [5%] {5%} (12%)
• Mitt Romney 23% [23%] {30%} (30%) [21%] {21%} (19%)
• Rick Perry 16% [38%] {11%} (8%)
• Ron Paul 11% [9%] {9%} (7%)
• Newt Gingrich 8% [5%] {8%} (6%) [11%] {13%} (10%)
• Michele Bachmann 5% [8%] {16%} (3%) [5%]
• Jon Huntsman 3% [2%] {2%] (1%)
• Rick Santorum 1% [3%] {3%} (4%) [3%] {2%} (3%)

(more…)

Reading Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death has been an eye opening experience for me, and the recent string of GOP non-debates has only made the point of this book clearer. Postman’s premise is that television precludes serious thought or discussion because the medium itself sets the agenda. That agenda is always…always, entertainment.

Take the recent debates for example. Due to the fact that there are 8 (or 9) people on the stage, and due to the fact that the moderators must keep the show moving, the candidates rarely have enough time for a well structured sentence, never mind a cogent  argument.

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan was the main topic of the most recent event, yet does anyone feel like they know the ramifications or implications of this plan? Of course not, and the fault is not entirely Cain’s. How can he explain the intricate details of a complete restructuring of the tax code in a one minute sound bite. Even given the fact that he had 4 or 5 opportunities to do so, the expectation of a reasoned response is ludicrous.

One moderator brought up the fact that one analysis of the plan found it seriously lacking. His response? The analysis contained inaccurate assumptions. OK, fine, then what are the right assumptions? We were never able to get to that because the moderator, and in truth the audience, wanted to move on to the next point, the next one liner, the next zinger.

And what about Romney’s health care law? Instead of an actual argument either for or against it we simply get more talking points about mandates, as if the very fact that the federal government mandates something makes it wrong. But the government mandates things all the time (driver’s licenses, car insurance, pasteurized milk, education). The real argument isn’t about a mandate, it is about whether or not health care is best run by a bureaucracy or by a free market company. I’d love to really see that argument played out in full, but it will never happen.

Here is my dream for a real debate. Limit the participants to 4 candidates. Let each one spend 15 minutes detailing a plan on health care, tax structure or job growth. Then spend the following 15 minutes with the opponents questioning the speaker. This would give each candidate a full half hour to really get into a topic.

It won’t happen. We are sure to hear Cain chant 9-9-9, and Perry make empty promises about energy independence at least another half a dozen times, and we will be non the wiser for it.

Steve blogs regularly here.

The current demonstrations in New York City and other large cities across the United States contend they are protests against Wall Street, large corporations and ” greedy rich” persons. Created and manipulated by tiny far-left factions, they have now been supported by leading Democrats, including President Obama and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, labor unions and numerous celebrities. Clearly, part of their intention has also been to demonstrate that there is a genuine leftist grass roots movement and sentiment in the nation (in contrast to the already demonstrated and significant grass roots conservative movement in the nation, also known as the Tea Party).

The demonstration so far, however has been a parody of itself, primarily a bad imitation of Woodstock (a genuine cultural expression of the 1968 youth generation) and a phenomenon inhabited mostly by the least credible and most unattractive members of American society.

If conservatives are uneasy about this phenomenon, they should not be. In fact, the ritualized leftist pageantry is becoming an unintended statement of support of the authentic reaction throughout America against the radical ideas and policies of the Obama administration, and its woeful attempts to deal with and resolve the chronic current economic crisis. The Old Media establishment, through the TV networks and the formerly respected print media newspaper and magazine outlets, is ironically making matters worse for their own cause by featuring the protests and the protesters. Middle class America, and the huge bloc of independent American voters are thus receiving an overdose of clueless students, doctrinaire neo-Marxists, professional and perennial complainers and mindless celebrities looking for publicity. The public parks where most of these demonstrators have been congregating have portable toilets, but they are in need of public showers. Sex, drugs and free food seems to be the draw to most who have gathered, not public policy. Leaders of the conservative movements could not have imagined or created a better public demonstration of the inherently totalitarian and unsympathetic nature of left wing public policy and programs.

I say: Let this spectacle continue. Let the media cover them (I don’t mean literally) and let the voters of America see for themselves what and where a left direction would take the country. Keep the free food for them coming, the portable toilets in place, and the craven urban politicians supporting them.

