If you haven’t heard of Thomas Massie yet, you should. He is now the Republican nominee for U.S. House of Representatives in Kentucky’s fourth district. As Lewis County judge-executive, he paid for his first three year’s salary entirely by cutting waste from other parts of the budget. Endorsed by the Club for Growth, Massie opposes all bailouts and government “stimulus” bills, and supports tax reform, entitlement reform, and eliminating the Department of Education. The outgoing Congressman Geoff Davis has enjoyed a decade-long reign as a popular incumbent, but KY-4 is by no means a completely safe seat. It was represented by a Democrat as recently as 2004. If there’s a congressional candidate you send a few dollars to this season, consider helping out Massie, who certainly represents a bright future for the GOP.

Well, that didn’t take long:

Hopefully this will be the first of many ads using the President’s own words against him between now and November. I love the imagery of the recession on one half of the screen contrasted with Obama’s lavish lifestyle as President on the other half… but overall this does have the look of something thrown together very quickly. Given some more time, the RNC and the Romney campaign can create some very powerful imagery with these sorts of ads.

As most everyone who is closely following the Race 4 2012 knows, Virginia could very well be decisive.  Virginia has become a very purple state that currently experiences small perturbations between reddish purple and blueish purple.  While this only became apparent to some as a result of the 2006 and 2008 elections, it has been in the making for ten years and has accelerated over the last five.  It is now fair to say, I believe, that Virginia has become a reasonable microcosm of the nation when you consider its rural Southern demographics combined with its bastions of younger, upscale educated professionals in its northern D.C. suburbs, it’s six-figure income families in the exurbs and outer-suburbs, the large middle class region of the Tidewater area, and a healthy portion of ethnic and racial minorities.  The demographic trends are, and have been for some time, in favor of all but the rural Southern component.  This has turned the state very purple and threatens to turn it blueish purple to light blue unless the GOP conducts itself in a manner acceptable to the growing demographic sectors and thus focuses on core issues of upward mobility, fiscal responsibility, and competent, prudent management of the government.

All of this is currently reflected in the standings of the presidential contest and the US Senate race.  Most all polling to date shows Allen and Kaine essentially tied in the Senate contest, with Obama maintain a slight to modest lead in the Presidential race (current RCP average for Virginia has Obama +3.2).  I’ve been told by some national party folks that the gender gap in Virginia continues to run  higher than average as a result of the theatrics in the General Assembly earlier this year that many women, including  Republican-leaning women, found highly offensive.  Political pundit Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post is out with what I believe to be a pretty solid and accurate assessment of the race in Virginia at present.

President Obama’s current lead over Mitt Romney in a new Washington Post poll in Virginia is due in large part to a belief that the incumbent’s ideology is a better fit for the state than that of the former Massachusetts governor.

A majority of Virginians — 52 percent — say that “Barack Obama’s views on most issues are just about right” as compared to 37 percent who say the same of Romney’s views. Among electorally critical independents, 52 percent say Obama’s views were about right as opposed to just 34 percent who say the same of Romney. Just look at this chart.

(Worth noting: Among all Virginia registered voters, the gap is slightly more narrow; 49 percent of registered voters in Virginia say that Obama’s views on issues are “just about right” while 39 percent of registered voters say the same of Romney.)

Why does this data point matter? Because lots (and lots) of people make up their minds about who they will vote for based on which candidate they think best understands them.

And, at the moment, a majority of Virginians believe that Obama is closer to how they think about issues than is Romney. That matters — big time.

There are two reasons why that’s the case — and why it’s worth taking the Post poll results with a grain of salt.

First, Romney has been hurt across the board by the protracted Republican presidential primary which, in the final few months of the campaign, wound up focusing on contraception and other social issues that played into a preconceived notion among many independents that the GOP was beholden to their social conservative wing. (Nearly four in ten women think Romney’s views are “too conservative” for them.)

Second, the Virginia presidential primary was a non-event as only Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul spent any time in the state. (Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum did not qualify for the ballot.) That means that Romney has not been properly introduced — and by that we mean through a slew of positive television ads — to many voters in the Commonwealth.

Now here is the good news, according to Cillizza, with which I agree:

Luckily for Romney, both of those problems can be solved. He has spent the last two days in the state and on Thursday campaigned with Bob McDonnell, the popular governor of the Commonwealth. (Sidebar: Almost seven in ten Virginia registered voters said putting McDonnell on the ticket wouldn’t make much difference in their vote for president this fall.)

The more time Romney spends in the state and the more money he and his campaign (and various super PACs) spend on TV ads promoting him as a centrist problem solver and the President as a liberal partisan, the more likely it will be that he can close this “thinks like you” gap.

But the gap is real. And to win — in Virginia and elsewhere — Romney has narrow it.

Romney does indeed have a very good shot at Virginia, I believe, but it is going to require a lot more focus with a disciplined message than has been the case with previous GOP presidential campaigns, as this State is no longer “Old Virginie.”  Hopefully, some in the State Party and State Legislature will be able to control themselves.  Read the Cillizza column here.

The term “Minnewisowa” was invented and introduced in the 2004 presidential campaign cycle. “Minnewisowa” is a portmanteau neologism which stands for the electoral combination of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa, three contiguous midwestern states with similar demographics,  and which together have 26 electoral votes. They are  also perennially “swing” states that can go either into the Democratic or Republican column on Election Day.

In 2004, Iowa voted for George W. Bush, while Wisconsin and Minnesota cast their electoral votes for John Kerry. In 2008, all three voted for Barack Obama. But in 2012, all three, especially Iowa and Wisconsin, are up for grabs.

In fact, party registration in Iowa has for the first time in a long while gone from a lead for Democrats to a lead for Republicans. First reported more than a month ago, that lead (while small) has doubled in the latest report.

Wisconsin is a special case this year. A recall election of Governor Scott Walker has been called primarily by union supporters who opposed Walker-signed legislation that limits the power of government employee unions. An earlier recall effort failed to change the balance of power in the state legislature, but Wisconsin Democrats have come back to challenge not only Walker but several state senators. A lot is at stake for both sides, and any outcome is possible. But the risk for Democrats if they fail in this second recall effort, as they did in the first, is that it may cost President Obama the state in his re-election effort here about four months later.

Minnesota leans Democratic this year, and the state Republican Party is mired in scandal and financial problems. The Minnesota governor is a Democrat (called DFLer in the state), and the legislature is Republican. There are few Minnesota close congressional elections this year, and the incumbent DFL U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar has little prospect of a serious opponent. But the forces which propelled such a high DFL turnout for Mr Obama in 2008 are not present this year, and the presidential election could be closer than the ten-point margin in the last cycle.

If Mitt Romney could win Iowa and Wisconsin in 2012, that alone would be a net gain of 16 electoral votes from 2008. Combined with the current Republican lead in Indiana and good prospects for the GOP in Ohio (both these states voted for Obama in 2008), this region could produce just under half the electoral votes the GOP nominee would need to overtake the incumbent president. Most of the other (and larger) half could come from the combined electoral votes of Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, three southern states which also voted Democratic in 2008.

It’s too early to make predictions about all of this, but the electoral college vulnerability of Mr. Obama is already present in the above-mentioned states, not to mention in about a half dozen others.

“Minnewisowa’ went solidly for Mr. Obama in 2008, signaling his decisive nationwide victory. A change in voter sentiment in this three-state “swing bloc,” could signal political trouble for the Democratic president four years later.

———————————————————————————————–
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman.  All rights. reserved.

