H/T to Bosman at RightSpeak.com

From Mark B. Lowe at Race42012

The Washington Post, in conjunction with ABC News has just released a new poll. It shows President Obama continuing his slow sinking in the polls since January.

Obama’s job approval/disapproval rating is pegged at 47/50 — the worst this year for both numbers.

His handling of the economy is 42/57, again the worst this year.  It’s the worse since September of last year.

In the poll, they asked all the leaning Republicans whom they would vote for if the GOP primary was held today. They made it open ended. They did not provide any names. Here are the results they got:

They asked everyone the  “vs. Obama” question for a number of top GOP 2012 hopefuls. The results are as follows:

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone April 14-17, 2011, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

Here are the main things I take away from this poll:

1. No mention of Herman Cain.
2. Romney is the only one that broke double digits.
3. Trump seems to be fading already.
4. We see the usual two man race between Romney and Huckabee
5. Sarah Palin continues to be well off the pace.
6. Pawlenty is still struggling to gain traction.

Boy is Obama going to have a VERY tough fight on his hands!  I have the feeling that Mitt Romney is not going to let Obama wiggle away from his record.  Watching Romney debate Obama would be the difference between knowledge and ignorance.  One knows a lot, and the other know very little.  One has TONS of eperience, and one has very little.

By Mitt Romney

There’s some good news and some bad news as we mark the unhappy occasion of the April 18 tax filing deadline. Let’s start with the good news.

For the first time in the post-World War II era, there is a significant popular movement to scale back government and reduce the tax burden that has been stifling our economy. A lot of this is because members of the Tea Party are making their voices heard.

Almost 21/2 centuries after the original Boston Tea Party of 1775, the idea of limited government that inspired our forebears is very much alive. The growth of government is not some inexorable force. In a democracy, we the people decide. Thanks to the Tea Party, there’s real hope that we can rein in our profligate federal government.

But in order to make progress, we have to first rein in President Obama, whose spending binge is driving our national debt to historic highs. When Obama took office in 2009, the national debt was about 50 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Over the past two years, our national debt has risen to about 70 percent of the GDP and is expected to be 100 percent of the GDP by 2020.

The Obama administration’s $800 billion stimulus package is one-half of the unfolding disaster. The other half is Obamacare, which will cost more than a trillion dollars unless it can be repealed — something the next president must make a priority on Day 1 in office.

These staggering new burdens are made worse by the fact that our system of taxation is killing our nation’s once-strong economic engine. The mind-boggling complexity of our tax system is only part of the problem. As of last year, the U.S. tax code had mushroomed into 71,684 pages that no one human being can fully understand. Along with complexity comes a dizzying array of perverse incentives.

For example, we tax companies that make money overseas if they want to bring the money home, but we don’t tax them if they keep it abroad. The result is that as much as a trillion dollars in private capital is parked offshore. With proper incentives, that money would be infused into our economy and invested in new equipment and factories. Repatriating a trillion dollars could create lots of good, permanent, private-sector jobs.

Then there are the disincentives that flow from the high rates themselves, for entrepreneurs, small business owners and other job-creators. American employers bear the highest tax burden in the world, tied with Japan and above even European countries like Italy and France. But instead of making ourselves more competitive by reducing rates across the board, we’ve created myriad loopholes that are confusing to everyone except the lawyers, accountants and lobbyists who make a living off them.

We have also built a paralyzing uncertainty into our system. In December, Congress and President Obama agreed to temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts. But under the terms of the congressional compromise with the White House, high rates will come back into force in two years unless Congress acts again. Every entrepreneur, every small business owner and every employer knows that the clock is ticking. This uncertainty translates directly into caution about investing and taking on additional workers.

A smart tax system would reward investment, savings and entrepreneurship, while providing job-creators with the predictability and stability they need to grow our economy. But our tax system is not smart; it’s quite the opposite. It needs urgent reform that reduces rates and restores a climate of confidence in our economy. With millions of Americans seeking but not finding work, a transformation of our approach to taxes is both an economic and moral imperative.

But reform requires both understanding and leadership. Unfortunately, when it comes to those qualities, we are facing Washington’s biggest deficit of all.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, is a Republican candidate for U.S. president in 2012.

