CNN finds Obama’s approval rating rebounding to even, at 48-48.

His lowest point appears to have been in September 21-23, with 42 percent approving, 54 percent disapproving.

The poll also finds that when asked, “Do you think the policies being proposed by the Republican leaders in the U.S. House and Senate would move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?”, 44 percent respond right direction, 51 percent say wrong direction. As bad as that seems, apparently those are the best numbers for the Congressional GOP since August 2006.

Of course, this is a poll of 1,008 adult Americans, not registered voters or likely voters.

Will RNC Chair endorsements slow down during the holiday week? Apparently not.

Politico reports this morning:

Former Missouri Republican Party Chair Ann Wagner will pick up a pair of key endorsements in her bid to lead the RNC today, from West Virginia RNC Committeeman Jim Reed and Committeewoman Donna Lou Gosney. Their support pushes Wagner’s endorsement total into the double digits – and perhaps more importantly, they give her the backing she needs in order to be nominated for the chairmanship. Currently, only Wagner and Wisconsin Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus have the public support to pass that test, which requires candidates to have two-thirds support from three different state delegations. (Wagner’s three are West Virginia, Missouri and Tennessee, while Priebus has Wisconsin, North Dakota and Mississippi.)

Meanwhile, up in New York:

New York State Republican Chairman Edward F. Cox and all members of New York’s growing Republican Congressional delegation have announced their support for Maria Cino to be the next Chair of the Republican National Committee. 

“I am proud to support native New Yorker Maria Cino to be our next Chairman of the Republican National Committee.  The RNC faces massive debt, a brain drain, a Presidential campaign on the horizon and other serious challenges.  What we need now is experienced, committed and focused leadership.  Throughout her career in politics and government Maria has demonstrated clearly she has the skills necessary to ensure the RNC is an effective driver of our values and our candidates in time for 2012,” Cox said.

Last night on Sarah Palin’s Alaska on TLC, the Palins ran into a crusty old prospector up in the far north country…

… no, not that one. Although Yukon Cornelius seems like a Palin voter, doesn’t he? He carries a gun. He watches out for little Rudolph and the elf who wants to be a dentist. He’s in the mineral extraction industry. He lets everybody know what he thinks the moment he thinks it. A “Papa Grizzly,” no doubt.

No, viewers got to see the Palins visit an old friend, “Bones,” to continue a family tradition of panning for gold. Piper actually seemed to find a few flecks of gold while sifting through the water.

Not that Palin needs fund-raising help, but maybe she discovered a new source of revenue for a presidential bid…

UPDATE: Bones passed away recently. A few readers are interpreting this post as an attack on him. I don’t see how it can be interpreted as such, but either way, it was not intended as a criticism. RIP.

On page A3 of today’s Washington Post:

Another liberal movement leader, Daily Kos blog founder Markos Moulitsas, said he “long ago” cut off contact with the White House. “It’s clear that they want to double down on their capitulation strategy,” he said in an e-mail.

Those words are written in English, but I cannot seem to get them to make sense in that order.

The staff of the leader of the free world, with the world’s most powerful bully pulpit, in service of a president whose persuasive and oratorical abilities are endlessly touted, find themselves needing the assistance of the founder of Daily Kos? And when they reach out to him, he refuses to hear them? And he’s refused to respond to them for quite some time now? In other words, he doesn’t respond to their e-mails or calls, and they keep calling?

That makes no sense for Obama and his team, to appear so needy to blogger, even one with the traffic of Kos. It makes no sense to do it with a blogger with Kos’ reputation for controversy. It really makes no sense to keep doing it after he’s snubbed them.

And it really makes no sense for Kos to think he can best achieve his agenda by refusing to interact with the White House.

You remember last week, when we talked about Democrat officeholders switching to the GOP in Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Indiana, right?

The trend continues…

Kansas Senator Chris Steineger — who was elected as a Kansas City, Kan., Democrat — announced this morning that he has joined the Republican Party.

“My views on taxing, borrowing, and spending and on the size and role of government in our society, have changed over the years and today more closely align with the Republican Party,” he wrote in a written release.

The news is likely to have strong repercussions in Wyandotte County, where Democrats have long been the majority party.

And in… New Jersey?

New Jersey Republican State Committee Chairman Jay Webber Wednesday issued a statement welcoming Clinton Town Mayor Christine Schaumburg’s decision to switch her party affiliation to Republican.

“Mayor Schaumburg’s decision to join the GOP shows the depth of her commitment to core principles like economic liberty and honest, limited government,’’ Webber said. “I look forward to working with the mayor as we stand with Gov. Christie and the rest of our state’s dedicated Republican elected officials to make New Jersey a better place to live, work and raise a family.’’

Schaumburg announced her move Tuesday just prior to introducing Gov. Chris Christie at his town hall meeting at Clinton Community Center. She credited Christie with influencing her decision to switch parties. Schuamburg has one year remaining in her four-year term.

Chris Christie: He brings ‘em over.

Look at the bright side, Democrats: You’ve picked up a county commissioner in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

Merry Christmas, America, from Gallup:

Seventeen percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time, the low point in a year when satisfaction levels generally have been in the 20% range.

The current 17% satisfaction rating is low from a historical perspective, but still exceeds the all-time low, 7% in an October 2008 poll. Gallup first asked this trend question in 1979.

More generally, satisfaction averaged 22% this year, lower than all but three yearly averages — 2008 (15%), 1979 (19%), and 1992 (21%). The historical average across all years is 40%, and the yearly averages have been below that mark since 2006.

The United States’ continuing economic struggles are likely the reason behind the low satisfaction levels. Gallup’s “most important problem” question confirms this, as 30% of Americans say the economy in general is the top problem and 24% say unemployment or jobs specifically, easily the top two issues mentioned. Thirteen percent mention dissatisfaction with the government, 10% the federal budget deficit, and 8% healthcare.

When the incoming Republicans take office in January, they will have a lot of work ahead. But the good news is… almost nowhere to go but up!

This is the most campaign and election-related item in today’s Morning Jolt, the first of Christmas week…

Demography Is Destiny, Which Can Be a Pain for a Democrat

The AP notices something we had mentioned a while ago, and that most political junkies had been buzzing about: “The 2010 census report coming out Tuesday will include a boatload of good political news for Republicans and grim data for Democrats hoping to re-elect President Barack Obama and rebound from last month’s devastating elections. The population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states to Republican-leaning Sun Belt states, a trend the Census Bureau will detail in its once-a-decade report to the president. Political clout shifts, too, because the nation must reapportion the 435 House districts to make them roughly equal in population, based on the latest census figures. The biggest gainer will be Texas, a GOP-dominated state expected to gain up to four new House seats, for a total of 36. The chief losers — New York and Ohio, each projected by nongovernment analysts to lose two seats — were carried by Obama in 2008 and are typical of states in the Northeast and Midwest that are declining in political influence. Democrats’ problems don’t end there. November’s elections put Republicans in control of dozens of state legislatures and governorships, just as states prepare to redraw their congressional and legislative district maps. It’s often a brutally partisan process, and Republicans’ control in those states will enable them to create new districts to their liking.”

Writing at Michelle Malkin’s site, Doug Powers responds, “In the big picture, there are two ways Democrats can deal with this: Admit that their tax-happy, regulation-loving, fiscally incompetent, union favoring, public sector nurturing, debt ridden, sharp edges rounded off, politically correct, smoke free, salt free, fat free, common sense-free social and economic experiments have been colossal disasters — or they can continue to try to nationalize every aspect of America and pursue the extinction of greener pastures as fast as possible so people have nowhere which to escape. Which will it be?** **The Rhetorical Question of the Day was brought to you by 3M Disposable Ear Plugs — when you don’t want to hear the question, let alone the answer, make it 3M Disposable Ear Plugs!”

Ed Driscoll looks at the phenomenon on a more local level, and observes that Seattle and San Francisco have low numbers of children per capita. “And it seems rather difficult to build an emerging Democratic majority when two of the most prominent “liberal” cities in America (very much in name only, given the mammoth regulatory mazes and bureaucratic armies these cities come equipped with) have such poor future demographics. Or as Mark Steyn, who inspired our headline above with this classic 2006 article, wrote about Europe’s similar (and not at all coincidental) demographic woes, ‘what’s the point of creating a secular utopia if it’s only for one generation?’”

I close the Jolt by observing, “Apparently Hyundai is trying a new strategy of browbeating potential car buyers into submission with one of the most relentless and ubiquitous advertising campaigns of the season.  If I see that aren’t-we-cool duo singing Christmas songs on those Hyundai commercials – apparently named Pomplamoose  – I’m going to end up setting places for them for Christmas dinner. ‘What? Cutesy Girl and Way Too Excited Guy aren’t part of the family? Then why am I seeing them every day?’”

Campaign Spot reader Ben calls my attention to this exchange between Indiana governor Mitch Daniels and an Indiana television reporter, which could be interpreted as a sign that his heart isn’t really in a presidential run, at least at this moment:

Jim Shella: By not deciding are you, in fact, deciding? 

Daniels: Maybe. It’s a great question. You mean, shouldn’t you be getting started and heading to Iowa and doing whatever it is people do?

Shella: Exactly. 

Daniels: Maybe. If so, so. You know, my duty is here. My heart is here.  I’m incredibly excited about the chance to do some more really good things for Indiana in the next four months and that’s coming first. So, if it’s too late, then it’s too late.

