Random thoughts on the GOP presidential field

By Richard K. Barry

Michele Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll. I understand that it's an important indicator of how a GOP presidential contender might fare over time. I get it. Although the fact that she barely beat Ron Paul, who is a perfect example of a crazy fringe candidate, doesn't exactly make the results unequivocally useful, as far as I can tell.

I understand that this will make it easier for her to raise money and to get some wind in her sails (and any number of other metaphors you might be able to think of).

But she is not going to win the Republican nomination. Conjuring up Dana Carvey's brilliant George Bush senior impersonation: "Not gonna happen."

It's still probably going to be Romney. I guess Texas Gov. Rick Perry's announcement complicates things, though I was intrigued by the assessment of a few pundits who thought that we would be able to tell very quickly if he was the real deal or not.

I'm not sure I know what that is supposed to mean. Does it mean that either all of the Tea Party /social conservative energy in the campaign comes to him more or less immediately, in which case he becomes the consensus choice anti-Romney? Or that a number of candidates continue to share the hard-right constituency, in which case his campaign never really takes off?

Maybe that's their point.

I must say that I loved Paul Begala's description of Perry as "the perfect candidate for those Republicans who viewed George W. Bush as just a little too cerebral."

But is that a problem?

Unkind as this may be, I could modify that famous H.L. Mencken quote to say that "nobody ever lost electoral ground overestimating the intelligence of the average Republican voter." So maybe being duller than George won't be a bad thing for Perry.

Judging from Perry's campaign launch speech, which contained every standard fare Tea Party / social conservative speaking point, he will not be doing anything to alienate the radical right and he will not be forcing anyone on that side of things to think outside the box they've made for themselves. No, no, no.

And as I suggested yesterday, if you base your campaign on pandering to the radical right, you might be able to win the GOP nomination, but the general election would be a much harder nut to crack.

So here's the radical prediction of the day:

Perry's candidacy will eventually force Bachmann out. They appeal to the same constituency and he's going to be a better standard bearer.

Palin will endorse Perry. She has been saying all along that she will only run if no one meeting her criteria steps forward. Perry will be her guy and that will matter.

Most importantly, this will become a Romney - Perry street fight and the campaign will move decidedly to the right as Romney attempts to counter claims from Perry that he is not sufficiently conservative.

And, the prefect storm for the Democrats will have just gotten perfecter. The Tea Party and fellow travellers will have found their candidate. And, even if Romney is the eventual nominee, as I still think he will be, he will have had to tack so far to the right that independents will no longer be available to him.

In the short term, the Democrats have needed one effective, theoretically electable, Republican presidential contender to force Romney to the far right. Bachmann was never that contender. She's not that serious. Perry is.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

World comes to a halt as Republicans take to the stage in Iowa to debate future of humanity

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ah, yes, there was a Republican debate last night in Ames. Good times. Maybe if I weren't on vacation I would have cared. (I was too busy watching The Makioka Sisters -- a stunningly beautiful film.)

Or maybe not.



No, no, let me be serious for a moment.

Did last night's debate mean anything? Well, not as much as Saturday's straw poll -- which won't really mean anything either, though it will clarify both public and insider GOP perceptions and possibly even help separate the wheat from the chaff, as they say.

Not that we don't already know what's wheat and what's chaff.

Romney is wheat. He's the national frontrunner -- though doubts remain on the right (if not venomous opposition from conservatives and other Tea Party types, and he may have a fairly low support ceiling.

Bachmann is also wheat, or at least what passes for wheat these days in the GOP (and on the far right generally). She's a serious contender, craziness notwithstanding.

Other than that?

It's amusing to see Santorum and Gingrich try to convince us we should take them seriously. Do they take themselves seriously? Of course. Do they know they've become joke candidates without a hope of winning anything other than the political equivalent of a Razzie? Maybe -- if they're being honest with themselves, but one doubts either one is capable of such self-effacing honesty.

It's also amusing to see more of the Bachmann-Pawlenty spat. T-Paw, lagging far behind in the polls (not even doing well in Iowa, so close to his Minnesota home), is still so desperate for attention that he's taking the gloves off, as they say, hopeful of emerging as the compromise candidate (particularly liked by the Beltway punditocracy) between the establishmentarian, business-oriented Romney and whoever ends up leading the charge from the radical right, either Bachmann or Perry (or both). Yes, I suppose he still has a shot. Yes, it's a long, long one. And he doesn't stand a chance against Bachmann in their little ongoing feud.