We pundits can’t help ourselves when we try to make analogies between current and past presidential election years. To some degree, the best analogies usually do apply. But I am coming to the conclusion, that apart from some obvious comparisons, the conventional rules of U.S. presidential elections will be largely upturned in 2012.

My reasons center around some simple facts and conditions.

President Obama was the first black president. He will thus be the first black incumbent president to run for re-election. Mr. Obama won the 2008 election primarily for two reasons. First, there was considerable “fatigue” with Republican President George W. Bush, then completing his second term. Second, only weeks before the November election, there was a meltdown in the mortgage banking sector causing an immediate economic crisis. In short, there was a conflation of circumstances which enabled Mr. Obama to win. The election was decisive, but it was no landslide.

Mitt Romney is not John McCain. Although Senator McCain was clearly a much-admired figure for his Viet Nam war experiences as a soldier and prisoner of war, and for his service in the U.S. senate, he lacked ironically the combative nature to wage a tough election campaign against Mr. Obama, There was also perhaps no viable strategy to overcome the mortgage banking crisis that appeared so close to the election; Mr. McCain’s strategy to suspend his campaign might have been one of the worst alternatives available to him.

Mitt Romney is also not John Kerry, Al Gore, Bob Dole, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey or Barry Goldwater. Barack Obama is not George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon. Mr. Romney is the first Mormon to be nominated for president. Although he was a governor, he is the first nominee for president since before World War II to come from a successful self-made career in business.

Although the U.S. economy is always going through cycles of prosperity and recession, the current downturn is unusual for its length and its chronic high unemployment. Previously the world’s dominant economy, the U.S. faces historic ad unprecedented trade challenges from China, India, Brazil and the European Union. There is also a growing global economic debt crisis facing Europe and China that has made world fiscal conditions more important to individual Americans than ever before.

Changing rules and new technologies are increasingly and more rapidly altering U.S. presidential campaigns. This is especially so in the key aspect of fundraising, public relations and in identifying voters in the often under-noticed get-out-the-vote campaigns. The internet, even more than before, has changed American politics.

The congressional election cycles have gone through two unprecedented (in terms of their quick reversal) “wave”elections. In 2006 and 2008, the “wave” went to the Democrats. Abruptly, the 2010 “wave” went the other way, to the Republicans. In 2012, Republicans control the U.S. house, and Democrats control the U.S. senate. Not all candidates are known yet, and once-in-a-decade redistricting has taken place, but given the national economic conditions, and the fact that such a disproportionate number of vulnerable Democratic incumbent senators are running, the relationship between the congressional elections and the presidential campaign of the incumbent are extraordinarily, on their face, disconnected.

The influence of non-traditional political forces on a presidential campaign has, seemingly, not been greater. The Old Media, continuing its pattern from 2008, has become a mostly uncritical cheerleader for Mr. Obama. This also includes most of the figures of Hollywood and the entertainment industry. The New Media, including radio talk show hosts, Fox News (its cable viewers total more than all the other cable networks combined), and large-scale websites such as Drudge and Breitbart, have become cheerleaders for the conservative movement.

Further complicating the 2012 elections are the new populist movements of both the right (Tea Party) and the left (Occupy Movement) which have recently emerged. As these pull against the natural gravity of the political center in presidential election, they tend to upend traditional politics and politicking.

Finally, there is more political and ideological division in the nation since the 1930′s. There was perhaps as intensive political emotion in the country in the Viet Nam war period, or more, but the division was not so much between conservative and liberal as it was about the specific war issue (and it was generational).

Of course, assuming what I am contending is true about the unprecedented nature of the 2012 presidential election, the key and obvious question is:  Who does these circumstances help the most and hurt the most in their quest to be elected, or re-elected, president this year?

The answer to that will become obvious right after election day, and no one knows that answer for certain six months away, but we do have some  fascinating clues to the possible answer to this question, and I will discuss them in the weeks ahead.

———————————————————————————————-
Copyright (c) 2102 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

With Mitt Romney the Republican nominee in all but name, those in the Republican Party and on the right are taking a look at the primary season that has just gone by. Many of those who are lukewarm to Governor Romney or outright oppose him are pointing to the so-called “next-in-line” theory of Republican primaries to find a satisfactory answer as to how he won the Republican nomination. This theory states that the GOP always nominates the person who came in 2nd the four years previously. Certainly on the surface this seems like a very plausible idea. Ronald Reagan lost to Gerald Ford in 1976 and won the nomination in 1980. George H. W. Bush was defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980 and got the nomination eight years later in 1988. Bob Dole, John McCain and now Mitt Romney all ran once before and lost only to receive the nomination the next time around. Surely this means that the Republicans follow this next-in-line rule?

Yes and no. While it is true that the GOP does like familiar faces as its nominee, the next-in-line theory is a bit simplistic. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney all got the nomination not because they had lost previously and it was now “their turn”. These Republican nominees got the prize because their message, résumé, and the lack of viable opposition seemed to make them the best fit for the Party and the country at that time. Let’s go through every Republican nominee since 1980 and discuss: (more…)

Memories and Lessons of a Just-Completed Campaign

Now that the primary season has all but officially ended (mercifully and at last), it is time for political analysts to look back at the yearlong trek that got us Nominee Romney and see what conclusions we can draw from this prolonged fight. There are several things that led to Romney’s success this time around:

The Job Interview
At first glance, it may seem the most cogent lesson is the simplest one: the Republicans once again nominated their next-in-line candidate. Just as John McCain, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford before him, Romney was widely perceived as “earning his turn,” so to speak. But there is something going on at a deeper level here – why (with the notable exception of George W. Bush) does the modern GOP seem to hand their nomination to the next-in-line? After all, this is a truism, a force, strong enough to revive John McCain from political death a thousand times over in 2008. And it was enough to protect Romney from one of the most anti-establishment, angry conservative electorates in recent memory. How?

It has been said that the Republicans treat their primaries much like a job interview, while Democrats treat theirs like a dating game – a comparative analogy that has some heft behind it to be sure. Democrats get excited about insurgent candidates that send thrills up their legs, whereas Republicans like to sit back and determine whether our candidates have the experience necessary for the job. Looking at the 2008 primaries in an parallel universe, then, we wouldn’t have been surprised to see a Mike Huckabee vs. Hillary Clinton general election matchup – where Huckabee had won the Democratic primary and Hillary the Republican one.

Insurgent candidates are just not built to survive modern Republican primaries. And so Romney perhaps had the huge advantage in this way from the outset: with no Huckabee and no Palin in the mix, he was the only “serious” candidate applying for this job. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum were never going to pass the job interview process. Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry both had a chance based on the resumes they had submitted, but as soon as they were called in for a face to face interview they were both summarily dismissed from contention. And so, after inspecting each of the job applicants in turn, ultimately the Republican Party ended up calling the candidate that looked the most attractive at the beginning of the process and saying, “You’re hired.” It’s a familiar process that makes sense for the “party of business” to follow.

Continue reading for Cycling Seppuku, I Can be Your Friend, Where in the World is Romney Sandiego, and “Establishment” Support…
(more…)

The Worthington Daily Globe reports:

To hear North Dakota Republicans tell it, their endorsing convention last weekend in Bismarck was a triumph. To hear others who are not party types tell it, the convention was little more than a coronation bulldozer that shoved aside any dissent in the ranks.

The latter description has some validity. Here’s why.

