Gary Johnson endorses Ron Paul in Iowa

Earlier this week, Gary Johnson left the GOP to run for the libertarian party nomination, and today he threw his backing for Tuesday's GOP Iowa caucuses to Ron Paul.

"While Ron Paul and I are both libertarians, we don't necessarily agree on every single issue.

However, on the overriding issues of restoring our economy by cutting out-of-control spending and the need to get back to Constitutional principles in our government, Ron Paul and I are in lock-step."

....I am hopeful that in urging my supporters in Iowa to vote for Ron Paul in the coming caucuses, a victory for the principles we share can be won."

On the scale of endorsements, this one is neither surprising (Johnson endorsed Paul in 2008 and both are anti-war) nor particularly influential (Johnson struggled mightily in his bid to get traction with Republicans).

Chuck Grassley lavishes Santorum with praise

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who's neutral in the race, nevertheless looks fondly on his former Senate colleague, Rick Santorum.

“I can say this: The sincerity and effort that he has to get his point across in the presidential campaign is almost a total reflection of how he operated as a United States senator,” Grassley said.

“He is transparent. A tough fighter. A person not afraid to take on tough issues.”

Santorum's campaign blasted over the remarks to reporters.

[Hat tip: Burns and Haberman]

Palin wants candidates to quit "gripin' and moaning"

Considering the source, Sarah Palin has some surprising advice for the 2012 candidates in the Washington Post.

.... quit gripin’ and moaning about “inside baseball” partisan machinations and maneuvering.

If anyone has griped about anyone or anything, it's been Palin the past few years. Her attacks on the "GOP machine" and "good old boys" have been a staple -- even, in fact, -- central to her appeal.

Palin sounds testy throughout the entire three paragraphs of advice, including this bit.

Given the concerns I have for some of the Republican field’s focus thus far, I must implore the candidates to do something that sounds self-promoting, but whatever.

"But whatever" is a phrase of disgust, and it's quickly followed by this.

"Candidates, please turn to Chapter Three of “Going Rogue” and read what it takes for our country to step toward energy independence."

"Going Rogue" is her book, btw.

Contrast her advice to the candidates with that from Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, and even Herman Cain.

All of those guys sound respectful. Palin just sounds resentful.

Evening eats

a. Romney in the driver's seat.

b. Newt's weep was real and real good.

c. What happened to Bachmann?

d. Mitt Romney likes Bolton, too.

e. Move over, Hope and Crosby. It's the Ron and Rand Show!

f. South Carolina looms.

Ticket?

Steve King focuses on stopping Ron Paul?

The Hill's Cameron Joseph reports that powerful Iowa Rep. Steve King might make a late endorsement to help defeat Ron Paul in the state caucuses.

"I'm starting to see some shifts here that have caused me to take a look in such a way that maybe it becomes clearer to me of what my duty is," he said in the Thursday night conversation. "Things are breaking here and that may lead me to coming to a decision."

.... [King] said Paul's foreign policy views are dangerous and have not received enough scrutiny. He said Paul once told him he wants to bring home all American troops.

"What Ron Paul supporters need to think about if they think they can elect him as president, a commander in chief can order all of the armed forces back to the United States," he told The Hill. "That means no presence anywhere on the globe — our enemies can fill that vacuum with very little resources, and I am very troubled by that.

Joseph notes that King talked kindly about Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, who are Paul's closest opponents in the polls there.

For quite awhile, it seemed that King might endorse Michele Bachmann (they're famously close), but as of late, he'd been backing off the idea of endorsing anyone.

In fact, earlier this week, he said he'd rather have Newt Gingrich than Romney, but last night's conversation indicates that he might think the threat of Paul winning the state surpasses a more stringent ideological test that would favor Newt over Mitt.

I don't think King (or anyone else) really thinks Paul will win the nomination, but it would be a terrible embarrassment to the state GOP if Paul took the caucuses (Chris Wallace even said so... so there).

That being said, King did endorse the Donald Trump debate, which shows he's not singularly interested in the reputation of the state Republican party's image.

Kelly Clarkson gets huge sales boost from Paul endorsement

Gossip Cop reports that her album sales have jumped 192% at Amazon in the past 24 hours.

A day before the former “American Idol” winner explained why she’s a Paul supporter, “Stronger” was ranked #41 on Amazon’s “Movers & Shakers in Music” list.

Today, the album is up to #14.

She endorsed him earlier this week, faced blowback, then gave a spirited defense of herself.

Popular wisdom says that the media covered Palin only because she generated huge traffic.

I don't think that's entirely true, even though that definitely was part of the equation.

The only candidate who's generated close to the same traffic as Palin to my site over the past three years is Ron Paul. Upload a Paul video on Youtube, and it instantly gets hundreds of views. Say something borderline kind about him on your site, and it instantly hits one of the million Paul fanboards.

But studies have shown that, up until now, he's been relatively ignored. If traffic were the sole arbiter in media coverage, then he simply wouldn't be blacked out.

Palin had the unique combo of intensely rabid fans + the real possibility of winning the nomination. Paul never had that, and Iowa polls aside, he still doesn't have it.



[Hat tip: Mediaite]

Gingrich likes Palin as Secretary of Energy

Think Progress:

.... during a Wednesday night tele-town hall hosted by Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, a caller asked the former Speaker if he would consider Palin as a running mate. Gingrich responded that Palin “is certainly one of the people you would look at” and told the caller that he is “a great admirer of hers.”

He also floated the idea of appointing her Secretary of Energy because, he said, “I can’t imagine anybody who would do a better job of driving us to an energy solution than Gov. Palin.”

Gingrich and Palin have been awfully chummy since she announced she wouldn't run for president, and it led some (including me) to believe that she might endorse him.

But she doesn't seem interested in endorsing before Iowa (four days away) and, possibly, not at all.

