New Rick Perry ad where his wife Anita talks about his life story.

Here’s the transcript:

Mrs. Perry: “It’s an old-fashioned American story. I married my high school sweetheart, but first I had to wait as he volunteered for the Air Force and flew planes all over the world.”

“I’m Anita Perry. When Rick’s tour of duty as a captain in the Air Force ended, he returned home to farm with his dad and asked me to marry him.”

“We grew up in small towns, raised with Christian values — values we still believe in. And we know Washington, D.C., could use some of that.”

Gov. Perry: “I’m Rick Perry, and I really approve this message.”

Here’s an interview with Dr. Ron Paul, then former member of Congress, in 1995. In it he talks about his views on the issues, his experiences, and a newsletter that he publishes, specifically the content of said newsletters.

Doesn’t mean he wrote it – but it does mean that he knew the content of the newsletter. Here’s the relevant quote:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

HT to Leon Wolf

12 days until Iowa…

Intrade

Romney to win GOP nomination: 68.4
Gingrich to win GOP nomination: 10.2
Ron Paul to win GOP Nomination: 7.8
Obama to win reelection: 51.0
Iowa Caucuses Winner: Paul 42.6 – Romney 35.5 – Newt Gingrich 9.2
New Hampshire Primary Winner: Romney 79.9 – Paul 11.0 – Huntsman 6.0
South Carolina Primary Winner: Romney 48.9 – Gingrich 29.5 – Perry 15.0

Polling:

Obama Approval (RCP): 46.6% / 48.7% (-2.1%)
GOP Nomination (RCP): Gingrich +3.0
Gallup Daily Tracking GOP Nomination: Gingrich 25%, Romney 23%

And as always, have at it in the comments. Anything goes…

This past Monday, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush penned an op-ed on markets and capitalism for The Wall Street Journal that has the commentariat musing about the governor’s motives:

With conservatives seemingly still unwilling to coalesce around a Republican presidential candidate, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, brother of the 43rd U.S. president and son of the 41st, is raising eyebrows today with a Wall Street Journal op-ed extolling the virtues of the free market.

In the piece, Bush channels campaign-style rhetoric, leading some conservative commentators to question whether he might launch a late-inning jump into a chaotic GOP field.

…

Byron York, a columnist for the Washington Examiner, wondered on Twitter what Bush intended by the piece.

“Trial balloon? Jeb Bush pens campaign-like economic manifesto for WSJ,” York tweeted.

Both the timing of the piece and the pragmatic ex-governor’s unusual focus on the ideology du jour of the GOP base have me suspecting that the House of Bush is testing the waters to gauge whether or not the mood is right for a “draft” effort that would propel Jeb into the race once all of the candidates not named Romney and Paul have failed miserably in the early states. I think that any such effort is misplaced. First, a Tea Party-centric Republican base is hardly going to embrace as its savior the brother of a Republican president who they view as a traitor to their ideology. Secondly, while it’s true that it would be mathematically possible to win the nomination while not even competing in the early states, it’s simply not practically possible. Once Gov. Romney has won, or done especially well, in states that he was supposed to lose, like Iowa and South Carolina, the narrative of an inevitable Romney nomination will have been set in stone. All of the establishment types who haven’t already gotten on the Romney bandwagon will do so quickly, and there simply won’t be any donors, operatives, or big GOP names willing to take a gamble on a late entry. While a Romney-only race as of February 1st seems like a heaping helping of Jeb-bait (or perhaps even Palin-bait) on paper, the reality is that at that point, Romney will be the de facto nominee, and the party will have psychologically settled on Romney as its standard bearer for 2012.

Mason-Dixon 2012 Presidential Poll

Of the candidates currently running for president, which one would you like to see elected next year?

• Barack Obama 37%
• Mitt Romney 17%
• Newt Gingrich 14%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Rick Perry 4%
• Michele Bachmann 3%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Not sure 18%

(more…)

I have finally made up my mind…at least for today. If the primary were held today, I know how I’d vote. I’ll get to that in a bit, but first – let me explain my criteria and why I selected this person. I’ll whittle down the candidates as I go through my review.

First, we need a candidate who can directly combat Obamacare. What do I mean by that? It’s unpopular and it’s going to the Supreme Court now, we need a candidate who can readily challenge the law in the public square, challenge the President on this issue, and do so with authority. Bachmann can do that, so can Perry, Paul, Huntsman, and Santorum. What about Gingrich and Romney? Both have endorsed a mandate at some level in the past – be it state (Romney) or federal (Gingrich). While it may be a nuanced historic viewpoint, it’s easy to see the ads hammering them home on this very issue making it a non-issue for the President. The other candidates have more consistently been opposed to the healthcare mandate and the entirety of Obamacare. They are better messengers for this issue, which I feel could be critical in 2012.

Second, we need a candidate who can address the out of control spending and taxing in Washington. Of the remaining contenders, Perry, Huntsman, Santorum, Bachmann, and Paul can each readily address this issue with either first hand experience fighting it in Washington (Santorum, Bachmann, Paul) or experience balancing a state budget (Huntsman, Perry). I believe any of these candidates can adequately address these issues in a campaign against Obama.

