CNN/TIME/ORC Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Poll

• Mitt Romney 25% [20%] (24%)
• Ron Paul 22% [17%] (12%)
• Rick Santorum 16% [5%] (2%)
• Newt Gingrich 14% [33%] (10%)
• Rick Perry 11% [9%] (10%)
• Michele Bachmann 9% [7%] (6%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% [1%] (1%)
• No opinion 2% [5%] (11%)

Would you say you will definitely support that candidate in 2012, or is it possible you would change your mind?

• Definitely support 54% [39%] (23%)
• Might change mind 43% [55%] (62%)

Survey of 452 likely Republican caucus participants was conducted December 21-24, 26-27, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted November 29 – December 6, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 20-25, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

CNN/TIME/ORC New Hampshire 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 44% [35%] (40%)
• Ron Paul 17% [17%] (12%)
• Newt Gingrich 16% [26%] (5%)
• Jon Huntsman 9% [8%] (6%)
• Rick Santorum 4% [2%] (1%)
• Michele Bachmann 3% [3%] (2%)
• Rick Perry 2% [2%] (4%)
• No opinion 4% [6%] (14%)

Would you say you will definitely support that candidate in 2012, or is it possible you would change your mind?

• Definitely support 51% [44%] (32%)
• Might change mind 45% [48%] (48%)

Survey of 543 likely Republican primary voters was conducted December 21-24, 26-27, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted November 29 – December 6, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 20-25, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

• Mitt Romney 25% (24%) {23%} [22%] (21%) {23%} [23%] (24%) {24%} [24%] (24%) {23%} [22%] (23%) {23%} [23%] (23%) {25%} [23%] (22%)
• Newt Gingrich 25% (25%) {26%} [26%] (27%) {25%} [25%] (26%) {28%} [28%] (29%) {31%} [31%] (33%) {33%} [35%] (37%) {34%} [36%] (37%)
• Ron Paul 11% (11%) {12%} [13%] (12%) {12%} [12%] (11%) {10%} [10%] (10%) {9%} [8%] (8%) {9%} [9%] (9%) {10%} [9%] (8%)
• Rick Perry 8% (8%) {8%} [8%] (7%) {8%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (5%) {6%} [7%] (6%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (7%)
• Michele Bachmann 5% (6%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (7%) {7%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (6%)
• Rick Santorum 4% (3%) {3%} [3%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (3%) {2%} [3%] (2%) {2%} [3%] (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% (2%) {1%} [1%] (1%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (1%) {1%} [1%] (1%)

Survey of at least 1,000 registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted December 21-27, 2011. The margin of error is ± 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 20-26, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 19-23, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 18-22, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 17-21, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 15-20, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 14-19, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 13-18, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 12-17, 2011are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 11-16, 2011 are in Results from the poll conducted December 10-14, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 9-13, 2011are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 8-12, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 7-11, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 6-10, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 5-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 4-8, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 3-7, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 2-6, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 1-5, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Here’s a snippet from the editorial:

When choosing whom to endorse for president, we’re interested in one thing this year: Finding the person best able to help the nation fix the economy.

We’re not looking for ideological purity.

We’re not looking for someone we agree with 100 percent of the time.

We’re simply interested in finding the person who has the best understanding of the issues, who has the best ideas on how to move the nation forward and, most importantly, who has the leadership skills necessary to work with the Congress and the American people to ensure that many of those ideas become reality.

After considering all the Republican candidates vying for the opportunity to take on President Obama in November, we think Mitt Romney is the candidate best suited to address the gridlock of dysfunction that has infected our federal system for the past generation.

We did not endorse Romney for the caucuses four years ago, but we recognized his leadership potential. We were impressed with how, as the CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, he helped turn around some troubled-, scandal-filled preparations and make the 2002 Winter Olympics into a success.

And we thought highly of his achievements as governor…

Be sure to read the rest here.

It has been quite a race since Inauguration Day 2009, the day of the first monthly power rankings that have chronicled the 2012 race for the Republican nomination. The field has changed pretty dramatically since then, with a few names still in the fight and a few unexpected twists and turns along the way. So with less than a week to go before the first votes are cast, I give you the final pre-vote power rankings of the 2012 race.

