Mitt Romney--50,000 Facebook friends.

Sarah Palin? 450,000 Facebook friends.

The disparity is of course, not a good predictor of who gets to be the Republican party nominee for 2012.

Its an interesting contrast and presents an interesting question--what wins an election most?

Even months after the election, I still don't understand why some people voted for Obama. A neighbor reports that his libertarian boss voted for Obama, and then went out and bought an evil black gun the next day...just in case. Wild and wacky stuff as Johnny would say.

I'm bearish on Sarah Palin because frankly, I think Obama has used up the country's willingness to elect a symbol. That may be premature, but consider that if Palin has a shot at the Presidency, it means that Obama failed, and failed miserably. The recriminations will be harsh to say the least. Americans may find themselves in the mood for an economic Eisenhower--someone with the resume and clear ability to lead the country in dangerous times.

That's right up Romney street.

On the other hand, if Obama, but some miracle I don't have the imagination to conceive, rights the wreck of the world economy, calms the troubled international waters and saves us from the doomsday of global warming, then style will be where its at in 2016, and Palin will be young enough and prepared enough to present a very solid candidacy.

Nice to have a queen and a bishop in the game.

Obama is now "the Man."

Senior Brandon Miller wore a shirt with the words, "Hitler gave great speeches, too" above a picture of Obama.

Jim Jones was also a social activist and community organizer.

The lefties will dismiss this as junior Republicans at play, but they are whistling past the graveyard. Adolescents have a well-developed sense that the adults in their lives are actively manipulating them (which of course is true). The fawning coverage of Obama and perhaps more importantly, the emphasis on his historical character makes their antennae twitch and triggers the rebellion instinct.

Its an interesting dynamic, because its precisely opposite of what I experienced during the Reagan era. The establishment view dismissed Reagan as unserious and/or dangerous, and though its likely I didn't appreciate the contradiction, I could appreciate the panic. I was attracted to Reagan specifically because he stood against the establishment.

Opposite, but the same--a reaction against establishment propaganda.

I' ve been gratified by the comments some of you have seen fit to leave on the last post. I even had a neighbor and reader of this blog come to my door last night and ask me if I was serious and whether I couldn't see my way clear to keep going. Well, I did say I'd be part-time, so here's some thoughts I had percolating after last nights dog and pony show.

Updated today....

Have you ever had "that" dream? You know, the one where you are nude in a public place. I've had the dream and so have a lot of other people but last night it came true for Bobby Jindal. He's known for months that he was going to give the Republic response to the State of the Union address and yet when the moment came, he looked like Jay Leno ambushed him on the street to ask him who the Vice President is. A bad performance he could have survived, but this? This was weird.

Jindal is, but all accounts, smart, principled, conservative, in tune with middle-American values, and has a serendipitous skin tone for the times. That might get you to Hollywood, but it won't get you into the final twelve. Jindal is looking like Sanjaya instead of David Cook.

He could get better with coaching, but the reality is you can't teach star quality.

When I heard that Mitt Romney won the CPAC poll, but first instinct was to say, "big deal." He's won it before--twice; with little predictive effect. The reasons for that have been attributed to deck-stacking by Romney people and just the simple fact that the people who attend CPAC aren't terribly representative of Republican primary voters. Yet, something about this particular win kept nagging at me.

Unlike the past couple of years, this CPAC poll isn't strategic in the sense of someone's primary campaign. Jindal and Palin didn't even show, which I suspect was more about not appearing too eager than apathy. David Mark at Politico reflects one way of look at it.

With no unifying Republican figure to rally around after the desultory 2008 elections, the straw poll results reflect tensions among conservatives about how best to oppose the Obama Administration’s agenda – through openly wishing for failure, a sentiment voiced recently by talk show host Rush Limbaugh, or working with the new president at a time when the American public seek a larger role for government amid the deepening recession.

The tension at CPAC must be incredible--all those differing ideas about the 2nd amendment, tax policy, freedom of speech, foreign policy and global warming? What a hell hole!

Yeah, not so much.

What we were really seeing in the fractionalized vote was pre-season betting.

Trim handsome guy, blonde wife, adopted Chinese daughter. Your basic Utah yuppie ideal-->

I've been rather surprised at Huntsman's growing national profile, but since I live in Utah, perhaps I can shed some light on the dynamics of Utah politics and Huntsman place in it all.

Conservatism is cultural in this state, which means that its absorbed by osmosis rather than active intellectual inquiry. Every candidate for higher office establishes their bona fides the same way; faith, family, business success. Rarely do you encounter a issue based race as we saw in Utah 3rd district in 2006 when immigration almost toppled former Congressman Cannon.

Huntsman's political success in Utah has been entirely due to those factors. His family is very well connected to the Mormon church's dynastic families. His maternal grandfather was an apostle of the church, its highest priesthood office. More than one sibling is married into the Hyrum Smith line of descendents. His father is on of the most famous Mormon industrialists in the country and extremely well-regarded in a state that respects that kind of success. Moreover, Huntsman presents a kind of Utah ideal of clean-cut good looks and quiet eloquence, signaling both education and humility.

In short--he looks the part.

Yet Huntsman Jr. is hardly a movement conservative. Cahnman's observation that he's a lot like Romney (or how Romney used to be) is pretty much on the mark. Huntsman Jr. conservatism is cultural, just like almost everyone else in Utah's is, so his political style is pragmatic rather than ideological. He gets by in Utah because with a very conservative legislature in place, his range of action is very limited. Nevertheless, its his work around the margins that bears notice for those of us who pay attention to such things.

Here's the real problem though--Jon Huntsman Jr. is like a faithful husband with an attractive secretary. His wife's trust gives him the latitude to work with a potential rival for his affections. That describes Huntsman relationship with the conservative base in Utah, but as you might imagine, it doesn't translate to the national level.

As a Mormon, from Utah, with liberal stains on his collar, he'd have virtually no chance of establishing the kind of trust with the base that he'd have to have to make his brand of politics work on the national level. In Utah it may be about demographics, but nationally its a clear cut ideological battle.

The "third way" of Republicanism is a mirage created in the Utah desert.

cross-posted at NextRight

Mick cites Mitt:

the Obama administration was wrong to initially defend the bonuses

I don't care about grammar. English doesn't care about grammar. Grammar is a means to an end. The end is clarity with euphony. If infinitive splitting serves that end, well fine, but it rarely does. "To boldly go" well emulates the plonking bathos of Star Trek and works in context, but "boldly to go" is better both for euphony and emphasis. English is not a prescriptive language and Shakespeare is the least prescriptive of writers, yet he split an infinitive but once and that was a special case.

I do not prohibit split infinitives; I prohibit dull language. We use language to think; dull language, dull thought. Keep your tools sharp. I am not that purist of whom the revered Raymond Chandler wrote:

By the way, would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write in a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss-waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will remain split..

Gallup does some polling on the prospects of various well-known Republican presidential hopefuls.

Keeping a low profile seems to have done Huckabee and Romney some good--both have high favorables and low unfavorables--Huckabees being slightly better on both fronts. Sarah Palin on the other hand, seems to benefited from being everywhere. Her book is number one and its not even been released yet (I've got my copy back-ordered from Amazon...).

Huckabee and Romney are too terribly surprising since they worked hard and spent a lot of time and money developing credibility with the public during the Republican primaries. The impression lingers, and a low profile lets tempers cool while events lead people to reconsider. Palin on the other hand, while indisputably a star, has to work hard to overcome the high negatives she acquired (with a lot of help from the left who are in mortal fear of her...). She seems to be on track, with numbers identical to that of Romney.

At least another 18 months before everyone squats in the blocks again, but if the current environment persists, we could see a fascinating dynamic emerging.

If you're an Evangelical voter, who do you like? Palin or Huckabee?

If you're a more traditional Republican voters, more concerned about fiscal issues (and who won't be?), how do you like Romney now?

Predicting what the winning issue is going to be two and three years out is at minimum risky and quite possibly foolish, but its a pretty big hole the Democrats have dug and its not going to get filled in within a year or even two or three. Romney will likely find a more amenable political environment, while Huckabee and Palin find it less to their liking.

It leaves the door open to other candidates with solid fiscal credentials and acceptable conservative bona fides. Haley Barbour has by most accounts, been an excellent governor. He's smart, well-spoken, charming and connected.

Ask me again next year, but right now I'd say that Barbour and Romney--guys with a track record of actually doing things (successfully) are the ones to watch.

When it comes to political calumny, nobody does it better than Mike Huckabee. Political attacks on the character of one's opponents are both effective and highly risky. Most leave it to surrogates to do the dirty work, allowing them to maintain a statesmanlike facade, but Huckabee does his own knife work.

“Some of the people who had excoriated me and really been very dismissive of me for views that I had taken, and labeled me anything from a populist to an ignoramus — the same people have been very defensive [of] and laudatory to Sarah Palin,” Huckabee noted, adding that he’d invited her to appear on his weekly Fox show but “could never get any contact.”

“I’m glad she’s getting the props — I know I’m not nearly as attractive,” he said with a guileless grin.

We know Huckabee well enough now to understand that this is part of his persona--he smarts from not being taken seriously. He resents the popular kids (Romney, Palin). But the real genius here is that Huckabee has taken what might otherwise be considered a personal failing, as turned into a political asset--voters who spend their lives similarly envious of their betters can identify with him, and his success is their success.

And he's almost subtle enough to carry it off--almost.

As Joe and Barack discovered, you attack Sarah at your own risk. Condescend, and you appear to be a boorish misogynist. As Democrats, The Obama team could always find liberal harpies to do their dirty work, but Huckabee has no similar option--I can't even imagine a conservative woman capable of it.

Huckabee has a huge problem with Sarah Palin--they both appeal to the same constituencies, and Palin is vastly more attractive, and not just physically. His polls are still solid, but at this point they are largely generic. When it comes right down to it, Huckabee is going to have a very difficult time raising money, because it will always make more sense to hand the check over to Palin.

Its probably risky at this point to make this call, but I suspect Huckabee will move forward on the basis that Palin could make a mistake, but if he doesn't win Iowa outright, he'll be done.

A lightly-sourced article in Daily Finance has cast doubts on the profitability of Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue" for Harper Collins.

If Palin's advance is as high as $5 million, then HarperCollins wlll need to sell more than 400,000 copies of Going Rogue to cover the advance and expenses for marketing and overhead.

The article produces no evidence to suggest that the book won't see at least that many. There are already 40,000 pre-order at Amazon (mine among them...).

I don't generally waste my time with political autobiographies, because politicians have so much to protect, its rather silly to except a candid memoir. Bill Clinton's massive tome sits on my library shelf unread--a gift used to shim a broken couch rather than for its intended purpose of edifying me into the liberal fold.

Palin's book reminds me of the Monty Python introduction, "...and now for something completely different.." She in naturally candid and at this point in her career, she doesn't owe anything to anyone. Unlike say, Joe Biden or Barack Obama--Sarah Palin's public image isn't the result of political myth-making. She is that rare individual who has achieved political success as a natural outgrowth of her own identity and experience.

Just as importantly, she doesn't owe anything to anyone. She's left Alaska politics behind, and didn't spend long enough in office to have a legacy she needs to defend. She came to national attention in a failed candidacy, so she doesn't have to protect anything there either.

On the other hand, she is running for high political office, so some gilding is to be expected, but far less than we would see for a politician trying to protect a legacy.

A book like this has the potential to cross over into reader constituencies others never would. The absolutely panicked reaction of the left to her selection as McCain's running mate illustrates the point--she appeals. Every woman I know went absolutely ga-ga over her because unlike say--Hillary Clinton, the ladies could identify with her.

A lot of people who would never even buy a book by a politician are going to buy hers, which is why a mainstream publisher like Harper picked up the publication rights. No one really expects her book to sell along partisan lines because there is just as much curiosity about her on the left as there is on the right. Palin is in her mid-forties--she can be expected to be a political force for a couple of decades at least. It pays to know your enemy.