Pawlenty death watch: He'll "reassess" matters if he does poorly in Ames. Now there's a nice, lovely euphemism for "make up some self-aggrandizing excuses and get the hell out."

Perry life watch: It looks like he'll take the leap on Saturday. Not that he's trying to upstage the Ames straw poll or anything. No, of course not.

Cain? Yes, he took time out of his busy schedule scapegoating Muslims to grace us with his presence.

Paul? Hey, did you know he really hates government and much, much prefers the Hobbesian state of nature?

Huntsman? Oh, yes, Huntsman the Formidable, as I've dubbed him. He remains to me and impressive figure, an old-school, Reagan sort of conservative who in other, saner times would have been the clear GOP pick. Now? Not so much.

Wait, you want substance? Come on, you all know how it went. Obama is the satanic incarnation of anti-American evil. And taxes are bad, so very, very bad!

(But if you want some helpful fact-checking, check here. Needless to say, there was some fastness and looseness going on last night. What else is new?)

Besides, that spat is what seems to have gotten the most attention.



And, overall, it does now seem that civility in this Republican field is a thing of the past. As Slate's John Dickerson explained:

The debate had the makings of a serious discussion about leadership,
what form it should take, whether the candidates have demonstrated it,
and how it should be applied in Washington. However, this discussion
took place in a roller derby where that underlying theme was obscured by
people trying to bruise and batter each other. Criticisms and veiled
critiques broke out into the open among candidates desperate to avoid
being eliminated from consideration. In the end, there was a lot of arm
flailing. Everyone went round and round, and the lot of them wound up
where they had stood before the debate began.

Fight, fight, fight! Isn't that what we all crave -- what really gets us going? Who cares that the global economy is imploding or that our civilization is crumbling? Or that it's this right-wing ideology, so much on display last night, that is one of the main causes of our present (and future) crises?



Politics is a bloodsport.

And now, on that note, I'm going to go sit out on the deck and read (about something that has nothing to do with American politics circa 2011).

(photo)

New Balance's Mitt Romney problem

By Richard K. Barry

I started running recently after having been away from it for a few years. Not that this is very interesting to most people. But, as happens with a new pursuit, I began surfing the net for running products of one kind and another. In the process, I ran right into a post on the New Balance website with the title "New Balance Statement on Political Donation."

If you don't know, New Balance is a running shoe manufacturer and they have been around for as long as I can remember. I'm sure I've owned several pairs of their shoes in one style or another over the years.

The statement in question had to do with the fact that the company chairman, Jim Davis, made a $500,000 political contribution to something called "Restore Our Future," which is a Romney political action committee. This, it would appear, has created a problem for the company.

Here's their statement:

Dear New Balance associates, customers and consumers:

Earlier this year, a private donation was made by our chairman to a political action committee that is affiliated with Mitt Romney. First, let me be clear that this was a private donation and not a contribution from New Balance. We encourage civic engagement at all levels and will always respect the rights of any of our associates to engage in the political process as they see fit.

Mr. Romney recently signed a pledge that challenges same sex marriage and that has offended many including those in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. Mr. Romney's position on this issue is not reflective of Jim Davis', my or New Balance's position and support of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community. As a company, New Balance embraces the differences in all people and we work tirelessly to create and sustain an environment where everyone - our associates, consumers, customers and guests are treated with dignity and respect.

Sincerely,

Rob DeMartini

President/CEO

According to Huffington Post, the statement came after the website Change.org ran a petition demanding to know whether New Balance stood by the contribution made by the company's chairman. We should note that the website received over 2600 signatures before New Balance issued the statement.

Change.org wrote that Romney signed a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage, which argued that:

LGBT families should be broken apart, that same-sex marriage should be banned in the U.S. Constitution, and that married couples in places like Washington, D.C. should have their relationships voided.

But it gets even worse (they say). When Mitt Romney signed the pledge, he agreed to - should he win the 2012 presidential race - appoint judges and an Attorney General supportive of banning same-sex marriage, and to appoint a presidential commission to investigate LGBT supporters.