Of course, this is a safe, appropriate answer for a governor with time left in his second term. And the fact that Daniels appears to be not terribly eager for the ordeal of running for president might just be a sales pitch for his sanity . . .

There’s been a bit of hubbub about how much the postition of Republican National Committee chair, or the RNC itself, matters.

Liz Mair, an online strategist with Hynes Communications and former RNC online communications director, who’s done a terrific job keeping track of the ins and outs of the race, recently observed that “the only reason grassroots Republicans think the chair race is unimportant is because in previous presidential cycles, we’ve had a functional RNC.”

I’d note the Republican grassroots are not so engaged with this year’s RNC chair race because A) they don’t have a vote in the matter and B) with the exception of Steele, all of the candidates are making similar promises and using similar rhetoric — embrace the Tea Parties, fundraising is key, the chairman should stay out of policy fights, chairing the RNC should not be a stepping stone to higher office, no donor events in lesbian-bondage-themed clubs. (I guess that last one is just implicit.) By contrast, the 2009 RNC chair race, coming on the heels of the 2008 election debacle, was widely perceived as a key early decision on the party’s direction, at a time when Republicans were looking for new leaders.

If you’re a professional in the political arena, who runs the RNC matters a great deal.

In normal years, when the Republican National Committee is on solid financial footing, it steers millions of dollars to electing GOP officials and strengthening the party. This cycle the RNC will start $15 million in the hole from last cycle, so the organization will have to retire debt while building its war chest for the 2011 governors’ races in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Kentucky, the 2012 elections, and any special elections that arise in the interim. Either way, the next chairman will gain access to a national network of donors large and small, and the power and authority to direct millions of dollars.

Each incoming chairman has his preferred strategists, his preferred ad guys, his preferred professional fundraisers, event planners, direct-mail firms, Internet and web specialists, etc. If a chairman has worked with a particular firm for these services throughout his career, those firms will have the inside track for big-ticket work for the RNC. Candidates for chair will often pledge that they won’t direct money/contracts to their friends, but if a party chair thinks highly of a particular firm, it’s hard to believe that doesn’t help that firm get work.

Of course, chairmen have similar ability to steer money towards particular regions of the country. If an RNC chairman is convinced that winning the presidency means the Republican candidate must win in State X, then State X is going to get a lot of financial and other help from the national committee. Likewise, it’s hard to imagine any chairman shortchanging his own state.

For a vivid example of how a chair can turn attention to particular regions, look at the RNC’s approach to U.S. territories in this past cycle. The 168 members of the Republican National Committee represent the state chair, national committeeman, and national committeewoman for all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Of those, only the District has any electoral votes and a member of Congress (and that representative cannot vote on final passage of legislation, just in committee). But in the contest for RNC chair, the support of three RNC members from American Samoa counts as much as say, the three RNC members from Florida.

“The islands” were key to Michael Steele’s win in 2009, and he has been attentive: He traveled to Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands less than two months before Election Day, and the RNC sent $15,000 to the Guam GOP in late September and $20,000 to the Republicans in the Northern Mariana Islands in 2009. Under Steele, several RNC staffers traveled to the territories during this cycle. Needless to say, some Republicans in other places think there were better places to spend that money.

So if your livelihood depends on contracts with a state Republican party, the selection of the next RNC chair is supremely important. (It is likely that almost every conversation between an RNC member and an aspiring chair includes some variation of the question, “What will you do for my state?”)

But if you asked members of the grassroots what they want to see out of the Republican party in the coming cycle, I suspect many would say they’re more concerned with ideology than geography. At the FreedomWorks candidate forum, a few questions from Tea Party-minded folks asked what the RNC could do about incumbents who ignore primary losses (like Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska) and several other queries had a general “how do we get rid of the squishes” tone. The candidates in attendance agreed that neither the RNC nor its chair should get involved in primary fights, although it’s worth noting the RNC wasn’t a big player in GOP primaries this cycle, either.

Either way, the Republican National Committee chairman is a strange place to expect enforcement of loyalty to conservative principles. The RNC’s job is to strengthen the party, primarily by electing Republicans. Outside groups whose mission is to prioritize conservative values over party label seem like a better avenue to channel those energies.

Perhaps the GOP grassroots should care more about the RNC chair; many smart Republican campaign veterans think the GOP cannot win the presidency in 2012 without an effective national committee. The problem is, this would require the grassroots to evaluate the declared candidates — Steele, Saul Anuzis, Reince Priebus, Maria Cino, Gentry Collins, Mike Duncan, Ann Wagner — not on ideology but on their ability to fundraise and coordinate with state parties, organize powerful get-out-the-vote operations, do opposition research, and perform a lot of other behind-the-scenes activities. And even if they do evaluate and determine a consensus favorite, will their state-party chairs and committeemen and women listen to them?

UPDATE: I finish this post just in time for Mike Duncan to announce he’s no longer running.

With the holidays approaching, it might seem that the campaign season has slowed. But it is quite a temporary respite.

Chicago has its mayoral-election “primary” on February 22; if no one gets 50 percent (a possibility with the crowded field,) the top two finishers face off in a general election in November April. The key question right now out in the Windy City is, “Does former congressman and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel qualify as a resident of Chicago?” If Emanuel is a resident, he is the front-runner and likely the next mayor. If he isn’t, it’s a wide-open race.

Some of the more recognizable names in the small army of candidates include former U.S. senator Roland Burris; Rep. Danny K. Davis, who represents the state’s 7th district; and Carol Moseley Braun, a former U.S. senator from Illinois who preceded Barack Obama. Of course, if you’re just looking for a candidate who will go to city hall and take out the trash, there’s Fredrick K. White, a truck driver for the city’s sanitation department.*

A recent Tribune poll put Emanuel at 32 percent, undecided at 30 percent, 9 percent each for former Chicago School Board president Gery Chico and Davis, followed by Illinois state senator James Meeks with 7 percent, Moseley Braun with 6 percent, and City Clerk Miguel del Valle with 3 percent.

For the past three days, Emanuel — the man who not long ago had the ear of the president of the United States — attended hearings where ordinary citizens of Chicago — some appearing to be physical residents of the city, but mentally not necessarily residents of this planet — shouted their objections and conspiracy theories in objection to Emanuel’s claim of residency.

This is not to say Emanuel hasn’t exhibited a bit of provocative nerve in his defense:

[Emanuel’s lawyer Kevin] Forde said Emanuel never sold his house here or took steps to establish a permanent residence in Washington. Even so, he should get an exemption for federal service, Forde argued, saying if serving as the president’s chief of staff isn’t serving your country, “I don’t know what is.” . . .

And Emanuel should get no exemption for government service, [attorney for the lead objectors, Burt] Odelson said, because that’s reserved for men and women in the military. “That law was passed in 1943, for obvious reasons,” Odelson argued.

And it sounds like Emanuel’s renter demonstrated a bit of chutzpah himself: “’He suggested to me that Mr. Halpin was looking for $100,000 to leave the house early,’ [Emanuel real estate adviser Paul] Levy said.”

* A dream of sanitary government dies: Steve Stevlic, director of Tea Party Patriots Chicago, writes in to share, “Fred White was knocked off the ballot for failing to reach the minimum of 12,500 signatures on his nominating petitions.”

Over on the home page, I and a few other NRO contributors offer some gift ideas for the holidays.

Among my suggestions the Creative Labs Vado HD 720p Pocket Video Camcorder, which I thought I bought at an astonishingly low price, and which I now find is priced for even less for holiday shopping. I’ve used it in the past to make short videos like this one, interviewing now Representative-elect Renee Ellmers . . .

An Illinois Republican observes:

Interesting to see that all four of the ousted House Democrats from Illinois voted “yes” on the extension of the tax cuts. Rumors are going around that all four — Melissa Bean, Bill Foster, Debbie Halvorson and Phil Hare — are looking to get back into Congress after redistricting.  Voting “no” probably would have better gone along with their ideology, but could be politically damaging (imagine the commercials “So and So voted to allow middle class tax rates to go up”).  Both Halvorson and Foster ended with considerable amounts of money left in their war chest.

In the last Morning Jolt of the week:

Harry Reid Finds Himself Omnibusted

We’re not used to watching the good guys win in spending fights very much. But last night, that’s just what happened: “Speaking now on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) says he is ‘sorry and disappointed’ to announce that he does not have the votes for the omnibus spending package. Instead, he will work with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) to draft a temporary continuing resolution to fund the government into early next year. Reid says nine Republican senators approached him today to tell him that while they would like to see the bill passed, they could not vote for it.”

Jen Rubin is stunned at the scale of Reid’s miscalculation: “After exposing his party, the White House and himself to an avalanche of bad press and bipartisan criticism over the earmark-stuffed omnibus spending bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a sort of political Dunkirk moment, gave up and fled. Just moments ago, he fessed up that he did not have enough votes for cloture on the omnibus spending bill. So instead, as the Republicans had demanded, there will be a continuing resolution, and the Republicans will get their shot to manage the budget next year. Think about it for a moment. Reid, for no good reason, forced the president out on a limb (recall that President Obama endorsed this mess of a bill) and helped the Republicans to cement their image as the more fiscally disciplined of the two parties.”

It’s later than we wanted, and in a different context than we wanted, but I still love hearing people say, “Harry Reid lost.”