But I warn against one thing. Do not introduce even one bathtub into this radical convocation. Even one bathtub with hot running water interjected into this crowd, and the whole spectacle might be washed down the drain.
__________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.

It’s happened, folks: Rick Perry has hit single digits in a national poll:

Reuters/Ipsos National Republican Primary

Among Republicans and Independents:

• Romney – 21% (18)
• Cain – 19% (6)
• Paul – 12% (8)
• Perry – 9% (5)
• Gingrich – 7% (4)
• Bachmann – 5% (5)
• Huntsman – 2% (2)
• Don’t Know – 13% (18)

Republicans Only:

• Romney – 23%
• Cain – 19%
• Paul – 13%
• Perry – 10%
• Gingrich – 7%
• Bachmann – 5%
• Huntsman – 2%

Survey of 410 Republicans and 95 Independents was taken Oct 6-10 and has a margin of error of +/-4.8%. For whatever they’re worth, numbers from the previous Reuters/Ipsos poll taken at the beginning of June are in parentheses.

New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner is out with a new “my way or the highway” op-ed, posted over at TheIowaRepublican.com. In it, he makes the case for New Hampshire being the first in the nation primary, and for them having to necessarily go seven days before the Nevada caucuses. Here’s the rubber-meets-the-road moment:

We cannot allow the political process to squeeze us into a date that wedges us by just a few days between two major caucus states. Our primary will have little meaning if states crowd into holding their events just hours after our polls have closed.

The date of our primary is decided by state law, not by the rules or desires of political parties. Since Nevada’s caucus is similar in the eyes of our statute, it means the New Hampshire primary can be set no later than Saturday, January 7th.

IT’S REALLY UP TO NEVADA. If Nevada does not accept a date of Tuesday, January 17th or later for its caucus, it leaves New Hampshire no choice but to consider December of this year. The dates of Tuesday, December 13th, and Tuesday, December 6th are realistic options, and we have logistics in place to make either date happen if needed. Candidates have been campaigning here, and elsewhere, for months, and it is about time we begin the next stage of the presidential nominating process.

I know it’s tough, but try and ignore the glaring lack of logic in his writing. (“In the eyes of our statute”? Really? Isn’t it you who interprets the statute? And if Nevada is “similar” why wasn’t Delaware “similar” in 1996 and 2000?)

Apparently, Saturday, January 7th isn’t an okay date for NH because Iowa is just three days earlier, and New Hampshire desires to go on a Tuesday. The Nevada GOP has said they want to go on a Saturday in order to increase caucus turnout; however, it is feasible that they could acquiesce and set their caucus for Tuesday, January 17th.

To the Nevada GOP Central Committee: I know it’s not what you wanted. I know Bill Gardner is being a primary/caucus bully. But for the sake of everyone’s sanity, the simplest solution to this whole thing looks to be taking one for the team and moving from the 14th to the 17th. Please?

This afternoon, Romney announced the endorsement of Alaska’s Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell and former U.S. Congresswoman Susan Molinari (NY). In the week since last publishing the endorsement chart, Romney has added quite a few new backers.

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

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

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

(more…)

Evolving Strategies/YouGov 2012 GOP National Primary Poll

• Herman Cain 28%
• Mitt Romney 19%
• Rick Perry 12%
• Newt Gingrich 5%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Michele Bachmann 3%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Not Sure 26%

1,000 Adults. October 7th-10th, 2011. MoE +/- 3%.

Inside the numbers:

What makes our survey unique and uniquely informative is the fact that we had our respondents watch a video clip of President Obama speaking about the economy, followed by a video clip of either Romney, Perry, or Cain speaking about the economy during the last Fox debate (they also read a short, 120 word bio).

When respondents are forced to make a choice between a “generic” Republican and Obama, Obama wins by 5 points – 41-36.

