US Republicans: divided they stand:

If any reminder were needed of how conflicted the US Republican party is about its choice of 2012 presidential candidate, party members in three states have provided it this week. In one sense, Rick Santorum's wins in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado are not as important as they may appear since, under the arcane and varied rules of the nomination process, they give him no pledged delegates to the August party convention. Coming after his poor showing in every one of the primaries and caucuses since his narrow win in Iowa at the start of January, however, they breathe new life into Mr Santorum's ailing campaign and pose unwelcome problems to Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who hoped they had emerged from the January contests as front runner and chief challenger respectively.

For Mr Romney, this week's defeats are a clear warning that he has not yet achieved the irresistible momentum towards the nomination that his well-funded wins in New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada might have led him to hope. Mr Romney did not campaign hard in this week's three contests, preferring to concentrate his awesome financial backing instates which vote at the end of February and in the early March "Super Tuesday" contests, when serious numbers of pledged delegates are up for grabs. But this only underscores Mr Romney's continuing weaknessas a candidate relying on money and momentum rather than political conviction and credibility. He is still the man to beat, but his capture of the nomination, if it eventually occurs, has an increasingly pyrrhic feel, since the longer the contests go on, the clearer it becomes that mostRepublicans do not really support him.

The consolation for Mr Romney is that the many Republicans who want a candidate who more clearly shares their conservative values and prejudices are unable to make up their minds which one to support. Mr Gingrich trades as the arch-conservative option, but his record and personality are so contradictory that he is having an uphill task translating his successes into wider credibility. It says a lot about his flawed candidacy that he has been unable both to prevent Mr Santorum, a dull and deeply social conservative rival, from resurrecting his campaign this week, or to take chunks out of Mr Romney's support either.

The undoubted winner this week, therefore, is Barack Obama, who watches as his opponents expend sound, fury and dollars denouncing one another while voters gradually move back in his direction. Mr Obama is not an inevitable winner in November – as the voters in 2010 showed. But the Republicans' failure to unite behind a credible candidate or platform is improving Mr Obama's chances by the day – and there are many more days of Republican division still to go in this race.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/09/us-republican-nomination-barack-obama

Conservatives see tough challenges on road to White House:

Washington (CNN) -- Republicans looking to take back the White House in November face a challenging political environment, a trio of conservative political observers said Thursday at an annual gathering of conservative activists.

The recent controversy over health insurance coverage for contraception may help to turn out Catholic swing voters in key states, but the observers also said the Republican Party would do well to have its own positive agenda and clear messaging if it wants to unseat President Barack Obama.

"None of the signs that I see are particularly good," said Ralph Z. Hallow, chief political writer for The Washington Times.

Hallow added that polling he has seen indicates that intensity or enthusiasm about voting has moved from Republicans to Democrats. "I regard that as a very bad sign," he said.

The newspaperman continued, "The enthusiasm among Republican voters for any of the (GOP presidential) candidates is dangerously low so that ... none of these folks generates the enthusiasm needed in November to bring more Republican-voting independents and Republican activists and so on to the polls."

Conservative blogger Erick Erickson, who is also a CNN contributor, said the situation stems partly from the state of the Republican Party after the last GOP president left the White House.

"I actually blame (George W.) Bush for this," Erickson said to a packed ballroom. "Every president generally has an heir apparent when they leave office."

Vice President Dick Cheney did not succeed Bush as the GOP's presumptive standard bearer in 2008, preventing the party from having a "referendum" on Bush's legacy by either choosing Cheney or someone else as the nominee, Erickson said.

"Because (Bush and Cheney) left a void there, we went all the way back to 2000 and started over again -- a lot of us having the same fights we've had. And we're now in the situation where all the (GOP presidential) candidates, including (Mitt) Romney to a degree, are a bit of a victim of this void that was left by not having an heir," he said.

"I think the Republican Party has yet to reset itself from the Bush years to be able to move forward."

Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, appeared less pessimistic than Hallow and Erickson. Reed said he believes that what is shaping up to be a long Republican primary process may work to the GOP's benefit in the general election against Obama.

