Mitt Echoes Newt

In his speech yesterday to the Republican Jewish Coalition, Mitt Romney sometimes sounded like Newt Gingrich.

For decades, Gingrich has repeatedly quoted the Declaration, explaining the meaning of "the pursuit of happiness.

GINGRICH: In a sense America is about freedom and I think it's best captured by the Declaration of Independence: we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights: among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ... And then notice the words: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's an active open sense of who we are. There's no sense of happiness stamps, happiness entitlements, the federal department of happiness ("Renewing American Civilization," TV lecture, January 14, 1995).

ROMNEY: One of these principles is a merit-based society. In a merit-based society, people achieve success and rewards through hard work, education, risk taking, and even a little luck. The founders considered this principle to be one endowed by our Creator, and called it the "pursuit of happiness." We call it opportunity, or we call it the freedom to choose our course in life.

"The opportunity society" is one of Gingrich's signature phrases, providing the theme to Gingrich's first book, Window of Opportunity as well as the name of Gingrich's faction in the House, the Conservative Opportunity Society.

GINGRICH: The opportunity society is gambling that the chance to have your child be an astronaut or a computer programmer is more powerful than the chance to get 8 percent more in food stamps next year. Our goal is to abolish poverty by helping everyone become productive, not to keep everyone now in poverty quiet by making it tolerable (Window of Opportunity, 1984, p. 133).

ROMNEY: A merit-based, opportunity society gathers and creates a citizenry that pioneers, that invents, that builds and creates. And as these people exert the effort and take the risks inherent in invention and creation, they employ and lift the rest of us, creating prosperity for us all. The rewards they earn do not make the rest of us poorer, they make us better off.

Gingrich has said that President Obama does not understand America or its economy.

GINGRICH: [T]he Obama administration doesn't understand America, that they don't understand how the American people feel (Fox News interview, July 9, 2010).

GINGRICH:[Y]ou have a president who you know doesn't understand free enterprise, he doesn't understand job creation (Fox News interview, August 24, 2011).

ROMNEY: American prosperity is fully dependent upon our opportunity society. I don't think President Obama understands that. I don’t think he understands why our economy is the most successful in the world. I don't think he understands America.

Gingrich has warned that President Obama is a redistributionist.

GINGRICH: I think this is an administration dedicated to creating a very different America and an America which has huge government, massive redistribution of resources (Fox News interview, July 24, 2009).

ROMNEY: He seeks to replace our merit-based society with an entitlement society. In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others. And the only people to enjoy truly disproportionate rewards are the people who do the redistributing—the government.

Romney did not, however, get the phrase "entitlement society" from Gingrich.

He got it from Herman Cain.

The Golden Age of Oppo

Our chapter on mass media explains how reporters draw on opposition research from political organizations. At Reuters, Tim Reid recounts how a tracker caught Rick Perry in an embarrassing comment. He uses it to illustrate how social media and other technological advances have changed the field.

"This is a golden age" of opposition research, said Jeff Berkowitz, who dug dirt on Democratic candidates for the Republican National committee from 2002 to 2010. The sort of search tools that discovered presidential candidate Joe Biden's plagiarism in 1987 have become more sophisticated and the outlets to shop damaging information are now virtually unlimited.

When these advances are "combined with outside funding," Berkowitz said, "you will see significantly more opposition research from significantly more sources." And it will all happen at warp speed, as both Republican candidate Herman Cain and the women who accused him of sexual harassment quickly learned, amid a barrage of daily revelations about their personal lives.

American Bridge is typical of the new reality. It was founded in November 2010, after the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case opened the door to "SuperPACs," political action committees that are able to raise unlimited amounts of anonymous money to craft attack and advocacy ads during campaigns. The fledgling Democratic research organization now has 15 trackers nationwide filming GOP candidates for Congress and the White House and 25 researchers in Washington poring over this footage and pushing it out to the public.