Gov. Mitt Romney began this race several years ago as the frontrunner by default, and as candidates have come and gone, the former Massachusetts governor has been the one steadfast, consistent contender in the field. That steadiness has Mr. Romney poised to win the Republican nomination, even securing an early knockout, which seemed unlikely just a few weeks ago. Gov. Romney continues to be the best organized, best funded, and most disciplined candidate, and those attributes are paying dividends as the voting nears. Romney has pushed back successfully against the surge of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, deflating the Gingrich bubble and positioning himself for a stunning Iowa victory. Gov. Romney also continues to lead by a wide margin in New Hampshire, with no signs of stumbling or weakening. And as he has throughout the campaign, Gov. Romney continues to rack up major endorsements, the latest being the that of South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. If current trends hold up, then Gov. Mitt Romney could be well on his way to the nomination in just a matter of days.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul has defied expectations since he first reentered presidential politics in 2008. The libertarian stalwart has seen a steady rise in support throughout the campaign despite being ignored by both the national press and the political establishment. But whatever they may think in Washington and New York, around the country Paul’s movement is real and passionate. The long time congressman seems well positioned for a victory in the Iowa Caucuses, something his detractors has said will hurt Iowa more than help Paul. But that arrogance only fuels the Paul supporters to work that much harder, and it is easy to see Paul finishing a respectable second place in this race when all is said and done. Considering what people thought of Ron Paul just four years ago, when a desperate Rudy Giuliani was aiming to score cheap points at the congressman’s expense, it is a remarkable achievement.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is on the verge of duplicating a pattern he has mastered throughout his political career; amazing rise followed by spectacular crash. The Speaker’s campaign took off like a rocket several weeks ago, and the Georgia congressman seemed poised to unite the anti-Romney factions in the conservative base. But the Speaker’s infamous lack of discipline, which has lead not only to verbal gaffes but organizational blunders, has left his numbers spiraling downwards. Without the money to conduct an air campaign, and without the boots on the ground to complete simple tasks like qualifying for ballot access, Newt Gingrich seems ready to end his political career with one final fall.

Gov. Rick Perry has dominated the airwaves in Iowa for the past several weeks, working extremely hard to stitch together the Huckabee coaltion on 2008. Perry has made right wing social issues the crux of his Iowa push, centering his appeal to voters on a reinstatement of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and changing his position on rape/incest exceptions for abortion. So far, the air campaign seems to have gained little traction, as the governor’s early blunders has proven too severe for his ad campaign to repair. Still, the Texan has resources he can rely on to get past Iowa, and if the trio of Gingrich/Santorum/Bachmann doesn’t make the cut, he could aim for one final push in South Carolina.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has been racking up some impressive Iowa endorsements, and his old school work ethic in the state has positioned the former senator for an expectations-busting finish in the caucuses. Still, Santorum’s campaign lacks the resources to go much further, especially if his Iowa hard work doesn’t pay off.

Rep. Michele Bachmann finds herself in the same position as Sen. Santorum, needing shock and awe in Iowa to propel her campaign back to relevancy. Despite her struggles with personnel and resources, the congresswoman has excelled in her most recent debates and has come out strong in her confrontations with other candidates. She will need those performances to pay dividends on caucus night if she wants to survive past next Tuesday.

Gov. Jon Huntsman has made New Hampshire the begin all, end all of his campaign. At the moment, it seems that this strategy has failed, with Gov. Romney holding a commanding lead in the state. However, should Gov. Romney win in Iowa, Gov. Hunstman could play on New Hampshire’s prideful desire not to rubber stamp Iowa’s decision and make one last push for a McCain-style mutiny.

On to the rankings:

1. Mitt Romney
2. Ron Paul
3. Newt Gingrich
4. Rick Santorum
5. Rick Perry
6. Jon Huntsman
7. Michele Bachmann

VP Watch: 1. Marco Rubio 2. Chris Christie 3. Bob McDonnell 4. John Thune 5. Bobby Jindal

PPP (D) Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Poll

• Ron Paul 24% {23%} [21%] (18%) {10%} [16%] (11%) {16%}
• Mitt Romney 20% {20%} [16%] (16%) {22%} [19%] (26%) {28%}
• Newt Gingrich 13% {14%} [22%] (27%) {8%} [5%] (15%) {19%}
• Michele Bachmann 11% {10%} [11%] (13%) {8%} [18%] (14%) {15%}
• Rick Perry 10% {10%} [9%] (9%) {9%} [22%]
• Rick Santorum 10% {10%} [8%] (6%) {5%} [5%]
• Jon Huntsman 4% {4%} [5%] (4%) {1%} [3%] (1%)
• Buddy Roemer 2%
• Someone else/Not sure 5% {7%} [7%] (7%) {5%} [5%] (8%) {12%}

(more…)

In 2008, former Congressman Bob Barr left the GOP and ran as the Libertarian candidate for President. In 2012? It looks like he endorsed Newt Gingrich. Here’s the campaign announcement from Newt.