Third, we need a candidate who has relevant experience with tangible results they can point to, showing how their ideas / policies will work. Paul, Bachmann, and Santorum can argue all day about how they fought the tide of big government – but in the end their task was to cast votes and give speeches. Tangible results that directly stem from their votes are hard to measure. Tangible results from an executive standpoint are something you can readily measure from a sitting or former executive, (CEO, Governor, Mayor, etc). This brings us to just two candidates who still remain, Huntsman and Perry.

Now, when you look at their platforms and backgrounds as Governors, there is a lot to like from both Huntsman and Perry. Both cut taxes. Both cut spending. Both served as Governors of states with significant economic growth. These are important to note when competing against a President who has presided over a downgrade in US credit. Both have well developed, pro-growth economic platforms (Huntsman’s edges out Perry’s in my mind, but both still good). But when it comes to having the instincts to push things back to a state versus federal level, Perry wins. Huntsman was a big TARP supporter – in fact, he supported making it bigger. Perry opposed it then, opposes it now. More recently he’s referred to it as an “…act of theivery.” He may not always be right, but Perry’s instincts is smaller government, more local control. His idea of the states controlling social security is…silly at best, impractical and unobtainable at worst. Also, it’s important to note this statistic – since December 2000, 45% of all jobs created in America were created in Texas. Yes, it’s a huge state. Yes, some of those policies that led to said growth were implemented before Perry became Governor, but they’re still working – still growing today. It’s hard to argue with that statistic which can be hammered home against President Downgrade.

So, if the primary were held today, I’d probably vote for Perry. I wanted to like Newt. I really did. But in the end, he has no executive experience, has a history of being all over the map on fiscal issues, and his personal life is a big pill to swallow. I don’t mind Bachmann, but her instincts on the offensive are often gutteral and wrong. Attacking Perry on Guardasil was a bold, but incredibly foolhardy move, especially the way in which it was presented. Comparing 9-9-9 to the mark of the beast in a debate with a wink and a nod was over the top. Santorum? He’s a former US Senator and social conservative to his core. That said, Santorum has been inconsistent on fiscal issues ranging from his past support of ethanol subsidies / the minimum wage to his opposition to NAFTA. Santorum is a great retail politician, but angry in a debate setting and, frankly, I’m not yet convinced he’d be a capable executive as he’s never served in such a capacity. I’d vote for any of the three of them over Obama, though, without even having to think.

Romney? There were reasons I didn’t pick Romney in ’08 and those reasons are still valid this year. MassCare is a big deal to me, always was, and I remain unconvinced that he’s the right messenger for the sentiment of this election cycle. I say that to point out this – part of me thinks Romney may have been the right candidate for 2008. The American public was looking for a serious candidate who could talk about economics in an approachable way. They were looking for a candidate with a serious demeanor who talked about getting things done to deal with the economic downturn immediately. Obama came across as the adult in the room, the serious one. McCain appeared flighty, inconsistent, even stopping his campaign at a moments notice to…do his job as US Senator. Romney was stoic and serious, and may have been a better choice for 2008. But, I do not feel is the right choice for 2012. In 2012, the American people are looking for someone with a populist streak, who can appeal to them on a basic level – displaying an understanding for the plight of the middle class. One who casually talks about a $10,000 bet is not going to appeal to that kind of an audience.

At the moment, I think Perry is the right choice. As I said, if the primary were held today, that’s who I’d vote for. Not quite an endorsement – but that’s how I feel. By the Maryland primary, my answer may turn out to be different.

_______________________________________________________

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

It’s that time again. Enjoy:

Quinnipiac New York 2012 Presidential Poll

REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

• Newt Gingrich 29%
• Mitt Romney 26%
• Ron Paul 9%
• Jon Huntsman 5%
• Michele Bachmann 4%
• Rick Santorum 3%
• Rick Perry 1%
• Someone else (vol.) 2%
• Wouldn’t vote(vol.) 4%
• Don’t know 16%

(more…)

From the official release:

Boston, MA – Mitt Romney today announced the endorsement of Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns.

“Senator Johanns has been a tireless servant for Nebraska and our country,” said Mitt Romney. “In my campaign, I am fighting to grow our economy, lower spending, and reform how Washington works. Senator Johanns has been on the frontline of these fights both in Nebraska and in the Senate. With his help, we can put our country on a prosperous path once again.”

Announcing his support, Senator Johanns said, “The only way we are going to reverse the failures of the last three years is if we have a president who understands the economy. Mitt Romney applied the principles he learned in the private sector to the challenges he faced leading the Olympics and as Governor. These same conservative principles can be used to fix our broken government.”

Senator Johanns Was Elected In 2008. In the Senate, he serves on the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Environment and Public Works, Veterans’ Affairs and Indian Affairs Committees. Prior to his election, he was the Secretary of Agriculture under President George W. Bush. From 1999 to 2005, Johanns was the Governor of Nebraska.