No less than three books about Sarah Palin are due to be published at the same time--including a parody. For all the bad-mouthing, a lot of people are hitching their wagons to this particular engine

Lindsey Graham was just reelected last year, which is lucky for him, because if he were up for election next year, he'd likely lose in a big way.

The Charleston County Republican Party on Monday censured the South Carolina senator for his continued work with Democrats on "cap and trade" legislation and other legislation the GOP disagrees with. One Republican leader in Charleston County told Associated Press that while Graham has often worked with Democrats in Congress, the senator's work on global-warming legislation is "the last straw."

Two new polls show him in terminal free-fall.

With five years to go in his term, he has plenty of time to redeem himself, but the importance of this development is how it contradicts the Democrat narrative about their "mandate". Republicans and blue dog Democrats are going to have their backbones stiffened by this kind of public reaction.

Mitt Romney opening new corporate headquarters in Provo, Utah.-->

Dan Riehl is highly complimentary of Sarah Palin's mastery of new media to become--in his words, Obama's chief antagonist on the right.

The smartest people in the room tend to be early adapters. More than that, they tend to be those that master and successfully exploit the latest of the greatest, the newest of the new. Sarah Palin is the unchallenged, though not unopposed, champion in that regard on the Right for now.

A little more research on Dan's part might have resulted in a different kind of post. Every politician is tweeting and facebooking these days, and Palin's use of these technologies is simply routine at this point.

What is not routine is that Sarah Palin actually writes her own Facebook postings, and that is the extraordinary element of Sarah Palin's political trajectory.

Sarah Palin doesn't fear the electorate.

Contrast that to just about every other politician, including 'my guy' Mitt Romney. I like the way Dan phrased this.

Romney and others stroll halfway down Olympus to write an oped for the Wall Street Journal once in a while, Palin is using a fan blog, Facebook and Twitter to feed and grow her significant influence across the Right on-line.

The conventional wisdom has always been to "stay on message". Presidential campaigns are carefully crafted image-making enterprises, and one must be extremely careful not to disrupt that illusion, or suffer the consequences. This is generally harder for Democrats since their coalition of interest groups is so diverse and feature such contradictory objectives, but its no picnic for Republicans either. Social conservatives are not necessarily fiscal conservatives, and fiscal conservatives are frequently libertarian in their social perspectives.

Sarah Palin's advantage--and its enormous, is that she doesn't have to learn a part--she is the part. In effect, Sarah Palin is a natural distillation of the Reagan coalition, a fiscal and social conservative who says the right thing from instinct rather than coaching. She can post on Facebook with little fear that she'll reveal her inner socialist.

Palin is authentic--true political gold, and it wouldn't matter if she still wrote letters long-hand.

It will be a very interesting next three years...

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post pontificating on the reasons Barack Obama would not and could not emulate Bill Clinton in how the latter dealt with the loss of Congress to the Republicans in his first mid-term election.

Nothing in Barack Obama's history has every prepared him to doubt himself, to consider the possibility that his opinions had nothing short of divine approval.

Democrats don't tell black men that they're wrong.

Today, Barack Obama confirmed me as a fine judge of men.

Obama said, "folks in Washington are in a little bit of a frenzy" over Republican Scott Brown's election to the seat held by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, which has ended the president's 60-seat supermajority in the chamber. But the president vowed to keep battling for health care reform, even as he bluntly conceded that he's facing major roadblocks.

"Now, we've gotten pretty far down the road, but I have to admit, we've run into a bit of a buzzsaw along the way," Obama said. "The long process of getting things done runs headlong into the special interests, their armies of lobbyists and partisan politics aimed at exploiting fears instead of getting things done."

No "the era of big government is over" here, and I doubt we'll hear anything like that during the State of the Union.

Instead we get defiance and an enemies list (although I doubt he uses yellow legal pads...).

This is not going to end well.

[Every presidential election is described as the most important ever, and in truth, all of them have significant implications for the country in some way or another. After more than thirty years, we are still feeling the effects of the Carter administration policies. There is a direct line between the war in Afghanistan and Carter's efforts to arm the mujaheddin.

I invite comment, and particularly emulation within other blogs for the simple reason that we are all better off discussing this among ourselves that allowing the excretable state media to filter our information. Its time for citizens to truly exercise their franchise--first by informing themselves. This is the first in the series...]

Some may be surprised to see Jeb Bush included in a 2012 roster of candidates for the Republican nomination, but after a long period of near public invisibility, he’s been much more politically active lately, lending his considerable political influence to his preferred candidates in Florida and venturing out to Washington and a broadcast network interview with Matt (knee-toucher) Lauer.

Its my fault government doesn't work.

"You know what I think would actually make a difference, Michael? I think if everybody here -- excuse all the members of the press who are here -- if everybody here turned off your CNN, your Fox, your blogs," Obama said, before being interrupted by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, who piped up, "And MSNBC!"

Obama, appropriately reminded of the network with shows more friendly to liberals, continued, "Just turn off the TV -- MSNBC, blogs -- and just go talk to folks out there, instead of being in this echo chamber where the topic is constantly politics. ... It is much more difficult to get a conversation focused on how are we going to help people than a conversation about how is this going to help or hurt somebody politically."

I know I shouldn't be shocked anymore at the things that Obama says in public, but Holy Crap! Did he really just say that the government doesn't work because it's being held accountable by the people (until someone starts paying me to do this, its pretty safe to say that I'm people, rather than media...)?

There have been a lot of jokes made about Obama's narcissism but if you're a Democrat elected official, it has to be dawning on you that he does not give a crap about the party of any of them, just so long as he personally gets what he wants. This particular exchange was with Sen Mike Bennet (D-CO), but he made a similar impression on Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) who begged him to move to the center.

A lot of people have made comparisons between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter, who up until now has been conceded to be the worst American President in living memory by all but the most die-hard liberals. Yet what seemed like mere hyperbole is solidifying into surprising parallels. Both Carter and Obama suffer from a debilitating absence of personal doubt. Obama is now starting to see the same kind of inter-party revolt that Carter did. What do we still need to make this Ground Hog day?

Ted Kennedy started contemplating a run at Carter when polls showed Democrats preferred him 5-3. When he actually threw his hat in the ring, the polls showed they liked Ted 2-1 over Carter, in spite of the fact that Carter hadn't let anyone drown in his car while he saved his own ass.

We might consider taking up a collection for some polls asking Democrats how much better they'd like Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama at this point. Hillary is often a stranger to the truth, but I don't think she's ever been guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

[This is the second in a series evaluating potential candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

As with the other articles, I invite my fellows here at Anatreptic to append their comments directly to the article, while readers may contribute their insights in the comment section. You can read the first article in the series (about Jeb Bush) here.]

Every nomination process has its established figures and me-too candidates. Mike Huckabee certainly fell into the later category in the 2008 presidential nomination process. Although a former governor, Huckabee didn't have a national reputation, didn't have any money and didn't have a chance when he entered the race. He shocked everyone by winning the Iowa primaries, perhaps Mitt Romney more than the rest of us. The only one who wasn't shocked was Mike Huckabee and his staff and close allies. They understood the organization power represented in the Evangelical congregations dotting the Iowa landscape, and leveraged it with Huckabee's own, unassailable Evangelical credentials.

I mentioned the possibility of a primary challenge a little while back.

Hillary make be well-disposed towards taking the risk. If Obama runs and loses, it might well be another eight years before she gets another chance, and she'll be in her early seventies at that point. Its tough for a man to run at that age, much less a woman, and a decade gives rise to a whole new crop of pretenders to the throne. Challenging Obama for the nomination in 2012 might be her last, best chance to try to win the big chair.

I have no special prophetic powers, but I can recognize political opportunity as well as say--Evan Bayh.

In his statement, Bayh, who won the seat to the Senate in 1998, seemed to attribute his decision to the bitter partisan divides that have dominated Congress in recent years, though he praised his colleagues as hard workers devoting to serving the public.

“My decision should not be interpreted for more than it is, a very difficult, deeply personal one,” Bayh’s statement said.

“I am an executive at heart. I value my independence. I am not motivated by strident partisanship or ideology.”

Spend time with the family, yadda, yadda, yadda. Its noteworthy that Bayh is talking about a bitter partisan divide in a Congress totally dominated by Democrats, so either he is telegraphing something about next year's Congress, or he is referring to bitter partisanship within the Jackass party itself.

That aside--read the last sentence. Sounds well, presidential, doesn't it, and a casual slap against the current occupant of the White House?

Bayh's recent attempt to win the nomination fizzled early and fast. I saw him addressing a small group on C-SPAN and clearly not saying anything they wanted to hear. I expect that he thinks he'll find a different reception on the next go around.

This is a short riff on Mick's fine summary of Sarah Palin's prospects a couple of posts ago. I agree with most of it, but let me point up where I differ:

1. Polls that show a heavy preponderance of opinion against her qualifications aren't worth the paper of the pollsters' contracts with the liberal clientele whom the polls are designed (literally designed) to please; it's too far out yet, yes she's still learning, simple polls in match-ups against Obama show her in the ball-park with Huckabee and Romney and she's far more experienced on the national stage now and is battle hardened. Above all she connects. I'll say it again: she connects.

2. Not only would Obama lose against Palin, I assert, but he'd lose against Levi Johnston. Almost the entire political spectrum gets it that Obama is not Presidential timber and, contra Mick, incumbency is a ball and chain right now not a booster rocket.

To put it another way, Obama is a dead parrot:

Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?
Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.
Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour 
ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.
Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.………
Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e 
rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

3. Mick doubts that Palin can "distinguish between a viable strategy and a half-baked idea". Well maybe, but she's been a successful sportswoman, businesswoman, mother, wife, mayor, governor, author and public speaker on the national stage. Also she's a real American and has American values that are both right and timely. She gets it and she connects. So that's a start.

Mostly I'm with Mick on all this, but the relevant comparison isn't with Obama, it's with Romney. As I said before, my heart says Palin, my head says Romney/Palin. I really like Romney and Scott Brown's endorsement of Romney at CPAC yesterday is beyond price. Romney's speech was pretty good too. But America is at a crossroads and history is moving very fast now. It may yet be that Palin is the transformative leader for the time, tho Romney be more competent, more "qualified".

On Mark On Mick On Palin:

I'm not as quick as Mark is to dismiss the polls on Palin's approval/disapproval ratings. I've had enough anecdotal evidence to help me believe that they are largely accurate. The real question isn't whether the poll is accurate, but whether the perception is accurate. Mitt Romney is a case in point. As many know, Romney was accosted on an outbound flight from Vancouver. His behavior is described as entirely appropriate from beginning to end. Those who know Romney--like the thousands who had personal contact with when he headed up SLOC in the late 90s, are not in the least bit surprised by this. Everyone I know who knew him, always described him as an extremely thoughtful and considerate man--a true gentleman. Nevertheless, his political enemies have succeeded in creating an alternate bizarro Romney characterization in the public mind, but as time passes, Romney true character is displacing the caricature. John Edwards experienced the same process--his private character eventually became his public character.

Sarah Palin is going through the exact same process, but rather than finding out that the public perception was incorrect, Americans appear to be confirming their initial perceptions--nice lady, admirable lady, pretty lady, you betcha. Genius? Not so much. Let's wait another year and see if that changes.

As for Obama's reelection prospects--Romney wisely pointed out that the economy will in fact recover, and it won't have much to do with Mr. Obama, who turned an ordinary recession into a Great one. The point is well-taken--things will change between now and November 2012. A cardinal rule of sales and politics is that fear is a better motivator than profit. McCain, as bad a candidate as he was, was still doing pretty well until the bottom fell out of banking. In the ensuing tumult, Obama appeared to be the better bet for a return to stability. McCain sank without a trace.

With this in mind, consider two scenarios--Palin v. Obama is a period of relative stability and Palin v. Obama in a period of tumult and crisis. Presidents always benefit from stability--people prefer the devil they know. If there had been no Iranian hostage crisis, Carter would have won a second term. In a crisis, its really up to the challenger to exude superior leadership qualities. Reagan exuded leadership but the rarely mentioned fact of his landslide victory over Carter was that he won a bare plurality of the popular vote--50.7%

Palin is no Reagan, who in additional to his remarkable charm and confidence, was a guy who knew his stuff. Its just my opinion of course, but Mark's comments suggested that I needed to clarify my thought process somewhat better than I initially did.

