Rush Limbaugh blasts Ron Paul as the Conservative Killer:

…the majority of people that voted him were not Republican. And in another poll, the percentage of Ron Paul voters who say they will vote for the Republican nominee is… like 80% of Tea Party voters in New Hampshire said no matter who the Republican nominee is they’re voting for it. The Ron Paul number is 40%. Now, as I say, I’ve gotta double confirm. It’s ostensibly Rasmussen and we’re double-checking this, but what I know so far, or what I’ve been told is that Ron Paul supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they’d vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on, and most of Huntsman’s voters and most of Paul’s voters were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, also according to this polling data.

…Here we go. It’s the exit polling data from Fox, and it is on political matters, “Do you consider yourself very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative?” You go to Ron Paul, 33% of his voters, according to exit polls, were somewhat liberal; 24% were moderate; 0 were very liberal. So 57% of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives. And that’s one of the things that I wanted to see because with this big push — what is happening here, the final push now that’s on to get Romney the nomination, Newt and Perry, with their attacks, have made it impossible to defend them. I hate to tell you, folks, but you just can’t put your name to what they’re out there saying, vulture capitalism and so forth.

Romney, however, wants Ron Paul to stay in. Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul. They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt. They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else. So the powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents. Ron Paul is a conservative killer. Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there, encouraging him to stay in there.

So 40% of Paul voters said they would go on to support the eventual Republican nominee. 40%!

Where’s the other 60% going to go? Apparently Obama.

While 80% of the tea-party voters will support WHOEVER the Republican nominee is.

That should tell us a whole lot about Ron Paul and his supporters. They cannot be counted on to push the Republicans to victory in 2012. The only thing Ron Paul can guarantee is to kill off Santorum and Newt’s chances.

With that I’ll segue into the John Gibson show yesterday in which Gibson asked Ron Paul supporters to call in and give him reasons why he is so awesome: (its 15 minutes well spent?)

And hey, guess who else loves themselves some Ron Paul?

The Iranian regime’s English language propaganda channel, PressTV, has discovered a new American idol: presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul.

PressTV has stepped up its coverage of Paul’s campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in recent weeks, featuring his anti-Israel rants, his claim that sanctions against Iran are “acts of war,” his approval of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and much more.

The Iranian government channel portrays Ron Paul as an American hero, and brings on conspiracy theorists masquerading as political “analysts” to laud him for “challenging the American establishment” and the “corporate neo-conservative Zionist consensus,” that cabal of Jews, banksters, and Reagan Democrats who in Tehran’s eyes (and in the eyes of these Ron Paul supporters) run the world.

It’s a script taken almost word-for-word from the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

So go ahead Paulbots….vote for Ron Paul, or Obama when RP doesn’t get the nomination but I will never pull the lever for this nut.

Yeah, I know it’s only New Hampshire. We all knew Romney was going to take that state. But good grief, imagine if the choice was between these two?

Wow! What a nightmare.

But hey, at least we have Santorum way back there, and don’t forget about Perry!

Sigh…

Mitt Romney cruised to a solid victory in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night, picking up steam from his first-place finish in the lead-off Iowa caucuses and firmly establishing himself as the man to beat for the Republican presidential nomination.

“Tonight we made history,” Romney told cheering supporters before pivoting to a stinging denunciation of President Barack Obama. “The middle class has been crushed … our debt is too high and our opportunities too few,” he declared – ignoring the rivals who had been assailing him for weeks and making clear he intends to be viewed as the party’s nominee in waiting after only two contests.

His Republican rivals said otherwise, looking ahead to South Carolina on Jan. 21 as the place to stop the former Massachusetts governor. Already, several contenders and committees supporting them had put down heavy money to reserve time for television advertising there.

Even so, the order of finish – Ron Paul second, followed by Jon Huntsman, with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum trailing – scrambled the field and prolonged the increasingly desperate competition to emerge as the true conservative rival to Romney.

To cap off this “terrific” night we have the crazy uncle telling everyone to get the hell off of his property:

Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign called on the rest of the Republican field to drop out of the race and unite behind him in order to defeat Mitt Romney.

“We urge Ron Paul’s opponents who have been unsuccessfully trying to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy,” campaign chair Jesse Benton said in a statement.

And in the end, with this field of candidates, it sure looks like Romney will be nominated, and I couldn’t agree more with Rush, Sarah and Donna Brazile on this….he will have a tough time against Obama:

Click here to view the embedded video.

