From the Christian Scientist Monitor (emphasis added):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(more…)

After Tim Pawlenty publicly came out in support of reductions in ethanol subsidies yesterday in Des Moines, many postulated that it would damage his chances in the state. On the contrary:

So much for the uproar: the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association welcomed Pawlenty’s support, noting that the industry is already united behind Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley’s legislation to draw down and reform the current ethanol incentive.
Continue Reading

“Gov. Pawlenty further pointed out that energy incentive reforms must be across the board,” said Walt Wendland, the association’s president, in a statement. “We agree that the massive amount of federally funded petroleum incentives must be a part of any reform discussion. Iowans look forward to Gov. Pawlenty further detailing his plans to ‘phase out’ petroleum subsidies, perhaps in a speech in Houston, Texas.”

Wow, didn’t see that one coming! The good news just keeps coming for T-Paw this week. It appears that Mitch Daniels’ decision to forgo a 2012 run may turn out as the best thing that has ever happened to Pawlenty, as it presented him with the opportunity to take up the “truth-teller” mantle and corner the anti-Romney establishment market.

Can he pull off the coup de grace and secure Haley Barbour’s backing – and the well-oiled fundraising machine that comes with it?

This has got to influence his decision at some level…

Two of the biggest icons in the GOP, along with a southern establishment heavyweight, have indicated to CBS News that they will endorse Mitch Daniels if he chooses to run.

Chris Christie, Haley Barbour, and Scott Walker all would throw their support behind Daniels, making him a formidable competitor for the nomination. Additionally, Politico reports that Laura Bush called Cheri Daniels last night to encourage her to support her husband’s potential run. It looks like the stars are beginning to align for Team Mitch…

When Haley Barbour announced he wasn’t running for President, the big question quickly became: where will his campaign staff go? Specifically, Barbour made seven rather marquee hires during the run-up to his aborted bid that I am hereby dubbing “Haley’s Seven”:

• Mike Dennehy (NH) – McCain’s campaign director (2000) and political director (2008)
• Paul Young (NH) – McCain’s outreach coalition director (2008)
• Jim Dyke – former RNC Communications Director; adviser to George W. Bush, Bill Frist, and Rudy Giuliani
• James Richardson – former RNC Online Communications Director; worked on Dan Coats’ 2010 campaign, blogs at RedState
• Rob Collins – expected to be Haley Barbour’s overall campaign manager; former top aide to Eric Cantor and staffer for Norm Coleman
• Warren Tompkins (SC) – political consultant for Romney (2008), Bush-Cheney (2004), and Reagan-Bush (1984 and 1980)
• Sally Bradshaw (FL) – campaign manager for both of Jeb Bush’s gubernatorial campaigns, worked on Romney’s FL campaign (2008)

As you can see, these seven folks represent a wealth of campaign talent spread over numerous different areas – from early states to establishment support to online presence. Where these seven folks will end up has been the topic of many postulations and guessing games since Barbour released them.

This morning comes news that the first one of them has signed on with a new suitor: James Richardson is going with Jon Huntsman.

Jon Huntsman has added former Haley Barbour communications aide James Richardson to his campaign-in-waiting… Richardson was the RNC’s online communications manager in 2008 and is the first former Haley Barbour staffer to commit to one of the other presidential campaigns.

A big (and somewhat surprising) “get” for Huntsman, on the tail of his visits to South Carolina and New Hampshire, provide his campaign-to-be with some great momentum. It’s no wonder he has rocketed up to third place on Intrade behind Romney and Pawlenty.

We’ll keep you posted as the rest of Haley’s Seven find other homes for this primary campaign. Until then, anyone else want to join the guessing game?

Since Mike Huckabee has been at or near the top of most polls for the Republican nomination over the past year, the growing whispers that he’s not running beg the question: what happens to all those supporters if Huckabee indeed does not run?  Thankfully, Public Policy Polling has given us some data on that, with polls that ask the same respondents whom they would vote for with Huckabee as an option and without.

The way that I’ll lay out the data is by giving the names of the other candidates, then showing how many points they gain after Huckabee’s name is taken out of the poll, and then in the third column show the magnitude in terms of percentage that the candidates’ support expanded by after Huckabee’s name was taken out.

(The purpose of the third column is because, hypothetically speaking, when Huckabee is removed, Candidate A’s support could increase by 6 points while Candidate B’s support increases by 5 points–but Candidate A could be going from 40% to 46%, which would be a modest gain for Candidate A, while Candidate B might be going from 6% to 11%, which would represent a near doubling of support.  Therefore, simply stating how many percentage points a candidate gains, when Huckabee is removed, might not entirely do justice to the significance of some candidates’ post-Huckabee poll number movement.)

These results are fascinating, because they show in extremely striking terms that Mike Huckabee’s supporters are not a monolith.  They are a very diverse lot, and their composition varies markedly from state to state.  While many pundits seem to think that Huckabee’s supporters are interchangeable with Sarah Palin’s (probably because Huckabee = folksy evangelical & Palin = folksy evangelical), that’s definitely not the case.  Nor do Huckabee’s supporters all gravitate toward a fundamentalist Christian candidate like Santorum, or a Southern candidate like Barbour.

So, what is the pattern here?

The pattern is that there is no pattern.  Mike Huckabee’s exit from the race would be more akin to a billiard break than a predictable migration of swallows.

In the first state of the primary/caucus season–Iowa–stunningly, the greatest benefiter by far is Congressman Ron Paul, whose support blossoms 150%, taking him up 9 notches and into second place, just 10 points below Romney.  Paul has carefully crafted a quite socially conservative strain of libertarianism for Iowa voters: the deliverer of 4000 babies emphasizes his opposition to abortion, and the man who has been married to the same woman for over 50 years stands behind his support for the DOMA.  This is consistent with other polling data showing Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul the two most popular candidates in Iowa.  Iowans clearly appreciate Ron Paul’s fiscal and social conservatism, and don’t really seem to mind his anti-war stance (I recall seeing polling from 2007-2008 showing that up to half of Iowan Republicans were actually not pro-war).  If Huckabee declines to run again, it could have the peculiar effect of making Ron Paul seriously competitive in the first-in-the-nation caucus–a first place victory in Iowa for Paul might even not be out of the question.

New Hampshire is a different story.  Mitt Romney makes more room between his first place position and the rest of the pack, but–relatively speaking–Michele Bachmann feels the most benefit.  The Bachmann-Huckabee overlap is more self-explanatory than the Huckabee-Paul or Huckabee-Romney ones.  Bachmann is the folksy, evangelical Christian type–but she comes across as sharper than Sarah Palin.  Perhaps that’s why Huckabee’s Granite State supporters prefer Bachmann over Palin.

