ConservativeHome's The Republican

Half of Americans cannot name anyone among the GOP's burgeoning 2012 field

Natalie Gonnella

In the latest survey investigating voters' perceptions of the 2012 presidential race, Pew Research Center finds that 53% of Americans and 38% of Republicans are unable to name a possible GOP contender when asked who among the 2012 field they had been "hearing most about."

When it comes to those who were able to identify a GOP contender, unsurprisingly (especially considering the barrage of media attention surrounding his most recent comments), Donald Trump tops the visibility list, with nearly two-fifths of Republicans naming the business mogul as the most noticeable contender among the possible 2012 field.  Mitt Romney places a distance second with only 12% visibility among GOP voters.

Pew's recent analysis also reveals that:

Overall, just 20% of the public say they followed possible candidates for the 2012 presidential elections very closely last week and just 4% named it as their most closely followed story. The disaster in Japan was once again the most closely followed story (at 26%), according to Pew Research’s News Interest Index. 

The full results of Pew's latest poll can be viewed here.

Poll: While he may be the first to take key steps towards a presidential bid, in comparison to other potential contenders former Governor Tim Pawlenty remains relatively unknown among Republican voters

Natalie Gonnella

Although Tim Pawlenty appears to be the "first out of the gate" among the possible GOP contenders, Gallup reveals that the former Governor still has a long way to go when it comes to recognition among the American electorate.

In the latest survey investigating potential 2012 candidates, Gallup examines name recognition among GOP voters. While Pawlenty may be the first to announce the formation of an exploratory committee, the former state leader only garners an ID score of 41%, ranking ninth amid possible Republican nominees, which, according to Gallup and past election patterns, could be a serious obstacle in his 2012 pursuit:

The last eight Republicans who won their party's presidential nomination -- John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, and Barry Goldwater -- were well-known and well-established politicians. 

Additionally, Barack Obama, who stands as an example of an individual who came from relative obscurity to national prominence, had a name recognition score of over 75% by March 2007, the year before he gained the Democratic nomination.

Pawlenty and Barbour thus face a serious challenge as they begin their quests to gain their party's nomination. Well under half of their party's rank-and-file members across the country at this point, less than a year before the first primaries and caucuses take place, know who they are. Both Pawlenty and Barbour, as well as other Republicans who are expected to formally announce their candidacies over the next few months, will be crisscrossing the country for the remainder of the year in an effort to make themselves known -- and liked -- by potential GOP primary voters. 

While Pawlenty ranks in the bottom tier on name recognition, when it comes to his Positive Intensity Score ("the net of strongly favorable views minus strongly unfavorable views") the Minnesotan does poll significantly better, locked in a tie for fourth place with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

The full results of Gallup's latest poll can be viewed here.

What They're Saying: Several 2012 candidates back the no-fly zone option in Libya

Natalie Gonnella

With a number of Republicans pushing hard for a no-fly zone in Libya amid intense criticism of President Obama's handling of the ongoing crisis, several 2012 candidates have started to speak out on the issue.

Although many among the perspective field have remained relatively quiet, a growing number of potential contenders have voiced their concerns about the continued violence, backing calls for the US and NATO allies to implement a no-fly zone as soon as possible,  Here's a look at what a few of the possible nominees have had to say:

In an interview with Fox News's Greta Van Susteren after his speech in Iowa last night, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said:

I think we need to make sure that we stand for our basic principles, including these. Number one, we don't want new or continued radical regimes anywhere in the world. But importantly, we want to move these regimes towards our value system, including democracy, human rights, resolving disputes in a peaceful manner in a democratic arena, free and fair flow of information and others...I would absolutely consider and likely deploy a no-fly zone over Libya for those reasons. We have a confirmed terrorist, a sociopath who is gunning down and killing his own people in the streets of Libya. We have, I believe, the reasonable capacity to prevent and stop that, at least as it relates to air strikes, and I think that's a viable option and he should take it.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, also interviewed by Van Susteren, called for immediate action:

Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Qaddafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more like they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him. I mean, the idea that we're confused about a man who has been an anti-American dictator since 1969 just tells you how inept this administration is. They were very quick to jump on Mubarak, who was their ally for 30 years, and they were confused about getting rid of Qaddafi. This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin called for the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya via her Facebook page earlier in February, and in an interview on Fox News with Jeanine Pirro this past weekend she reiterated her view, commenting that:

Certainly a no fly zone...41 years of Gadhafi. He’s got to go. I think what was unfortunate there in Libya was that is it took our administration so long to have any full throated support for ousting Gadhafi.

