The Gaggle : Mitt Romney

Romney Sneaks in on T-Paw's Googles

Katie Connolly — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:34:14 GMT

Last week, in his Absurdly Premature 2012 Watch Column, erstwhile Stumper Andrew Romano mused about the DNC's treatment of Tim Pawlenty, who is steadily becoming target No. 1 for their oppo researchers. Now it seems that Democrats aren't the only ones considering Pawlenty a major player. The Hotline reports that Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PAC has purchased links on Google so that folks searching for T-Paw (literally, "T-Paw") will be confronted with links to potential 2012 rival Romney.

As I've written previously, I think Romney and Pawlenty will be competing for votes. The religious and very socially conservative voters will flock to Huckabee or Palin types. Younger voters might be attracted to a Jindal type, leaving Romney and Pawlenty to fight it out for the votes of traditional, limited government, small "c" conservatives. Here's what I wrote about this back in early October:

Pawlenty will likely be fighting for Romney's turf. Both men are telegenic former governors (or at least Pawlenty will be—he's not running for a third term in 2010) who will likely focus their campaigns on the economy and their administrative prowess. Both men are socially conservative, but neither is likely to make that the centerpiece of their campaign. And both will fashion themselves Washington outsiders, as will most of the potential field.

Seems like Romney forces are mobilizing to define that ground as his. Or maybe they're just miffed that Mitt doesn't have a fun nickname like T-Paw.

GOPers Snicker Over Obama's Loss

Katie Connolly — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:12:04 GMT

In the wake of the president's failed attempt to bring the Olympic Games to his hometown of Chicago, some conservatives are partying like they live in Rio. On his radio program today, Rush Limbaugh was positively gleeful, declaring this the worst day of Obama's presidency. "Obama demeaned the office of the president going on this sales pitch," Limbaugh said. He told listeners Obama had been "bitch-slapped" upside his head. "He doesn't understand how delighted the world is to make him look foolish in order to take a swipe at our country . . . We've got a 2-year-old manchild with a Mars-sized ego, which today crashed and burned."

Blogger Erick Erickson, who runs the popular Red State site, vented sarcastically. "Hahahahaha. I thought the world would love us more now that Bush was gone. I thought if we whored ourselves out to our enemies, great things would happen. Apparently not. So Obama’s pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him. So much for improving America’s standing in the world, Barry O."

According to Politico's Glenn Thrush, GOP operative Matt Machowiak snarkily declared, "Actually Obama got the flowers, not even the bronze." While it's true that the loss must be a blow for the president's ego, having made a last-minute trip to Copenhagen to seal the deal, it doesn't exactly reflect well on Chicago or the rest of America. (Incidentally, this was Chicago's fourth unsuccessful bid.) Nobody likes to see their country lose, so is reveling in it really a wise political strategy? Sure, this is embarrassing for the president, but isn't it also disheartening for America?

Not all GOPers are celebrating, though. Mitt Romney, who ran the successful Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002, was gracious. "I commend the leaders of Chicago and the nation for giving it their best shot. It's unfortunate that we lost the bid." Former presidential candidate Fred Thompson saw a bright side. He tweeted, "At least the trip to Copenhagen allowed Obama to meet with McChrystal face-to-face." And New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was encouraging. He released a statement saying:

The whole country should applaud Chicago and the President for their efforts because the Games can be an incredible opportunity to build infrastructure, create jobs, and attract new visitors and business from around the world. That’s why we attempted to bring the Olympics to New York City in 2012.

We’ve moved forward on many of the plans for infrastructure and parks we laid out in our bid, and I expect the bid will ultimately produce many benefits for Chicago, too. Chicagoans should never feel regret for having made the attempt, and I hope we’re able to bring the Games to the U.S. in 2020.”

Let's hope, for the sake of Chicago's bruised pride, that Bloomberg's prediction about the urban benefits comes true.

Health Care: Pawlenty's Secret Weapon in 2012?

Andrew Romano — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:28:16 GMT

Today in "Breaking News That's Been, Like, Totally Obvious for Months Already": Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the former veep hopeful and recovering mullet victim, wants to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Now, maybe it was the steady stream of television appearances that tipped us off. Or the increased presence at out-of-state GOP fundraisers. Or even the sleek new haircut. But for some reason, when we read over at Politico that T-Paw "has been quietly assembling the blueprint of a presidential campaign and will announce Thursday the support of a group of high-level political strategists and donors, complemented by a handful of top new media consultants," we weren't exactly surprised.

Normally, we here at Gaggle HQ would be the first to argue that blabbering about 2012 in October 2010 is a bit premature. But Pawlenty's recent maneuvers may actually have a lot to do with the issue at the heart of this season's political slapfest: health-care reform. Earlier today, my colleague Katie Connolly ably summarized the governor's pluses and minuses as a potential GOP standard-bearer. On the upside, he's a bright, well-liked team player with blue-collar roots who has proven he can win on Democratic turf; on the downside, he's an unfamiliar (and somewhat bland) face with little national experience—and even less money. But what Katie didn't mention is Pawlenty's position on health care. Right now, I suspect that it will define the 2012 Republican primary battle, at least in part. And chances are it will give the Minnesotan a significant boost—whether or not it should.