It’s 2008 all over again and we may very well be looking at four more years of the worst President this country has ever seen.

Open Secrets reveals Ron Paul’s top 3 contributors as being the following:

US Army $24,503
US Air Force $23,335
US Navy $17,432

Unfortunately, this doesn’t really tell us how many individual donors contributed. Isn’t it the case that Open Secrets only counts those (around 11,270) who give $200 or more (FEC- $250?)? I think about a third of donors don’t bother listing their workplace on their contribution form. And a combined $65,000 in military campaign donations accounts for very little as a percentage of the millions that the Paul campaign has raised.

In 2008, much was made by the Paul Bearers regarding military contributions (supposedly) going to Ron Paul. The same thing is happening again:

A posting on his campaign website the same day he appeared on “NewsHour” sheds a little light. Headlined “Ron Paul Campaign Raises Most Donations From Military,” it says that Paul has “raised more than any other current presidential candidate in donations from members of the military. Of those donors who indicated their occupation and employer, Paul topped the other contenders.”

Back in 2008, I blogged the following:

Paul: Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?

(Applause)

Is he talking about “donors identified as affiliated with the military,”?

Like everything else Ron-con-related, I believe he is spinning the results of this.

As the reporter in the Houston Chronicle says,

“many contributors do not disclose their occupations, making it difficult to determine the total extent of military contributions to any one candidate.”

More importantly, the amount of contributions are incredibly small, hardly proving much of anything. Beth adds in the Outside the Beltway comment section:

Also not understood by the obsessed Paulbots and other assorted antiwar nutters: the fact that “military employees” includes civil service employees of the various services. That means a GS-7 who works at Whatever Air Force Base in BFE, Idaho has their employer listed as “Air Force.” For all we know, not one of those people is someone in uniform. I’m sure there are some, but it certainly is not all, nor is it indicative of some big antiwar sentiment in the military. For Paultards and Sullivan to extrapolate that idea from this is laughably absurd.

Furthermore, if one compares the 3rd Quarter statistics of Paul and McCain regarding the contribution amounts of those who do not list their employer, 100 dollars worth was given to Ron Paul’s coffers, compared to that of McCain’s: 2,244,223.39. Out of all of that money, how much of that could have been donated by active and retired veterans? Or “Affiliates” of the military? We don’t know. But it seems clear, by the paltry $100 given by the person(s) not listing employment, that the Ron Paul supporters are overwhelmingly listing their employment when making contributions.

Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard writes,

among all the candidates, the total number of contributors surveyed here numbered less than 1,000–out of an Armed Forces of 2.2 million. And, remember, most of these contributors aren’t even active duty.

So yes, Andrew [Sullivan], those tasked with fighting this war do get it, which is why they aren’t donating to Paul. The only real report we have on political contributions from active duty military in this election cycle has Paul taking in just over $19,000, and that’s only counting donations larger than $200. So, maximum, we’re talking about 90 active duty soldiers who we know have actually contributed to Ron Paul’s campaign. The rest is pure speculation, and the Chron‘s tally of $63,440, with its average of $500 per donation, is unlikely to be populated by many of the guys who are “actually fighting this war.”

I have no doubt a number of active and retired military support Ron Paul and are attracted by what he seems to represent: Limited government and fiscal responsibility, conservative use of our military, and apparent loyalty to the Constitution, channelling the will of our Founding Fathers. That’s a seductive message for many Americans- especially the patriots willing to have their blood spilled on behalf of our country.

As this NYTimes piece notes:

Mr. Paul’s national security positions draw raves from many veterans, students and others who believe his noninterventionism would curtail a dangerous trend toward military adventurism and strengthen America’s influence and prestige while diverting resources to pay down the national debt. In interviews at Paul campaign events this week, many said they embraced his national security proposals, rather than reluctantly accepting them.

“He would get us out of our difficulties overseas,” said Tony Snook, a retired Army sergeant first class wounded in a rocket attack in Basra, Iraq, in 2007 who came to a raucous Paul rally that drew 500 people on Wednesday night in Des Moines. “You should choose your fights wisely,” he said. “If it’s not there, don’t invent something, don’t shed blood needlessly.”

But I think it’s a slick bit of propaganda for him and his supporters to push the Paul Reverist meme that the majority of those who actively serve (and those inactive) are overwhelmingly pulling the lever for an ArPee presidency (The NYTimes article itself admits there’s no way to actually verify the claim).