• Despite several bad debate performances by Perry in September, when respondents watched a clip of Perry he actually gained more support than any of the other candidates and beat Obama by 6-points, 42-36.
• Now Romney had a slightly higher margin – he beat Obama by 7-points 40-33, but he did it with less support. He got less support than Perry, but so did Obama, and there were more people who were uncertain about him, which doesn’t come as a surprise — there’s clearly been a lot of dissatisfaction with Romney as the establishment candidate.
• Finally, the candidate we’re all most interested in — Herman Cain. The question is can he win the Republican primary? And can he win the general election?
• Well, he can certainly win the Republican primary. Across all treatments, when asked to choose among the eight GOP candidates, Cain won handily with 28% of the vote, followed by Romney at 19% and Perry at 12%.
• When it comes to a general election, Cain barely edged out Obama 35-34, but he moved from 5-points down in the control group with the generic Republican to 1-point up. And this jump came entirely out of Obama’s margin of the vote. It’s clear a lot of uncertainty remains in the general population about Cain – for starters he doesn’t “look like” the stereotypical GOP candidate. And he certainly doesn’t have the typical political background. But despite all that, people seem willing to give him a look – and when they get a look at him, he’s running even with Obama. What will be interesting to see is whether all those uncertain votes become more certain about Herman Cain when they get to see more of him.

Bottom Line: Herman Cain can win the general — people have an open mind about him — but he needs to close the sale with those uncertain swing voters.

Pollster Sabrina Schaffer talks about the poll on FOX News:

PPP (D) 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Herman Cain 30% {8%} [6%] (11%) {20%} [12%]
• Mitt Romney 22% {18%} [20%] (20%) {27%} [20%] (28%) {25%} [24%]
• Newt Gingrich 15% {10%} [8%] (7%) {12%} [13%] (26%) {23%} [24%]
• Rick Perry 14% {31%} [33%] (12%)
• Michele Bachmann 5% {9%} [16%] (21%) {13%} [13%] (11%) {8%}
• Ron Paul 5% {11%} [6%] (9%) {6%} [11%] (12%) {13%} [12%]
• Jon Huntsman 2% {2%} [3%] (3%) {3%} [4%]
• Rick Santorum 1% {2%} [4%]
• Gary Johnson 0%

Note: 33% are strongly committed to their candidate of choice; 67% might end up supporting someone else.

(more…)

From the “You Don’t Say!” department comes this post-debate spin from Rick Perry:

“I just try to get up every day and do my job, and debates are not my strong suit.”

You know Governor Perry, debates might not be your strong suit because intelligence isn’t your strong suit.

That might also explain why Rick Perry has slipped into single digits on Intrade this morning, currently sitting at 9.6, just 0.3 points ahead of Herman Cain.

Oh, and the glowing reviews of Romney and the disastrous reviews for Perry keep rolling in as well. From The Hill’s GOP12 blog:

Mitt Romney = A
He didn’t just run circles around everyone. He ran squares and isosceles triangles. He can talk forever on economic issues; whereas, Rick Perry’s answer for everything is just two words — “energy independence”, which means that, at least, he can’t literally be accused of one-word answers.

Romney was that rarest of phenomenons last night. He was placed in an environment that perfectly suited him, and was close to perfect in it…

It’s been said before, but above all, he exudes competence, which is what voters want. Instead of putting on ideology on and then trying to fit his conclusions around it, he seems to find conclusions and then use his ideology to explain them.

Rick Perry = D
He looked about as comfortable as J-Lo at a Red Roof Inn.

He had to show improvement at this debate (which wouldn’t be terribly hard, considering his previous two), but actually did worse.

There were a few things working against him.

First, himself. He showed no signs of having prepped for this thing.

Second, the debate was about the economy. If Perry has a wheelhouse, that should be it. After all, he’s the Texas Economy Guy. But debates are often forward-looking, and he didn’t seem to have a plan for the national economy beyond energy independence.

And if you are looking for more debates to get your political fix, have no fear. Last night was the seventh GOP debate this primary season — out of twenty that are currently scheduled. Good grief! I have to imagine that some of the remaining thirteen debates are going to get canceled thanks to the compressed primary calendar. Otherwise, all the candidates will be doing between now and the primaries are showing up to debates.

Last night Bloomberg and the Washington Post held a debate only on economics. I watched the entire debate and decided to put together my thoughts. First, the debate overall was meh. The questions ranged from the okay to asinine. Many of them were so incredibly biased to sound more like Democratic talking points than serious questions about the economy. When our candidates are asked, “Do you think we should arrest people on Wall Street?” we need better moderators. Personally, I’d prefer we had a debate with moderators like Hugh Hewitt, Erick Erickson, and Kavon Nikrad. Why? They’re conservatives who know about the issues asking questions to Republicans about the GOP primary. I think the three of them as moderators would be a solid choice, but fat chance that happening. So, I digress.