Mitt talks about the things he believes in when it comes to health care and points out differences between MA health care and Obamacare.  Although there are some similarities, those things that are similar are things that Republicans in the house and Senate were okay with.  The differences are stark and when one really dives in to understanding them, they find that one is a socialist plan and one is a Conservative free marketing plan without a “Public Option.”

There are obvious similarities between Obamacare and what you did in Massachusetts. Do you acknowledge that what you did in Massachusetts has become a model for nation under Obama, whether you wanted it to or not?

And there you have it: the primaries may be more than two years away but he’s already in prime talking point form.

I can’t speak for what the president has done. I don’t know what he looks at… If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation.

I stand for the things I believe in. I don’t know what the politics are of it.

Jonathan Gruber advised both you and Obama on health care. He told me that you are “the one person who deserves the most credit for the national plan we ended up with.” Is that a title you’re willing to accept?

[Laughs.] I think you’ve already heard my answer on that.

Do you think the Republicans in Congress made a mistake by using Obama’s desire for Republican votes as leverage to align the plan more closely with conservative views? For political reasons, he was almost desperate at first to get bipartisan support for the bill.

I think what President Obama wanted was Republicans to vote for an extremely ideologically big-government plan. And Republicans weren’t going to do that….

But he was elected president, right? Wasn’t there room within those negotiations for Republicans to push his plan to the right if they chose to play ball?

Republicans put forward several pieces of legislation to reform health care, and those were rejected by the president in favor of the Pelosi-Reid plan.

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote the following: “We do know that the gap between [Obama's plan] and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.” Is it fair to say that the new national plan has conservative roots, even if you disagree with it being imposed on a national level?

Let’s see, I can’t think of a great metaphor. Maybe Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: they both have two arms and two legs, but they’re very different creatures…there’s simply an enormous difference when you have one plan that imposes massive tax hikes and another that does not. [There's] a huge difference with a plan that dramatically cuts Medicare Advantage and one that does not impose a new burden on senior citizens.

Those are real differences, but aren’t they measures designed to control costs and pay for the plan? The president’s plan has cost controls that the Massachusetts plan didn’t need–tax increases on people earning over $200,000 a year, reductions in wasteful Medicare spending. In Massachusetts, you could just repurpose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds to pay for it. But that doesn’t work on the national level. So it seems a little disingenuous to call the Democrats fiscally irresponsible, then criticize the parts of the plan that are designed to make it fiscally responsible.

But you see, we go back to the initial premise. I reject the idea of a federal mandate imposed on states and individuals. If you open the door to the federal government, then it leads to all sorts of unattractive elements, such as raising taxes and cutting Medicare. If instead one said at the federal level, “We’re going to give resource flexibility to states to use money they’re already receiving as a way to help the poor buy insurance,” that says, “All right, we’re using funds that have already been allocated, we’re letting states create their own plans, and we’ll see how that works. And we’ll learn from the experience.” That’s the idea of states as the laboratories of democracy. What we’ve gotten into by opening the door to a federally imposed plan is the creation of the Mr. Hyde monster.

Obviously concerned how this might play with GOP audiences when the presidential primary season rolls around, Romney stuck to the PR script and struck a stoic pose:

Many political pundits believe that the passage of Obama’s health-care plan and the related animosity among Republicans toward what you did in Massachusetts has greatly diminished your chances of winning the Republican nomination if you run for president in 2012.

I stand for the things I believe in. I don’t know what the politics are of it.

Original article here.

From the Clarus Research Group: (source – pdf)

If the next presidential election were held today, and the two candidates were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican __________, for whom would you vote? (asked of 1050 registered voters)
45 Obama, 41 Romney
47 Obama, 39 Huckabee
49 Obama, 37 Jeb Bush
48 Obama, 36 Gingrich
52 Obama, 34 Palin

———————————————————————————

If the following candidates were seeking the next Republican Presidential nomination, which ONE would now most likely favor… (ROTATE NAMES)? (asked of 415 Republicans and Republican leaning independents)
29 Romney
19 Huckabee
18 Palin
13 Gingrich
8 Jeb Bush
1 Thune
1 Daniels
2 Other
10 unsure

———————————————————————————

Of the following possible Republican presidential nominees, which ONE do you think would have the best chance to beat Barack Obama in the general election… (ROTATE NAMES)? (asked of 415 Republicans and Republican leaning independents)
42 Romney
14 Huckabee
11 Palin
10 Gingrich
8 Jeb Bush
2 Thune
1 Daniels
15 unsure

