Interesting info leaks today from two polling sources, both – incredibly – showing Mitt Romney ahead of potential 2012 rivals in their home states.

In Alaska, Mitt Romney edges Sarah Palin by 3%.
From PPP:

Mitt Romney vs. Sarah Palin

If Sarah Palin runs for President in 2012 she can’t count on a whole lot of support back home. 62% of Alaska Republicans are opposed to her making a White House bid and she gets only 17% in a hypothetical 2012 primary in the state tying for her second with Mike Huckabee behind Mitt Romney.

It’s not that Alaska Republicans don’t like Palin- a majority of them still do. But there’s a significant disconnect between GOP voters in the state liking Palin and thinking she should run for President, a divide we’ve seen with Republicans nationally and one that presents the biggest threat to a possible Palin candidacy. Even among voters with a favorable opinion of Palin in the state just 39% think she should launch a 2012 bid.

Romney gets 20% to 17% for Palin and Huckabee, 16% for Newt Gingrich, and 10% for Ron Paul.

In Minnesota, Mitt Romney pummels Tim Pawlenty by 13%.
From MPR:

Mitt Romney vs. Tim Pawlenty

The poll also compared Pawlenty the two most prominent, presumed front-runners for the Republicans in 2012 — former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Romney fared better than Pawlenty with likely Minnesota voters, 45 percent to 32 percent, while Pawlenty easily beat Palin in the hypothetical matchup, 59 percent to 24 percent.

*It’s worth noting that this last poll was extracted from all likely voters, Republicans & Democrats alike.

Any thoughts on these results? Could these be accurate depictions of the primary to come? Is it possible that anyone could swipe a victory from Mitt in his native Michigan?

~Aaron G.

Newsweek reports that Mitt Romney is taking a different and unique approach than other potential 2012 candidates are. Unlike other politicians, including Obama himself,  who feel compelled to offer their opinion on every issue that stirs controversy, Mitt Romney remains focused on the core issue that worries, as well as, unites Americans: the economy.

Lets hope that the implication is more than just making the same mistake twice, but a potential hint for a second run in 2012.

The fact that Mitt Romney is focusing on the economy is an approach that is helping Mitt win supporters among those who are not usually fans of him.  They like the fact that not only is he talking about the economy but that Mitt Romney is offering specific solutions on what he would do, if he was the President, to fix the economy.  Even the author of the Newsweek article is impressed by Mitt’s approach to the 9/11 Mosque:

But that’s precisely the point. I, for one, would rather listen to a debate over the merits of competing economic visions—including the views of Romney’s conservative defenders, which are sure to emerge soon—than to self-interested bloviators talking past each other about whether or not a mosque should be as close to Ground Zero as a strip club. I think most voters agree. So kudos to Romney for taking the road less traveled by. In the end, it may make all the difference.

~Jared A.

I try to be selective of which polls we push here at this site. Some polls are just not significant, while some are more relevant but so widespread that we couldn’t possibly make a dent in it. Then there are some that are just right. This poll, again from Gretawire, is one of those. We did an excellent job pushing the last one from Greta – let’s see what we can do with this one.

Greta says in her post that these are random pairings… I’ll say. It doesn’t get more random than Romney/Abbott. Abbott? Apparently he is the Texas attorney general, or something. I’ll be honest I have no idea what his first name is.

Thanks for voting everyone. Romney 2012!!

~Nate Gunderson

FYI – Tallies at the time of posting this poll: Gingrich 884, Daniels 261, Palin 795, Romney 840

With mid-term elections pushing presidential considerations into the ask-me-later department (according to potential presidential candidates), and twists and turns still to be taken on the thoroughfare to the White House 2012, this is still good to hear:

From Dave Wedge (Boston Globe):

Poll shows Romney has best shot at beating Obama

Former Bay State Gov. Mitt Romney has the best shot at unseating President Obama in 2012, trailing the commander-in-chief by just two points in a new national poll.