Over in the Corner, the boss lays out what this suprising result might mean: Tonight may indeed may be a “seminal moment,” as McCain said. This was to be the appropriators’ last hurrah. In the end, they couldn’t see it through, and it’s not going to get any better for them next year. Why did it go down? You had Jim DeMint rallying outside opposition, and pushing Reid’s back against the wall procedurally with the threat to have the whole monstrosity read on the floor; that was time Reid presumably couldn’t afford to waste given everything else he wants to jam through. Then, you had Mitch McConnell on the phone all day with Republican appropriators — Reid’s base of support on the bill–twisting their arms to come out against it. My understanding is that by the end he had all the appropriators committed against it, with the exception of two who were undecided. McConnell told the appropriators that passing this bill, and passing it this way, would represent a rejection of everything the mid-term election was about, and ultimately he prevailed. And, finally, there was McCain. He was out there, too. On “Hannity” last night, he sounded like a tea-partier, urging people to use social media and to flood the phone lines in opposition . . . Altogether, a heartening night . . .

Rand Simberg cheers, “On the anniversary of the first Tea Party, the Tea Partiers have won a great victory . . . Mr. Smith has come to Washington, again.”

RightKlik, writing at Left Coast Rebel, chuckles, “Dems got run over by the Omnibus.”

Jay W. at Say Anything dishes out some credit, but observes that there’s a lot more work to be done: “It would be easy to say that the publicity surrounding the large number of earmarks in the bill belonging to Republicans led to this reversal. It would also be a trivial matter to claim that the successes of Tea Party candidates in the recent midterms is planted firmly in the minds of those Republicans who were denouncing earmarks in speeches and press conferences while at the same time holding out their hands for their share of the lucre. That’s because these things are undoubtedly true. The Republican victories in the midterms were a start, but by no means the end of the journey to fiscal responsibility. Pressure from the incoming Congresspeople who ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility and the continued vigilance of citizens are needed to continue the push for smaller government, smaller deficits, and transparency in how our tax money is used. This bill being pulled is a start.”

ADDENDA: Michael Vick wants a dog: “I would love to get another dog in the future,” Vick told TheGrio.com. “I think it would be a big step for me in the rehabilitation process. I think just to have a pet in my household and to show people that I genuinely care, and my love, and my passion for animals.”

As I said last night on Hannity, let’s start small. Let’s get him an ant farm. And if he can take care of them, and not start any ant-fighting rings . . .

New polling numbers for Pennsylvania, from Quinnipiac:

Pennsylvania voters give Sen. Robert Casey Jr. a 39 – 29 percent job approval rating; by 43 – 35 percent they favor him over an unnamed Republican for re-election in 2012 and by 40 – 33 percent they say he deserves another term, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll.

Voters split 45 – 45 percent on whether or not Congress should repeal the health care overhaul passed last winter, the independent Quinnipiac University survey finds. The poll, except for Monday night’s interviewing, was completed before a federal judge in Virginia ruled that part of the law was unconstitutional.

By an overwhelming 69 – 24 percent, Pennsylvania voters approve of the tax deal that President Barack Obama had negotiated with congressional Republican leaders. President Obama has a split 44 – 43 percent approval rating in the Keystone State, and would defeat an unnamed Republican in 2012 by 41 – 37 percent. Still, voters are split 44 – 45 percent on whether the president deserves a second term in the White House. This compares to a negative 46 – 49 percent approval rating July 14, when Commonwealth voters said 48 – 42 percent Obama did not deserve re-election.

I find these numbers pretty discouraging for an incumbent with a name beloved in his state’s politics, but the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette headline says “Pa. voters approve of Casey’s work.”

The closing item in the Morning Jolt mentioned Rick Santorum’s event on a cold night in Davenport, Iowa. A Campaign Spot reader, Meredith, was at last night’s meeting. Her take:

LOVE love love The Morning Jolt. It’s the first thing I look for in the a.m.

I was there in Davenport last night. I’m looking for a candidate. I don’t think the “reruns” can beat Obama; they weren’t that popular the first time (i.e. Huckabee and Romney). I am not an official “Tea Partier” but how official is the group anyway?

The questions and topics were very focused on smaller government; no social issues were raised. Everyone was angry about the blatant disregard and disrespect by our elected officials NOT following the wishes of the American people. Outrage over the pathetic so-called leadership of Obama on every issue, from Islamic jihad to the omnibus bill to immigration. Everyone in attendance wanted to elevate the Constitution above massive and continuing legislation and pork barrel projects.

My take on Rick: very presidential in stature. Mild mannered, polite. Great opinions when the crowd would let him talk. He educated all of us on how Appropriations work, how entitlements aren’t even funded, the absolute power of the incumbent representatives even in the Republican party, ideas for immigration, how to, step by step, work on eliminating the deficit. He said he was in Iowa “kicking the tires” to see if he should run for President.

I wanted to ask Mr. Santorum (but never got a chance) how, if nominated, he would be able to keep the conversation on smaller government and fiscal conservative values when the liberal media begins to attack his very conservative social values. That will be a nightmare for him.

We need to start pushing a candidate forward who can win, whether it be Santorum, Pawlenty or Jindal.  Please help!

Blogging will be light today, as earlier today I taped an appearance for the Tom Sullivan Show on Fox Business Network, and tonight I will be on Sean Hannity’s Great American Panel on Fox News Channel . . .

Despite the snow steadily falling on Washington, I’m scheduled to take the train up to New York City this afternoon. Sitting in Union Station and watching a safety video, I’ve already learned the counterintuitive rule that if an evacuation announcement occurs while you’re on an Amtrak train platform, you are to remain where you are.

Today’s Morning Jolt is a long one, but here’s the wrap up . . .

Obama to Democrats: Somebody Save Me!

Allegedly the President is telling Congressional Democrats he needs them to save his presidency. Hey, pal, who’s going to save us?

On CNN, Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) said, “The White House is putting on tremendous pressure, making phone calls, the president is making phone calls saying this is the end of his presidency if he doesn’t get this bad deal.”

The Hill finds a completely different tune from the administration: “The president hasn’t said anything remotely like that and has never spoken with Mr. DeFazio about the issue,” said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor.

I love how the Obama defense is that a 13-term Democrat who’s voted with the president on just about every major issue is either a pathological liar or psychotically deluded.

At Hot Air, Allahpundit weighs the merits of believing DeFazio: “Remember, DeFazio’s one of the leaders of the liberal revolt in the House against the deal. Let’s say he looked at the whip count and concluded that there aren’t enough progressive no votes to stop the bill — provided that most Republicans, a few tea-party stalwarts notwithstanding, continue to support it. He may figure that instead of trying to persuade his own side to block it, he’s better off at this point trying to give Republicans a reason to bug out. But what could he, as a liberal, say that would captivate the conservative imagination and kick up a sudden groundswell against the deal? Answer: This, my friends. This.

“The only problem with my fiendishly clever theory? As noted in the excerpt, The One has a history of crying to recalcitrant Democrats about his presidency failing, so yeah, he probably really is telling them this. And he’s not entirely wrong, given that as president he’ll take most of the blame from the public if the tax hike goes into effect on January 1. What’s a conscientious Republican who’s worried about the economy to do?”

ADDENDA: The concept of Rick Santorum as a dark horse in the 2012 Presidential field is a concept I’ll have to get used to, but apparently he has his following, and it’s pretty devoted. He Tweets, “17 degrees snowing in Davenport IA and 63 tea partiers brave weather to meet w me. Thanks it was fun.” Or are Davenport Iowans the hardy types who find 17 degrees and snow to be balmy for December?

I just checked. The average low in Davenport in December is 20 degrees; in January it is 13 degrees.

Sigh . . . Merry Christmas:

(AP)  Iraqi authorities have obtained confessions from captured insurgents who claim al Qaeda is planning suicide attacks in the United States and Europe during the Christmas season, two senior officials said Wednesday. Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani told The Associated Press that the botched bombing in central Stockholm last weekend was among the alleged plots the insurgents revealed.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, in a telephone interview from New York, called the claims “a critical threat.” Both al-Bolani and Zebari said Iraq has informed Interpol of the alleged plots, and alerted authorities in the U.S. and European countries of the possible danger. Neither official specified which country or countries in Europe are alleged targets.

There was no way to verify the insurgents’ claims. But Western counterterrorism officials generally are on high alert during the holiday season, especially since last year’s failed attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called underwear bomber, who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day.

I hate it when somebody tries to give me the same present they tried to give me last year.

On the bright side, if, God forbid, something occurs on Christmas, I’ll bet we hear from President Obama sooner than, say, three or four days after.

Day by day, the schedule for 2012 presidential debates is being set. Fox News announced its sponsorship of a debate today.

Spring: Politico and NBC News, the Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California. The sponsors have pledged that this will be the first debate of the cycle.

Early May: Fox News, Greenville, South Carolina.

June 7, 2011: CNN and the Manchester Union Leader, Manchester, New Hampshire.

The Orlando Sentinel reports that Fox News Channel and the Florida GOP are likely to host a primary debate in the state in October 2011.

UPDATE: And here’s number four, although it’s thankfully in 2012:

ABC News and WMUR-TV, ABC’s Hearst-owned affiliate in Manchester, NH, are joining forces once again to host a Republican presidential primary debate in New Hampshire between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in 2012.  This debate will be held at a critical moment in the Republican nomination process — just as the primary season gets underway.  The specific date and time of this debate will be determined once the dates for the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary have been determined by state officials. The debate will air locally on WMUR-TV, nationally on the ABC Television Network and will be live-streamed on ABCNews.com and WMUR.com.