Here’s the press release:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry today filed suit in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the constitutional validity of the Virginia statute which regulates access to the ballot by presidential candidates and limits the rights of voters to vote for the candidate of their choice. To review the filing, please visit

http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf.

Virginia’s ballot access requirements are among the most onerous in the nation and severely restrict who may obtain petition signatures.

“Gov. Perry greatly respects the citizens and history of the Commonwealth of Virginia and believes Virginia Republicans should have greater access to vote for one of the several candidates for President of the United States,” said Perry campaign communications director Ray Sullivan.

“Virginia ballot access rules are among the most onerous and are particularly problematic in a multi-candidate election. We believe that the Virginia provisions unconstitutionally restrict the rights of candidates and voters by severely restricting access to the ballot, and we hope to have those provisions overturned or modified to provide greater ballot access to Virginia voters and the candidates seeking to earn their support.”

In 2008, 119,034 Virginians voted in the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary election. The requirement that several national candidates each obtain 10,000 individual qualified voter’s signatures is unrealistic and onerous. Both voters and candidates have 1st and 14th Amendment rights to meaningfully participate in the political process.

Provisions very similar to Virginia’s prohibition on out-of-state petition circulators have been struck down in the 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th United States Circuits, relying on Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 US 182 (1999). Also, ballot access requirements for unrealistic numbers of signatures was held unconstitutional in Rockefeller v. Powers, 78 F.3d 44 (2nd Cir. 1999).

The Virginia Republican Party may inform the Virginia Board of Election which candidates it seeks to have on the ballot despite the statutory ballot access requirements. Gov. Perry’s suit seeks to have the Virginia statue held unconstitutional and requests the Party to have him listed on the Republican primary ballot.

_______________________________________________________

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

Renowned political and election analyst, Michael Barone, was out with a an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal discussing the Iowa Caucuses and their poor track record of predicting the GOP nominee and general election winner.  This is nothing new to most readers of Race 4 2012 since numerous commenters and writers have pointed out low predictive record of Iowa’s ubiquitous Caucuses.  Yet, there were a couple of nuggets in Barone’s commentary that are worthy of attention and thought.  Barone points out that a) overall participation in the GOP Caucus process is on the decline (and has been for sometime), and b) the average age of the GOP Caucus goer in 2008 was 60; younger voters are staying away in droves.  To this he comments:

If I were running the Iowa Republican Party, I would be seeking to vastly increase the turnout at the Jan. 3 caucuses. After all, those who turn out can be recruited to help in future Iowa Republican campaigns. I would be especially interested in attracting new young voters; the median age of 2008 caucusgoers was nudging up toward 60.

Yet despite polls showing that Republicans are enthusiastic about the coming campaign and determined to defeat Barack Obama, Iowa Republican insiders are predicting that turnout will not exceed and may not even reach the 119,000 of 2008, when Republicans were dispirited about their party’s chances. Puzzling.

If those turnout predictions prove true, the Iowa Republican caucus-going electorate will continue to be unrepresentative of the 645,000 registered Republicans or even of the 227,000 who voted in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary (in which Mr. Branstad, a previous four-term governor, defeated Christian conservative Bob Vander Plaats). That’s the fault of those who don’t bother to show up. But it’s not a reason to take the winner on Jan. 3 as indicative of what’s to come.

The problem of declining participation in GOP national, state, and local nominating processes, and especially the avoidance of such by younger voters, is not restricted to Iowa.  It is a major problem for us nationally and one about which party officials and candidates at all levels should be very concerned.  The demographic trends have not been in our favor since the 1992 election and its resulting major shift in voting patterns.

It will be particularly interesting to watch what happens next week.  Will Ron Paul bring in enough new Caucus goers to increase overall participation?  Will his more youthful supporters turn out and lower the average participation?  Let’s stay tuned.  Read the full Barone op-ed here.

Public Policy Polling reports that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are making some room between themselves and the rest of the field in Iowa in an upcoming poll to be released tonight. PPP emphasizes that Paul and Romney are “clearly” in the lead in the first caucus state. It doesn’t seem as though there is any last minute break-out in the cards for other candidates–it’s coming down to a two-man race.

Charlie Siggins, the brother of our former contributor Dustin and a New Hampshire small business owner, has joined me in going public with his support of Ron Paul. He argues:

It’s possible to solve our many problems. But the solutions won’t be bureaucratic. Removing a few tax loopholes or eliminating a couple of EPA regulations won’t do the trick. We need the kind of change that President Obama so confidently promised but failed to deliver.