The Zogby poll of 8,487 likely voters showed Obama slightly besting Romney 45 to 43 percent. Romney has yet to say if he’s running again but the venture capitalist has been traveling the country raising money for Republicans and handing out endorsements in state races.

The president would fare far better against Sarah Palin, garnering 48 percent of the vote to Palin’s 37. And Obama would beat former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee 46 to 37, the poll found.

Mitt and Ann Romney greet crowd at Ronald Reagan Library May 25, 2010

Addendum by Nate:
Nice little news report from NECN about the Zogby poll:

UPDATE by Jayde: Public Policy Polling released a new poll of New Hampshire’s GOP voters regarding the 2012 presidential race:

Mitt Romney -31 percent
Newt Gingrich – 14 percent
Ron Paul – 13 percent
Mike Huckabee – 12 percent
Sarah Palin – 9 percent
Tim Pawlenty – 3 percent
Mitch Daniels – 1 percent
Someone else/undecided – 16 percent

Mitt Romney’s op-ed on the START treaty (7/6/10) urging law-makers to reject the lopsided agreement, rattled progressives. On the very next day Senator John Kerry (D-MA) railed that Romney failed the test in arguing against START. In the uproar, Obama tossed a life-line to tax-evader-ex-senator Tom Daschle to wrangle words on behalf of his New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Daschle dusted off the moth-balls and promptly hustled on over to left-of-left Center for American Progress to deliver his rhetoric, proclaiming that rejection of the treaty would be ‘nuclear anarchy’. With theatrical flair he added:

Republican senators “can choose Mitt Romney or they can choose the entire U.S. military establishment,” Daschle said.

The former senator went on to accuse some Republicans of caring more about scoring political points against the president than about the future of the country. He suggested that they are ignoring the responsibilities of their office to pander to the conservative chattering class.

“If Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh choose to make a living peddling partisan hate and anger and mangled conspiracy theories, there will always be people for them to sell a bill of goods,” Daschle said. “It is not healthy for our democracy.”

(emphasis mine)

Strongly supporting Governor Romney’s START assessment, The Heritage Foundation responded:  

New START’s Many Problems: What the Experts Say

Concern
• The Honorable Eric Edelman, Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy: “[A] START-like treaty that ignores North Korea and Iran may be a step backward rather than forward.” Testimony, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, June 24, 2010

Constrains Missile Defense
• Ambassador Robert Joseph, former Undersecretary of State “Initially, the Obama Administration gave numerous assurances that there would be no limitations on missile defenses in the Treaty—‘no way, no how.’ Later, once the Treaty text was made public, the line changed to ‘no meaningful’ limitations and ‘no constraints on current and planned’ programs.” Testimony, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing, June 24, 2010

Weak on Verification
• Senator James Inhofe (R-OK): “[V]erification appears to be less robust than in the 1991 treaty. … I am concerned that it will make it harder for our intelligence community to monitor Russian nuclear forces and may require additional resources, which we do not currently have, to ensure we are adequately monitoring … developments. I am also concerned that 18 inspections per year … is not robust enough given the fact we conducted on the order of 600 inspections during the 15 years of START I.” Statement on the Senate Floor, June 18, 2010

Reverts to Cold War–Style Arms Control
• Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC): “We have the technology, the capability and the responsibility as a federal government to defend our citizens, and to sign a major treaty that agrees in perpetuity to make ourselves vulnerable to a nuclear attack. … I can’t accept that when we have the capability to change it.” American Foreign Policy Council conference, May 20, 2010

Click here to read more from The Heritage Foundation on:
‘The Advantage to Russia’ by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
‘America Less Safe’ by Richard Perle (former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Arms Control)
‘Fails to Advance Non-Proliferation’ by Kim R. Holmes (former Assistant Secretary of State)

Given its deep flaws, Americans should join Governor Romney and others to call for a halt to this treaty. In the meantime, what is Obama really doing to prevent Iran from weaponizing its nuclear program? What is Obama doing about North Korea’s obsession to create long-range nuclear warheads and their exportation of nuclear and ballistic technology?