Here's my thinking. In all likelihood, Congress will pass health-care reform legislation sometime before the end of 2009. The plan will inevitably become the GOP's bête noire—the "overreaching," "unpatriotic," "Stalinesque" monstrosity trotted out by every Republican presidential hopeful as Exhibit A in their case against Barack Obama's "new socialist world order." The question is, which GOPers will be making this case--and how credible will they be when making it? As Politico notes, "many establishment Republicans [believe] that Pawlenty is becoming the sole viable alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney"; in this theory, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin are simply too divisive to be electable.

Assuming, then, that Romney and Pawlenty do face off in the finals, Pawlenty has at least one distinct advantage: while Gov. Romney passed a universal health-care plan in Massachusetts that looks largely like whatever will come out of Congress, Pawlenty recently took the opposite tack, seeking to balance the budget by cutting millions of dollars in funding from MinnesotaCare, a government-supported insurance system for working-class Minnesotans that had previously slashed the state's percentage of uninsured residents to one of the lowest levels in the country. In The Washington Post in August, Pawlenty fired an early shot across Romney's bow. "While the Massachusetts plan has reduced the number of uninsured people, costs have been dramatically higher than expected," he wrote. "The result? Increased taxes and fees...Imagine the scope of tax increases, or additional deficit spending, if that approach is utilized for the entire country." At least on health care, 2012 could wind up being "Pawlenty: Small-Government Cost Cutter" vs. "Romney: Obama Lite."

Also helping T-Paw: the fact that Obama's heath-care changes won't go into effect until 2013. Without any actual statistics, stories or, you know, facts to contradict him, Pawlenty can paint the gloomiest, doomiest possible picture of the costs of reform, both human and economic. At that point, it'll all still be hypothetical. And when he contrasts his reductions with Obama's expansions, he can conveniently gloss over the fact that removing 113,000 people from the state-funded health-care rolls will actually wind up costing Minnesotans more in the long run—mainly because, as studies have shown, "people without coverage are more likely to postpone cost-effective checkups and other preventive treatments until they are felled by a condition significant enough to warrant a trip to the hospital emergency room," where the increased cost of uncompensated care (currently at $601 million in Minnesota and doubling every five years) means increased premiums for everyone else.

But that process takes time. Instead, I'm betting we'll hear a lot about Pawlenty's steely-eyed budget hawkery in 2012. Or, as it were, sooner. Let the games begin.

Tim Pawlenty Joins the 2012 Fray

Katie Connolly — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:40:05 GMT

Looks like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has finally bitten the bullet and has submitted papers to register a PAC—usually the first step in any presidential bid—thus ending the most predictable speculation in the 2012 race so far. Pawlenty will call his PAC Freedom First, continuing the GOP trend of corny freedom-themed PAC names. (Mitt Romney's is called Free and Strong America.) Over at Politico, J-Mart reports that Pawlenty has been quietly collecting high-profile campaign staff and supporters, including Vin Weber to co-chair his campaign. Weber, a former Minnesota congressman and a prominent GOP player, threw his weight behind Romney in 2008. Pawlenty has wrapped up a few other big names from the 2008 cycle, including RNC communications director Alex Conant and McCain campaign manager Terry Nelson, who will be big assets to his bid.

While anything could happen between now and the 2012 primaries (remember when Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani were the presumptive 2008 nominees?), there's no harm in speculating, right? Pawlenty has a couple of disadvantages going in. He has lower national name recognition than three of his key rivals—Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee. He hasn't run in a presidential election before, and many Republican strategists will tell you that the experience of having done it once is enormously advantageous. (Democrats, on the other hand, are far less supportive of repeat candidates.) He's also behind in the fundraising stakes, which is a big challenge when facing the likes of Palin and Romney, both of whom are fundraising powerhouses.

Pawlenty will likely to be fighting for Romney's turf. Both men are telegenic former governors (or at least Pawlenty will be—he's not running for a third term in 2010) who will likely focus their campaigns on the economy and their administrative prowess. Both men are socially conservative, but neither is likely to make that the centerpiece of their campaign. And both will fashion themselves Washington outsiders, as will most of the potential field.

On the upside, Pawlenty has significant good will within the GOP. His time at Minnesota's helm has been widely respected within the party, and has been relatively uncontroversial. He's considered a solid player, a reasonable man with good conservative credentials who is reportedly easy to get along with. No diva-ish behavior there. He was high on McCain's VP shortlist last year. In those considerations, his only real vice was that he wasn't showy enough. He was a good choice, but not a flashy, surprising game-changer. But if in 2012 the economy still feels shaky and voters feel uncertain about their future, that vice could prove to be his crowning virtue.

Are Any Pols More Popular Than They Were Six Months Ago?