Reed described the 2012 GOP nomination race as "the most wide open, the most fluid, the most topsy-turvy" presidential primary he has seen since first becoming involved in presidential campaigns in 1980.

"Whoever emerges from this process -- whether it's Romney or somebody else -- is going to be a better, a more-disciplined, a tougher candidate when they have to stand on a stage with Barack Obama," Reed said.

Reed pointed to the controversy over a pending Obama administration regulation that requires religiously affiliated institutions to provide health insurance coverage for contraception to its employees as one issue that could help fill the enthusiasm gap the GOP is facing with its conservative base.

Reed said the regulation, which the White House has hinted it is looking to soften after an outcry from Catholic bishops, "shows not just an insensitivity to but an outright hostility by this president to religion and religious values."

And, Reed said, the controversy could make the difference with Catholic swing voters in key battleground states, including Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Florida.

But Reed and Erickson both opined that to maximize their chances of retaking the White House in November Republicans should have a positive agenda and not settle just for attacking the president's record and policies on the economy and other issues.

"It isn't going to be enough to just be anti-Obama," Reed said. "Whether it's Romney or (Rick) Santorum or (Newt) Gingrich, we have to have a forward-leaning, positive, conservative reform agenda that will excite and energize the grass roots."

With recent indicators suggesting the struggling economy may be improving, the GOP has a particular challenge in November. While unemployment is improving according to recent data, Reed said other economic factors could be in play for voters.

"It's not just the single unemployment number; it's whether people feel like they've got money in their pocket," Reed said.

Erickson said he sees the economy alone as a losing strategy.

"I think the race should be about more than the economy," the blogger said. "Unfortunately, I think the Republicans have decided that they're going to go with electability instead of issues. And if electability is your case and the electability is based on (fixing the economy) and the economy fixes itself, then why do we necessarily need a nominee who the Obama campaign is going to spend millions and millions of dollars on to make unlikable?

"There needs to be something more to it. (Reed) is right. We have to have more of an agenda."

Erickson added that he thought Republicans had "dropped the ball on telling the story of Barack Obama. They never have. They always thought that they could use the economy (against Obama)."

"He picks the winners and losers," Erickson said of Obama, "not the free market. And there's a story to be told there, I think, that resonates with people in the country."

By focusing so much on the economy, Erickson said he fears the GOP is setting itself up for defeat in November. "I hate to be so pessimistic about an election we should win, but it seems like we are setting ourselves up to lose if the economy improves," Erickson said.

Hallow added that he thought the Republican presidential candidates have yet to crystallize clear, concise messages in support of their Oval Office bids.

"Unless the nominee has a message -- a simple message that you can get out in three sentences -- I don't think we have a chance or Republicans have a chance," Hallow said.

Besides Rep. Ron Paul, Hallow asked about the rest of the GOP 2012 field: "Why are any of these candidates running? What is it that they're going to do to change America?"

Pointing to Romney's lengthy economic agenda that is dozens of pages long, Hallow said, "This is not how you do it."

He added, "(Ronald) Reagan did it right and that's going to be necessary again this time."

The three men spoke Thursday during the Conservative Political Action Conference in a panel discussion on the 2012 political landscape that pollster Scott Rasmussen moderated.

I feel this isn't any different then Obama/Hillary/Edwards at this point.... yet is being covered differently.

All the same... both candidates suck.

Hm, Obama deflected an issue where he was forcing religious companies to pay for birth control by switching the law so that insurance companies have to pay for birth control, and can't change any rates to make up for it.

So they essentially are being forced to foot the bill and eat the costs.

I don't think birth control is that big a cost, but that's a pretty damning move there and awful precedent to set just to avoid keeping Catholics from being pissed off at you at election time.

I don't know why Republicans are even trying. They are no match for Obama.

I believe I heard somewhere that 96% of Catholics use birth control or something like that.  Even if it isn't high 90% birth control is a stupid issue.  I highly doubt most Catholics even care.  By that I mean most young Catholics do not care. 