The only candidate proposing a serious overhaul of our federal system is Ron Paul. You might have heard of him, though probably not from the major media outlets. He’s the longtime congressman who has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He’s been warning of the dangers of being the “world’s policeman” since the 1980s and wants America to pursue a less interventionist foreign policy. He doesn’t just want to cut the deficit; he wants to cut the debt itself. He wants drugs to be legal. He wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve. He’s pro-life but wants to leave abortion policy to the states.

I don’t agree with all of these views, and there’s not enough space here to discuss each of these points in any depth. But consider this: When was the last time you heard a candidate tell people things they didn’t want to hear? Haven’t the American people always claimed that character is paramount? JFK’s lauded (and probably ghostwritten) book “Profiles in Courage” was about exactly that. All Ron Paul really wants to do is restrict the federal government’s authority to what is enumerated in the Constitution.

I’m a 25-year-old small business owner with one ulterior motive: getting our country back on track. I don’t work for any campaign and have donated to none. Ron Paul, for all his faults, is the only candidate who is offering a completely different vision — a vision that says, “Let’s avoid disaster entirely, and let the people have their freedom.” It may work or it may be too late, but with so much on the line, we can’t afford to support a lesser candidate.

Siggins’ views closely resemble mine: Paul is far from perfect, but he has the clearest vision for addressing the most pressing issues of the day. As a New Hampshire resident, his vote carries a bit of outsized influence. Time will tell if his sentiment mirrors that of enough Granite State residents to put Paul over the top in the first two nominating contests.

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

• Newt Gingrich 25% {26%} [26%] (27%) {25%} [25%] (26%) {28%} [28%] (29%) {31%} [31%] (33%) {33%} [35%] (37%) {34%} [36%] (37%)
• Mitt Romney 24% {23%} [22%] (21%) {23%} [23%] (24%) {24%} [24%] (24%) {23%} [22%] (23%) {23%} [23%] (23%) {25%} [23%] (22%)
• Ron Paul 11% {12%} [13%] (12%) {12%} [12%] (11%) {10%} [10%] (10%) {9%} [8%] (8%) {9%} [9%] (9%) {10%} [9%] (8%)
• Rick Perry 8% {8%} [8%] (7%) {8%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (5%) {6%} [7%] (6%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (7%)
• Michele Bachmann 6% {6%} [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (7%) {7%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (6%)
• Rick Santorum 3% {3%} [3%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (3%) {2%} [3%] (2%) {2%} [3%] (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 2% {1%} [1%] (1%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (1%) {1%} [1%] (1%)

Survey of at least 1,000 registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted December 20-26, 2011. The margin of error is ± 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 19-23, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 18-22, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 17-21, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 15-20, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 14-19, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 13-18, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 12-17, 2011are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 11-16, 2011 are in Results from the poll conducted December 10-14, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 9-13, 2011are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 8-12, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 7-11, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 6-10, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 5-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 4-8, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 3-7, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 2-6, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 1-5, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 47% {48%} [49%] (45%) {43%} [46%] (50%) {44%} [49%] (48%) {49%} [47%]
• Newt Gingrich 37% {37%} [39%] (40%) {45%} [40%] (38%) {38%} [34%] (30%) {37%} [39%]

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted December 26, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted December 18-19, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 12-13, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 6-7, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted November 28-29, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 19-20, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 11-12, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted November 3-4, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 12-13, 2011are in square brackets.  Results from the polls conducted June 24-25, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted March 18-19, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 15-16, 2011 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

President Obama leads Gingrich among men 46% to 39%. Among women, the president holds a 47% to 34% advantage.

The president leads by a wide margin among voters under 40, while Gingrich holds a slight edge among voters over 40.

Obama holds a 13-point advantage among voters not affiliated with either major party.

Most Tea Party members support Gingrich, while union members heavily favor Obama. Non-Tea Party members support Obama by a 26-point margin. Voters who are not in a labor union are evenly divided between the candidates.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Democrat incumbent Ben Nelson will not seek reelection, Political Wire is reporting. Here’s an excerpt:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) will announce his plan to retire later today, according to Politico.

“The White House and top Senate Democrats… had quietly mounted a pressure campaign to keep Nelson from retiring… But with Nelson stepping down, the Democrats’ hold on the Senate is in serious doubt, although Democratic leaders believe they can still do so.”

A wildcard: Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) has been talking to top Democrats about possibly running again.

