Tim Pawlenty To Announce He Will Run In 2012

With Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and Haley Barbour withdrawing from the 2012 Presidential elections, people are looking to see if other politicians will jump in to fill the vacuum left by the men who will not run. One of those men looking to fill that void is Tim Pawlenty. He was the first 2012 candidate to form an exploratory committee. Next Monday, he will be announcing that he is no longer exploring the idea of running and that he will officially be a candidate for 2012: 

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a laid-back Midwestern Republican who governed a Democratic-leaning state, is running for president and will declare his candidacy on Monday in the leadoff caucus state of Iowa, an adviser told The Associated Press.

The adviser, who disclosed the plans on the condition of anonymity in advance of next week's announcement, said Pawlenty will formally enter the race during a town hall-style event in Des Moines, Iowa.

He's choosing to make his long-expected bid official in a critical state in his path to the GOP nomination. Advisers acknowledge that Pawlenty, 50, must win or turn in a strong showing during next winter's caucuses in the neighboring state of Iowa to have any chance of becoming the Republican who will challenge President Barack Obama, a Democrat, next November.

After Monday's announcement, he will head to Florida, New Hampshire, New York and Washington, D.C.

However, Tim Pawlenty doesn't seem to be really excited about running: 

And when I ask Pawlenty, during a second interview in Des Moines, Iowa, exactly when he decided he was up to the grand challenge of the presidency, he answers in less than grandiose terms, explaining how he'd set up a political-action committee in 2009. I try again, saying I am curious about when he first imagined himself worthy of the history books, ready to send soldiers to their deaths and endure the national stage's harsh toll. "I don't know," he replies. "I wish I had a good answer for you on that." Pawlenty says it is not an idea that crossed his mind 15 or 20 years ago but that as he considered life as a relatively young ex-governor, he felt obliged not to take the easy path and "go make some money and play hockey and drink beer." He adds that he almost didn't run at all. "Mary and I talked about this at length, and many times, and it was a close call," he says, mentioning his wife of 24 years. He adds with a laugh, "It could have gone the other way for all the reasons you're suggesting."

Tim Pawlenty's announcement comes as no surprise. However, the buzz and hype surrounding his planned announcement on Monday will be short lived because he will most certainly be  be upstaged by other Republicans who have not thrown in their hat into the ring yet. We are still waiting to find out if Mitch Daniels, Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin will run or not. There's also speculation that Texas Govenor Rick Perry is also considering running in this upcoming presidential election. Rudy Giuliani is also thinking about running again for 2012. 

Why People Are Warming Up To Mitt Romney

While Mitt Romney is getting slammed from both the left and the right over the unveiling of his new health care plan, the American people are warming up to Mitt Romney. Why are people gravitating towards Romney?

The recent surge in Mitt Romney's popularity is occurring for many reasons.  Donald Trump, Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee has dropped out of the race. He's raised $10.25 million dollars in one day. But perhaps people are starting to warm up to Mitt Romney because he's confronting the major issues of the day with a level of maturity that is rare among the Republican 2012 contenders. 

Brian McGrory over at the Boston Globe makes this point:

Maybe I missed something here, but isn’t personal responsibility something that Republicans generally support? The alternative, mind you, is that people who either don’t bother paying for insurance or can’t afford it clog emergency rooms — the most expensive entry point to the health care system — to receive care that’s spread among taxpayers who have already paid for insurance on their own. That’s really what Republicans support?

So to the point, Romney stood up and stood tall last week and defended the Massachusetts law, with the caveat that it was never meant to be a national plan. The authority to tackle health care, Romney said, resides with the states, and what fits well in Massachusetts may not be the best solution in Montana or Mississippi. This is reasonable and practical.

Meaning that conservative commentators just about broke their legs rushing to their keyboards and cameras to tear the speech apart. “Mitt Romney’s Illogical, Terrible Health Care Address,’’ was how the National Review termed it. And that was one of the kinder takes.

Think about this for a brief moment: The first time Romney has refused to disavow the past or contort himself in a way that defies the physics of successful politics, he is slammed by his own party for daring to be true to a belief. But in that, amid the waterfall of negativity that has rained on his camp ever since, Romney may find the exact message he needs in his eternally uncertain campaign.

