ConservativeHome's The Republican

Cain tops Perry to take Colorado straw poll

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As Americans await the outcome of ongoing debt negotiations, in other political news from across the country Herman Cain has claimed the top spot in the latest conservative conference straw poll.

Earning nearly half the ballots cast at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, the Georgia businessman trumped his GOP competition, with undeclared candidate Rick Perry finishing a very distant second.  According to Politico's Haberman & Burns:

Herman Cain easily won the Western Conservative Summit presidential straw poll Sunday, drawing 246 ballots out of 508 cast and beating his nearest runner-up by a 179-vote margin.

Second-place contender Rick Perry took 67 votes, or 13 percent, to Cain's 48 percent. In third place was Rick Santorum with 50 ballots, or just under 10 percent,

In addition to Perry, the survey also included other unconfirmed candidates like former Ambassador John Bolton, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

As well as appearing in the straw poll, Perry also featured as the event's keynote speaker on Friday night.

The full results of the Western Conservative Summit Straw Poll are included below.

Michele Bachmann -- 9 percent, 44 votes
John Bolton -- 4 percent, 20 votes
Herman Cain -- 48 percent, 246 votes
Newt Gingrich -- 1 percent, 3 votes
Rudy Giuliani -- 0 percent, 0 votes
Jon Huntsman -- 0 percent, 1 vote
Gary Johnson -- 0 percent, 1 vote
Thaddeus McCotter -- 0 percent, 2 votes
Sarah Palin -- 1 percent, 5 votes
Ron Paul -- 2 percent, 12 votes
Tim Pawlenty -- 1 percent, 7 votes
Rick Perry -- 13 percent, 67 votes
Mitt Romney -- 10 percent, 49 votes
Rick Santorum -- 10 percent, 50 votes
Paul Ryan -– 1 vote

Why they voted 'No': A look at the nine House Republicans who opposed 'Cut, Cap, Balance'

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As expected, the Cut, Cap, Balance bill passed the House yesterday 234-190. And although strongly supported by GOP leaders (and five blue dog Democrats) across a range of political offices, nine House Republicans (including two presidential hopefuls) yesterday voiced their opposition to key provisions within the legislation, ultimately voting against the measure during last night's roll call.

With the proposal facing a challenge from the 'Gang of Six' plan, as well as President Obama's veto promise, here's a look at what a number of representatives who voted 'No' had to say about their decision:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann:

While I embrace the principles of Cut, Cap and Balance, the motion does not go far enough in fundamentally restructuring the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars. The principles found in this bill are a step in the right direction toward the fundamental restructuring we need in the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars.

Along with cutting spending, putting in place enforceable spending caps that put us on a path to balance and passing a balanced budget amendment, we must also repeal and defund ObamaCare.

Congressman Ron Paul:

What we have been asked to do here is support a budget that only cuts relative to the President's proposed budget.  It still maintains a $1 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, and spends even more money over the next 10 years than the Paul Ryan budget which already passed the House...while I sympathize with the aims of this bill's sponsors, I must vote against HR 2560.  It is my hope, however, that the looming debt ceiling deadline and the discussion surrounding the budget will further motivate us to consider legislation in the near future that will make meaningful cuts and long-lasting reforms. 

Congressman Paul Broun

I gave my word to my constituents in Georgia and to the rest of the American people that I would not vote for any bill that increases the debt limit.  Although the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill is a step in the right direction, it still raises the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, and we simply cannot afford it.

Also missing from the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill is the urgency to pay down the debt by immediately reducing the outrageous spending levels to which Washington has become so accustomed.  Unfortunately, the cuts outlined in Cut, Cap, and Balance take effect over a period of ten years.  We no longer have ten years to spare – it’s too little, too late.

Congressman Quico Canseco:

While I support the main principles of this legislation, cutting government spending, capping government spending and balancing the federal budget, I did not support this bill because it was tied to an increase in our debt.

We are sitting on the edge of an fiscal abyss not because we can't spend enough money. We are here because we have continued spending money we don't have. Now is the time to get serious about our spending driven debt crisis. I believe we must rise to this challenge to give our children and grandchildren a bright future and not continue politics as usual here in Washington.

Congressman Scott DesJarlais:

I could not support the Cut, Cap and Balance Act in its entirety and therefore voted against it.

