The Occasional Observer

Always take this stuff with a grain of salt, but it's good grist for the mill (is that crossing metaphors?).  

For the full transcript, see the following link:

The Race 4 2012 Rumor Mill – GOP Convention Edition

It's worth noting that "the Eagle" has previously admitted to being part of the MN GOP establishment, which means his information is probably coming from T-Paw circles, and hence somewhat tilted in that direction. The only thing I would take away from this (assuming the whole thing is not some planted misdirection on behalf of the Mitt folks), is that Jindal and T-Paw are both under consideration. The fact that he takes Pawlenty as the favorite? We'll see.

For those who clicked on the last link I offered to Race 4 '12 and the "inside information" being blogged there, you probably saw the blogger's contact is code-named "The Eagle."   Well, the Eagle allowed for an interview, subject to a bunch of his own rule, and offered up some more juicy tidbits.  The short version is that, in his opinion, the shortlist will be down to 3 names in the near future, and those names will be Portman, Jindal, and Pawlenty.  But the whole interview is worth a read and available below the fold.

Per an alleged insider who leaks to a "front page poster" at Race 4 2012, the veep list has been narrowed to 7 and the "door is now shut" on further possibles.  Additionally, the insider states they have now moved to phase 2 of the vet--the interviews.  Here's the list, if it is to be believed:

• Senator of Florida – Marco Rubio
• Senator of Ohio – Rob Portman
• Senator of New Hampshire – Kelly Ayotte
• Governor of New Jersey – Chris Christie
• Governor of Minnesota – Tim Pawlenty
• House of Representative of Washington State – Cathy McMorris Rodgers
• Governor of Louisiana – Bobby Jindal

If this is the list, I'd be surprised if Ayotte, Christie, or Rodgers get the pick (though either Ayotte or Rodgers will "allegedly" make the final cut for appearances).  Any of the others seem possible.

If we were veepstaking today, I'd probably have Portman as my most likely, followed closely by Jindal, Rubio,  and T-Paw.

No one took Portman. We could easily get punked on that one.

Fredo: McDonnell (July 1 or after)
ManBeast: McDonnell (June 30 or earlier)
D.C.: Field (6/20 or earlier)
Beetz: Field (8/5 or after)
Raekwon: Field (6/21-8/4)
Michelangelo: Rubio (7/17 or earlier)
Caribou: Rubio (7/18 or after)
SHK: Martinez

My veep selection is below the fold.  I was going to post it is a comment but it was too long and Blogger wouldn't allow it.  So click to see my choice below the fold.  Just make sure you read the post "Veepstakes '12", and make your choice first before reviewing mine...

OK, contributors, round 2 of Fredo's Mad Money. As in '08, it is the veepstakes. I have no idea how we played it back then, but I'm going to go with a new set of rules this time around.

WaPo has a list up of 10 potential GOP veeps. The 11th option will be the field.

-Each person gets 1 pick.
-Each person also gets 1 date, the date that Mitt and his veep make their first joint appearance as a ticket.

You win if you pick the right person. If multiple people choose the right person, the date is the tiebreak.  Winner gets a hearty handshake, attaboys, and also bought dinner by the losers at a time we can get everyone together.

Without further ado, here are your options (ranked in order of likelihood, per WaPo's estimation):

1. Marco Rubio (Sen, FL)
2. Bob McDonnell (Gov, VA)
3. Rob Portman (Sen, OH)
4. Bobby Jindal (Gov, LA)
5. Susanna Martinez (Gov, NM)
6. Chris Christie (Gov, NJ)
7. John Thune (Sen, SD)
8. Tim Pawlenty (Fmr Gov, MN)
9. Mitch Daniels (Gov, IN)
10. Paul Ryan (Rep, WI)
11. The Field (i.e., anyone else)

Please make your selection before clicking on "comment" so that you're not trying to game the people that were more timely than you in their replies.

Actual Results (Fredo's guess) [difference]

Romney    25 (23)  [2]
Santorum  25 (25)  [0]
Paul          21 (24)  [3]
Gingrich    13 (11)  [2]
Perry        10   (9)  [1]
Bachmann  5   (6)  [1]
Huntsman   1   (2)  [1]

Pretty impressive, if I do say so myself.

Additionally, Beasty called the first four "in order."  Well done, sir.

In Mad Money news, Mitt's 8 vote win gives D.C. and myself some profitable Intrade contracts (too bad we didn't actually bet).

Of course, D.C. would've made a lot more.  One of these days I'mma wait and pick last.