Most of North Dakota’s 25 presidential convention delegates will trot off to Tampa this summer as supporters of current frontrunner former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. But how can that be? Just a few weeks ago North Dakota Republicans gathered in caucuses in every county in the state and (guess what?) handed former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum a convincing win. The second spot went to Texas Congressman Ron Paul. And Romney, who was awarded all the state’s delegates at the convention? Where did the convention’s choice finish after caucus votes were counted? A distant third, that’s where.

Which raises two questions:

First, why conduct caucuses if the results mean nothing when delegates to the national convention are selected?

Second, how can convention managers even suggest they conducted a representative delegate selection process when Santorum and Paul supporters were disenfranchised?

Not only did third-place-caucus finisher Romney get the convention’s nod, but party Chairman Stan Stein refused to allow further debate. One delegate who tried had her microphone turned off. So went the party bulldozer.

…

This is just one of many tales of such high-handed maneuvering that I’ve heard about in multiple states for or against one or more of the candidates. In many cases Romney was the victim. In some cases, Paul was the perpetrator. In others, Santorum. But no matter who’s the target or who’s at fault, these reports trouble me.

That first question raised in the article is perfectly legitimate. Why bother holding non-binding caucuses or primaries? They might give the winner bragging rights to be sure, but if they don’t mean a thing, then why bother? This sort of thing breeds anger, resentment and discontent among fellow Republicans. Good grief. Some Romney supporters still harbor a grudge over the maneuverings in West Virginia last time in 2008. We don’t need this sort of thing.

Do you remember this scene from the start of Shrek I where a platoon of soldiers came to arrest Shrek?

Captain of Guards: [to Shrek, after finding him and Donkey in the woods] You there! Ogre!

Shrek: Aye?

Captain of Guards: [to both Shrek and Donkey] By the order of Lord Farquaad, I am authorized to place you both under arrest and transport you to a designated resettlement – facility.

Shrek: Oh, really? You and what army?

[the Captain looks behind him and notices that his soldiers have run away, leaving their spears behind. He does the same]

So it would seem with Rick Santorum. Rick imagined himself at the head of a vast group of defiant conservatives ready to take on the evil RINOs and “establishment”. They were all willing to fight to the death, or at least to the convention to place him at the head of the Republican party. But now he is finding himself in front of a rapidly diminishing force.

Sarah Palin, who has long advocated a fight to the convention, stated last night it’s over. Dr. Richard Land, one of the top Southern Baptist leaders in the country, stated yesterday it is time to end this thing. The panel last night on Fox stated it was time to end it. Even Newt Gingrich, the defiant one from just two months ago, has bowed to the inevitable and continues his campaign in name only.

And so it is around the web this morning. On site after site, hard-nosed “True Conservative” after “True Conservative” are all starting to bow to the reality of the situation. It’s over. It’s time to start focusing our attention on Obama. Certainly there will continue to be defiant ones, but they are now in a distinct minority. The party is coalescing behind Mitt Romney.

Will Rick be able to withstand the pressure, now coming from all sides of the Republican coalition? It will be interesting to watch.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Mitt and the RNC are to begin joint fundraising efforts:

In a move that shows Republicans are coalescing around the party’s front-runner, Mitt Romney plans to begin raising money jointly with the Republican National Committee this week as both the candidate and the GOP brace for an expensive general-election fight against President Barack Obama.

The arrangement will allow top donors to write checks as large as $75,000 per person, by giving to party organizations in addition to the campaign. That’s far more than the $2,500 ceiling that applies to individual donations to a presidential candidate for the fall election.

The move reflects a general clamor within the party to begin amassing the funds needed to compete with Mr. Obama’s fundraising operation, Romney and RNC advisers said. “Our donors are ready to mobilize for November,” said Andrea Saul, a Romney spokesperson. For the Republican nominee to be able to compete with the president’s re-election effort, “they need to get started now.”

…

To maintain the fig leaf of their neutral-until-nominee-chosen requirement, the RNC also invited the other three contestants left in the race to participate. This placed the three in an awkward position. If they declined, Mitt gets to be the sole representative of the party stumping for funds and reinforces the image that he is the inevitable nominee. If they accepted, then their already struggling campaigns would have to shake their increasingly barren money-trees to fund someone else. It would also provide yet another side-by-side metric to show how weak they are in comparison to Mitt.

They all declined.

(h/t: Jeff Fuller)

This past week, my colleagues Matthew Miller and Dave Gaultier respectively made compelling cases for Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio as the next Vice Presidential nominee of the United States. Few subjects in politics interest me more than Veep discussion, so I decided to follow their lead and stump for my preferred running mate for Gov. Romney: the esteemed Congressman from the Badger State and visionary House Budget Committee Chairman, Paul Ryan.

I’ll begin by addressing the commonly cited downsides of Ryan-as-VP. First, some, such as Mr. Miller himself, have argued that putting Ryan on the bottom of the ticket would divert attention away from the top and essentially make the election a referendum on the Path to Prosperity (and if I have misrepresented Matthew’s position, I’ll stand corrected). I used to agree with this. However, in recent times, it has become obvious that Mitt’s healthcare – and, by extension, deficit – proposals largely mirror Ryan’s. Therefore, when considering the harsh scrutiny Republican presidential nominees receive during general election campaigns no matter what, I submit to you that having Ryan on the ticket wouldn’t make much of a difference. And in fact, if Mitt seeks to turn this election into a choice between two noticeably different visions for America’s future – a possibility I will examine later, his campaign may actually welcome the added attention, as it would reinforce the notion that they endeavor to offer the American public serious solutions to serious problems.

Along these lines, many have fretted the possibility that Romney’s running mate could eventually overshadow him, a la Sarah Palin and John McCain. However, when we consider the other “dream” running mates Republicans have most often cited for the Governor – Rubio, Jindal, Chris Christie, and Ryan – it becomes rather clear that the Chairman appears far less likely than the others to outshine Mitt in personality, charisma, or background. Ryan obviously brings extraordinary strengths to the table, but he doesn’t provide Christie’s edge-of-your-seat excitement, Rubio’s inspiring oratory, or Jindal’s jaw-dropping record of achievement and competence. This may provide more of a good match than a conflict with Romney’s seemingly risk-averse nature.

I’ve made it no secret that I harbor a fondness for the Cheney/Biden VP model – of a Washington insider (excuse the dirty word) with an intimate knowledge of political and legislative dynamics and the ability to spearhead the president’s agenda through Congress. More so than the other oft-mentioned top choices, Ryan fits this profile. While he has taken great pains to preserve his reluctant citizen-politician image, the fact remains that Ryan keeps an ear firmly to the ground when it comes to political sentiment. Consequently, he could serve as a key policy adviser to a President Romney and help him shape his agenda to best adapt to political realities. He could also utilize his sterling reputation and extensive connections in Washington to win over key support on crucial legislation. The president (thankfully) only has so much unilateral power, so all the executive experience in the world will not amount to enough for Romney if he can’t get Congress to work with him.

Above all, Romney should tap Ryan if he seeks to make this election the aforementioned choice between two competing visions for America’s future – between the government-driven corporatism Obama offers and the private sector-driven opportunity society that Romney professes to desire. More than any alternative, Paul Ryan would help center the focus of the fall campaign on the most important issue facing the country: our debt and deficit.

I suppose we can look at it this way: if Mitt cares most about political considerations, he should go with Sen. Rubio. If he cares most about executive competence and nuts-and-bolts governing, he should opt for Gov. Jindal. But if he cares most about addressing the biggest of the big issues of the day, he should select Chmn. Ryan.