Daniel Stone — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:38:15 GMT

President Obama has been learning lately that politics is a zero-sum game. When someone wins, someone else always loses. For a while, it was Obama doing the winning; his 53-46 percent victory in November came at the expense, of course, of John McCain and GOP voters. Lately, though, Obama has been slipping. His approval rating now sits at 56 percent, down from a high of 69 back in January, according to Gallup. But here's a question: if Obama's losing, who's winning? Certainly not members of his administration, who have also taken minor hits. Vice President Joe Biden started at a 52 percent rating earlier this year but has since lost about five points, says a CNN poll. Same with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (in the same poll), who dropped from 66 percent several months ago to 61. Not even health-policy purveyor Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has taken leave from the Senate to fight a malignant brain tumor, has escaped without losing a few points of support.

It's fair to say that a sour economy and contentious debates on climate policy and health care haven't portrayed any leading pol as completely benevolent. Neither GOP elder Newt Gingrich (from 36 to 34, says a collection of polls) nor media king Rush Limbaugh, who fell three points this year to 37 percent, have been spared. But has anyone been able to cash in on Obama's lost footing?

John McCain would be proud to argue that, yes, some leaders are thought of better now than they were six months ago; he's one of them. McCain's been able to bump his approval to 58 percent from 52 back in February, reports a CNN poll, likely due to his decreased profile compared with last year. So has former Massachusetts governor and GOP candidate Mitt Romney, who's taken a three point rise to 37 percent (according to Gallup) by taking a sideline-advocate approach to the health-care debate.

And then something a bit surprising. Even though former VP Dick Cheney has taken heat lately for the Bush administration's interrogation policies and several other White House snafus (Plamegate, attorney firings) and has fanned the flames by publicly criticizing his successors, he's riding higher this summer (37 percent) than he was in March (30 percent), according to a USA Today/Gallup survey. The same slight upward trend we suspect is true for his former boss, President George W. Bush, who has taken some time off from appearing in public, although no large polling organization has measured Bush's approval since he left office in January.

Still, that's not to say that winning and losing has fallen strictly along party lines. Two of the biggest losers so far this year? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who Gallup reports has fallen from 42 to 32 percent this year, and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, owner of the steepest loss: as measured by an ABC News/Washington Post poll, from 52 percent before last fall to a recently measured 40.

Romney on Obama's Push for Health-Care Reform: Slow Down

Katie Connolly — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:19:09 GMT

In the last two weeks, political commentators have expressed doubts over President Obama's time frame for health-care reform. Meanwhile, even some Democratic lawmakers appear to be getting cold feet. In response, Obama is relentlessly pitching his plan. He has spoken about health care on eight out of the last nine days, and he's scheduled to hold a town-hall meeting on the topic this Thursday. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is one of the few politicians in the country with first-hand experience of steering major health-care reform through the legislative process. The reforms he enacted in Massachusetts have been criticized for being costly, but they've also managed to extend coverage to a significant number of uninsured people. By 2007, the proportion of uninsured people in Massachusetts was the lowest in the country.

I spoke to Romney about his experience with health-care reform this morning. His cautionary words for Obama? Slow down. Here are some excerpts from our conversation:

What do you think needs to happen over the next couple of weeks if President Obama's deadline for health-care reform is to be met?

I think the president ought to hit the reset button. I think it is critical that he have the participation, involvement, and support of people on both sides of the aisle, as well as people in various sectors of the health economy. If we are going to have a dramatic shift in the nature of so large a part of our economy, then it needs to be something that has been thoroughly vetted and has received great support. Out of a desire to move very quickly, while his support is highest, he has skipped the critical steps of educating, involving, and evolving his own plans to meet the perspectives of the great majority of our citizens.

It sounds like you are encouraging the president to slow down. Aren't there risks in delaying?

He's in a very difficult position. We faced a very similar question [in Massachusetts] as we began our process. We spent over two years putting together a health-care plan and then building support for it on both sides of the aisle—working with hospitals, providers, doctors, business groups, labor groups, advocates for the poor. We involved all of these parties, and it took a long time, but what we ended up with was a bill that passed the legislature— if you combine the House and the Senate—198 to 2.

What lessons can be gleaned from your experience in Massachusetts?

After we crafted the architecture of our plan, the first person I went to was Ted Kennedy. He and I met numerous times, and what we fashioned was not perfect in either one of our eyes. But we worked together, because only together could we know that we would have the support of all the parties necessary to make it work.

The states are laboratories of democracy. Well, our state passed a bill. It's been in place now for several years. Have they studied it? Have they spoken with the Republicans and Democrats in Masssachusetts? Have they spoken with hospitals? Doctors? Have they sent the GAO there to take it apart to see what is working well and what is not? Nobody has given me a call, except Republicans. I’ve received no calls from Democrats saying what do you think about it? What would you do differently if you were to do it today? There’s a whole series of things I’d do differently. And yet, there seems to be such a rush to act. I understand that President Obama wants to get this done in his first term, but more important than getting it done in the first year is getting it done right, before he is out of office. There is time here to get it done right.