Wow.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

And what you dont see is the drool pooling on my keyboard as I stare slack-jawed at the monitor.  The Boston Globe, of all publications, would have been the last place short of the NY Times I expected to see an editorial like this.  While Newt's anti-Judiciary rants were seized upon by the liberal press as proof of his arrogant, power-aggrandizing, tradition-defiling extremism, the Globe made the following sober observation:

Leave them in the comments before 11:59 PM on Monday.

OK, we're nearing the finish line in Iowa. Based on the contracts we chose, here are the scenarios needed for each contributor to win: Dark Commenteer: Romney wins in Iowa. Can't win if he doesn't.

Fredo: Romney wins in South Carolina, and someone other than Romney wins in Iowa.

ManBeast: Gingrich wins in South Carolina, and someone other than Romney wins in Iowa.

SHK: Wouldn't know winning if hit him in the face.

Here's my odds, based on current polling and momentum: D.C. 60% chance at the win, Fredo 25%, Beast 15%.

Think of how this has gone. Trump, Bachmann, Perry, then Cain, then Newt, who is really in decline now, Ron Paul, who is on the ascent, but he's not electable, and now Santorum. Every single alternative is going to get a try or looks as if it's going to get a try because the field is unhappy with, or the electorate in large part is unhappy with Romney. He's stable, he's sober, but he's considered ideologically suspect.

Imagine if you'd had a race with a Mitch Daniels, with a Paul Ryan, Christie, Jindal and others, Sen. Thune. It would have had a completely different complexion. And I think with some of the sort of embarrassing candidates like Cain and others along the way, it has made the president who is by who he is, presidential, look better. And I think that explains the reason his numbers are up...

What I wouldn't give to have a Daniels, Ryan, Christie or Jindal in this race right now. I wish T-Paw hadn't dropped out so early. Thune, I'm not so sure.

I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board.

While I'm deeply impressed by many of Rep. Paul's core convictions, particularly his allegiance to a strict interpretation of the Constitution--one that constrains federal authority, and hence regulation, taxation, spending, nanny-statism, etc.--that same dogmatic approach will create some impossibly high hurdles for him, should he be elected President.  In actuality, he simply has too many fatal flaws to be considered a realistic player for the nomination.

As they might ask on the Twit, "Srsly?"

As ABC news is reporting with much hyperventilation,

Donald Trump is officially a man without a party.
The real estate mogul whose flirtation with the 2012 presidential race has never really ended despite announcing seven months ago he would not seek the Republican nomination has been signaling he wants to find other ways onto a presidential ticket.

Amazing.  After all of his red-faced pontification attacking Obama, I can't believe he'd splinter the center-right vote, almost assuring the President's re-election.  It's like he's been a trojan horse candidate working for the President all along.  Why couldn't someone have seen this coming before?

Oh, wait, someone did:

Trump is flat out dangerous to GOP prospects in '12. Hopefully he blows up early and vanishes... 

Trump is brash and forthright, which appeals to a certain demographic, but ultimately when denied the nomination he could utilize that support as a drag against the GOP nominee when he runs as an independent. And all the birther stuff will prevent him from drawing any moderate or Dem votes. The whole thing smells.

The really interesting question to me is this: What does the Donald want? I don't think the man has any real interest in being President. The 100 hr weeks for 4 straight years for a measly $300K or whatever the CIC earns these days. Chump change. Not enough parties. Not enough Eastern European models.

What he's really interested in doing, IMHO, is getting maximum exposure for his brand, and becoming a power broker in the process that he can leverage for chips later. A pass from DOJ on a proposed merger, or the DEC on some huge proposed casino in a protected wetlands.  Who knows. But it'll be fascinating to see how Trump pursues "the Art of the Deal", and what benefits he can plumb from playing Obama and the GOP nominee off of each other.

The Deal, of course, will come early.  The fruits won't come for years, in all probability.  I'll be watching and waiting--it for no other reason than my morbid curiosity of how a dynamic, free-market economy devolves into a stagnant, initiative-crushing, crony-capitalistic shitbox.

the "official publication" of the modern conservative movement, has not yet endorsed a candidate. But they have definitively stated, as of today, who they will NOT endorse: Gingrich, Bachmann, Paul, or Perry. That leaves three they consider to real contenders.
Here is the conclusion of their short, worthwhile piece:

Governor Huntsman has a solid record, notwithstanding his sometimes glib foreign-policy pronouncements; his main weakness is his apparent inability, so far, to forge a connection with conservative voters outside Utah. Governor Romney won our endorsement last time, in part because some of the other leading candidates were openly hostile to important elements of conservatism. He is highly intelligent and disciplined, and he takes conservative positions on all the key issues. We still think he would make a fine president, but time and ceaseless effort have not yet overcome conservative voters’ skepticism about the liberal aspects of his record and his managerial disposition. Senator Santorum was an effective legislator. He deserves credit for highlighting, more than any other candidate, the need for public policies that topple barriers to middle-class aspirations. Weighing against him is a lack of executive experience.