Dept. of Expectation Setting

Rick Perry, talking about Tuesday's Iowa caucuses on Fox News this afternoon.

MEGYN KELLY: How low could you go and still feel good about your performance?

PERRY: I'm gonna feel good about our performance regardless of where we come in in Iowa.

Btw, the title of this post is a kind of tribute to Ben Smith, who officially left blogging today to go help run BuzzFeed. I learned a lot reading him over the years.

Santorum snaps at Ann Coulter

The American Spectator reports that Rick Santorum told an absent Ann Coulter to "get her facts straight" on immigration last night.

Asked after the speech about his criticism of Coulter, Santorum replied: "Why would Ann Coulter criticize me for voting against the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill? I mean, Ann, should I have voted for amnesty?

In a Wednesday column, Coulter ripped Santorum for his immigration record, but only cited his opposition to E-Verify to back herself up.

Btw, Coulter has been hardcore right on immigration this cycle.

When Rick Perry had his surge, she immediately started attacking him over "amnesty", too.

That's probably because she's supporting Mitt Romney, whom she called this month the most conservative in the race "by far." Then, she added "tied with Michele Bachmann."

P.S. Doesn't Santorum look like Easter Parade up there?

[Hat tip: Matt Lewis]

Gingrich gets testy about Virginia ballot

Newt Gingrich, after Fox News' Jon Scott asked him this afternoon about his failure to get on Virginia's ballot.

"Don't you find it interesting that I famously failed, but Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum -- all of them, by the way, are not on the ballot -- didn't famously fail?"

He was unusually subdued and a bit testy the entire interview, and earlier today, he showed more signs of exhaustion when he teared up while talking about his mother (which seems a completely reasonable thing to do).

Via Yahoo.



Kurt Vonnegut, that ex-alive writer, once said:

"Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward."

Since we're on the subject of Vonnegut, I have to share this one bit from his Breakfast of Champions. It has nothing to do with Newt Gingrich, Iowa, or caucusing. It's about a dog.

"Sparky could not wag his tail—because of an automobile accident many years ago, so he had no way of telling other dogs how friendly he was. He had to fight all the time.

His ears were in tatters. He was lumpy with scars.”

If you're unfamiliar with Vonnegut, that's the kind of tragicomic stuff that made him so great.

Gingrich: Hey Iowa, Paul would legalize drugs

Considering that nearly half of likely caucus-goers are self-identified evangelicals or fundamentalists, it's not surprising that Newt Gingrich picked drugs when asked about a Ron Paul victory in Iowa.

JON SCOTT: There is some speculation that Ron Paul could win. If he does, what does that say to you?

GINGRICH: Well, I think it would be very unfortunate, because I think his positions both on legalizing drugs and on ignoring an Iranian nuclear weapon are both the wrong positions.

Huntsman Super PAC calls Romney "chameleon"

Steve Peoples reports that the pro-Huntsman Super PAC, Our Destiny, is up with a $300K buy for its guy in New Hampshire.

The group paints the race as a head-to-head between Huntsman and Romney, who's called a "chameleon" and is supposedly in his "desperate hours."

But actually, it's Huntsman who's in his desperate hours, as he tells Peoples in a separate interview that he's likely to drop out if he doesn't finish in the top 3 in New Hampshire.

Currently, he's 4th in the RCP average, although according to PPP's survey yesterday, he's just 1% behind Gingrich now.

Trashing Gingrich in Iowa

According to Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group, 45% of all political ads in Iowa have been attacks on Newt Gingrich.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney was only the subject of 20% of attack ads, while Rick Perry absorbed 8% of attack ads.

Even in ads attacking Romney, the focus was on multiple candidates, as in a recent Perry spot accusing him and several other GOP hopefuls of being career politicians. Ads pegged to Gingrich's record have tended to focus solely on him.

Unfortunately for Gingrich, his rise coincided nearly perfectly with the onset of the most intense advertising season.

Santorum, on the other hand, is sneaking in at the end.

Compared to past cycles, the attack ads don't seem to be hurting the candidates making the accusations.

That might be because of they aren't technically making the accusations, thanks to the proliferation of Super PAC ads that aren't officially coordinated with the campaigns and don't have to bear the imprint of responsibility.

Screencap of the day

Romney, Gingrich tied in Florida

That massive lead Newt Gingrich once held in Florida is gone, according to a new TelOpinon poll.

1. Mitt Romney 27%

2. Newt Gingrich 26%

3. Ron Paul 5%

4. Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry 4%

6. Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum 1%

Florida hasn't shown itself immune to the vicissitudes of this primary. I went back to check some Florida GOP12 headlines in the past 6 months.

6/23: "Bachmann vaults to second in Florida."

9/15: "Florida: Perry leads."

10/19: "Cain strong in South Carolina, Florida."

11/9: "Florida: Cain holds strong."

And then, most recently, Gingrich -- who on December 7 held a 23% lead over Romney.

The shifting conventional wisdom on Iowa

Josh Kraushaar has a remarkable statistic.

Two weeks ago, only 4% of GOP insiders in a National Journal poll thought Mitt Romney would win Iowa.

Romney calls Obama "pessimistic" in new ad

Mitt Romney's new TV spot, running in New Hampshire and Boston media markets.

"It's time for this pessimistic president to step aside and let American optimism that built this greatest nation on earth build a greater future for our children."

Occuper protester crashes Christie, Romney event

Except she appeared to be, literally, the 1% at today's Iowa rally.

Christie threatens to sic himself on Iowans

Chris Christie, stumping with Mitt Romney in a windy Iowa today.

"I want to tell you something really clearly. I'm in a good mood this morning. I'm feeling happy and upbeat. I love being with Mitt and Anne.