ABC News and WMUR-TV co-hosted back-to-back Democratic and Republican presidential debates in 2008 at the same time in the primary season, and have enjoyed a long partnership covering “First in the Nation” politics in New Hampshire. In 2008, more than 9 million viewers across the country tuned in to watch the Democratic debate and 7.35 million for the Republican debate. The debates were also among the highest rated programs in WMUR-TV history.

The head of the Pennsylvania Democratic party has an interesting standard for who is qualified to lead in his state:

Over the past few weeks, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party has sent out press releases blasting Governor-elect Tom Corbett for naming a major campaign donor to his cabinet and putting a Tea Party activist on his transition team. Democrats have also criticized Corbett’s staff for avoiding reporters’ calls, and earlier this week, Chairman Jim Burn told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review incoming Lieutenant Governor Jim Cawley is “about as qualified to lead as Sarah Palin.”

That’s some ironic scoffing coming from Burns. On his watch, his party lost the governor’s race, the U.S. Senate race, a majority of U.S. House seats (including seeing five seats flip from Democratic to Republican), and the state assembly (a 15-seat swing to create a 12-seat GOP majority). And he’s mocking anybody else’s leadership?

As for Cawley . . .

In 2005, Jim was appointed to the Bucks County Board of Commissioners.  In 2007, he was solidly re-elected as the leading vote-getter in Bucks County in a very competitive election. 

He worked as Chief of Staff to State Senator Tommy Tomlinson where he was responsible for the operations of the Harrisburg and Bucks County district offices. In addition, Jim was as a member of his local school board in Bristol Township where he voted against the tax increase. Jim has been active in charitable and civic affairs in Bucks County and is an advocate for environmental protection.

He serves on the County Commissioner’s Association of Pennsylvania’s Energy, Environment & Land Use Committee as Vice Chairman. Jim is a former member of the board of directors for Lower Bucks Hospital, a former trustee of Bucks County Community College and a former Commonwealth trustee of Temple University.

He currently serves as vice president of community relations for the Bucks County Council, Boy Scouts of America and is a member of the Board of Advisors for both St. Mary Medical Center and Conwell-Egan Catholic High School.  Additionally, Jim is a member of the Bucks County Bar Association and is on the board of trustees for their Charitable Foundation. He is also on the board of directors for the Bucks County Transportation Management Association (TMA). A graduate of Bishop Egan High School, Bristol Township, he graduated cum laude from Temple University’s College of Arts and Sciences with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science.  He received a law degree from Temple University School of Law.

That’s laughably unqualified? And is Sarah Palin a synonym for “unqualified to lead” anywhere outside Democratic-party circles?

It’s enough to bring a rebuke from . . . outgoing Democratic governor Ed Rendell: “Partisanship is ruining the effectiveness of government all over America. And that’s . . . a perfect example of what that is,” he said at a Pennsylvania Society event in New York City this weekend. “Let’s give him (Corbett) some breathing space. To attack him at this point comes with ill grace.”

Brad Phillips, a former ABC News and CNN journalist who now runs a media training firm and who writes “Mr. Media Training,” a blog on that subject, offers an assessment and grades of each aspiring presidential candidate.

He has evaluated a slew of candidates — some likely to run, some not — on seven criteria, which Phillips asserts:

have held true for every general election since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980: 1) The candidate with the clearest message has always won. 2) The candidate who articulated the clearer vision has always won. 3) The sunnier candidate with the more optimistic message has always won. 4) The candidate whose message is best aligned with constituent concerns has always won. 5) The more charismatic candidate has always won. 6) The candidate who appeared most comfortable in his skin has always won. 7) The candidate who uses the most plain-spoken language has almost always won.

This is an interesting analysis, but somewhat self-evident and pretty darn subjective. How do you quantify “articulating the clearer vision”? Or “most comfortable in his own skin”? It’s easy to think of Justice Potter Stewart trying to define obscenity.

For what it’s worth, Phillips gives one pure A to Marco Rubio. He gives an A- to Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee. Chris Christie earns a B+ and John Thune gets a B.

Sarah Palin earns only a C+, and Cs go to Mitch Daniels, Gary Johnson, Tim Pawlenty, and Mike Pence, while Newt Gingrich gets a C-. Rick Santorum is at the bottom of the pack (next to Donald Trump) with a D.

Phillips considered Barack Obama an A back in October 2008, but thinks he’s a C currently.

In their lamest pick since “YOU,” Time picks Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as its Man of the Year.

Some will rejoice that it’s not Julian Assange. But the pick suggests the magazine was flailing around, looking for a pick that didn’t represent the broad backlash against President Obama and his administration that was reflected in the Tea Party movement and the big GOP gains in the midterm elections. In the end, the pick, which looks like an ad for Columbia Pictures, seems at least two years out of date and oddly disconnected from larger issues of national and international politics and matters of war and peace.

As many are noting this morning, this continues a trend of odd picks, perhaps driven by a desire for newsstand sales, perhaps driven by political correctness, perhaps by a reluctance to acknowledge picks that are perceived as conservative.

Time‘s picks:

2001: Rudy Giuliani

2002: The Whistleblowers (WorldCom, FBI, Enron)

2003: The American Soldier

2004: George W. Bush

2005: The Good Samaritans (Bono, Bill & Melinda Gates)

2006: You

2007: Vladimir Putin

2008: Barack Obama

2009: Ben Bernanke

2010: Mark Zuckerberg

For contrast, here are my suggestions for which figure or figures had the most influence each year:

2001: Osama bin Laden

2002: Dick Cheney (it was in the post-9/11 era his influence was clearest)

2003: Saddam Hussein (from rule to war to capture, his story was the story of the year)

2004: George W. Bush

2005: Danish Cartoonists

2006: Nancy Pelosi (she was the face of the broad backlash against Bush)

2007: Gen. David Petraeus (for masterminding the Iraq surge)

2008: Barack Obama/Ben Bernanke

2009: Barack Obama/Neda, the Slain Iranian Protester

2010: The Tea Partier

I’m sure some will quibble here and there. But looking back, the Whistleblowers look minor in lasting influence; the American Soldier could be nominated any year; Bono and the Gateses are commendable but could be picked any year; Putin is powerful but could be picked any year; Bernanke was a year late; and “You” just looks silly.

From Wednesday’s edition of the Morning Jolt . . .

An Abominable Obamnibus

Boy, it wouldn’t be the last gasps of the Democrat-run Congress without one more last-minute avalanche of runaway spending, huh? The Hill sets the stage: “Senate Democrats have filed a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that would fund the government through fiscal year 2011, according to Senate GOP sources. The 1,924-page bill includes funding to implement the sweeping healthcare reform bill Congress passed earlier this year as well as additional funds for Internal Revenue Service agents, according to a senior GOP aide familiar with the legislation. The package drew a swift rebuke from Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee. ‘The attempt by Democrat leadership to rush through a nearly 2,000-page spending bill in the final days of the lame-duck session ignores the clear will expressed by the voters this past election,’ Thune said in a statement. ‘This bill is loaded up with pork projects and should not get a vote. Congress should listen to the American people and stop this reckless spending.’”

Late last night, our own Robert Costa talked to Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who “warned National Review Online on Monday about Reid’s potential maneuver. ‘Sounds like they want to dual-track [the START treaty] with the terrible omnibus bill,’ he said. ‘I’m really concerned . . . . I’m not going to be sleeping very well this week.’ Wesley Denton, a DeMint spokesman, tells NRO that despite pressure from Reid, the South Carolinian plans to read aloud the omnibus bill, for as long as it takes. He will point out that the Senate could easily pass a continuing resolution sans pork-laden projects.”

There are no really bad four letter words in this post from Pat Austin, blogging at And So It Goes in Shreveport; but you can tell she’s* a little hot under the collar. Eh, make that supernova under the collar: “You should never, EVER blog when drunk or furious. Ever. Considering that my head is about to explode and that I should definitely be drinking, I probably shouldn’t even be typing my name right now, much less attempting to read the Proof-That-Harry-Reid-Has-Lost-His-Mind Crap-Laden-One-Way-Ticket-To-The-Loony-Bin-For-Life Omnibus bill. No, I’m not drunk, but I oughta be to get through this piece of bovine excrement spending bill. Is he freakin’ CRAZY? Don’t answer that. Is he KIDDING here? Don’t answer that, either. And what in the HELL is wrong with these ‘Republicans’ who are thinking about going along with this crap-sandwich? Did they learn NOTHING from the November election? Let me suggest that this is way, WAY out of the scope and function of a lame duck Congress. Way way. There is no freakin’ way that this thing should go through as is. Who in the hell is going to read a 2,000 page piece of crap like this ever, much less right now when they’re all trying to get out of there for Christmas?”

Hugh Hewitt wants to see the Republicans make an all-out stand: “The House and Senate GOP have to gum up the entire works until the Senate Democrats agree to stop the bum’s rush of bad legislation. Where are the conservative Bernie Sanders? The public also has to use the time to let the 23 Democrats on the ballot in 2012 know that a vote for lame duck spending won’t be forgotten over the next two years. I wish the Senate GOP would have seen this coming when they quickly agreed to the absurd deal that has become a Christmas Tree of special interest giveaways.”

* Originally referred to Pat Austin as a “he.” My apologies.