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

• Newt Gingrich 25% [25%] (26%) {28%} [28%] (29%) {31%} [31%] (33%) {33%} [35%] (37%) {34%} [36%] (37%)
• Mitt Romney 23% [23%] (24%) {24%} [24%] (24%) {23%} [22%] (23%) {23%} [23%] (23%) {25%} [23%] (22%)
• Ron Paul 12% [12%] (11%) {10%} [10%] (10%) {9%} [8%] (8%) {9%} [9%] (9%) {10%} [9%] (8%)
• Rick Perry 8% [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (5%) {6%} [7%] (6%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (7%)
• Michele Bachmann 7% [6%] (7%) {7%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (6%)
• Rick Santorum 4% [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (3%) {2%} [3%] (2%) {2%} [3%] (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 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 15-20, 2011. The margin of error is ± 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 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, 2011 are 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, 2011 are 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 conducted December 5-9, 2011are 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 conductedDecember 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

Gov. Gary Johnson announced yesterday that he was done with the Republican Party, and pursuing a third party bid. Can anyone honestly blame him? Gov. Johnson is by no means a “sore loser.” To the contrary: he was never allowed to compete.

Gov. Johnson had, at one point, been a rock star of the Republican Party. The very definition of the self-made man that conservatives idealize, this fellow had worked his own way through college, started a one-man handyman business, and through sheer hard work and entrepreneurial cunning, had grown it into a successful, multi-million dollar construction company. Faced with a weak slate of Republican candidates in the 1994 New Mexico gubernatorial election, Gov. Johnson–despite never having held prior political office, yet being fairly covered in the news media, opinion polling, and televised debates–came out of nowhere to win the nomination, unseat an incumbent Democratic governor, and deliver the first-ever 8 solid years of Republican leadership in New Mexico (a state where Democrats outnumbered Republicans 2 to 1 at the time). As Governor, Johnson balanced the budget, cut spending and taxes, vetoed as many bills as the other 49 Governors combined, and passed many free market-oriented improvements in quality of life for New Mexicans. His political rise and governorship are a model for Republican leaders everywhere.

Starting this year’s presidential election campaign with the highest hopes and optimism, Gov. Johnson was soon greatly disillusioned by a process that didn’t even allow him out of the starting gate. When his polling average hovered at a solid 1% despite virtually no coverage, debate sponsors raised the bar to 2%. When he began garnering 2%’s, still with no help from the media or the Republican establishment, debate sponsors raised the bar to 3%. Political pundits like Slate‘s Dave Weigel mused that there might exist a “Gary Johnson Rule,” whereby debate sponsors were purposefully changing the inclusion criteria specifically to exclude Gov. Johnson, so as not to have to listen to his unique (but remarkably mainstream) political philosophy. Still, talk of a “Gary Johnson Rule” was only semi-serious conspiracy theorizing at first. Until, that is, Johnson started out-polling Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman (two of the media’s officially anointed “serious candidates”) in several surveys. When Bloomberg unveiled their criteria of a candidate having had to have appeared in three nationally televised debates in order to be included in the Bloomberg debate (how convenient, since Gov. Johnson had only squeaked in to two FOX debates), the existence of the “Gary Johnson Rule” became an evident reality. After Johnson blew the roof off the 9/22 debate with a stellar performance and the best one-liner of the entire election thus far, his name was inexplicably removed from virtually all polls, effectively ending his chances at being included in any future debates.

And where was the Republican National Committee, while all of this abuse was being directed at one of their most sterling exemplars of conservative principles? No where. When Johnson reached out to the RNC for assistance, a snide letter was returned claiming that Gov. Johnson’s inclusion in the debates would cause “chaos”. Where were the run-of-the-mill Republican voters during all of this? A few quietly conceded that Johnson was being treated unfairly, but there was no widespread outcry amongst mainstream Republicans to right this injustice against one of their own.

Why? Because Gov. Johnson insists on maintaining the old Republican conservatism of the first half of the twentieth century, rather than the “neo”-conservatism of the Nixon-through-Bush era. Johnson still believes, as President Coolidge, Sen. Robert Taft, and Barry Goldwater did, that a big government foreign policy is just as foolish as a big government domestic policy, and that we should have a robust military that is utilized very prudently. Johnson believes, as a majority of average Americans now do, that a federal prohibition on cannabis is just plain silly, and a complete waste of taxpayers’ hard-earned wealth. Furthermore, Johnson is brave enough to call out the emperor’s nakedness–pointing out that Medicare and Medicaid are bust and that benefits must be cut, and pointing out that the budget cannot be balanced without touching the Pentagon’s piggybank.

Johnson, at one point a proud, self-professed lifelong Republican, has been so abused by the Party he’d worked so hard on behalf of, that he can no longer even stomach having the letter (R) next to his name. Recent polling shows that his third party presence on the general election ballot not only ensures that the swing state of New Mexico cannot be won by a Republican, but also that his third party candidacy changes the outcome of a Romney-Obama contest decisively. Blame Johnson for being a spoiler if you like, but the GOP has no one to thank for this outcome but themselves.

As someone who was a paid staffer for Gov. Johnson’s campaign for seven months, and who had been a coordinator for his Our America PAC for several months prior to that, I am as angry as anyone about the shameful way the Party and the conservative movement have treated the Governor. I am sticking with the Republican Party, because I still believe the GOP is the most realistic vehicle for positive change in this country, but I can’t blame Gov. Johnson at all for the path he has chosen to embark upon. Let this political tragedy serve as a wake-up call to us.