The fringe philosophers of each party get the most attention by throwing juvenile tantrums, but it’s the adults in the center who end up handling the arduous work of government and, occasionally, reform. The public gets this. For the moment, anyway, voters are done with radicals with all the answers. They want honest brokers.

As a result, people are rallying around Mitt Romney despite what the political elite of the left and the right think about RomneyCare. In fact, many voters are willing to vote for him because what Romney did in Massachusetts has no effect on how they feel about him:

Yet, a majority of respondents (53 percent) said that Romney's involvement in helping to pass Massachusetts' universal health care law would not affect their decision to vote for him. Among those who identified as Undeclared/ Independent (roughly 40 percent of all likely GOP Primary voters), some 20 percent said Romney's involvement in passing Massachusetts' health care bill would actually make them more likely to vote for him, and similarly 50 percent said it made no difference.

Given the influence of New Hampshire's Presidential Primary and that independents and new voters who register at the polls may choose a Republican ballot, it's beneficial to Mitt Romney that these voters are not holding his Massachusetts health care legacy against him.

It would be easy to dismiss Romney's numbers in New Hampshire given its proximity to Massachusetts -- especially considering that the state's main population center resides within Boston's media market. However, given that our Florida numbers match New Hampshire's (vote/lean Romney -- NH GOP: 38 percent, FL GOP 33 percent) it's clear that Romney is finding some strong baseline support from Republican voters in key areas.

Further, Suffolk University Political Research Center (SUPRC) New Hampshire study found the two most important qualities for a presidential candidate among potential voters were honesty (29 percent) and integrity (10 percent). And, while pundits have slammed Romney for his failure to clarify this or denounce that, he certainly hit these notes on the head, saying "A lot of pundits around the nation are saying that I should just stand up and say this whole thing was a mistake... There's only one problem with that: It wouldn't be honest."

Those journalists, bloggers and political junkies who are honest in their observation are seeing what the American people see. Mitt Romney isn't the perfect candidate but that's what America needs right now. America needs a candidate like Mitt Romney who isn't afraid to offer honest solutions to the biggest concerns of our day.  That is why they're not holding RomneyCare against him. They see him as a man who is not perfect but is unafraid to be a leader America yearns for.
 

Mitt Romney Raises $10.25 Million Dollars In Las Vegas

Mitt Romney has raised an impressive $10.25 million in his single national campaign fundraising effort.  Poll numbers are one thing, but the ability to raise that much cash demonstrates how strongly people across the country feel about Mitt Romney: 

"We are overwhelmed by the outpouring of support for Governor Romney's campaign," said Romney's finance chair Spencer Zwick. "The results are a strong indication of the national enthusiasm for Governor Romney and his pro-jobs platform.

"As today's event makes clear, Governor Romney will have the resources to be competitive and to spread his jobs and economy message," added Zwick.

Dubbed "The National Call Day" by Romney's staff, 700 to 800 supporters gathered at the Las Vegas Convention Center, "in a space the size of two football fields," and placed calls around the country throughout the day to generate financial support. Romney also met with the volunteers and even had the event broadcast on his Facebook page.

People from all walks of life and backgrounds came into Las Vegas to rally behind Mitt Romney. Many people took long road trips or plane rides so that they could be at this historic event. Not only were regular folks there to support Mitt Romney but lots of famous people were there like Cindy Crawford, Olympic speed skater Dan Jansen, Meg Whitman and  New York Jets owner Woody Johnson were all there to support Mitt Romney.

With that kind of amount of money raised in a single day, other Republican 2012 candidates and President Obama will face an uphill battle to match the kind of money that Mitt can raise:

He wants to emerge from the fundraising quarter that ends June 30 having far outraised his rivals, and displaying financial fortitude in hopes that Republicans will choose him to challenge President Barack Obama. The Democrat shattered fundraising records in 2008 and could raise as much as $1 billion for his re-election campaign.

Ron Paul might be up to the challenge to raise more money than Mitt but no other candidate could raise that kind of cash in a single day. Moreover, this sends a strong signal to President Barak Obama that Mitt Romney intends to stay competitive against him financially and that he has the war chest that will allow him to defeat Obama in 2012.  

However, Mitt Romney hasn't decided on whether or not he will use his own personal  funds to finance the campaign: 

Mitt Romney, while clearly buoyed by the $10.25 million his supporters raised today, is nonetheless not ready to rule out what could become another potent financial weapon in his all-but-certain presidential run: tapping into his own personal wealth.