To make this easier, I’ll go through each candidate individually:

Michele Bachmann – Bachmann had a so-so performance. She went from a great answer at the start, to insinuating that 9-9-9 was the mark of the beast. It was not funny and fell flat. She’s trying to regain footing going after Cain, but then again – everyone was going after Cain. Bottom line was that her performance will not provide her with any momentum. She didn’t stand out, she was just kind of there. Which is disappointing – cause her first debate performance was stand out.

Herman Cain – One of my followers on Twitter last night dubbed the debate “The 9-9-9 Debate.” He’s right. Much of the time was spent on the pro’s and con’s of 9-9-9. While Cain made some good points, he needs to provide us with his numbers. If he says it’s revenue neutral, the media will want him to prove it. He says he had a study done – just provide it to the public. Simple as that. Overall, I think Can did fine. Considering he was under attack for a good chunk of the debate, Cain handled himself well. He had some good answers to some awful questions. He was a little too on point / schtick-y at times, but all-in-all this debate doesn’t do substantial damage to his campaign. That said – his answer regarding TARP was not good. He needed to just say, “I was wrong on TARP…” and move on. I don’t think Cain’s ready to admit that he was wrong on even considering supporting TARP in the first place. Him and Romney are in the same boat on this question.

Newt Gingrich – Newt is an excellent debater. Period. This debate was no different. For some reason, though, Newt can not get any traction in polling. Excellent debate performances are not enough for Newt. He’s also great at calling out the moderators for their bias. Newt would be an excellent VP choice for any candidate on the stage, or an excellent choice for a high level cabinet / advisory role. Newt just does not seem to ever have momentum in his favor.

Jon Huntsman – Besides a few awkward to awful jokes, Huntsman was not bad. He’s focusing more on his record as Governor of Utah, which is a pretty good record. He did not stand out, which Huntsman needs to start doing if he wants to gain any traction. That said – if we’re including Jon Huntsman in this debate, we need to include Gary Johnson. They poll the same nationally in most national polls, if Huntsman’s included so should Johnson.

Ron Paul – Ron Paul is a big ball of talking points about auditing the Fed and loving the Constitution. He does not need specifics to make his supporters happy, he just needs to keep up the rhetoric. Ron Paul will not be the nominee.

Rick Perry – Perry had a better debate performance than last time. That said, it still was not a great performance. This debate did nothing to slow the recent drop in support Perry has seen in recent polling. In fact, it does nothing to really help Perry. Perry had a few solid answers and did a bit better at focusing nationally as opposed to on how awesome Texas is. Perry did promise an economic and environmental plan coming soon – I look forward to seeing that.

Mitt Romney – Romney did well. He seemed more relaxed in this debate setting; which is odd, considering everyone was ready to pounce on him and Cain throughout the debate. He handled the circular firing squad from his fellow competitors well. Romney continues to defend Masscare and TARP, which will not go over well with the more conservative voters in the primary. He, like Cain, just needs to say that TARP was a bad idea and move on. But, they won’t. I know that many Republicans wanted to be supportive of our President when he proposed TARP, but Bush was wrong – and we need to be ready to say that now. Again, I think Romney did well.

Rick Santorum – Santorum had some decent answers, but to me he just came across as too aggressive and angry. I felt the same way after the last debate. It’s not endearing and his comment under his breath that “You won’t be President forever…” following Cain’s defense of 9-9-9 was petty and childish.

Winners: Mitt Romney, Herman Cain – Both solidified their position as frontrunners in the eyes of their fellow competitors. They were treated as such. Bloomberg TV – How many of you watched Bloomberg TV before this debate? Me either. Newt Gingrich – He clearly was the best debater in the bunch, but he just can’t generate any momentum.

Losers: Rick Perry – He didn’t win this debate and he needed to, to help stave some of the loss of support.

Who do you think won that debate?