By the time we get to the Florida numbers, it is clear that all hope for any semblance of a nationwide pattern is lost.  Huckabee’s absence boosts Newt Gingrich the most in nominal terms, but once again it is Ron Paul that feels the biggest bounce.  Ron Paul’s rosy, old-fashioned home life, coupled with his very culturally conservative approach to libertarianism would be the most logical explanation for Paul’s popularity amongst Huckabee supporters of course, but your guess is as good as mine as to what Huckabee’s Florida supporters see in thrice-married, Catholic Newt.

In the overall tally, it seems as though Huckabee’s exit would give Romney a bit more breathing room, but would–interestingly–also make Ron Paul significantly more competitive.  It would seem that Huckabee’s supporters aren’t quite as concerned with the “faux con” “threat” that libertarians ostensibly pose to the Republican Party, as Huckabee himself is.  Also, while Huckabee and Romney did their fair share of sparring in 2007-2008, my guess is that most of the Huck supporters who head on over to the Romney camp are those for whom general electability is the key quality.  Huck and Romney are currently polling better against Obama than other Republican candidates, so it makes sense that there would be such an overlap in that area.

For my last comment: The wrench in all these gears is, of course, the fact that these polls were taken before Trump fever hit.  While I suspect Trump fever will soon fade, this polling doesn’t tell how much support Huckabee’s followers would throw behind The Donald, if given the chance.  Huckabee lost about 3-ish percentage points, on average, when Trump entered the race, so the overlap between Trump and Huck voters is probably modest.

How about our resident Huck supporters, here at Race42012?  Where will you go, if Huckabee doesn’t throw his hat into the ring?

Via CNBC’s John Harwood.

Given that this information is being leaked just moments after longtime Daniels ally Haley Barbour took himself out of the race, one has to wonder whether a coordinated effort is afoot. When Gov. Barbour began flirting with a run, at least a few pundits suspected that he may simply have been acting as a stalking horse for Gov. Daniels, attempting to reserve key talent for the Indiana governor once Daniels was ready to take the plunge. That view initially seemed conspiratorial. But given today’s events, it may also turn out to have been true.

This breaking news was just tweeted by Politico. Stay tuned….

Update #1: FOX News is also reporting that Barbour is out. No details yet…

Update #2: Here is Barbour’s statement:

“I will not be a candidate for president next year. This has been a difficult, personal decision, and I am very grateful to my family for their total support of my going forward, had that been what I decided.

“Hundreds of people have encouraged me to run and offered both to give and raise money for a presidential campaign. Many volunteers have organized events in support of my pursuing the race. Some have dedicated virtually full time to setting up preliminary organizations in critical, early states and to helping plan what has been several months of intensive activity.

“I greatly appreciate each and every one of them and all their outstanding efforts. If I have disappointed any of them in this decision, I sincerely regret it.

“A candidate for president today is embracing a ten-year commitment to an all-consuming effort, to the virtual exclusion of all else. His (or her) supporters expect and deserve no less than absolute fire in the belly from their candidate. I cannot offer that with certainty, and total certainty is required.

“This decision means I will continue my job as Governor Mississippi, my role in the Republican Governors Association and my efforts to elect a new Republican president in 2012, as the stakes for the nation require that effort to be successful.”

Charles Krauthammer used his column in today’s Washington Post to set the odds for the GOP 2012 nomination. I am only going to present the bare bones essentials. I encourage you to read the full article where he expounds upon each candidate.

Major Candidates:

• Mitt Romney: 5-1
• Tim Pawlenty: 5-1
• Mitch Daniels: 6-1
• Haley Barbour: 7-1
• Newt Gingrich: 12-1

Long Shots:

• Michele Bachmann
• Donald Trump

Likely not running:

• Mike Huckabee
• Sarah Palin

Even less likely to run — the 2016 bench:

• Paul Ryan
• Chris Christie
• Marco Rubio
• Nikki Haley

As Charles put it: “Remember: This is analysis, not advocacy.”

*** Updated***

Ogrepete pointed out that I had a couple of the odds wrong. A hat-tip to Pete.

The Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College just released a poll of  New Hampshire registered voters. Among other questions, the respondents were asked the following:

“Recently, President Barack Obama has formally announced his intent to run for reelection for president. And, the New Hampshire primary election for the presidency of the United States is less than a year away. I am going to read you a list of potential Republican candidates for president who may run against President Obama. If the election for president were held today, which candidate would you choose?”

The results are as follows:

Romney was the only active GOP hopeful that won a plurality. The good news for all Republicans is that all the hopefuls kept Obama under 50% except for Trump and Palin. Those two got creamed with Sarah Palin losing to the President by a staggering 2-to-1 margin.

During the week of April 11-14, 2011, students from The Nelson A. Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College conducted a telephone survey of registered voters in New Hampshire. Drawn from a statewide data base of New Hampshire registered voters, the sample survey respondents were asked a wide range of questions relating to the current political, economic, and social state of affairs in New Hampshire and the country as a whole. In addition, respondents were asked to select candidates for President in trial heats of the 2012 election. The 43-question survey took between eight and ten minutes to complete. Calls were made between the hours of 6:30 pm and 9:30 pm on Monday through Thursday evenings. Additional call-backs were made during daytime hours on Thursday, April 14 when specified by poll participants. Over the course of the week, callers made three attempts to contact each of the registered voters drawn in the sample. A total of 426 survey interviews were completed during the four-day calling period, yielding an error rate of +/-4.8 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval.

American Research Group (ARG) has released a telephone poll of 600 likely Republican primary voters living in New Hampshire (422 Republicans and 178 undeclared voters (independents)). The poll was taken April 16-21, 2011. Its MOE is ± 4 percentage points.

Here are the results, along with the crosstabs:

ARG has not had the best of reputations in the past, so take these figures with a grain of salt.

Nikki Haley, the new Governor of South Carolina, is not endorsing anyone in the 2012 race just yet. In an interview with the Washington Post, she praised several of the hopefuls.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Haley offered praise for Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Haley Barbour, among others.

She was a little more circumspect with her assessment of Newt Gingrich.

When it came to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, though, she suggested his best years may be behind him.

“There was a place and time for him,” Haley said. “I think that there is a respect for him that he’s been there and done that.”

When asked whether she was saying Gingrich’s time had passed, Haley laughed it off.

“Don’t read into my words,” she said. “You know, I’m just being very honest with you.”

We all know the story. Romney endorsed her when she was trailing badly in fourth place. Mitt’s endorsement and his badly needed cash infusion helped keep the lights on and her in the race. She was then able to make steady progress until Sarah Palin’s endorsement two or three months later help put her over the top.

She made it clear that that doesn’t necessarily mean either Mitt or Sarah can count on her endorsement.

Haley insists she’s not favoring anybody in 2012 and won’t engage in any kind of political payback.

“Not at all,” she said. “That is something that I will always be appreciative of and grateful for, but this is not a quid pro quo.”

…

Haley said she has exchanged e-mails with Palin, but that the contact between the two has been limited — as it has always been. She noted that she hadn’t heard from Palin’s team for a year before the former Alaska governor’s husband, Todd, called and offered the endorsement.

