Erick Erickson's Blog, page 80

Univision Chairman Calls Rubio "Anti-Hispanic"

Haim Saban is an Egyptian born Israeli-American and Chairman of Univision, the Hispanic television station. For the past several months, Univision has tried to get Marco Rubio to come on Univision for an interview and offered to kill or run a negative story on Marco Rubio's brother-in-law depending on what Rubio did.

Senator Rubio would not be bought and Univision ran the story on his brother-in-law. Subsequently, all of the Republican candidates refused to participate in a debate on Univision, opting instead for a debate with Univision's competitor Telemundo.

The New Yorker has a big story on what Univision did or did not do to Marco Rubio. It's fully pro-Univision spin. The Miami Herald has reviewed it. About all you need to know is that Haim Saban, Chairman of Univision, claims that Marco Rubio is "anti-Hispanic."

The New Yorker piece is written by liberal writer Ken Auletta who once claimed that Rubert Murdoch imposes his political preferences on Fox News and other Newscorp holdings, but for some reason can't seem to believe Haim Saban, who has a long history of supporting left-leaning causes, would do the same.

And we know what agenda Haim Saban wants to push. According to Saban, "The fact that Rubio and some Republican Presidential candidates have an anti-Hispanic stand that they don't want to share with our community is understandable but despicable." Saban wanted to get the Republicans on stage and have a slanted debate with questions sympathetic to illegal immigration — a set up to help the Democrats woo hispanic voters in 2012.

But they overplayed their hand with Rubio who stood up to them and now they have no debate, just a liberal writer willing to use the New Yorker to whine.

Is Rick Santorum Familiar With the Job Description for President?

It is not the first time in the past few days Rick Santorum has said it and Iit is worth pointing out that what RIck Santorum is saying is not only wrong, but really wrong.

Santorum has taken to contrasting himself with Romney by saying

"We're not looking for a chief executive officer. We're looking for a commander in chief."

According to Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Certainly he is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military, but for the nation as a whole, he is the Chief Executive.

In fact, the very first clause of the first section of Article II of the Constitution outlines that the President is the Chief Executive and it is section 2 of Article II that outlines what those executive powers entail, among them being "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

What I find most fascinating about all of this is Rick Santorum is running for President of the United States in a year when there are millions of Americans out of work or underemployed and he thinks America does not want a Chief Executive, but rather a Commander-in-Chief of the military.

He's either tone deaf or not being advised well on the campaign trail that his cute contrast with Mitt Romney isn't even true.

For All of Santorum's Traditionalism Rhetoric

Universal Health Services, on whose board he sat until he left in June of this year, runs a PRIDE Institute in Minnesota. It's the "nation's first and leading provider of mental health service to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community."

Ironically, given Santorum's strong comments on "homosexual acts," according to the PRIDE Institute, its exclusive focus on the gay community is necessary because "the society in which we live marginalizes the LGBT community" with "negative covert and overt messages about the gay and lesbian lifestyle."

In fact, the PRIDE Institute brands the kind of language Santorum used "heterorsexism."

We shouldn't however, hold it against Santorum. Often when principle and paycheck come in conflict, paycheck wins. Principle does not always feed a family. A whole lot of people have the same thing happen.

Honest Question

For you Santorum supporters (and everyone else please be kind in this thread), I have a real and honest question for you.

Rick Santorum was last in politics in 2006 when he lost his re-election bid by 18 percentage points.

Yes it was a bad year for the GOP, but it was also the most devastating loss that year. (I get that 2006 was a wave election, but 18% goes beyond succumbing to the wave and suggests even without the wave he was a goner. I am unaware of any incumbent being swept out in the wave by that margin of loss)

When you google Rick Santorum to find out about him, you're as likely to find out leftwing bloggers have tied him to bestiality as to find out about his campaign. His appeal in a year of 8% unemployment seems to come largely from his stances on social issues — stances that several of the other candidates hold.

He held office from 1991 until 2007 and prior to that was a lawyer where his biggest claim to fame was representing the World Wrestling Federation, arguing on their behalf that wrestlers should be allowed to use steroids because it was entertainment, not actual sport.

So in a year when everyone is worried about jobs and the economy, in all honesty, why do you guys think Rick Santorum is the most viable and qualified candidate to put up against Barack Obama?

Because I really and genuinely do not get why we'd want to throw one Senator elected President out of office and replace him with a Senator who couldn't even win re-election in his home state.

Happy New Year

As we kick off this new year, let me just take a moment and thank all the front page contributors for their hard work this past year. We had the best RedState Gathering so far. Our traffic has been terrific. And I really get a lot of undeserved credit based on the hard work of all the other front page writers who also work diligently to keep me grounded.

This year at RedState I'm actually going to do something I've been wanting to do for a while — no more traveling to speak. I've got a couple of engagement I've previously accepted, but no more. I'm going to be traveling enough as is for CNN, RedState, and WSB. I need to spend more time focusing on RedState, radio, and television and less on giving speeches.

Today I'm heading to Iowa. I'll be in New Hampshire next week, then Texas, then South Carolina, then Florida.

You may not realize it, but when I travel the front page writers pick up a whole lot of slack and I cannot tell you how much I appreciate them and have been blessed by them.

And we have, in turn, been blessed by the friendship of so many of you. I really do thank you.

I've staked out an unusual ground this year in Presidential politics in not endorsing any candidate and instead trying to, as objectively as possible, highlight the warts of all of them so you can make your most informed decision. But a lot of the front page writers and a lot of you have decided to support one candidate or another.