His passionate and energetic (as well as cult-like followers) supporters are the same rabid enthusiasts who manipulate straw polls and who in 2008 fervently defended their Constitutional Messiah whenever and wherever he was disparaged across the blogosphere (FA had a lot of fun back then, stirring up the Ronulans with one anti-ArPee post after another):

First, none of the hype about Ron Paul ever translates in to reality and actual wins. Much hype is made of his straw poll wins, online poll wins, text in poll wins.Did any of this translate in to any election wins? NO! It was all smoke and mirrors hype.

It would follow that all of this is hype too. All part of the Paulbot scheming attempts to create the aura that Ron Paul is contending and winning.

Maybe Ron Paul does garner a lot of supporters from our military. But it’s not provable. We only have flawed and incomplete (easily manipulable) records and anecdotal evidence (driven by vocal and passionate activist supporters) to go by.

U.S. Army Corporal Jesse Thorsen, right, cheers on GOP presidential candidate Texas Rep. Ron Paul, left, in Ankeny, Iowa, on Tuesday

Full disclosure: I’m a Paul supporter. I say that as an American, not as a representative of any armed force. I don’t agree with everything he thinks, but I believe in the Constitution and THAT is my thermometer for judging candidates. Only because I know how the political system works can I not be worried about his crazy thoughts that I don’t agree with. But, this post isn’t about whether or not Paul is a good candidate or would make a good president. I’m not going to argue that.

There are things that Ron Paul and his supporters are doing that are simply beginning to get under my skin. He is using the military to further his political ambitions, even though he wants to gut us. In a recent campaign flyer, Paul used an image of troops that appear to either be in a combat zone or a training environment; doesn’t matter, the troops were in uniform.

Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 specifically states:

A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may…register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces…[and may]…Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.
…
A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not…Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces, except as a member of a joint Armed Forces color guard at the opening ceremonies of the national conventions of the Republican, Democratic, or other political parties recognized by the Federal Elections Committee or as otherwise authorized by the Secretary concerned.

Now, having read what I quoted above (or what you read if you went to the entire link), take a look at this recent campaign flyer Paul sent out:

These guys are obviously in the military as their all wearing the OCP (Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern) uniform. They also appear to be in a tent, which furthers the assumption that these guys are representing the Army. One could easily argue that these Soldiers didn’t know the photo would be used in a campaign flyer and that they did nothing wrong. Fine, but then there is this interview of Army Reserve Combat Engineer CPL Jesse Thorsen out of Des Moines, Iowa that is a BLATANT violation:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Look, I got that a lot of troops support. I’m one of them. But, we don’t need to be getting stupid with it. It’s like we’re Paul’s personal shock troops. He’s a man that doesn’t make you immune from punishment for violating the rules. These Soldiers can’t use the weekend warrior excuse if they’re wearing the uniform. Once you put that uniform on, you represent the United States Army, whether you’re National Guard, Army Reserve, or active status.

After this interview, Paul invited Thorsen onstage and explain why Thorsen support the candidate…IN UNIFORM! Paul should know better than that. There is nothing wrong with Thorsen working on Paul’s campaign since he’s a reservist, but doing the interview and then appearing on stage with the candidate in uniform was a blatant violation. And it looks like he’ll justly be punished for it:

Army reservist who appeared in uniform on national television in support of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul during Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses could face harsh penalties from the Defense Department for violating military rules against politicking.

Service officials confirmed Wednesday that they are looking into possible violations of the department’s rules governing troops’ political participation by Cpl. Jesse Thorsen, an Iowa-based reservist.

My buddy, Joel Arends, from Veterans for a Strong America, weighed in as well.

“We need troops and veterans at the table, and we need them to be part of the election process,” he said. “But we don’t need troops to be violating regulations. It’s all about common sense, and most troops understand that we cannot mix the use of a military uniform with political campaigns.”

Ironically, I was debating with Joel just a couple of days about about the flier above when he sent out a press release criticizing it. We ended up agreeing on most of the violations, but now that I’m talking about it publicly I want him to know I support his efforts to expose what Paul is doing wrong in using troops to further his campaign objectives.

Disclaimer: These are my opinions and my opinions alone. I support Ron Paul as an American from Texas, not as a representative of any Armed Force or government. If you don’t like my opinion or my voting preferences, sucks to be you. Take out your pacifier and put on some big boy shoes. Welcome to greatest country on earth: The United States of America!

It’s a close one:

Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney waged a seesaw battle for supremacy in Iowa’s Republican presidential caucuses late Tuesday night, the opening round of a campaign to pick a challenger to President Barack Obama.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul ran third.

