Take Me To Your Leader

Rasmussen is polling Republican voters about who they view as the leader of the rapidly shrinking GOP. Compared to Rasmussen's March 2009 numbers, the search for a new leader reveals a roster of golden oldies emerging to fill the power vacuum. Who has stepped forward to become the leading Goposaur?

	Mar-09	May-09
John McCain	5%	18%
Michael Steele	5%	14%
Sarah Palin	1%	10%
Mitt Romney	N/A	8%
Rush Limbaugh	2%	6%
Dick Cheney	N/A	4%
No Clear Leader	68%	37%
Not Sure	17%

Earlier this month, Rasmussen reported deep dissatisfaction among the Republican faithful regarding their congressional leadership, with 69% saying they have lost touch with their base nationally.

Romney Dropping Out - Making a Play for 2012?

The media is reporting this morning Mitt Romney's imminent departure from the GOP race. Apparently, the kids decided their shrinking inheritance wasn't worth continuing dad's losing battle for the presidential nomination.

The confluence of the announcement coming during the CPAC conference is remarkable. In my opinion, it raises the question: Have the conservatives abandoned the White House in 2008? Is Romney positioning himself as the conservative standard-bearer, following the 1976 Ronald Reagan strategy?

Michigan Mischief = No Mandate, No "Big Mo" & No GOP Nominee

Republican operatives are worried Michigan Democrats and Independents may alter the GOP primary results in the Wolverine State, essentially picking the eventual Republican nominee.

While the NY Sun article, "Mich. Democrats May Determine Republican Nominee" doesn't mention the cross-the-aisle meddling advocated by DKos' Markos Moulitsas to support Romney it does reinforce Kos' message: the Michigan results will be dismissed or questioned by whomever finishes second in the primary.

So, if the winner of today's primary receives a questionable mandate and negligible momentum heading into South Carolina, the next stop on the GOP's chaotic campaign of '08 how can anyone really believe the article's headline?

The GOP's Great Schism

The likelihood of a Romney GOP nomination are growing slimmer by the day.

Huckabee's evangelical base is heading into a battle with the old-line blue blood Wall Street wing of the party. Three weeks before the primary voting begins, the financial conservatives' support is divided between Romney & Giuliani, with Rudy picking up the neocon warhawks. Because the war on terra remains a much more potent issue on the Republican side, Giuliani is likely to carry the Wall Street banner against Huckabee for control of the GOP.

In many ways, although Huckabee scares the bejeebers out of me in the general because of his Uncle Ronnie-like amicability, a Huckabee nomination would mean very bad things for the GOP, which would likely divide. It would signify a further retreat into a theocratic, regional (Southern) party, alienating the financial conservatives, libertarians and independents in the 2008 general election and, quite possibly, in subsequent election cycles.

A Huckabee nomination may also entice Mike Bloomberg to launch a third party candidacy.

Can the Baptist Minister Win in '08?

In the aftermath of the YouTube mashup in Florida the other night, I got to thinking about which GOP candidate might pose the biggest challenge to a Democrat winning back the White House 11 months from now. In a general election, I rate these GOPers as the most worrisome (as in, they have the better chance of winning):

1) Huckabee
2) McCain
3) Romney
4) Giuliani
5) Thompson

Huckabee is a genial ("Reaganesque") guy. He has a sense of humor. He seems reasonable on fiscal policy (anyone who raises the ire of the Club for Growth gang scores some points for bravery in the GOP, IMO), he joined McCain in challenging the rightwing orthodoxy on immigration by rebuking Mitt with "We are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did."

There is no doubt in my mind his folksy manner puts many people at ease. My dad (no evangelical at all) said this past weekend, "I can picture voting for that Huckleberry guy." Of course, as he gets better known, that may change.

McCain came across at the YouTube confab as the one who hasn't gone off his rocker on immigration - which I think makes him competitive in a general. If the news out of Iraq continues to be one of lessening violence and (somehow) they begin to make progress on political reconciliation, he could increase his general election chances. His problem, as it has been for months, is actually winning the nomination with a base who has become increasingly rabid in their devotion to right wing causes.

Romney - if he can frame the general election about managerial competence, he could be the "change" agent in 2008. That's a HUGE "if" of course. He can actually make the argument that he is the one capable of cleaning up the mess left by Dubya just like he did in the SLC Olympics. He can also say he knows how to be a pragmatic governing executive. After all, he did manage a librul state like Massachusetts. He is certainly no ideologue like Bush. (Although my dad does say, "He didn't leave the Bay State in a mess because he wasn't here long enough.") Not sure how accurate that statement is.

If Romney succeeds in avoiding the ideological issues in a general election, I can see him becoming palatable to general election moderate voters. His biggest liability in my opinion is that he comes across as an elitist intellectual, a la Gore and Kerry. But, Shrub's daddy won overcoming a similar flaw. Sometimes the country wants a leader who doesn't have the "vision thing."