Photo h/t to talkingpointsmemo.com

With a title like that, I’m sure I don’t have to try very hard to get people to like this post. But, what the heck, I’ll try, anyway!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho95vcVeFf0&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
Since the Democrats’ policy proposals and positions lend themselves better to simplistic, soundbite-friendly demagoguery, Republicans NEED elected officials capable of refuting these attacks articulately and succinctly, like the great Congressman from Wisconsin.

With the Republican Primaries winding down and Mitt Romney now the overwhelming odds-on favorite to win the Republican nomination, the attention of the GOP will now focus on two things. One will be the selection of the Governor’s running mate on which much ink has been spilled already. The other will be the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Governor Romney will have the majority of the delegates and by then all of them will want to show a united Party. However, to get Santorum, Paul and Gingrich delegates enthusiastic about him, Governor Romney might have to give them something. The easiest place for this to happen is in the party platform and it is here that we might see some diplomacy from the Romney campaign to help unite the Party.

The most particularly vexing group at the convention will no doubt be the Ron Paul supporters. With Congressman Paul having such different views than his fellow Republicans on a variety of issues, coming to an agreement him and his forces will require some delicate maneuvering. Even though Congressman Paul will probably end up at least giving verbal support to Governor Romney, his supporters will want something in return. A good speaking slot will be a must for Congressman Paul, but another thing that could give the Paul supporters something to cheer about will be in the platform. Paul’s foreign policy is clearly unacceptable to the majority of Republicans, but his economic views are closer to the GOP mainstream and it is here in the platform that the Paulites can show their influence. A plank calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve would make Paulites happy, as would a plank setting up a commission to look at the nation’s monetary policy. Congressman Paul has made both of these things major talking points in his campaign. These two planks should help satisfy the Paul supporters and to be blunt, a man who only has 71 delegates at this point doesn’t deserve any bigger concessions.

The Gingrich and Santorum camps shouldn’t require too much negotiation; after all the differences between the top three contenders aren’t that great. Suffice to say, Romney will have to have to include a strong pro-life and socially conservative plank in the platform to make Senator Santorum happy. A specific plank on restoring America’s manufacturing competitiveness would also show Santorum’s message has been acknowledged by the GOP. As for Gingrich, he’s been talking a lot recently about energy issues, so letting him have some say on the energy plank would help soothe the Speaker’s ego. The Speaker is an idea’s man, so if Romney discusses the platform with Gingrich, would fit with Gingrich’s desire to be a policy voice inside the Party.

To be sure, there will be other things as well that will be done to help unite the GOP around Governor Romney: endorsements by both his competitors, a good running mate choice, and the thought of beating President Obama will all heal whatever interparty wounds have developed from this primary season. But if Romney wants to give his rivals some policy influence, the GOP platform could be the way to do it.

As the race for the GOP presidential nomination continues to unfold, one of the themes of the race, at least according to Sen. Santorum and his supporters, is that Rick Santorum represents Ronald Reagan in contrast to Mitt Romney’s George H.W. Bush, or perhaps Gerald Ford, and that unlike Gov. Romney, Sen. Santorum would be able to expand the Republican electoral coalition by inviting scores of working class whites into the fold, primarily because of his renewed focus on manufacturing and his embrace of the Holy See’s position on cultural issues. I will submit to you that this line of reasoning is faulty for a number of reasons, and that Sen. Santorum will not only fail to win Democratic converts in the fall as the Republican nominee, but will probably fare far worse than the admittedly flawed frontrunner, Mitt Romney.

First, the notion that there still exists a motley crew of “Reagan Democrats” in our nation’s swing regions is, I think, a bit dated. Indeed, last year I penned a piece describing the hunt for Reagan Democrats as a quixotic quest for Republicans given that this group, as it has been historically defined, no longer exists:

But wait. What did happen to those original Reagan Democrats, the white ethnics in the Rust Belt who self-identified as “JFK Democrats” even though they hadn’t voted Democratic since the 1960s? The polls seem to suggest they don’t exist anymore, and I suspect that’s largely because most are no longer Democrats. They’ve either become Republicans or are now affiliated with neither party. It’s important to remember that social pressures for certain demographic groups to join the Democratic Party no longer exist. At one time in this country, to be a white ethnic was to be a Democrat. To be a working stiff was to be a Democrat. To be a Catholic was to be a Democrat. In almost all of those cases, there is no longer any “tribal” rationale for these voters to self-identify as Democrats, especially given the decreasing importance of private employees’ unions, the assimilation of white ethnics into the broader population, and the re-organization of the parties from collections of interest groups into vehicles of ideology. Since most of the aforementioned groups tend to lean moderate to conservative, and since the Democratic Party is now the “liberal party,” there really is no reason for a conservative or moderate-conservative member of these groups to be a Democrat.

I go on to cite a number of high-profile races showing that self-identified Democrats have stuck with their party’s nominee in recent years with near unanimity. Meanwhile, Independents seem to be the voting bloc that has swung back and forth between the two parties in recent history, not a glut of white ethnic Democrats in denial about the state of their party. That’s because those conservative white ethnics aren’t Democrats anymore, and haven’t been Democrats in awhile.

At this point, Santorum supporters may argue that I’m playing a game of semantics, and that no one can deny that there are plenty of white, working class Independents who would be drawn to a Republican who feels their pain. Granted. But is Santorum really the sort of candidate that the doctor ordered for this particular segment of Independents? I would say that he is not. First, there’s a mythology that exists in the political psyche that downscale whites are attracted to Republicans who are economically liberal and very socially conservative. I would say this myth is on par with the notion that upscale, urban Independents tend to be followers of Ayn Rand. In reality, neither of these typologies hold true for the vast majority of Independents. I would guess that most educated, urban and suburban Independents tend to be gently right-of-center fiscally, and gently left-of-center socially. That’s why soccer moms adored Bill Clinton, but also why the Libertarian Party remains sorely underrepresented at every level of government. Conversely, downscale whites without college degrees probably tend to be more socially conservative than not, and more economically populist than not, but are probably not hugging the extremes of either of those issue areas in any regard.

As such, on cultural issues, while being a cultural conservative probably helps with downscale whites, being as extreme on social issues as Sen. Santorum likely does as much damage with this demographic as it does with most demographics. Santorum’s seeming inability to remove his focus from issues relating to sex — such as his foray into the world of porn earlier this week — would likely do to his candidacy among downscale Independents what Republican promises to eliminate entire Cabinet departments does to GOP support among upscale Independents. In both cases, the Independents in question are assumed to hold extreme views on these issues, when in fact they hold relatively moderate views. Upscale white swing voters want a balanced budget and low taxes, but they also want strong public schools. Downscale white swing voters want fewer abortions and traditional marriage, but they also want to be able to slip into the strip club down the street when the wife isn’t looking. The notion that either of these groups can be converted into soldiers for someone’s utopian crusade is folly.

Finally, on the issue of economics, the assumption of many Republican strategists, from those who touted compassionate conservatism on, is that downscale whites by and large agree with Democrats on matters of economic policy, and that the way to win the working class white vote is to move leftward on economic and fiscal matters. This is another assumption that history doesn’t really validate. Going back to the original “Reagan Democrats,” the reality is that Reagan didn’t shake working class whites loose of the Democratic Party by running to the Left of Ford and Bush 41 on fiscal matters. To the contrary, Reagan ran well to the Right of his establishment foils on economic matters. And yet working class whites responded favorably to Reagan’s message of enhancing personal autonomy, expanding individual choice and opportunity, maintaining law and order at home and a muscular foreign policy abroad, and respecting American traditions while leaving Americans free to live their lives as they see fit. This ideology is far removed both from the cynical Compassionate Conservatism of Bush 43, and from the neo-populism of Huckabee ’08 and Santorum ’12.