Returns from 93 percent of the state’s 1,774 precincts showed Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, and Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, in a near dead heat, a fitting conclusion to a race as jumbled as any since Iowa gained the lead-off position in presidential campaigns four decades ago.

With 93% reporting:

Santorum: 25%
Romney: 25%
Paul: 21%
Gingrich: 13%
Perry: 10%
Bachmann: 5%
Huntsman: 1%

Sarah Palin didn’t endorse anyone, and to my chagrin she said people shouldn’t marginalize Ron Paul:

**smacks forehead**

Yes, some of his fiscal policies are great but if there was ever a candidate that needed to be marginalized it’s Ron Paul. Can’t agree with Sarah on this one.

Update:

Nate Silver:

Based on a county-by-county extrapolation of precincts that have yet to report, the final total would be Mr. Romney 30,286 votes, Mr. Santorum 30,201 votes. Needless to say, it may still be some time before this race gets called.

However, even though Mr. Santorum has a very small lead right now, the remaining precincts look to be ever so slightly more favorable to Mr. Romney.

The WaPo has the 6 counties to watch:

1. Dallas County

Why to watch it: This is the big suburban county in Iowa, and is one of the fastest-growing counties in the United States. It was the closest county in the state’s GOP caucuses in 2008, going for Romney by a mere four votes out of nearly 4,000 cast. It also happens to be the only county near Des Moines that Romney won, while Mike Huckabee racked up huge margins in the central part of the state.

What to watch for: Romney needs to expand his margin of victory here and hope that growing population means growing turnout. Particularly if he loses neighboring Polk County (see below), he would love to be able to make up a lot of those votes in Dallas County and then focus on his more traditional bases of support in the eastern and western parts of the state.

2. Dubuque County

Why to watch it: An eastern Iowa county firmly in Romney’s wheelhouse, Dubuque is heavily Catholic and pro-life. In fact, it was one of Romney’s best counties in the state, giving him 42 percent of the vote despite qualms in other parts of the state about his Mormon religion.

What to watch for: Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum has made much of his Catholic faith and consistently pro-life record. Somehow upending Romney in Dubuque — or making it close — would be a very good sign for Santorum.

3. Johnson County

Why to watch it: Johnson is the home of the University of Iowa and, with it, scads of young voters. (A corollary: Story County, which includes Iowa State University). Young people turned out for then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in 2008, but will they come back early from winter break to take part in the Republican caucuses?

What to watch for: Given his reliance on young voters, Texas Rep. Ron Paul must do well in Johnson (and Story) if he wants to have a chance statewide. He took 15 percent in Johnson and 12 percent in Story in 2008 and must do much better this time to win. He probably needs to win both to have a chance at victory.

4. Polk County

Why to watch it: No list of counties to watch would be complete without the biggest county. Des Moines-based Polk County will account for upwards of 20 percent of the statewide caucus vote, and has recently been a pretty decisive electorate, giving one candidate a significant margin of victory (i.e. more than 10 percent). It gave then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush a 2,400-vote win out of less than 15,000 votes cast in 2000 and netted Mike Huckabee a near-3,000-vote margin in 2008.

What to watch for: This was one of the few more urban areas where Romney struggled in 2008, taking just 23 percent of the vote. Given the sheer number of votes at stake, he’s got to at least make it close. A win here would be a really good sign for him, virtually guaranteeing a victory statewide.

5. Sioux County

Why to watch it: Sioux, located in the far northwestern corner of Iowa, has the highest Republican registration (by percentage) of any county in the state. It’s also widely regarded as the home county of Iowa’s social conservative movement. In 2008, Huckabee carried it with a massive 53 percent.

What to watch for: Sioux has to be Santorum country today. While it’s hard to imagine Santorum matching Huckabee’s lofty percentage from four years ago, the higher he can get his number, the better indicator it will be that he has unified social conservatives behind his candidacy.

6. Woodbury County

Why to watch it: This Sioux-City based county in western Iowa is Romney’s base. He netted more votes here (500-plus) in 2008 than in any other county, despite the fact that it’s just the sixth-biggest county in the state. But Rep. Michele Bachmann and Santorum have both been making a serious play for this part of the state.

What to watch for: Romney has only visited the northwest part of the state a couple times this year, and he’s spending his last few days elsewhere in the state. But if his base holds in an area where he hasn’t really spent much time and he wins by as much as he did last time (15 percent) that’s a very good sign for him.