Giuliani - I think that as people see him more, he becomes a truly frightening and delusional figure. This means he could win the nomination and I think the Democrats will have a field day with this one. If the GOP makes the mistake of choosing Rudy because he's electable, I think the general becomes MUCH easier. There are FAR too many skeletons in Rudy's closet. The one thing is that if the contest is between Rudy and Hillary, I believe there will be a third party candidate - whether it's Bloomberg, Ron Paul or someone like Al Gore, I'm not sure.

Thompson - although he did show a few brief moments of awareness during the YouTube gathering, I think his candidacy has been dead for quite some time. There is no fire here - and I can actually picture him midway through a first term deciding, "Nevermind. This isn't as fun as Law & Order." Really. I can.

Huckabee Surging to the Top In Iowa

Rasmussen Reports shows Mike Huckabee in first place in Iowa opinion polls for the first time today, just in time for the citizen-driven YouTube GOP debate from St. Petersburg, FL. Huckabee and insurgent libertarian Ron Paul are the only two candidates showing forward motion while all the others are losing support.

Huckabee: 28 (+12)
Romney: 25 (-4)
Giuliani: 12 (-3)
Thompson: 11 (-3)
Paul: 5 (+1)
McCain: 4 (-2)
Tancredo: 4 (nc)
Hunter: 1 (-1)

Will the former Arkansas governor find himself the target of Mitt, Rudy and Grandpa Fred as a result?

Or will the GOP candidates find themselves flummoxed and confused by actual questions from real citizens regarding health care, education and the economy?

I was wondering what the odds were that someone out there decided to pose a question to Mitt from a snowman or a polar bear? And, it turns out the NY Times is reporting in the affirmative. Will CNN include the question? And will Mittster's reply be, "I reject the premise of the question because the questioner is a muppet?"

WaPo Gets the Money Headline WRONG

Cross-Posted at Daily Kos.

In reading the news reports on the presidential Q2 fundraising numbers, I came across this article over at washingtonpost.com: Campaigns Raise, Burn More Cash, More Quickly: Rapid Spending Puts Some in Jeopardy Early. The gist of the story is that both Democratic and Republican candidacies are in jeopardy because of out-of-control spending.

But, if you take a closer look, its basically the Republicans who are spending money faster than they're raising it while the leading Dems ALL saw their bank accounts grow during the quarter.

Might I suggest a more accurate headline for the WaPo editors:

Republican Presidential Campaigns Running A Deficit: Candidates Show How They'll Manage Federal Budget if Elected

The article tries to make the claim that the profligate spending is causing problems for front-running candidates in both parties.

Candidates for the White House are not only raising far more than ever before, many are also spending that money as fast as they get it, leaving some close to being forced from the race almost six months before the first votes are cast.

Campaign finance reports released in recent days show that the spending spree is a reality for both front-runners and long shots. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) burned through more than $20 million in the past three months, 50 percent more than he raised during that span. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) blew through the $11 million he raised during the past quarter and has barely enough money to keep going, even with his dramatically scaled-down operation.

They make the observation that both Democratic frontrunners have spent large sums (Clinton spent $12.8M while Obama spent $16M) but failed to point out that these sums represent less than 50% of the amount each campaign took in during the quarter. They describe the $11M Giuliani spent during the quarter as "modest," failing to acknowledge that Clinton & Obama raised $10-15 million more than Rudy!)

Two of the three Republican frontrunners (McCain & Romney), on the other hand, spent MORE money than they raised in the quarter. (While Romney took in $20.998M and spent $20.739M, $6.5M was a personal loan, which means he would have been "in the red" if he had relied solely on money he raised from donors). Rudy Giuliani was the only GOP top-tier candidate who operated "in the black" during the quarter. But the WaPo fails to acknowledge that the Dems have far more cash available to spend. Rudy's "frugal" campaign spent more than half of what it took in during the period. His $18M CoH represents HALF of what Obama has in the bank.

In fact, the three GOP frontrunners CoH numbers added TOGETHER don't total either Clinton's or Obama's individual totals.

The article goes on to heap praise on the wise investment of Romney's personal fortune in his early advertising raising his poll numbers:

For Romney, at least, the costly effort to get his message out seems to have paid off, said Craig Fuller, an adviser to President George H.W. Bush who is helping Romney raise money. Romney has spent nearly $5 million on television ads at a time when few others are venturing onto the airwaves, and he has risen to the top of many polls in Iowa and News Hampshire.

Romney has the added advantage of being able to dip into his personal fortune -- estimated to be in the hundreds of millions -- to supplement his fundraising, and had lent more than $9 million to his campaign by the end of June.

"The strategy of building his name recognition in the early states through advertising, I think, has paid off for him," Fuller said.

"I think he's established that he's a front-running candidate, and that was a crucial first step for him."

I think what each of the GOP candidates have established is that they don't know how to balance a checkbook. Is that a quality we desire in our next president?