Pennsylvania is a cheerier place, at least for now, when residents think about their new governor, according to Quinnipiac polling:

Pennsylvania voters say 59 – 27 percent they are optimistic about the next four years with Governor-elect Tom Corbett at the helm, and 66 – 26 percent back the idea of selling the state’s liquor stores to help balance the state budget, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Voters oppose 52 – 36 percent leasing the Pennsylvania Turnpike to a private firm, the independent Quinnipiac University survey finds.  And by a 51 – 41 percent margin, voters are okay with laying off state workers to reduce the red ink.

Corbett has pledged he will not raise taxes or fees to balance the budget. Voters say 47 – 44 percent they think the pledge is a good idea, but they say 53 – 33 percent he will not be able to keep his pledge.   Pennsylvania voters oppose 65 – 32 percent raising taxes to balance the budget.

“Pennsylvanians are optimistic that newly-elected governor Tom Corbett will be able to make things better by more than two-to-one, yet they are skeptical that he can deal with the state’s budget problems without raising taxes or fees, as he has promised,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.  “Even Democrats are optimistic, 45 – 40 percent, about the future under Corbett.”

Then again, the numbers might be skewed by all of the Pittsburgh Steelers fans, optimistic about their chance to play the Jets on Sunday . . .

The survey firm Public Policy Polling reports today that Wisconsin Democratic senator Herb Kohl “would begin in a pretty solid position if he did decide to seek reelection. 50% of voters approve of the job he’s doing to 35% who disapprove.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee responds, “Let’s take a moment to flash back to late November of 2009, when PPP claimed that ‘Feingold looks solid’ heading into 2010. Of course, we all know what happened there . . .”

Well, to give credit to PPP, Kohl does not appear to be a liquid or gas so he is, indeed, solid.

Rep. Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican and a man increasingly mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, appearing on Sean Hannity’s show moments ago:

“I’ve been fighting since last summer to extend all the tax rates . . . We needed to make sure that no American faced a tax increase January 1.”

“I’ve struggled to determine what is right here. I know the American people did not vote for more stimulus, more debt, more uncertainty in the economy. I will not vote for this deal. I believe this is a bad deal for taxpayers, it will do little to create jobs, and I can’t support it.”

He mentioned he spent the morning ringing a Salvation Army bell in Muncie, Indiana, and said he asked a constituent about what he thought of the tax deal. Pence said that the man responded, “At first I thought it sounded pretty good, but the more I hear about it, the more it sounds like same old, same old in Washington, D.C.”

“This is a hard call. This is a tough one . . . The best thing we can do for the unemployed, the best thing we can do for the American people is put permanence in the tax code, and create certainty to begin to invest and create jobs.”

Tom Leppert, the mayor of Dallas (an officially nonpartisan position), is being mentioned as a possible Senate candidate in 2012.

It’s no secret that the mayor wants to run for Senate in 2012, and that his most loyal supporters are on board.

Running for re-election as mayor and then running for Senate could be impractical, since the GOP primary is only months after the next mayoral term would begin.

So Leppert, a Republican, has been waiting for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Dallas, to make a decision on her plans. Her third term ends in 2012, and she has not said whether she’ll seek re-election.

Leppert and Hutchison are allies, and he would rather not run against her in a March 2012 primary.

Leppert endorsed Rick Perry for governor earlier this year. In March, he appeared with Sarah Palin at a fundraising dinner for a new women’s pregnancy center in Dallas.

I think a lot of Connecticut Republicans ended up impressed with Linda McMahon as a Senate candidate; her effort ended up to be a lot more than a well-funded celebrity vanity campaign. She lost by 12 percentage points, but that gap started as high as 30 to 40 points in some polls.

Her 498,341 votes were the most for a Republican in a Senate race since Lowell Weicker in 1988, and she forced the DSCC to commit nearly $2 million in funds in this state. Joe Lieberman, the independent-who-caucuses-with-Democrats, is up for reelection in 2012.

The latest:

In case anyone thought Linda McMahon’s political aspirations had been quenched by her $50 million losing bid for the U.S. Senate in 2010, this ought to clarify things: The former head of World Wrestling Entertainment will travel to Washington to meet with National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn.

“I don’t know what her message is going to be, but I sort of suspect she isn’t finished,” Cornyn told Roll Call, which broke the story.

Michael Moore, while explaining why he’s putting up $20,000 in bail money for Julian Assange, asserts that had WikiLeaks existed 10 years ago, it might have prevented the 9/11 attacks:

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That’s Mr. Bush about to be handed a “secret” document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.” And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings.” Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden’s impending attack using hijacked planes?

You can see that PDB right here. It did indeed mention hijackings. It also mentioned bin Laden encouraged an attack on LAX, that bin Laden wanted to use a hijacking to secure the release of “blind sheik” Umar Abd al-Rahman, possible surveillance of federal buildings of New York, and 70 FBI field investigations that are bin-Laden investigated and a call in to a U.S. embassy about an attack involving explosives. If you could stop the 19 hijackers based on that mix of generic accurate and inaccurate information, you’re psychic. Even the left-of-center comic strip “Tom the Dancing Bug” mocked politicians like Tom Daschle who claimed they could have stopped the threat if they had the chance to see the same information at the time.

I hope everybody who paid money to watch one of his documentaries feels proud right now.

Will the last Georgia Democrat to leave the state party headquarters please turn out the lights?

The Democratic defections continue in the Georgia Legislature.State Rep. Bubber Epps on Monday became the latest Democratic state lawmaker to switch his allegiance to the Republican Party . . . Epps is the eighth Democratic state lawmaker to switch sides since the Nov. 2 general election. Republicans now hold 113 seats in the 180-member House. Democrats control 64 seats, there is one independent and two seats are open.

Well, that’s just Georgia. It’s not like it’s happening in . . .

The chairman of the Texas Democratic Party says he believes State Rep. Allan Ritter’s decision to switch parties and join the Republican Party is “not a principled decison.”

Ritter confirmed to KFDM News Saturday that he’s switching from the Democratic to Republican Party and will make an announcement Tuesday in Austin, expected to be attended by Governor Rick Perry and a number of other GOP leaders and colleagues from the legislature.

Okay, so it’s happening in Georgia and Texas. It’s not like Democrats are fleeing the party all over . . .

Central District Public Service Commissioner Lynn Posey ditched the Democratic Party Wednesday as the governor and a long line of other elected officials welcomed him into the Mississippi GOP.

“The Democratic Party’s continued swing to the left has left me completely out of sync with that party and I feel I must switch to the Republican Party whose philosophy is way more in line with mine, and I also think more in line with the majority of people in the Central District,” Posey, 55, said during an event at the Republican Party headquarters in Jackson.

Gov. Haley Barbour said he’s “very pleased” Posey switched parties and will run for re-election in 2011 as a Republican.

“You’re seeing more and more of that happen right now and I believe he won’t be the last,” Barbour said.

Okay, Georgia and Texas and Mississippi. But not . . . oh, heck.

State Rep. Noble Ellington of Winnsboro, a prominent Democrat for more than 20 years in the state House and Senate, says he is likely to switch to the GOP.“I’m 95 percent sure,” he said Wednesday.Two state senators — John Alario of Westwego and John Smith of Leesville — recently switched from the Democratic Party. Alario, a former two-time House speaker and a fixture in Democratic state politics for nearly four decades, said he made the change official last week. Ellington said he will probably make his final decision early next month.“I think at this point it would probably be hypocritical for me to remain in the Democratic Party because I find myself farther and farther away from what has become the liberal philosophy of the national party,” he said. “My way of thinking, which falls along a more conservative line, has been shrinking within the party.“At least nationally, the Republican Party seems to fit my philosophy more than the current Democratic Party.”

Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana . . . Clearly, this is a phenomenon contained to Southern states . . . like, er, Indiana:

CEDAR LAKE — Two of the town’s elected officials have switched parties.

Clerk-Treasurer Amy Sund and Councilman John Foreman have declared they are joining the Republican Party, Lake County GOP Chairwoman Kim Krull said in a news release.

“With the huge wins we had last month and the organization we are putting together I am sure we will see more people interested in joining the Republican Party,” Krull said.

We hear a lot about how the GOP isn’t competing well in the Northeast at all. But in the South, the Democrats are turning into the farm team for the state Republican parties.

I’ll have much more on this as the day progresses, but for now, the Steele-y portion of this day’s Morning Jolt . . .

Make No Mistake: The Man Has Nerves of Steele

The good news about any prediction about Michael Steele is that it will probably end up being right, at least temporarily, at some point. Throughout his embattled term at the RNC through Election Day, Steele gave every indication he intended to run for another term as chairman. But as rival candidates emerged — including a few who once had close ties to Steele, like Saul Anuzis, Reince Preibus, and Gentry Collins — and Steele didn’t show for a candidate debate, it appeared Steele might be foregoing a reelection bid. The revelation that the committee was $15 million in debt certainly seemed to make the case for another two years at the helm that much tougher. And as of Monday afternoon, RNC members were hearing that he wasn’t going to run. But then . . .

Fox News sets the stage: “Controversial Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who last month presided over the GOP’s biggest electoral gains since 1938, announced Monday night that he is running for re-election. Ending weeks of rumors that he would not seek a second term, Steele publicly threw his hat into the ring during a conference call this evening with RNC members. ‘I ask for your support and your vote for a second term,’ he declared after going over his record and his vision for approximately fifty minutes — in what at least one RNC member considered Steele’s first re-election speech. According to a copy of his prepared remarks, Steele alluded to his controversial gaffes as chairman: ‘Yes, I have stumbled along the way, but have always accounted to you for such shortcomings. No excuses. No lies. No hidden agenda.’”