And the final polls:

And then there is the turnout:

As three candidates – Romney, Paul, and Santorum – now vie for the chance to take home the blue ribbon from the Iowa caucuses tomorrow night, there are just two numbers to watch that will likely tell you all you need to know about who ultimately comes out on top. And they both have to do with turnout.

A little history: in 2008, the expected turnout for the Republican caucuses was 80-85,000 voters. Back then, the Romney campaign reportedly identified nearly 50,000 Iowans who backed Mitt, and worked using a normal political assumption that half to two-thirds of those would show up to caucus for him — giving him around 30,000 votes total. Under the assumed result of 85,000 votes cast, that would have given Romney 35% of the vote – enough to win the caucuses outright.

Well, Romney got his 30,000 voters out in the dead of winter on January 3, 2008, but as we all know, the assumptions were shattered as over 118,000 people voted that year (a record number of votes for any Republican caucus in history). Where did the extra voters come from?

Quite simply, from evangelical churches – the informal but passionate, under-the-radar “organization” that propelled Mike Huckabee to victory. Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, consolidated and encouraged evangelical support like no other candidate has been able to do, and in the process flipped the entire caucus on its head.

Under “normal” circumstances, the percentage of evangelical voters participating in the Iowa caucuses is around 35%. In 2008, that number nearly doubled to 60%. There were literally more evangelical voters at the caucuses in 2008 than there were in 2000 and 1996 combined. To put that in a little more perspective, more evangelicals voted for Mike Huckabee in 2008 than voted in total for all the candidates in 2000.

In 2012, however, nobody expects evangelicals to comprise 60% of the caucus attendance this time around. In fact, the Des Moines Register poll shows evangelical turnout in the state back down to normal levels – they have it pegged at 38%.

Just thirty-eight percent – a decline of 22% from four years ago. Why? Because there’s no Huckabee on the ballot this year. There is no evangelical preacher who naturally and overwhelmingly connects with that community of people. This year, the evangelical vote is splintered — or at least, was splintered until Rick Santorum started his flavor-of-the-month surge.

Now evangelicals, following the lead of Bob Vander Plaats and a few other prominent religious leaders, have someone they can line up behind. It is by no means anywhere close to the support Huckabee enjoyed in 2008, and the religious vote is still more splintered than it was back then, but Rick Santorum’s caucus strategy has got to be to maximize the percentage of religious voters who turnout tomorrow night.

If exit polls show evangelical voters around 35% of the electorate, Rick Santorum cannot win. If they approach 45% or 50%, however, he could pull this thing off.

This report from New Hampshire is a telling sign….too bad most of them are Romney signs:

The sheer number of Republican yard signs in New Hampshire is staggering.

…the signs are everywhere, and not just on empty lots and medians. They’re on front lawns and in the windows of businesses. They’re in every neighborhood and in front of every type of house.

Barack Obama is in big trouble.

I know, I know: It’s a Republican primary. And, of course, “yard signs don’t vote.”

But signs on front yards are a very public expression of political opinion. A yard sign is an extremely accurately measure of that single voter’s comfort level with a candidate or a party.

And people in the swing state of New Hampshire are very comfortable letting their neighbors know that they’re voting Republican this year.

My how things have changed.

The author describes how many might think this sign is no sign at all but if you have ever lived in a blue or purple state you would understand that the opposite is true. Putting a sticker on your car in a blue area meant getting accosted by neighbors and friends about how wrong you are in your political beliefs. I’m sure many of the readers have been through the same thing. So if someone didn’t feel to strongly about the election coming up, they just skipped putting that sign in their yard, putting that sticker on their car. If the opposite is happening, it’s a sign.

We all experienced this in 2008. If you just followed the media, Facebook posts from long-lost friends and, yes, the yard signs, you would never have guessed that someone other than Barack Obama won 46% of the vote in 2008. (His name was John McCain.) In “polite company” in purple states (and on the “purple state” of Facebook) it was just assumed that you were with Obama.

…But there are also signs up all over the capital city of Concord – a Democrat stronghold. Concord isn’t “purple.” It’s deep-blue town in a purple state. The Republicans who live there personify the “I sometimes vote Republican, but…” mentality.

Concord is full of Romney, Huntsman, Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum signs. They’re in every neighborhood. They’re brazenly posted in shop windows. There are more Republican signs in Concord, New Hampshire than I have ever seen.

Swing-state Republicans take note: 2012 will be different.

Too bad we have the relief pitchers on the mound this time. Or as Zombie calls them, the Unfunny Charade.

And Newt goes boom!