Former Republican presidential candidate Gov. Gary Johnson unveiled a new website cover today designed to promote his own bid for the Libertarian Party nomination, as well as to urge support for Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. Johnson will be holding a televised press conference in front of the State House tomorrow in Santa Fe, New Mexico at 10:35 AM Mountain Time, where it is expected that he will switch his party registration to Libertarian, announce his new bid, and officially endorse Ron Paul’s GOP bid.

And here’s a quick history lesson from Professor Newt Gingrich entitled, “Christmas 1776 – Victory or Death,” with a 20 second campaign message at the end.

In case you missed the news in all the hubub of Christmas, a number of churches in Nigeria were attacked on Christmas Day killing 35 Christians. Here is Governor Perry’s statement on the attacks:

Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement condemning the terrorist attacks on Christian churches in Nigeria on Christmas Day:

 

“These attacks are designed to strike at the foundation of a civil society by massacring innocent civilians at worship. These savage acts are part of a disturbing trend of attacks on Christians extending from Nigeria to Egypt to Iraq. Americans should not be afraid to express solidarity with these Christian communities, and to recognize their persecution for the evil that it is.

“The United States should stand with our allies to support the Nigerian government in the aftermath of the attacks. The terrorist activities of Boko Haram are particularly worrisome for the United States because of the organization’s affiliation with Al Qaeda. Through this connection, Boko Haram may eventually threaten not only the people of Nigeria who wish to live free under the democratic rule of law, but also free peoples everywhere. Even after the death of Osama bin Laden we must remain vigilant about the danger Al Qaeda-related networks pose to us, and fashion our policy in Africa accordingly.”

Is it just me, or is Perry releasing a lot of ads. Here’s the new one entitled, “Part Time Congress.”

Since it’s the end of the year I thought it’d be a nice thing to do the bests and worsts of 2011.

Most Impactful Politician-Paul Ryan: Aside from the President (who would always win) the politician with the most impact this year is House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. His Path to Prosperity has been the most discussed, analyzed, and debated policy paper of the year. His colleagues in Congress think the world of him; every Republican in the House signed on to the Path to Prosperity budget. At age 41 he has a bright future ahead in whatever he decides to do.

Most Overrated Political Story-Occupy Wall Street: If there was one group more overhyped, over-covered by the news, it has to be the OWS movement. The news media tripped over themselves to proclaim that this was the left’s answer to the Tea Party, the next great protest movement, the way to revive the Democratic Party, what every you wanted to call them, the media did. Now however, the OWS movement has been shown to be what it always was; a pathetic joke.

Luckiest Politician-Mitt Romney: Mitch Daniels didn’t run. Paul Ryan didn’t run. Mike Huckabee didn’t either. Chris Christie is his top surrogate instead of top opponent. Tim Pawlenty has been out of the race for 6 months. Now, with 8 days to go before the Iowa Caucuses, his top opponents are Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. If that isn’t a lucky hand, I don’t know what is.

Unluckiest Politician-Rick Perry: On paper, the Texas Governor should be one of the front-runners for this race. He comes from the largest consistently red states in America, he’s been Governor for over a decade, he raised a ton of money, and right as he jumped into the race, he was at the top of the polls. Yet in a year where debates have dominated the process, the Texan’s disastrous performances have sent his numbers tumbling. While an Iowa comeback is possible, it’s certainly not the scenario that Perry and his campaign envisioned when the Governor jumped into the race back in August.

Biggest Flash in the Pan- Herman Cain: The pizza mogul surged to the top of Republican polls after the Florida Straw Poll and was bolstered by his catchy (although hardly practical) 9-9-9 Plan. Two months later, dogged by accusations of sexual harassment and unfaithfulness, Cain was out of the race.

Biggest Disappointment- Tim Pawlenty: The Minnesota Governor was hailed as the man who would be king; the guy who would be the alternative to Mitt Romney. George Will hailed him as the most likely nominee. But Pawlenty never caught on. His one moment in the spotlight was his bizarre attack on “Obamneycare” on Sunday and then refusing to say it again in at the New Hampshire debate on Tuesday. It made Pawlenty look weak, and he never recovered.

Biggest Losers- Dictators and Terrorists: Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali deposed. Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak toppled. The Mad Dog Qaddafi put down. The Dear Leader Kim Jong Il is now the dead leader. Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidency of Russia is looking less certain. Bashir al Assad’s regime is looking precarious in Syria. And most pleasingly, Osama bin Laden came down with a nasty case of bullet to the face. It wasn’t a great year for tyranny in the world.

If there are any more categories or different choices for the above categories, have at it in the comments.