UPDATE 7/23/10: Ratification uncertain with Republicans holding back support of U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty

An affiliate of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has taken the lead in opposing the treaty. The Heritage Action for America, an advocacy group, has started a petition drive and may run political advertisements on the issue during the election season. It also is lobbying in the Senate.

Though arms control is hardly a major issue in a campaign season dominated by economic worries, the divisive political environment makes it difficult for Republicans to buck the conservative mainstream and hand Obama a victory that might be considered his top foreign policy achievement.

Tom Daschle, a former Democratic Senate Majority leader, who supports the treaty, says Heritage’s influence may explain why so many Republicans have been reticent about taking a stand.

“It is certainly serious enough to silence some Republican senators,” he said. He added that he expected enough Republicans eventually would come around for passage.

Heritage won some prominent support when a likely GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, announced opposition to the treaty in a newspaper column this month.

A story within a story; connecting dots…

The Center for American Progress (CAP), where Daschle delivered his denunciation of Romney and other conservatives, is a consummate progressive ‘think tank’ based in Washington DC. (Surprise! Tom Daschle is a CAP fellow.) Created in 2003 by John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton and head of Obama’s presidential transition team after the election, his goal was to create a liberal think tank on steroids. Think lefty-left-left. CAP is a 501(c)(3)organization whose major individual donors include George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, and Herbert M. Sandler. CAP also receives undisclosed sums from unknown corporate donors. In 2009, they created Progressive Media:  

The Center for American Progress — which has emerged as perhaps Washington’s most influential idea factory in the age of Obama — is launching a major new war room, to be staffed by nearly a dozen people, that will focus on driving the White House’s message and agenda, I’m told. The Democratic operatives running the project are already holding a daily early morning call with dozens of operatives from liberal groups – labor, health care, the environment – to coordinate messaging and to deliver usable talking points for the day, according to liberal operative Jennifer Palmieri, who’s the project’s communications director.

The new war room – which is called Progressive Media – represents a serious ratcheting up of efforts to present a united liberal front in the coming policy wars. The goal of the war room will be to do hard-hitting research that boils down complex policy questions into usable talking points and narratives that play well in the media and build public support for the White House’s policy goals. …

The war room – a joint project of CAP Action Fund and Media Matters Action Network — will be headed by well-known liberal operative Tara McGuinness, who worked on John Kerry’s presidential campaign and was a major player in the anti-war movement during the Bush years. … ‘We do a coordination call to get our content out and to coordinate people so they can fire up for the day,’ Palmieri says.[…]

(emphasis mine)

Head of Media Matters war room Tara McGuinness’ ties to Senator John Kerry (D-MA) sheds extra light on Kerry’s media tirade against Gov Romney the day after Romney’s START article was published (July 7, 2010).

Another individual that may be motivating the barking against Romney is Tom Matzzie, a leader at CAP:

“Tom has worked in progressive politics for more than a decade – with MoveOn.org, the AFL-CIO, Campaign for America’s Future and campaigns at the presidential and statewide level. At MoveOn, he created ground-breaking campaigns on corruption and the war in Iraq that set the stage for the 2006 Democratic takeover. The MoveOn 2006 election program successfully targeted for defeat 29 out of 36 Republicans.” […] He has also served on the Board of Directors of Progressive Majority. […]

“The Politico wrote that the intensity of his 2007 Iraq campaign, “rattled the entire Republican caucus.” The New York Times Magazine said of the Iraq campaign that they are to progressives, “…what the NRA is to the Right.” “Tom was named one of the “Forty Under Forty to Watch” by Washingtonian Magazine for his role as a leader in the emerging Internet-powered politics.”

Tom Matzzie is a strategist on politics, media, and technology for the Huffington Post. His involvement with the groups listed above ties him with  notorious uber-liberals. Listed among Campaign for America’s Future‘s many founders and advisors are hair-raising SEIU’s Howard Stern and Frances Fox Piven of Cloward and Piven Strategy fame.