On Mark's final point--yes, Palin "gets it", and while that is a major asset to any politician in an election campaign, its half-a-loaf when it comes to governance. 'Getting it' means that you know how to sell your agenda to the public, but first you have to formulate the right policies. Obama famously contrasted McCain's experience with his superior judgment, fooling a good many Americans who don't know that you can't have one without the other. Palin is simply no combat veteran when it comes to problem-solving. Give me the old, battle-scarred sergeant to lead me into battle every time.

Love ya Mark. You are more fun that a barrel of monkeys.

DAVE'S COMMENTS: I'm with Mick on Palin's chances against Obama in 2012 - it isn't 2010. Just like 2010 isn't 2008. If Republicans make great gains this year, they may have enough time to screw things up for 2012 (or at least be painted that way).

When Palin was nominated VP, I didn't think she was qualified/experienced to be President. That was the beauty of her selection - if she wasn't qualified, what did that say about Obama? Ironically, the more conservatives got to know her the better we thought she would be than McCain - what's that say about our political process?

But Mark points out the proper comparison. Palin vs. Romney. As long as there is an extremely competent executive option, such as Romney, I'll choose that first.

Mark on Dave on Mick on Mark on Mick on Palin:

I just needed to write that. That is all!

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Romney-Palin, 2012", so I'm glad that Palin seems open to it. Looks, fertility, life experience, sunniness, energy .... versus what? Obama/Biden - desiccated phonies with no experience of business or middle America who apologize for America's past and exude pessimism about America's future; the culture of life v the culture of death.

Bring it on.

Romneycare and Obamacare are the same thing and that thing is socialism. "The individual mandate", ie compulsory health insurance, is an unconstitutional outrage.

Now when you're a conservative governor of a lib-leaning state it's pretty tough to stay ideologically pure, but that's not the standard here. There are some lines that shouldn't be crossed.

Romneycare does have mitigation. There's a profound difference between a state law and a federal law and Romneycare is a somewhat coherent, bi-partisan expression of the will of the voters of Massachusetts rather than the stinking crap sandwich with which Obama is choking an unwilling America, but there's no getting round the point that Romney implemented a technocratic solution to a problem that is primarily and rightly ideological. Moreover judged by technocratic criteria of medical provision and economy, Romneycare run by Deval Patrick and the Democrats is an utter flop:

The system is riddled with waste, and quality of care is uneven. Government health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid threaten future generations with an enormous burden of debt and taxes. Given these pressures, the temptation for a quick fix is understandable.

But, as Massachusetts has shown us, mandating insurance, restricting individual choice, expanding subsidies, and increasing government control isn’t going to solve those problems. A mandate imposes a substantial cost in terms of individual choice but is almost certainly unenforceable and will not achieve its goal of universal coverage. Subsidies may increase coverage, but will almost always cost more than projected and will impose substantial costs on taxpayers. Increased regulations will drive up costs and limit consumer choice.

The answer to controlling health care costs and increasing access to care lies with giving consumers more control over their health care spending while increasing competition in the health care marketplace - not in mandates, subsidies, and regulation. That is the lesson we should be drawing from the failure of RomneyCare.

Adamscare by the way is: No government involvement in healthcare other than as a safety net for children and those who put themselves at risk for the public good. The most obvious outcome will be healthier, happier, richer citizens, but the most satisfying outcome will be that liberals will no longer get to feel good about themselves by giving away my money.

So where does this leave Romney? Is he viable? Yes he is. He's a strong executive when America is sick from communityorganizerocracy, the swing voter doesn't care so much about ideology and every candidate has major difficulties in their record. Those fade if the candidate looks electorally attractive at the national level.

Probably one of the few very interesting things I've read on politics lately.

What you learn from Heilemann’s sources is that Bloomberg is seriously considering a presidential run; that his close aide Kevin Sheekey is “eagerly monitoring” Americans Elect, a group that plans to hold a “web-based convention” to nominate a “balanced presidential ticket” and place it on the 2012 ballot in all 50 states; and that, if he runs, Bloomberg is prepared to spend between $1 to $3 billion on his campaign.

Estimates are that there was 4 billion spent on this election cycle--contemplate the possibility that one single candidate could spend more than half that on his campaign. Bloomberg is not particular well-known outside of New York and wonky political circles, but 2 billion buys a lot of name recognition. That fact, and his relatively centrist policy positions is going to draw votes, but from whom?

A lot depends on what Obama's popular support is in two years, which again depends on a whole host of variables, only one of which appears to be in his control--what Obama does. If things are still bad economically, as projections seem to indicate that they will be, Bloomberg could peel off a lot of traditional Democrats, perhaps getting some union endorsements in the bargain.

It strikes me though that Bloomberg contemplating a run is pretty much a case of the man realizing all of a sudden, "Hey, I'm a Democrat Mitt Romney!"

The election would in effect play like an old joke--a Mormon, a Jew and a Muslim-slash-black version of Ayran Christian, go into a bar...

My guess is that Bloomberg is hoping Sarah Palin announces her candidacy.

The leaked U.S. diplomatic cables aren't really telling us a lot that we don't already know, but it is interesting to see how the sausage is made.

Seeking a frank evaluation of Argentina's president, the office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires late last year to delve into her psyche.

"How is Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner managing her nerves and anxiety?" asked a cable dated Dec. 31, 2009, and signed "CLINTON" in all capital letters.

The cable, sent at 2:55 p.m. on New Year's Eve, and originating in the department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, asked a series of other probing questions as part of what it said was an attempt by her office to understand "leadership dynamics" between Kirchner and her husband, former President Nestor Kirchner.

"How does stress affect her behavior toward advisors and/or her decision making?" the cable continued. "What steps does Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner or her advisers/handlers, take in helping her deal with stress? Is she taking any medications?"

Delving into the personalities of foreign counterparts may be integral to modern diplomatic give-and-take. But the bluntly worded cable asking about the Argentine leader's "nerves" and "emotions" may further test up-and-down relations between Washington and Buenos Aires. The cable suggests that Washington saw Kirchner and her husband as perhaps prone to emotional instability.

Similar evaluations have revealed some candid assessments about Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy.

All well and fine, but what I would like to know is what do world leaders think of Obama?

Now that would make for some interesting reading.

Can he change his spots?

I've written and discussed this on several occasions but I think Jonah Goldberg makes the most well-founded prediction about Obama's prospects for 'triangulating' his way into the electorate's good graces.

Many of the foreseeable opportunities for Obama to triangulate reside outside of his control. For instance, as Ramesh noted in the magazine, Clinton’s rehabilitation began with the Oklahoma City bombing. He gave a good speech and then cynically used the tragedy to demonize the GOP and conservative talk radio. Obama certainly can’t plan on something like that and, heaven forbid, should such a tragedy transpire, milking it for political advantage comes with profound risks for Obama.

Moreover, the big kahuna of Clinton’s race to the center was his signing of welfare reform. I’m open to correction, but it seems to me the only major legislation coming down the pike of similar stature and ideological resonance would be the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Will Obama really sign such a thing? I doubt it.

Also, Obama is a much worse salesman than Bill Clinton. There’s still a debate about whether Obama is even a good salesman at all. But if the health-care debate (never mind Copehagen, Seoul, etc.) demonstrated anything, it is that Obama is not nearly the closer his fans thought he was. For a year, the White House said Obama was one more speech away from sealing the deal, and after every speech Obamacare seemed a bit less desirable.

Last, a related point. Forget whether Obama is too ideologically rigid to move to the center. I think he’s too arrogant to admit he was wrong about anything significant. That constrains his options for how to triangulate. He’ll point fingers at Pelosi and the congressional Dems (and since he outsourced his domestic policy to them, he’s got ample ammo), but he won’t admit blame save for weaselly stuff like “I underestimated how evil the Republicans are.” That’s a big liability when you’re trying to convince voters you’ve learned the right lessons from the midterms.

I also agree with Goldberg's assessment about the unlikelihood of a primary challenge, but not for the same reasons he expresses.

The white left will not take responsibility for destroying the reelection chances of the first black president.

The left is far less susceptible to sensitivity about racism than any conservative politician. Its like the homeless--they disappear as an issue when they are no longer useful, and so would issues of race if the party thought replacing Obama as its nominee would improve the party's fortunes. The real problem here is that its not a saleable proposition to blame Obama for the party's problems. Obama hasn't been driving a personal agenda, he's been driving the Progressive consensus, and the polls show it. Obama remains personally popular, while the party's policies are political losers from A to Z. There simply is no viable candidate for the nomination better than the sitting President.

Broadly-speaking, Goldberg is entirely correct--Obama really has no real tools to recast him image without alienating his base beyond their tolerance. Its been interesting to talk to some of my liberal-progressive friends and hear a tacit resignation to Obama being a one term President. That in fact is not a good sign for conservatives who have benefited considerably from the Democrat's mass delusion or recent months.

The ball is in the Republican's court, and considering that we lost at least two races that were gimmes because we picked the wrong candidate, the main threat to Republican victory in 2012 is making Sarah Palin the nominee. Questions about whether she is qualified or not are immaterial to the larger issue--if her polls are as bad as they are now, with Obama weak and a candidacy entirely theoretical, then its a pretty safe bet they won't get much better in 2012.

It has been a couple of days since Obama signaled his concession to the Republican agenda by agreeing to extend tax cuts to all Americans for the next two years. While its always been alleged by Conservatives that Democrats were the party of tax and spend, I don't recall during my life-time, such a denouement of the Left's true agenda--confiscation of private wealth through class warfare. The seething anger towards Obama and the enemy--any one who is not a Democrat, has broken their rhetorical composure and released the truth from their own lips.

They hate us, they want our money.

I heard the other day that 80% of Obama's donors are very upset, which if true, bodes ill for his reelection. Never mentioned, but always at the front of my mind is a simple fact--rich Democrats can still contribute to the federal treasury in excess of the established tax rates, but don't hold your breath. Several creditable surveys suggests that most Democrats follow the Joe Biden model of charitable giving--they don't.

Still, in all this unintentional honesty by the Left, there is still no explanation as to why the Democrats, who controlled the entire Federal government, did not dispose of the Bush tax cuts at any time in the past two years. Obviously there is some political benefit to simply letting them expire, but the risk that they would be in exactly the situation they find themselves in has been increasingly obvious over the past year. Could it be that Democrats actually understand the economic benefits of lower taxes? It sure looks that way since the middle class tax cut represents a far greater loss of revenue than what we find in the top tier and a 1/3 cut (albeit temporary) of the social security tax can only be construed as Republican-style stimulus.

What is really perplexing is Obama's political tactics. His speech was, well weird and almost certainly counter-productive. He pointed out that he had run on raising taxes on the rich, which only served to highlight his political weakness. Oddly enough, his anger at Republicans, the Professional left and Congressional Democrats seemed genuine, but guaranteed to isolate his administration even further. More to the point, he lost a perfect opportunity to pivot and turn an inevitable concession into an expression of Presidential courage. In something less than two years from now, should a stable tax policy start creating jobs and improving the economy, Obama will be hard-pressed to take credit for it and should he try, YouTube videos of his remarks will be placed into heavy rotation to remind the American public how he had to be dragged by his heals to get him to do it.

Its a little early to tell, but as I stated in an earlier post (well before the mainstream media noticed it--do they read Anatreptic?), Obama may well have a 'read my lips' problem on his hands. Obama's polls over the past year have made it clear how thorough he has alienated everyone to the left of Che Guevara and now apparently, with this concession, he has lost the enthusiastic support of his base.

The Republican primary just got a lot more interesting.

I like Sarah Palin for President. I very much like the idea of a Palin win as a symbol of contempt for the Frankfurters who have re-colonized America. How about a Palin/Coulter ticket to maximise the number of exploding heads?