As such, I fail to see any burgeoning Santorum electoral majority on the horizon, and I suspect that as the party’s presidential nominee, Santorum’s support among Democrats would be non-existent, his appeal to working class swing voters would be largely on paper, and most importantly, Santorum would lose scores of Creative Class voters who are demographically and politically everything Santorum is not. Nominating Santorum would put the Republican Party on the wrong side of each of the nation’s demographic trends. That alone should keep reasonable Republicans from pulling the lever for the former senator in the remaining primaries and caucuses that will decide the nomination.

Our longtime commenter, Massachusetts Conservative, made a couple of very insightful comments in the thread below. They deserve to be brought forward. So I’ve decided to combine them into an op-ed and place them on the front page:

We don’t analyze the presidency of George W. Bush on this site enough.

Here’s my case: There has not been a solid GOP base since the 1980s.

George W. Bush won re-election because of a bunch of patchwork, not ideologues. He rallied the country behind two wars and was able to defeat John Kerry because Kerry was a horrible candidate for a horrible election cycle.

All the stuff Bush got done of any consequence was done because of chaos. 9/11 led to the PATRIOT Act and the war in Afghanistan.

After that, it was all downhill. He tried to push immigration reform and failed. His supposed “base” was not there. It was always a bunch of patchwork. There was no real work done since 1994 to bring the different elements of the Republican party together around any sort of unified message, just war and in 1994 and 2010, anger on health care.

You see, we haven’t had a unified base dedicated to any sort of vision of America since Reagan. Think about it.

—

And given the case I laid out [above], I would suggest some real work needs to be done to assemble a lasting vision that half the country can latch onto for a long period of time.

You see, trying to win this election on health care will just be more patchwork. We can’t keep winning based on anger and expect to make any sort of progress for the conservative movement.

I would suggest then, that we use Romney to sell REAL family values, REAL hard work, REAL Capitalism, REAL fiscal responsibility. That’s our vision.

Selecting Newt or Santorum would just signify more patchwork. Duct tape and paper clips.

Very nicely put, MassCon. Very nicely put, indeed.

Prior to yesterday’s primaries in Arizona and Michigan, Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal penned an essay discussing Americans openness to candidates of faith but also their reservations about those who they think might impose their own moral and religious views via government.  Her essay “Moralizer in Chief?” ran in the Friday, February 24, online and print editions of the WSJ.  Strassel accurately and eloquently discusses the standard concerns that libertarian-leaning conservatives such as myself have with candidates like Santorum, but she hits on a couple of points that are particularly worth highlighting because they get to the heart of the difference between the fundamental approach taken by many contemporary social- conservatives with that of the iconic figure with whom they claim to identify—Ronald Reagan.

General elections are not won on bases alone. They are won on the margins—with the votes of married, exurban women, of independents, of moderate men. Many of these voters are generally conservative. They are also generally open to, even reassured by, candidates of faith. They are not thrilled by the recent trend in the social-conservative movement toward using government to impose a particular morality—a trend that Mr. Santorum would seem to highlight.

Ronald Reagan’s success in creating his coalition was highlighting the common desires of both social and economic conservatives. Grover Norquist famously termed it the “Leave Us Alone Coalition.” Reagan assured cultural conservatives that he would keep the federal government out of their homes, out of their faith, away from their guns. This dovetailed with his promise to free-marketers and libertarians of a more limited government. It was a great formula, rooted in liberty. It allowed Republicans to highlight their own social conservatism—an issue that plays well—even as they reassured voters that they, unlike liberals, wouldn’t use government to impose their worldview.

Yet as social conservatives have grown in political strength, more have turned to government. While many read George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” as an explanation of the benefits of limited government, others saw it as a call for conservatives to embrace government for their own social-policy ends. This has allowed liberals to turn the tables, to frighten many Americans about the risks of a conservative-imposed social agenda.

It is here that Mr. Santorum has a problem. The Pennsylvanian is a man of deep faith, which many Americans might admire. He is also campaigning on the argument that strong religious communities and families make for a strong America. This, too, is something that ought to resonate with voters, as many believe that these institutions are best suited to solve most problems, and that government needs to get out of their way.

Yet Mr. Santorum has left many Americans with the impression that he believes it his job as president to revitalize these institutions. And he has done little to reassure voters that his personal views will not become policy. Quite the opposite. Mr. Santorum loves, for instance, to highlight his plans to triple the child tax credit—out-and-out social policy clearly rooted in his desire to increase childbirth. Voters will naturally wonder what other values he’d seek to institute via government.

All the more so, given Mr. Santorum’s unrefined method of delivering his social message. It is one thing to argue that the federal government has no right to force religious affiliates to pay for contraception; or to say that courts should not impose gay marriage; or to criticize policies that are biased against stay-at-home moms. All those statements appeal to basic liberty and are winners for the GOP.

It is quite another for Mr. Santorum to rail that contraception is “harmful” to women; to wax on about the “emotions” surrounding women on the front lines; to graphically inform the nation about his “problem with homosexual acts”; or to moan, as he did in his book, that too many women refuse to stay home with their kids but rather use “convenient” rationalizations to fool themselves into thinking “professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”

Those statements are rooted in a fervent moral view, one that many general-election voters will fear Mr. Santorum wants to impose on them. They will reject it, and not just because they won’t risk a president who might legislate values. They will reject it because it will offend them.

Reagan’s success was in respecting cultural conservatives’ right to live their lives as they saw fit. Mr. Santorum’s mistake is in telling people how to live. [Emphasis mine].

Read the Strassel essay here.

In recent election cycles there has been much rhetoric, much flapping about, within the GOP conservative universe about the components of the “conservative coalition” and the supposed need to recreate the “Reagan Coalition.”  In the 2008 cycle we heard about the “three-legged stool” representing economic conservatives, national security conservatives, and social conservatives and the necessity of any successful candidate appealing to all three equally “like Reagan did.”  But there has been little examination and discussion of how Reagan created and built his successful coalition.  He did not go chasing after various factions or interest groups telling them what they wanted to hear and promising to enact their agenda once in office; rather, he annunciated a clear and consistent message as to why limiting government’s power and reach would benefit everyone.  The foundation of the Reagan coalition and the common thread holding it together was freedom and liberty, the basic right to live our lives as we choose and the responsibility to do for ourselves.  Reagan drew the various components of his coalition to him in response to the consistent set of fundamental principles he espoused from his earliest days in politics.  As a result, Reagan created a new GOP majority coalition with a common unifying thread.  Our candidates this time around should be trying to do likewise, if they are serious about winning the general election.

President Obama has begun to telegraph the type of messaging he’ll use during the upcoming general election:

Given that reality [a sluggish economy], Obama needs to find smaller success stories that allow him to effectively make a “promises made, promises kept” argument. The recovery of the auto industry is sure to be front and center in that argument from the Administration.

“If we had turned our backs on you; if America had thrown in the towel; GM and Chrysler wouldn’t exist today,” Obama said to huge cheers from the UAW crowd. “I placed my bet on American workers…three years later, the American auto industry is back.”

Promise made, promise kept.

But then Obama sought to broaden out the argument — making the case that what he did for the auto industry is what separates him from the men vying to be the Republican presidential nominee this fall.

Said Obama: “You want to talk about values? Hard work — that’s a value. Looking out for one another — that’s a value. The idea that we are all in it together — that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper — that is a value.”