But let me tell you: you people disappoint me on Tuesday, you don't do what you're supposed to do on Tuesday for Mitt Romney, I will be back -- Jersey style, people.

I will be back."

Rollins: Bachmann wanted VP spot

Maggie Haberman last night, looking at the fall of Michele Bachmann.

She repeatedly passed up opportunities to ding Mitt Romney in the debates — a product, Rollins said, of preserving her options for sharing a ticket with him.

“There was some talk early on between her and her husband that she could end up as the vice presidential nominee,” Rollins said.

There was, indeed, lots of chatter about the possibility. Bachmann, it was assumed, could stir the grassroots like Romney never could -- sort of like Palin without the penchant for gaffes, and help reel in tea partiers in the general.

But as we know, her strong discipline in those first few debates was much more the exception than the rule, and now she seems to have blown any chance to be Mitt's VP.

If he wins, Romney can't afford to undermine, in any way, his Competence Card.

Btw, I think that VP hopes also affected Herman Cain's treatment of Romney. The only one I'm puzzled by is Rick Santorum, whose social credentials and attack-dogginess would have made him an attractive VP possibility. But he's been at Romney's throat relentlessly.

I still think that, if Mitt wins, he won't choose Marco Rubio. Again, competence will be his general election theme, which is more coterminous with a governor like Bob McDonnell than a freshman Senator like Rubio.

Deace: Attacks only help Ron Paul

Powerful Iowa talk show host, Steve Deace, tells The Hill.

“The reality is the more people try to discredit Ron Paul, call him kooky and crazy, they’re actually helping him,” he said.

“All these attempts to expose Paul as some anti-Semitic racist are just adding more votes to Paul’s column.”

CNN: Paul taking weekend off

CNN's Paul Steinhauser reports.

After a stumping all day Friday in Iowa, Rep. Ron Paul heads home to Texas to spend New Year's weekend with his wife.

The Paul campaign tells CNN the congressman, who's making this third bid for the White House, resumes campaigning in Iowa Monday morning./blockquote>

That -- I do not understand. Maybe he's thinking, "If Bill Hemmer can take holiday time off, so can I."

Still, it's not likely that his supporters will abandon him in any meaningful way. If they can take his medicine on Iran, they can probably stomach a jaunt to Texas.

But it might send a confusing message to those on the fence about him.

Noonan confused by Huntsman's failure

Peggy Noonan, taking inventory of phase one of the presidential race.

The continuing mystery of phase one? The failure of Jon Huntsman to gain traction. It's not precisely a mystery—he didn't run as a successful conservative two-term governor but as a striped pants diplomat—but it is a frustration. Democrats like him, a lot. New Hampshire has an open primary. Democrats can vote for him there. Maybe they will. But will that make him a contender or an oddity?

There are other reasons he's tanked.

a. He's a terrible debater with a tendency to come off like Oscar Wilde without the wit and Adam Sandler without the joy (i.e. his corn comment yesterday).

And there was this -- the worst web ad (or any other) of the cycle, which showed female gymnasts falling in a tone-deaf display that's exemplary of his entire campaign.



b. No one really believed he was conservative -- no matter his record -- because he seemed disdainful of the label when he launched.

There are people who say he's setting himself up for a 2016 bid, but if you can't win in 2012 -- when the party is desperate for anyone but Romney -- how could you win against Christie, Jindal, McDonnell, and Jeb?

This was no trial run. It was a run.

Further, Democrats supposedly quivered (or were made "queasy") by the prospect of facing Huntsman in a general.

But he's not exactly knocking it dead with Dems and indies in New Hampshire, and he certainly hasn't stirred the grassroots of his own party.

He looked good on paper.

But so did Harold Miner, Tony Mandarich, and Ryan Anderson.

IOWA: Gingrich falls to 5th

A new NBC/Marist poll shows Mitt Romney and Ron Paul battling for the top spot in Iowa, while the state continues to slip out of reach for Newt Gingrich.

1. Mitt Romney 23%

2. Ron Paul 21%

3. Rick Santorum 15%

4. Rick Perry 14%

5. Newt Gingrich 13%

6. Michele Bachmann 6%

7. Jon Huntsman 2%

Now, for the SECOND CHOICE:

1. Mitt Romney 21%

2. Rick Perry 20%

3. Rick Santorum 15%

4. Newt Gingrich 13%

5. Michele Bachmann 11%

6. Ron Paul 9%

7. Jon Huntsman 3%

Here's another interesting result -- Which do likely voters see as the "True Conservative."

1. Rick Santorum 23%

2. Ron Paul 21%

3. Michele Bachmann 16%

4. Rick Perry 11%

5. Mitt Romney 7%

6. Newt Gingrich 6%

7. Jon Huntsman 2%

Wow. That Gingrich number is just awful.

It's almost like he's been subjected to an unrelenting, million-dollar, sustained, direct, and full-frontal assault over his conservative credentials.

A couple more important notes.

a. 46% of likely voters consider themselves a "fundamentalist" or "evangelical Christian."

b. 55% of likely voters consider Mormons to be Christians, while 45% say they don't.

c. 60% of likely voters didn't get their college degree.

d. 59% of likely voters are male.

Clearly, Santorum has the momentum, but he has some ground to make up. Regardless, if Mitt Romney finishes anywhere in a top 3 with Paul and Santorum, he will have had the most important night.

Santorum knocks Perry over flub

Rick Santorum last night, quoted by Andrew Rafferty.

"Rulings like Lawrence v. Texas would be a good thing to know if you are running for president."

Perry admitted yesterday to being in the dark about the groundbreaking 2003 decision.

Santorum's been such an incessant attack dog that it's hard to figure out if he's intentionally going after Perry for strategic reasons or just on auto-attack, as usual.