In terms of the reform proposals before Congress, what do you see that you like and dislike so far?

I'm not happy that the president wants to provide a so-called public option. There is no need for the government to become an insurance company. I'm convinced, as many before me have said, that this is a step towards a single-payer system; that it will result in billions, if not hundreds of billions, of subsidies down the road and a new entitlement, which is one of the last things America needs right now. On the other hand I am happy that he is actually working to reform health care. It's important for us to get everyone insured. It's important that there be an effort made to reduce the excessive inflation in the health-care sector.

How well do the current proposals deal with reducing costs?

The legislation has almost nothing to do with cost reduction. Nothing I have seen in the bills that are being discussed by the Democratic leadership suggests that there will be a significant change in health inflation.

This is an extraordinarily important topic and one for which there is a great deal of information around the world. Normally, if this were private enterprise, you would spend a great deal of time with brilliant analysts, looking at alternatives, evaluating lessons from foreign places, and perhaps even experimenting with some alternatives before unleashing them on the entire U.S. economy. Health-care reform is a matter that should be focused on allowing our citizens to have better health at more reasonable cost, as opposed to being thought of as a political success or failure. We really can't afford a lot of trillion-dollar mistakes.

What do you think the president's message to the American people should be?

I don't presume to give the president advice. I can say that the campaign promise that President Obama made to work on a bipartisan basis and to change the atmosphere in Washington is something that I think America is still hoping to see, particularly in health care. It is just not consistent with his original vision to anticipate jamming through a piece of legislation that has numerous flaws, and that can only receive the support of his own party if members of that party have had their arms twisted into knots. That is not going to be the right kind of answer to America's health-care needs.

What Palin Should Do Next

Katie Connolly — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:03:43 GMT

I posted earlier this week about Sarah Palin's op-ed in the Washington Post, which I consider her first move in establishing a post-gubernatorial political presence. I received quite a lot of feedback on it. That post was critical of the governor's op-ed, so this time I thought I'd offer up some thoughts on what I think she could do over the next year or so to increase her chances in the 2012 primary.

1. Lie low for a while. The primaries are still a long way off and voters can tire of seeing candidates, especially those who have been the subject of as much media chatter as Palin. Overexposure will open anyone up for criticism, and Palin has proven more susceptible to that sort of flak than most. Romney is laying low, and it's working for him—his unfavorables have dropped 17 points over the last 18 months. And remember: there is nothing those important New Hampshire voters savor more than taking a frontrunner down a few notches and voting for an underdog. (Exhibit A: Barack Obama. Exhibit B: John McCain.)

2. Find some strategists she trusts—right now. In the punishing swirl of a presidential election, there's nothing more critical than having people around the candidate whom she knows well and trusts. Palin already had a taste of this when dealing with McCain's advisers. She didn't know them, nor they her. The last thing she will want to be worrying about is that advisers aren't carrying out her wishes or are misrepresenting her. Good advisers need to be able to anticipate her needs and responses, and keep her focused. She needs to trust that their advice is honest, especially when things don't look good. The only way to do that is to start cultivating those relationships well ahead of time. Just look at David Axelrod. One of the key reasons he was such an exceptional adviser was that he knew the candidate intimately, and the candidate trusted him profoundly. Sure you could win an election without an Axelrod by your side, but it sure as heck helps to have one (or a few).

3. Hit the books. One of our commenters, madmax13 (nice Aussie reference, by the way), put this point in less subtle terms, but I think madmax13 has a point. Palin suffered from the appearance that she lacked intellectual engagement with the critical issues in the election, namely the economy and foreign affairs. She's clearly a smart woman—she learned an enormous amount very quickly for her debate against Biden—but many question her curiosity and depth of knowledge. She'd do well to be spotted at a couple of reputable universities or think tanks. She may even consider doing a short fellowship. The point is that to win some of the key early states, like New Hampshire and Florida—not to mention places like California—she'll need to appear as though she's marinated in the issues they care about. Trust me, those New Hampshire town-hall audiences know their stuff, and they're merciless. And you simply can't win that state without doing a bunch of town halls there.

4. Travel. Similar to the previous point, it would serve Palin well to demonstrate a real interest in foreign affairs. It was her weakest point in the last election. A few well-placed photos of her in foreign capitals and war zones would improve her image with the foreign-policy doubters.

5. Figure out her narrative, and stick to it. When Palin announced her resignation, she gave a bunch of reasons, none of them particularly clear or compelling. That sort of ambiguity won't cut it in a presidential election. John McCain learned the hard way that running on an impressive biography isn't enough either. And love of country may seem compelling in 20-second ads, but it's a prerequisite for running, not a unique bonus. Palin needs to figure out a story that cuts a clear line from Alaska to the presidency, and in doing so illustrates the major themes of her campaign, whatever they may be. The Obama campaign took this sort of political branding to a new level. And while reporters nationwide got sick of "hope," "change," and "yes we can," we certainly never forgot what the Obama campaign was trying to say.