As Republican primary voters consider their choices, they should ask themselves several questions: Which candidate is most likely to make the race turn on the large questions before the country, and not his personal idiosyncrasies? Which candidate is most likely to defeat Obama? Who could, if elected, form an effective partnership with Republican leaders and governors to achieve the conservative agenda? We will render further judgments in the weeks to come as the candidates continue to make their cases and are, just perhaps, joined by new candidates. At the moment we think it important to urge Republicans to have the good sense to reject a hasty marriage to Gingrich, which would risk dissolving in acrimony.

OK, so this isn't sexy. It doesn't talk about six-sigma or mining resources on the moon. It doesn't talk about the Next American Century full of global power projection and U.S. hegemony; or how American power is "good for the world."

What it is, IMHO, is an ambitious blue print for addressing the root causes of some serious problems that are undermining our economy, and breeding distrust of both private and public sector institutions.

Without further ado, Huntsman's 7-point plan:

1. Reform our 17,000 page tax code. He will eliminate every last loophole, subsidy and carve-out. He will use that revenue to lower rates across the board, for individuals and businesses. Governor Huntsman will create a tax code that is flatter and simpler; one that opens up economic opportunities for all our citizens, makes us more competitive, and ends corporate welfare and crony capitalism, once and for all.

2. Address our mounting debt by cutting spending in every corner of government, leaving no sacred cow untouched. Governor Huntsman will reform entitlement programs – based on the Ryan Plan – while holding true to our nation’s commitments to those in or near retirement.

3. Ensure that no financial entity is too-big-to-fail. Governor Huntsman will do this by breaking up the big banks on Wall Street, so that never again – never again – are taxpayers held hostage by a Sophie’s Choice: massive bailouts, or economic calamity.

4. Adopt a comprehensive energy strategy that frees us from foreign oil, that eliminates all energy subsidies, and that levels the playing field for competing fuels and technologies.

5. Streamline regulations in order to create a free, fair and competitive marketplace. All too often our regulatory framework becomes another tool for special interests seeking to use the state to protect privileges and insulate themselves from competition. Read More

6. Bring our troops home from Afghanistan, while leaving behind an appropriately-sized counterterrorist presence. And Governor Huntsman will set our military strategy and budgets based on long-term threats and vulnerabilities, not on spending patterns developed decades ago and reinforced today by armies of lobbyists.

7. Finally, in order to ensure that government responds to all its citizens with the same level of urgency and fairness, and to lessen the influence of special interests, Governor Huntsman will send to Congress a "Citizen Legislature Act," which includes term limits for Congress and lobbying restrictions.

Bold portions are my emphasis-- segments of this plan that I think are on point, and part of the same theme.

Tomorrow night's debate is the first one I'll watch in its entirety in a while. They dynamics are totally different now, w/ Mitt not the nominal frontrunner. I'm interested to see how he handles it. I don't think it serves him well to be an attack dog. He needs to continue with the same, above-the-fray persona that he's maintained through almost all of the debates to this point.

Newt has to avoid saying anything outrageous and looking petulant. Since he'll be the focus of most of the attacks, it could be more difficult than it sounds. Luckily for him, Newt knows how to debate and doesn't have to do much different than what he's been doing thus far, so I'm not too worried about him.

Huntsman is the only other candidate that I really take seriously at this point, despite his non-existent polling (other than in NH). He needs to be assertive, draw distinctions with Mitt on foreign policy, economic record, and consistency.

Santorum needs some kind of incredibly memorable line. Lightning in a bottle, if you will.

Bachmann should drop out now and will soon.

Perry should drop out now, but has the money to continue making a fool of himself for a long time.

Paul will be Paul. Huntsman has the most opportunity to point out similarities with Paul (particularly on foreign policy, and on their mutual animus towards crony capitalism) in order to make himself the second choice of Paul voters.

What. A. Joke.

From the AP:

On Friday, Perry criticized Obama for his two Supreme Court nominees. "When you see his appointment of two, from my perspective, inarguably activist judges, whether it was ." he said, trailing off.

He paused for six seconds. "Not Montemayor," he said.

"Sotomayor," a member of the editorial board said.

"Sotomayor, Sotomayor," Perry said.

He went on to denounce "eight unelected and, frankly, unaccountable judges" in a discussion of prayer in schools. But nine justices sit on the Supreme Court.