Nevertheless, with his jump in the polls (I promise to never call it a "surge" again... probably), more people are paying attention to what he actually says.

Evening eats

a. Gallup: Romney leads again.

b. Steve King would rather have Newt than Mitt.

c. Newsflash: John Bolton doesn't like Ron Paul.

d. Burr endorses Romney.

e. Krauthammer calls GOP candidates "embarrassing."

f. The Gingrich gals talk about their pops.

g. Santorum keeps defending earmarks.

Via Sarah Boxer, the Iowa front-runners.

Rick Perry flubs sodomy case

ABC's Arlette Saenz reports on the latest.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry admitted Thursday that he didn’t know about the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, a case decided while he was governor which struck down the state’s anti-sodomy law and similar laws in 13 others.

A voter at a meet and greet asked him to defend his criticism of limited government in the case.

“I wish I could tell you I knew every Supreme Court case. I don’t, I’m not even going to try to go through every Supreme Court case, that would be — I’m not a lawyer,” Perry said at the Blue Strawberry Coffee Shop here. “We can sit here and you know play I gotcha questions on what about this Supreme Court case or whatever, but let me tell you, you know and I know that the problem in this country is spending in Washington, D.C., it’s not some Supreme Court case.”

In 2003, the Supreme Court deemed Texas’ anti-sodomy law to be unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, and the case nullified anti-sodomy laws in 13 other states at the same time. Perry, a strong opponent of gay marriage and the ability of homosexuals to serve openly in the military, served as governor when this case was decided.

Anyone running for president or vice-president should take a hint from Palin and Perry and realize that you should have at least five Supreme Court cases in your arsenal before deciding to run.

Not five co-chairs in five counties. Just five Supreme Court cases.

Get one of those $8 hardback Bargain Books at Barnes & Noble, Great Supreme Court Decisions, or something like that, that's sitting next to Marilyn Monroe: A Life or big hardbacks on World War 2 planes.

But just do something, because at some point, this will come up, and you'd better be on point when it does.

Here's the vid, via TPM.



I love how Palin tries to run out the clock by saying "in the great history of America."

Santorum still "proud" of earmarks

On Fox News this afternoon, Rick Santorum responded to Rick Perry's attacks over the former PA Senator's record on earmarks.

"I'll say the same thing that, actually, Congressman Paul said when Rick Perry went after him on his earmarks.

If you look at the Constitution, the Constitution gives the power of the purse to the Congress. The Congress is the one that's supposed to spend the money; so the idea that earmarks are somehow against the Constitution or something that is elicit that Congressmen can or shouldn't do is just simply factually incorrect.

.... I've defended my earmarks in the sense that I'm proud of the money that I did set aside for things that were priorities in my state."

Considering their current hostilities, it's ironic that Santorum is alluding to Paul to defend earmarks, but it might be an acknowledgment of Paul's still-superior fiscal credentials with many.

Santorum: Iowa is the spark

Rick Santorum, on Fox News today, explaining his surge in Iowa (first noted by CNN; now confirmed by Ramsussen).

"I've always said that the people of Iowa are going to give me the spark, and that's what I believe is happening right now.

Folks are looking at the candidates, they're doing the analysis, and they're deciding that we stack up better than everybody else.

I've always believed that was going to be the case, and I'm gratified that Iowans are seeing it the same way."

In case you missed it, Rasmussen released a poll today, showing Santorum in 3rd place with 16% of the vote -- an identical number to CNN's.

Romney goes big in Iowa

The Hill's Cameron Joseph:

Mitt Romney said Wednesday he is playing for first place in Iowa, abandoning attempts to downplay his efforts in the state.

Asked Wednesday whether a second-place finish behind Ron Paul could be considered a win, Romney simply replied "Uh, no."

Romney said he had the momentum and sounded a confident note about his campaign in the Hawkeye State, where campaign events have had over-capacity crowds the last few days.

"The numbers that are showing up are a lot more than we'd expected. And their level of excitement and enthusiasm and their willingness to caucus on my behalf is encouraging," he said, according to CNN.

The pro-Romney Super PACs have been doing weeks worth of heavy lifting for him, cutting down rivals and singing Mitt's praises.

Now he has the luxury of doing what once seemed improbable -- playing openly and in-person to close out the campaign there.

Romney rips through Iowa

NBC's Garrett Haake shares a Google map of Mitt's upcoming week in Iowa.

Like both Sauron and Chia herb gardens, his power grows by the hour.

Perry hammers Santorum over earmarks

The attacker is finally being attacked.

Rick Perry has released a blistering radio ad (listen here), targeting Rick Santorum.

The gist:

GAME SHOW HOST: Which Republican running for president voted for the Bridge-to-Nowhere earmark?

CONTESTANT: "Rick Santorum".

HOST: Santorum voted for the Bridge to Nowhere and a highway bill full of pork.

GAME SHOW HOST: Who personally demanded more than $1 billion of earmarks in his sixteen years in Congress?"

CONTESTANT: Rick Santorum.

HOST: Right. Santorum grabbed for a billion in earmarks until voters kicked him out of office in a landslide.

[The host then includes an AUDIO BONUS, with Santorum himself saying]

"I have had a lot of earmarks, in fact, I'm very proud of all the earmarks I've put in bills. "

It'd be interesting to see what's behind Santorum's rise. If it's, as suspected, his social issue purity, then the porker ads might be of limited value. But if it's a tandem, they could do some damage.

After all, until now, no one's gone after him on fiscal issues, and he's quite vulnerable there -- particularly over his support for George W. Bush's prescription drug plan.

Meanwhile, NBC reports that Perry's supplementing the radio hits with in-person attacks.

"Rick Santorum is a friend," he said. "I've got great respect for him, but when he talks about fiscal conservativism every now and then it kinda leaves me scratching my head, because he was a prolific earmarker."