———————————————————————————

Which ONE of the following do you regard as the major spokesperson for the Republican Party today –(ROTATE NAMES)? (asked of 415 Republicans and Republican leaning independents)
14 Romney
14 McCain
10 Gingrich
9 Beck
9 Limbaugh
8 George W. Bush
6 Palin
5 Boehner
5 Hannity
4 Cheney
3 McConnell
2 Steele
1 Other (volunteered)
12 Not sure/No answer

_______________________________________________________________

According to this poll, Mitt Romney is in VERY good shape as he gears up for the 2012 elections.  My feelings have always been that Mitt maintains a steady improvement, never becoming stale or losing credibility with the general public.  If he is only 4 points behind Obama, with a margin of error, how will he be polling throughout 2011 when more Americans come to know of this man’s credentials??

Very good news in this poll.

Spencer Iacono

I came across this ad and I couldn’t help but think about what Mitt will be saying in his next “first ad” as a Presidential candidate in 2012.  The things he is concerned about, as expressed in this video, I believe are far less than what we have to be concerned about just a few years after this ad was created.  We now have the issue of holding terrorist trials in New York as a result of closing down Guantanamo Bay.  We have the issue of unprecedented national debt.  We have the issue of nationalized health care(which I believe will be a strength for Mitt against Obama and his failed Health Care attempt).  We have the issue of a weaker America as a result of, 1. Closing Gitmo, 2.  Apologizing for America, 3.  Dramatically decreasing funding for our Military, Grounded the F-22, 4.  Iran being allowed to continue with it’s nuclear program, and the list can literally go on and on.

Things have not gotten any better, things have not stayed the same, things have gotten far worse.  Please share your thoughts on what type of things you think Mitt will be speaking about in 2011.

Charles Krauthammer and Kristen Powers say that Romney is the best candidate to go against Obama in 2012.  Kristen states that he would be “the best candidate in 2012.”  Note that she didn’t say “the best to go against Obama”, but THE best in 2012.”  She also points out that she feels that he would have a hard time getting out of the primary because of the Evangelicals,”  such a sad shame.  Can it be said then that Evangelicals are to blame for Obama being in the White House today?

Will it be said that Evangelicals will be the reason Obama stays as POTUS for another 4 years if they are successful at keeping Romney out?  What are your thoughts on how we can help Romney overcome this hurdle?

Mitt lays out a pretty good case for Ben Bernanke here.  He states that Bernanke is not without mistake, but he is afraid Obama would appoint someone far worse.  Neil told Romney he did such a good job he could be a “co-anchor.” As always, Mitt performed very well in this interview.  He didn’t sound at all like a potential campaigner, but as someone who really cares about the country and the direction Obama is taken it.  Let me know your thoughts.

Christmas Morning at The Romney's House

Here is a Message from the Family man himself:

It seems that almost every day now brings a fresh story of another well-known Democrat incumbent not seeking re-election. And in 8 days from now, what many thought was unthinkable may happen — Republican Scott Brown may be elected to late Senator Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. If successful, Scott would be the first Republican Senator in Massachusetts in 30 years.

I know Scott and how determined he is to win. I’ve campaigned for him, raised money on his behalf and we’re doing all we can to help him over the finish line.

Something is brewing in Massachusetts and all over the country, and I have a prediction to make – for our cause, and for all those who speak for it with no apology, this will be our year.

The conservative movement is gaining momentum every day and we must keep it going during the weeks and months ahead. This all-important midterm election year will have far-reaching consequences and we must do everything we can to elect conservative candidates throughout the country.

That is why I am asking you to take the extraordinary step of signing up to make a recurring monthly contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250 or whatever amount you can afford to my Free and Strong America PAC. Your generous monthly support will ensure that we have the resources to continue our efforts to help Republicans take back the House and Senate in November.

Of course, nothing is certain in politics, but we can be certain about this: Our belief in the greatness of America and our dedication to keeping this nation strong are needed today as much as they have ever been needed in our past. I hope you will stand with me today.

And even if you don’t wish to make a recurring monthly contribution at this time, I hope you will consider making a one time contribution toward our efforts of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 $2,500 or even the maximum $5,000. Your early support will go a long way toward laying the foundation for Republican victories in November.