Which just makes the whole thing worse.  I mean, what a screwed up mindset to backtrack on the law by just forcing someone to do something for free... for votes.

I can't remember seeing legislation changed so obviously for votes with such a negative precendent.

Maine caucuses: Ron Paul seeks new upset against Mitt Romney:

Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney speaks at a campaign stop in Portland, Maine. Photograph: Brian Snyder/REUTERS

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is desperately seeking a convincing win against Ron Paul in the conclusion of the Maine caucuses on Saturday night.

Romney is hoping to regain momentum in his bid to win the party nomination after his surprise midweek defeats while Paul is hoping for his first victory in the 2012 White House race.

Paul has invested lots of time in Maine, a state which Romney won easily in the 2008 race, and, defying the political tradition of not tempting fate, has hinted he may win it. He has a large and enthusiastic army of volunteers from Maine and surrounding states working to get supporters to the caucuses.

The Texas congressman is an outsider in the race, his views libertarian rather than mainstream Republican, and a win in Maine would prove to be an upset. Although he has no realistic chance of winning the Republican nomination, a Paul victory in Maine would deal a further blow to Romney's credibility.

Both Paul and Romney were out visiting the caucus sites on Saturday. Paul said: "I think we have a very good chance."

A win would give him momentum, he said, adding: "It's a pretty important state as far as I'm concerned."

Romney initially had no visits planned in Maine on Saturday but added two at the last minute, an indication that his team may consider the result tight.

The Maine Republican party chairman, Charlie Webster, predicted, in an interview with the Portland Press Herald, that the result will be close.

"What will happen is that either Paul or Romney will win by 200 votes, in my opinion, one way or the other," Webster said.

Romney won Maine by a large margin in 2008, with 52% of the vote, with Paul coming third on 18% behind the eventual Republican nominee John McCain on 21%. There are 24 delegates at stake in Maine.

Romney lost two major states, Colorado and Minnesota, to rival Rick Santorum on Tuesday and also Missouri, although it is largely meaningless in terms of delegates to the party convention in August where the Republican nominee to fight Barack Obama in November will be chosen.

If Romney wins Maine, which began caucusing last Saturday and finishes this evening, it would help steady his campaign. If he loses, he will have to wait almost three weeks before he has another chance, with the Michigan and Arizona primaries on 28 February.

Romney, though still considered the frontrunner, has only managed to win three of the opening contests – New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada – while Santorum has taken Iowa as well as Minnesota and Colorado, and, Missouri. The former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken one, South Carolina.

If Maine is added to the tally of states lost, questions about Romney's viability as the Republican candidate will be renewed.

Santorum and Gingrich have written off Maine and not bothered to visit the state.

There has been no serious polling in the state, making the election result unpredictable.

At a rally in Portland on Friday night, Romney faced hostile questions about his taxes and his stray comment about not being concerned about "the very poor".

The state has a strong Tea Party presence which helped Paul LePage, the Republican governor and a Tea Party favourite, get elected. Tea Party members are more likely to lean towards Paul than Romney.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/11/maine-caucuses-ron-paul-mitt-romney

 

 

Republican race reaches half-time – so what have we learned so far?

 

Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney was supposed to have the nomination wrapped up by the end of January – so what has gone wrong? Photograph: Cliff Owen/AP

After 19 debates, eight caucuses and primaries, and tens of millions of dollars in – mostly negative – advertising, it's half-time in the Republican nomination battle. By this point, it was meant to be all over, with apparent frontrunner Mitt Romney predicted to have it wrapped by the end of January.

But his rivals – and the party's conservative base – have displayed a stubborn determination to force the contest all the way to the final play, the convention in August in Tampa, Florida.

Rick Santorum was the first to upset the script when he came from nowhere to narrowly beat Romney – eventually – in Iowa. And he was back in spectacular fashion this week, with a clean sweep of Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, enjoyed a huge victory in South Carolina that also underlined serious doubts among conservatives about Romney.