"The fastest way to disseminate information is through social media, such as Twitter and Facebook," American Bridge's Communications Director Chris Harris told Reuters. "And if it's good footage, it will spread exponentially."

Berkowitz agrees: "Now YouTube is old hat. Now you have Twitter. Twitter is better because it breaks news faster. You can push things around on Twitter. It's like wildfire. Twitter both provides information and also provides the dissemination mechanism. Campaigns are going to have to adapt to that."

The Debate

Rick Perry is still dealing with the fallout from his performance in Wednesday night's debate, when he said he would eliminate three federal agencies but could only remember two. KSAT in San Antonio reports:

Watching the re-run of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's latest gaffe, Dr. David Crockett, a political science professor at Trinity University, could only shake his head and laugh.

"I feel his pain in the sense that we all have our lists and we forgot one," Crockett said.

...

He said Republicans are looking for a candidate who can hold his own against President Obama's renowned speaking skills.

"That may be the problem with Rick Perry, he's failed the audition," Crockett said.

He said although debates rarely are the deciding factor in the general election, voters use them to gauge whether a candidate is worth their time.

Crockett said he thought Perry tried to handle his brain freeze with humor, but the awkward moment only reinforces his prior reputation of not doing well in debates.

He also said it was a missed opportunity for Perry to redefine himself.

Crockett said, "It put the nail in that coffin."

Meanwhile, other candidates did better. Jonathan Oosting writes at MLive about reaction at Oakland University, the site of the debate:

"Romney tops the list," said Dave Dulio, associate professor and chair of the political science department. "He had some really good reactions from the crowd in the debate hall, and I think his answers would really resonate with the Republican electorate."

As expected, moderators asked Romney about the federal bailout that ultimately saved General Motors and Chrysler. While the Detroit native's continued opposition may not be popular with many in Michigan, observers praised his consistency even as critics questioned his accuracy.

"I thought his answer was very well stated," said Terri Towner, assistant professor of political science. "He had a different solution for the auto industry, one that may resonate with some Michiganders. He proposed a different solution, which he said was a better solution. It wasn't a bailout, it was structured bankruptcy, and he said the industry would have come out stronger."

Professor Dulio discussed Cain's response to a question about sexual harassment:

"I thought it was going to be the first one," he said. "I think Cain handled it about as well as he could. He handled it better than the first time he was asked about it, that's for sure. He had a good night, in part, because he dealt with it and it was over."

Who Leaked on Cain?

Our chapter on the mass media discusses the extent to which reporters rely on opposition researchers. At National Review Online, former senator and presidential candidate Fred Thompson writes of their possible role in the Cain allegations:

Initially, Cain lashed out at the liberal media. So did several conservative commentators. But I doubt that Politico, which published the story first, came up with this scoop by investigating Cain’s background on its own.

People may think that news organizations have legions of Woodwards and Bernsteins fanned out across the country, poring through old courthouse records or public business records and talking to anyone they think may have some dirt to dish on a candidate. They don’t. They don’t have the money, for one thing. No, the days of Woodward and Bernstein, intrepid investigative reporters, are over. Investigative reporters have been replaced by people who keep a big basket under the transom to catch the dossiers and other materials that the various campaigns drop on opposing candidates.

Campaigns that can afford it often spend lots of money on “opposition research.” The research can be for perfectly legitimate things, such as positions candidates have taken on issues. Or it can be for personal dirt, substantiated or otherwise. If they pass it to the media, the campaign, of course, wants to keep its role secret. In this way, reporters are seldom investigators. More often they’re facilitators. It’s easier work.

Thompson goes on to explain why he thinks the story came from a GOP source. He recalls how he sustained "oppo" attacks during his unsuccessful bid for the 2008 Republican nomination.