Matzzie is also the leader of Accountable America, a nasty organization aimed at defeating right-wing groups with threats: “… in 2008, he spearheaded an effort “to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” He described the effort a “going for the jugular.” The letter warned “donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups [of] legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.”

Still with me?

Looking further into CAP, two names caught my eye. Listed under ‘Personnel’ is the name of David Halperin, Senior VP and Director, Campus Progress. Listed under ‘Fellows’ (besides Tom Daschle and another name)  is Morton H. Halperin – also Executive Director of Open Society Policy Center. Halperin? Could they be related to THE Mark Halperin (senior political analyist for MSNBC and editor-at-large, senior political analyst for Time.com)? The one who started a conservative twitter war a few days ago by claiming unnamed sources associated with Mitt Romney had dissed Sarah Palin?

Yes. They are related. Morton H. Halperin is Mark’s father and David Halperin is his brother.

Morton Halperin, Mark’s father, served many years as Director of the ACLU Washington office from 1984-1992. While in that position he defended the right of the The Progessive to publish details on how to construct an atomic bomb. He was the Senior VP and Director of Fellows at the Center for American Progress. Morton Halperin is the Senior Advisor for the Open Society Institute. OSI was created in 1993 by investor George Soros and is a private operating, grantmaking foundation which aims to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, and economic, legal, and social reform. His current wife, Diane Orentlicher, serves as Deputy, Office of War Crimes, Department of State. To read more about Morton Halperin, George Soros, and The Shadow Party click here. (Scroll down to ‘The Southampton Meeting’.)

David Halperin, Mark Halperin’s brother, is a founding board member of the American Constitution Society (2001). He previously worked as a Special Assistant for National Security Affairs and speechwriter to President Bill Clinton, solo litigation practitioner, and legal associate to Professor Laurence Tribe. Tribe was a teacher and mentor of Barack Obama and one of his earliest supporters. Obama appointed Tribe as ‘Senior Counselor for Access to Justice’ in the Justice Department. David Halperin was a policy associate to Ralph Nader, counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and served as a law clerk to District Judge Gerhard Gessell.

UPDATE 1:Click here for more info on David Halperin.

UPDATE 2: Mark Halperin appeared on Meet the Press on January 17, 2010. During the interview Halperin stated that he thinks Obama has done an extraordinary job. Click here to read article.

It’s hard to believe the cluster of punches at Romney from John Kerry, Tom Daschle, and Mark Halperin are coincidental. This brief rub-your-eyes look at the web of connections between them and Barack Obama is just the tip of the Obama spear. Romney makes them grind their teeth at night. They will stop at nothing to discredit him. Although Romney has said he won’t make any decisions regarding another presidential run until mid-term elections are over, Obama’s pre-emptive stealth campaign for 2012 has begun.

Sarah Palin & Mitt Romney

Buzzing all over Twitter today is a bogus story that attempts to point out ‘Romney’s women problem’. The shameful piece hits the web in the midst of the anonymously fabricated Romney vs. Palin hubbub in an obvious attempt to create further dissension in the Republican party.

It’s painful to watch fellow GOP’ers nibble all over this party-dividing bait just months before the midterm election, when we should all be fighting for the same cause. One such example: our favorite nationally syndicated talk-show host, Tammy Bruce, has filled her Sunday’s twitterfeed with all sorts of sexist labels and links to chauvinistic videos, updating her blog with the same video. Then Miss Bruce, a long-time activist of the feminist movement, calls Romney to battle, “Hey Mittens, bring it on!” (We can only hope she is treated fairly should there ever be a battle.)

Does anyone else see this as despicable? Aren’t these the same identity-politics that have the civil rights people cry “racist” every time there is criticism of their own? Is this not the similar to what propelled Barrack Obama, an African-American community organizer/one-term senator into the most powerful position of the free world?