Republicans Pick Romney Over Palin in Gallup Poll

Katie Connolly — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:30:41 GMT

Gallup has released the results of a survey about potential GOP 2012 nominees, and it contains much good news for Mitt Romney fans. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, the former Massachusetts governor just beats out Sarah Palin in the preferred-nominee stakes (26%-21%), with Mike Huckabee coming in third (19%), followed by Newt Gingrich (14%). Two sitting governors whom pundits consider strong contenders─Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty and Mississippi's Haley Barbour─both polled poorly, but that's likely due to their low name recognition outside the Beltway.

The other good news for Romney is that his unfavorable rating among all voters has dropped substantially since he exited last year's presidential race. Back then, his unfavorables far outweighed his favorability: 46% to 34%. In this latest poll, that dynamic has flipped, with 37% of respondents viewing Romney favorably and 29% unfavorably. That's a 17-point drop in his unfavorables. However, the number of people expressing "no opinion" about Romney has increased. This could cut either way, but fortunately for him, he's got three years to win them over.

There's good news for Palin, too: her resignation doesn't appear to have altered her overall favorability ratings, which seem largely unchanged since the election. The country remains divided about her, with 43% viewing her favorably and 45% unfavorably. The only group that appears to have been affected by the resignation is Republicans. Her unfavorability among GOPers has risen, but she's still overwhelmingly popular with them: 72% view her favorably. You can read the full results here.

The poll illustrates an interesting disconnect, and one that should be of concern to the Palin camp. She's clearly the most popular figure in the Republican Party, yet Republicans aren't sure they want her as president. Does she need more time to learn her craft? Maybe Republicans are satisfied just to have her voice in the party, but don't see her leading it. Maybe GOPers would prefer to see her on TV than in the Oval Office. What do you think? Post your thoughts in the comments and I'll respond later today.

Palin's Resignation: Will Holding Office Matter in 2012?

Katie Connolly — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:29:26 GMT

Governor Sarah Palin's shock resignation last week prompted yet another round of colorful punditry on the woeful state of the Republican Party. If Palin does seek the GOP nomination in 2012, not only will she have an exceedingly short political resume, but she won't have a public office from which it launch her campaign. Interestingly, she's not alone. Two other candidates high on most politics watchers' lists - Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney - won't be in elected office either. (Pawlenty recently announced that he would not seek a third term as Minnesota Governor in 2010.) Here at the Gaggle we started wondering: Does it really matter if a candidate doesn't hold public office when he or she takes a stab at the presidency?

Veteran GOP consultant Charlie Black doesn't think incumbency is a decisive factor in determining the success of Presidential candidates. There are examples to illustrate either side of the argument. Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton all held office when they were elected, but Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter each won after they'd finished stints in their respective State Houses. Black says there are some advantages to being a free agent, namely that a candidate can concentrate fully on the campaign without having to worry about their day job. Having to perform official duties is a bigger concern for Governor than for Senators. Governors come under more pressure to attend to matters in their states. Black recalls that one-time Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis kept working as Massachusetts Governor several days a week through most of the campaign, which hindered his ability to make news or visit key states. Senators, on the other hand, have much more freedom to skip votes and committee hearings while they campaign. Senators can sometimes use their national platform to weigh in on critical debates in an election. But that can cut both ways: McCain's response to the economic meltdown in the closing stages of last year's election appeared erratic and ill-conceived next to Obama's cautious steps. The Arizona Senator paid a hefty price for it.

In the 2008 cycle, GOP operative Mike DuHaime worked for both Rudy Guiliani, who was not in office, and incumbent John McCain. "Incumbents are usually more successful in raising money," DuHaime says, and Charlie Black agrees. "Governors all seem to have an active fundraising organization in place. Particularly if you are the Governor of a big state, like George W. Bush was, it's a big advantage," Black said. But DuHaime thinks the advantages of incumbency pretty much end there. "Voters look at the resume as a whole," he says. If that's true, supporters of Governor Mitt Romney should be feeling pretty chuffed right now. Romney's impressive private-sector record of turning companies around has the potential to pay dividends if grim economic times continue. Alex Gage was Romney's pollster during his 2008 bid for the GOP nod. He says that Romney's time as Massachusetts Governor "never really came up" in their internal polls. Rather, voters responded to Romney's managerial experience as a whole. "He had a deeper resume," Gage says. "Serving as governor was one data point in his wealth of management experience." Gage also thinks that of the possible 2012 contenders, Romney has another ace up his sleeve: He's been there before. Gage says it's hard for candidates who haven't run before to truly appreciate what it takes.