…In the space of a single speech that spanned just over 2,000 words, Obama summed up the entirety of his re-election message: 1) There have been provable successes because of actions his Administration has taken 2) He better understands what it means to be an American than do Republicans and 3) The Republican philosophy toward government represents a step backwards not a step forward.

While the philosophy the president espoused may appeal more to our collectivist than individualistic natures, we cannot deny the appeal of this kind of rhetoric to the broad public, especially the notoriously fickle low-information swing voters.

No matter whether Obama squares off against Romney or Santorum, his argument still has the potential to resonate among enough people to nudge him over the line. In short, Republicans sure have their work cut out for them this Fall.

Since it became increasingly clear, following my candidate (and employer) Gary Johnson’s decision to drop out and run third party, and my second choice Ron Paul’s failure to gain traction after his very-respectable-but-just-not-energizing-enough finishes in the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, that a libertarian would not be representing the Republican Party in the general election, my sense of disappointment, frustration, and burn-out has compelled me to take something of a slight break from politics for a month or two. (I’m sure you were all enormously grieved by my absence.) A lot of libertarians in the GOP have been, and are currently, going through this phase right now. One thing that may be snapping a lot of us out of our funk, however, is the chilling surge in popularity of Rick Santorum–quite possibly one of the most overtly anti-libertarian candidates ever to come within reach of the GOP presidential nomination.
(more…)

The current trajectory of the GOP nomination contest is inspiring more and more discussion about a brokered or contested Convention, including the feasibility of a new “white knight” candidate.  As for the possibility of a contested Convention, meaning no candidate having a clear majority of committed first ballot delegates going into the Convention, I have now moved into the “maybe” category.  Of course, the pump and dump pattern of this contest could continue and in another month we could be on a new trajectory once again.  Regarding the feasibility of some new entrant, that elusive white knight, I remain skeptical unless it is done real, real soon and is someone acceptable to most flavors of Republican voters and someone who is recognized as having candidate qualities superior to those currently running.  Washington Post political writer/blogger, Jennifer Rubin, was out with a blog article discussing the current state of angst among the GOP Congressional leadership and specifically the implications (as they see them) of a Santorum nomination.

Ms. Rubin draws heavily from some reporting by Mike Allen of Politico and Jim Pethokoukis of AEI blog, but she offers a gem of an observation of what distinguishes Rick Santorum from Marco Rubio, both social conservatives and both favorites of the Tea Party:

But, but — you say — these people [Party leadership] were the ones who wanted Charlie Crist instead of now-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). But, really, Santorum is no Marco Rubio. Whereas Rubio expands the party’s base of support, Santorum shrinks it. Whereas women, independents and young people see Rubio as a forward-looking reformer, Santorum seems stuck in a time warp from a different era, someone chasing issues that were “lost” decades ago.

The emphasis in the above quote is mine.  Read the full article here.

I call your attention to today’s installment of what has begun to seem like daily brokered convention/white knight rumors:

Most reporters still think Romney “will find a way to win Michigan.” Nevertheless, some of the nation’s most powerful Republicans are poring over filing deadlines and pondering worst-case scenarios.

Our friend handed us a printout of FEC deadlines for ballot access, with five of them circled and starred: California (March 23), Montana (March 12), New Jersey (April 2), New Mexico (March 16) and South Dakota (March 27). The point: Even after Feb. 28, it might be possible to assemble a Hail Mary candidacy that could garner enough delegates to force a CONTESTED convention (a different nuance than BROKERED, which implies that someone is in charge).

Under RNC rules, the delegate count builds slowly: just 15% before Super Tuesday, March 6; 19% through Super Tuesday (brings you to 34%); 17% in the rest of March (brings you to 51%); with 48% in April, May and June (21%, 12%, 15%).

Our friend said: “If somebody came on the scene that week after Super Tuesday with, ‘I’m coming in. I’m taking a look at this,’ there are enough delegates. He would suck all the oxygen out of the race.

At this point, the unfolding of this race has so often taken me by surprise that I no longer place much stock in predictions even by me. But, for what it’s worth, I’ll opt against categorically ruling out a brokered (or contested, as the cited article suggests) convention.

Of course, the conversation then turns to who (or is it “whom”?) would benefit from the unrest in the party and become the white knight. For my money (keep in mind how poorly I’ve fared with foreseeing the proceedings of this race), I can’t see the GOP rallying behind Jeb Bush, with his toxic last name and the treasure trove of campaign material it would bring. Mitch Daniels doesn’t seem to have the personality to clear the “intensity” hurdle the base clearly seeks in a potential nominee. Nor does Bobby Jindal. Chris Christie doesn’t seem to want it. Neither does Marco Rubio (nor does he likely feel ready). Mike Huckabee appears too comfortable in his media role. Sarah Palin generates too much uneasiness among much of the party faithful. And for the nostalgic, Rudy Giuliani would have a difficult time convincing voters of his relevance.

Thus, for my money, I’ll have to agree with my esteemed colleague Matthew Miller and argue that Paul Ryan seems like the most logical and realistic choice. As Matthew frequently notes, Ryan still has one of the highest profiles of anyone in the party, especially when budget season rolls around. And both the grassroots and upper levels of the party hold him in high regard. What do you think? Agree? Disagree?

Aides to President Obama have indicated that he will begin to advocate reform of the corporate income tax by the end of the month:

The president is likely to propose a rate closer to an average of that seen in peer nations, the sources said.

…Obama outlined tax measures – including closing tax loopholes for companies that move facilities and jobs overseas – in his State of the Union speech in January, and will lay out principles for revamping corporate taxes by the end of February, a senior administration official said.

…An overhaul of the corporate tax system is extremely unlikely in an election year, but the president’s proposal could be an olive branch to the business community to show that he agrees with them on one key aspect of tax reform.

“I think what he will end up doing is saying, ‘For years folks have been asking for a lower corporate rate, and here it is – what do you think?,’” said Jared Bernstein, a former economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden.

Obama’s Treasury Department was close to releasing a revamp of corporate taxes last year, but pulled back after business opposition, according to a former official.

…Obama’s corporate plan will also include a new minimum tax on foreign profits earned in low tax countries – an unpopular idea in the corporate community.

No doubt the President and his staff see this as a means to take one of the GOP’s favored policy reforms off the table this Fall. You would think that this issue would attract broad bipartisan support, as even liberal sources concede that the government would collect more revenue with a lower, flatter corporate income tax rate.

However, it remains to be seen whether Obama will expend actual political capital on this reform, or whether he simply views it as a way to score political points. Regardless, it will make things that much more difficult for the eventual Republican nominee.

While nearly every political onlooker, including yours truly, has expected that the 2012 election will revolve around the economy, recent events have cast some doubt on that assumption. As Rachel Weiner, of the Washington Post, reports:

For months, the Republican presidential candidates have hammered away on the economy — and only the economy — as they crisscrossed the campaign trail. But over the past few days, longtime social issues — contraception, abortion and gay marriage — have taken the stage in the campaign.

First, Planned Parenthood supporters helped force the resignation of Susan B. Komen Foundation executive Karen Handel after the breast cancer organization cut grants to the family planning group.

Then Catholic bishops began sparring with the White House over a new mandate that all employers cover birth control for women, with very narrow exemptions for Catholic-run institutions.

And on Monday, a federal appeals court in California struck down the state’s gay marriage ban, prompting outrage from the GOP candidates.

…How long this spike in passion over social issues will last is unclear. There were no exit polls from Tuesday night, but in other states the economy is consistently the voters’ top concern.