Anyone who was elected a state Governor twice as a Republican, who served eight years as a Republican, and who delivered so magnificently on all the policies the Republican Party claims to support, should be guaranteed a place on the debate stage throughout the entire process (or, at the very least, the first several debates, in order to give them a chance to break out), not excluded based on meaningless surveys of those who were barely even paying attention yet. Let this also serve as a warning in the case of Rep. Paul. Love him or hate him, he is bringing people into the Republican Party like no other Republican politician is, and he has legitimate, serious ideas and a lengthy record of service in Congress. Even if you vote against Ron Paul, at least give the man some basic respect and treat him like you would any other Republican candidate you don’t happen to be supporting.

The Republican Party must not only stand for a free economy and a vision for spreading freedom around the world, it must also stand for a free election process. The Republican Party ought to be known for its unparalleled openness to fair competition, and tolerance for new ideas (or for new perspectives on old ideas). The GOP should be the one party where voters know their candidate will be given a fair shot at airing their message and their résumé. Republican voters must be willing to stand up to the progress-resistant GOP establishment, and to speak out loudly when a qualified candidate (even though they may not be one’s personal favorite candidate) is clearly being given the shaft. Until Republicans become willing to hear new ideas, and to call for and embrace a free and fair election process, we will continue to bleed our best and brightest, and we will continue to lose voting blocs, until we cease to exist as a political entity. Perhaps the loss of Gov. Johnson from our ranks can jolt us into turning around this establishmentarian culture infecting the GOP before it’s too late.

Rasmussen Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Poll

• Mitt Romney 25% [23%] (19%) {21%} [17%] (21%)
• Ron Paul 20% [18%] (10%) {10%} [14%] (16%)
• Newt Gingrich 17% [20%] (32%) {9%} [2%] (5%)
• Rick Perry 10% [10%] (6%) {7%} [29%] (12%)
• Rick Santorum 10% [6%] (5%) {4%} [4%]
• Michele Bachmann 6% [9%] (6%) {8%} [18%] (22%)
• Jon Huntsman 4% [5%] (2%) {2%} [3%] (2%)

Survey of 750 likely Iowa Republican Caucus participants was conducted December 19, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 13, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 15, 2011are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 19, 2011are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 31, 2011are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 4, 2011are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Among those who say they are certain to participate in the caucus, Romney and Paul are essentially even.

Romney leads with Gingrich in second among those who consider themselves Republicans. Paul has a wide lead among non-Republicans who are likely to participate in the caucuses.

Romney is now seen as the strongest candidate against President Obama by 35% of Iowa caucus-goers. Twenty-five percent (25%) see Gingrich as the strongest candidate. A week ago, the two were even in that category. Fifteen percent (15%) see Paul as the strongest candidate.

Paul is seen as the weakest candidate by 26%, Bachmann by 21%. Sixteen percent (16%) say that Gingrich would be the weakest general election candidate while only three percent (3%) hold that view of Romney.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Folks, Iowa is shaping up to be quite a barn burner…

We Ask America Iowa Caucus Survey

• Paul – 19% (14)
• Romney – 18% (16)
• Gingrich – 16% (30)
• Bachmann – 15% (13)
• Perry – 11% (7)
• Santorum – 9% (4)
• Huntsman – 4% (3)
• Undecided – 8% (12)

Survey of 1,250 GOP voters was conducted December 20 and has a margin of error of +/-2.77%. Numbers from their survey taken Dec 5 are in parentheses.

Bachmann wins the youngest voters by overwhelming margins; Romney wins the oldest by double digits; Paul wins everyone in between.

Quinnipiac Virginia 2012 Presidential Poll

REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

• Newt Gingrich 30% {7%} [4%]
• Mitt Romney 25% {21%} [19%]
• Ron Paul 9% {9%} [8%]
• Michele Bachmann 6% {7%} [5%]
• Rick Perry 6% {11%} [25%]
• Jon Huntsman 4% {1%} [1%]
• Rick Santorum 3% {2%} [2%]
• Someone else (vol.) 1%
• Wouldn’t vote (vol.) 1% {1%} [2%]
• Don’t know 15% {20%} [20%]

(more…)

ISU/Gazette/KCRG 2012 Iowa GOP Caucus Poll

• Ron Paul 27.5%
• Newt Gingrich 25.3%
• Mitt Romney 17.5%
• Rick Perry 11.2%
• Michele Bachmann 7.4%
• Undecided 5.4%
• Rick Santorum 4.9%

The new Iowa State University/Gazette/KCRG poll was compiled through phone interviews between Dec. 8 and 18, of 740 registered Republicans and 200 registered independents. Of those polled, 333 (35.4 percent) stated that they definitely or probably would attend the caucuses.

Here’s a question for our readers…

Were he to pull off a victory in Iowa, how much momentum we Ron Paul carry heading into New Hampshire?  According to polls, he is running somewhere between 15-20% there, and could theoretically finish a strong 2nd.  After that, would his support jump in other states as well?  Would his rise scare the voters into circling their wagons around the Romney campaign, or is the anti-establishment anger among the GOP voters so high that it would reject the safest choice for that of the candidate who disagrees with a great many of them on the issue of national security in a post 9/11 world?

Feel free to discuss.

A frontrunner with money and establishment support who the GOP is not particularly happy with and several conservatives vying for the title of top challenger? The most potent is a Texan elected statewide with deep pockets who fails to catch on with voters. Instead, the top challengers to the establishment guy is a man whose foreign policy views scare GOP voters, with a history of statements that can be seen as insensitive to Africian Americans, Hispanics, and Jewish people.