“That’s counsel I’m going to keep with Ann and myself, and that’s all,” he said, referring to his wife. “So I can’t give you any more update than that. We’re just going to keep that to our own counsel.”

The decision could be significant, not only on Romney's pocketbook but also on the contours of the race. During the former Massachusetts governor’s 2008 presidential campaign, he used $42 million of his own funds. One of Romney’s potential rivals -- Jon Huntsman, Jr., who comes from a wealthy family – has already ruled out self-financing his campaign.

Mitt Romney's large campaign war chest is a force to be reckoned with in 2012. Raising money is Mitt Romney's strength and if he becomes the Republican nominee to face Obama, he's the only candidate who can pose a serious challenge him financially since Obama plans to raise at least a billion in campaign funds.

What Mike Huckabee's Absence Means For The 2012 Race

This has been quite the weekend. Donald Trump dropped out of the race and so did Mike Huckabee. The fact that the former governor of Arkansas dropped out of the race is more significant to the 2012 Republican primary than the news of Trump backing out.

Mike Huckabee Decided Not To Run

Many people have speculated whether or not Mike Huckabee would run again. Some people thought he would run while others predicted he would not. Well, all those speculations are put to rest since Mike Huckabee has announced that he will not be running in 2012. 

Yet, for anyone who was watching Mike Huckabee closely, it was clear long before he made his announcement that he wasn't running: 

Huckabee’s decision shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone who has been watching the emerging field. For starters, he hadn’t assembled his team, and key ’08 aides and endorsements had started to work for other GOP candidates. What’s more, with his multi-million-dollar house in Florida, it was pretty evident it would be difficult for Huckabee to step away from his FOX show.  Then there was his upcoming Christian-themed Alaska cruise in June. Bottom line: As Huckabee said on Saturday night, his heart just wasn’t in it.

When Mitt Romney heard the news about Huckabee's decision not to run, he left a message on Mike Huckabee's home answering machine: 

When Wallace noted he didn't mention Romney, Huckabee said, "No but let me tell you something — I got a wonderful voicemail from Mitt Romney last night, which I thought was very gracious on his part."

Romney and Huckabee tussled nastily during the 2008 campaign, and their bad blood has lived on into the current cycle. But Huckabee insisted if Romney is the nominee he'll support him, because he'd be better than President Barack Obama.

"Whether he is my first choice, I will support him if he is our nominee and he very well may be," Huckabee said.

Other potential 2012 candidates, looking to pick up supporters of Mike Huckabee or get Mike Huckabee's endorsement, also made comments about Huckabee's decision not to run: 

“It is unfortunate that we will not have his voice — or his bass guitar — in the presidential debate, as our party would have benefited from his involvement,” said former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman in a statement.

Newt Gingrich said: “Had Governor Huckabee decided to run, there is no question he would have been a frontrunner in the 2012 campaign for president.”

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is already courting the evangelical voters who helped Mr. Huckabee win Iowa in 2008, issued his own statement to say, “I plan to work hard to earn the support of the millions of Americans who have supported him.”

New York real-estate mogul Donald Trump, appearing on Fox News right after Mr. Huckabee made the announcement, said, “A lot of people are very happy that he will not be running, especially other candidates.”

I think Mitt Romney comes out ahead since the other 2012 candidates made a public play for Huckabee's supporters but Huckabee didn't mention any of their names. However, he did mention Mitt Romney and said that he was willing to endorse Romney if he won the 2012 Republican primaries. The fact that those comments left the lips of Mike Huckabee will mean alot to the people who supported Mike Huckabee. 

Some of Huckabee's supporters, like Ruth Griffin, who could see the signs that Huckabee wasn't running before he made his announcement, have already made the switch to support Mitt Romney.

Mike Huckabee's Absence Changes The 2012 Election

With Mike Huckabee out, it is a complete game changer.  Those who haven't decided will probably more likely to jump in order to capitalize on vacuum created by Huckabee's decision. That means people like Mitch Daniels, Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin can jump in and sweep up those supporters. Any one of those candidates who decides to either jump in or stay our will have a major impact on how the 2012 Republican primaries play out. The biggest game changer will be Sarah Palin. Whatever her decision is, it will have a big impact on the rest of the Republicans who are already in the game.  