Newt Gingrich voiced enthusiasm for Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care law when it was passed five years ago, the same plan he has been denouncing over the past few months as he campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination.

“The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system,” said an April 2006 newsletter published by Gingrich’s former consulting company, the Center for Health Transformation.

The two-page “Newt Notes” analysis, found online by The Wall Street Journal even though it no longer appears on the center’s website, continued, “We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100 percent insurance coverage for all Americans.”

And it now appears, as many of us feared; it is ObamaLite’s race to lose:

…While his position in the national horse race matchup is far from decisive—at this writing the RealClearPolitics average of the national polls shows Newt Gingrich with a slight lead—Romney dominates in all of the structural categories that typically correspond with victory. He has a huge money advantage—with more than $14 million in cash on hand as of the last report mandated by the Federal Election Commission (and that does not include the financial assistance he has received from “SuperPacs” that operate freely on his behalf). This financial edge gives Romney the ability to flood the early states with television advertisements and employ plenty of professional staffers to manage his ground game. Romney also has a runaway lead in the race for endorsements by Republican officeholders; while these move few voters, they reinforce Romney’s institutional advantages, giving him greater access to well-heeled donors as well as on-the-ground campaign intelligence.

Jay Cost further writes that the “not Romney” camp isn’t as huge as many believe it to be:

That said, the conventional wisdom about Romney’s candidacy—that there is a huge “not Romney” bloc of GOP voters out there—is massively overstated. Romney’s favorable rating among prospective Republican primary voters is quite high, upwards of 60 percent, and the latest CNN poll of GOP voters shows that 80 percent of Republicans either support him now or would consider supporting him at some point; this is a larger number than that of any of his major competitors. Yet the theory about a “not Romney” bloc has some merit; what is particularly noteworthy about his numbers is that a relatively large proportion of the GOP electorate—between 40 and 50 percent—believe he will eventually be the nominee, but his actual support tends to be about half that size. So, if there is no vehement “not Romney” faction of Republicans, there is at least a group of GOP voters who are hesitant for some reason.

So is that pretty much it? Every other candidate has gone boom and any candidate that we really wanted to see…a Palin, Ryan, Christie or Jeb Bush never even stepped into the ring.

So it will be Romney

Or will it?

With 45 percent of Iowa Republican voters undecided and a roller-coaster ride about to come to a screeching stop next Tuesday with the GOP caucuses, it may be Rick Santorum’s turn to take the final ascent and surprise the political class by … doing better than expected?

Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, has been touted as the sleeper candidate by none other than 2008 Iowa caucuses winner Mike Huckabee. He has relentlessly campaigned in the state, hitting all 99 counties and moving his family out there. He has held 350 campaign events in the past year.

He has received key endorsements from well-known social conservatives in the state, and has had solid performances at each of the debates. And he’s running an old-school style campaign that Iowa voters expect in the retail-style politics of the Hawkeye State.

The man whose at the back of the polling pack — despite recent buzz giving him a late boost — is taking nothing for granted but has nothing to lose.

“My feeling is when you’re sitting last, if you can do better than that, that’s good,” he told Fox News.

Santorum said he’s got 1,000 caucus representatives in a contest with about 1,700 caucus locations. He acknowledges that means no official representative to make his case at each of the locations, but at “almost all of them, and no other campaign is going to have someone there who’s going to get up and speak on our behalf.”

Santorum, who claims organization and message will make the difference, is also banking on a divide and conquer strategy.

“There’s really three primaries going on here,” Santorum said. “Ron Paul has his own primary, the libertarian primary. And (Newt) Gingrich and (Mitt) Romney are sort of the establishment primary. And I think there are three who are vying for the conservative mantle to go up against the Gingrich-Romney duo. And I think that I’m going to be the one coming out Iowa with that mantle.

“And if we can do that, then we’re off to the races here, and conservatives around the country, just like they’re doing here in Iowa, are going to start rallying around our campaign,” he said.

Dick Morris believes he is surging:

All along, the Tea Party voters have yet to unite behind a single candidate. They still aren’t united, but in Iowa, there is evidence that Rick Santorum may be surging ahead.

In the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) telephone poll of 23,000 supporters nationally, Newt led with 31% of the vote, followed by Bachmann at 28%, Romney at 20% and Santorum with a surprising 16%.

But on the ground in Iowa, where it counts, Gingrich has gone through a gauntlet of $10 million of negative TV ads sponsored by Romney, Paul, and the others. Without funds to defend himself, he has seen his vote share drop. Ron Paul’s has risen, Bachmann’s has fallen, and Santorum has increased quickly.