The outlook section of the Christmas Day Sunday edition of The Washington Post offered another one of their “Five Myths about —-” op-ed pieces.  I have found most these op-eds to be reasonably accurate and politically unbiased.  Yesterday’s subject was former British Prime Minister (and American Conservative heroine) Margaret Thatcher.  “Five Myths about Margaret Thatcher” is consistent with what I had heard from both British acquaintances and from some of the senior Reagan staff who knew her well.  One of the most important attributes cited was her gift for choosing her battles wisely and avoiding those she could not win.  This knack was a key contributor to her overall success.  It is also something to which contemporary American conservatives and Republicans might want to pay close attention.  This was an important attribute of Ronald Reagan’s and was one of the foundations of his success in politics and as president; he used his political capital wisely.  The Post op-ed closes with a nice succinct discussion of Thatcher’s political philosophy and those who would falsely blame her (and Reagan) for the financial crisis of 2008.  In debunking the myth that “Thatcherism” caused the global financial crisis, it closes with the observation:

Thatcher stood for thrift, sound money and balanced budgets, powered by private enterprise.  The uncontrolled explosion of debt in Western economies that followed her time in power would have appalled her.

Well said.  It should appall each and everyone one of us.  Following is the complete article:

Five myths about Margaret Thatcher

By Claire Berlinksi, Published: December 22

1. The Iron Lady never backed down.

Not true. Her genius was her gift for choosing her battles wisely and avoiding those she couldn’t win. In 1981, for example, the National Union of Mineworkers — Britain’s most powerful union — threatened to strike. Despite urgent warnings from her advisers, Thatcher had made no preparations to withstand a conflict with the miners, and she capitulated immediately to their demands. She spent the next three years preparing to take them on: Her government stockpiled coal, devised schemes to smuggle strategic chemicals into power stations, changed the trade union laws and infiltrated MI5 spies into the miners’ inner circle.

When another strike loomed in 1984, she was ready. Previous mining strikes had ended after only weeks. Not this one. Over the course of a year, as Britain waited to see who would break first, Thatcher proceeded to crush the strike with a brutal, calculating ruthlessness that stunned the public. Neither labor nor the unions ever recovered.

 

2. Thatcher was prim, dowdy and moralistic.

Not at all. As a number of her colleagues told me, she has a ribald sense of humor and was quite unconcerned when her ministers got themselves into sordid adultery flaps. One of her civil servants, for example, remembered desperately trying to finesse a compromise between Thatcher and her chancellor, the Cabinet minister responsible for the economy, during a dispute over the budget.

His delicate diplomacy was upended when Thatcher came back to No. 10 Downing St. from the House of Commons, apparently quite drunk, and discovered her chancellor holding a secret strategy meeting. She strode in uninvited, kicked off her shoes, tucked her heels under herself and declared, “Well, gentlemen, let’s just settle this now, shall we?” She “held court like a queen bee,” the civil servant said — and thus was it settled in her favor.

Afterward, the others could be heard muttering among themselves, “Phwoar, wasn’t she sexy tonight?” French president Francois Mitterand is said to have called her Brigitte Bardot with Caligula’s eyes.

 

3. She was against European unification.

Yes, she is known as the great Euroskeptic. But the peculiar truth is that for most of her career, she was a passionate advocate of European unification. In 1975, she led the Tory faction of the “Vote Yes” campaign in referendum to determine whether Britain should stay in the Common Market, the precursor to the modern European Union. The Single European Act of 1986, which revised the Treaty of Rome to expand the power of the European Economic Community, as the Common Market was then known, was her initiative.

Thatcher was an ardent Europhile, in fact, until the issue of the single currency came up. That, she believed, would require one European economic policy, leaving Britain without access to the key economic instruments of a sovereign government.

In October 1997, then-Labor Chancellor Gordon Brown announced that the Treasury would set five tests to ascertain whether the economic case for joining the euro had been made. Thatcher might as well have written the test. The case was never made. History has obviously proved her right.

 

4. No one would meddle with Britain if she were still in power.

It is often said that if only Margaret Thatcher were in power, Britain wouldn’t be in this mess — “this mess” being whatever has just gone wrong. When the British Embassy in Iran was stormed recently, many in the British media rushed to insist that this would never have happened if Thatcher were in charge. GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann have invoked her legacy to imply their ferocity when asked how they would formulate policy toward Iran.