In an interview with CNN in late February, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee expressed his concerns, noting that:

I think a no-fly zone would be absolute – yeah a no fly zone very important because that way you keep him from flying mercenaries in, maybe even a naval armada somewhere off the 3 mile international boundaries, just as a presence, and even to say we stand ready to do what is necessary to make sure there's not an act of genocide against those people

New poll investigating 2012 favorites reveals, once again, there is no clear favorite

Natalie Gonnella

Today Gallup released the results from its lastest poll examining 2012 preferences among Republican voters, and like previous surveys there was little change among the current field of possible contenders.

Former governors Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin are still locked in a "statistical tie" for the lead, and all three continue to be the only potential candidates to maintain double-digit support.  Gallup also noted that:

Most of the other candidates are now within one or two percentage points of their September and November estimates. Two exceptions are Romney, whose current 16% is a bit lower (though still within the margin of error) than his 19% readings last year, and Newt Gingrich, whose current 9% of the vote is down from 13% in November but the same as September.

While it is still early, considering the recent speeches at CPAC and other significant events since Gallup's November survey, the lack of change across the board provides an interesting reflection on current voter loyalty.

The full results of Gallup's recent survey can be viewed here.

New 2012 poll shows Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee "essentially" even with President Obama

Natalie Gonnella

Rasmussen Reporting released new poll results today reflecting possible 2012 match ups. Although Sarah Palin, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are trailing in the latest survey, former governors Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee fare much better, "essentially [running] even" with President Obama (Romney is actually ahead by two points.)

In comparison to past results, "Palin is down by 11 points, 49% to 38%, Gingrich by eight, 47% to 39%, and Paul by nine, 44% to 35%."

While it is still early, one of the most interesting findings revealed by Rasmussen's most recent survey is that "regardless of what GOP candidate is named, the president [only] earns between 42% and 49%," suggesting a competitive start to the 2012 presidential race.

The full results of Rasmussen's latest poll can be viewed here.

It's Time To Move Beyond Palin

The Editors

We live in serious times. We face a huge fiscal crisis, both now and in the long-term. We are experiencing a frustratingly slow pace of job creation. Middle class families are not doing much better than they were a decade ago. The threats to our national security are not going away. And to top it all off, state finances are in shambles and will create an additional burden for policymakers in Washington that we are only now coming to terms with. The United States of America faces the greatest combined threat to our future prosperity and stability than we have faced since the 1930s - at least.

For these reasons, we need a strong, serious, decisive leader on the Republican ticket in 2012. 

Let's face it. Sarah Palin is clearly not that leader. 

She's fun. She's attractive. She's appealing. She's down-home. She's got a populist vibe. She shoots animals. But she's not presidential timber. Not in times like these.

Now, she took some highly unfair criticism in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, and she was roundly defended by many smart commentators. But then she waded into the controversy the day of the President's speech and couldn't help but to bring the attention back to herself.

And this is the problem with Sarah Palin. There is often no other story about her than...her.

We live in consequential, even treacherous, times, and if Palin's serious about becoming President, she needs to address the nation with ideas, solutions, and the sobriety our times require, not with "WTFs" or other gimmicks aimed at getting attention. Otherwise, she should step aside. 

Because of her popularity, many have been afraid to say openly about her what they whisper in private. But a few brave souls have stepped out and said about Sarah Palin what others think but are unwilling to say. 

We call this group the Truth Tellers - it's hard to argue with their statements about Sarah Palin. See below for what they have said about her. Here's a summary of the main points:

• Palin is unserious about ideas and doesn't seem to care much about providing clear, decisive leadership on the biggest issues facing America. It's hard to find much evidence to the contrary. Can her supporters provide compelling evidence to refute this? We have looked, and we can't find the evidence. Other than a smart QE2 statement that the Wall Street Journal applauded, there's not much there.
• There is no obvious route for her to the White House. Have any of her supporters mapped out how she wins in a way that's half-way believable? We're not sure there is one. We take Roger Simon's point under advisement - that it is too soon to rule Sarah out - but so far, it's not clear how she wins. Someone needs to build a good case before we'll change our minds, because we sure don't see it.
• Instead of replying to detractors with presidential aplomb or directing the public discussion away from criticism to a positive view of the future, she is alienating and even defensive. Some may think this a subjective assessment, but it's hard to argue with the charge that she spends far too much time dueling with the media or using the media to duel with others than to present any positive vision of the future. Whatever their flaws, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie, and Mitch Daniels have all carved out identities based on specific ideas, policy, and vision. What is Sarah Palin's vision? What are her ideas? Can anyone convincingly answer those questions? 