What I find most interesting in all of this is how quickly New Balance went into damage control. Whether or not it is any indication, every single comment on their website at the time I first found it was from a customer claiming that they will never buy the company's products again.

I don't have an issue with the CEO of New Balance making a donation as a private citizen. Not much we can do about that. It is unfortunate, though, that big corporate money is polluting our political process more and more every day. It's a good thing we can still make decisions about where we spend our dollars and show our "civic engagement" in that way.

So, I hope advocates continue to do research that helps consumers better understand the character and values of the business people they might or might not choose to support.

And I understand that it cuts both ways, and I'm still okay with it.

It really does look like New Balance got caught out and that they are doing their best to spin a bad situation. I wonder if it will significantly effect their market share. I know I'll have no difficulty choosing from among the countless, non-New Balance, running products on store shelves.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The Michele Bachmann Phenomenon -- crazy, extreme, formidable

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm still on vacation, and enjoying it immensely (and trying not to pay too much attention to the news, even as the world economy crumbles yet further, day after disastrous day), but I can't resist posting on yet another fantastic political profile by Ryan Lizza at The New Yorker, this one on Michele Bachmann.

It's long but deserving of your time and attention.

We all need to understand better the phenomenon that is Bachmann, not least because she may win the Republican presidential nomination.

Mitt Romney remains the fairly clear frontrunner, but he may very well have a low ceiling of potential support, and, if Rick Perry isn't included (and he may or may not run), Bachmann is currently running a strong second. What's more, given Tim Pawlenty's weakness, she'll likely win this Saturday's Ames Straw Poll in Iowa, an influential barometer (at least for the media, but also for donors and, generally, for party undecideds), particularly if she does well, which she likely will (she is, after all, charismatic and engaging), in Thursday's GOP debate.

If Perry runs, she'll have a hard time securing the right-wing vote, assuming that Perry actually runs an effective campaign. Indeed, if she and Perry end up competing for that vote, Romney's path is made so much easier -- the nomination could then be his by default, with the right-wing vote split.

But if he doesn't, and if Sarah Palin stays out as well (as expected), and if the race turns into a Romney vs. Bachmann slugfest (as opposed to, say, a Pawlenty vs. Bachmann spat, which she crushes), who's to say that Bachmann wouldn't win? (She's got the right-wing bona fides, he doesn't. It might just be as simple as that.)

Anyway, enough horse-race speculation. Read Lizza's piece.

Here are the two high-level takeaways:

1. Bachmann is a crazy conservative ideologue and conspiracy theorist.

2. Bachmann has formidable political skills, has an impressive campaign operation, and is a serious contender for the nomination.

Crazy, extreme, and formidable.

Formidable because she's crazy and extreme.

Because being crazy and extreme is what makes you formidable on the right.

Which says all you need to know about today's Republican Party.

This day in history - July 21, 1925: High school teacher John T. Scopes is found guilty of teaching evolution

By Richard K. Barry

In Dayton, Tennessee on this date a high school teacher was found guilty of teaching evolution. Yes, John T. Scopes was found guilty of teaching science. (That's Darwin to the left, by the way, not Scopes).

So, where do the current crop of declared and potential GOP presidential hopefuls stand on teaching science in our schools?

Michele Bachmann has said that evolution is a theory that has never been proven one way or the other and that schools should teach intelligent design as an alternate explanation for the origins of life.

Tim Pawlenty thinks that creationism should be taught alongside evolution, which is Sarah Palin's view.

Rick Perry supports teaching creationism in Texas public schools.

Rick Santorum is a creationist, obviously.

To his credit, Newt Gingrich seems to have a more nuanced view (hell, let's give him credit for something).

Mitt Romney, also to his credit, once said that while he "believed that God designed the universe and created the universe," he also believed that "evolution is most likely the process he used to create human beings."

Even those who want to support science see the need to equivocate in order to keep a large segment of the conservative base happy.