And finally, the level-headed Haley pooh-poohed any talk about her being the VP candidate.

As for her own national ambitions, Haley deflected talk that she would be on anyone’s short list for vice president.

…

She said she needs to focus on being a good governor first and suggested such speculation is fleeting. The more important thing, she said, is getting the best nominee at the top of the GOP ticket.

“It’s not about the flavor of the month,” Haley said. “You’ve got to be focused on the top of the ticket first.”

I am very impressed with this woman. I remember early last year when Mitt went out on a limb to endorse her when she was dead last in a field of four.  That caused me to read up on her. I was very impressed with her track record. I then watched some of her debates. This is one smart, intelligent, articulate lady.

She knows that as the Republican Governor of South Carolina, her 2012 endorsement is a valuable commodity. She isn’t about to throw it away by revealing her cards too soon.

She has a great future in the Republican Party.

Marist has released the full results of the poll they announced yesterday. It does not look good for Obama.

First the question, “Do you definitely plan to vote for Barack Obama for re-election as president or do you definitely plan to vote against him?”. Here are the results for the last three polls:

A solid plurality is planning to definitely vote against Obama. That is down from a solid majority planning to vote FOR him just last January.

Next, the question, “If the 2012 presidential election were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are: Obama and XXXXX?”. Here are the results, their margins, the margins last January, and the change since the first of the year:

Romney does best, with Huckabee close behind. Palin fares worst with a margin of -22.

Finally, they asked the Republicans and the Republican leaning Independents, “If the 2012 Republican presidential primary were held today, whom would you support?” They gave them a list of names to choose from.

(more…)

The Washington Post, in conjunction with ABC News has just released a new poll. It shows President Obama continuing his slow sinking in the polls since January.

Obama’s job approval/disapproval rating is pegged at 47/50 — the worst this year for both numbers.

His handling of the economy is 42/57, again the worst this year.  It’s the worse since September of last year.

In the poll, they asked all the leaning Republicans whom they would vote for if the GOP primary was held today. They made it open ended. They did not provide any names. Here are the results they got:

They asked everyone the  “vs. Obama” question for a number of top GOP 2012 hopefuls. The results are as follows:

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone April 14-17, 2011, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

Here are the main things I take away from this poll:

1. No mention of Herman Cain.
2. Romney is the only one that broke double digits.
3. Trump seems to be fading already.
4. We see the usual two man race between Romney and Huckabee
5. Sarah Palin continues to be well off the pace.
6. Pawlenty is still struggling to gain traction.

Explain to Me Again Why We Give Money to These People

A proposal has been entered at the UN to … get ready for it … give Mother Earth and all her creatures the same rights as humans.

As soon as you’ve finished laughing, we can continue.

This article treats the subject with far more seriousness than it deserves:

Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to “dominate and exploit” — to the point that the “well-being and existence of many beings” is now threatened.

The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia’s Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.

That document speaks of the country’s natural resources as “blessings,” and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.

Read the whole thing, it’s priceless. Perhaps the best part is where Bolivia’s ambassador trips himself up by trying to be ‘reasonable”:

“We’re not saying, for example, you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow,” he said. “But when human activity develops at a certain scale that you (cause to) disappear a species, then you are really altering the vital cycles of nature or of Mother Earth.

But … but … isn’t the cow being treated as a second-class citizen?

Weekly Off-Topic Rant

College football is corrupt. Hope that doesn’t shock you.

The Fiesta Bowl has been caught giving bribes illegal campaign contributions to politicians, as well as bribing college officials with trips and gifts.  Nothing new there, except that they got caught – most of  the other major bowls apparently do much the same things.

In a complaint filed with the IRS last year, Playoff PAC accused the Orange, Sugar and Fiesta Bowls of violating their tax-exempt status, while finding no irregularities with the Rose Bowl. In a supplemental letter to the IRS last December, the group took particular aim at a “Summer Splash” cruise to the Bahamas that the Orange Bowl hosted for athletic directors, conference commissioners and their spouses. The PAC called the trip a junket that was problematic under federal tax laws; the bowl said it was “100 percent in compliance with IRS guidelines.”

What’s always amusing about these things is watching the hypocrites try to distance themselves. Here’s Ohio State’s athletic director:

Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith served on the Fiesta Bowl board when he was at Arizona State. He remains an emeritus member of the board.

He said he was shocked by the Fiesta Bowl scandal, particularly the allegations made against Junker.

“I did not see him as the type of person who would lead the organization that way,” Smith said. “When I was on the board, I never heard any rumors or rumblings about that type of behavior.”

Sounds like Smith didn’t do his job as a board member. But to have someone from Ohio State express horror at corrupt practices is kind of like hearing Obama complain about elected officials not providing leadership.

And the Good Taste Award Goes to …

Here’s an update on Gabrielle Giffords’ condition. Mostly positive, thankfully. But don’t you just love this quote from Giffords’ former campaign manager?

“Let’s say that she’s 90 percent [recovered],” says Mike McNulty, Giffords’s last campaign chairman. “Well, we’ve had congressmen in Arizona who didn’t even have a brain. So, it’s not like you have to be as talented as she is to be good at it.”

Let’s hear it for the New Civility.

Hat tip: EspressoPundit.

Family Values in Guatemala

A number of Latin American countries, having long histories of Caudillos, have laws against multiple terms for Presidents – an violation of such a law was what set off the recent Honduran crisis. Guatemala goes a step further, forbidding the election of close family members, to avoid the common dodge of installing a wife (a practice that is particularly popular in Argentina).

Politicians, however, are endlessly creative – at least when serving their own interests.

Sandra Torres Casanova – formerly Sandra Torres de Colom – is no longer the Guatemalan First Lady. The 51 year old has officially divorced from her husband, Alvaro Colom, the Guatemalan President, elected in 2007. She had previously revealed her will to succeed Colom – to whom the Constitution does not allow a second term – after his time in office comes to an end in 2012.

Weekly Economics Gloom

More people, even the MSM, are noticing that the government’s unemployment numbers (even if not deliberately fraudulent, which I think they may be) are hiding the real depth of the problem:

The share of the population that is working fell to its lowest level last year since women started entering the workforce in large numbers three decades ago, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record.

And here’s a particularly cheery piece:  5 Things That Will Happen To You When America Goes Bankrupt. Read it for the details, but to summarize:

1) Your life savings could be reduced to nothing almost overnight.

2) Your taxes will skyrocket.

3) Your life could be in danger.

4) Your payments from the government will dramatically decrease or stop altogether.

5) You will have a dramatically reduced standard of living.

Rick’s in It to Win It

Rick Santorum doesn’t quite qualify as one of our Freak Show candidates, but he’s close, and he’s my favorite laughingstock. So I had to note that he announced this week. You did notice, didn’t you?