"You know I love Iowa pork but I hate Washington pork," Perry said to laughter from the crowd of about 50. "And Sen. Santorum, he loaded up his bills with Pennsylvania pork. And he even voted for the Alaska Bridge to Nowhere."

UPDATE: For your easier listening...

Romney, Paul tied in RCP average

The new RCP average.

1. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul 21.3%

3. Newt Gingrich 14.3%

4. Rick Santorum 13.8%

5. Rick Perry 11.3%

6. Michele Bachmann 9.3%

7. Jon Huntsman 2.8%

One of the big questions is whether Bachmann can maintain that level of support, or if her share jumps ship to the social conservative who's leading -- Rick Santorum.

The main thing, though, that I'll watching -- Can Rick Perry beat Newt Gingrich?

If Perry nips Newt in Iowa, that means he becomes the most legitimate alternative to Romney with the South up for grabs.

That doesn't mean he'd be a close alternative to Mitt, but he'd have new life + a couple more debates to finally show up + the media's thirst for a longer primary.

Gingrich swoops in on chocolate factory

Newt Gingrich, visiting a chocolate factory yesterday and poking fun at Mitt Romney for comparing him to Lucy's classic chocolate scene.

"I want you guys now to report to Governor Romney that we've taken his thoughts so seriously that -- in the tradition of Lucille Ball -- we're here at a chocolate factory."

More substantively (slightly), he also told reporters.

"Now that I have the courage to come to the chocolate factory, I hope Gov. Romney will have the courage to debate me one-on-one."

Via The Hill Tube.

Santorum buys New Hampshire TV time

CNN's Peter Hamby:

A source familiar with the move told CNN that the campaign started to make media buys in New Hampshire on Thursday, and is planning run television and radio ads statewide beginning next Monday.

Santorum has not aired a single television or radio ad in New Hampshire to date.

I'm going to attack myself; then defend myself a little.

Attack Myself:

I wrote (numerous times) lengthy pieces arguing that Santorum would never surge the way Cain and the others did -- even in Iowa.

My arguments?

First, he's an old name who got trashed in a reelection bid; second, he doesn't jive with the tea party and frequently chides federalism and 10th Amendment hardliners, and three, he just seems like an Assemblyman.

Donald Trump and Herman Cain, for better or worse, did not seem like Assemblymen or state Senators.

But I was wrong about him not surging -- he is. 16% in Iowa is awfully good.

Defend Myself:

He hasn't surged anywhere else (yet), and until he does, you can't say he's a flavor of the month.

Bachmann, Trump, Cain, Perry, and Gingrich all had nationwide jumps. In fact, at one point or another, each led in a national poll.

I'll bet the house and the three-car garage and my dead, pet parakeet that Santorum won't lead in a single nationwide poll.

So it's not quite fair to compare his surge with the other candidates'.

Romney leads Obama, 45%-39%

A new Rasmussen Reports survey shows Mitt Romney with his biggest lead yet, buttressed by the fact that 72% think the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction.

Obama's 39% is the worst showing he's ever had in a Rasmussen head-to-head with Romney.

There remains, though, a large gender gap. Men prefer Mitt by 20%, while women pick Barack by 6%.

And interestingly, a Rasmussen poll two days ago showed a generic Republican only leading Obama, 45%-44%.

In other words, Romney is over-performing the generic Republican -- a rare phenomenon this cycle.

To liven things up, I'd like to include a Youtube video of Pitbull rapping about a generic Republican underperforming Romney, but I couldn't find any.

Huntsman hammers Paul over newsletters

Jon Huntsman has a new web ad out, aimed toward New Hampshire voters and squarely against Ron Paul and his newsletters.

For Huntsman, it's a shift. Until now, he's focused on Romney, whom he's always viewed as his chief rival in New Hampshire.

But according to CNN's new poll, Paul doubles Huntsman's support in the state and both appeal to indies; so he's the more immediate target.

Perry goes positive, negative in new ads

Here's his closing argument in a new Iowa TV ad.



And here's just an argument, coupled with this release from the campaign.

"Senator Santorum, Congressmen Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann have long backed congressional earmarks and pork. Expecting them to overhaul Washington is asking a fox to guard the henhouse."

P.S. Haven't you noticed a number of ads this cycle using animation? I call it "The Pixar Primary".

Rove: No 3rd party run from Paul

In today's Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove makes a host of predictions for 2012, including this.

After failing to win the GOP presidential nomination, Ron Paul will not run as a third-party candidate because that would put his son, Rand Paul, in an untenable position: Does the Republican senator from Kentucky support his father and effectively re-elect Mr. Obama, or back his party and defeat him?

That's something I've been hearing a lot.

Now, if only Donald Trump had a son who was a U.S. Senator, Republicans could breathe easier.

Pethokoukis: Santorum's "pro-natalism social policy"

The American Enterprise Institute's always-good James Pethokoukis dishes on Rick Santorum's economic plan and concludes:

Santorum has one of the most politically and economically cohesive policy plans in the GOP field.

He wants to help middle-class families and sees tax policy as a way of directly doing that, beyond trying to boost GDP growth. It’s more populist-conservative in many ways than pure free-market/libertarian, the latter of which seems to more reflect the Tea Party trend in GOP economic policy. Not something a Wall Street or Ivy League economist would cook up, certainly.

And supply-side economics is about altering incentives to boost growth (and incomes and jobs), not altering fertility rates to boost human capital or easing the tax burden on families. No matter Santorum’s political fate, his ideas may gain further traction on the right as some policymakers and wonks see the limits of an economic approach geared almost exclusively around lowering marginal tax rates and cutting spending.

Romney will stay in Iowa on caucus night

So reports NBC's Peter Alexander, who also provides this pic of Mitt chatting in Iowa today.