Sistah Toldjah is left incredulous: “It’s not merely ‘missteps’ but rather an insane appetite for insulting the very people from whom he wants to raise money (examples here, here, and here), not to mention his defeatist attitude towards Afghanistan, among other things. What a shame for someone once widely considered by many conservatives — including yours truly — as having the potential to go far within the party via advancing conservative ideals on a national stage.”

At Hot Air, Allahpundit thinks through the implications: “There are only two reasons to conceivably back Steele, as I see it. One: The GOP did, after all, win 63 seats on his watch, and he’s been lying low enough over the last few months that at least it looks like the gaffe-o-rama phase of his chairmanship is finally over. All of which is well and good, but in that case I urge you to follow the link up top and eyeball Cost’s graph again. The question isn’t whether the GOP did well this year, it’s whether it could have done better if the RNC had been flush with cash. Gentry Collins argued that poor fundraising might have cost Republicans an extra two dozen House seats, but given that he’s now challenging Steele for the chairman’s position, take that estimate for what it’s worth. Two: If you believe that, in an age of online donations and targeted giving to campaigns, the RNC will never again be relevant the way it once was, then maybe it’s better to keep Steele in place. It’ll avoid a nasty public squabble between pro-Steele factions, led by Palin, and anti-Steele factions like the ‘Bush establishment,’ and it’ll spare us the spectacle of Steele doing interviews to dump on the GOP after he loses. Plus, if Steele’s reelected, Republican outside groups are bound to start planning way ahead to pick up the slack in case the RNC can’t get its act together to fulfill its traditional fundraising and GOTV roles. No one cares about the RNC as an organization, only that its functions are being done and done well by some conservative outfit. If Steele’s reelected, it means that some other outfit or outfits will be pressured to step up. Inconvenient, but not fatal. I think.”

Conservative web sites are already full of web ads for Cuccinelli.com, the non-office web site of Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, citing today’s decision declaring Obamacare unconstitutional. Cuccinelli filed suit arguing that the mandate violated the Constitution.

I’m sure the e-mail list that the site is assembling will be a useful tool if Cuccinelli decides to run for governor in 2013. Virginia’s governors are subject to a unique one-term rule.

This morning, Michael Steele was not expected to seek another term as chairman of the RNC. Late this afternoon, RNC members are now saying they have been informed that he will indeed seek another term. The official decision is expected in a conference call this evening.

(Feels a bit like the LeBron James hype, no?)

Steele didn’t show up for a recent debate for aspiring RNC chairs. Now that we know Steele wants another term, that decision seems odd; 20 RNC members were in attendance, and they heard Mike Duncan, Ann Wagner, Gentry Collins, and Saul Anuzis spend an hour and a half discussing the RNC’s underperformance for the past two years. The committee’s debt is $15 million, an embarrassment for a party that wants to establish its image as a force for fiscal responsibility. Wouldn’t Steele want the chance to offer a counterargument? Or do he and his allies consider the 20 or so RNC members affiliated with the Conservative Steering Committee to be a lost cause?

I suspect that if the RNC chairman were a popularly elected position, Steele would lose handily. He will have a great challenge in this bid for another term, but he did already get 91 members to vote for him. What’s more, RNC committee members obviously care a great deal about how a chair will treat their state party. It’s easy to imagine RNC committee members deciding, “Sure, there were some management and financial problems with Steele, but he’ll be more generous to my state party than Rival X, and so I’ll back him.”

UPDATE: One of Steele’s rivals, Ann Wagner, wants all spending to cease for the time being:

Ann Wagner, candidate for RNC Chair, today issued the following statement:

“I welcome Michael Steele to the race. But this is not about Michael Steele — it is about a fully funded, fully functional RNC and winning in 2012.

“I am urging the committee to immediately freeze any new spending, new contracts, new appointments and new hiring until a new chair is elected. If elected, my first actions will include an ambitious fundraising plan to retire the RNC’s massive debt and a full audit of the RNC’s financial operations and contracts.

“It is time to turn the page. We need a new direction and new leadership at the Republican National Committee. I believe my experience offers the full package of fundraising success, management skills, grassroots organizing, communications and a proven record of winning elections.”

Does Michelle Bachmann want to run for Senate? Public Policy Polling finds the numbers pretty favorable for her, at least for the primary:

Michele Bachmann is by far and away the first choice of Minnesota Republicans to take on Amy Klobuchar in 2012. 36% say they’d most like to see her as their Senate candidate followed by Tim Pawlenty at 20% and Norm Coleman at 14%. The rest of the folks named in the poll register in single digits — Chip Cravaack at 7%, Tom Emmer at 6%, John Kline at 5%, Laura Brod at 4%, and Erik Paulsen at 2%.

It’s remarkable to see Bachmann do so much better than Pawlenty on that front, but it just goes to show how much more enamored the party’s conservative base is with her than him. With moderates Pawlenty actually is the first choice, garnering 26% to 18% each for Coleman and Bachmann. But with conservatives she blows him out of the water, getting 42% to his 19% with Coleman at 14%. Given how strongly Klobuchar polls this exercise is probably academic- her opponent seems likely to be someone a lot more low profile than either Pawlenty or Bachmann — someone who has nothing to lose by launching a long shot Senate campaign.

Hard to imagine Chip Cravaack running for Senate so soon after his upset House win.

PPP also finds:

On the Presidential front in the state Pawlenty continues to lead but with a tepid 24%. For sake of comparison Mitt Romney polled at 47% in his home state two weeks ago. Sarah Palin is second in the state at 17%, followed by Mike Huckabee with 15%, Romney with 13%, and Newt Gingrich with 11%. Leading the second tier is Ron Paul at 9%, with John Thune at 3% and Mitch Daniels at 2%.

A former Virginia Democratic-party chair and a GMU professor take to the pages of Politico to contend that Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.) is certain to run for reelection. And they cite . . . er . . . North Korea?

One unintended result of the crisis in North Korea is this: freshman Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) has now decided to run for reelection. 

True, he doesn’t know it yet. And more true, Steve Jarding, a smart guy and Webb’s top political strategist, is surely right when he says that Webb is going to make up his mind his way and in his own time.  We couldn’t agree more. Webb is going to be Webb — the Frank “I Did It My Way” Sinatra of the Senate. 

But that doesn’t change reality: Webb is going to run. The North Koreans sealed that deal. With Webb’s extensive military background and expertise, as well as his deep knowledge of Asian Pacific affairs, among his colleagues in the Senate, the freshman senator is uniquely positioned to play a leading role on the key issues confronting Washington and the international community in the next few years. 

Er . . . perhaps. But the questions of whether Webb is going to run are starting to get ubiquitous, and there are several factors that argue against a Webb bid:

1) Virginia is a much redder state than the last time Webb ran. It’s easy to forget, Webb won by only 9,000 votes, about four-tenths of one percent, in a phenomenally good year for Democrats. It’s likely Webb would have fallen short if Allen hadn’t imploded with “macaca” and the Washington Post hadn’t hammered the GOP incumbent every chance it got. The Democrats’ surge in Virginia continued with Obama’s win here in 2008, but the following year Bob McDonnell won the governor’s race by the widest margin of any Republican in state history, and the GOP picked up six seats in the House of Delegates. This year Republicans beat three Democrat incumbents in the U.S. House (Glenn Nye, Tom Perriello, Rick Boucher) and nearly knocked off a fourth (Gerry Connolly). The mood of Virginia could change between now and Election Day 2012, but Webb probably won’t face as favorable a political environment as he did in 2006.

2) Webb’s fundraising has been terrible for an incumbent approaching a competitive race. He has $471,080 in cash on hand. Democratic strategists are already complaining about Webb acting like he doesn’t want the job.

3) Webb’s 2006 run was fueled by two major factors: vehement opposition to the Iraq War and all-around outrage over George W. Bush. (Recall Webb began his time as senator by speaking about how he wanted to punch Bush at the White House party.) Today the Iraq War is winding down and George W. Bush is now selling his memoirs. Webb may feel like he’s largely done what he wanted to do in the Senate.

4) It’s not like this would be the first time Webb surprised everyone by walking away from a high-profile Washington position. His resignation as secretary of the Navy took everyone by surprise; President Reagan wrote in his diary, “I don’t think Navy was sorry to see him go.”

A survey from Public Policy Polling put Webb narrowly ahead of George Allen in a hypothetical rematch among registered voters. Obviously, if he does run, Webb will not be easily beaten by Allen or any other Republican. But he’ll clearly be among the GOP’s top targets in 2012, and he won’t be a blank slate, appealing to such a broad spectrum; he’ll have to justify votes for Obamacare and other initiatives unpopular in increasingly red Virginia.

Or he may avoid the whole contest.

Quite a few folks have e-mailed in, saying they haven’t received Morning Jolts for a few days. I’m told that there’s some issue between Roadrunner and Comcast and the e-mail distributor, and they’re working on the problem. I’m told that the best way to work around it until it is fixed is to use a web-based email program if possible.

Please keep in mind, sending tech issues to me is kind of like asking your dog for advice on fixing your car.

It may not have won her the election, but Yale University’s associate librarian has deemed the opening line of Christine O’Donnell’s first television ad the most memorable quote of the year. She and Sarah Palin made the top four:

1. (TIE) “I’m not a witch.” Christine O’Donnell, television advertisement, Oct. 4.

1. (TIE) “I’d like my life back.” Tony Hayward, comment to reporters, May 30.