We’re not talking about 2008, but 1996, an election with many interesting parallels to the one we’re facing today.  In 1996, a series of Republicans who showed strong in early polls including Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, and Dick Cheney declined a run. In 2012, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Chris Christie declined the honor of a presidential run. 1996 had businessman Steve Forbes running on a platform of radically changing the tax code and of course 2012 had Herman Cain running in the same way.

In 1996, there were several conservatives who could have presented a serious challenge to Bob Dole, just as in 2012, there are several conservatives who could present a challenge to Mitt Romney. However, in 1996, the one who got the votes of conservatives in Iowa, Alaska, Louisiana, and New Hampshire was a candidate whose foreign policy and trade views were far out of the GOP mainstream which allowed Bob Dole in Pat Buchanan. In 2012, with Ron Paul having a strong chance of winning the Iowa Caucus and finishing strong in New Hampshire, it’s quite possible that are final two could come down to: 1) the frontrunner and 2) someone that most of the party would never choose to be its nominee.

This situation is helped by conservative leaders who could not be doing a better job of splitting the not-Romney conservative vote if they were trying to. We read of Vander Plaats endorsing Santorum, the State House Speaker endorsing Gingrich, Iowa Pastors coming out for Bachmann. Again, the conservative particular the social conservative vote is being sliced and diced, thus meaning the chance of any one candidate emerging is slim.

We could, perhaps, blame conservatives for failing to find a candidate to rally behind and letting themselves be broken up into warring camps. However, the problem may be that while conservatives in early states aren’t satisfied with Romney, they’re not really gung ho for any of the other candidates because there’s little basis for being gung ho. In Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry were left with four candidates who most conservatives like, however none are candidates that conservatives would have chosen a top pick six months ago. And none of them have a presidential resume save Perry.

At this point, it appears Romney is heading for almost certain nomination. There are two scenarios that would hinder that or even put it into doubt: First, either Perry or Gingrich is able to consolidate a solid 20+% and finish a strong 2nd or 3rd in Iowa and offer themselves as a clear alternative. Second, Huntsman wins New Hampshire. (Far more unlikely.)

If neither of these happen, but rather Huntsman finishes far back of Romney in New Hampshire while Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum all manage to get around 10-15% of the vote then it’ll only be a matter of time before Republicans begin the effort to unite the party behind Mitt Romney.

Politico has the story on one of the worst-kept secrets in the Presidential race this month.

I wrote last week on the likelihood of a credible third party challenger running in 2012. Is Johnson that guy? Beyond a doubt, he’d be a step up in credibility for the LP over their last two nominees. But Johnson will need to make a hard cell to socially liberal fiscally conservative northeasterners and the libertarian-leaning conservatives of the mountain west, and make a play for the anti-war, pro-marijuana, disillusioned-with-Obama crowd. At this point, I’m skeptical that Johnson can do that. However, Republicans now need to worry that, if Ron Paul’s galvanized supporters become deeply dissatisfied with the process after he (probably) wins Iowa and (almost certainly) doesn’t get the nomination, they may bolt to Johnson. On the other hand, Obama needs to be concerned that a powerful Johnson candidacy will bleed away his support with the youth vote and up-scale creative class voters. As for Johnson, however, he has worries of his own; even in the New Hampshire primary–which is open to independents and Democrats–he only managed to pull two percent. NH is exactly the kind of state in which Johnson needs to do well, and up until this point, things have been less than encouraging. Whether this will turn out to be a novelty story which fades quickly or a minor game-changer remains to be seen.

Suppose for a moment that you are a self-styled leader of the Iowan evangelical-SoCons. You see your niche fractured between three candidates, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum. You want to defeat Romney, Gingrich, and Paul. The way to do that is obviously to coalesce your forces around one of the three candidates.

Do you:

1. Back Michele Bachmann? She won the Ames Iowa poll. She led the Iowa polling for most of the month of July. She has consistently polled in Iowa around ten percent for the last month.
2. Back Rick Perry? He led the Iowa polling through August. He has the most monetary resources of the three, has an extensive executive track record, a great jobs record to beat Obama over the head with, and would be the most likely to give Mitt fits for weeks on end.
3. Back Rick Santorum? He’s never caught on with the voters either in Iowa or nationally. He’s never led once, he’s only broken double digits one time all this year, and both of the other two have nearly always outpolled him.

Well, if you are Bob Vander Plaats, you go with #3. Not being content with doing that, you also call Michele Bachmann on the phone and try to convince her to drop out in favor of the man she has always lead in the polls.

From Politico:

DES MOINES – Iowa evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats called Michele Bachmann and urged her to drop out of the race and endorse Rick Santorum, a source with knowledge of the conversation told POLITICO Tuesday.

The phone call took place Saturday, three days before Vander Plaats announced he – but not his organization, the Family Leader – was backing Santorum.

Bachmann declined, the source said, noting to Vander Plaats that she has consistently polled ahead of Santorum in the race and still does.

…

Didn’t Sarah Palin refuse to endorse Vander Plaats last year for governor and supported Terry Branstad instead? (So did Mitt as I recall.) I’m beginning to see why.