The Washington Post was very kind and presented an article detailing ‘The Case for Rick Santorum’. They note:

With all that in mind, we thought it a good time to take a look at why he is worth keeping an eye on – the case for Santorum. Tomorrow, we look at why he isn’t – the case against him.

I can summarize that article in three words: He’s Rick Santorum.

Weekly Daniels Item

Scott Walker calls Daniels his model and indicates there could be an endorsement coming for Mitch or a couple of the other governors running:

“There’s a lot of governors I draw inspiration from. But I think Mitch, if I look at a model, close to what I had in Wisconsin, he’s probably the closest,” said Walker in an interview with POLITICO after testifying on Capitol Hill before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms.

On issues like collective bargaining, the creation of an economic development corporation and installing budget controls, Walker said he had most in common with Daniels.

Walker also name-dropped Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has formed an exploratory committee and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who is still seriously mulling a White House campaign but noticeably left out front running Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.

He also left out Mike Huckabee, but that’s hardly a surprise.

Regarding our conversation, based on the Peggy Noonan article, about the danger (I think overblown) of nominating an unelectable candidate, Daniels had this exchange with the Indianapolis Star’s editorial board:

Even more helpful is the low caliber of the opposition, which one colleague in Tuesday’s meeting noted has been described as a “freak show” by some critics.

“It’s always good to be held to a low standard — ‘At least he’s not a freak,’ ” Daniels said, laughing.

Which could make a great campaign slogan:

Add your own miscellany, rants, and other stuff in the comments.

Politico reports that we could have seen a signal that suggests Mitch Daniels now leans toward a presidential bid:

But with her [Daniels' wife Cheri's] recent appearance at the Indianapolis Indians home opener and her plans to appear as the headliner at an Indiana state GOP dinner next month, Allen County GOP Chairman Steve Shine says that means Daniels is likely to enter the race.

“That’s an effort to put the spotlight on her and introduce her, not just to the people of Indiana in a different limelight but also to the people of the United States,” he told Indiana’s WISE-TV.

Now, I certainly don’t purport to understand the inner workings of the Daniels’ collective brain, but I nonetheless found this interesting. Perhaps it means something, perhaps it doesn’t.

The longer Daniels waits to make a decision, the more he risks losing out on top campaign staff talent. How does this square with the aggressiveness of one of Mitch’s closest political allies, Haley Barbour? Perhaps Barbour, as many have speculated, intends to more or less serve as a stalking horse for Daniels, opting to eventually throw his support (and staff, and organizational network, and fundraising clout…) behind Mitch.

Stay tuned.

According toThe Hill, Fox will be announcing the requirements this afternoon for anyone who wishes to participate in their South Carolina debate next month. The following things must be accomplished before April 29th:

— 1 Must register a presidential exploratory committee or have announced a formal campaign for president;
— 2 Must file all necessary paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC);
— 3 Must file all necessary paperwork with the South Carolina Republican Party;
— 4 Must have paid all federal and South Carolina filing fees;
— 5 Must meet all U.S. Constitutional requirements; and
— 6 Must have garnered at least an average of 1 percent in five national polls based on most recent polling leading up to April 29.

Tim Pawlenty and Buddy Roemer have accepted invitations and have met the first requirement. The following have accepted invitations but have not yet announced:

• Newt Gingrich
• Ron Paul
• Rick Santorum

Will those three now move to fulfill requirement #1

Mitt Romney has now announced. One must assume he will be there.

Will any others? Daniels, Palin, or Barbour for instance?

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll of  “Republican primary voters” on the 2012 GOP nomination race had the following results:

In a smaller field that didn’t include Santorum, Trump, Palin or Huckabee; they got these results:

Why they picked only those five, I do not know. Your guess is as good as mine.

The New Hampshire chapter of Americans for Prosperity has announced that Mitt Romney has accepted the fourth open slot to speak at their “Summit on Spending and Job Creation” at the end of this month. There are only five slots available:

Americans for Prosperity Foundation is pleased to announce that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is joining the line-up of participants in the organization’s “Summit on Spending and Job Creation” on April 29 at The Executive Court in Manchester. Confirmed attendees also include former MN Governor Tim Pawlenty, former US Senator Rick Santorum and businessman Herman Cain.

“We are honored to welcome businessman and former MA Governor Mitt Romney to speak at the first major summit to discuss spending and job creation as we approach the 2012 election cycle,” said AFP Foundation President Tim Phillips. “The American people are eager to hear how Governor Romney and other speakers might plan to change the ‘spend now, pay later’ culture in Washington,” continued Phillips

Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain have all accepted invitations to speak. They have also invited Haley Barbour, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee to fill the last slot. If any of those guys wish to speak at the forum, they had better get a move on.

First come, first served.

A lot of our readers feel that I’m being a tad harsh on presidential contenders like Haley Barbour and Jon Huntsman for their deviations from GOP orthodoxy on environmental issues. I would retort that I know a thing or two about being accused of heterodoxy. As longtime readers know, I support some mechanism that would allow gay Americans to form legally-recognized unions. I have no desire to ship 10 million illegal immigrants back from whence they came. And I think that conservatsm has to be about small-government solutions to public problems (e.g., DanielsCare in Indiana) as opposed to just being the Party of No. So I’m no stranger to apostasy. But I think that the conventional wisdom among the Beltway crowd is that environmental issues are sort of the “safe” issues on which to be a squish for Republicans, and that being green will help to soften the image of Republican candidates for the presidency as we head into 2012. I submit to you that this couldn’t be farther from the truth, and that those proposing a green GOP just in time for 2012 are misreading both the mood of the GOP base, as well as the sentiments of average Americans.

First, as we learned in 2010, the Republican base is more energized than ever. This is going to make it awfully hard for a John McCain to win the nomination this time around. In 2008, McCain won, so said the exits, by uniting moderate voters with “somewhat conservative” voters, leaving “very conservative” voters casting ballots for either Romney or Huckabee in any given state. That probably won’t happen this time around. Secondly, not only is the base motivated, but it is organized around principles of individual freedom and limited government, which makes squishiness on environmental issues especially toxic. That’s because “going green” almost always involves individual freedom being limited, and government getting bigger, spending greater amounts of money, and generally exercising more control over our lives.

But people like Mark Levin are going to screech about any failure to “check the boxes,” so why not use these swing-voter-friendly environmental issues as sort of a “Sister Souljah” moment, in order to prove to independents that all Republicans aren’t one and the same? There may be a need to kill some sacred cows down the line, but going green isn’t the way for the presidential nominee to do it. That’s because green issues aren’t exactly “swing-voter-friendly” during an election cycle like this one, with an economy in the gutter, anemic job growth, real wages that haven’t risen in years, widespread underemployment for skilled professionals, and chronic unemployment for unskilled laborers. In an environment like this, the last thing that swing voters want to hear is that job growth must be put on hold in order to prevent global warming.