Romney's scheduling decision is a sign that he's quite confident he'll do well on January 3. If not, he would've probably been spending his night in New Hampshire.

Flashback: Woman fainting at Santorum speech

His surge is prompting all sorts of hind-sighting.

We should have anticipated his power during his presidential announcement speech back in June.

A woman fainted -- there's always a lag effect with these things. This one was six months.

Kelly Clarkson defends support for Paul

We shouldn't really be surprised that "Miss Independent" is backing Ron Paul, but the former American Idol phenom has posted a defense of her '12 preference on her website.

I am really sorry if I have offended anyone. Obviously that was not my intent. I do not support racism. I support gay rights, straight rights, women's rights, men's rights, white/black/purple/orange rights. I like Ron Paul because he believes in less government and letting the people (all of us) make the decisions and mold our country. That is all. Out of all of the Republican nominees, he's my favorite.

She set off a Twitterstorm earlier by posting.

"I love Ron Paul. I liked him a lot during the last republican nomination and no one gave him a chance. If he wins the nomination for the Republican party in 2012 he's got my vote. Too bad he probably won't."

The blowback prompted her new message, which is admirable for conviction in the face of withering hashtags and people who know nothing about politics, except that they're conflicted about whether they want an actress like Reese Witherspoon to be president (Election vs. Legally Blonde -- which Witherspoon would we be getting?).

Sorenson calls Romney a "frugal socialist"

Iowa state Sen. Ken Sorenson might have sent shockwaves by switching allegiances from Michele Bachmann to Ron Paul last night, but he's still using her rhetoric.

From an interview with Time Magazine, explaining his switch.

"The real crux of the matter is that we’re at a point now where we can elect somebody like Mitt Romney, who is the same as Barack Obama, except maybe a little bit more frugal.

He’s a frugal socialist."

Bachmann has called both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney frugal socialists in the past.

Romney goes uplifting in new ad

Mitt Romney releases a long, positive, confident spot in Iowa, showing that he's feeling very good about his place in the race.

No specs, no attacks. It's a type of ad that could either run at the beginning of the campaign to introduce a candidate or at the end, to close the sale.

Considering it's five days before the caucuses, it's probably the latter.

New Hampshire: Romney crushing it

A new CNN poll (pdf) of New Hampshire shows Mitt Romney actually increasing his lead in the state.

1. Mitt Romney 44%

2. Ron Paul 17%

3. Newt Gingrich 16%

4. Jon Huntsman 9%

5. Rick Santorum 4%

6. Michele Bachmann 3%

7. Rick Perry 2%

Less than a month ago, Gingrich had cut Romney's lead to 9%. Now Mitt leads him by 28%.

Looks like it's Newt Hampshire no more.

SANTORUM SURGES in Iowa

I figure Rick Santorum deserves a caps-lock at least once in a campaign.

And, indeed, he places 3rd in CNN's new poll (pdf) of likely Iowa caucus-goers. THIRD.

1. Mitt Romney 25%

2. Ron Paul 22%

3. Rick Santorum 16%

4. Newt Gingrich 14%

5. Rick Perry 11%

6. Michele Bachmann 9%

This is bad news for two people -- Michele Bachmann, who's been fighting Santorum to be the voice of social conservatives, and Newt Gingrich, who can't afford a fourth place finish.

This is good news for two people -- Mitt Romney, who's now in position to put a ferocious lock on the nomination with an Iowa win, and Rick Santorum, who showed what visiting 99 counties and being consistently pro-life can do for you in Iowa.

That being said, 43% say they "might" change their mind, which means this isn't in the bag, but there's nothing terribly obvious that could shift the race before next Tuesday.

Here's the part that blows my mind.

On "which Republican candidate is most likely to agree with you on the issues that matter most to you," question, Ron Paul wins.

I know that's logical, considering he's pretty near the top in overall support, but it's just another mind-bending measure of Paul's support. Remember, this is a guy who thinks Iran is just like a boy band member who wants his own album/nukes to get some 'spect.

But back to Santorum.

We all know he probably doesn't have any skeletons to hide... or does he? See that pic up there? That's a pic of Santorum with Fred Karger -- a gay Republican presidential candidate -- last summer.

Don't you think Steve Deace ought to know about this?

In all seriousness, Santorum is finally getting the surge I never thought he'd get.

And you know Mitt Romney is in a SERIOUSLY good position when his top two competitors are Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.

Screencap of the day

Mitt Romney, getting grilled this morning by Steve Doocy (a regular Javert -- a blond Javert -- but a Javert nonetheless) about comparing Newt's Virginia ballot mishap to an I Love Lucy episode.

Mitt's answer:

"I hope the Speaker understands that was humor, and I'm happy to tell my humorous anecdote to him face-to-face."

Gingrich gives Super PAC a tongue-lashing

At a press conference in Iowa today, Newt Gingrich hit a Super PAC supporting him for calling Mitt Romney the second most dangerous man in America.

"I would discourage them not to do that anymore,” Gingrich said.

“I think that’s not right. Again, I don’t control them but I would discourage them from sending out that kind of negative information. That’s wrong."

If you remember all the way back to this morning, the Super PAC, Strong America Now, said, in a flier:

"Romney is the SECOND MOST DANGEROUS man in America and will perpetuate Obama's slide into financial crisis."

Here's the real most dangerous man in America -- dangerous to your wallet.

Super PAC drops $250K for Santorum

Peter Hamby reports that the pro-Rick Santorum Super PAC, "Red, White, and Blue fund", is spending a quarter million to run this spot in Iowa.

You know what I noticed?

There isn't a single thing about the jobs or economy in the ad, which just goes to show that when people feel angsty about the economy, their immediate thought isn't "Rick Santorum!"