_______________________________________________________

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

Gallup 2012 GOP Favorability Survey

Among Republicans/GOP-Leaning Independents Who Recognize CandidateFavorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Herman Cain 77%/13% {+64%}
• Mitt Romney 71%/18% {+53%}
• Newt Gingrich 66% /27% {+39%}
• Rick Santorum 62% /24% {+38%}
• Rick Perry 63% /27% {+36%}
• Michele Bachmann 59% /32% {+27%}
• Jon Huntsman 54%/31%  {+23%}
• Ron Paul 53% /35% {+18%}

(more…)

Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran, and Illinois Rep. Judy Biggert have endorsed Mitt Romney for president.  These are just the latest in a slew of endorsements that have been coming Gov. Romney’s way, signaling that the party is finally beginning to accept Romney as their nominee-in-waiting.

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 45%
• Mitt Romney 45%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Herman Cain 42%

• Barack Obama 47%
• Ron Paul 39%

• Barack Obama 49%
  
• Rick Perry 40%

• Barack Obama 50%
• Newt Gingrich 39%

• Barack Obama 50%
  
• Michele Bachmann 38%

(more…)

Republicans received good news yesterday when Linda Lingle, the former Governor of Hawaii, decided to launch a Senate bid:

Republicans have landed their top recruit in the open Hawaii Senate race, with former governor Linda Lingle entering the race and giving the GOP a chance to win in a heavily Democratic state.

…Lingle, a two-term governor who left office after the 2010 election, immediately becomes the frontrunner for the GOP nomination by virtue of her fundraising ability and political experience.

However, we mustn’t get ahead of ourselves; after all, we’re talking about Hawaii, and Lingle certainly has her share of blemishes:

But she left office with so-so personal approval numbers and appears to enter the race with some work to do in repairing her political brand. Complicating matters is the fact that, for the first time, she will be on the statewide ballot with President Obama, whose roots in the state should make things more difficult for any Republican downballot next year. Obama took 72 percent of the vote in Hawaii in 2008.

On the Democratic side, Rep. Mazie Hirono has secured much of the establishment support, but former congressman Ed Case stands between her and the general election.

…A Hawaii Poll released in May showed Hirono leading Lingle by 22 points, while Case led by 18.

Case’s campaign released a more recent poll that showed him leading Lingle by 10 points, while Hirono trailed her by five. The poll earned Case an unusual rebuke from the national Democratic Party, which doubted its results.

As the article makes clear, Lingle faces an uphill battle. Still, it obviously benefits the GOP to have its strongest possible candidate in the race.

What you need to know, courtesy of Intrade:

Mitt Romney is up to 66.7 points. Rick Perry is in free fall, down to 12.0 points. Herman Cain was on the verge of replacing Rick Perry in second place earlier today, but slipped down a couple points during the debate to 8.9.

Tell us your impression of this Romney Cabinet interview presidential primary debate in the comments.

UPDATE: Holy free fall, Batman — Perry now down to 11.1. OUCH.

UPDATE 2: Chris Cillizza crowns Romney the winner over at the Washington Post, saying this:

We expected Romney to shine in this economic-focused debate and shine he did. Romney was knowledgeable and detailed — as expected — but also relaxed to the point where he let a little bit of his personality show. Romney’s biggest hurdle in this race is that he strikes lots of people as inauthentic and awkward. Not only was he head and shoulders above the other candidates on stage when it came to looking presidential, Romney also showcased his human side. His best debate in a string of very solid performances.

He also called put Cain and Gingrich in the winners column, and parked Perry at the head of the losers side.

UPDATE 3: Mark Halperin of TIME Magazine heaps on the praise as well:

Perfect pitch for the Republican electorate (and many independents) on assailing Obama’s record with both sadness and anger. Confident, yet not arrogant. Maintained a good balance between cheerful and tough… His best moment: All two hours — no one laid a glove on him — nor barely tried. It’s increasingly difficult to see how he trips up in one of these debates. In his second serious national go-round, a much more polished performer than his rivals, and well aware of the traps to avoid. Clocked 120 more minutes of playing at a different level than everyone else on the stage, highlighting his exclusive presidential aura. With his Christie endorsement and another non-game-changing debate under his belt, he is another two steps closer to the nomination.

Robert Costa has a great article over at NRO entitled: “Behind Bachmann’s Slide — Why the tea-party star has dimmed.” It begins as follows:

On August 13, as dusk settled upon Iowa State University, Michele Bachmann hopped onto a makeshift stepstool beside her bus. Her supporters crowded close, pressing against a flimsy rope. Bachmann, clad in an ivory-colored suit and pearls, raised both arms. Gray-haired retirees, teenage volunteers, and sign-toting pastors cheered their champion, the winner of the Ames straw poll. “Now it’s on to all 50 states,” she told them, her right hand punching the air.