I was glad to see that Allahpundit, over at Hotair.com, offered a more sensical synopsis of the Salon article:

A lame piece but well-timed to capitalize on the Romney/Palin dust-up. Expect plenty of linkage tomorrow from Sarahcuda supporters on Twitter and elsewhere. The case for Mitt’s alleged sexism: He ran against three women in Massachusetts and played hardball each time. In the first instance, his team helped keep a woman rival off the primary ballot; in the next, they convinced prominent Republicans to call on the state’s first woman governor to step aside in favor or a stronger candidate (namely, Mitt); and in the third, he told his Democratic woman opponent that a charge she made against him was “unbecoming,” which is supposedly chauvinistic code for “un-ladylike.” Annnnd … that’s it. One questionable comment and two demonstrations of the sort of bareknuckle tactics everyone expects from Team Romney even against an all-male field. Read the whole thing and see for yourself. In fact, even author Steve Kornacki can’t quite bring himself to accuse Romney of sexism; the furthest he’s willing to go is to say that this doesn’t, er, “look good.”

From Salon.com: Three times in his relatively limited political career Romney has found a woman standing between him and his political goal. In each case, he ended up getting what he wanted — but it was always awkward, ugly and downright nasty, with cries of chauvinism and sexism along the way. The man just does not know how to look good while competing with a woman…

Yes, it’s true that Romney is three-for-three running against women. But it’s also true that he played with fire each time. He was able to get away with it in Massachusetts, for a variety of reasons, but the lights shine brighter — much brighter — on the national political stage. When a woman is in the race, Romney has a knack for making himself look bad — something all of America may soon discover.

Unless Kornacki’s calling on him to offer kid-gloves treatment to Palin while throwing roundhouses at Huckabee, Gingrich, etc. — which would itself be full of sexist nuance — I’m not sure what lesson Romney’s supposed to take from this. No questioning Palin’s qualifications for president, perhaps, lest it seem “demeaning,” even though a huge majority of the public questions them? What Salon’s after here, I assume, is sowing a little identity-politics discord in the enemy camp on the cheap, but even that’s a wasted opportunity given what they could have accomplished with this piece.

Of course, they’ve picked up the same piece at Conservatives4Palin.com and used it to continue their ‘tear-Mitt’s-head-off-and-spit-down-his-throat campaign, evidenced here, here, here, here, and here. And the irony of all this hoopla? …neither Mitt or Sarah have never uttered a word of disrespect personally to one another – for all we know, they maintain a friendly relationship.

I can only speak for myself and my fellow Mittheads here at Mitt Romney Central when I say that we hold Sarah Palin in a high regard and we acknowledge the huge effort she has made to fight for conservative principles. Heck, I voted for her just over 19 months ago, and would be obliged to do it again should she become our nominee. My only hope is that her supporters will quit jumping at every opportunity to pound a good man, Mitt Romney, into the ground (especially over fabricated, anonymous remarks by Romney “intimates”).

~Aaronius

Addendum by Nate: Aaron, glad you wrote this. I had been thinking about posting this same story but with a slightly different angle. Mine is short and sweet so I’ll just add it here.

The idea that Mitt Romney is sexist is laughable and completely without merit. Just a few points to show that he has strongly supported women for political office and has no reason to oppose Palin because she is a woman:

• While Romney was Governor of MA he had personally selected a woman, Kerry Healey, to be his Lieutenant Governor, and after his term he strongly supported and campaigned for her as his replacement.
• Romney was one of the first endorse Nikki Haley for Governor of SC, a whole 2 months before Palin did. Not only did he strongly endorse her, he contributed a boatload of money to her campaign, supported her with few campaign events, and even held a fundraiser for her in Boston, just recently. Romney said that he and his wife came to know Nikki Haley very well during his 2008 campaign, and felt strongly that she was the best for South Carolina. If Romney were a chauvinistic he could have easily selected anyone of the 3 men that were polling higher than her at the time.
• Governor Romney has been an adamant supporter of Meg Whitman in her bid to become Governor of California. He endorsed her extremely early and has done numerous events and fundraisers with her. Governor Romney recounts when he was interviewing Whitman for a job at Bain Capital long ago (even before she was CEO of eBay.com) that Meg was brilliant and had strong presence. He later learned that she had an amazing work ethic to boot.
• Perhaps the best evidence of Mitt’s respect for women is his long-standing love and adoration for his wife of 41 years. Mitt places her on a pedestal higher than any other. His commitment and attentiveness to her is admirable. I am a strong proponent of the idea that you can know how a man regards womanhood by how he treats his wife. When so many out there in politics, sports and entertainment choose to be selfish and break the vows they have made to their spouse, Mitt Romney stands as a shining example of devotion. He does not view women as subjects to conquer and fulfill sexual appetites. Respect, honor, and esteem; that is the regard that Romney has for women.