A few years ago, this wasn’t the case at all. Just a decade ago, of course, we had reached the End of History, that magical moment during which the U.S. would exist as the global hegemon, sitting atop the world, getting fat and happy. At that point, suburban independents, motivated by a sort of “green guilt,” actually did support candidates whose focus included the environment and considered the rest of us to be knuckle draggers. But history decided not to end after all, but instead to move ever onward, serving as a reality check to white collar, educated professionals whenever the SUV’s fuel tank has to be filled to the brim.

As I said before, this is probably the first election in a long time where the GOP base and the swing voters in the middle are united against the green movement. Which is why it makes no sense at all to use this issue as a way to differentiate oneself from the caricature of Republicans painted by the MSM. If a Sister Souljah moment is truly needed, it should be over military spending, an issue where the Right is presently divided, due to dueling concerns over military prowess and tumbling over the fiscal precipice. This is a sacred cow that is begging to be slaughtered, especially when the strongest arguments against military budget cuts seem to be scenarios that are a tad difficult to swallow, such as the suggestion that a revived Soviet Union and a China that apparently wants to blow up its best customers are going to somehow employ Islamic terrorists to take out the United States. These notions don’t pass the laugh test and are clearly designed to create an issue for the voters who become visibly aroused by military issues and by learning that the U.S. is being threatened by a sort of real-life Legion of Doom. And the cartoonish quality of this argument would allow a prospective GOP nominee to run against certain elements of the base on this issue, citing our fiscal mess as our real enemy, something that would resonate well among swing voters without turning off too much of the base. But to attempt to use environmental issues as evidence of authenticity or seriousness or maturity this time around is just silly. And doing so will likely unite base and center against any candidate who attempts this strategy, ending any such candidacy before it even gets off the ground.

Stick a fork in him:

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — Potential presidential candidate Haley Barbour appears to be staking out a moderate position on global warming than some of his possible rivals, saying at an event in eastern Iowa on Friday that the country should “proceed in national policy as if global warming is actually happening.”

Barbour, who has consistently opposed regulation of the energy industry, made the comments in response to a question from an Iowa voter who asked the Mississippi governor whether he thought global warming was real.

“I think the prudent thing for us, when you consider the potential risk, the prudent thing is to proceed as if global warming is an issue,” Barbour said at a luncheon organized by a local Republican group, the Linn Eagles, “but we don’t have to destroy the American economy for no positive results to do that.”

The chattering classes continue to carp about the political genius that is Haley Barbour, but from this pundit’s armchair, the Mississippi governor appears to be too smart by half. Anyone with an iota of political horse sense would be able to deduce that an election cycle in which a) the GOP base is really, really fired up and b) swing voters are really, really concerned about the economy, jobs, the deficit, and an overall decline in their standard of living is simply not an election cycle where “doing something about global warming” is a viable position for a Republican presidential hopeful. That’s because it involves more government action, and thus more debt, more taxes and regulations, and thus fewer jobs, and would probably lead to higher energy prices, thus yielding an even lower standard of living for the middle class. In fact, the coming election cycle will probably be the first one in a long time with conservatives and moderates on the same side of the “green” debate, which is why it would be incredibly tone deaf for a Republican presidential candidate to use this issue in order to “Sister Souljah” the base.

It seems to me that either Gov. Barbour has a case of Beltway-itis, which afflicts a lot of establishment Republicans, who spend so much time in Northwest DC and Northern Virginia that they begin to believe that the entire country shares the values of the silk stocking set, or that the governor is still living in a pre-Twitter world, where every word that every politician utters does not make its way around the world at lightning speed. Perhaps the governor thought that he could give a “green” speech to a “green” audience without anyone noticing. He couldn’t. Gov. Barbour was already on a short leash given his lobbyist past and his Deep South cultural cues, which would tarnish him with the sins of his region as he ran against the first Black American president. This gaffe just may be strike three.

National Journal has released their latest Power Rankings. They rank the top 15 contenders by considering four criteria:

• Money: How much do they have? How much can they raise?
• Campaign infrastructure: Do they have the ability to assemble a competitive and competent staff, both at the national and state levels?
• Strengths: What issue(s) can the candidate truly hang their hat on? Is there a specific area of expertise they can sell to voters? Do they have a strong track record on one particular issue?
• Weaknesses: Every candidate has one — heck, most candidates have plenty — and the reality is that eventually they will have to address them. This will be easier for some contenders than others: Explaining away one vote for bad legislation is far easier than justifying a major moral lapse or some fatally flawed executive decision. At the end of the day, some candidates will have weaknesses, and others will have albatrosses. It’s the latter group who should be worried

Here are their rankings:

Here are their comments for the top five:

MITT ROMNEY (previous rank: 1)
Romney’s campaign-in-waiting has started picking up the pace. He’s visiting key early states and recruiting staffers who will serve in key roles. But health care hangs over his head like the sword of Damocles, ready to fall at any moment. Romney’s initial defense of CommonwealthCare won over a few skeptics, but the vast majority of Republicans aren’t going to be thrilled when they hear his rivals compare his Massachusetts version of health care with President Obama’s. And Obama is gleefully trumpeting those comparisons, much to Romney’s dispair.

TIM PAWLENTY (previous rank: 2)
Pawlenty looks increasingly likely to step into the front-runner’s void if Romney fizzles and no other candidate sets the world on fire. South Dakota Sen. John Thune’s decision not to run creates more room for a Midwestern conservative with few glaring vulnerabilities. Pawlenty has already snagged some top staffers, including Eric Woolson, the architect of Mike Huckabee’s 2008 caucus victory, to run his Iowa operation. He recently became the first serious candidate to launch an exploratory committee, which will help raise his profile beyond Minnesota.

HALEY BARBOUR (previous rank: 6)
No candidate’s reputation has preceeded him with the chattering classes more than Barbour’s. He has met the attending expectations in some cases, especially as he begins to form a top-notch staff. But in others, Barbour has fallen short, stumbling where his reputation for political preeminence should have bolstered him. The terrible two-month stretch of damaging headlines he’s endured will make his path to victory more difficult. But if his reputation is deserved — and it is — Barbour will be able to recover.

NEWT GINGRICH (previous rank: 7)
There is no bigger ideas factory in the Republican Party than Newt Gingrich’s brain. However, many of those ideas aren’t realistic or feasible, and Gingrich’s inflammatory rhetoric has gotten the best of him in the past. In addition, his disorganized “launch” won’t inspire much confidence about his ability to put together a structured campaign. But if there’s one cautionary note everyone involved in the race is sounding these days, it’s that Gingrich is not to be underestimated. Perhaps no other serious contender can dominate a debate like Gingrich, and that will keep him in good stead through the long months until the Iowa caucuses.