I also like Mitt Romney for President. If Romneycare is the main strike against him, well you have to allow that he was operating as the only non-socialist branch of the Massachusetts government.

But who is the over-achiever who most appeals to my dry sense of humour? Why this gentleman:

McConnell/Gingrich 2012! Because old white men have feelings too....maybe.

Through the latter part of the nineties and the early part of the last decade, the talk was about getting the money out of politics. Now its seems, it's become routine for a Presidential election to cost a billion dollars.

Bracing for a half-billion-dollar onslaught of outside GOP cash in 2012, President Barack Obama’s advisers are quietly working to bring back together the major donor base that produced a record-breaking fundraising haul in his first run for president.

In another decade or so, we may well be looking back on the billion dollar elections as cheap as more citizens, both American and corporate, realize how important the government, and especially the Presidency, is to everyone's activities and aspirations.

Obama raised 750 million for the 2008 election, and while his campaign team would no doubt like to repeat that, there are a lot more obstacles now than there were then. First and foremost is that this will no longer be the prospect of an historic presidency. You can only be the first black President once. No one really has any idea how much of his 2008 haul was due to the electorate Messiah infatuation, but my gut tells me that it was a lot; perhaps as much as 25%. All those people putting 20 bucks on their credit cards for Obama won't have either the motivation, or sadly, the spare twenty.

The Democrat's community-activist culture that roils in an endless cycle, of producing rage and providing targets for it, served to bite the hand that bankrolls them. Wallstreet isn't happy about being cast as the villain and resents the punitive measures taken against them by the former Democrat-controlled Congress.

Among the fundraising meccas that could prove most vexing is New York City, which ranked as the top metropolitan fundraising source for Obama’s presidential campaign three years ago, producing $42 million in donations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan tracker of political money.

A good chunk of that cash came from hedge fund investors who were drawn to Obama’s pledges to usher in a new way of doing things in Washington. Although the White House sent senior aides, such as Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Austan Goolsbee, to try to assuage the angst, not everyone has been mollified.

Daniel Loeb, founder of the Third Point Management hedge fund, wrote a scathing December rant to fellow Obama Wall Street bundlers – fundraisers who tap their own networks of friends to drive cash to the campaign — suggesting the perfect holiday gift for each of them: A book about battered wives who can’t leave their abusive husbands.

Political giving isn't sentimental by and large. The big bucks come from people with skin in the game, and with Democrats talking out both sides of their mouth over the past couple of years, the sense of betrayal is palpable.

Ultimately though, the best incentive for political giving comes from looking like a winner. While the talking points are about come back, people who donate serious money aren't easily gulled by the media dog and pony show. They can see which way the political winds are blowing for themselves and if Obama doesn't make some dramatic headway, a lot of donors will hedge their bets or simply look for a better return on their investment in other races.

Its a virtual certainty that the economy will be of no help to Obama or anyone else in the next two years. The recent elation over a small decrease in the unemployment rate is completely pathetic in light of how long the economy would have to roar like a twenty-thousand dollar crate motor just to recover the jobs lost since 2008. Sadly, as unlikely as that scenario is, it's what would be required before we could even begin to resolve the housing depression.

Frankly, I can't imagine any series of events, including a traditional wag-the-dog war, that could really turn this around except some really, really, really stupid moves by Congressional Republicans and/or the eventual nominee. Are you listening Sarah?

On the other hand, Republicans find themselves once again, in a remarkable confluence of good fortune. Congressional Republicans look to be a serious bunch and wired into the public mind for the most part. The enemies the Obama administration has made no longer fear him, and money on the Republicans looks like a safe bet. The worst that can happen is Obama gets another term--with a Republican Congress. If I was in the energy business (and I am...), I'd pull out that checkbook early and often.

Add to that the new reality of American media--we are no longer out-manned and out-gunned. We have, dare I suggest it, achieved rough parity, at least of a quality that what we used to call the mainstream media can no longer depend on an unchallenged narrative. The irony is that with the end of the de jure fairness doctrine in the late eighties, we have replaced it with a de facto fairness doctrine, where every point of view can be weighed in the balance with an opposing perspective with a mere click of the remote control or the mouse.

I may be somewhat premature in making this assessment, but I really think we are on the brink of an American renaissance. Let us banish the darkness.

Romney-Palin 2012

The ticket makes sense for both of them.

He brings her:

• Gravitas


• Presidentiality


• Corporate knowhow


• The North East and Michigan

• Pzazz


• An antidote to Romneycare


• The Tea Party


• Fox


• A knife and a gun


• Balls

See also:

• A good-looking ticket


• Mark on Dave on Mick on Mark on Mick on Palin

What's a winning strategy for the 2012 Republican nomination? For the presidential race?

...presidential strategists find themselves in the same position as two characters in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, in which a computer deduces that the answer to the Great Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is—42. The problem is, the baffled characters don’t know what the question itself is. This is a situation GOP candidates might find themselves in. Each may have an answer—they’re experienced, conservative, etc.—but which question primary voters ask is still not obvious.

The 2008 primaries were a rare opportunity to really study and understand the nomination process and the intangibles that surround it. The smart money was bet on the wrong people in both instances. John McCain's campaign collapsed early on, but he improbably fought back to win the nomination in spite of dismal debate performances, old age, a conflicted position on immigration and a host of other now obvious failings. Barack Obama? Perhaps a little less mysterious. Clean, well-spoken black man was a pretty strong hand.

In both cases, the low-information voter was critical to the process. These are people who come out to vote in the primaries, but are operating under an ill-defined impression of the candidates, often a completely erroneous impression. Surveys after the primaries revealed that many Florida primary voters actually thought John McCain opposed illegal immigration, just as southern voters in 1976 thought that Jimmy Carter, a southern governor, couldn't possibly be in favor of busing (he was...).

Impressions are apparently the currency of the primary nomination process.

Taking this into account, we can predict somethings.

First of all, I would say that anyone who doesn't have a strong national reputation at this point, has no real chance to win. I think a lot of prospective candidates are actually running for the undercard, hoping to be a running mate to the eventual nominee, and thus get a leg up on some future race. That leaves Palin, Huckabee, Romney and possibly Newt Gingrich.

Let's think of this as casting, where each character represents a stereotype. Palin is Mama Grizzly, the combative, self-sufficient pioneer Mom. Huckabee is the bonhomme for Jesus, genial, pious with God on his side. Romney is the well-spoken, smart, somewhat stiff business guy and Gingrich is whte well-spoken, smart, somewhat prickly academic guy.

You may think I'm leaving a lot of things out, but recall that we are talking about general impressions for low-information voters. They are more likely to know that Romney is a Mormon than anything about so-called Romneycare (remember the ignorance over McCain's position on illegal immigration...).

Zeitgeist--German for "the spirit of the times" creates the defining dynamic in the choice of a nominee, and it's clear that things have changed over the past couple of years. The war is less of a concern and the economy has moved up in the rankings, but voters also want to trust their candidate, and that trust is an elusive and cryptic quality. Ronald Reagan had it in spades, in part because he was so perfectly consistent in his positions over a very long time.

This is Sarah Palin's wheelhouse. She practically defines authentic conservatism in every aspect of her life, speech and positions. On the other hand, she has very little to recommend her when it comes to the major issues of the day, i.e. competence.

The same is true for Huckabee, which is problematic for both of them because they are splitting the same voter base. If they are both in the running, I expect a lot of negotiations geared at getting the other to bow out.

Newt Gingrich is an interesting case, because while he is well-known, I suspect most low-information voters don't really know for what. Even though he has a national reputation, he is for all intensive purposes, in a position more similar to Mitch Daniel's or Tim Pawlenty's than Palin, Huckabee or Romney. He hasn't made an impression on the low information voter in the same way that he has with his fellow wonks.

Romney is golden in terms of the zeitgeist. The economy is his wheelhouse, and he will never have a better chance to be elected President. Yet in spite of the strides he's made in burnishing his conservative credentials over the past three years, it's an open question about whether this has penetrated the low information voter's consciousness. Romney has to erase the doubts to close the deal.

The French have a concept of their Presidents as l'homme providentiel, which often gets translated as 'great man', but is more accurately defined as a man for the times. American Presidential elections are based on largely the same concept--a man or woman running for President has to be right for the times. Very often, providence gets defined as 'not like that last guy'. As strength defined the past nomination process for Republicans, I think competence is going to be the theme this time around.

Mark comments:

"On the other hand, she has very little to recommend her when it comes to the major issues of the day, i.e. competence."

I don't see it that way.

Preceding everything is "competence to do what?" I agree with Palin across the board so far and I agree that her politics are genuine. So that's a good start - she'll do stuff I want done.

I also like Romney plenty, but Palin's life experience tho very different is as rich. I put life experience ahead of corporate experience. They both have good business experience.

The big strike against Palin is her present polling among independents, as you say, but polls this far out have been lousy indicators. The primaries create massive unfiltered exposure to the candidates. That will likely change the polls. If there's ever been a candidate with 'Zeitgeist', it's Palin now. Romney-Palin is my forecast.

Mick Replies:

Two comments about Mark's perspective. The first is that Palin hasn't really had much filtering, or should I say, effective filtering. The irony is that Palin's strength being her authenticity, she has never sought to present a facade the way, say Hillary Clinton has. No one really knows who the real Hillary Clinton is, but after a reality show, frequent exposure as a Fox commentator, and a best selling book, we know who Sarah Palin is, and while many of us like and admire her for it, a significant part of the country thinks it's awful. It's doubtful that Palin's polls are going to change much simply because she is not going to present the 'unknown Sarah Palin' in a campaign.

Secondly, when I question her competence, its not the hard bigotry and chauvinism of the left motivating it, but rather a realistic appraisal of the biggest challenge a President faces--authoritative, compelling and contradictory advice. We've seen this problem with every President to one degree or another--out of their depth, they rely on the advice of 'the professionals' and more often than not, they are getting bamboozled.

In January, after taking what looked like a right-turn, Barack Obama climbed back to 50% approval ratings.

Rasmussen notes in a recent poll that he's slid back down to 44% with a massive 41% 'strongly disapprove' rating.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

In Wisconsin, scene of the taxpayer-funded protest of taxpayer interests, polls show Walker getting 48% support while the unions get 38%. This is Wisconsin folks, traditionally one of the Democrat bastions of the country, home state of Sen. Russ Feingold where Barack Obama won its 10 electoral votes with 56% of the popular vote, versus 42% for the lamentable John McCain.

The debt crisis is so obvious, and the current economic situation so precarious, that the traditional arguments for preserving government spending simply find no traction. Planned Parenthood was defunded. Planned Parenthood! Yet, scarcely a whimper from the media. Can NPR be far behind?

Democrats, who built the party on redistributing your wealth to those they deemed more deserving, are finding themselves in a perfect storm. Not only do they portend to lose a herd of sacred cows in deficit-reduction legislation, but the cash cows are under threat as well. Traditional union membership has cratered over the past few years, mostly because traditionally unionized industries are falling by the wayside to more robust (and non-union) competitors. The one bright spot has been public service unions, with their stranglehold on governments who simply could not, as public sector companies do, 'lock-out' employees as a counter to the more egregious union demands.

Making the unions collect their own dues and renewing their certification every year brings balance back to the Force, but also puts a serious crimp in the finances of the Democrat party, which depends heavily on union political spending.

Consider two blog posts. One which details a clear and itemized strategy for recalling one of the Wisconsin Senate Democrats and adding a Republican vote to break the impasse, and other (TPM Cafe) which alleges some nebulous possibility of turning a 'moderate' Republican to their views. Which side do you think is winning?

Any Democrat elected official has to be asking him or herself what their voting record should look like in advance of the 2012 election. Obama preserves the Bush tax regime, his polls rise. Obama presents a risible budget and throws his weight behind the public service unions in Wisconsin; his polls decline. This could quickly become a bi-partisan effort and make it extraordinarily difficult for the President to veto, say, a repeal of Obamacare (also incidentally supported by a plurality of voters...).

The next couple of years are going to very, very interesting; if we can survive them.

Sarah Palin appears to be smarter than her critics give her credit for.