There has always been a sort of mini-primary among the Tea Party followers among Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum – the candidates they find acceptable. Gingrich’s and Bachmann’s drop, Cain’s withdrawal, and Perry’s stagnation all contrast sharply with Santorum’s surge.

The former Pennsylvania Senator has been the also ran in the field, the Rodney (I get no respect) Dangerfield of the Republican primaries. But with the lack of poll numbers has come a lack of scrutiny. These days the spotlight can get too hot very quickly. Santorum, whose conservative record is as solid as they come, is benefiting from the fall of Gingrich in a way Bachmann seems unable to do.

And:

“[Santorum] is the one candidate in the race who hasn’t caught his wave yet,” says Vander Plaats, who served as Mike Huckabee’s 2008 Iowa campaign chairman and now heads the Family Leader, a coalition of socially conservative groups. “We believe he’s going to catch his wave. And we believe he’s the one candidate who can withstand the scrutiny of being on top.”

It may very well be time to visit Santorum, his record and what he stands for. Just a quick search over the past few days of newsbits led me to his thinking on the 2nd Amendment and the importance of getting solid conservative justices on the bench:

More specifically, the former Pennsylvania senator warned that reelecting President Obama next fall could weaken gun rights. He cited the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the 2008 Heller case that struck down portions of the District of Columbia’s strict gun control laws.

“If you read the dissent in Heller, no gun owner should feel comfortable this is a secure constitutional right according to this Supreme Court, and that’s why we need a good, strong Republican conservative who understands what it means to appoint and confirm solid judges and justices,” Santorum said.

I like his foreign policy:

But Santorum’s seriousness rebounds to his credit when it comes to foreign policy. The former third-ranking Republican in the Senate has spent a lot of time thinking about America’s role in the world. And during the debates, he’s been a hawk’s hawk, sparring with Ron Paul over the Iranian threat. “I think Michele Bachmann understates how dangerous Ron Paul would be,” says Santorum. “Many conservatives would fear literally for their safety if Ron Paul would get in there to work with liberal Democrats to gut the Defense Department, to pull back every forward-deployed troop all over the world.”

He’s certainly worth a second look it appears. The question is….can he go toe to toe with ObamaLite?

Couple good examples from the GOP debate last night. The resident nutcase, Ron Paul, makes a fool of himself once again:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Santorum did well in describing the threat of Iran, Ron Paul….just a nut. As I’ve written about in years past, I like his economic ideas but the man is just a loser when it comes to foreign policy. No air force? WTF! Neither did al-Qaeda.

No way I would ever support the man because of his foreign policy beliefs.

Here Pawlenty and Bachmann go at each other a bit. Michelle handled herself well:

She also got this curious question by Byron York:

The Bible tells wives to be submissive to their husbands. If she were president, would that apply to Michele Bachmann?

In Thursday’s Republican debate in Iowa, the Minnesota congresswoman was asked if she would be submissive to her husband.

Bachmann, the only woman in the Republican presidential field, says she interprets “submission” to mean “respect.”

She said she respects her husband, calling him a “wonderful, godly man and a great father.” And she says he respects and loves her, too.

The question by conservative columnist Byron York drew boos from the audience.

I’m not so sure it should of been booed. On its face it seems like a petty “gotcha” kind of question but the issue is out there and she got to answer it, and did very well I think.

Skye put up her grades for the candidates:

Romney: A – He is riding his Golden Child status, that will change with Perry in the race.
Pawlenty C
Bachmann: A+
Santorum: B
Gingrich: B
Cain: D
Huntsman: F
Paul: F

Can’t dispute her scores much. Bachmann started out with a campaign slogan but got better as the debate went on and most definitely schooled Pawlenty every time he went after her. Cain was pretty much ignored. Santorum did pretty well. Romney? Hate to say it but out of this bunch he seems to be the most capable and ready to take over the White House. We’ll see once Perry gets in.

A few of the interesting polls from the recent week. The regional ones are from the DailyKos outfit (PPP) so…..

First up is last Friday’s PPP poll of 666 (hmmmm) Wisconsin Republicans:

Given the choices of Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney who would you most like to see as the Republican candidate for President next year?