MITCH DANIELS (previous rank: 5)
On paper, Daniels is a very intriguing candidate. He’d be a formidable contender — if, that is, he actually showed signs he was interested in running. But despite conservative buzz over balancing the budget and reforming public services in Indiana, Daniels hasn’t taken any steps to prepare for a presidential campaign. To the contrary, he’s been gratuitously alienating key parts of the GOP base — from calling for a social truce, tweaking Rush Limbaugh, and even (initially) defending liberal protesters at the state House. Once he signals any serious interest in running, he’ll move up in the rankings.

Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee didn’t make the top five and for good reasons. It’s their “all talk, no real action” strategy that is hurting them.

While playing coy has been an effective election strategy since George Washington’s day, doing less than the minimum preparatory work is a dangerous game to play. Not only does it give a head start to your opponents, but the longer you put off doing anything concrete, the more your supporters will start to wonder if you might not be running after all. That will encourage them to start looking for an alternative. When they do that, there is always the danger that they may find they like their new Plan B far more than they liked their old Plan A.

Now if Mike were to seriously began hiring campaign staff, he would easily move back into the top three. If he started raising cash as well, he might even displace Mitt for the top spot. Sarah has a longer way to go to climb to the top, but she should at least break the top five if she began showing signs that she is really serious about getting into the race. But the longer they wait, the further they will drop.

PPP has recently released their Ohio horserace numbers. Here they are in tabular form along with their last set of Ohio numbers from last December:

To help put them in perspective, here is the same data in graphical form for those in double digits:

Paul shot up a most impressive nine points. That allowed him to rise from fifth place to tie with fourth. Romney increased his showing by three points and rose from fourth place to second. Huckabee did nothing, yet moved from second to first place to replace the fading Palin. And what a fade it was. Sarah dropped six whole points. That is three times the drop Gingrich experienced. She dropped from first place all the way down to tying with Ron Paul for fourth.

Yes, these early polls are only snapshots in time. Yes, the campaigning really hasn’t begun yet. Yes, there have been no ads run yet. Yes, there has been no debates. There hasn’t even been a true stump speech given yet.

All the above is true. Yet there is simply no denying that all trends for Sarah Palin right now are bad and have been bad for quite some time. Take a look at her national polling trend for the past thirty months courtesy of Pollster.Com:

Her numbers show one long, slow, steadily worsening trend with no real sign of turning around. With numbers like these, she could be the second coming of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thacher combined, and it would do her little good.  Sooner or later those numbers have to start improving, or she isn’t going anywhere in this cycle. As of yet, there really is no hint of that happening anytime soon.

Maybe her trip to India and Israel will help. Maybe it won’t. We will just have to wait and see.

***Updated ***

There was a bad datapoint for Ron Paul. It has been corrected. (h/t Steven S.)

Honestly, if you would have asked me two months ago if Haley Barbour would have been a serious candidate for the GOP nomination, I would have probably scoffed at the notion. The guy is a caricature of every negative stereotype of the Republican Party: an overweight, white, southern insider politico prone to making racially-charged gaffes. On top of that, his main career outside of politics was as a lobbyist. I thought he was, at best, a second-tier non-starter.

But this morning, we get more news that shows just how serious (and increasingly strong) his campaign is.

Barbour has hired Sally Bradshaw, political strategist from Florida. Bradshaw worked as part of Romney’s campaign in 2008, and Politico describes her as a “top-shelf state operative”. This is certainly a loss for Team Romney and a strong pickup for Barbour in what should be an important early state primary.

After signing up Bradshaw in Florida, Barbour is heading to Nevada today to campaign for what the National Journal calls the “suddenly competitive Nevada” caucus. Barbour joins Palin, Pawlenty, and Cain as the fourth candidate-to-be who has visited the state this year.

Barbour looks like he’s playing for keeps, and intends to make a run in each of the early states — he’s already made a couple of top-rate hires in New Hampshire, one in South Carolina, and now in Florida, and is campaigning in Nevada.

Barbour is methodically and purposefully chasing the GOP nomination. The question remaining in my mind is whether or not his organization and well-built campaign can overcome the challenging narrative, noted above, that his candidacy would struggle under.

Larry Sabato has issued his most recent ratings and commentary. I’m not a real big Sabato fan, but he has some good stuff. The article is very lengthy, but worth reading; what I’ve done is extract just a few nuggets on all the major candidates and a few of the others.

This is an updating of his January list, so I’ve put the newer comments in italics, and in a few cases I’ve added a comment of my own in [brackets].

FIRST TIER

Mitt Romney

… if the Republican field has a frontrunner, it is Mitt Romney …

You know you have a problem when your opponents in the White House are praising your Massachusetts health care bill, in a new negative tactic called “killing with kindness” …

Romney has been going tieless and trying to loosen up his stiff image. Yet in the end, candidates have to be who they really are, or voters will sense phoniness.

[There's that p-word.]

Tim Pawlenty

Pawlenty hopes that his blue-collar background will contrast with the Bluenose candidacy of Mitt Romney, if indeed Romney is able to maintain his front-runner status.

Pawlenty has insisted, maybe a little too strenuously, that he has been comprehensively conservative during his public life.

[I strongly agree, as I noted in a thread a few days ago, that Pawlenty is trying way too hard. The same advice Sabato applied to Romney in terms of Romney's efforts to relax his image could also be applied to Pawlenty: Be yourself.]

No candidate has gone further, faster so far than Pawlenty. It is not that he has made any big breakthroughs. Rather, Pawlenty is always where he is supposed to be, doing a bit better than expected in straw polls and cattle shows.

Pawlenty wants to be contrasted with Obama’s glitz and glamour. But the contrast is currently too stark.

Haley Barbour

There is no better political strategist in the party, and no one who understands Republican politics discounts him.

… racial politics, Mississippi’s record, and a lobbying past continue to dog Barbour in the early going—not to mention a former aide telling off-color jokes.

… Barbour continues to assemble an impressive campaign team. No one understands the system better than Barbour.

Mike Huckabee

Huckabee has substantial residual support in Iowa, South Carolina, and other places where fundamentalist Christians are a big part of the GOP base.

Huckabee is a blue-collar Republican rather than a blueblood one. It is no surprise, then, that Huckabee and Mitt Romney do not like one another very much; it is far more than a policy dispute between the two. No doubt, Huckabee will do what he can to stop Romney from getting the Republican nomination, whether Huckabee runs or not.

[Again, this fits in with a recent conversation here.]

Huckabee claims he can wait until summer to announce a decision, but that’s doubtful—unless the decision is no.

… even though Huckabee insists he is at 50-50, more and more observers do not think Huckabee is running … He isn’t showing up in his strongholds such as Iowa, enabling other candidates to win over some of his previous base.

Sarah Palin

Should she enter the 2012 contest, Palin will instantly become one of the frontrunners. But is she really interested in giving up the empire she has built to trudge through the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire and endure the indignities that come automatically to all candidates, famous and obscure alike? The record is not encouraging, given her midterm resignation from the one significant office she has ever held, that of Alaska state governor.