But even in a race this volatile, a few conclusions can be drawn. So now, as the candidates pause for breath and rework their strategies before the second half kicks off in Michigan and Arizona at the end of February, here are the five main lessons so far:

Momentum? What momentum?

There has never been a Republican race in which the lead has changed as often as this one. While Romney, Santorum and Gingrich have all won states, none have been able to convert this into a sustained run of victories. This is the election of the two-day wonder.

A visit to the Conservative Political Action Conference, the mega-gathering of the American right, in Washington on Thursday and Friday helps explain some of the reasons behind that volatility. Among the 5,000 or so attendees, their zest and enthusiasm is not in doubt, but it is solely for conservatism. There is no such excitement for the would-be nominees.

Romney, in particular, elicits little love, and there are few who regard Ron Paul as a viable candidate. Gingrich retains some respect from his time as House speaker. But this week, it is Santorum who is in pole position again as the non-Romney candidate.

The most frequently used buzz word at the C-Pac meeting is 'reset', reflecting the view that Santorum's victories have wiped clean everything that has gone before and a new front has opened

One of the delegates at C-Pac, Ryan Rhodes, reflecting on Santorum's wins, was one of the many to mention "reset". "I think we had had another reset. Newt Gingrich had his chance and I think we will see a major surge for Santorum.," Rhodes said.

"Conservatives are still looking for the anti-Romney candidate. You are looking at 60%-70% of the party who just do not want him."

Although Santorum has the momentum at present, Gingrich, though fading, could still come back. He could win at least Georgia and Tennessee on Super Tuesday, March 6, when 10 states are in play.

But even with Gingrich and Santorum, there are deep reservations. Asked about either, a common response is "Gingrich, but …" or "Santorum, but …". This is not an inspirational field.

The result is that all four candidates could end up taking blocs of delegates to the Tampa convention.

At present, according to the Associated Press, Romney has 107 delegates, Santorum 69, Gingrich 32 and Paul nine. A candidate needs 1,144, just over half the delegates to the convention to win.

"What we have learned is that the Republican party is in a huge mess," said Norm Ornstein, an independent political analyst at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, the bastion of neo-conservatism. "The candidates have one thing in common: enormous weaknesses. Mitt Romney remains a solid favourite to win the nomination but it will be a much more painful process."

Ornstein added: "Barack Obama is a very lucky man. It could not be going better for him."

Republican voters have disappeared

The biggest concern for the Republicans is the low turnout in this week's contests, as well some of the earlier ones. One of the reasons the Republican party switched from a winner-takes-all approach to the award of delegates to proportional representation was to enthuse its political base in the way the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton battle did for the Democrats in 2008.

It has not turned out that way. The first two contests Iowa and New Hampshire saw a small increase in turnout, though mainly because of a rise in independents rather than registered Republicans. The contests since, other than South Carolina, have seen big drop-offs in voting, with Florida down 14%, Nevada down 25%, Colorado down 7% and Minnesota down 24%.

Even more worrying for Republicans, assuming Romney is the eventual nominee, is that his votes are down even on his showing in his failed bid for the party nomination in 2008.

A few months ago, polls showed enthusiasm for the White House election among Democrats was down, a worry for Obama's campaign team. That has been reversed. Enthusiasm among Republicans for the election is now down and Democratic enthusiasm is up.

Social issues have played as big as the economy

A year or two before the 2008 general election, politicians and pundits confidently predicted, with good reason, that the main issue for voters would be the Iraq war. Iraq, though, was overtaken by the collapse of the economy in September 2008.

This time round, the widely-held prediction is that election 2012 will be dominated by the economy. That is still likely to be the case, but there are already signs that as the unemployment figures and other economic indicators improve, other issues will surface too.

An early hint of this came this week in the Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri elections. The decision by one of the country's biggest cancer charities, Susan G Komen for the Cure to withdraw funding from Planned Parenthood thrust abortion and reproductive rights into centre stage. Then came the appeal court ruling that Proposition 8, the California ballot measure banning gay marriage, was unconstitutional.