13 days until Iowa…

Intrade

Romney to win GOP nomination: 67.3
Gingrich to win GOP nomination: 9.4
Ron Paul to win GOP Nomination: 8.2
Huntsman to win GOP nomination: 5.8
Obama to win reelection: 51.0
Iowa Caucuses Winner: Paul 42.0 – Romney 33.9 – Newt Gingrich 8.0
New Hampshire Primary Winner: Romney 79.5 – Paul 15.0 – Huntsman 7.0
South Carolina Primary Winner: Romney 48.9 – Gingrich 17.1 – Perry 15.0

Polling:

Obama Approval (RCP): 46.5% / 49.7% (-3.2%)
GOP Nomination (RCP): Gingrich +3.0
Gallup Daily Tracking GOP Nomination: Gingrich 25%, Romney 23%

And as always, have at it in the comments. Anything goes…

CNN/ORC 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 52% {47%} [49%] (49%) {54%}
• Mitt Romney 45% {51%} [48%] (48%) {43%}

• Barack Obama 52% [51%] {52%}
• Ron Paul 45% [47%] {45%}

• Barack Obama 56% {53%} {57%}
• Newt Gingrich 40% {45%} {40%}

• Barack Obama 57% {52%} [51%] (51%)
• Rick Perry 39% {45%} [46%] (46%)

• Barack Obama 57% [54%] (51%)
• Michele Bachmann 38% [42%] (45%)

Survey of 928 registered voter was conducted December 16-18, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted November 11-13, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 23-25, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 5-7, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted April 29 – May 1, 2011 are in curly brackets.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

C-SPAN reports that Gov. Romney will be giving a “Major Policy Speech” in New Hampshire. Click here to watch it live in a new window.

And as always, have at it in the comments!

[Update] - Here is the full speech for those who missed it:

Six months ago, I launched my campaign for the Presidency not far from here on a perfect New Hampshire summer day.

I spoke of an America in peril, under a President who had disappointed even his own supporters and was clearly failing. Since then, the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high. More Americans have lost their homes and more Americans have slipped from the middle class into a world of poverty they never imagined. Our soldiers return from war unable to find a decent job.

Over the last six months, I’ve travelled up and down New Hampshire and across America. I’ve listened to anxious voices in town meetings, visited with students who are frightened by the magnitude of their college loans but even more frightened by the lack of good jobs. From break rooms to back offices to living rooms, I’ve heard stories of the The Great Obama Recession. Of families getting by on less, of long planned-for retirements replaced by two jobs at minimum wage. It’s a long litany of dreams deferred and economic stress that quickly become family stress. I’ve heard stories that will break your heart.

But let me tell you what I rarely heard – hopelessness.

Even in these most difficult times, the worst economy since the Great Depression, I’ve found Americans refusing to believe that these troubled days are our destiny. Sometimes with pride, often with anger, I’ve heard time and again, a constant refrain: This is not the America we love! This is not the America we deserve! That this is not the America of yesterday and we will not allow it to become the America of tomorrow!

We are Americans. And we will not surrender our dreams to the failures of this President. We are bigger than the misguided policies and weak leadership of one man. America is bigger than President Obama’s failures!

This America of long unemployment lines and small dreams is not the America you and I love. It is not a Live Free or Die America. These troubled years are President Obama’s legacy but they are not our future!

This is an election not to replace a President but to save a vision of America. It’s a choice between two destinies.

Four years ago, many Americans trusted candidate Barack Obama when he promised to bring Americans together. But now we’ve learned that President Obama’s idea of bringing us together is not to lift us up but instead to use the invisible boot of government to bring us all down.

I have a vision of a very different America, an America united not by our limits but by our ambitions, our hopes and our shared dreams. I am tired of a President who wakes up every day, looks out across America and is proud to announce, “It could be worse.”

It could be worse? Is that what it means to be an American? It could be worse?

No.

If I am President I will wake up every day and remind Americans that not only must we do better but also that we can do better! I believe in America!

President Obama boasts that he will “fundamentally transform” America. I want to restore America to our founding principles.

I believe that our founding principles are what made America the greatest nation in the world.

Among these core principles is what the founders called the “pursuit of happiness.” We call it opportunity, or the freedom to choose our course in life. That principle is the foundation of a society that is based on ability, not birthright.

In a merit-based society, people achieve their dreams through hard work, education, risk-taking, and even a little luck. An opportunity society produces pioneers and inventors; it inspires its citizens to build and create. As these people exert effort and take risks, they employ and lift others and create prosperity.

Their success does not make others poorer, it makes others better off.

President Obama sees America differently. He believes in an entitlement society.
Once we thought “entitlement” meant that Americans were entitled to the privilege of trying to succeed in the greatest country in the world. Americans fought and died to earn and protect that entitlement. But today the new entitlement battle is over the size of the check you get from Washington.

President Barack Obama has reversed John Kennedy’s call for sacrifice. He would have Americans ask, “what can the country do for you?”
Just a couple of weeks ago in Kansas, President Obama lectured us about Teddy Roosevelt’s philosophy of government. But he failed to mention the important difference between Teddy Roosevelt and Barack Obama. Roosevelt believed that government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities. President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes.