But in 1979, President Jimmy Carter asked Thatcher for “the strongest possible remonstration or action” to pressure Iran, asking Britain to reduce its diplomatic staff in the country. Thatcher responded that she did not believe it “wise to make a political point of any reduction, partly because we doubt whether the Iranians would be much impressed and partly because of the risk of retaliatory action against those remaining.” In 1984, Moammar Gaddafi loyalists opened fire on demonstrators from the second floor of the Libyan Embassy in London, killing a young British policewoman. The shooters were permitted to leave the country. They were not arrested and tried, despite howls of outrage from the British media.

Why not? Because Thatcher feared reprisals against British citizens in Libya. This is precisely the sort of thing that would never happen if Thatcher were still in power, except that in this case, Thatcher was in power.

 

5. “Thatcherism” caused the global financial crisis.

This is among the most muddled ideas about Thatcher. It is true that failure of regulation was a significant factor in the 2008 financial collapse and it is true that Thatcher promoted deregulation. As leader of the Opposition, she once interrupted a droning speech by a fellow Tory about the “middle path” the party must follow. She extracted a copy of free-market thinker Friedrich von Hayek’s “The Constitution of Liberty” from her briefcase, held it up before the audience, then slammed it on the table. “This,” she said, “is what we believe!”

But the deregulation she pursued had nothing to do with the lack of oversight that contributed to the meltdown on Wall Street. Before Thatcher, commissions of civil servants decided, for example, what sorts of cars Britons should drive. That was the kind of regulation she ended. She was a passionate proponent of regulation that makes free markets function properly — otherwise known as the rule of law.

Thatcher supported stringent bank regulation. Consider the 1986 Financial Services Act which, contrary to its reputation, closed loopholes in investor protection laws, boosted the enforcement power of regulators, and applied the same investor protection standards to a broad range of securities and investment activities.

Thatcher stood for thrift, sound money and balanced budgets, powered by private enterprise. The uncontrolled explosion of debt in Western economies that followed her time in power would have appalled her.

Claire Berlinksi, a journalist in Istanbul, is the author of “There is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.”

 

Gallup recently completed a poll where they measured the “positive intensity” of the various candidates. The details can be found here. How this differs from the usual “favorables”, I’m not sure, but here are the results:

First, Positive Intensity Ratings among Republican and Democrats:

	Rep	Dem
Gingrich	14	-37
Romney	12	-12
Santorum	11	-24
Paul	6	-8
Bachmann	2	-34
Perry	1	-32
Huntsman	0	-4
Obama	-50	27

Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum all three elicit very close to the same level of positive intensity among Republicans. Bachmann, Perry and Huntsman elicit very little. Paul is right in the middle. The big number is Obama’s. The President has a negative intensity rating of -50. That is more than all the Republican candidates’ positive ratings combined!

(more…)

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

• Newt Gingrich 26% [26%] (27%) {25%} [25%] (26%) {28%} [28%] (29%) {31%} [31%] (33%) {33%} [35%] (37%) {34%} [36%] (37%)
• Mitt Romney 23% [22%] (21%) {23%} [23%] (24%) {24%} [24%] (24%) {23%} [22%] (23%) {23%} [23%] (23%) {25%} [23%] (22%)
• Ron Paul 12% [13%] (12%) {12%} [12%] (11%) {10%} [10%] (10%) {9%} [8%] (8%) {9%} [9%] (9%) {10%} [9%] (8%)
• Rick Perry 8% [8%] (7%) {8%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (5%) {6%} [7%] (6%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (7%)
• Michele Bachmann 6% [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (7%) {7%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (6%)
• Rick Santorum 3% [3%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (3%) {2%} [3%] (2%) {2%} [3%] (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% [1%] (1%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%} [2%] (1%) {1%} [1%] (1%)

Survey of at least 1,000 registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted December 19-23, 2011. The margin of error is ± 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 18-22, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 17-21, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 15-20, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 14-19, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 13-18, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 12-17, 2011are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 11-16, 2011 are in Results from the poll conducted December 10-14, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 9-13, 2011are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 8-12, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 7-11, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 6-10, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 5-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 4-8, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 3-7, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 2-6, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 1-5, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Ron Paul’s supporters have offered a plethora of alibis for why the congressman is not really, really, really responsible for the racist and homophobic sewage mailed out in newsletters bearing his name, and ads for those newsletters bearing his signature.

Most attempts to shift blame are based on the premise that Paul did not himself write the articles (which is likely true). The finger of blame is most often pointed at Lew Rockwell, who edited the newsletter and was vice-president of Ron Paul & Associates, the business name of the enterprise. However, this ignores the fact that it was Ron Paul who hired him for those positions and should have known that Rockwell was capable of such writing, having been closely associated with him for a long time; Rockwell had been Paul’s chief of staff when Paul was in congress and had worked on Paul’s 1988 presidential campaign.