So let's take a look at the Truth Tellers in their own words:

Palin's reference to Obama in her speech yesterday made her small in light of the President's fine speech

Ryan Streeter

If Sarah Palin intended her speech yesterday on the Tucson tragedy to create a stir, it has certainly done that. But all the criticism leveled at her for using “blood libel” in her remarks strikes me as a sideshow. Glenn Reynolds’ much-circulated (and excellent) WSJ column this week headlined the expression, and we can safely assume Palin pulled it from there. Alan Dershowitz has defended the use of it. It shouldn’t be a big deal.

The main takeaway from her taped speech, I think, was encapsulated in what Ari Fleischer said:  “She followed the more conventional political route and made it about herself rather than the victims.”

That might be a bit strong, as Palin did try to find her way through a speech defending peaceful public debate. But Fleischer has a point, best encapsulated in this emblematic remark in her address:

President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process.

It may seem petty to focus on this one line, but it was a suggestive comment, her lone reference to Obama (whom, I might add, she shouldn't have included in a speech of this sort in the first place). Why would the President of the United States “join” her in anything? He’s the President. In a scripted speech intended to reach a national audience in advance of the President’s speech, it wasn’t an off-the-cuff remark. And it didn’t work.

It especially didn’t work in light of the President’s fine speech last night. His elevated tone and grounded civility were good for the nation, and bad for Palin.

Palin not helping to advance GOP interests with her "flip-flop" comments

Ryan Streeter

Sarah Palin called Barack Obama a "flip-flopper" today on Good Morning America. Her argument is that President Obama was "so adamant" about raising taxes on higher earners that his tax deal should not be seen as an act of compromise but as a flip-flop. She also said:

Congress, hold off on this, President Obama just hold off on this. Let's let the new Congress be seated and let's do this right.

So here's the underlying logic of this position:

• In order to get an extension of all of the tax cuts signed into law, we need the President of the United States to sign it. But if he does, he is a flip-flopper. And we'll call him out for betraying his lefty principles.
• We should let taxes go up on all Americans on January 1 and ask the American people to trust that when Congress returns, the new GOP House majority will be able to force a better deal...and get the President to flip-flop again and sign it. 

There are plenty of problems with the tax bill. And one can coherently argue against it. But, sorry Sarah, this is not the way to put forward a view on tax reform on a national morning TV show.

Opponents of the bill have to say more about whether they actually believe we should have let taxes go up on January 1 had the bill not passed, or whether and how they think a better deal was really possible before the end of the year. Anything else is posturing. And calling the President a flip-flopper only makes matters worse. Obama's many things, but unfortunately for Republicans, he's not a flip-flopper.

It's worth revisiting the 5 criteria I laid out on Tuesday for making the GOP a smarter party. When it comes to talking about the tax deal, and more importantly, what to do about taxes going forward, an aspiring candidate like Sarah Palin has got to do better.

5 criteria we can use to judge who is helping the GOP become "the smarter party"

Ryan Streeter

Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan are both plain-talking people with middle American values. But most political observers would sense there’s also a pretty big difference between them. Palin, in the words of the TIME feature on her last week, has “worked more on her profile than on her platform.” Ryan, meanwhile, can’t be accused of working too much on his profile, but he has developed a reputation as a policy wonk with a serious platform of reform.

The difference has to do with how Palin and Ryan engage with ideas and communicate them. More on this later.

Some have talked lately about the level of “adult conversation” we’ve enjoyed during the debate about the deficit commission and tax cut extensions. A number of politicians have dispensed with sound bites as they’ve tried to deal with the fiscal problems facing us.

But is adult conversation sustainable in a highly politicized environment? No – unless you have politicians who are determined to keep the debate elevated, focused on ideas, and set above the sound bites and partisan posturing.  No commission or set of policy ideas will do it on their own. Political leadership is needed.

Which raises a question: does the GOP have the leadership needed to keep the debate elevated this way? Can the GOP be a smarter party, the kind of party that lives up to its aspiration to be the party of ideas?

The only way we can answer this question is if we can provide criteria with which to assess candidates and elected officials.

So here is my first take at the criteria.  If a candidate or elected official wants to be taken seriously, he or she:

1. Should be conversant on at least three big issues. Three is a rather arbitrary number, but the idea is that the world is big place needing leaders who can work intelligently across several issues.

2. Should be able to cite compelling evidence or use arguments (rather than declarations of ideology) to back up the policies he or she advocates. There’s a big difference between advocating universal tax cut extensions and explaining to people why and how lower tax rates foster growth. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is a good example of this point, especially on health care issues. 