Still, for all the hypothesizing about the importance of holding office, there will be only one incumbent that matters in 2012: Barack Obama. "It is almost always true that when an incumbent president runs for re-election, the election is about them and their record. It's usually a sort of referendum on the first term of the President," says Black. Obama is widely popular, but it's still early days for his Presidency. The jury is out on the success of his stimulus package and financial reforms, and the big fights over health care and energy are yet to come. Obama need only look at his predecessor to realize that sometimes the presidency is shaped almost entirely by unexpected events -- like terrorist attacks and hurricanes. Perhaps that's why GOP message guru Mark McKinnon remains bullish on his party's prospects. "If you hold office right now, it's all bad news." McKinnon wrote in an email to your Gaggler. "Programs are being cut and taxes are being raised. The only thing people who hold office now can successfully run for in 2012 is the border."

Palin Still Rules, But Romney is Gaining

Holly Bailey — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:38:42 GMT

Who stands to benefit the most from Mark Sanford’s troubles? Well, amid all the news yesterday, we missed this new poll the finds Mitt Romney's numbers are inching up, not just among Republicans but the general public According to the latest Pew survey, 40 percent of those surveyed viewed Romney “favorably”—about a 10 percent increase compared to February 2008 when he quit the GOP presidential primary. Still, Sarah Palin remains the most popular GOP figure, with a 45 percent favorable rating. Among Republicans alone, Palin is WAY more popular than Romney, with a 73 percent favorable rating compared to Romney’s 57 percent. And that’s a very important number—after all a candidate has to make it through the GOP primary first.

The good news for Romney: While she remains enormously popular among Republicans, Palin’s numbers have been pretty steady since last fall, while Romney is moving up. According to Pew, Romney has made equal gains among both conservative Republicans and those who describe themselves as moderate or liberal Republicans. If there is a push to move the party toward the middle—as some suggest the GOP should do in order to be more competitive with Barack Obama—Romney seems to be the candidate best positioned to benefit from that change.

But what will Romney’s message be? With some exceptions, the Massachusetts governor has largely been laying low lately, which is a smart political move. We’ve seen him talking out talking about the economy and the dangers of Obama’s spending habits, but Romney does not seem to be positioning himself to win over social conservatives as he did in the last campaign—although it is still very early. After the 2008 primary, many wondered what Romney’s political fate would have been had he just run on the moderate record he had as a governor, as opposed to moving toward the right. Although these numbers won’t matter in the GOP primary, Pew finds that Romney has made his biggest gain among so-called independent voters. Back in 2008, just 29 percent of that important voting bloc had a favorable view of Romney, while 46 percent didn’t like him. Today, those numbers have-- to use a phrase that haunted Romney during the campaign--flip-flopped. Now, 44 percent of independents view Romney favorably. Those are important stats for a party looking to mount a strong opponent against Obama.

After Sanford, What Do Republicans Do Now?

Holly Bailey — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:04:09 GMT

Mark Sanford’s decision to come clean about his extramarital affair today is just the beginning of the story. There will inevitably be other shoes to drop: What did his staff know? Did any state employees lie for him? Did Sanford use any state funds to facilitate or conceal his affair? After all, the South Carolina governor did take off in his official vehicle last Thursday when he made his secret getaway to Buenos Aires. Will he be forced to resign the governor’s office? While we’ve seen politicians bounce back from bad behavior before (just ask Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich), all of this means Sanford’s 2012 presidential aspirations are likely over. But the bigger question is: What do Republicans do now?

It was barely a week ago that Sen. John Ensign, another GOP rising star, admitted his own affair. Ensign, though still largely a political unknown nationally, had been tagged by many within the party as an up-and-comer with the ability to help the GOP rebuild in the era of Obama. Today’s announcement from Sanford was like a sucker-punch for a party that has still not quite managed to regain its political footing in recent months. “We look like the party of hypocrisy,” one frustrated GOP strategist said today. “How low can we go?”

It hasn’t just been a bad month for the GOP, it’s been a bad year. The party can’t seem to find its way out of the wilderness. There’s no obvious leader, and there are no obvious issues they can lay claim to against President Obama and the Democrats. The GOP has been unable to gain traction on anything—but that was a problem well before we learned about two of its 2012 hopefuls cheating on their spouses. What’s happened with Sanford and Ensign is no doubt a blow to the party, but Republicans were already struggling with question of identity: What kind of GOP does it want to be?

The answer is still unclear. The GOP’s claim to be the party of “family values” has taken a hit—though it was already in a tenuous position. (Do the names Mark Foley, Larry Craig and David Vitter ring a bell?) There’s been a push to move the GOP away from social politics and more toward mainstream issues, but there’s no obvious Republican, much less 2012 candidate, that seems willing to take up that mantle. In fact, the GOP seems just as lost as it did before—though the field of hopefuls has gotten considerably narrower. The most obvious beneficiaries of the fallout seems to be the people already sniffing around the race, including Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour. Like Sanford, all three have been critical of Obama’s stimulus bill and approach to federal spending, a position popular among GOP fiscal conservatives. Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman turned governor of Mississippi, benefits most strategically: He’s taking over Sanford’s chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association, a promotion that not only offers him a higher profile but helps him build on already broad national political contacts. The problem: None of the guys (so far at least) has elicited much excitement among the GOP base. Thus, the march through the wilderness continues ...