Twitter has been all aflutter with Palinites upset over the anonymous comments by ‘supposed’ Romney staffers in a TIME.com news article. It’s been very painful to watch the “Romney” search on Twitter because of the many harmful and divisive things that are being said, particularly before a mid-term election. Granted the comments by the anonymous staffers are completely uncalled for, but I believe the sensational reaction has been equally wrong-spirited.

The thing that is painful to watch is when the upset Palin supporters presume that these anonymous ill-speakers are actually conveying the mind and will of Mitt Romney. I don’t believe that is the case. Mitt Romney has been nothing but gracious towards Sarah Palin, or any other GOP member for that matter.

These types of ugly remarks and over-reactions have severe effects on the unity of the party. Why should we let the tasteless remarks of two staffers divide thousands of conservative, who should be unified allies, into warring factions? Mark Halperin of TIME.com is probably laughing his hind end off over the schism he’s caused amongst our ranks.

Here’s how it went down:

The Time.com quote:

One adviser to Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and, by traditional standards, the putative 2012 frontrunner, says of Palin, “She’s not a serious human being.” Another Romney intimate warns, “If she’s standing up there in a debate and the answers are more than 15 seconds long, she’s in trouble.”

The upset responses:
ReagantoPalin.com: Romney Campaign Staffers Attack Sarah Palin
Conservatives4Palin.com Reagan to Palin: Romney Campaign Staffers Attack Sarah Palin
Tammy Bruce (radio talk-show host and blogger): When it Comes to Palin, Romney Decides the Gutter Suits Him Best
Rebecca Mansour, founder of C4P, but is now official adviser to Palin, promotes Tammy Bruce’s blog post via Twitter.
Erick Erickson of Redstate.com and Allahpundit add fuel to the fire.
A long-time Palin aide fights back and criticizes the Romney camp … anonymously via Politico. (Sorry, but that is just too ironic.)
Plus many more I’m sure.

Mitt Romney responds via Twitter:

TIME says unnamed advisors disparaged @SarahPalinUSA. Anonymous numbskulls. She’s proven her smarts; they’ve disproven theirs.

I would think this answer would placate some of the concerns of Palin supporters. Mitt denounced the anonymous commentors, and goes on record saying Palin has proven smarts, and again castigates the commentors. I thought it was sincere, gracious and well spoken. As someone commented on twitter: smart of @MittRomney to realize that an anonymous quote war w/ @SarahPalinUSA won’t get anyone anywhere.

Frankly, I am even more astonished by further responses to Mitt Romney’s. When Romney offers an olive branch they accuse him of what else? 24 hour flip-flopping.

Responses to Mitt’s tweet:
Conservatives4Palin: Mitt Romney Surrenders Quickly
Tammy Bruce blog post update: “pathetic, immature response from Romney”

Uggh.

This rhetoric needs to be toned down quickly. It is not even the mid-terms yet. If this continues it will be one very ugly primary, perhaps rivaling that of 2008. And the uglier it gets the more likely our nominee will lose in 2012.

What should we as supporters do? Get some class like Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. That means you, unnamed “numbskull” commentors. And that means you, Tammy Bruce. And that means me, Nate Gunderson.

~Nate Gunderson

Update: To further my point that all staffers don’t “speak the mind of the candidate” as Tammy Bruce suggests, Rebecca Mansour (Palin adviser) tweets this: Just to clarify things. This is my personal Twitter account. Just mine. These are my personal thoughts. It’s called free speech. Period.