• Romney – 17%
• Palin – 16%
• Pawlenty – 12%
• Bachmann – 11%
• Cain – 10%
• Gingrich – 10%
• Paul – 10%
• Huntsman – 2%
• Not sure / someone else – 14%

Without Palin

• Romney – 19%
• Pawlenty – 15%
• Bachmann – 14%
• Gingrich – 14%
• Cain – 11%
• Paul – 11%
• Huntsman – 3%
• Not sure / someone else – 14%

Favorable/Unfavorable opinion:

• Gingrich – 28/49
• Palin – 66/28
• Romney – 46/32
• Ryan – 80/11

Curious how Romney didn’t fare better in Wisconsin…still not able to get out of the teens. Without Palin in the race Pawlenty gains 3 while Newt gains 4. Cain only got 1 without Palin which is another surprise but I’m guessing name recognition is the big factor here.

Onto PPP’s Iowa poll of 481 Republicans, released today, which actually gave Cain some surprising numbers given that same name recognition thing:

Given the choices of Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney, who would you most like to see as the Republican candidate for President next year?

• Romney – 21%
• Cain – 15%
• Palin – 15%
• Gingrich – 12%
• Bachmann – 11%
• Pawlenty – 10%
• Paul – 8%
• Huntsman – *
• Someone else / Undecided – 8%

Without Palin:

• Romney – 26%
• Cain – 16%
• Gingrich – 15%
• Bachmann – 14%
• Paul – 11%
• Pawlenty – 10%
• Huntsman – 1%
• Someone else / Undecided – 8%

While Cain had a great showing here he only gained one point without Palin in the race.

Favorable / Unfavorable

• Gingrich – 39/41
• Palin – 59/31
• Romney – 51/34
• Bachmann – 53/16
• Pawlenty – 48/18
• Cain – 38/24
• Paul – 42/29
• Santorum – 29/18
• Johnson – 4/18
• Huntsman – 7/23
• Roemer – 4/21

Gingrich had a larger unfavorable then favorable in a Republican poll…..

Yup, those gaffes are hurting.

Pawlenty had a low unfavorable number but still came in 6th place behind both Gingrich and Bachmann. Not a good showing for Pawlenty at first glance…

But then they followed up with some two person races:

• Romney – 48%
• Palin – 41%

• Pawlenty – 41%
• Romney – 41%

• Romney – 48%
• Cain – 34%

• Romney – 46%
• Bachmann – 38%

He ties Romney in a two person race. Of course Pawlenty has already spent a little bit of time in Iowa, while Romney hasn’t and neither has Palin.

Onto CNN’s national poll of 473 Republicans, which came out last Friday:

Next, I’m going to read a list of people who may be running in the Republican primary for president in 2012. After I read all the names, please tell me which candidate you would be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for President in the year 2012, or if you would support someone else.

• Rudy Giuliani 16%
• Mitt Romney 15%
• Sarah Palin 13%
• Ron Paul 12%
• Herman Cain 10%
• Newt Gingrich 8%
• Michele Bachmann 7%
• Tim Pawlenty 5%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Gary Johnson 1%
• Buddy Roemer *
• Someone else (vol.) 3%
• None/ No one (vol.) 5%
• No opinion 2%

Without Giuliani

• Romney 19%
• Palin 15%
• Paul 13%
• Cain 11%
• Gingrich 11%
• Bachmann 7%
• Pawlenty 5%
• Huntsman 3%
• Santorum 2%
• Johnson 2%
• Roemer 1%
• Someone else (vol.) 3%
• None/ No one (vol.) 6%
• No opinion 2%

Without Giuliani or Palin

• Romney 21%
• Paul 15%
• Cain 13%
• Gingrich 12%
• Bachmann 9%
• Pawlenty 5%
• Huntsman 3%
• Santorum 3%
• Johnson 2%
• Roemer 1%
• Someone else (vol.) 5%
• None/ No one (vol.) 9%
• No opinion 2%

National polls are cool for headlines but the primaries will depend on those early states and I just can’t see Rudy winning those.

Next I’m going to read some names and ask how you would feel if each of them won the Republican presidential nomination next year. As I read each name, please tell me whether you would feel enthusiastic, pleased but not enthusiastic, displeased but not upset, or upset if that person were the Republican nominee?

Enthusiastic/Pleased

• Palin – 26/30
• Paul – 20/43
• Romney – 20/49
• Gingrich – 16/34
• Giuliani – 27/41

And finally only 16% said they were happy with the field so far. With only a few putting their name into the hat that doesn’t surprise me but once the field settles that number should climb. Rudy looks to be gaining some steam nationally, but he isn’t it, yet. Huck would be, but he isn’t in. Christie would be, but he isn’t in. Hell, Palin isn’t in, yet.