People will be watching Sarah Palin closely. They will be looking for signs or signals on whether or not she will run. Quite naturally, the speculation and rumors about her decision will most likely be the main topic among political junkies, bloggers and journalists. 

Another reason why Mike Huckabee's absence is a game changer is because candidates now have to revise their strategies and game plans. For example, candidates will have to rethink whether or not they will compete in certain primaries like Iowa and South Carolina. Moreover, there are now potential campaign donors who are up for grabs. After all, Mike Huckabee told them to keep their "powder dry" until he made his decision on whether or not he would run. With Huckabee gone, many politicians will certainly work to curry the favor of those people who made large donations to Huckabee's campaign.

I think Mitt Romney is the candidate that benefits the most from Mike Huckabee's decision. With one of his biggest competitors out of the way, Mitt Romney will stand a little bit taller and become a more attractive candidate in a very crowded field of Republican candidates.

Donald Trump Decides He Will Not Be Running in 2012

Donald Trump will not be joining the crowded field of Republican candidates who are looking to take on President Obama in 2012. Here's the full statement from Donald Trump:

For Immediate Release:

New York, New York: May 16, 2011

After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the Presidency. This decision does not come easily or without regret; especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country. I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election. I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half heartedly.

Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.

I want to personally thank the millions of Americans who have joined the various Trump grassroots movements and written me letters and e-mails encouraging me to run. My gratitude for your faith and trust in me could never be expressed properly in words. So, I make you this promise: that I will continue to voice my opinions loudly and help to shape our politician’s thoughts. My ability to bring important economic and foreign policy issues to the forefront of the national dialogue is perhaps my greatest asset and one of the most valuable services I can provide to this country. I will continue to push our President and the country’s policy makers to address the dire challenges arising from our unsustainable debt structure and increasing lack of global competitiveness. Issues, including getting tough on China and other countries that are methodically and systematically taking advantage of the United States, were seldom mentioned before I brought them to the forefront of the country’s conversation. They are now being debated vigorously. I will also continue to push for job creation, an initiative that should be this country’s top priority and something that I know a lot about. I will not shy away from expressing the opinions that so many of you share yet don’t have a medium through which to articulate.
I look forward to supporting the candidate who is the most qualified to help us tackle our country’s most important issues and am hopeful that, when this person emerges, he or she will have the courage to take on the challenges of the Office and be the agent of change that this country so desperately needs.

Thank you and God Bless America!

Donald J. Trump

There was alot of debate over whether or not Donald Trump was really running or was this a clever gimmick in order to boost his ratings of the television show Celebrity Apprentice. Perhaps it was a clever way to say goodbye to his show.

Who Knew That Cindy Crawford Was Mitt Romney Supporter!?

Today is a big day for Mitt Romney as he is in Las Vegas doing an national fundraiser for his exploratory committee.  Many big name people are there such as Meg Whitman and  New York Jets owner Woody Johnson. However, I'm surprised to find that Cindy Crawford is also a Mitt Romney fan. Apparently, she will be educating supporters on how to use the donation software: 

Ron Paul Would Not Approved The Mission To Kill Osama Bin Laden

Ron Paul has stated that had he been President, he would not have approved the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound: 

"I think things could have been done somewhat differently," Paul said this week. "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?"

Asked by WHO Radio's Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it "absolutely was not necessary."

"I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said during his Tuesday comments. "I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he'd been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?"

Ron Paul is absolutely wrong in his assertion that Pakistan would have cooperated with the Americans in capturing Osama bin Laden. America intentionally kept Pakistan in the dark about the mission because the goverment couldn't be trusted with the information and were not told about bin Laden's death until after the attack on the compound.  

There is good reasons for not giving Pakistan advanced notice of the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. The evidence strongly points to the fact that Pakistan was helping Osama Bin Laden. For example, we know that a senior Pakistani Army major lived next door to Osama Bin Laden. In fact, the city is filed with many people who work for the military which is not surprising since there is a major military academy just a few hundred yards down the road from Osama's home.

There are additional facts that suggest Pakistan knew he was there. We know that he compound was specifically built for Osama Bin Laden in 2005.  Some people think he may have been living in that compound in Abbotabad for as long as three years or as short as six months. According to bin Laden's wife, she was in that house since 2006. And that house didn't blend in with the community of Abbottabad. It stuck out like a sore thumb. It was the only mansion in town. Moreover, that house had high walls topped with barbed wire.