Update 2 by Jayde: Follow-up tweet from Rebecca Mansour (Palin adviser)

@RomneyCentral Let’s work together on 2010.

UPDATE 3 by Jayde: Some background information regarding Mark Halperin, author of the Times article in which he claims he spoke to an ‘adviser’ of Mitt Romney and an ‘intimate’ of Mitt Romney:

Halperin worked for ABC for 20 years, with 10 of those years as their Political Director. “In that role, he was responsible for political reporting and planning for the network’s television, radio and Internet political coverage. He also appeared regularly on ABC News TV and radio as a correspondent and analyst, contributing commentary and reporting during election night coverage, presidential inaugurations and State of the Union speeches. At ABC, Halperin reported on every major American political story, including working as a full-time reporter covering the Clinton presidential campaign in 1992 and the Clinton White House.”

Just a couple of weeks ago, on June 30th, he was named as MSNBC’s newest Senior Political Analyst.

Last year, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann co-authored a best-selling book about the last presidential election called ‘Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, Palin and McCain, and the Race of a Lifetime’ which was released in January of this year. He and Heilemann claim truthful behind-the-scenes information (over 300 interviews) about then-candidates.

Knowing Halperin’s background, with Obama’s plummeting poll numbers (could MSNBC’s low ratings be a factor?), he is attempting to throw a skunk into the Republican coalition family reunion. Let’s focus on the real threat to America – the Obama Administration and the progressives who support him.

Update 4 by Jayde:
Leave a comment for Tammy Bruce: http://bit.ly/aIsS6V

Hat tip to Jim (MRC commenter):

“You might want to add Mark Levin to that list, too. To hear Mark Levin’s take, follow the link below, wait until it has loaded, then drag the audio to the 1:08:35 mark.” http://bit.ly/aNi19U

How to contact the Mark Levin Show:
Phone: 1-877-381-3811
(Mon. – Fri. 6pm to 9pm)
Email: marklevin.show@citcomm.com

Update 5 by Aaronius:
Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told The Daily Caller emphatically that the comments about Palin in the Time.com article were not authorized, approved or encouraged by Romney.

“These anonymous voices don’t speak for Governor Romney,” Fehrnstrom said in an e-mail. “The truth is Governor Romney has a small circle of people who advise him, and they all know the high regard that he has for Sarah Palin, and he has expressed that view in numerous interviews over the years.”

*Hat tip (from Jayde) to Marybeth (MRC commenter) for bringing this story to our attention as it was breaking.

The fundraising numbers for the 2012 contender’s PACs are in and it looks like Mitt Romney still has a large lead in the invisible primary. Every so often I hear people say that Mitt doesn’t connect with the people, which I feel is a bogus claim. But that obviously can’t be true when there are some who feel connected to Mitt and his message well enough to be willing to promote him with their pocket books. Besides the actual vote in the voters booth, I can think of no better evidence of real-life support than giving of one’s time and money.

Here are the numbers:

My take:

• Romney dwarfs the competition. Period.
• T-Paw and Palin have stepped up their game considerably and are looking like strong contenders as far as finances go.
• While Romney, Pawlenty and Palin have all improved their 1st Qtr. numbers by more than $300,000 each, Huckabee had minimal improvement in revenues, while his revenues were exceeded by his disbursements for the quarter. He also ends the quarter with by far the least Cash On Hand.
• It’s very noble of Huckabee to give such a large percentage of his revenue to other candidates and campaigns, but unless he finds someway to seriously raise funds, it won’t matter if he gives 100% of his money to candidates – Romney’s total $ given to other candidates is more than Huckabee’s entire revenue. It is also more than Huckabee’s total Cash On Hand.