… even in the Tea Party, Palin is viewed in a mixed way. The activists appreciate what she stands for, but wonder whether she can win a general election …

It is now difficult to find a senior Republican that thinks Palin will jump into the ring for 2012. Perhaps everyone is wrong, but Palin’s nowhere to be found in Iowa and New Hampshire, and most of her public appearances are by satellite studio from Alaska, on Twitter, or at paid speeches.

[Unlike some, I do not consider Palin stupid. Intellectually lazy -- yes; stupid -- no. She can read the polls and she knows she has no chance. I'm going to be very surprised if she runs. But then, she's proven herself to be a bundle of surprises.]

Mitch Daniels

… the old political rule of ambition usually applies: you have to want the White House so badly that the fire in your belly can substitute for heating oil all winter long.

If Daniels does run, he has an impressive record to tout … [but] … while Daniels fits the old definition of conservative to a T, he is not much of a revolutionary from the Tea Party perspective, and he is suspected of having moderate tendencies on both ,,, the possible need to raise taxes in order to reduce the deficit as well as the kind of priority a president should give to controversial social issues.

The notices for Daniels have been glowing—from National Review to the Gridiron Club to a host of conservative opinion leaders to Beltway high priests. But nobody can detect the early moves required to become a real contender.

[The more we see Barbour ramp up, and Daniels do little in terms of preparation, added to his runaway legislature, the more it looks like Daniels won't run. For now, I'll continue to hope.]

SECOND TIER

Newt Gingrich

Other than Sarah Palin, no candidate in the 2012 GOP field is as well known as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. As with Palin, however, 100% name recognition is a mixed blessing.

His two messy divorces are part of the heavy baggage Gingrich would carry into the 2012 Republican nominating battle.

… it will be difficult for the polarizing, controversial former House Speaker to present himself as a winning alternative to President Obama. Overall, Gingrich does poorly in the general election matchups with Obama, and this undoubtedly will influence many Republicans during the primary season.

It will now be a surprise if Gingrich backs away from a White House bid

Nothing’s changed about Gingrich’s baggage, though. He’s going the “religious forgiveness” route, confessing to Christian Broadcasting Network that his serial adultery was simply a product of virtuous overwork and passionate love of country, or something. And for eons, humans had thought that it was actually the idle mind that was the devil’s workshop.

Chris Christie

There is no such thing as a presidential draft these days, so Christie would have to change his mind about seeking the White House in 2012.

We’ve had occasion to hear Christie’s stump speech twice recently—and make no mistake, it is a stump speech easily adaptable to the presidential race.

The electricity that crackles around him is in stark contrast to the tepid reaction most of the announced or probable GOP presidential candidates get …

It is just possible that, if the Republican field falls flat through early fall, a grassroots cry for Christie may be heard throughout the land. Just. In the meantime, he’s the best show on the road.

Jon Huntsman

… his ambassadorial appointment was seen at the time as a clever move by Obama to remove a potential 2012 GOP rival from seeking the White House. Apparently, that calculus may have assumed less ambition than Huntsman possesses …

Maybe Huntsman can sell this to a politics-weary nation as bipartisanship, but we doubt a conservative GOP electorate is going to buy that.

We now know that Huntsman is deadly serious about his presidential bid. He has resigned as U.S. ambassador to China as of April 30, and has been assembling a campaign staff. But he still has all the problems we outlined in January. As with Mitt Romney, the Obama White House has enjoyed killing Huntsman with kindness …

THE REST

Rick Santorum

Santorum, a two-term senator from Pennsylvania, lost his seat in 2006 by a massive 18 percentage points. Not many would consider this a qualification to run for president, assuming a party hopes to win …

Still working hard, still scoring among social conservatives, still unelectable …

[You didn't think I could resist a bit of Santorum Snark, did you?]

John Bolton

All’s quiet on the Bolton front, even though the democracy revolution sweeping through the Middle East and the Libyan civil war would appear to give Bolton an opening to discuss his strengths.

[Not that Bolton matters in the least, but certainly this is an issue tailor-made for him, and yet he has been, as far as is known, totally absent from the debate. It's also telling that, until now, nobody noticed his absence.]

Gary Johnson

Much like John Bolton, but from a different direction, he will enrich the debate by being in the race. But Johnson’s chances of nomination are mighty slim, and that is putting it kindly.

When Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) retired recently, some Land of Enchantment Republicans hoped they could attract Johnson back to his state to run. No dice. Johnson is in the presidential race to stay despite the enormous odds against him.

As the political March Madness continues, we are seeing the race begin to take shape.

Mitt Romney remains atop the field with another solid month.  Romney caught a big break with Sen. John Thune’s decision to stay out of the race.  Thune was well positioned to be a credible establishment alternative to Romney and his departure leaves one less obstacle in the former governor’s path.  With Thune out, Romney’s chances have only improved.  His odds were also boosted by Justice Roger Vinson’s ruling against President Obama’s healthcare reform law, reinforcing Romney’s argument in defense of his own Massachusetts health legislation.  However, Romney’s chances could be damaged by the emerging organization of Ambassador Jon Huntsman, who could infringe on Romney’s LDS donor base and cut into his New Hampshire strength.

Tim Pawlenty has probably benefited the most from Sen. Thune’s departure from consideration and from Gov. Mitch Daniels’ continued uncertainty.  With them out of the way, Pawlenty is fast becoming the top alternative to Gov. Romney among the establishment while also building a comparable organization.  Gov. Pawlenty has also seen his outreach to the Tea Party begin to pay off as his numbers among their ranks steadily improve.  Pawlenty’s positioning as a compromise candidate to unite diverging factions will continue to improve, and will skyrocket if Gov. Daniels decides to pass on the race.  His recent staff additions continue to show his strength, even if the very early polling hasn’t caught up.

Mike Huckabee continues to produce solid poll numbers, but little else.  Most non-partisan polls continue to show Gov. Huckabee locked into ties with Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin or both. His recent book tour was relatively unimpressive when compared to those of Palin, Romney, and even Pawlenty.  The tour was largely overshadowed by a series of gaffes that dominated the headlines. For a candidate with the second highest name recognition (only Palin rates higher), his organization and fundraising remain alarmingly poor.  Huckabee’s position has also been hurt by several key staffers joining the organizations of his potential rivals.  Adding to his burden are the campaigns of two powerhouse GOP southerners, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.  Both men have the means and the money to cut significantly into Huckabee’s southern base, as well as the establishments of Iowa and South Carolina.  Gingrich and Barbour will join Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum, who have been working hard cultivating the supporters Huckabee depends on, as well as the emerging Michele Bachmann effort, which is showing surprising early strength.  The best news for Gov. Huckabee is that few candidates are moving towards announcements anytime soon.  The longer the start of the campaign is delayed, the longer it will help him to recover from these disadvantages.