Ms. Palin has agreed to appear in suburban Lakewood at a "Tribute to the Troops with Sarah Palin," a fundraiser for the families of fallen soldiers in suburban Denver. John Andrews, a former GOP gubernatorial nominee who heads the Centennial Institute, says Ms. Palin will not accept a fee and all proceeds from the event will go to family members who have lost breadwinners in combat.

The political significance of her acceptance lies in the fact that the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library is set to hold the first debate among presidential candidates on May 2, an event moderated by Brian Williams of NBC and John Harris of Politico.com. "Presumably, this means she will be doing [the fundraiser] instead of any other engagement on the second [of May]," Mr. Andrews told the Denver Post.

One cannot overestimate Sarah Palin's political advantages for a run at the nomination. She's a proven fund-raiser with an enthusiastic constituency among a certain kind of American conservative. By the same token, one cannot overestimate her liabilities. She practically defines what it means to be 'polarizing'. A succession of polls have shown her faring poorly against Barack Obama, even as her expected rivals project to win.

Apparently, Palin, 47, has taken stock and opted for discretion over valor. As a relatively young woman for politics, Palin has more than one shot at higher office, and the time would be well-used to enhance her resume and work on her public image.

In terms of the nomination race, her role could be very interesting. She is currently polling at 11 percent in Iowa, Huckabee, unsurprisingly, is leading, but by low single digits over Romney. The question arises--who are Palin voters and what do they think of the other candidates?

My perceptions are anecdotal, but consistent. Palin is very popular in Utah, as is Romney. I've not encountered anyone that liked Palin who didn't also like Romney. Palin is admired for her principles and dynamism. Romney is admired for his principles and talent. What Palin is not, is another Mike Huckabee--she is not a Jesus candidate, although Evangelicals can hardly object to the clarity she brings to issues like abortion. Her popularity derives from her authenticity and its problematic to calculate how voters motivated by that characteristic will choose an alternate candidate. My guess is that there is little overlap between a Huckabee and Palin voter. The 2008 nomination process made it very clear that Huckabee drew extremely narrowly from an Evangelical base, and it's a reasonable assumption that if you aren't for Huckabee in the first place, you never will be. That creates a very interesting scenario, where Palin's vote is up for grabs.

Huckabee leads Romney in Iowa, where he won back in 2008, but with Palin out, those votes could conceivably go to Romney in large enough numbers to make the state competitive.

Then of course there is the very real possibility that Huckabee won't run at all. There are few if any signs of a Huckabee ground team in Iowa, other than a 2 day book tour.

Additionally, he's not talking like a candidate, which is odd considering that he did well enough in 2008 to make himself one of the front runners in this cycle.

The reason may be that Huckabee wasn't particularly sophisticated about what it would take to become the President in the modern era. He's one of the few elected officials in the country who actually made more money if office than as a private citizen. As a Fox contributor and host, Huckabee is making more money now than at any other time in his life. Unlike some, I'm not suggesting that this is the reason he is demurring on a run, but it does suggest that he was uninformed about the financial cost of running for President. He's no longer naive on that point, and is wisely asking himself the question of whether he could financially survive a failed attempt the way say, Mitt Romney could.

What initially looked like a gang fight for the Republican nomination, may well end up with Romney, Gingrich and a gaggle of near-unknowns.

The news today is just one more reason I'm an enthusiastic Romney supporter.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has spent the better part of the last five years working to convince conservatives that he is one of them. And, if the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll is right, he’s done it.

Sixty percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view the potential GOP presidential candidate favorably, while just 21 percent see him in an unfavorable light.

That’s an improvement from where he stood in early January 2008 – in the heart of the GOP primary fight – when 55 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents viewed him favorably and 36 percent felt unfavorably toward him. And back in November 2007, Romney’s favorable score stood at 42 percent while 28 percent felt unfavorably toward him in Post/ABC data.

I remind you of what the 'smart people' were saying in 2007 and 2008. Romney is too liberal and Mormon to win the nomination. Those same smart people were predicting failure for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics as well, which wasn't too much of a feat of prognostication, since SLOC was mired in a bribery scandal and the planning effort was in shambles. Romney is generally acknowledged as being really smart; incandescent as one talk show host put it, but his most admirable quality is his uncanny ability to see a path to success where lesser mortals surrender themselves to despair.

His 'reinvention' was a matter of persistence, planning and execution, qualities that are likely to become even more obvious during the nomination process. You can bet that Mike Huckabee has been watching Romney very closely over the past couple of years, and frankly, that may be the real reason he is choosing discretion over valor where it concerns his own presidential ambitions.

It's an interesting contrast with Sarah Palin

For the first time in Post-ABC News polling, fewer than six in 10 Republicans and GOP-leaning independents see Palin in a favorable light, down from a stratospheric 88 percent in the days after the 2008 Republican National Convention and 70 percent as recently as October.

In one sense, the poll still finds Palin near the top of a list of eight potential contenders for the GOP nomination. The former vice presidential candidate scores a 58 percent favorable rating, close to the 61 percent for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and 60 percent for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and better than the 55 percent that onetime House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) received.

But Palin’s unfavorable numbers are significantly higher than they are for any of these possible competitors. Fully 37 percent of all Republicans and GOP-leaning independents now hold a negative view of her, a new high.

In another first, fewer than 50 percent of Republican-leaning independents — 47 percent — hold favorable views of Palin.

I find this fascinating because Sarah Palin had almost the exact same problem Romney had in 2008. No she's not liberal and Mormon, but she did have an image problem nevertheless. The media narrative has been that Palin is ill-educated and perhaps not to bright. Clearly she needed to do something along the lines of what Romney did to realign the narrative in a more personally favorable direction. Inexplicably, Palin only seemed interested in making things worse, with hastily contrived, overly aggressive and rhetorically heavy-handed statements.

The contrast couldn't be more striking. Romney is analytical, plans for success and demonstrates enormous discipline in execution. Palin is charismatic, instinctual and shoots from the hip. Those aren't objective bad characteristics, but the are certainly proving problematic in a campaign for the presidency.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that Huckabee won't be running in 2012.

While Romney, Tim Pawlenty and other likely candidates snap up key staffers ahead of announcing their runs, Huckabee has stayed on the sidelines even as his former staffers sign on with other candidates. Chip Salzman, Huckabee's campaign manager in 2008, is now chief of staff for freshman Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.), though he says he could jump ship for a Huckabee run. Cliff Hurst, Huckabee's New Hampshire co-chair, has signed on with Pawlenty; so did one of Huckabee's top operatives in Iowa in 2008, Eric Wollson. Prominent New Hampshire Republican Ruth Griffin, a high-profile Huckabee supporter in the last cycle, has come out publicly for Romney.

While much of the speculation about Huckabee has been based on assumptions and the absence of pre-campaign activity, the reallocation of key staffers is pretty much a solid evidence that the Governor is giving 2012 a pass.

A few days ago, I mentioned that there was a distinct possibility that the Republican field would consist of Romney, Gingrich and a gaggle of unknowns. We are one step closer to that, but Huckabee's ambivalence creates new opportunities for Sarah Palin.

Does Palin inherit the Evangelical meek? There is a temptation to oversimplify the Evangelical voting dynamic and simply put them into Palin's inbox, but while she is strongly identified with Evangelical social issues, it's not all sunshine and puppies. Many traditional Evangelicals will look askance at the compatibility between her role as a mother to her children and the demands of the Presidency. Then there is the very real concern that she will embarrass Evangelicals in a way that Mike Huckabee would not.

I have no doubt that she'd get some of the Evangelical vote, but I find it doubtful that she could concentrate it the way Mike Huckabee did so successfully in 2008 (It's notable that Romney and McCain drew significant portions of the Evangelical vote in the South, in spite of Mike Huckabee's native son identification...).

For Palin, the real question has always been "now or later". Challenging an incumbent President is always daunting and much more difficult than winning an open election. There have only been 12 Presidents that served a single elected term and only three in the last century. While Obama is certainly having a Jimmy Carter kind of Presidency, it is by no means a done deal. Palin is, within the political context, a young woman. A young woman with a young family. She's also what people in the business call, a 'high quality candidate' and that kind of candidate is generally very careful to pick their shot.

She could wait, and perhaps should since 2012 is comparatively riskier than 2016, but a campaign gives her a chance to enhance her credibility in a way that only a campaign can.

Hard to know what she'll do, but she'll be very closely watched over the next few months.

When you consider that Obama was elected 2-1/2 years ago and hailed as a secular Messiah, this kind of commentary, by a credentialed member of the Professional Left, is astonishing.

Can You Spell “M-A-L-A-I-S-E?”

Stylistically speaking, Barack Obama could hardly be further from Jimmy Carter if he really had been born in Kenya. Carter was a born-again Baptist who was raised on his father’s peanut plantation and supported George Wallace on the road to the Georgia state house. Barack Obama—well, you know the story. But the two men have a great deal in common in their approach to the presidency, and not one of these similarities is good news for the Democrats or even for America. Both men rule without regard to the concerns of the base of their party. Both held themselves to be above politics when it came to making tough decisions. Both were possessed with superhuman self-confidence when it came to their own political judgment mixed with contempt for what they understood to be the petty concerns of pundits and party leaders. And worst of all, one fears, neither one appeared willing to change course no matter how many storm clouds loomed on the horizon.

I would agree in every respect except one--Barack Obama has in fact, been an extreme President, one who has operated from the far left, but has been traumatized by reality into unwilling concessions. Alterman will not admit that of course--unlike the President, he continues to be isolated from a world that deals harshly with delusion.

As I've repeated many times over the past few months, Obama's only real hope of reelection is stupid Republicans. That is not an unrealistic hope--while Democrats generally don't really take seriously the challenges that are upon us, or the real (some would say imminent) prospect of a Soviet-style collapse. Neither apparently do many Republicans, who reflexively seek to advance sectarian agendas as if this were just another election about power and pie-dividing.

It's not fashionable to sound like Glenn Beck at the moment, but look around folks--this is what an existential threat looks like. We are at the brink of losing the incredible important advantage of being THE major world reserve currency, which is remarkable when you consider the Europe faces an even greater possibility of defaulting on its sovereign debt that we do. The IMF has proclaimed an estimate that China's economy will surpass the American in 2016.

The less tangible signs of the decline may even be more important. A nation distinguishes itself not by its borders, but by its culture, and culture is created by its institutions. Respect for those institutions, and respect by the institutions for other institutions and the rule of law is coming apart at the seams. We have stories of Michigan police harvesting private data at traffic stops, which isn't even technically an arrest. The administration has ignored court-rulings and actively abdicated its responsibility to defend the law of the land (DOMA). Mobs are assembled to intimidate, including just today, a law firm contracted to represent Congress in the DOMA case. The President ignores Congress, Congress ignored public opinion in passing Obamacare, and on and on it goes.

This is how you get Mexico.

My biggest worry are all those people who voted for McCain because he was (and is) a patriot and opposes illegal immigration. Wait--did he say 'opposes' illegal immigration? Yes, that is what I said. Apparently, many who cast ballots in the Republican primary were so ignorant of the candidates and their positions, that they voted for McCain believing that he OPPOSED illegal immigration in spite of being a sponsor of McCain-Kennedy.

We have a soft middle of 'low information voters' who are make decisions based on the most flawed and superficial impressions they've accumulated, sometimes over decades. Even among those more actively engaged in the political process, many are to put it kindly, unsophisticated about all sorts of topics that nevertheless, affect them in the most profound ways.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

CNN reports that Democrats are looking like winners for 2012.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday, the Democrats have a four-point margin over the Republicans in the battle for control of Congress. The poll indicates that 50 percent registered voters say if the election for Congress was held today, they would vote for the Democrat in their district, with 46 percent saying they would cast a ballot for the Republican in their district. The Democrats' four-point margin is within the poll's sampling error.

Gee, I wonder what happened?

Fun with polls, that's what happened.

Interviews with 1,034 adult Americans conducted by telephone by Opinion Research Corporation on April 29 - May 1, 2011. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points. The sample also includes 964 interviews among registered voters (plus or minus 3 percentage points).