All in all, things really haven't changed that much.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Just another day in the rise and eventual fall of Michele Bachmann

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Let's scan the headlines:

-- Bachmann surges into the lead nationally, according to a new PPP poll, 21-20 over Romney, though a new WSJ/NBC poll has her a strong second to Romney but still well back, 30-16. The takeaway, I think, is that Romney is still the frontrunner but seems to be hitting a ceiling, and a fairly low one at that, while Bachmann has emerged as the most viable alternative. The different results here could be attributed to the fact that the latter poll includes Perry, who has not yet entered the race. Bachmann stands a chance in a one-on-one against Romney but would have much more trouble winning a three-or-more-way race, particularly with a strong conservative like Perry draining her support.

-- According to The Daily Caller, Bachmann "frequently suffers from stress-induced medical episodes that she has characterized as severe headaches. These episodes, say witnesses, occur once a week on average and can 'incapacitate' her for days at time. On at least three occasions, Bachmann has landed in the hospital as a result." The sources are anonymous, but, needless to say, Bachmann's health is a concern -- or at least should be.

-- Basically, Bachmann appears to suffer from severe migraines. But she says they wouldn't be a problem: "'Let me be abundantly clear -- my ability to function effectively has never been impeded by migraines and will not affect my ability to serve as commander in chief,' [she] said in a statement. She described the headaches as 'easily controlled with medication.'" 

-- ABC News's Brian Ross, a big-time reporter, tried to ask Bachmann about her condition at a campaign rally in South Carolina yesterday. According to Michael Crowley at Time's Swampland, who witnessed the violent incident: "Ross dashed after Bachmann, repeatedly asking whether she had ever missed a House vote due to a migraine. She ignored him. Ross pursued her into a parking area behind the stage. Her aides grew alarmed. When Ross made a beeline for the white SUV waiting to carry Bachmann away, two Bachmann men pounced on him, grabbing and pushing him multiple times with what looked to me like unusual force. In fact, I have never seen a reporter treated so roughly at a campaign event, especially not a presidential one."

-- Crowley makes a good point: "To zoom out for a minute, what's most interesting here isn't Bachmann's headaches. She's still a long way from the nuclear football, and unless the story takes some darker turn, I don't see why a seemingly manageable battle with migraines would be a game changer for her candidacy.

The more pertinent question may have to do with Bachmann's preparedness for the campaign circus. Running for President, at least in its early retail stage, requires a willingness to answer inconvenient questions in settings more chaotic and unpredictable than the cable-television interviews to which she is accustomed. The trail is a messy place where reporters will swarm you. It's definitely not always fun -- and can be enough to give even a seasoned candidate a migraine. The question raised this afternoon is whether Bachmann is ready for it."

-- I would say that while I think Bachmann has fairly impressive political skills, just as, say, Palin does, and can hold her own on the talk-show circuit, she, like both Palin and Romney, tends to want to avoid reporters whenever possible, and, more to the point, avoid having to answer uncomfortable questions that may require her to deviate from her talking points. I'm not saying she's not ready for it, but this sort of thing doesn't play well with the media, particularly those on the campaign trail and who demand, if only to do their jobs, more than mere talking points, and is communicated to the public as a major defect (which it is). Thuggery, of the kind Ross was exposed to, hardly qualifies as a suitable response. We know she's an extremist, but running away from reporters and using goons as a shield puts her in Palin territory. The media often excuse extremism, particularly extremism of the right, but they don't excuse being excluded. This could turn out to be a major problem for her.

There you go. Another day, a heavy dose of Bachmann all over the media. In the absence of Palin, she's, well, Palin, the sexiest (in media terms) thing going. She's not just crazy, she's doing well in the polls, fast becoming a viable contender for the GOP presidential nomination.

Attention is being paid. Understandably so.

Unemployment matters, but Romney is still an idiot

By Nicholas Wilbur

I hate when Mitt Romney... speaks.

If he's not lying about a lie he lied about not lying about, he's either making shit up or flailing around like a walrus in a triple lindy competition.

Last Friday, he blessed us with this statement: "Just this week, President Obama's closest White House adviser said that 'unemployment rates or even monthly job numbers' do not matter to the average American."

The funny thing about Romney's crazy talk is that "Obama's closest White House adviser," David Plouffe, never said "unemployment rates or even monthly job numbers" do not matter. What he said was this:

The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers. People won't vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: "How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?"