3. “If you touch my junk, I’m gonna have you arrested.” airline passenger John Tyner, remark to Transportation Security Administration worker at San Diego airport, Nov. 13, 2010

4. “Don’t retreat. Instead — reload!” Sarah Palin, Tweet, March 23.

If I didn’t know better, I would think the whole “No Labels” movement was a giant, self-parodying prank.

I tuned in to the webcast of the group’s kickoff to hear a woman saying, “You just have to look to Arizona to see extremists who are trying to divide us.” I guess I know how the group feels about the Arizona immigration enforcement law. Of course, I thought the point of the group was to stop labeling people; but I guess it’s okay to label the overwhelming majority of Arizonans “extremists.”

Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, introduced himself  “a proud Democrat… who is also proud that he grew up in a no-labels house in a proud no-labels town.” He continued to sing the joys of the label-free lifestyle in a manner that probably should make his constituents look to their shoes in shame: “The most important place I go every day is the House gym. Because there are no labels in the House gym.”

I can’t help but notice that the Republicans involved all lost primaries or fled the party: Bob Inglis, Mike Castle, Charlie Crist, Michael Bloomberg.

I guess you could say Obama has found his stimulus package; by 2012, we will be an Obama campaign-ad based economy.

Will President Obama be the first billion-dollar man?

He raised and spent $750 million in the 2008 campaign, and there is already speculation that the cash-collection operation for his 2012 reelection bid will crest the once-unimaginable sum of $1 billion raised. (That’s a one and nine zeros. Nine!)

“It’s not unrealistic at all, given the amount raised and spent in 2008 and the amount Republican interest groups and 527s will spend against him,” said a former Obama administration official.

A look at the trend line of fundraising for presidential candidates over the past several elections suggests a doubling effect every four years.

In 2008, Obama raised an eye-popping $745 million, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) collected $368 million. Total spending, including third-party candidates, amounted to $1.3 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama’s 2012 slogan: Donate to me to get big money out of politics.

I’m not sure whether this is a scoop for Politico or they’re just guessing: “On a 7:30 p.m. conference call, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is expected to announce he won’t seek reelection when the committee picks a new chairman at its winter meeting next month. Friends warn that you never know with Steele, but confide that he has sent them the clear signal he’s dropping out. That’s based in part on the erosion, in the last week, of votes he had been counting on.”

They continue, “With Steele’s likely departure, NORM COLEMAN – former U.S. senator from Minnesota, and now chairman of American Action Network and Forum, a key outside GOP group – is now “leaning towards running, based on his ability to raise money and act as a national surrogate,” per a close source. Coleman’s big push will be fundraising: “I was the best fundraiser of all the Senate candidates.” However, committee insiders say Coleman was hurt by the leaked news that he had promised Steele he wouldn’t run against him. Many in the GOP are agitating for change, not clubbiness.”

If Steele does decide to not run for another term, his absence from a recent candidate debate makes more sense and doesn’t appear to be a mistake.

UPDATE: There is now word from RNC members that Steele is indeed running for another term.

But how many RNC members will be itching to see another two years of his leadership?

From the Monday edition of the Morning Jolt:

Republican Leaders, Tough as Gangsters? We Wish!

I’ve mentioned in the past that when I was a cub reporter, Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, an extremely liberal Democrat, was one of the nicest guys and most patient about answering questions. This may have been because the weighty Nadler couldn’t outrun any reporter. He describes his Manhattan Congressional district as stretching “from Nathan’s to Zabar’s” and he’s always had a particularly vivid way with words.

His latest: “Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) called Republicans “a bunch of gangsters” who blackmailed Democrats to ensure that the nation’s wealthiest retain their tax cuts.   Nadler, appearing Sunday morning on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” characterized the Republican stance on the bipartisan compromise on extending the Bush-era tax cuts of “nice middle class tax cut you have there, pity if something would happen to it unless you give millionaires and billionaries” a tax cut. “Unless you give the wealthier a tax cut we’re not permitting the middle class to get it.”

Yeah, Congressional Republican leaders are a regular bunch of Dick Tracy mobsters: Mean Man Mitch,  Cantor the Cutter, Johnny Orange.

Weasel Zippers turns to George Lucas for an appropriate visual image, while the Jammie Wearing Fool wonders why no one is worried about this violent rhetoric inspiring violent acts: “Earlier this week the Republicans were hostage takers. Now they’re abunch of gangsters, according to bloated New York Congressthing Jerrold Nadler. Imagine what they’ll be called when they’re actually in the majority. It’s overheated rhetoric like this that puts lives in danger. This jerk Nadler is the guy who back during the 2000 recount said he detected a whiff of fascism. I think he was just smelling the bacon grease dripping from his lips.I distinctly recall after the election the Democrats were all calling for “compromise” and wanted to work together. Calling people gangsters and accusing them of blackmail sure is a curious way of going about it.”

The good folks at the Green Papers have projected the likely number of delegates from each state for the 2012 nominating process and GOP convention:

Republican delegate counts are based on the number of Republicans elected to the State Legislatures, Governors chairs, U.S. House seats, and U.S. Senators seats through 31 December 2011. Republican unpledged delegate counts are determined by state (or equivalent) party rules. We have assumed that the policies of 2008 will apply in 2012. The Republican district delegate count is based on the estimated number of U.S. House members each state will receive from the 2010 census.

The list is largely what you would expect; California is the largest with a projected 172 delegates and Texas is second with 149. The states at the bottom are Vermont and Delaware with 17 each, six fewer than Puerto Rico and two fewer than the District of Columbia.

Geography may play a smaller role in the 2012 nomination than it usually does; none of the big states appear to be near-certain for anyone (barring a sudden bid from, say, Texas governor Rick Perry or former Florida governor Jeb Bush).

Presuming each frequently mentioned likely candidate does well in their home state, Newt Gingrich starts with the biggest advantage, as Georgia is projected to send 75 delegates to the GOP convention. Of course, Gingrich hasn’t represented Georgia in Congress in more than a decade. Just behind him is Rick Santorum, as Pennsylvania is projected to have 72 delegates.

The rest of the contenders’ home states are generally bunched together.

We’ll have to see if either or both prominent Hoosiers, Gov. Mitch Daniels or Rep. Mike Pence, decide to run for president. If one can carry almost all of the state’s delegates, he’ll come away with a healthy total; Indiana is projected to have 46 delegates.

Despite its high population, Massachusetts has a modest 41 delegates. It’s possible Mitt Romney may do well again in Michigan, his second “home state,” and that state has 59 delegates.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s home state of Minnesota is projected to have 40 delegates, not too many more than Gov. Haley Barbour’s home state of Mississippi, which is projected to have 37 delegates.

Sen. John Thune and former governor Sarah Palin seem likely to do quite well in their home states, but they’re relatively small in the delegate race: Both South Dakota and Alaska are projected to have 28 delegates.

The Agenda Project is running an attack ad against Scott Brown, declaring him “full of it” and suggesting he violated a pledge to lower taxes . . . by supporting the Bush tax cuts. You see, in the mind of the Agenda Project, if you support tax cuts on the highest earners, you’ve violated a pledge to lower taxes, because you didn’t vote for the Democrats’ plan to only lower taxes for some people.

The ad closes, “Tell Mr. Tough Guy to start acting like our senator, or come 2012, he won’t be.”

I wonder if they’ll run the same ad against Democrats like New Jersey’s Bob Menendez who are signing on to the tax deal, which extends the Bush tax cuts for all earners for the next two years.

It’s unlikely he would be in a position to know, but departing New York governor David Paterson is convinced Michael Bloomberg is still thinking about running for president:

Gov. Paterson isn’t backing away from his belief that Mayor Bloomberg is keeping his options open about run for the White House in 2012, reports our Glenn Blain . . .

Paterson told WOR’s John Gambling this morning that Bloomberg’s big speech at the Brooklyn Navy Yard yesterday was just the sort of thing a wannabe presidential candidate/mayor should be doing to prepare the ground for a presidential campaign.

“He can’t say, ‘I’m thinking about it,’ because once he says he’s considering it, he gets treated like a candidate — he can’t govern as mayor,” Paterson said during his weekly spot with Gambling.”So what I think you do is you say, ‘I’m not interested,’ but you say all the right things,” the governor continued.

I suspect speeches by Mayor and Potential Presidential Candidate Mike Bloomberg get a lot more national attention than speeches by Just The Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

“[F-word] the president.”

That’s what was said at a closed-door meeting of the Democratic caucus by an unnamed Democratic member of Congress.

Many of us on the right have argued for a while now that there’s something foul in the soul of the Democratic grassroots. They’ve objected and pointed fingers back at us; few would argue that there’s an ever-intensifying nastiness in our body politic. Sure, we laugh at the over-the-top insults from the days of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, but you have to give those insults some literary style points. And note that the fury was focused on the political leaders; now all any ordinary voter has to do is show the wrong bumper sticker and someone will feel free to hurl insults and give them the finger. Of course, that presumes they don’t bite off the finger.

Everybody thinks the other side is more responsible for it; if you’re on the left side of the aisle, I doubt there’s much I could say that would persuade you. I’d argue that there is a different tone and standards for posting on Daily Kos and Red State, between even FreeRepublic and AmericaBlog. Yesterday at AmericaBlog, run by John Aravosis, a perfect gentleman I’ve enjoyed having discussions with, there was a comment about the president’s “GOP butt-licking fetish.”