While I do agree that we need to cut current spending, cap future spending at under 20% of our nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) and send a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment to the states for ratification, I simply cannot vote in favor of giving this president another 2.4 trillion dollars to continue his reckless government spending spree for the next year and a half.

Congressman Morgan Griffith:

I support the general goal of cut, cap, and balance, and I appreciate House leadership bringing this concept to the floor for a vote. However, to keep my commitments made to my constituents, I cannot support raising the debt ceiling without significant cuts and a substantial change to the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars. The Balanced Budget Amendment, if passed by the House and Senate and then by the States, would substantially change the way Washington spends money, but I have repeatedly stated that year one cuts must be more than $100-200 billion.

Congressman Connie Mack:

I believe voting for this increase, at this time, is a step in the wrong direction and puts our party on record as supporting a raise in the debt ceiling without any plan from President Obama.

Representatives Walter Jones and Dana Rohrabacher also voted against the bill.

Ron Paul wins RLC straw poll, Jon Huntsman takes second

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

CBS News reports:

Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans Saturday, easily beating out his rivals for the GOP nomination. Second place went to Jon Huntsman, the little-known former Utah governor who missed the conference with a cold....Paul finished with 612 votes, followed by Huntsman with 382. Michele Bachmann took third with 191 votes, followed by Herman Cain with 104 votes. No other candidate got more than 100.

Mitt Romney took 74 votes, Newt Gingrich 69, Sarah Palin 41, Rick Santorum 30 and Tim Palwenty 18.

Attendees at the gathering for conservative and Republican activists were asked, "If the primary election for president were held today, for whom would you vote?"

What They're Saying: Conservatives weigh in on the New Hampshire debate

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

The race for the Republican nomination gained momentum last night as seven confirmed candidates took to the stage in the first major debate of the 2012 election cycle.  And while they lambasted President Obama's policies, the GOP hopefuls for the most part "played nice," using the two hour event to introduce themselves and their views to American voters rather than engage in petty shots against each other.

With seven months to go before the primary elections, here's a look at what a number of conservatives had to say about the impact of last night's debate:

Michael Barone:

Bottom line. This was a New Hampshire debate, but it has serious ramifications for Iowa as well. I have disparaged the idea that Romney is the frontrunner; I continue to think that given the polls no one is the frontrunner. But Romney behaved like a frontrunner, one with confidence and sense of command and with the adroitness to step aside from two major issue challenges (Romneycare, his various views on abortion) he faces...I think Bachmann emerged from this debate a more serious competitor and Pawlenty not a stronger one than he was before. 

David Frum:

After last night, Pawlenty’s fund-raising will sputter. He’s not exciting enough for ultra-base small donors. He does not look enough like a winner to mobilize big-dollar donors. The cratering of Pawlenty opens an alternative space on Romney’s right. Gingrich is too damaged to seize it. Will Rick Perry try? Will Paul Ryan? If not, I’d guess the future course of the race goes like this: Bachmann wins Iowa. Romney wins New Hampshire. Absent Perry or Ryan, the field quickly empties out. The establishment rallies to Romney. The party follows just as it did in 1988, 1996 and 2000.

Tevi Troy:

The Republican debate dispelled at least two clichés about American politics, that it is nastier than ever and that it is not substantive...Overall, though, the debate did not really change the shape of the race, and its biggest impact may be that it provided contrary evidence to the notion that the Republican field is somehow less than serious. On the other hand, the evening did not exactly leave the participants battle-tested. When one of these candidates ends up facing off against President Obama, they can rest assured that he won’t be fighting by this evening’s Marquess of Queensberry rules.

Erick Erickson:

I think Mitt Romney did not just win the New Hampshire debate by holding his own, but legitimately won it with his answers and composure. He was unnecessarily defensive on the Afghan question, but largely showed his experience with Presidential debates. The surprise last night was Michelle Bachmann. If there was a winner of the anti-Romney coalition, Michelle Bachmann not only won, but won by a wide margin. Suddenly, for many, the flirtation toward Herman Cain and others will go in Bachmann’s direction. Bachmann’s stellar performance also contrasted with Tim Pawlenty who could have sealed the deal, or taken substantial steps toward sealing the deal, of being the anti-Romney candidate. 