The GOP 2012 Nomination: A Case of Last Man Standing?

Katie Connolly — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:44:10 GMT

It's official: If DC pundits consider you a contender for the GOP nomination in 2012, then it's just a matter of time before you are publicly humiliated (or sent to China.) Seriously. In light of Sanford's stunning admission of an affair today, let's take stock:

Governor Kenneth the Page, um I mean Bobby Jindal: The Louisiana Governor was a bright spot in a gloomy Republican landscape early this year. But it didn't last. Jindal delivered the Republican response to Obama's speech to a Joint Session of Congress in February, and it was, well, a bit weird. Your Gaggler has seen Jindal speak several times. He's usually engaging, serious and forceful. But that night, he was just plain goofy - all smiles and vocal inflections. The response, which prompted comparisons to (and a very funny video by) 30 Rock's Kenneth the Page was pilloried by comics and critics alike. We haven't seen much from him since.
Governor Sarah Palin: Palin made her national debut last year amid uncomfortable stories about her then 17 year old daughter's unplanned pregnancy. (No doubt a humiliating experience for Bristol.) This year the Alaska Governor has been making all sorts of unflattering headlines. There was the money she had to pay back to Alaska for trips she had taken with her children and her odd "will she-won't she" tango over her appearance at a Republican fundraiser. Then there's her spat with Levi Johnston, the father of her grandson. To top it all off, her most extensive time in the spotlight recently has been due to some crude comments made about her and her family by David Letterman. That list hardly screams "presidential."
Senator John Ensign: Can you believe that just one week ago we were discussing the affair of a different GOP presidential contender? Ensign's six month long dalliance with a campaign staffer, who was married to one of his Senate staffers sounded bad enough. But add to that sordid details like that he was essentially blackmailed into admitting the affair, and the sound you will hear is the death knell for his fledgling presidential aspirations.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrinch: We're not sure this one qualifies as humiliating per se, but it was pretty darn awkward. Gingrinch made headlines recently when he accused Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor of being a racist. He soon had to recant his words.
Utah Governor John Huntsman: Now this guy seems to have been entirely above board. No debauchery to report about Huntsman, but that may have been his problem. Obama sent the appealing, squeaky clean, Mandarin speaking Huntsman as far away from the Iowa caucuses as he could: China. Huntsman is now U.S. Ambassador there, where he's working for the man he may have rivaled, and is conveniently out of the political headlines.

Amongst the wreckage, two men are left standing: Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts and Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota. With the never-ending Senate recount in his state, Pawlenty's had his fair share difficulties this year. So I guess that leaves one. Watch out Mitt. The curse might get you too.

Romney to Obama: You're timid, dude

Katie Connolly — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:54:31 GMT

Erstwhile Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney writes a scathing editorial in the National Review Online today (read it here) in which calls President Obama "a timid advocate of freedom at best." He blasts the President for sitting through Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's blistering 50 minute attack on the United States at the Summit of the Americas and offering only what Romney sees as a mild rebuke in return. He admonishes the President for not responding to the North Korean missile launch with financial punishments or sanctions, and for offering "no hint of military options" toward Iran for violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. "Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved," Romney writes. He fails to note, predictably, that the enhanced capabilities in North Korea and Iran in question were largely developed under President Bush's watch. And although he criticizes Obama for failing to deter nuclear brinkmanship, he doesn't mention the President's proposal for a new arms control regime or his anti-nukes speech in Prague. Still, it is a forceful, uncompromising critique that is bound to get conservative hearts racing.

Romney has been a fairly regular face on cable TV over the past few months, and up until now has offered measured criticism of the administration. That he would choose foreign policy as the subject for his most vigorous attack, when his notable strong suit is economics and finance, is a likely window to his barely sublimated Presidential ambitions. And that he chose conservative magazine the National Review to publish this attack, rather than the Wall Street Journal or the Boston Globe where he has published before, gives us a clue as to just who he is burnishing his foreign policy credentials for: GOP party faithful.

Here's a taste of his oped (after the jump):

At last week's Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega's denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro's dictatorship was that he shouldn't be blamed "for things that happened when I was three months old." Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba's freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.

In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had "dictated" to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has "showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." London's Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama "went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country's action while standing on foreign soil." Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America's resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.

In Which Sam Brownback Learns that Iowa Votes Can Only Be Purchased on the Cheap

Holly Bailey — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:42:19 GMT

End of the Trail: Brownback. Photo: Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images

And then there were nine. On Friday, Sam Brownback will drop his bid for the GOP presidential nomination. The Kansas senator, while popular with the conservative base of the party, never seemed to catch fire in the polls. Yet that’s not the reason he’s quitting. A source close to Brownback, who declined to speak on the record because the senator has yet to announce his intentions publicly, says the decision is purely about the money--that is, his lack of it. Brownback raised just $4.2 million during the first nine months of the campaign and blew through most of it, ending the third-quarter with just under $95,000 in the bank. (Interestingly, that’s about how much John McCain has to spend in the primary, when you figure in his campaign’s debts.)