And the week has ended with the White House facing a backlash from the Catholic church and the conservative right over new rules that would require health insurance plans – even those offered by Catholic hospitals and charities – to provide free birth control to female employees.

So far, the main beneficiary from this resurgence of values issues has been Santorum, whose socially conservative platform is anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion and anti-contraception. There were no exit or entrance polls to establish why Republicans voted for Santorum this week but there is anecdotal evidence that social issues were significant.

Brad Coker, head of Mason-Dixon polling, said: "They are suddenly re-emerging and Santorum is the most socially conservative. He has been consistent and if anyone was to capitalise on it, it would be him."

Super Pacs have funded a huge negative ad blitz

Super Pacs, the creation of a supreme court ruling in 2010, can raise money without restraint and with almost complete anonymity. The Romney-supporting Restore Our Future destroyed Gingrich first in Iowa and then again in Florida with multi-million dollar negative ad campaigns.

The lesson Romney learned is that negative ad campaigns work, and the latest threat to his cause, Santorum, is now likely to face the same ad blitz as Gingrich.

Gingrich has only one major backer, the Las Vegas casino/hotel owner multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who may or may not continue to act as sugar daddy to his presidential ambitions.

Santorum's main backer, Foster Friess, the Wyoming investor, emerged this week, standing behind the candidate's right shoulder during his victory speech on Tuesday night.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania's Public Policy Centre, believes that the Super Pacs, as well as the debates, have helped lengthen the process.

"Because debates have ensured candidate access to the media and voters and because single large donors have underwritten Super Pacs (as Adelson has for the pro-Gingrich one and Friess has for the one backing Santorum), candidates who might otherwise have withdrawn have remained viable long enough to brake Romney's run," she said in an email.

Romney's long-term advantage is that he is not reliant on an individual multi-millionaire but has the support of a number and, if it came to it, he could fund himself from his $200m-plus fortune.

Nobody knows anything

Possibly the single most important lesson so far. Political pundits and journalists have been consistently wrong in anticipating the ups and downs since the Republican nominating process began in earnest last August. Remember when everybody was confidently stating that the race would come down to a head-to-head between Romney and Texas governor Rick Perry?

And even after a humiliated Perry had withdrawn and limped back to Texas, the conventional wisdom had it that Romney would have the nomination in the bag by the Florida primary on January 31.

Ornstein says political journalists and pundits made the mistake of assuming Romney was the Republican heir apparent, in spite of polls showing Romney seldom getting above 25%.

They thought the conservative base "would rally round behind even though they were not thrilled by him," Ornstein said. "They underestimated the conservative movement – call it the Tea Party or whatever – and the depth of unease with Romney, and the degree to which Romney could be stupid and insecure and damage his own campaign."

Coker also recalled earlier inaccurate predictions: "Most people thought it was going to be Rick Perry and Romney going toe-to-toe."

He never subscribed to the view that the contest would be over quickly. "Anyone who thought it was going be wrapped up in January is a fool," Coker said.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/10/republican-race-half-time-learned

 

 

It would have been interesting to see Paul get a state, just to see how it swings the intra-party dialogue

Perhaps he'll pick something up on Super Tuesday

Maine wasn't finished counting. Washington County wasn't counted, counting was delayed a week. Washington County is a very populous county, and contains a major University. It is still very possible for Paul to win this one.

As for the reason behind the delay... snow storm. The Maine GOP delayed the counting for a week due to predicted "1-2 inches" of snow... I figured that this was actually exceedingly low for Maine, and most other things stayed open. Maybe they delayed the count because they knew it would be a strong Paul territory, and wanted to give Romney the win, while the State was in the mind of the media.

Interestingly, Clark County of Nevada (where all the voter mishaps happened) was also meant to be incredibly strong for Paul. Those 8 precincts in Iowa where they "lost" the ballots, or whatever? Contained University towns. Very fishy.

However, Paul seems to be playing the GOP at their own game, and are winning the delegates in the caucus states, anyway. Here's an interview with a campaign manager Doug Weed:

Then who is playing Hillary?