For the 90.8 percent of the American labor force that is employed, I think this statement is pretty accurate. And yes, it's still accurate even for the 9.2 percent who aren't. (Especially if they're Republicans, because Republicans don't believe it's the government's job to find Joe Six Pack a job.) But even Plouffe is only telling part of the story.

Everyone likes to cite facts and figures showing that no incumbent president (except for the Gipper and FDR) has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 6 percent.

Unfortunately for stupid people who believe the stupid shit other stupid people say, the unemployment rate actually isn't a dominant factor in the big picture of national elections.

What matters, as the Political Animal Steve Benen pointed out a month ago, is progress. If things are improving, if unemployment is falling, statistics are irrelevant.

Unemployment peaked at 10.8 during Reagan's first term, but it fell to 7.2 by the 1984 election. Unemployment grew to 7.8, up from 5.2, when George H.W. Bush sought re-election. That's why Reagan was re-elected and H.W. wasn't. And that's why Obama will glide to victory in 2012 while Romney will be stuck in the unemployment line during the day and burning unsold copies of his shitty book to heat his home at night.

After peaking at 10.1 in October 2010, unemployment fell to 8.8 percent by March 2011. Then the GOP took over.

We were promised big changes when Republicans won majority control over the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections. For six months now they've bitched and moaned and done everything they could to overturn every bill Obama has signed. What they didn't do, and what Democrats will surely highlight throughout the 2012 campaign, is create a jobs bill – or a job. Unemployment declined consistently for a year and a half until Republicans took over the House. Now, for two consecutive months, it has risen.

The obstructionists have entered the building.

Expect mass evacuations sometime around November 2012. 

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Bachmann surges past Romney in Iowa

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The RCP Average still has Romney on top in Iowa, if only barely, but a new poll by The Iowa Republican has Bachmann in the lead for the first time, 25 to 21 over Romney, with Pawlenty and Cain well back at 9.

To some of us -- Richard Barry and me, for example -- this isn't at all surprising. We have long thought that Bachmann has impressive political skills (whatever her right-wing craziness) and could do well in this race, particularly in the absence of another viable candidate on the right. And she's doing well generally in a one-on-one race against Romney, a race without, say, a Perry or a Palin to drain some of her conservative support.

Romney is still the frontrunner and perhaps the favourite. He has a solid ground campaign across the country, will win New Hampshire, has the support of much of the establishment (and monied interests that back the GOP), and is a solid if uninspiring candidate, particularly with the economy at the center of the debate.

But Bachmann could easily win Iowa, surprise with a strong showing in New Hampshire, and then, should she be more or less alone on the right, cruise into South Carolina with the wind at her back.

The concerns for Romney are many, but one of them may be that he has a fairly low ceiling. He has about one-quarter support of Republicans nationally right now, but what if his ceiling isn't all that much higher than that? What if the opposition to Romney is so strong, mainly from the grassroots (Tea Party, "social conservatives," etc.), that he just can't get over the hump in a one-on-one race against a more bona fide conservative like Bachmann? And it's possible that it will eventually turn into just that, if Pawlenty fails to emerge as a compromise candidate and if the conservative vote isn't divided (that is, if Perry and Palin don't run and if the conservatives in the race now, namely Gingrich and Santorum, continue to lag way behind with little support). (I'm counting Huntsman out altogether, though in my opinion he's by far the strongest of the bunch.)

Indeed, as Jon Chait noted yesterday, Bachmann is a bit like Obama in 2007:

Obama trailed badly in the national polls throughout 2007. But he had high favorability and seemed to do well among those voters most attuned to the campaign, which suggested that as elections neared and voters paid more attention, he had the potential to win over voters who were not paying attention months and months before any vote.

And, indeed, Bachmann's "lead expands when the sample is confined to voters paying a lot of attention." Which is to say, Republicans like her more the more they get to know her, with her support coming to a great extent from those who are most engaged in the process -- the people, that is, who decide primaries, the hardcore grassroots.

Will this continue? Maybe not. Maybe Bachmann has her own ceiling. Maybe another big-name conservative will get in the race. Maybe Romney would beat her in a one-on-one race. But what's evident, it seems to me, is that Bachmann is for real.

The GOP: True believers, dissemblers, and keeping score

By Richard K. Barry

I was watching Republican presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty on Face the Nation today. I've written before about how much I believe Pawlenty exudes weakness and how poorly I think he will continue to do in the race. Much of my assessment comes from my sense that he is a pandering fool. And, even at that, he just seems bad at pandering, which is not a good thing for a politician.