Two months later, Bachmann’s late-summer dream has largely evaporated, and her presidential campaign — even in Iowa — is tottering. Senior advisers have departed, her cash has dwindled, and her poll numbers have dipped. The tea-party star has dimmed.

Here’s one pointed excerpt (emphasis added):

After Rollins left in early September, Bachmann headed to Tampa for another debate and tore into Perry’s vaccination policy, which she claimed damaged “little girls” by testing them for HPV (human papillomavirus). In a Today show interview the following day, she reported that after the debate, a mother “told me that her little daughter took the vaccine” and “suffered from mental retardation thereafter.” Her comments were widely criticized for inflaming the issue. She earned plaudits for slamming Perry on crony capitalism, “but like with so much she does, she took a good thing too far, and made a mess of it,” as one source puts it.

If you enjoy “inside baseball” stuff, you’ll love this article.

If you do not get Bloomberg TV on your cable or satellite service, you can watch the debate online here.

As always, have at it in the comments!

I’ve changed my mind on voter ID laws — I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one — and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office.

When I was a congressman, I took the path of least resistance on this subject for an African American politician. Without any evidence to back it up, I lapsed into the rhetoric of various partisans and activists who contend that requiring photo identification to vote is a suppression tactic aimed at thwarting black voter participation.

The truth is that the most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community, at least in Alabama, is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt. Voting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too-mentally-impaired to function, cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights — that’s suppression by any light. If you doubt it exists, I don’t; I’ve heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I’ve been asked to provide the funds for it, and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.

There is no question that a voter ID law, in order to pass legal muster and in order to be just, must have certain characteristics. It should contain exceptions for the elderly or disabled who may not drive, and as a consequence lack the most conventional ID, a driver’s license. There should also be a process for non-drivers to obtain a photo ID, and the process has to be cost-free, for the simple reason that even a nominal financial impediment to voting looks and feels too much like a poll tax.

It is my understanding that the Alabama statute contains each of these exceptions and a few others, including a provision for on-site polling officials to waive the requirement if they attest that they know the voter.

The fact that a law that is unlikely to impede a single good faith voter — and that only gives voting the same elements of security as writing a check at the store, or obtaining a library card — is controversial does say much about the raw feelings in our current politics. The ugliest, hardest forms of disfranchisement were practiced in our lifetimes, and its still conventional rhetoric in black political circles to say those times are on the way back. Witness a last-minute automated call to black voters in the 2010 general election by state Sen. Hank Sanders, an ingenious lawyer and a skillful legislator who knew better, but who also knew the attack would resonate.

It also does not help matters that Alabama has become a state where in a general election, race is a prohibitive indicator of how 2.5 million registered voters routinely behave. If in 2008 or 2010, you had observed a white Alabamian standing in line in any precinct in the state, and you had guessed he or she was voting Republican, you had an 80 percent chance of getting it right — there are few safer bets in politics, other than the near 100 percent certainty that an African American standing in the same line is about to vote Democratic.

Given those racial realities, any effort to regulate voting by a Republican-dominated Alabama Legislature will draw inevitable scrutiny. And Alabama hardly boosts its cause by passing an immigration law that ratifies every national jibe about us, and that has no real effect beyond putting a social fence around a certain class of Latinos. But demanding integrity in voting is neither racist, nor raw party politics.

It is interesting that with a few exceptions that reflect political pressures I understand pretty well, the new Alabama ID law still has not become that much of a political football. The same can’t be said in other states or at the national level. I was disappointed to see Bill Clinton, a very good president and an even greater ex-president, compare voter ID to Jim Crow, and it is chilling to see the intimidation tactics brought to bear on African American, Democratic legislators in Rhode Island who had the nerve to support a voter ID law in that very liberal state.

The case for voter ID, however, is a good one, and it ought to make politics a little cleaner and the process of conducting elections much fairer. I wish I’d gotten it right the first time.

___________________________________________________________________________

-Artur Davis, a former U.S. congressman from Alabama, now practices law in Washington, D.C.