In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others. And the only people who truly enjoy any real rewards are those who do the redistributing—the government.
The truth is that everyone may get the same rewards, but virtually everyone will be worse off.
President Obama’s entitlement society would demand a massive growth of government. To preserve opportunity, we must shrink government not grow it.

Last month, I laid out specific solutions to the spending crisis we are facing, including Medicare reform. I’m very pleased to see that Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who has been a champion of reform, has joined with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon to push a similar Medicare reform package that I hope will save this critical program.

But this is more than a spending crisis we face. Even if we could afford the ever-expanding payments, an “entitlement society” is a fundamental corruption of the American spirit. The battle we face today is more than a fight over our budget, it’s a battle for America’s soul.

We can’t begin to answer the question of who should be our next President until we start asking ourselves, “Who are we as Americans, and what kind of America do we want for our children?”

I know that my answers to those questions are very different than those of the current President of the United States.
President Obama has spent the last 35 months building a government so large that feeding it will have to consume a greater and greater share of your paycheck. And does anybody in America believe they are better off today than four years ago?
He pushed through Obamacare, an entitlement program we didn’t want and can’t afford.
He’s refused to advance a responsible plan to strengthen existing entitlements. Instead of fostering competition and choice, he’s cultivating government dependence.
President Obama talks about a country where everyone plays by the same rules, but when it comes to his favorite friends, he makes sure the rules don’t apply. He’s given his supporters waivers exempting them from the burden of Obamacare. His NLRB bullies businesses when they don’t bow to union demands. In the energy industry, he’s picked winners – who turned out to be real losers – like Solyndra.

That’s how an entitlement society works – those in government control the resources and make the rules. And while the rest of us stand still, they make sure that their friends get ahead.
The result of President Obama’s approach is a staggering list of failures. It took eighteen tax increases just to get Obamacare off the ground. Our growing welfare state is slated to cost $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years, that’s $72.000 a household.

I will take a different path.

I will repeal Obamacare. On the first day as president, I will issue waivers from Obamacare to all 50 states.
I will strengthen Medicare by empowering the next generation of seniors to choose the solutions that are right for them. And I’ll send Medicaid back to the states because they know how to serve their citizens best.

My administration will create an environment where the private sector can thrive and American businesses can reach their full potential. I’ll reduce federal regulation, open up new markets, and fully exploit our energy resources.

I’ll cut taxes, cap spending and finally balance the budget.

This time next year, all the yard signs will have come down; Town Hall meetings will be about local budgets, not the defense department or Medicare. It’ll be safe to watch television again, at least for a little while. Americans will have chosen.

The path I lay out is not one paved with ever increasing government checks and cradle-to-grave assurances that government will always be the solution. If this election is a bidding war for who can promise more benefits, that’s a battle I’m not going to join.
This will be a campaign about the soul of America, about American greatness. I’m confident that Americans won’t settle for an excuse that “it could be worse.” I’m confident that Americans will refuse to be bought off by cheap promises that turn into never-ending debts for our children and grandchildren.

This is a time when we look beyond who we are today and ask who we will become.
Not far from here, an idea called America was born. It came in a moment when a peaceful people realized they could not continue on the same path. Those farmers and merchants, aristocrats and blacksmiths, put aside their fears to take up arms against the greatest power in the world. There was not a single rational reason to believe they could succeed.

But they believed in God and they believed in themselves. They believed that the guiding force in their lives should not be fear, but rather a strong belief that life without freedom is slow death and an abiding conviction that they could build a better world.

That world is America.

Here in New Hampshire, in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida, Michigan – across America – we are at the beginning of a democratic process that those early patriots risked all to secure. This is the moment when we reject failure and commit to make the disappointments of the past few years only a detour, not a destiny. We believe America can do better. Because we believe in America.
And tonight, I ask each of you to remember how special it is to be an American. I want you to remember what it was like to be hopeful and excited about the future, not to dread each new headline. When you spent more time looking for a house to buy than searching for a new job; when you spent more time thinking about a vacation with your family than how to make it to the next paycheck.

That America is still out there. An America when you weren’t afraid to look at your retirement savings or the price at the pump.

An America when you never had to wake up to hear a President apologizing for America.

I say let’s fight for that America. The America that brings out the best in each of us, that challenges us to be better and bigger than ourselves.

This election, let’s fight for the America we love.

We believe in America.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Poll

• Mitt Romney 47%
• Barack Obama 45%

• Barack Obama 49%
• Newt Gingrich 44%

• Barack Obama 46%
• Ron Paul 41%

• Barack Obama 50%
• Michele Bachmann 41%

• Barack Obama 50%
• Rick Perry 40%

(more…)

CBS News 2012 GOP Nomination Poll

• Newt Gingrich 20% {15%} (10%) [8%] {7%}
• Mitt Romney 20% {15%} (21%) [17%] {16%}
• Ron Paul 10% {5%} (8%) [7%] {5%}
• Rick Perry 6% {8%} (6%) [12%] {23%}
• Michele Bachmann 4% {4%} (2%) [4%] {7%}
• Rick Santorum 3% {2%} (1%) [3%] {1%}
• Jon Huntsman 1% {1%} (1%) [2%] {1%}
• Someone else 19% {14%} (12%) [10%] {11%}
• Undecided/Don’t know 17% {17%} (14%) [18%] {22%}

Mind Made Up Whom to Support?