Sarah Palin has seen her nosedive in the polls continue, and more and more Republicans are showing the willingness to criticize her chances openly.  It was originally thought that a late start would work for Palin due to her rockstar status, but her diminishing numbers have to be a major concern.  The longer she waits, the more cemented those views of her become.  It seems now more then ever that she will pass on a run, and perhaps the increased interest from Rep. Bachmann is an indication that Palin has already decided to pass on the race. However, Palin will be heading to both India and Israel, signs that she may still be serious about a run.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich announced that he will begin exploring a candidacy for president, but the botched roll-out has already raised some flags about Gingrich’s undisciplined past.  Former Sen. Rick Santorum continues to build a surprisingly strong staff while maintaining the busiest early state schedule in the field.  Rep. Ron Paul continues to hint towards a run on the heels of his big PAC and 501(c)4 haul.  Horizon PAC, the campaign-in-waiting of Jon Huntsman, has brought on members of John McCain’s New Hampshire team. High level GOP operatives in New Hampshire have said that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has been making calls to potential supporters in the state. Billionaire real-estate developer Donald Trump seems to be seriously looking at a run, something he’s contemplated a few times before, though some believe it to be nothing more than a publicity stunt.  Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer formed an exploratory committee to run for president and appears to be basing his campaign around campaign finance reform.

On to the rankings:

1. Mitt Romney
2. Tim Pawlenty
3. Mike Huckabee
4. Newt Gingrich
5. Sarah Palin
6. Haley Barbour
7. Mitch Daniels
8. Michele Bachmann
9. Jon Huntsman Jr.
10. Rick Santorum

Honorable Mention: Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Herman Cain, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, John Bolton, Buddy Roemer

Finally, some fighting going on between our 2012 hopefuls.

Last night during an event in Iowa, Haley Barbour said that we should be willing to cut defense spending along with the rest of the budget:

“Anybody who says you can’t save money at the Pentagon has never been to the Pentagon,” the Mississippi governor said. “We can save money on defense and if we Republicans don’t propose saving money on defense, we’ll have no credibility on anything else…”

Tim Pawlenty took issue with that idea today, responding that not only should the defense budget not be cut, we should continue increasing it:

“I don’t think we should be talking about cutting the Pentagon’s budget…” Pawlenty, siding with the defense hawks in his first trip to the Palmetto State this cycle, reiterated his past support for a defense budget that “continues to grow,” but added that it should grow “perhaps a little more slowly.”

I’ll be honest: Pawlenty is my number two guy right now, and Barbour doesn’t even register on my list… but I like what Barbour has to say here a lot more than Pawlenty. It’s time for conservatives to man up and realize that we’re going to need spending cuts across the board – including defense spending – if we’re going to make any sort of headway against the fiscal crisis we find ourselves in. To propose continually growing what amounts to more than a quarter of our federal budget out of one side of your mouth and then proclaim to be able to balance the budget out of the other side simply makes no sense to me.

It’s nice to finally see some back-and-forth between the potential candidates. It’s just surprising to me who I find myself agreeing with.

Another impressive campaign hire for Haley Barbour this morning, from the vital state of New Hampshire: Mike Dennehy.

Dennehy, a political veteran, was John McCain’s campaign manager in 2000 when he won the New Hampshire primary and served as the McCain campaign’s political director in 2008 (when he also won the primary). That he will now lend his knowledge and experience to Barbour is no small blip on the radar. Barbour is evidently serious about this thing and lining up a strong team to prove it.

In case you missed it, this series showcases the reasons why a Barbour 2012 ticket would go up in flames in a general election against Obama. To recap:

1.) The optics could not get much worse for Republicans. With the GOP hoping to shed its image as “the party of southern white men”, matching up one of them against the first black President in history would not help (an understatement if I’ve ever seen one). The media would foam at their collective mouth to cover that race.

2.) Barbour has a well-documented past as a highly accomplished lobbyist. President Obama rails against special interests (exhibit #1: lobbyists) almost as much as he uses verbal fillers. Squaring up against Barbour would provide countless opportunities to mention Haley’s past, creating a branding nightmare for the GOP.

3.) The Governor would never escape the “R” word: racism. Barbour has shot himself in the foot more than once on this topic. Again, the media would stop at nothing to remind voters that the man facing the first black President in history said the following about the tumult surrounding the Civil Rights movement in 1960s Mississippi: “I just don’t remember it as being that bad.” To a public that bases most of its voting decisions on sound bytes and fast-breaking news, this would speak volumes.

And now we come to the latest mix-up, this time involving Barbour’s now-former press secretary

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has accepted the resignation of his press secretary, just hours after it was reported that the spokesman sent e-mails with off-color jokes about issues ranging from the earthquake in Japan to former attorney general Janet Reno.

…In missives distributed to staff and supporters, Turner reportedly joked that Otis Redding’s hit “(Sittin’ on) The Dock of the Bay” is “not a big hit in Japan right now.” He also made cracks about Reno’s femininity, marijuana and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Could it get much worse for a candidate struggling to convince voters of his sensitivity? To steal a phrase from President Obama, let me be clear: I do not mean to paint Gov. Barbour as racist or unethical, I simply argue that perception matters more than reality in political campaigns, especially those for the highest office in the land, and this incident – even if it only qualifies as guilt by association – advances the notion of Barbour as prejudiced. While the Governor has a strong record and legendary political skills, you couldn’t try to come up with a much bigger P.R. nightmare for the Republican Party than a Barbour nomination.

You’d almost get the impression that Haley Barbour will be running for President…

A few days ago, he hired Jim Dyke as a communications director.

Then, less than two days ago, he hired online communications manager James Richardson.

And now, news from New Hampshire is that he’s picked up veteran strategist Paul Young to “help the Mississippi governor build his operation there.”

Folks, Haley Barbour will be in our field of candidates in this campaign. (And it is increasingly looking like Mitch Daniels will not).

Haley Barbour has taken a step forward in his plans to run for President by hiring Jim Dyke to be the Communications Director for his PAC – and, ostensibly, his eventual primary campaign. Chris Cillizza has the details over at The Fix:

Former Republican National Committee communications director Jim Dyke has signed on with Mississippi Gov.Haley Barbour’s political action committee, a major signing in the below-the-radar fight for staff talent in advance of the 2012 GOP presidential primary fight…

Dyke served as the communications director at the RNC during the 2004 re-election race of President George W. Bush then went into business for himself forming Jim Dyke & Associates in 2005…

Dyke’s hiring is the clearest signal yet that Barbour will run for president in 2012. He has said he plans no formal decision until the Mississippi legislature adjourns in April.

One of Barbour’s greatest strengths (and potentially weaknesses) is his insider status at the RNC and closeness with the inner workings of the party, so to hire an RNC guy for his communications director makes a lot of sense for him.

Thus continues the slow trickle of staff talent signing on with nascent campaigns – something that we should see speed up dramatically in the next month or two.

(Also interesting to note: with this news, Barbour is up a point and a half on Intrade, while Daniels has lost a couple points. Are their destinies truly inversely intertwined…?)