The First Amendment ensures your right to talk this way . . . but why would you? And even if some yahoo on a blog does it, shouldn’t we expect better from a member of Congress? Erick Erickson of Red State spotted the likely irony: “I bet the Dem who said “F— the President” today supported censure of Joe Wilson for saying ‘you lie.’”

Yelling “you lie” earned Wilson a deserved rebuke; we’ll see if dropping the F-bomb in reference to the president in a meeting of several hundred people earns any serious consequence for this unnamed lawmaker. My fear is no. Sure, it was a semi-private meeting, and I’m sure this isn’t the first F-bomb to be dropped on Capitol Hill — I’m sure we all remember the much-discussed exchange between former vice president Dick Cheney and Sen. Patrick Leahy. But this feels different, like another line has been crossed in standards of public behavior. Wasn’t any Democrat in that room offended by those words? Didn’t anybody object?

Once you start marinating in this nastiness, it starts to seep into how you think and speak, and perhaps you can’t turn it off. It is now defining the Left. Michael Moore. Bill Maher. Joy Behar. It didn’t just stay in the grassroots and celebrities; it came to the halls of Congress with Alan Grayson.

We on the right hated Hillary Clinton back in the 1990s. Then the 2008 campaign comes along, Hillary is perceived to be the less liberal candidate than Obama, and suddenly Air America’s Randi Rhodes is calling her a “big [f-word]ing whore.” This is Hillary Clinton we’re talking about. Ten years earlier, almost every Democrat in America loved her, and we were the ones calling her names. But once she’s not their preferred choice, they can turn on her and denounce her in the same tone they would use to denounce a conservative Republican.

And now, finally, it comes full circle. Now they’re sneering at Obama. Their guy. The guy whom they adored, perhaps as much as any party has ever adored its leader, in 2007 and 2008. Now they say, “[F-word] him.”

Hey, pal, that’s the President of the United States. Show some respect.

(How did it come to the point where we have to be the ones to demand that?)

UPDATE: Well, I guess we have a suspect: My congressman, Jim Moran of Virginia, recently said, “I don’t know where the f*** Obama is on this or anything else” to a reporter.

I wonder if Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee will run across each other on their book tours.

Here’s the first excerpt from Pawlenty’s, Courage to Stand:

I think I was about twelve when my dad picked up a side job to earn a few bucks one weekend — a side job that required my help.

It was a hot, sweltering summer day, the kind of day when outside work is the last thing anyone wants to do. But my dad clearly needed me, and I always wanted to lend a hand if I could. I didn’t ask a lot of questions, and he didn’t give me very much information about the task at hand — until we got down to this parking lot beside a warehouse.

The “side job” included yanking meat hooks from large wooden bins that were stashed in a couple of truck trailers on the lot. Tangled meat hooks that once held whole sides of beef were tossed in those bins, in trucks without Thermo Kings to cool down their trailers. Hundreds of thick, heavy meat hooks, covered with discarded raw remnants of sinew and fat, all rotting in the blistering heat. It was up to my dad and me to pull out every one of those hooks and hang them up — presumably to be power-washed and used again.

Have you ever opened up an expired or rotting pack of hamburger from the bottom of your refrigerator and given it a big whiff? Yeah. Multiply that times a thousand, and you’ll get the idea. You could smell that rotting meat as soon as we opened the doors of those trailers.  Then, when we hopped up there, we could hear the buzzing. My dad reached in and grabbed the first hook, and I held my breath and leaned in through a swarm of flies to grab mine — and I lost it. I tossed my cookies next to one of the bins, only adding to the mess and the stench.

My dad didn’t say much to me. I looked up at him, hoping for an out. He isn’t really gonna make me keep doing this, is he? My dad’s face was steady. He wasn’t having an easy go of it either. But he looked at me and said quietly, “We have to do this.”

It was all he needed to say.

I think every aspiring president should begin their memoir with an anecdote about vomiting.

Over in the last Jolt of the week, a discussion of the House Democrats’ rebellion against Obama’s tax deal:

Earlier in the day at Red State, Dan McLaughlin wondered if Obama was on the verge of becoming “the Lamest Duck“: “The obvious lesson, if the deal collapses, will be that Obama can’t deliver anything — he can be pushed into compromise with GOP priorities, as he wouldn’t before the election, but he can’t bring along his own caucus, which has suffered so many losses for following his lead. Liberals will learn that they are better off striking their own distance from an unpopular and increasingly impotent leader. And heavy liberal opposition to the deal will make it impossible to blame DeMint or Republicans for the collapse, and will encourage conservatives to push for even fewer compromises with Obama in 2011. That calculus of legislative forces will make it hard for Obama to plan for the other leg of the Clinton strategy, a budget battle in which the GOP blinks. Obama can try to use the whole mess to argue that ‘Washington is broken’ and all that, but it’s a hard argument to make from the Rose Garden.”

Dennis the Peasant is left calling the president a genius, sort of: “We await Steve Benen’s (as well as Andrew Sullivan’s) hysterical denunciation of said nihilistic obstructionists in 3, 2, 1 . . . Note: It takes a special sort of political genius to strike the kind of deal that sets in motion the forces that will simultaneously (a) alienate your political base, and (b) tear your political party to pieces.”

Robert Stacy McCain looks over the Democrats fighting the tax cut deal the hardest and finds, “Looking at the list of more than 50 House Democrats who signed the Welch letter, I see several names — including Paul Kanjorski, Jim Oberstar and Alan Grayson — of Democrats who got beat in the mid-term election. Their careers are over and so they’ve got a political free-pass for these lame ducks to take a stand on ‘principle,’ possibly resulting in a no-deal meltdown that results in Americans paying higher taxes next year. And maybe, as Larry Summer warns, pushing the economy into a double-dip recession. Because of hate. Liberals hate rich people, and they don’t care if the rest of us suffer, just so they get to inflict some pain on the rich.”

One of Mickey Kaus’ recurring points is that for a guy who appeared on the national scene and did a Svengali-like job persuading Americans to elect him to the most powerful office in the land, since Obama became president, he’s suddenly turned into the guy who couldn’t persuade Snooki to get into a tanning bed. He gave about a million speeches on health care, and Americans tuned him out after the first thousand. Americans rejected sales pitches for Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine, Martha Coakley, or a slew of congressional Democrats this year. And now he can’t even persuade Democrats to accept a tax cut for high earners for a few years to avoid a double-dip recession. Then again, this may say more about Congressional Democrats than the guy trying to twist their arms.

A reader writes in:

Question: What do Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, John Thune, and Rick Santorum have in common?

Answer: Apparently, all have been moved to a secure undisclosed location since the announcement Monday night of Barack Obama’s so-called “compromise” tax deal. Not a peep has been heard from any Republican supposedly considering a run for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. For more than sixty hours, they have remained silent.

Note to would-be leaders: The first one to go public in opposition to this “deal” is going to be on wall-to-wall cable TV, and — given that Tea Party leaders have announced their opposition to the “deal” — will earn major street cred with some voter groups that are going to have something to say about the 2012 nomination you seek.

In shorter, sweeter terms: If you want to be a leader . . . lead.

The reader isn’t quite right. I notice that on Twitter, Palin has retweeted a link to an interview by Sen. Jim DeMint expressing skepticism of the deal, and a comment from Jedediah Bila, saying, “Thank you, @JimDeMint - DeMint comes out against tax deal, says GOP must do ‘better than this’ -http://t.co/BmjsAh3 .’ That’s not explicit opposition, but certainly seems to lean that way.

John Thune said he has some concerns, but said on Hannity there’s a lot to like for Republicans in the deal:

I see nothing about this issue yet on the site for Romney’s PAC, nothing on Newt.org, nothing on the site for Tim Pawlenty’s PAC, nothing on Huckabee’s site, or Santorum’s site.

Having said that, keep in mind that only Thune actually as a vote on this. And if these aspiring GOP figures like the deal, they may calculate that the endorsement of several aspiring Republican presidents might be enough to drive Democrats away from it . . .

UPDATE: This comment from Huckabee on Twitter today suggests he supports the deal: “If House Democrats end up blocking this tax deal – it proves AGAIN, they just don’t get it. Hurry up January.”

The House Democrats reject the tax deal in a non-binding caucus vote.

This is another sign of Obama’s diminished influence, leverage, and power after the midterms. Several dozen of these House Democrats are out of work in January (and presumably have no interest in being Obama appointees or ambassadors). The White House could threaten that the president won’t campaign for them come 2012, but let’s face it, that didn’t turn out to be so helpful for Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine, Martha Coakley, or a slew of congressional Democrats this year. And many members of the Democratic caucus are in such safe seats, they’ll never need Obama to come campaign for them. They probably figure he’ll need their help by 2012.

I understand the White House line is that today’s rejection is part of the “normal process.” Really? Is it normal for a majority of the president’s own party to vote against deals he makes?

UPDATE: In light of this . . .

President Obama warned his fellow Democrats on Wednesday that they risk plunging the country into a double-dip recession if they reject his tax-cut deal with Republicans.

. . . we can only conclude one of two things:

A) A majority of congressional Democrats don’t believe the president when he says a particular act is necessary to prevent a double-dip recession. In short, most members of Obama’s own party no longer trust his judgment on economic issues.

B) A majority of congressional Democrats agree, but don’t care, because they’re willing to endure a double-dip recession if that’s what it takes to ensure the rich pay higher taxes.

Awesome: “Liberal Democrats and others who are howling at President Barack Obama for dealing with the GOP on taxes should stop acting like ‘petulant children,’ outgoing Rep. Michael McMahon said yesterday.”