Still, the longer this wave goes on, the more it hurts Romney, who has supported abortion rights in the past.. He has struggled among evangelicals and voters who oppose abortion in all circumstances.

One can’t help but ponder whether Obama had something like this planned all along. It has become no secret that his greatest vulnerability lies with Independents, who propelled him to election in 2008 but have since grown skeptical of his administration.

Perhaps the President, searching for a means to lure back these pivotal voters without angering the Democratic base and thus risking the progress (no pun intended) his populist turn in the last year has made, figured that he had another option.

Wooing the Center on economic issues would most likely require Clintonesque messaging focused more on growth than “fairness” (read: redistribution) – not exactly what the Left wants to hear. He already enjoys strong approval numbers on foreign policy among Indies, so he can’t really shake up things much in that realm. However, when it comes to social matters – especially issues like contraception and gay marriage – nonpartisan voters increasingly side with the Democrats. So, by bringing social issues to the forefront, perhaps Obama calculated that he could provoke Republicans into caricaturing themselves as champions of the Religious Right, thus scaring Independents away from the GOP and into the Democrats’ open arms.

Maybe I’ve just over-thought this (you don’t say, a political junkie over-analyzing a potentially minor event in a presidential campaign?), and these events have converged merely out of coincidence. Regardless, it appears that we may see yet another piece of conventional wisdom about this election shattered.

Coming into the 2012 elections, North Carolina was nearly universally recognized as the GOP’s best chance for a gubernatorial pickup. Governor Bev Perdue (D) is unpopular and is plagued by low approval ratings and fundraising ethics charges. When she announced last week that she would not be seeking re-election, Democrats breathed a sigh of relief.

However, the now-open race isn’t quite shaking out as they had expected. North Carolina voters with buyer’s remorse over Perdue are ready to elect her 2008 opponent Pat McCrory (R) to the statehouse. The Democrats had some potentially strong challengers to McCrory, but one by one they all began announcing that they wouldn’t run, either.

Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx announced he wasn’t going to run. Senator Kay Hagan announced she wouldn’t run. Winston-Salem Mayor Allen Joines said he wasn’t running. The list kept getting shorter and shorter.

Today, however, the two strongest candidates the Democrats could have fielded both announced they would not be running, either: Heath Shuler and Erskine Bowles. Both are well-known, well-respected moderate Democrats who could have put up quite a fight against McCrory. But neither is interested in the task of taking him on.

Which probably means – unless something goes horribly awry between now and November – we can say hello to North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory. The only announced candidates at the moment are State Rep Bill Faison, Lt Gov Walter Dalton, and former US Rep. Bob Etheridge. McCrory defeats those three by 19, 15, and 15% respectively.

So congratulations, Republicans, on a solid pickup opportunity. All this news today made me wonder, though, as far as the Presidential race was concerned: does this make it easier for Romney to win North Carolina in November? With little chance to win the governorship, Democratic turnout may decline just enough in a state where Obama only won by a razor thin margin anyway. Add to that the fact that superstar Heath Shuler (D) will not be running for re-election for his congressional seat, either, and you have a situation that the Republicans could have only dreamt of a few months ago.

Republicans in North Carolina should be energized this November while Democratic turnout will most likely be depressed. And that means North Carolina just got a whole lot easier for Romney in November.

When Jeb Bush declined to endorse anyone (read: Mitt Romney) in Florida before the votes were cast in yesterday’s primary, journalists and political sideliners were beside themselves trying to read the tea leaves. “See?” many of them intoned, “Jeb doesn’t like Romney either. Nobody likes him. Republicans won’t vote for him.” But Ben White from Politico heard differently from his sources in “Jeb-land”: Jeb would not endorse because he felt that Romney needed to prove he could win without him. (We originally reported this back on the 23rd.)

Well, let it be said now that Romney has proven himself. He won Florida without the explicit support or endorsement of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. In fact, after he fell behind Gingrich in the Florida polls, he did not receive any other ‘establishment’ support. Romney went toe-to-toe with the Giant of South Carolina, mano a mano, and came out victorious – and decisively so.

The fact that he did so without Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio pulling him across the finish line makes it all that more impressive, and makes Romney all that stronger of a candidate for it. Which may just have been Jeb Bush’s (and the establishment’s) plan all along.

A reminder to all of our readers that Governor Mitch Daniels (R-Indiana) will deliver the GOP response to Obama’s State of the Union Address tonight.

As one of several Race regulars who had wanted Daniels to run for president this time, I believe it will be interesting to see his address tonight and to compare it in tone, content, and substance to that of our presidential candidates as well as to Obama.

[Edit] Kavon says: On this topic, here’s the RGA’s new video entitled, “The Veteran”, which promotes Gov. Daniels’ record:

From what I’ve read and heard so far from pundits, one theme seems to be that last night’s debate was poorly done.

Personally, I feel that crowd participation (cheering and booing) cheapens the whole process.   This isn’t American Idol, and candidates playing to the crowd cheapens the feel of it.

The less circus like atmosphere, the better (in my humble opinion).

The only complaint I had is what came after.  Sending the coverage over to MSNBC  for post-debate reaction was a terrible idea.

As regular visitors to Race know, I went out on a limb and publicly endorsed Ron Paul less than a month ago.

As I stated at the time, my residence in Iowa lent my support greater-than-average weight. However, I ended up missing the caucuses, on account of needing to get my appendix removed the same day. So, in the end, my backing didn’t really count for much.

At the time I wrote my endorsement, I explained that I liked Gov. Romney, I just feared that the party base would never completely warm up to him, forever suppressing his political capital upon entering office. I still harbor that concern, but recent events have led me to overlook them, due to the stakes involved.

The recent adoption of anti-capitalistic, anti-free enterprise attacks (and for those naysayers who still scorn private equity, I direct you to this magnificent article) from the Democrats and, most alarmingly, other Republican candidates (I’m looking at you, Newt, Ricky P., and Jon!) has revealed just how important this race has become. This election will not simply come down to a choice between a Democrat and a Republican (although, with the way Gingrich, Perry, and Huntsman have talked lately, you’d be forgiven if you couldn’t tell the difference), it figures to evolve into a choice between European-style social democracy and the vibrant, entrepreneurial capitalistic system America so successfully pioneered.

Indeed, as a brilliant commentator I have often linked to here, Jim Pethokoukis, observed today:

Some conservatives were hoping Rep. Paul Ryan would run for president and challenge Barack Obama — not just on his economic record but also his economic vision for America. Probably no conservative in politics today does a better job than Ryan in contrasting the differences between pro-growth, entrepreneurial capitalism and stagnant, state-managed capitalism. But Mitt Romney did a pretty fair homage to Ryan during his New Hampshire victory speech last night[.]

…Some conservatives have worried that Romney would try to make the election all about Obama’s failures — which gets slightly tougher as the economy slowly improves — rather than making an affirmative argument about where he wants to take America. Romney’s speech sure suggests such worry is unnecessary if he is the eventual nominee.

Well said, sir.

Making my decision even easier, the messaging Romney has featured in the last month, or so, has come as music to my ears. His laser-like focus on his optimistic vision of America’s future – a future complete with growth, opportunity, and rising incomes across the board – sounds precisely the right notes for a Republican presidential candidate. I try to avoid the Reagan comparisons that far too many in the party employ, but Mitt’s “Believe in America” themes bear a striking resemblance to the Gipper’s fabled “Morning in America” campaign ads.