Notice anything?

Something missing?

Where's the demographic breakout? A lot of polls of late, all of them producing complimentary results for Democrats, unions or other clearly disfavored institutions, have been caught oversampling Democrats, Union households, or any other group guaranteed to push a poll in the right direction. This one dispenses with the normal breakouts of sex, age and political affiliation altogether.

Here's a reputable, weekly Congressional ballot poll. Republicans up by four, down eight points since the election. Democrats flat in the same time period. It seems clear that Democrats aren't in fact winning, but Republicans are losing--for being too much like Democrats.

Tour d' horizon - the GOP field for 2012.

Romney
Prohibitive favourite. Looks the part, cool under pressure, executive, impeccable bio, 2nd last time, money likes him, Huckabee out.

The big strike against him is that he's not a visceral conservative, he's a visceral technocrat. I don't want another 'compassionate conservative' to maintain the dyke against the socialist tsunami. I want America moved up from swampland to the high ground of The City On The Hill. That means originalist Supreme Court judges and a Pauline conversion to domestic policies that observe the plain meaning of the Constitution to limit government. Romney will say a lot of the right things, but his record doesn't convince ideological conservatives like me. That said, good executives learn from experience, so conservatives will certainly rally to him versus Obama.

Pawlenty/Daniels
Mostly good records but lacking charisma. Calvin Coolidge, perhaps the best President in last 100 years, was charismatically anti-charismatic, but he was appointed in the first instance. Maybe the time is right for the contrast between Daniels and Obama to work in Daniels' favour. Obama's supposed charisma was stale and phony in 2008. Now it stinks. But I just don't see Daniels outwitting Romney, especially since his social conservatism is in question too.

Cain
Has a lot going for him and I liked his humility when asked about Afghanistan, tho that also speaks to a certain shallowness on policy. He's a mostly credible conservative and a happy-ish warrior. I could see the Tea Party coalescing around him. Possible weaknesses include political inexperience, support for affirmative action, support for TARP, matiness toward the Federal Reserve of which he was once a honcho, cancer history, lack of a base. VP?

Bachmann
Fine, brave, impressive conservative. I don't find her telegenic (wrong contact lenses?) and I do find her somewhat boring. But, by God, she's right….on Obama, on Global Warming, on health care, on entitlements.

Perry
Strong executive record, much stronger than Romney's for a conservative governor. You could see him teaming up with Giuliani (whom he endorsed in '08) to make a broadband but convincing conservative ticket. Giuliani would be the supporting act on that poster since he lacks the hunger for the primary fight.

A big strike against Perry is his attempt to mandate the HPV vaccine…very strange.

Paul
Well Paul is my man on domestic policy and the political landscape has favourable contours for his big issues. The defence of Israel is a touchstone for me, and I find Paul jejune on the Islamist threat in general, so I'm stuck there, but Paul is so right and so thought through on most matters domestic that he could be a major influence in this cycle.

Sitting it out….Christie and Jeb
Both these guys are obviously 'Presidentiabile'. They both have incomplete Tea Party credentials, Christie worse than Jeb, but are both gifted politicians and impressive men. Christie is a neophyte governor for now and knows it, but Jeb brings so much to the table that it seems wrong that he's not running just because he's a Bush. He brings electoral success in a swing state, Hispanics, a track record, unflappability, likability, credibility, gravitas. I think I'd draft him if Romney polls weakly against Obama.

Palin
My favourite because I admire her courage and her biography. I'm not a great fan of her interview style - she speaks too quickly and her verbiage can be awkward - but she's good on the stump, is more charismatic than any of the others. Her written exegeses on matters like quantitative easing and healthcare are first rate and she has a knack for setting the agenda with a phrase - 'palling around with terrorists', 'death panels'.

The only strike against Palin is that she's polarizing. There are plenty of clever-stupid, wishy-washy liberals and independents who'd vote for anyone than Palin because they think she's stupid. That's often a reaction against her obviously genuine religious faith - in contrast to Obama's religious faith. Secular atheists and statists prefer a phony, more fool them. I'm definitely biased and liable to egosyntonic thinking about Palin; I want to see the liberal intelligentsia and faux conservatives feel the agony of a Palin win, but I do think that Palin would wipe the floor with Obama once a campaign got going. She has charisma, she has policy, she's on the side of optimism and life, she's inoculated against further poison from the MSM. The Church of Snide grows old. When the likes of Maher or Stewart or Matthews or Fey sneer at Palin now it probably works for her. I hope she gets in the race. Romney/Palin could work for me as a practical compromise to unite conservatives and blue-bloods.

One for the future...Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley
Nikki Haley's forthright comments on the NLRB stitch-up of Boeing and on Gingrich's back-stab on Ryan have raised her national profile in the last few days. She's my tip for the future.

1. It's her duty.

2. There'll never be a better time. If Romney beats Obama, there'll be no more chance for 8 years. Otherwise the 2016 field may include Christie, Jeb, Perry, Rubio, Ryan and West which is much more formidable than Romney, Pawlenty, Cain and Bachmann. Of course Perry may jump in 2012 for the same reason.

3. Four more years of punditry won't add burnish.

4. She's a fighter. If she backs away from this fight then the MSM has won by default. They pronounced that she's stupid, a loser, a bad mother, a has-been, and they would have won and she would have lost. Fighters win or lose in the ring.

5.

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serve
...

Gingrich falls off a cliff.

Just 38% of Republican voters now have a favorable opinion of him with 45% having an unfavorable one.

This isn't a case of a politician inadvisedly telling the truth, but one of being too clever by half. Gingrich's comment was certainly calculated to create some distance for himself and the Republican establishment, and apparently he succeeded brilliantly.

Sarah Palin On the Verge

The national media are pointing to the purchase of a house in Arizona by the Palin family as a sign that she is running, but I suspect this has more to do with the media's need to inject some drama into what is looking like snoozefest. With Huckabee out, no other candidate aside from the aforementioned Gingrich has national name recognition, and that doesn't make for a very good show. Who, but the most egregious political wonk would want to see a debate between Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman Jr.?

Similarly, Chris Christie is being watched very closely for any sign that he might change his mind about running.

I'd be shocked if Palin actually did decide to run for two reasons. The first is that for her personally, she has to win outright because a loss doesn't even get her any lovely parting gifts. She already has the handsome income, the national name recognition and a commentator slot on Fox News. The second, related to the first, is that a President's reelection campaign is always a referendum on presidential performance, and the way it looks now, that's not going to be a fun campaign for Mr. Obama. Palin's signal advantage--her name recognition and reputation, actually work against her and for Obama in this cycle, since if he can make her the issue, he has a better than average shot at winning. Palin is much better off in an election year where her conservative bona fides, personal charisma and high name recognition work in her favor, and since she will only get one shot at this, that would seem to lie in the future.

The Lincoln Strategy

Abraham Lincoln won the Republican nomination and subsequently the Presidency by being everyone's second choice. Republicans who pine for another Reagan need to be reminded that Reagan won not because he was a conservative, but in spite of it. The Carter campaign worked tirelessly to make him look like a dangerous extremist, but Reagan's sunny disposition and clear articulation of his policies simply upended the Carter strategy. In the end, Reagan won because he successfully presented himself as acceptable (i.e. 'not crazy').

Ironically, Barack Obama is praying that he can play the second choice role. He needs to be able to say, "things are bad, but they'll be even worse if your pick THAT guy..." He would love for Republicans to pick some rock-ribbed conservative, promising to get rid of all entitlements, deport all illegal aliens and go to war with China.

That does not look like it's going to happen. As Karl Rove mentioned yesterday, Palin has done none of the things that are necessary to mount a national campaign, which in his words, means she's either not running, or she doesn't believe that the rules apply to her.

The second choice strategy appears to be the favorite in the Republican primary as well, with both Pawlenty and Huntsman positioning themselves as viable second choices if Romney implodes at some point.

This is clearly not going to be an ideal field for your red-meat conservatives, but it should prove to be a field well-positioned to challenge the President and win the White House. Three former governors, a former House Speaker and a Congresswoman. Two with significant business experience, one with significant foreign policy experience.

With the exception of Newt Gingrich, all have been married to the same women for decades without even a whiff of a bimbo eruption.

Most notably, all have controversial religious affiliations and histories with the exception of Michelle Bachmann, whose Evangelical bona fides are top notch. It's rather amusing to consider that among the top tier candidates, only Mitt Romney could be said not to be a flip-flopper.

Jon Huntsman Jr. is a dynastic Mormon, but refuses to say whether he shares in the faith of his fathers. Tim Pawlenty was raised Catholic, but attends an interdenominational church with his Evangelical wife, Mary. Newt Gingrich was unchurched until he joined the Southern Baptists after graduate school and then later converted to Catholicism.

My predication is that unless Congresswomen Bachmann does much better than expected, religion just isn't going to be much of an issue this election cycle.

Charles Krauthammer is getting an enormous amount of flak for this comment:

"She is very smart and adept. Great political instincts and is a star. The problem with her, I think, is that she is not schooled. I don't mean she didn't go to the right schools. I mean when you get into policy, beyond instincts -- I like her political instincts, I like her political overall view of the world -- but when it comes to policy, she had two-and-a-half years to school herself and she hasn't and that's a problem," Charles Krauthammer told Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday. "It's not only the lack of schooling, it's the lack of effort to school herself and the lack of insight to see that she needs it."

I read something in the Christian Science Monitor back in 2008, that I was ambivalent about at the time, but that has since taken on a new importance.

On April 17, 2006, Palin and I participated in a debate at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks on agriculture issues. The next day, the Fairbanks Daily News Miner published this excerpt:

"Andrew Halcro, a declared independent candidate from Anchorage, came armed with statistics on agricultural productivity. Sarah Palin, a Republican from Wasilla, said the Matanuska Valley provides a positive example for other communities interested in agriculture to study."

On April 18, 2006, Palin and I sat together in a hotel coffee shop comparing campaign trail notes. As we talked about the debates, Palin made a comment that highlights the phenomenon that Biden is up against.

"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.

While policy wonks such as Biden might cringe, it seemed to me that Palin was simply vocalizing her strength without realizing it. During the campaign, Palin's knowledge on public policy issues never matured – because it didn't have to. Her ability to fill the debate halls with her presence and her gift of the glittering generality made it possible for her to rely on populism instead of policy.

I frankly think Krauthammer is being kind. Her studied ignorance is a symptom of a much bigger problem--over confidence bordering on, and perhaps entering to the territory of arrogance. She has, on the strength of her gifts, gone very, very far, and so it's understandable that she believes that 'the rules' don't apply to her, but winning elections in Alaska on the basis of glittering generalities and personal charisma, does not prepare one for a national election, or worse--the possibility of winning and finding oneself totally out of one's depth like another charismatic personality who gave a killer speech at a national convention.

I might have conceded that this is all very subjective a week or two ago, but Palin is clearly going all-in on a strategy that is either very bold, or very stupid. Regardless how it turns out, it is in fact a clear indication that, as Karl Rove has stated, she believes 'the rules' do not apply to her.

We are now two and a half years into Barack Obama's administration, and he also thought the rules didn't apply to him. If it comes to a race between Obama and Palin, it will seem to me to be a choice between hanging and firing squad.

Me:

Any thoughts on who'll win the NH Republican primary?

In-law in NH:

I've been liking Romney. He's been sending out the type of message that resonates with the masses and that should work against Obama's weak points through the rest of his term. He's got the credentials, and Obama being in means he shouldn't get dinged because of his religion. Trouble lies in his issue vacillation and walking the tightrope on Romneycare, both of which I think he can tackle if played right.

Gingrich and Paul are the smartest, but totally unpresidential.

Pawlenty, Huntsman, Perry, and Johnson get props for having the governor experience, but only Pawlenty sticks out at the moment and the others will fade quickly if they don't do something immediately. I get the sense Pawlenty lacks the balls (or has too much midewestern grace) for a presidential fight, but might be seen on the Romney ticket in 2012 if a southerner isn't chosen. Pawlenty and Perry are more likely to get the conservative nod, though.