3. Demonstrate an ability to stray from the party talking points and say things in his or her own words. Voters appreciate being able to see that a political leader has internalized what he or she is trying to say. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have won voter affection for their ability to show that they understand and mean what they are saying. They don't sound like the larger class of political droids who show an aptitude for repeating pre-programmed talking points. 

4. Should be able to practice the first three points consistently, over time – not just in one-off speeches or statements. Giving one good speech or sitting for one good interview doesn’t do the trick. A political thought leader needs to demonstrate consistency.

5. Needs to have a proven ability to part with the party on matters of principle. This doesn’t mean that mavericks are thought leaders. It simply means that one true measure of thought leadership is loyalty to principle over party – and the courage to defend principle in the face of the party.

Now, let’s look at Sarah Palin again. It’s clear conservative activists like her. But it’s also clear that they have their doubts about her electability and seriousness as a candidate.

This shouldn’t be a big surprise. People generally like her for her authenticity and determination to march to the beat of her own drum, but that's a far step from showing a moral seriousness about how we as a country are going to tackle the big issues facing us.

Is Palin conversant on multiple issues? It is hard to find the evidence that she is.

Does she cite compelling evidence or arguments to support her policy views? She may have done so in a few cases, but in general, it is hard to find evidence to support the claim that she does.

Does she stray from party talking points and say things in her own words? On this front, we can say, yes, she uses her own voice and vocabulary to make points of principle rather than points handed down by political leaders and advisors.

Does she show consistency over time on points 1 through 3? Well, she has consistently used her own words to make her points, but she has not made persuasive arguments over time. She came out with an impressive statement on quantitative easing that even the Wall Street Journal’s editors praised, and she backed Paul Ryan’s Roadmap, but these are largely one-off events. It would be hard to argue that she has consistently argued for principles and ideas in an informed way.

Has she parted with the party on matters of principle? No, not really. Showing that you’re anti-establishment by taking jabs at Karl Rove, making light of Reagan’s experience, and insulting George H.W. Bush’s service to his country does not equal parting with the party. She has taken no notable stances on any policy issue that cut away from the mainstream of the party.

I leave to the reader to decide how Paul Ryan fares on the 5 points. 

For the GOP to be a smarter party, its leaders and members need to do better on the 5 points I lay out above. It's not a question, for instance, of whether Sarah Palin is "smart enough" or "sufficiently intelligent" to be President. It has to do with how she fares on measures of thoughtfulness. That goes for any political leader.

ConservativeHome plans to refine these metrics and use them going into 2012 to assess candidates, members of Congress, and Governors. If you have ideas about how to improve or expand the criteria, feel free to email me here or leave a comment.

Time for the GOP to say in public what many say in private about Sarah Palin: responding to Joe Scarborough's challenge

Ryan Streeter

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asks today in Politico:

What man or mouse with a fully functioning human brain and a resume as thin as Palin’s would flirt with a presidential run?

More than her lack of experience, though, Scarborough's real gripe with Palin is what I would call a lack of moral seriousness. She exhibits this disturbing trait not in her reality-show antics as much as her swipes at Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Glossing over Reagan's record as CA governor and Bush's heroics in WWII, Palin has chosen instead to elevate herself by citing the former's acting career and the latter's "silver spoon" upbringing. 

Scarborough says that he:

would prefer that the former half-term governor promote her reality shows and hawk her books without demeaning the reputations of Presidents Reagan and Bush. These great men dedicated their lives to public service and are too good to be fodder for her gaudy circus sideshow.

I accept Scarborough's challenge. If ever the GOP needed to fulfill its ambition to be the party of ideas, it is now. If Sarah Palin cannot soberly enter the public debate about the big issues facing America, she should step aside. More specifically, at a minimum she needs to demonstrate that:

• she can articulate that she has a plan for how to meet the near-term challenges of unemployment and economic growth,
• she can articulate that she understands the long-term entitlement challenge we face and what the best GOP plan should entail for fixing them and our deficit problem,
• she can articulate that she understands what our commitments abroad entail and what she thinks that means for military spending and operations,
• and her poll numbers reflect growing support as a result of how she does on the previous three points rather than her reality-show popularity.

Our ConservativeHome Republican Panel shows that active conservatives like Sarah Palin a lot, but they don't think she's as electable as Mitt Romney. Because voters have a basic grasp of her limitations, Republicans should not be afraid to challenge her to get serious about the country's needs rather than her own ambitions - and to step aside if she chooses not to.