Where did the money go? Well, for one thing, Brownback bet the farm on Iowa. According to his latest campaign reports, he spent at least $300,000 on the Ames Straw Poll--not including the potentially thousands of dollars more the senator spent on “get out the vote” efforts related to the event that were not clearly identified among his expenditures. According to his Federal Election Commission filing, Brownback spent $128,900 on straw poll tickets alone--which, at $35 a pop means he bought more than 3600 tickets. Yet Brownback got just 2,192 votes that day, coming in third, so that means he likely paid for someone to vote for another candidate. Bummer. He spent nearly $20,000 on buses to bring his would-be supporters to Ames.

And that was only the beginning. Brownback paid Famous Dave’s barbecue $23,984 to cater his tent, which by the way cost $26,581 to rent. (It was huge and air conditioned--and featured a guest appearance by Stephen Baldwin, which was priceless.) And fyi, the space where the tent was set up cost $20,000 alone. Brownback didn’t slack on the entertainment either. According to his FEC reports, he spent nearly $4,100 on a playground area, featuring a dunk tank and moon bounce. (For those who got lucky and dunked the Brownback intern into the tank, you won a prize--which, by the way, cost the campaign $230.) The campaign paid the production company organizing the event $25,734. All told, Brownback spent at least $120 apiece on those who voted for him that day.

How does this compare with his top rivals at the event? Well, as the Gaggle has reported, Mitt Romney is no slouch when it comes to spending money. According to his FEC reports, his campaign spent almost $280,000 alone on buying tickets and securing his primo spot in the center of the action at the straw poll. He spent another $261,000 on bussing supporters to the event. He spent almost $34,000 on catering from Hickory Park, a legendary Ames barbecue joint. Two moon bounces and a rock climbing wall were rented for $6,162. The musical entertainment cost $10,000. It's unclear how much his tent or the massive Lollapalooza-like soundstage his campaign rented for the day cost because those aren’t clearly labeled in his FEC disbursements, but here’s a news flash: It probably cost A LOT.

And that brings us to who now in hindsight seems even more of the big winner that day: Mike Huckabee, who finished second. The former Arkansas governor is not shy when it comes to bragging about his campaign’s thrifty ways, and according to his latest FEC report, he’s not kidding. Huckabee appears to have spent less than $100,000 on the straw poll. His biggest expense was a $60,500 payout to the Republican Party of Iowa for his booth space and tickets. The entertainment was free--Huckabee’s band, Capital Offense, rocked the crowd on a stage that was leased for a mere $700. He spent $2,300 on barbecue and bused in some watermelons from Arkansas to feed the crowd. (And, btw, we don’t see any mention on his FEC reports on how much those cost.) He also got catering and event decorations from, wait for it, Sam’s Club for less than $1,000. He rented tables and food service equipment for $330. He spent zilch on buses. All told, Huckabee spent less than $40 a piece for every vote he got in Ames, which seems like a pretty good bargain to us.

I Think the Personal Touch is Best. Just Check Out My Ads

Holly Bailey — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:54:31 GMT

In Iowa today, Mitt Romney gave his seal of approval to the state’s decision to move its GOP presidential primary to Jan. 3. “I think it’s a good thing that Iowa is first,” Romney told reporters, according to the Politico’s Jonathan Martin. “Iowans have shown over the years that they’re willing to get to know the candidates on a personal basis and make a judgment on their heart and character, not just their ads.” Not that there’s anything wrong with ads in Romney’s book. His comments came on the heels of yet more details on just how extensive the former governor’s advertising has been during the first nine months of the campaign. According to the Nielsen Company, Romney has placed 10,893 TV and radio ads so far-more ads than any other two presidential hopefuls combined. Bill Richardson placed second, with 5,975 ads, and Barack Obama was third, placing 4,293 ads. According to Nielsen, Romney ran 10,199 ads on local TV, the bulk of them in Iowa, where Romney hit the airwaves 5,058 times. He ran 1,658 ads in New Hampshire, 977 ads in Vermont (where the TV market reaches residents in northern New Hampshire), 893 ads in South Carolina and 1,413 ads in Florida. None of his GOP opponents even came close to his ad buys. Rudy Giuliani, who has yet to air a TV ad, ran 642 radio spots. Ron Paul ran 232 TV ads, all in Iowa, and John McCain aired 166 TV ads in New Hampshire. At the same time, McCain leads the presidential pack in cheaper online advertising. According to Nielsen, McCain had 4.3 million sponsored links in August. Dennis Kucinich was second with 1.8 million sponsored links and Romney was third, with 1.7 million. But we have a feeling that it’s only a matter of time before the other candidates close the gap. Just Google “Fred Thompson.” Right now, when you search for info on the former Tennessee senator, a banner ad comes up touting Mike Huckabee’s Web site. “Huckabee Finn?” it says, playing off former White House aide Dan Bartlett’s recent comments about the former Arkansas governor’s last name. “Check out the real story.”