To top it off, Romney’s experience with a Democratic legislature in Massachusetts and his non-ideological posture during the campaign assures me that he will not allow himself to get distracted by partisan flame-throwing and gamesmanship. Sure, he may at times irritate the party base by accepting a less-than-perfect outcome to move the ball forward, but we need that kind of leadership if we truly hope to make a dent in the sad state of our political and financial affairs. As the saying goes, something is better than nothing. An agreement that produces 70% of a desired outcome beats 100% of the status quo.

In the end, while I do not regret my initial endorsement of Dr. Paul, recent events have opened my eyes to the sheer magnitude of the choice we face. A Romney nomination and presidency would afford the opportunity to re-draw the political map (assuming he picks the right running mate and maintains his campaign strategy) and re-orient the Republican Party away from identity politics and toward ideas and solutions. When I picture how a Romney administration might look, I envision Mitt working hand-in-hand with visionaries like Paul Ryan, Pat Toomey, and Vice President Christie, Rubio, or Jindal (my preferences, in that order) to craft and implement landmark reforms to address our economy, deficit, and debt, and I like what I see.

Now is the time. The wishful thinking for white knights and brokered conventions is over. The choice is clear. It’s Mitt.

Mitt Romney absolutely crushed last night’s New Hampshire primary, no doubt about it. Aaron Blake, of the Washington Post, penned an excellent analysis of the returns, detailing just how impressive of a performance Mitt had:

Specifically, the exit polls showed that Mitt Romney is the pick of pragmatists who want to beat President Obama and that everybody else in the field has a very defined base of support that calls into question any chance they may have of winning the GOP nomination.

…The former Massachusetts governor, in his double-digit win, took a stunning 62 percent of those who say they see the ability to beat Obama as the most important characteristic in a nominee, even more than he took in Iowa.

He also led all candidates among those who see the economy as the most important issue, taking 45 percent and doubling up second-place Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on that measure.

This continues to argue for the fact that Republicans see Romney as their best hope for the race ahead, and that bodes well as he inches closer to becoming the presumptive nominee. He does pretty well among essentially every group — even upping his vote share among self-described “very conservative” voters in New Hampshire — and figures to have a good shot at picking up supporters from opponents who may drop out in the coming days.

To top it off, Romney also obviously became the first non-incumbent candidate to win the first two Republican nominating contests. In short, with campaign dynamics leading him to adopt an optimistic message focused on free enterprise, capitalism, and a brighter future, he looks VERY tough to beat, especially with his prospects in South Carolina appearing stronger than some believe.

Former President George W. Bush’s senior speechwriter and dog whistler, Michael Gerson, penned an op-ed in the January 6 edition of the Washington Post in which he suggested that the rise of Rick Santorum represents a return of Bush-style “Compassionate Conservatism.”  In this domain Gerson is somewhat of an expert since he holds one of the patents on the design of the Bush presidency and its rhetoric, complete with dog whistles, aimed at the constituency most responsible for George W. Bush’s nomination in 2000 and his reelection in 2004.

The outcome in Iowa was both electorally inconclusive and politically clarifying. There is a Republican Party, supporting Mitt Romney, that wants to win an election. And there is a Republican Party, supporting Ron Paul, that wants to make a point about limited government.  This division is not entirely ideological. There are rock-ribbed conservatives who believe that the highest political priority is the early retirement of President Obama. There are evangelicals — uncomfortable with libertarianism and the foreign policy of Charles Lindbergh — who have nevertheless joined Paul’s protest against swollen government.  Based on recent history, the party of electability will eventually prevail. Activists rooting for the new (and more extreme) Barry Goldwater will need to explain how he avoids the political fate of the first one.

Okay, fair enough.  Now here is where Gerson gets interesting:

But perhaps the most surprising result of the Iowa caucuses was the return of compassionate conservatism from the margins of the Republican stage to its center. Rick Santorum is not just an outspoken social conservative; he is the Republican candidate who addresses the struggles of blue-collar workers and the need for greater economic mobility. He talks not only of the rights of the individual but also of the health of social institutions, particularly the family. He draws out the public consequences of a belief in human dignity — a pro-life view applied to the unborn and to victims of AIDS in Africa.

Electability Republicans can live with Santorum’s populism and moralism. Anti-government activists cannot and have begun their assault. Santorum is referred to as a“pro-life statist.”David Boaz of the Cato Institute cites evidence implicating him in shocking ideological crimes, such as “promotion of prison ministries” and wanting to “expand colon cancer screenings for Medicare beneficiaries.”

And here he gets even more interesting (and controversial):

But Santorum is not engaged in heresy; he represents an alternative tradition of conservative political philosophy. Libertarians may wish to claim exclusive marketing rights, but there are two healthy, intellectual movements in American conservatism: libertarianism and religious (particularly Catholic) social thought.

Libertarianism is an extreme form of individualism, in which personal rights trump every other social goal and institution. It is actually a species of classical liberalism, not conservatism — more directly traceable to John Stuart Mill than Edmund Burke or Alexis de Tocqueville. The Catholic (and increasingly Protestant) approach to social ethics asserts that liberty is made possible by strong social institutions — families, communities, congregations — that prepare human beings for the exercise of liberty by teaching self-restraint, compassion and concern for the public good. Oppressive, overreaching government undermines these value-shaping institutions. Responsible government can empower them — say, with a child tax credit or a deduction for charitable giving — as well as defend them against the aggressions of extreme poverty or against “free markets” in drugs or obscenity.

This is not statism; it is called subsidiarity. In this view, needs are best served by institutions closest to individuals. But when those institutions require help or protection, higher-order institutions should intervene. So when state governments imposed Jim Crow laws, the federal government had a duty to overturn them. When a community is caught in endless economic depression and drained of social capital, government should find creative ways to empower individuals and charities — maybe even prison ministries that change lives from the inside out.

This is not “big government” conservatism. It is a form of limited government less radical and simplistic than the libertarian account. A compassionate-conservative approach to governing would result in a different and smaller federal role — using free-market ideas to strengthen families and communities, rather than constructing centralized bureaucracies. It rejects, however, a utopian belief in unfettered markets that would dramatically increase the sum of suffering.

In a 2005 speech at the Heritage Foundation, Santorum argued that men and women should not be treated either as “pathetic dependents” or as “radical individuals.” “Someone,” he argued, “always gets hurt when masses of individuals do what is only in their own self-interest. That is the great lie of liberal freedom. .?.?. Freedom is liberty coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self. It is a self-less freedom. It is sacrificial freedom. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye towards the common good.”

Much of Gerson’s analysis and reasoning in the above passages are just plain wrong if not obnoxious.  He uses a favorite tactic of many in his school of politics which is to create a dramatic either or scenario, suggesting that the choice is between extreme, radical libertarianism or his form of moderate theo-social collectivism that he describes as “compassionate conservatism.”  I wonder how Gerson (and Santorum for that matter) would describe the political philosophy of Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher and how he would reconcile that with the void created by his stark either or scenario.  His quotes from Santorum’s Heritage Foundation speech triggered my recall of a very poignant line in a Reagan campaign address in 1980 to a largely urban, working class rally:  “Don’t vote for me because you believe in me, vote for me because you believe in yourselves!”

There are indeed some fundamental differences between libertarianish Goldwater-Reagan conservatism and what Gerson describes as “compassionate conservatism” or “religious social thought.”  Those differences appear most noticeable in the debate over the proper relationship between the individual and the state.  Not surprisingly, I find myself more often in disagreement than in agreement with Gerson, but as to his analogy of Santorum as another George W. Bush and as an advocate of “Compassionate Conservatism” he may be on to something.  After all, Gerson should know, for he is the expert in that domain.  Read the full op-ed here.