Also at National Review Online, Andrew C. McCarthy writes:

Politico has now framed discovery of the identity of the source as is a noteworthy story. Yet, Politico knows that if the identity of the source is a story, it is only because Politico itself is being coy. Politico has reported that Perry may be the source and that Romney may be the source. Yet, Politico knows precisely whether the Perry campaign or the Romney campaign (or both . . . or neither) is the source. It is thus almost certainly true that at least some of the conflicting allegations Politico is airing are known by Politico to be false. In fact, both the Perry and Romney camps have denied involvement — if it so happens that one of those camps is the source, then Politico knows the denial is a lie, yet it published the denial anyway. That would amount to colluding with its source in order to tarnish Cain while fraudulently portraying its source as above the fray.

In sum, Politico is publishing at least some things it knows to be misleading or untrue, and framing as a great mystery something to which it knows the answer. That can only be because Politico finds the specter of the Republican circular firing squad more appealing than the prospect of informing readers of the accurate version of events.

Perry's YouTube Moment

Viral video can sometimes hurt political candidates. The first major case was the "macaca incident" in 2006, when Virginia Senator George Allen appeared to use a disparaging term for an opposition tracker, who promptly posted the remarks on YouTube. In recent days, Rick Perry endured a YouTube moment of his own as Brittany Nunn writes at The Amarillo Globe-News.

Herman Cain’s pain is Rick Perry’s gain. After the Texas governor’s speech in New Hampshire set YouTube buzzing, Cain’s efforts to deflect allegations of sexual harassment shifted the spotlight in a suddenly wild Republican presidential race.

“I think the best approach would be to thank Mr. Cain for the sexual harassment,” joked David Rausch, a political science professor at West Texas A&M University.

But observers still are struggling to explain Perry’s behavior during his speech Friday. Video footage of Perry acting unusually animated while addressing a conservative group went viral on YouTube over the weekend. Viewers of the 25-minute speech said Perry looked disoriented and a little unsteady as he waved his hands and arms, grinned widely and laughed at his own jokes.

Rausch said he thinks Perry simply could have been trying to show his enthusiasm and got carried away. Discussion on the Internet included speculation that Perry was under the influence of alcohol or medication/

...

“Sex is easy for the media to understand - everyone understands it,” Rausch said. “Whereas religious enthusiasm is a little harder to understand. It looks like there was some sleep deprivation,” Rausch speculated.

Cain and the Constitution

Herman Cain recently made a mistake about the Constitution, as Ben Smith writes at Politico:

In an interview with David Brody last night, Cain said he'd sign a pro-life constitutional amendment if it crossed his desk as president.

“Yes. Yes I feel that strongly about it. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it," he said. "That’s all I can do. I will sign it.”

The only problem with that statement? Presidents don't sign constitutional amendments -- they're passed in Congress and then need to be ratified by the states, and the president plays no formal role in the process.

For the record, here is Article V of the Constitution, which lays out the process for amending the document:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Cain's Challenges

Herman Cain recently enjoyed a surge in support for the GOP presidential nomination. But will it last? Walter C. Jones writes at the Morris News Service:

But Cain has never served in elective office and is behind Romney and Perry in fundraising, leaving most experts to discount his chances.

That’s because voters haven’t gotten serious about their choice yet, according to Steven P. Millies, associate professor of political science at the University of South Carolina-Aiken.

“Republicans all over the United States are having a hard time closing the deal with Romney even though it’s becoming more inevitable,” he said.

Economic conservatives, including those in the tea-party movement, don’t trust him because of the healthcare plan he instituted in Massachusetts when he was governor, and evangelicals don’t trust him because he’s a Mormon.

“What you’ve really got is a double strike against Romney,” Millies said.

Independents do prefer him, as do those over age 65, according to the breakdown of the polls. His strength in New Hampshire, where InsiderAdvantage has him leading with 39 points to Cain’s 24, stems from being governor of a neighboring state.

So, the conservatives in the party are trying out different alternatives to him. Cain, though, isn’t likely to be it when it’s time to vote unless he can quickly get the wherewithal to compete in large states like Florida, said Robert Jackson, political science professor at Florida State University.

“It’s going to be important for him to translate his momentum into fundraising,” Jackson said of Cain. “In a month or so he won’t be the flavor of the month.”