• Yes 21% {28%}
• Too early 79% {72%}

Survey of 291 registered Republican primary voters was conducted December 14-18, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 6 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 6-10, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 19-24, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 28 – October 2, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 10-15, 2011 are in curly brackets.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

• Newt Gingrich 25% (26%) {28%} [28%] (29%) {31%} [31%] (33%) {33%} [35%] (37%) {34%} [36%] (37%)
• Mitt Romney 23% (24%) {24%} [24%] (24%) {23%} [22%] (23%) {23%} [23%] (23%) {25%} [23%] (22%)
• Ron Paul 12% (11%) {10%} [10%] (10%) {9%} [8%] (8%) {9%} [9%] (9%) {10%} [9%] (8%)
• Rick Perry 8% (7%) {6%} [6%] (5%) {6%} [7%] (6%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (7%)
• Michele Bachmann 6% (7%) {7%} [8%] (7%) {6%} [6%] (6%) {5%} [6%] (6%) {7%} [6%] (6%)
• Rick Santorum 4% (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (3%) {2%} [3%] (2%) {2%} [3%] (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 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 14-19, 2011. The margin of error is ± 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 13-18, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 12-17, 2011 are 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, 2011 are 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 conducted December 5-9, 2011are 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 conductedDecember 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

PPP (D) 2012 GOP Nomination Poll

• Newt Gingrich 35% [28%] (15%) {10%} [8%] (7%) {12%} [13%] (26%) {23%} [24%]
• Mitt Romney 22% [18%] (22%) {18%} [20%] (20%) {27%} [20%] (28%) {25%} [24%]
• Ron Paul 11% [5%] (5%) {11%} [6%] (9%) {6%} [11%] (12%) {13%} [12%]
• Michele Bachmann 7% [5%] (5%) {9%} [16%] (21%) {13%} [13%] (11%) {8%}
• Rick Perry 6% [6%] (14%) {31%} [33%] (12%)
• Rick Santorum 4% [1%] (1%) {2%} [4%]
• Jon Huntsman 3% [3%] (2%) {2%} [3%] (3%) {3%} [4%]
• Gary Johnson 1% [1%] (0%)

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

• Strongly committed to that candidate 38%
• Might end up supporting someone else 62%

(more…)

Iowans thoroughly enjoys their “first in the nation” caucus and the status and power it gives them. They also treasure their Ames straw poll which is a major fundraiser for their party. Yet this year they are starting to worry almost to the point of panicking that it may all be coming to an end. Why?

First of all, Ames was a bust prestige-wise. For the second cycle in a row, key candidates skipped it altogether. The eventual winner, Michele Bachmann, enjoyed perhaps 24 hours in the sun before promptly plummeting in the national and statewide polls to single digits. She has remained there ever since.

And now there is a real possibility that Ron Paul might win the caucuses next month. Their leaders are starting to fear that their credibility will go bust if that happens.

Politico reports:

Conservatives and Republican elites in the state are divided over who to support for the GOP nomination, but they almost uniformly express concern over the prospect that Ron Paul and his army of activist supporters may capture the state’s 2012 nominating contest — an outcome many fear would do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses.

In spin rooms, bar rooms and online forums, the what-to-do-about-Paul conversation has become pervasive as polls show him at or near the top here just weeks before the January 3rd vote.

Paul poses an existential threat to the state’s cherished kick-off status, say these Republicans, because he has little chance to win the GOP nomination and would offer the best evidence yet that the caucuses reward candidates who are unrepresentative of the broader party.

“It would make the caucuses mostly irrelevant if not entirely irrelevant,” said Becky Beach, a longtime Iowa Republican who helped Presidents Bush 41 and Bush 43 here. “It would have a very damaging effect because I don’t think he could be elected president and both Iowa and national Republicans wouldn’t think he represents the will of voters.”

What especially worries Iowa Republican regulars is the possibility that Paul could win here on January 3rd with the help of Democrats and independents who change their registration to support the libertarian-leaning Texas congressman but then don’t support the GOP nominee next November.

“I don’t think any candidate perverting the process in that fashion helps [the caucuses] in any way,” said Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, adding that he didn’t know if that’s necessarily how Paul would win.

While there’s no evidence of an organized effort, public polling shows that Paul’s lead is built in large part with the support of non-Republicans – and few party veterans think such voters would stick with the GOP in November.

“They’ll all go back and vote for Obama,” predicted Beach.

…

John McCain completely ignored the state last cycle and went on to win the nomination. If Paul wins the nomination this time around, the Republican and the conservative leaders in Iowa fear the rest of the country will view it as proof positive their contests are a joke and not to be taken seriously. They would stand in real danger of losing their “first in the nation” status. And even if they manage to hold on to that, their caucus could end up being viewed with all the relevance of a straw poll. It would become a contest for 2nd and 3rd tier candidates to have their moment in the sun.

If this election cycle serves to kill the relevance of Iowa, the Iowans will have only themselves to blame. When you have the state’s evangelicals endorsing the likes of Newt Gingrich, and a supposed big player like Vander Plaats endorsing an also-ran like Rick Santorum, just how seriously can you take these guys? Their caucus is headed over the cliff, and they are the ones doing the pushing.