But if it's abortion, their thoughts do tend to gravitate that way, and sure enough, the spot leads off with a pro-life message.

He's still clearly involved in the interesting Iowa sub-primary with Bachmann for social conservatives, and this offering will help.

What's Romney done for conservatives lately (or ever)?

Red State's Daniel Horowitz can't find anything.

While most of the other candidates have significant and diverse flaws – both personal and ideological – they have fought for conservatism on some level and at some point in their career. The highest honor in the Republican Party – the presidential nomination – should be bequeathed to an individual who has fought in the trenches for the ideals of the party.

Romney, unlike any other candidate, has produced absolutely nothing for conservatives. Romney merely served for four years as a liberal governor, while promoting policies that are antithetical to our beliefs – with no counterbalance of conservative achievements to ameliorate his abysmal conservative record.

Gingrich goes positive with Laffer

Newt Gingrich's new Iowa spot takes advantage of iconic economist Art Laffer's endorsement, although the author of his very own Curve merely becomes "The architect of Reagan's economic plan".



Laffer will link up with Newt in Iowa today for a formal press conference.

"Newt has the best plan for jobs and economic growth of any candidate in the field," said Laffer.

"Like Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and pro-growth policies, Newt's low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade."

DNC raises Romney expectations

The DNC's trick today -- make Mitt Romney seem inevitable in Iowa; then smash him to pieces as unelectable, loathsome to the heartland, and unable to buy votes (even with those dollar bills he parades around) if he doesn't win.

The title of the DNC's press release, "Romney now expected to win Iowa", sends you to a story by Josh Kraushaar about the growing sense Mitt might win the caucuses.

The Kraushaar story notes headlines from the Washington Post ("For Romney, Stealth Campaign Brings Real Hopes of Winning Iowa"), Politico ("Mitt Romney in striking distance of Iowa win."), The Wall Street Journal ("As Iowa nears, Romney sounds confident), and the LA Times ("Romney looks poised for Iowa victory, maybe even if he loses").

But the conventional wisdom right now is that if Ron Paul finishes first and Romney second, it's a bloody big victory for Mitt.

Independent group launches Palin ad

If you're listening to WHO in Des Moines, you might hear this advertisement.

"Are you unhappy with the current GOP field?

Let me tell you something. You are not alone.

Join thousands of Iowans as we vote rogue. It's the caucus for Sarah Palin on January 3.

Let Iowa and the entire country know that we want real leadership and real reform in D.C.

So come on, Iowa, vote rogue on January 3."

So who's behind the ad?

"Paid for and authorized by Sarah Palin's Iowa Earthquake."

So what is Palin's Iowa Earthquake?

Gary Jackson explains.

When Sarah Palin announced her decision not to seek the presidency, when asked what it would take for her to change her mind, she said it would take an earthquake the magnitude of 10.3, or better. Since then, a group of dedicated supporters have been working hard to achieve just that sort of [political] earthquake. An independent group called Sarah Palin’s Iowa Earthquake has been organizing a write-in campaign for the up-coming Iowa caucuses.

And this group is putting their money where their mouth is. They’ve created some compelling television ads and raised enough money to run the ads in major Iowa markets.

Vid via Breitbart.

Krauthammer assails Newt's "damaging" quotes on mandate

Charles Krauthammer reacts to the unearthed, 2006 Newt Note, in which Newt Gingrich praised Mitt Romney for his health care plan.

It's damaging, Krauthammer argues, because it shows that Gingrich wasn't just for the mandate as a way of combating HillaryCare -- as Newt has claimed.

And, more importantly, it hurts Gingrich's push to make Romney seem like an unreliable conservative, because Newt himself appears unreliable.

Krauthammer:

"This quote is a setback.

I'm not sure if it's Waterloo, 1815. I'm not sure if it's the Spanish Armada, 1588. It could be the Battle of Marathon, but I'm not sure that Newt could do the whole 26 miles.

Okay -- onward.

.... This is a damaging piece of information, and the reason is -- two reasons. Number one, it's a question of can you believe him?

He's been explaining away his support for the individual mandate.... as, well, something he did in the early 90's to oppose HillaryCare.

Well, this quote, this statement, occurs thirteen years after HillaryCare -- only five years ago. So you have to question: how long ago did he abandon the individual mandate?

He then moves to his second point.

"It's a matter of substance. The main attack he has on Romney is that Romney is not authentic and the main issue here is what he passed on health care.

.... if you take away that attack, what does Gingrich have? If he supported the bill that Romney had passed in Massachusetts, his entire attack on Romney as an unreliable conservative who did this horrendous, anti-conservative thing collapses."

Elizabeth Dole endorses Romney

Bob Dole's wife, Elizabeth, joins her husband in supporting Mitt Romney for president.

"America is facing some of the greatest challenges in our nation's history, in particular with regard to our economic future," Dole said in a statement.

"It is vitally important that we nominate an individual with both a steady hand for these difficult times and the experience and capabilities to get our country back on track."

If you remember, she ran for president in 2000, but dropped out before any of the voting, thanks to the behemoth that W appeared to be.

Her one electoral test was in the Iowa straw poll, where she came in third -- behind Bush and Forbes (think of those three names -- "Bush", "Forbes", "Dole". Can't get any more establishment-y than that).

But she followed her abortive run by waging a successful Senate campaign in 2003.

Bob Dole endorsed Mitt earlier this month.

Romney raises Iowa stakes

Mitt Romney, on Fox & Friends today, confirming what's been percolating on the Iowa ground.

"The response here has been very positive. You know, I had a big event last night in Davenport. We expected about 150. I think close to 800 people showed up. There's a lot of enthusiasm.

So we're gauging that enthusiasm as a sign that we ought to put more time and energy into, hopefully, doing real well here in Iowa."