Perry Keeps Struggling

Our chapters on mass media, political parties, and elections call provide context for watching televised debates. Last night, the Republicans debated on Bloomberg TV. Although Bloomberg's audience is smaller than that of other cable networks -- a number of local providers do not carry it -- the reaction in the media has an impact. Bud Kennedy writes at The Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

"I didn't see anything that would give voters a compelling reason to re-examine Perry," said Matthew Wilson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University.

"There were no 'wow' moments. He's just not as polished or as smooth as Romney. Every time they're onstage, that works to Perry's detriment."

After Perry said he has an economic plan coming, "but I'm not going to lay it out for you tonight," he was drowned out in an echo chamber of talk about "9-9-9," Cain's tag line for his plan.

"The focus on Cain emphasized his role as the economic conservative," Wilson said. "That's the role Perry wanted."

Yet Perry remains the top challenger, said Richard Murray, professor of political policy at the University of Houston.

"He's the only candidate who has the funding," Murray said.

"Cain has no personal money and shows little ability to raise it. So as we move into the primaries, Perry will remain the only realistic alternative."

A further Perry fade would give Romney the nomination, Murray said. But more debates won't help.

"With Gov. Perry, you want to get him in the deep weeds and he kind of disappears," Murray said.

"Cain can say '9-9-9.' Romney is a good debater."

After the debate, ABC reports, the governor partied like it's 1599.

Texas Governor Rick Perry energetically bounded into the Beta Theta Pi fraternity on Dartmouth College’s campus after Tuesday night’s debate, but when he was asked a question about states’ rights, he slipped up on the dates for when the American Revolution was fought.

“Our Founding Fathers never meant for Washington, D.C. to be the fount of all wisdom. As a matter of fact they were very much afraid if that because they’d just had this experience with this far-away government that had centralized thought process and planning and what have you, and then it was actually the reason that we fought the revolution in the 16th century was to get away from that kind of onerous crown if you will,” Perry said.”

But Perry’s version of American history doesn’t match the history books, which show the American Revolution was fought in the 18th century.

Perry, Cain, and Economics

With his poll numbers dropping, Texas Governor Rick Perry plans to highlight economic issues. Rick Dunham writes at The Houston Chronicle:

"This primary has been characterized by candidates yo-yo-ing through popular opinion," said Cindy Rugeley, a political scientist at Texas Tech University. "If he comes out with something new and different and at the right time, he probably could bounce right back up."

Perry's supporters see the issue of jobs as an opportunity to refocus the race for the Republican presidential nomination and to shift the policy debate to more comfortable turf. But as he prepares for the first debate of the 2012 campaign limited to economic issues, Perry has yet to translate his state's job-creation record into an effective political issue.

Georgia businessman Herman Cain has won national headlines with his catchy "9-9-9" economic plan that calls for a 9 percent corporate tax rate for businesses, a 9 percent income tax rate for individuals, and a 9 percent national sales tax. Front-runner Mitt Romney has unveiled a 59-point economic plan. Perry, whose campaign has been distracted by controversies over immigration, vaccinations and Mormonism, has yet to fill in the details of his economic plans beyond four broad "principles" - spending restraint, low taxes, sensible regulation and curbs on lawsuits.

"He has to find ways to draw distinctions between himself and Mitt Romney, and worry about his right flank, where Herman Cain came out of nowhere," said David Lanoue, a professor of political science at Columbus State University in Georgia.

Christie's Decision, Cain's Surge

Our chapter on elections and campaigns discusses the difficulties facing potential candidates, many of whom opt out. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie confirmed yesterday that he will not run for president in 2012. David Levinsky reports:

Rutgers political science professor David Redlawsk said Christie’s decision, while sound, might end up costing him a future shot at the White House, particularly if a Republican is successful next year.