I don’t mean to hammer on Mike Huckabee, but I feel I want to say something here. This is not an attack or a personal jab, but my problem with Huckabee winning the nomination is that he could be seriously outmatched in the general elections. Sure he went far in the ’08 primaries on a small fundraising network, but the generals will be a totally different ball game. It becomes an extremely expensive 50-state race – not one where you can get a lot of media attention by winning the first caucus. It looks to me that besides Romney, Palin and T-Paw will be capable of competing in such an environment. I would be incredibly worried, but still supportive, if Huckabee were the one selected to take on the Obama machine.

Source: Romney April, May, June, Palin, Pawlenty, Huckabee

Click here to see how these fundraising numbers compare with 1st quarter.

~Nate Gunderson

MORE on fundraising: Check out Jayde’s post from this morning on how Romney’s strong fundraising makes him a strong political force.

According to a PPP poll (667 participants), Mitt Romney leads the pack of GOP 2012 contenders in two important areas. The new poll affirms claims that Mitt may be the strongest candidate for the GOP in a general election. This is what they found:

1 – Mitt Romney is the favorite among Obama supporters who are displeased with Obama’s job performance:

Among the people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 but don’t approve of his job performance:
-Mitt Romney’s favorability is 32/31 (+1)
-Newt Gingrich’s is 32/40 (-8)
-Mike Huckabee’s is 20/39 (-19)
-Sarah Palin’s is 33/63 (-30)

It seems that Mitt has been well advised in his “non-campaigning” approach. He has been plenty critical of Obama and his policies, but his “attacks” have been strictly matter-of-fact, nothing personal or divisive. This seems a strong way to win over independents – make your arguments compelling and sincere, while not being reactionary or overly sensational. It’s the low-high profile tactic. Mitt has been called the only adult in the room on a number of occasions. Perhaps it’s because he keeps a cool head and continues to methodically “stick to the plan.” It’s the strategy of a front-runner.

2 – Mitt Romney leads GOP contenders in head-to-head polling against Obama:

Governor Romney gets a +3 percent over Obama in a match-up. This margin puts him ahead of the GOP pack, though the others aren’t far behind. The numbers:

• Romney vs Obama: 46 – 43 (+3)
• Huckabee vs Obama: 47 – 45 (+2)
• Gingrich vs Obama: 46 – 45 (+1)
• Palin vs Obama: 46 – 46 (0)

Amongst independents Romney wins 48 – 35 (+13). Two years ago those numbers would have been reversed. Is this evidence that people are starting to take off the ObamaGoggles™? I’m actually glad to see the whole group is doing well against Obama. I like Romney the most by far, but the most important thing is that Obama doesn’t get another 4 year term.

Go Mitt!

~Nate Gunderson

-All the fun (or tedious) cross-tabs can be found at the original poll: (PDF)

UPDATE: Mark B. Lowe has some graphs and history perspective with this poll at RightOSphere.com

Congratulations to Nikki Haley!

“We’ve got some thank you’s that I need to say tonight. First of all, I’d like to thank Governor Mitt Romney who was the first National figure to come in to this state when I was 4th in a very heavy race.” ~ Nikki Haley

Nikki Haley (center) reacts to learning she has won South Carolina's Republican nomination for governor.

From Politico

Her convincing runoff victory over Rep. Gresham Barrett—she had 65 percent to his 35 percent with virtually all the votes counted — makes her the first woman to win either party’s nomination for the state’s top job. South Carolina’s conservative heritage and the mood of voters this year means she is the frontrunner in November’s general election against Democratic state Sen. Vincent Sheheen – and a win would make her South Carolina’s first woman governor.

UPDATE by Jayde: Governor Romney congratulated Nikki Haley for her victory last night by phone and issued this statement today:

“Against the longest of odds, Nikki Haley took on the political establishment and won. Nikki’s conservative reform message resonated throughout the state of South Carolina because she is committed to fiscal discipline and is not tied to the old way of doing things. Putting her in the governor’s office will represent real progress in the effort to control government spending and restore the free market principles that have built and guided our nation.”

(HT Bosman)

Update #2 by Jayde: To listen to a 5 minute podcast of Romney speaking with Forum reporter Kristen Daum, click here. (Scroll down to ‘Audio’ in middle column.)