Let's not forget the fact that Bin Laden was found to have money and some phone numbers sown into his clothing which indicates he was ready to escape at a moment's notice. Perhaps he was prepared in case someone from Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) tipped him off that the U.S. was coming for him.

While there is room for reasonable debate whether or not Pakistan was protecting bin Laden or if it was rouge elements within the military and intelligence community that was protecting him. However, it doesn't matter if there was official or unofficial assistance given to Osama bin Laden. The bottom line was someone or a group of people with considerable power was shielding him from the United States. Its clear that had we given advanced notice that we were comming to get Osama bin Laden, that advanced notice would have been passed on to bin Laden. 

There's also another good reason why the United States did not cooperate with Pakistan. There's evidence that Bin Laden's terrorists may have penetrated Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and military for years.

Even if we accept Pakistan's claim that it didn't know about it but that rouge elements were unofficially protecting bin laden, they couldn't be trusted since their military and intellegience agencies were corrupted by spies for bin Laden. 

Its clear that the information would have gotten out one way or another and Osama bin Laden would have been tipped off about the incoming raid on his house.

Ron Paul is incorrect that we didn't respect our own laws or international laws. Anne Bayefsky debunks that claim:

The United Nations still has no definition of terrorism. Standing in the way of a universally-agreed definition are the 22 members of the Arab League and the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Each of these groups has signed on to an “anti-terrorism” treaty that represents the culmination of their agreed ideology on the subject. The Arab Terrorism Convention, for example, exempts from its idea of terrorism everything from suicide-bombing to slitting the throats of 3-month old babies under the umbrella of “all cases of struggle by whatever means…against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination.” 

As a result, on May 2, 2011 the Security Council issued a unanimous presidential statement on Bin Laden’s death which was very careful to “reaffirm…other applicable international counter-terrorism instruments.” After all, Council members currently include a representative of a terrorist organization, since Lebanon’s government is controlled by Hezbollah. 

As a result, Ron Paul is absolutely incorrect that we didn't follow our own laws or laws of the United Nations. There are no clear international laws on the issue of terrorism since Security Council doesn't have any firm definition of terrorism. What laws were we to follow Mr. Ron Paul?  

Anne Bayefsky also points out that one of the Council members includes a representative of a terrorist nation. However, she forgets to mention that while some nations are controlled by terrorist organizations, there are other Arab nations who sit on the Security Council who use terrorism to accomplish its foreign policy goals.

In the end, Anne Bayefsky explains that the mission to take down Osbama bin Laden was permissable under U.S. and international law: 

Under the laws of war, combatants are a “legitimate” target for attack. A protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines a legitimate military target as one “which…makes an effective contribution to military action and whose…destruction…offers a definite military advantage.” This description fits Usama bin Laden. Bin Laden’s killing was, therefore, a justifiable homicide and incurs no liability. There was no necessity that the Navy SEALs must have intended to arrest him or make an effort to capture him alive.

As a result, its hard to take Ron Paul seriously when it comes to the issue of foreign policy. Ron Paul's foreign policy position of isolationism/non-interventionism is not a conservative position. Its a far left position. Its a position that Ron Paul and Barak Obama have in common. Yet, Ron Paul isn't the only Republican who has far left beliefs on foreign policy.  Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, and Gary Johnson also share these same beliefs. 

It is the same position that far left liberals like Barak Obama have. 

Its also hard believe that Ron Paul can seriously protect our country if he were President United States. He voted against the Terrorism Information Awareness bill which provides funding for offensive and defensive military programs that would help combat terrorism. He also voted against the Project BioShield Act of 2003 which was an initiative to research and develop vaccines, medications, and other countermeasures to combat biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological bioterrorism threats to our national security and speeds up the process of authorization for funds for research and purchase of agents to combat bioterrorism.

In the end, Ron Paul positions on  foreign policy and national security will never be taken seriously by the general public or by conservatives. The more Ron Paul speaks out on foreign policy and national security, it decreases America's trust in him because it will decrease their ability to feel safe and secure with him as a leader.

In the end, Ron Paul and those who share his views on national security and foreign policy are unrealistic and naive in their perspective of how the world works. It is also dangerous. And very foolish.