ThinkProgress had a piece up today in which they quote Pawlenty as saying that science is split on whether or not sexual orientation is a matter of biology. Whatever. We know that Pawlenty has called into question the science of climate change after having previously accepted it. Clearly science in any form is not the man's strong suit, so I would tend to ignore whatever he might say about it. It's just that whatever he says about anything sounds like an opinion of convenience. Hence the ick factor.

All of this has led me to think about constructing a scale to gauge the extent to which prominent Republican politicians actually believe the stuff they keep saying.

We have been seeing many stories about the power of the hard right flank of the conservative movement, its energy and enthusiasm, and how terrified GOP pols are that they will find themselves on a hit list of one of the more vocal Tea Party groups or media outlets that seem to be calling the shots for the entire Republican party.

As for the scale, a "one" would be a Republican who actually believes all of what he or she says publicly. A "ten" would be someone who believes none of it.

Let's call it the GOP Liar's Index.

Now, since I don't think perfection is possible in this life time, I'm going to say that there are no "ones" and no "tens."

Back to Pawlenty. Maybe he's a "five," stuck in the middle and not sure of anything he has to say, which is what makes him look weak - half believing the conservative orthodoxy and half disbelieving it. Not sure.

Bachmann would have been a "two" a few months ago, but my sense is that she is starting to moderate her public opinions away from what she actually believes. Ironically, in her case, the duplicity isn't to placate the Tea Party but to sell herself to more mainstream Americans. She might be a "four" now.

Romney could be a "seven" as he sits very uncomfortably within a hyper-conservative Republican Party, knowing that he has to sell himself to a lot of people on the right who just don't like him.

I don't know about Huntsman. He might be a "two" or a "three." Not to lionize the man, but he does seem to come across as someone who believes the things he says.

If there are people in the GOP who seem to believe everything they say, I suspect that they both have the last name Paul. Yep, these guys are scary in that way.

Palin? I swear that she is too stupid to really believe anything she says but simply mouths the lines that will get her the biggest applause in front of Tea Party crowds or at Fox News and not, inconsequently, the biggest pay check. I just refuse to care any more about Sarah Palin.

John Boehner? I think this poor SOB could be a "nine." He's a Washington insider. The last thing he wants to do is shut down the federal government or play silly right-wing extremist games on the Hill, but that seems to be the way he has to talk about it all if he intends to keep Eric Cantor from taking his job.

Paul Ryan has to be a "two." Another true believer, as I've written.

I'm only having some fun here. Feel free to tell me who you think is being truest to their own values. But I don't think I've ever seen a group of politicians treading so lightly so as not to alienate a movement within their own party that is simply crazy. I'm just saying that some of them, particularly those Republicans in the Senate and House who might be facing Tea Party challenges from the right, are going to be forced to take positions that don't naturally sit well with them. I'm thinking here of the Hatches and Lugares and Snowes.

I don't want to say that politics is too much about who can lie the best, but in 2012 the GOP is sure going to test that theory.

The bottom line may be that for a Republican to be successful electorally, they would have to be either true believers, i.e, totally out of their freakin' minds, or really good liars about being totally out of their freakin' minds.

You will note that I have studiously avoided giving my scale a top or a bottom. Either way we're screwed.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Pawlenty, desperate for attention as ever, says science "in dispute" over homsexuality

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Back at the end of May, I wrote about the desperation of Tim Pawlenty. While he had been seen as a possible "bridge" candidate linking the somewhat moderate GOP establishment with the party's more right-wing grassroots base (both Tea Party and "social conservative"), he just wasn't catching on.

He was, and remains, fairly well-liked by pundits (including influential conservatives like George Will) and other political and media insiders, but his numbers, reflecting not just a lack of name-recognition but a lack of support broadly, have been consistently poor. The latest RCP national average has him at just 4.5%, eighth in the race behind Romney (the clear frontrunner at 25%), Perry (who may not run), Palin (who almost certainly isn't running), Bachmann (who has emerged as a strong second to Romney), Cain, Paul, and, yes, even Gingrich (who is running a joke of a campaign). He's sixth in Iowa (with Perry not included), close to his homestate of Minnesota and somewhere he should be doing well (or where he must do well to have any shot at the nomination), at just 6.7%, ahead of Paul but behind the others and well back of Romney (19.3%) and Bachmann (12.7%). And he's even further back in New Hampshire, in seventh (if you include Giuliani, who may jump in but likely won't do well) and a long, long way back fro Romney (34.5%).