“The biggest risk to today’s decision now is that any near-term path to the presidency will be blocked if a Republican beats President Obama in 2012. Christie will at best have to look at 2020, when he will no longer be a sitting governor,” Redlawsk said.“Even if he wins re-election in 2013, he will be done by 2018, leaving a couple of years potentially in the wilderness. And if he doesn’t win re-election as governor, he’s toast.”

The Newark Star-Ledger reports that Christie remains critical of the president:

Once the campaign begins in earnest, however, Christie will have to accept a secondary role to let the party coalesce around a nominee, said Brigid Harrison, a political science professor at Montclair State University.

“You can’t have too many voices muddying the waters,” Harrison said.

Democratic pollster Douglas E. Schoen suggests a possible beneficiary:

And the big winner today is Herman Cain. Cain is the winner because he's the only candidate climbing in the in polls. In the Fox News poll released last week and the Washington Post poll released Monday, Cain is surging, more than doubling his prior level of support up to 16 or 17 percent.

Rick Perry has seen his support plummet. and Perry is now in an effective statistical tie with Cain for second place.

The front runner, Mitt Romney is at about 25 %, has been at 25% and shows no signs of being able to grow beyond twenty-five percent.

In plain English, he's stuck.

Another way to put it is that 3 in 4 Republican voters are not considering voting for a man who ran last time and has been the most visible and active and aggressive of the candidates competing now for the nomination.

I had a chance to hear Herman Cain live and in person last night at the Monday Meeting in New York City. He brought the house down -- getting three standing ovations and captivating a crowd that is usually is more hard-headed and analytical than emotional.

Every poll that I've seen suggests that Republicans are looking for fresh faces, new ideas and most of all optimism about our future. Cain offers all of the above.

Herman Cain, 2010

Herman Cain has received increased attention since his Florida straw-poll victory a few days ago. His 2010 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference provides a look at his views of health care and the Constitution:

Health and Herman Cain

Our chapter on social welfare policy discusses the new health care law. Although Democrats expected that it would prove to be a political asset, the public has yet to embrace it. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports on a new survey:

Americans’ opinions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) remain divided, much as they have since the law was passed. This month, 41 percent say they have a favorable view of the law, while 43 percent have an unfavorable view. Support for the law continues to be divided along party lines, with most Democrats holding a favorable view (65 percent) and most Republicans an unfavorable view (76 percent). After reaching a high in August, the share of Republicans with a favorable view of the law dropped from 24 percent down to 14 percent this month, possibly as a result of the criticism of the ACA from Republican candidates in the presidential primary campaign.

Overall, about a third of the public expects the law won’t make much difference for them and their families (34 percent), while a similar share (32 percent) expects to be worse off under the law and nearly as many expect to be better off (27 percent). The public is similarly divided on whether the country will be better off (38 percent) or worse off (36 percent), while one in six (18 percent) expect no difference for the country. And as has been the case since the beginning of this year, more than half (52 percent) want Congress to keep the law as is (19 percent) or expand it (33 percent), while fewer than four in ten (37 percent) want it repealed and replaced with a Republican‐sponsored alternative (16 percent) or repealed outright (21 percent).

Other polls have found greater support for repeal.

In any case, the candidate who is benefiting most from the issue is Herman Cain, who won a surprise victory in a straw poll in Florida. During this week's debate, he had noteworthy moment when describing his own battle with cancer:

Indeed, health care launched Cain's political fortunes. In March, Joshua Green wrote of the moment when Cain became a national political figure:

His entrance into national politics was a fluke—albeit, if he runs, an enormously beneficial one. In 1994, Cain, then still CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, participated in a town-hall meeting that Bill Clinton held to drum up support for his flagging health-care plan. He challenged the president’s claim that restaurateurs would bear only a marginal new cost. Clinton objected, but Cain wouldn’t relent. “I’d had my financial people run the numbers,” he told me. The Wall Street Journal published them, and after Clinton’s plan collapsed, Newsweek identified Cain as one of its “saboteurs”—a badge of honor, especially among conservatives today.