Santorum - meh.

I would have thought Bachmann too divisive, inexperienced, and Palinesque, but her performance here in NH was really good and now my list is down to two impediments. She may rise even more, but I don't see her as electable.

If Perry enters it could tip the balance a bit. If Palin enters - hahahahahaha.

At this time, I'm guessing Romney for NH, too early to tell for Iowa, and Pawlenty for South Carolina.

Me:

2. (was 1. when I started writing) Nearly agree....Romney.

Actually he's almost turning Romneycare into a slight plus as it's forced him into an expert refutaton of Obamacare and he's admitting it was far from perfect in Mass. The mandate element sucks, but at least it's not unconstitutional in a state.
(That point about federal unconstitutionality may soon be adjudicated against Obamacare by a liberal federal court).

Romney's endorsement of Anthropogenic Global Warming may turn out more of a policy problem.

1. Perry.....formidable. He's a multiple election winner and quite attractive to Hispanics. He has by far the best record in government and he brings the Tea Party, which is the most dynamic force in US politics. If 'it's the economy, stupid', then he should beat Romney because Mass is an insignificant flea-dropping and Texas is a gigantic cowboy hat. The line that Texas has created 38% of all new jobs over the last 2 years is an election winner at every level.

3. Pawlenty....boring wimp, cap and trade. Tried to knife Romney with 'Obamneycare' then lacked the balls to run with it face-to-face. He's calm and fluent on audio, but smiles wanly and swallows nervously under pressure. Bad optics + boring = nope.

4. Bachmann....surprised me. Her biggest negative for me is that she looks cross-eyed straight-on.
Her personal qualities are sterling, she embodies the Tea Party, she's excellent on economics, she's overtly intelligent. Her tax-lawyer background is entirely relevant. As for experience....5 children 23 foster children, run a small business, fought tough elections...I think she's experienced. House of Reps is far more where it's at than Senate these days.

5. The rest....nowhere, tho I like Cain and Ron Paul is right on everything domestically. I think history is moving in the direction of his ideas. Maybe Rand Paul will be President one day.

And......ta da....

6. Palin....my favorite. Don't tell me she's stupid, she's not. Nor is she unelectable....she's now battle-hardened and the media's contempt plays to her advantage. The recent shenanigans with the emails show how afraid of her the left is. She's by far the most adept with social media and is such a fine contrast to Obama that any electorate that prefers optimism, fertility and patriotism would prefer her to him once she escapes the media's filter. That said if Perry's in and Bachmann's doing well, then it gets crowded on the right.

Obama ......looks tired and old and weak. There's noone who wouldn't beat him. Anthony Weiner would beat him. When a politician says he's ok with one-term, you know he's through. That's too bad because I've been looking forward to [left-wing nephew] paying for my medicare for the rest of his life.

Seems like I'm in the mainstream....

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 36% of Likely GOP Primary Voters think it would be good for Republicans if Palin enters the race, but 45% believe it would be bad for the party. Just 11% say it would have no impact.

I suspect this is more a commentary on what is at stake in this election than any disaffection with Sarah Palin.

Republicans were aghast at the massive overreach by Democrats, who apparently thought they could transform the country overnight into a macabre facsimile of the French Republic. There is real fear of what a second term for Obama could mean for the country and like Democrats in 2004, Republicans are setting aside their normative preferences to emphasize 'electability'.

What the mainstream media really thinks -->

What I found remarkable this past week is the positive reception Michelle Bachmann got from the mainstream media. It stood in stark contrast to the universal contempt and aggression I've seen directed at her over the past couple of years in various interviews in the mainstream media. Media manipulation is nothing new--consider that ABC news knew about Tom Foley's antics with Congressional pages long before it actually released the information--notably the day after Foley's name went on the ballot, insuring that Democrats would win that seat. My guess is that Michelle Bachmann is going to experience the best press she's ever gotten--she is the nomination cycle's John McCain; a hand-picked opponent for the Obama machine to run against.

Watch and learn folks.

I've refrained from commenting on the so-called 'Debt Ceiling Negotiations' because frankly, there was nothing to write about. The press conferences, tweets and gun-slinger spin was sound and fury signifying nothing because ultimately, only the final result matters. Only the final result tells us anything meaningful about the quantum state of American politics.

Now that the writing appears to be on the wall, some are calling it, and there isn't much debate about who holds the whip hand these days. The debate centers around 'why' it is so.

If the final debt deal is passed, it will look an awful lot like what the Tea Party wing of the GOP demanded. But that doesn't mean Tea Party members will be happy or even vote for it—the final irony in a months-long drama that involved a game of chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States.

While much of Congress is upset at the prospect of downing such a bitter brew, the new political faction known as the Tea Party doesn't abide any compromise, no matter the stakes for the country.

Peter Beinart, writing for the newest incarnation of a cool venue for left-wing thought (the New Republic having passed into irrelevance...), grits his teeth and wrings his hand, grasping at the reasons the Left's 2008 triumph has dissolved into impotence and become an object of disdain and even ridicule (muted, fearful ridicule...).

Obama, like FDR, had a reasonably successful first two years: a stimulus package that while too small for the circumstances was still large by historical standards and a health care bill that while subpar in myriad ways still far exceeded the efforts of other recent Democratic presidents.

And then, unlike FDR, he ran into a grassroots movement of the right. Historians will long debate why the financial collapse of 2008 produced a right-wing populist movement and not a left-wing one. Perhaps it’s because Obama didn’t take on Wall Street, perhaps it’s because with labor unions so weak there’s just not the organizational muscle to create such a movement, perhaps it’s because trust in government is so low that pro-government populism is almost impossible.

One assumes that Beinart is addressing like-minded individuals, which suggests that his perspective on events, so recent that no one could fail to recall them, is widely shared by Progressives. Now it's fairly normal for conservatives and a good slice of the independents to ignore the news media. We've become inured to the liberal-left bias, and assume that everything being reported is what they want us to hear, read and see. What is clear from Beinart's piece is that the left is also ignoring the mainstream media, otherwise it's virtually impossible to have missed the coalescence of the Tea Party in the wake of the now famous rant by CNBC's Rick Santelli. 'Tea Parties' informally sprang into existence all over the country, spontaneously protesting government spending, borrowing and tax policies. Within a very short period of time, Tea Parties self-organized to take control of the state primary process all over the country. Ron Paul didn't create the Tea Party; Obama did.

Beinart marvels at the 'intransigence' of the Tea Party:

it was the emergence of the Tea Party as the most powerful grassroots pressure group in America that laid the groundwork for Sunday night’s deal. The fact that polling showed Obama getting the better of the debt ceiling debate barely mattered. The 2010 elections brought to Congress a group of Republicans theologically committed to cutting government. And they have proved more committed, or perhaps just more reckless, than anyone else in Washington.

Ironically, the 'theological commitment' is in fact, also a creation of Barack Obama. The kamikaze run to pass Obamacare ignored all the polls showing not just a majority, but a vast majority of Americans opposed it. The high-priests of the Progressive religion ignored the political consequences, assuring members of Congress that the country would embrace it shortly, and when soothing words failed, threats and bribes were used. Obama, having crossed the Rubicon, provided an epiphany to Conservatives and many Independents--the old rules no longer apply. The Democrats have upped the ante, as they have consistently over the past decade, first abandoning Senate rules that had been in place for a life-time, and moving on to demolish other icons of democracy in the name of power and ideology.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid made the new rules; they can hardly complain when their rivals play by them.

Ironically, while Beinart may wish to cast Progressives and the Democrat party as 'victims' in this sad tale, he is entirely correct about the consequences of the Progressive Anschluss of the American nation:

...The bad news is that it has also ended whatever hopes liberals once entertained that roughly 100 years after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, roughly 75 years after the New Deal and roughly 50 years after the Great Society, we were living in another great age of progressive reform.

Given the era of fiscal scarcity we’re now entering, those neocon and progressive dreams are now likely dead for many years to come. Meanwhile, the Tea Party’s dream of a government reduced to its pre-welfare state size becomes ever real.

It is my hope that Peter Beinart is at least right about this.

Americans don't have a lot of confidence in the administration's policies:

The poll found 73 percent of Americans believe the United States is "off on the wrong track," and just one in five, 21 percent, think the country is headed in the right direction.

The level of discontent is the highest since Reuters/Ipsos began polling American public opinion in February 2009.

One has to wonder what the hell is wrong with that 21 percent group.

You might think that the wrong track survey would also be reflected in President Obama's approval rating, but you'd be wrong.

President Obama's weekly job approval rating for July 25-31 is 42%, by one percentage point a new weekly low for his administration. Though his approval rating is down among all ideological groups in recent weeks, the broad pattern of the president's approval ratings across these groups remains similar to what it has been, with low support among conservatives, somewhat higher support among moderates, and high approval from liberals.

Liberals give Obama a whopping 83% approval rating, which is reflected in the massive public relations effort the administration has made within the Progressive community. This group is primed to accept excuses and blame directed at, well anybody except Obama. They correctly assess the crisis to be a direct assault on their ideology as well as the President, and with both linked, they must defend the President at all costs, or see both hanged.

On the other hand, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll presents a more accurate and detailed picture of the President's real support.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21.

Minus 21 is the lowest approval index Obama has ever received since taking office and the trend is unmistakeable. Down, down, down. The 'strongly approve number has ranged from a high of 29 near the beginning of his term, to a low of 21 most recently--surprising stability from the Progressive wing of the Democrat party, but a notable erosion just the same.

Even more stable than the President's support, is his opposition, which has fluctuated consistently between 39-42%. What is moving in all of this are moderates, who have swung from approval to disapproval an amazing 26 points.

For Obama, these numbers represent both hope and anxiety:

1. Hope: Obama's campaign team only needs to convert about a third of the moderately disappointed folks back to supporters, and he can do that by making the Republican alternative so unpalatable as to make himself seem like the only reasonable choice.

2. Change: These numbers are likely to worsen over the coming year as it has become clear that Obama has no policy moves that can reverse the decline.

3. Hope: Republicans could nominate a social conservative who alienates the independents.

4. Change: There are definite signs that the mainstream media, hitherto wildly supportive of the President, are changing their tone, if for no other reason but to salvage their professional credibility before it's too late. Jay Leno's current comfort with ridiculing the President and his policies is an ominous sign after so much kid-glove treatment over the past few years.

5. Change: While there is no short of apologetic coming from the administration and it's media supporters as to why things are bad, it's impossible to spin Obama's impotence. A Republican candidate with both credibility and a plan to succeed will be at a significant advantage, even if, as expected, the Obama campaign tries to frighten Americans with tales of evil outcomes.

At the moment, the situation may look salvageable for reelection, but the rocks are already rolling downhill. His numbers could be dismal in a matter of weeks.

The Ames straw poll results appear to have confirmed the general suspicion that the current slate of candidates constitute a 'weak field', but I think we are seeing something else here--a Republican party tired of the usual hacks and waiting for Ronald Reagan to magically appear on the horizon.

This week, Ronald came in the guise of Rick Perry, who frankly reminds me of a less genteel version of George W. Bush. Perry quickly jumped into a substantial lead, much the same way Donald Trump did with his abortive pass at the nomination.

Just as quickly, pundits from every political persuasion have been piling on, seeing not the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, but of Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Politically, there is a huge difference between Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul and Rick Parry (or other rumored late entries like Paul Ryan and Chris Christie). The former have built a core of support over a long period of time. Romney and Paul have been campaigning since 2006-2007. Bachmann, while not a candidate in the 2008 election, has been prominently courting the Evangelical Christian and Tea Party vote and remains popular with both groups.

Perhaps Reagan II will appear on the horizon, but until then, it seems that a long slog is the best way to have a serious chance at the nomination. I found the Rasmussen poll interest in that Romney and Bachmann appear to have a core of support that just doesn't abandon them every time a new pompadour pops up on a press conference somewhere.

Every other candidate is taking a flyer, with the possible exception of Huntsman, who probably had hopes of building a good enough campaign to continue his pursuit of the Presidency into a future election. He has some time, but frankly from his recent performances, I don't hold out much hope that he'll inspire the folks to rally to his side.