It's not for lack of trying, though. Pawlenty has, thus far, proven to be a lackluster and often embarrassing candidate unwilling to take on Romney face-to-face, but he's done a great deal to try to appeal to the base, including coming out as a social conservative (i.e., theocrat, bigot) on issues like same-sex marriage and DADT and proposing a ridiculous trickle-down tax/budget plan designed to suck up to Grover Norquist, the Tea Party, and other anti-government movers and shakers on the Republican right.

It's just that nothing seems to be working, and so he's still pathetically grasping for attention, trying to emerge possibly as a third option to Romney and Bachmann. And he's doing that by continuing his "social conservative" assault of homosexuality, asserting on Meet the Press this morning that science is "in dispute" over whether being gay is genetic or a choice:

GREGORY: Is being gay a choice?

PAWLENTY: Well, the science in that regard is in dispute. I mean, scientists work on that and try to figure out if it's behavioral or if it's partly genetic –

GREGORY: What do you think?

PAWLENTY: Well, I defer to the scientists in that regard.

GREGORY: So you think it's not a choice? That you are, as Lady Gaga says, you're born that way.

PAWLENTY: There's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic. We don't know that.

Of course, you can always find one or two scientists, perhaps paid by some right-wing institute, to dispute what the (non-partisan) scientific community has come to accept as established fact, based on all the available research, and thereby to cast doubt on consensus (and to suggest that there's "no scientific conclusion." (This is how conservatives, including Pawlenty himself, dismiss climate change, for example.) As Think Progress notes in this case:

In fact, there is no dispute among health professionals. All major medical professional organizations agree that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American Psychological Association, the world's largest association of psychological professionals, describes sexual orientation as "a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors." There is considerable evidence to suggest that biology, "including genetic or inborn hormonal factors," plays a significant role in a person's sexuality.

Is the evidence conclusive to the point of absolute certainty? No, but science rejects absolutism and is never certain about anything. That's the point of science, completely ignored by those on the anti-science right. Is there any "dispute." Yes, if, as with climate change, it comes from those on the right who, largely for partisan/ideological reasons, disagree with the vast majority of the scientific community and reject the overwhelming amount of evidence against them. But there is certainly no dispute among reputable scientists that genetics plays an essential role in determining sexual orientation and that being gay is not a matter of choice.

Of course, none of that matters to Pawlenty, who's really just trying to score some political points by situating himself as an ignorant bigot worthy of support from the GOP base. Will it work? No. His ship has sailed -- if there ever was a ship at all. I, like many others, thought he had a good shot at the nomination if only as a suitable second choice for many across the Republican spectrum. But there's no denying just how bad a candidate he's been, nor just how uninteresting and uninspiring he is. He can push his fiscal/economic bona fides all he wants, but he'll never be Romney, who in Republican circles has extensive credibility in that area. He can push his social conservatism, faux or otherwise, all he wants, but he'll never be Bachmann, who has a long record of advocating extremist right-wing positions on hot-button social issues. And while he could still hang around in a Romney-vs.-Bachmann race, he just doesn't seem like a suitable compromise candidate anymore.

Okay, he's still got a shot, given how weak the Republican field is, but it's longer than ever now. Which may only exacerbate his desperation and push him to say more and more extremist and ridiculous things.

Romney the Pathetic blasts Obama over recession

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mitt Romney really is pathetic.

And what's really utterly pathetic is not so much how desperately hard he's trying to be a strident movement conservative, because while he's certainly doing that to some degree he's also playing simultaneously to the somewhat more moderate GOP establishment by presenting himself as what seems to be the lone sober voice in a sea of utter insanity, but how he's trying desperately to join the Republican anti-Obama chorus by lashing out at a president with whom in reality he has often been in agreement.