Ryan Streeter: 

As far as the candidates go, Mitt Romney came into this debate needing only to protect his frontrunner status. And he did that tonight. He was decisive, fair-minded, and clear enough. He was presidential, not defensive or overly-hyped as some of the others were...He was aided in large part by the other candidates. They all seemed to lose the debate in one major respect: they forgot that a major task for the evening was to put Romney on his heels. Most were concerned with making their pre-written talking points, sometimes agreeing with each other, but no one put on the gloves and took some swings at the man who has rushed out ahead of the pack in the polls. 

Bill Kristol:

The seven candidates on stage performed creditably last night, with two pretty clearly helping themselves—Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann. But since the stage at St. Anselm didn't feature all of the eventual candidates, one can also ask, which potential candidates who aren't yet in the race were helped or hurt?

John McCormack:

Michele Bachmann had a great start to her presidential campaign Monday night. Announcing that she's running for president at the beginning of the debate was a clever way of grabbing headlines, but her performance wasn't all gimmicks. She seemed to outshine Herman Cain, the other Tea Party favorite, on both substance and style.

What They're Saying: The conservative response to last night's GOP debate

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

With a pool of participants mostly unknown to American voters, and with little substance to their statements, last night's "inaugural" GOP primary debate proved to be both disappointing and dull.

While the event touched on a number of issues (foreign policy proved to be a dominate focus), and although they were quick with their criticisms of President Obama's policies, there was also very little engagement between candidates during the debate.

Unimpressed by the lacklustre showing, here's a look at what a number of conservative bloggers had to say in response to last night's event: 

ConHome Editor Ryan Streeter in his summary of the "junior varsity" line-up commented on The Republican this morning that:

In last night’s Fox News GOP Republican presidential debate, the junior varsity came out to play…and made us all hope the varsity team is much better…The Fox News interrogators were the winners – they had a lackluster field to interrogate, and they handled it seriously and professionally, though I couldn’t help but wonder if they were on the verge of cracking up with laughter from time to time…The debate last night wasn’t a serious affair. It was forgettable. And the sooner we forget it, the better. 

Live blogging throughout the event,  FrumForum’s Noah Kristula-Green and Tim Mak said it all with the title of their post:

Why is Pawlenty on stage with these crazy people?

In a post via Commentary Magazine’s blog, Executive Editor Jonathan Tobin said of the event:

The South Carolina debate was not a good show for the Republicans. The only one of the candidates that came across as credible was Tim Pawlenty. But even he seems as if he’s a work in progress. The bottom line here is that the Republican candidates who weren’t there have to be encouraged. Unfortunately for the GOP, so are the Democrats.

Citing Tim Pawlenty and Hermain Cain as the big winners of the evening, RedState's Erick Erickson commented:

While I pray I never have to see Gary Johnson in another debate ever again, Herman Cain will hopefully be in every debate from here on out. The more the voting pubic hears of Herman Cain, the more his rivals are going to come after him. He is this year’s Mike Huckabee.

Adding on Twitter:

@EWErickson OK, I bought the Luntz panel saying Cain came in first. Now I question their mental competence saying Santorum came in second.

House Speaker John Boehner didn’t even watch the event, telling CBS’s Political Hotsheet that:

I”ll read about it tomorrow

Also adding that:

There's more time for people to get in [the race]

In his take on last night's "whatever-the-opposite-of-thriller-is," Matt Latimer weighed in with his views via The Daily Beast:

The main problem with last night’s GOP debate is that most of the diehard political junkies in Washington—yours truly among them—had to be reminded that it was even taking place. The many, many voters who missed this clash of “Governor Tim Pawlenty and the also-rans” can continue their lives without a care...

And, finally, a few lines from Stephen Green, who was "drunkblogging" the debate at Pajamas Media:

Cain: I have no plan for Afghanistan because there’s no plan for Afghanistan...Elect me so I can get enough information to have a strategy. The bell came as a relief to everyone.

Johnson… sigh. As a semi-recovering member, I can tell you: He’s a typical libertarian — great on the facts, snoozy/geeky/awkward on the delivery. If you loved the Atlas Shrugged movie, you’re totally digging him right now.

The Kindle ad Fox just ran is the most entertaining thing I’ve seen in the last 53 minutes.