To that end, Romney's team has started a more aggressive push in the state, hoping for a KO.

Romney: Lucy comparison was just "humorous"

Mitt Romney, still chuckling this morning about his comparison of Newt Gingrich's organizational woes to Lucille Ball's iconic screw-up at a chocolate factory.

"I hope the Speaker understands that was humor, and I'm happy to tell my humorous anecdote to him face-to-face."

Gingrich had compared getting left off the Virginia ballot to the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor (The U.S. recovered and so would he, Newt claimed).

That prompted Romney to quip:

“I think he compared that to Pearl Harbor? I think it’s more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory. You've got to get it organized.”

Gingrich then said he'd "love to have him say that to my face", and Romney responded this morning by saying okay, we'll do, while laughing.

Romney, today:



Gingrich, yesterday, via National Journal.

Romney replies to Newt's support for mandate

On Fox & Friends today, Mitt Romney reacted to a new video and document showing Newt Gingrich supporting a health care mandate more recently than believed.

Romney:

"Well, I knew that he supported the plan, in the past, and I believe he supported it until he got in the race this year, but maybe before that he changed his view.

But look, our plan was right for our state, and in my view, was based upon conservative principles that, frankly, came from Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation."

Yesterday, Andrew Kaczynski dug up the 2008 video showing Newt supporting a health care mandate. It meant that Newt favored the mandate far more recently than previously thought.

Newt came under further fire when the Wall Street Journal unearthed a "Newt's notes" in which he praised Mitt Romney's health care plan, specifically.

IOWA: Paul still leads

In the first post-Christmas poll of Iowa, Ron Paul continues to lead the pack.

Public Policy Polling:

1. Ron Paul 24%

2. Mitt Romney 20%

3. Newt Gingrich 13%

4. Michele Bachmann 11%

5. Rick Perry and Rick Santorum 10%

7. Jon Huntsman 4%

8. Buddy Roemer 2%

Here's the big caveat to Paul's lead, and the potential boon for Mitt.

Romney beats Paul among Republicans, 22%-20%, and holds a 22% lead among seniors. So that means that older Republicans are more likely to go for Romney, and those are also the most reliable caucusers.

I wrote earlier today that Mitt is happy to see Paul do well, since Ron splits some of the conservative vote.

But what if Paul stands in between Romney and a KO in Iowa? Will he start going negative on Paul? All that money -- both in his campaign and from the Super PACs -- could really hurt Paul. But of course, there's no telling where Paul's support would go.

As for Newt, he continues sliding faster than a rial in Iran.

He's gone from 27% to 22% to 14% to 13% over the course of our four Iowa tracking polls.

His favorability numbers are pretty abysmal now at 37/54 and only 32% of likely voters think that he has strong principles to 45% who believe he does not. Once the darling of Tea Party voters in the state, he's now slipped to third with that group behind Bachmann and Paul.

There's not much reason to think Gingrich can return to his former strong standing in the state in the final week.

[Hat tip: Ian Swanson]

Ron Paul gets mauled

Jason Volack on the GOP field's desperation.

Newt Gingrich told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he could not support Paul if he won the Republican nomination, adding his “views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.”

“I think the choice of Ron Paul or Barack Obama would be a very bad choice for America,” said Gingrich.

Rick Santorum warned voters to carefully study Paul’s record calling him “left of Barack Obama on national security.”

.... Michele Bachmann, in an appeal to social conservatives, said during a stop in Council Bluffs that “Ron Paul doesn’t believe the government should protect the institution of marriage.”

Guess who's noticeably absent from that list of Paul-bashers?

Mitt Romney!

Paul's performance is great news for Romney, since it prevents coalescing around an anti-Romney.

If you remember, Mitt was also relatively soft on Herman Cain, who -- like Paul -- was an implausible rival for the nomination who split the conservative vote.

The Iowa sweepstakes

In my weekly column, I break-down the stakes for each GOP candidate in Iowa.

There are three things I'm really watching.

1. Who will win the sub-primary between Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann to be the undisputed voice of social conservatism (and force the other to quickly drop out)?

2. The potential resurrection of Rick Perry.

Rick Perry, and anyone else’s, lone shot is to become the anti-Mitt Romney. As such, he doesn’t need to win Iowa, he just needs to perform well enough relative to Newt Gingrich that he can make the case that he’s the most legitimate alternative to the former Massachusetts governor.

That’s doable for a few reasons. First, Gingrich has been falling in polls, even as Perry has been on the uptick. In November, Perry only cracked double-digits in one Iowa poll. In December, he’s done it in six straight surveys.

Second, he’s already faced the entire kitchen sink of attacks from his opponents. It nearly felled him, but he survived. Gingrich, on the other hand, is a fresh target and between his opponents’ daily attacks, his lack of money, and his discipline problems, it’s easy to see him crater again.

If Perry can beat Gingrich in Iowa, or at least over-perform expectations, he’ll probably skip New Hampshire and head to South Carolina to make his original case — that he’s mainstream enough to get establishment Republicans and conservative enough to win Tea Partiers.

3. And Romney's redemption?

Ironically, Iowa, where his bid started falling apart in 2008, might be the state that solidifies his lead as front-runner and de facto nominee.

Romney is in second place in the Real Clear Politics average of state-polling, but he’s lowered expectations so dramatically by largely avoiding Iowa that anything from a first to third place finish would be a win for him.

And, in another fortuitous irony, his dismal performance in 2008 has led to the conventional wisdom that he can’t win there and is ill-suited to play strongly. But he has an outside shot at winning, according to polls. A fourth place finish, meanwhile, would be survivable, especially with the New Hampshire primary one week later.

In short, anything between first and third place would be a win for him, and fourth place would hardly be devastating.

He’s in better shape now than he ever was in 2008.

Keep reading...