For example, he said yesterday, clarifying previously ambiguous comments, that Obama has made the economy worse, that "the recession is deeper because of our president." Even then, though, he wasn't clear. Obama has apparently both "made the recession worse" and made the recovery, such as there has been one, "slower and more painful."

In other words, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Or, rather, he presumably does but has gotten himself trapped in his own bullshit spin, not clear about what exactly his talking points are. Are things worse or is the recovery too slow? They can't be both. But Romney, poor pathetic Romney, can't seem to pick his preferred line.

Of course, the recovery has been slow, but how has that been Obama's fault? Obama inherited a terrible economic situation. The recession ended several months after he took office, but he did what he could, early in his presidency, to get the economy moving again. And if there is blame to hand out for the slowness of the recovery, it must be handed to the Republicans who objected to Obama's (and the Democrats') stimulus, or at least to the size of it, and prevented the government from injecting enough money into the economy to get it going again quickly enough. Romney for his part, and to his credit, supported the stimulus, but Republicans generally were the obstacle.

Obama then pushed for the bank and auto bailouts, which, however unpopular (and imperfect in application), certainly pulled the economy back from the brink. If anything, Obama prevented the situation from getting even worse. There was objection on both sides to the bailouts, but, again, the Republicans were the obstacle to recovery, not the Democrats and certainly not Obama, who worked (and led) within the limits he faced to get something done at a time when something was desperately needed. Who knows what the situation would now be like if Republicans had gotten their way.

Does Romney know this? Probably. He's an economic conservative who generally prefers trickle-down economics, but, if I may be generous, he's not a complete idiot. But that also means he knows he has to play the anti-Obama game to have a chance at the nomination. Sure, he's the frontrunner, but he's hardly a secure one. He still needs to play to the extremist GOP base, to the primary voters and their puppetmasters who want Obama's head on a pike.

That's what he's trying to do, but you can see just how bad he is at it, which suggests both that he's a bad attack dog, or at least that he's bad at faking it, and that he doesn't really believe what he's saying.

Like Jon Huntsman, a far less pathetic figure (actually an admirable conservative, if I may say so), Romney would probably prefer to remain civil. But he knows he can't, not if he wants to win, and so what we're getting from Romney the Pathetic is an act that rings anything but true and sincere.

But hey, at least we're not talking about Romneycare. Right?

Apathy and loathing on the 2012 campaign trail

By Nicholas Wilbur

Barack Obama may be leading Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republican presidential hopefuls in one-on-one matchups, but if the GOP finds a generic Republican without a face, a name, a history or a legislative record, Obama is toast.

A new Gallup poll shows Obama as the 5-point underdog to "a Republican," which the investigative reporters at Wonkette point out would spell trouble for the incumbent "if there were any Republicans running for president."

Previous surveys put Romney and Tim Pawlenty 6 and 11 points behind Obama, respectively. But when asked to vote for "a Republican," Obama's edge is reversed.

It seems the Republican-leaning poll respondents are making the allusive statement that they prefer no candidate to any currently being offered. That, or they're hoping that a real Republican will emerge before primary season officially kicks off in February 2012 – someone who embodies the conservative principles of the Republican Party but who needn't pander to corporations, zealots, bigots, and radicals as a prerequisite for public office. Also in a perfect world, bees wouldn't have stingers, trees would rake their own leaves, Democrats would have spines, and wannabe voters would have to pass aptitude tests in order to cast a ballot.

Understandably, nobody is quite sure how to interpret these contradictory polls. How ought the media report a series of surveys showing that grocery store shoppers preferred paper over plastic in one poll but in another poll preferred "no bags" to paper bags?

The electorate either is confused or apathetic. In either case, a more telling survey might ask the question, "Does it matter who is elected president in 2012?" It wouldn't be any more revealing than the polls we have now – one wouldn't need the experience of a legislative whip or the clairvoyance of a fortune teller to make an educated guess about how the data would turn out – but it might serve as a reminder to our elected officials that, as a wise man once said, the government isn't only "of the people and by the people," it's also supposed to be for the people.

The fact that nearly one in five Americans doesn't have a preference when it comes to electing the next president should be a clear sign to every candidate – whether an incumbent or a challenger, a Democrat or a Republican, a socialist or a teabagger – that we expect more than from our elected representatives than the options they're currently providing.

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)