The irony here is that Reagan himself wasn't 'Reagan on the horizon'. Reagan swallowed a bitter loss to Gerald Ford and then saw his campaign floundering in the early stages. Bush Sr. kicked his butt in Iowa, and while winning big in New Hampshire, he lost half of his staff in the immediate aftermath.

It seems likely that we'll see a number of shooting stars come and go between now and the Iowa caucuses and ultimately we will get our new Reagan.

A slogger, patiently building support over time.

The media is taking bets on who will be next to leave the Republican pack.

Will he be the next GOP campaign dropout? Santorum finished fourth at Ames, worse even than Pawlenty, who said he needed a strong showing to maintain sufficient donor interest. The Minnesotan didn't get it and pulled the plug the next day on his substantial Iowa ground operation.

But Santorum had much less invested in Iowa, other than miles and time. And fourth place for him seemed better than expected. So he postponed his return to Pennsylvania and went to the Waterloo dinner to continue his quiet guerrilla struggle for support as a conservative alternative to Mitt Romney in hopes that Perry and Bachmann somehow knock each other off.

Santorum pecks away at Bachmann much as Pawlenty did, for her alleged lack of congressional accomplishments, and at Perry for his seemingly diffident same-sex marriage stance.

Or what about Herman Cain, the pizza godfather? Probably not, not yet anyway.

I find it interesting to analyze the possible motivations for the second tier candidates to remain in the race. Abraham Lincoln ran for the first Republican nomination contest with the strategy of being everyone's second choice. He wasn't as well known as his rivals, but he figured correctly that the rabid supporters of one candidate were unlikely to throw in with another first tier candidate. By being second, he came out first.

The same strategy can't be replicated in the current contest because even the first tier candidates have relatively low core support in the teens. Nevertheless, there are some pretty obvious signs that Romney's strategy involves him keeping a low profile and focusing his criticism on the President rather than his rivals. It seems an eminently sound move. With the far-right of the party dividing their votes among many contenders, Romney can out-poll them even in a state hip deep in Evangelicals like Iowa.

Of course, that assumes that one of the more-nigh-to-Jesus-than-thou rivals doesn't break out to a solid lead.

Has that happened with Perry? Hard to say since little is known of the governor other than his resume. For those on the right, he is a significant stronger candidate than erstwhile darling Michelle Bachmann whose lack of experience is an objective fact. That might not have mattered to many who feel that ideological orthodoxy is more important than political and executive skills, but if you can have both--why not?

I'm not terribly impressed at this point for a few reasons. Strategically, he has very little need to emphasize his conservative credentials, so overheating the media with contentious and controversial comments is almost certainly a bad idea. Without having said a word, he polled at close to 30%. You protect a lead like that, you don't go out taking unnecessary risks. Perry has inherent weaknesses as well. The governorship of Texas is known to be a weak executive position, and Perry seems to have claimed too much credit for the Texas economy. He was also a Democrat until quite recently, which makes Romney's alleged flip-flopping look insignificant by comparison. His star will dim, but by how much?

The proximate effect though is to give Michelle Bachmann's campaign an anxiety attack. As the leading contender for the anti-Romney vote, she suddenly finds herself overshadowed by someone with all of her strengths and none of her weaknesses. Her "me too" statements on the Fed suggests that she will go after Perry with a vengeance. The Pawlenty-Bachmann show is over. Now we'll have the Perry-Bachmann show.

As the article suggests, Santorum and the other second tier candidates are waiting to pick the carcass of the loser. They'll be very careful not to alienate the supporters of either Bachmann or Perry, while touting their own qualifications. For them it's a question of time, meaning how much time do they have before the funding runs out or they catch a break? Apparently, a long time, since aside from Pawlenty and Bachmann, few other candidates have really invested all that much in Iowa.

So who leaves next?

I think Bachmann does, followed closely on her heels by Santorum and Cain. Iowa is where the conservative candidate is going to be anointed, and failing to achieve that, none of these rivals has any reason to continue.

Huntsman will continue because his raison d'etre is to be the second choice to Romney;and Perry--should he prevail in Iowa, isn't going to occupying that space. Gingrich goes on, because he wants Mike Huckabee's contract with Fox. I think he'd like to be President, but losing isn't a bad thing as far as he's concerned.

Ron Paul? Nobody cares.

After Iowa we get into a more interesting part of the nomination process. It's all about the far right now, but that's hardly the meaty part of the Republican party. In my opinion, this is where Romney organization makes the difference.

Look at me...I'm already thinking about New Hampshire.

It's fairly uncommon for high-profile media figures to make election predictions. Getting it wrong is obviously problematic--see Dick Morris. So when Karl Rove makes some bold predictions, it's noteworthy, particularly since he isn't the relentless self-promoter Dick Morris is. Nevertheless, in my opinion, he is sometimes overly cautious, and in some cases just plain wrong.

• Republicans will keep the U.S. House, albeit with their 25-seat majority slightly reduced. In the 10 presidential re-elections since 1936, the party in control of the White House has added House seats in seven contests and lost them in three. The average gain has been 12 seats. The largest pickup was 24 seats in 1944—but President Barack Obama is no FDR, despite what he said in his recent "60 Minutes" interview.

A safe and not particularly daring prediction. I would go out on a limb here and say that Republicans will actually gain seats. I base that conclusion on the problem any Democrat has in running with a President who has the kind of disapproval ratings Barack Obama does, as well the coat tail principle. In a change election like this one, it's unlikely that people will vote for a Republican president and a representative from the opposing party.

• Republicans will take the U.S. Senate. Of the 23 Democratic seats up in 2012, there are at least five vulnerable incumbents (Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania): The GOP takes two or three of these. With the announcement on Tuesday that Nebraska's Ben Nelson will retire, there are now seven open Democratic seats (Connecticut, Hawaii, North Dakota, New Mexico, Virginia, Wisconsin): The GOP takes three or four. Even if Republicans lose one of the 10 seats they have up, they will have a net pickup of four to six seats, for a majority of 51 to 53.

I think this is probably right, although as we saw in 2008, the normal election calculus tends to skew towards the 'change'. Democrats won all the close races in 2008. It is likely that Republicans would benefit from that dynamic this time around.

• Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid or both will leave the Democratic leadership by the end of 2012. Speaker John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell will continue directing the GOP in their respective chambers.

Rove does not elaborate, but the only way Pelosi and Reed, both ideological stalwarts and skilled congressional operators, are persuaded to leave is if the Democrat party basically concedes that the Progressive agenda is a loser. I just don't see that happening before the election, and possibly not at all. In an election loss, surviving Democrats are collectively going to be more left-wing, and more senior than previously. Left-wing extremism is likely to be even more influential in the party than it has been. There is no reason to believe that either Reed or Pelosi will find themselves ideologically out-of-step after the election. Pelosi in particular, survived the loss of the Democrat's majority in the House. She will leave when she feels like it, and not before. Considering that she had an opportunity to retire and didn't take it, I would assume she will feel the same way next year. Reed just beat back an extremely difficult reelection challenge, so it's hard to see him throwing in the towel either. Frankly, Reed is the buffer between some pretty big Senate egos, and I expect that the party will want to keep him in place just to avoid the bloodbath that would ensue should he retire too soon.

• This will be the fourth presidential election in a row in which turnout increases. This has happened just once since 1828, from 1928 through 1940.

• In 2008, voters told the Pew Poll that they got more election information from the Internet than from daily newspapers. Next year, that advantage will grow as the Internet closes in on television as America's principal source of campaign news.

These are gimmes.

• After failing to win the GOP presidential nomination, Ron Paul will not run as a third-party candidate because that would put his son, Rand Paul, in an untenable position: Does the Republican senator from Kentucky support his father and effectively re-elect Mr. Obama, or back his party and defeat him?

I'd agree with this, but for different reasons. Paul wins big even if he loses. A good showing in the primaries makes him a king-maker, while a third party run is just a terrible idea. Third party efforts usually require the kind of egomania that Paul simply does not have. Regardless of whether you agree with his foreign policy ideas, he is clearly an intelligent and principled man. He undoubtedly knows that a heterodox Republican president is better than an orthodox Democrat. I don't think he is motivated by dynastic considerations, however, a noble loss is of more benefit to Rand Paul's future, and thus to the principles Paul espouses and promotes.

• Mr. Obama's signature health-care overhaul, already deeply unpopular, will become even more so by Election Day. Women voters are particularly opposed to ObamaCare, feeling it threatens their family's health.

• Mr. Obama may propose tax reform, attempting to use it to appeal both to his liberal base (a question of fairness) and independents (a reform to spur economic growth). This will fail, but not before boosting Mr. Obama's poll numbers.

• The Obama campaign won't corral high-profile Republican endorsements—as it did in 2008 with former Secretary of State Colin Powell—with the unimportant possible exception of former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel. It will also make a special effort to diminish the GOP's advantage among military families, veterans and evangelicals, with the last a special target if Republicans nominate Mitt Romney.

These are no-brainers as well.

• Despite an extraordinary amount of presidential time and involvement, Team Obama will fall as much as $200 million short of its $1 billion combined fund-raising target for the campaign and Democratic National Committee. Even so, Mr. Obama and Democrats will outspend the GOP nominee and Republicans. This won't necessarily translate into victory: John Kerry and Democrats outspent President George W. Bush and Republicans in 2004 by $124 million. Groups like American Crossroads (which I helped found) will narrow the Democratic money advantage.

A little self-promotion here ;-) Nevertheless, Rove is probably right. Of course, this is a party that can spend a trillion dollars and actually see the economy do worse than if they had done nothing. Total spending never tells the real story, which isn't how much a party spends, but how well. Frankly, if Mitt Romney wins the nomination, I would expect that his value for money spent will exceed that of Democrats by a factor of three or more.

• Scandals surrounding the now-bankrupt Solyndra, Fannie and Freddie, MF Global and administration insider deals still to emerge will metastasize, demolishing the president's image as a political outsider. By the election, the impression will harden that Mr. Obama is a modern Chicago-style patronage politician, using taxpayer dollars to reward political allies (like unions) and contributors (like Obama fund-raiser and Solyndra investor George Kaiser).

• To intimidate critics and provoke higher black turnout, Democrats will play the race card more than in any election since 1948. Witness Attorney General Eric Holder's recent charge that criticism of him and the president was "both due to the nature of our relationship and . . . the fact that we're both African-Americans."

• The economic recovery will continue to be anemic, leaving both unemployment and concerns about whether the president is up to the job high on Election Day. Because of this, Mr. Obama will lose as his margins drop among five groups essential to his 2008 victory—independents, women, Latinos, young people and Jews. While he will win a majority from at least three of these groups, he won't win them by as much as he did last time.

These aren't particularly difficult predictions to make. As far as the scandals go, the Republican establishment will have to make a significant effort to drive these stories into the mainstream, and only then will the Times, the Post and other bastions of Obama support, actually throw him under the bus to preserve what journalistic credibility they can.

I'm not sure the Obama reelection campaign has to play the race card particularly furiously. The simple fact that the President is black is probably all the race card they need to play. Blacks that are susceptible to race politics will have already inferred that anything short of acclamation is a KKK plot. If they do play it, it suggests that they've already lost black support that can't be recalled with race-baiting.

On the final prediction, I defer to Mr. Rove's superior access to polling data.

UPDATE: On the other hand...

During a telephone interview, Ms. Pelosi–speaking from a friend’s home in New York City–described her mother’s predicament:

She would retire right now, if the donors she has didn’t want her to stay so badly. They know she wants to leave, though. They think she’s destined for the wilderness. She has very few days left. She’s 71, she wants to have a life, she’s done. It’s obligation, that’s all I’m saying.

Pelosi’s revelation is significant, given that her mother pushed to serve as Minority Leader after the Democrats’ historic losses in the 2010 midterm elections, and that many Democrats–including President Barack Obama–are campaigning on the expectation that she will be restored as Speaker if they can retake the House in 2012.