Rockwell, however, denies writing the articles, meaning we would have to accept that they were written by some third party, presumably a freelancer or multiple freelancers. That doesn’t change much either, though, since freelancers are hired  (and their work edited) by the editor. Who was Lew Rockwell. Who was hired by Ron Paul. Who knew what he was hiring.

To simplify this, let’s look at it in graphic form:

The President of the United States wears many hats, holds many titles, and assumes many roles. Among others, he is:

• Head of State
• Commander in Chief
• Chief Diplomat
• Chief Legislator
• etc. …

But the very first role mentioned in the Constitution is Chief Executive, sometimes referred to as Head of Government. Article 2, section 1 (the section that deals with the Presidency) begins:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

It is the most fundamental job of the President, seeing that things get done. It is his chief responsibility.

There is a tendency sometimes for voters to romanticize the office. They see the glamour, the speeches, the rides in Air Force One, the presidential motorcades, the pomp and flourishes of presidential visits, the 21-gun salutes, the bands, the streamers, etc. They seldom envision the grinding day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month work that goes along with the job. All the problems and issues dealing with the Government and the country end up on his desk. He is the person ultimately responsible to answer them. Harry Truman famously said, “The buck stops here”.

That is one of the primary reasons Mitt Romney supporters are so enamored with the man. It is obvious to even the most casual observer that he is the candidate in 2012 election on both sides of the aisle with the best qualities, skills, talents, experience, and temperament to be a truly effective Chief Executive Officer of the United States. As if to drive home the point, we have the recent fiasco in Virginia to consider.

Virginia has some of the toughest laws in the country dealing with primary ballot registration. To get on the ballot, a candidate must gather a minimum of 10,000 valid signatures state-wide. These signatures may not be purely collected at random, either. There must be at least 400 valid signatures collected from each Congressional district. One nice thing is if a candidate gathers at least 15,000 signatures, he is assumed to be qualified.

How difficult is it to qualify for the ballot? Well, let’s put it this way. In 2008, the Democrats had six people who qualified for the primary ballot. So did the Republicans. The Republican ballot included Mike Huckabee, who at the time had little money and even less organization. It included Fred Thomson, who got in late, and who seemed to have a real distaste for anything dealing with actual campaigning. Those guys made it onto the ballot in Virginia. So if they could do it, the bar can’t be all that high. One would expect any reasonably competent campaign to be up to the task.

This year, only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul made it. Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum only put in token efforts if that. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich procrastinated to the last moment, and then made a mad scramble to collect the required signatures.

How badly did Perry and Gingrich do? The following was taken from the Right Speak comment section (emphasis added):

My youngest daughter is the political director for VA Lt Gov Bill Bolling, who is Romney’s campaign chairman for VA, as he was in 2008. As such, we were receiving a constant twitter stream of yesterday’s events. And it was a story of complete incompetence. The Perry and Gingrich campaigns submitted between 40 and 50% of their collected signatures in an invalid format. (invalid forms, no addresses, no notary, wrong counties, not registered voters, non-qualified solicitors, etc.) No wonder Newt thinks he can now mount a vigorous write-in campaign, which is prohibited in a primary.

(more…)

First off, hope everyone had a Merry Christmas. Second, here’s the latest Mitt Romney TV ad that’ll be run in Iowa:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYzbeexc-tA[/youtube]

UNH/Boston Globe New Hampshire 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 39% (42%) {37%} [35%] (41%) {33%} [36%] (40%)
• Newt Gingrich 17% (15%) {4%} [1%] (3%) {7%} [4%] (6%)
• Ron Paul 17% (12%) {9%} [7%] (6%) {9%} [6%] (5%)
• Jon Huntsman 11% (8%) {8%} [2%] (3%) {4%} [0%]
• Rick Santorum 3% (1%) {2%} [1%] (3%) {2%} [0%] (1%)
• Michele Bachmann 2% (2%) {2%} [12%] (4%) {4%} [4%]
• Rick Perry 1% (4%) {4%} [4%]
• Buddy Roemer 0% (1%) {0%} [0%] (0%) {0%}
• Don’t know 8%

Have you definitely decided who you will vote for in the New Hampshire primary … are you leaning toward someone … or have you considered some candidates but are still trying to decide?

• Definitely decided 26% (16%) {11%} [8%] (8%) {4%}
• Leaning toward someone 28% (24%) {21%} [17%] (16%) {9%}
• Still trying to decide 46% (59%) {68%} [75%] (76%) {87%}

 

(more…)