I cannot wait until the end of the primary season when we have a candidate and we all unite to go fight the Democrats and take back the White House.

In the meantime, we'll keep on keeping on here and we thank you for your friendship and readership and we wish you a very blessed and happy New Year.

Lastly, let me make one recommendation to you. I have, though only sporadically, enjoyed the ESV Bible website's daily Bible reading.

If you don't have a daily Bible reading, please join me in going here once a day for a regular reading of the Bible. If you go each day for 2012, you'll make your way through the Old Testament and New Testament once each and the Psalms twice. It's really worth it and comports with the only New Year's Resolution I am making — spending more time in the Word, if only as a good distraction from the daily world of politics.

All the best and Happy New Year,

Erick

Get Ready to Hear All About Rick Santorum and Universal Health Services

The media is about to begin the vetting of Rick Santorum and I suspect we're going to hear a lot about Universal Health Services ("UHS"). Santorum's involvement in UHS is one of the significant bits of his private sector experience.

After his 18 point loss in 2006, UHS appointed Rick Santorum to its Board of Directors.

On May 16, 2007, Santorum acquired 10,000 options to purchase Class B common stock. On November 21, 2009, he received another option for 5,000. In 2010, it was options for 15,000 shares and another 15,000 as recently as January 21, 2011, as Santorum begin to entertain thoughts of running for President.

On June 15, 2011, Santorum resigned from the board of UHS.

Here's why the media will be interested.

On March 2, 2010, nearly three years after Santorum was appointed to the UHS board of directors, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint against UHS for billing Medicaid for "inpatient psychiatric care that was not provided." The company received Medicaid funds to provide psychiatric counseling and treatment to boys ages 11 to 17.

According to the Department of Justice, UHS "[took] advantage of troubled children in order to feed their own desire for wealth."

On July 29, 2010, an employee of the same Virginia adolescent psychiatric facility that was sued by DOJ filed suit against UHS for reprisal against her due to her "investigation of, reporting of, opposition to and refusal to participate in, her employer?s blatant and systemic criminal fraud against Medicaid engaged in by defendants[.]" See Barbara Jones v. Universal Health Services, Inc.,

According to Barbara Jones, the whistleblower who brought suit against UHS, local company management encouraged employees to conduct "drive by therapy sessions" as they passed patients in the hallway and then record the brief interactions as a thirty minute individual therapy sessions to be billed to Medicaid. Jones also testified in her court filings that she was ordered by the local CEO to fabricate a Medicaid billing form and was told, after she refused to do so, that she would not be

paid until the form was fabricated.

UHS tried to have the complaint dismissed not because of the veracity of the changes, but because it claimed Barbara Jones wasn't an employee of UHS and therefore was not protected under a whistle blower statute.

Santorum possibly did not know about any of this, but in 2007 the federal government filed a lawsuit against UHS for Medicaid fraud going back all the way to 2004 — or well before Santorum was on the board. It's kind of hard to claim complete ignorance of federal charges against a company on whose board he sat for over four years.

This is going to be an interesting vetting process, done even more rapidly than the vetting of Mike Huckabee back in 2008, if only because the media probably correctly thinks Santorum doesn't have the staying power Huck had, so they want to get it all done quickly.

Mitt Romney Didn't Just Give Planned Parenthood Money, He Gave Them Extra Power

You should be quite familiar by now with the fact that Mitt Romney gave $150.00 to Planned Parenthood in 1994 when claiming he had always been pro-abortion.

You should also know that in 2004, Mitt Romney says he personally converted to the pro-life position. In fact, according to ABC News on June 14, 2007, "Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has long cited a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher as the moment that changed his long-held stance of supporting abortion rights to his current 'pro-life' position opposing legal abortion. But several actions Romney took mere months after that meeting call into question how deep-seated his conversion truly was."

What was one of those actions?

Two months after his pro-life conversion, Mitt Romney appointed Matthew Nestor to the bench in Massachusetts. Romney seeming bowed to political pressure making Nestor a judge even after Nestor, according to the Boston Globe as far back as 1994, had campaigned for political office championing his pro-abortion views.

One year after his pro-life conversion, in July of 2005, Mitt Romney vetoed legislation that would expand the use of the morning after pill arguing that it would contribute to abortions. But just three months later Mitt Romney slid back and signed a bill that expanded state subsidized access to the morning after pill.

Writing in the Boston Globe on October 15, 2005, Stephanie Ebbert noted

Governor Mitt Romney has signed a bill that could expand the number of people who get family-planning services, including the morning-after pill, confusing some abortion and contraception foes who had been heartened by his earlier veto of an emergency contraception bill. … The services include the distribution of condoms, abortion counseling, and the distribution of emergency contraception, or morning after pills, by prescription …

But that's nothing. Two whole years after the pro-life view had settled into Mitt Romney's conscience and a year after Mitt Romney had vetoed legislation expanding access to the morning after pill, he expanded access to abortion and gave Planned Parenthood new rights under state law. Yes, that Planned Parenthood.

Mitt Romney is really proud of Romneycare. He champions it as a great healthcare reform for Massachusetts. At one point he claimed it could be a model for the nation, though he now denies that.

According to States News Service on October 2, 2006,

"The following information was released by the Massachusetts Office of the Governor: Governor Mitt Romney today officially launched Commonwealth Care, an innovative health insurance product that will allow thousands of uninsured Massachusetts residents to purchase private health insurance products at affordable rates. Commonwealth Care is a key component of the state's landmark healthcare reform law approved by the Governor in April. 'We are now on the road to getting everyone health insurance in Massachusetts,' said Governor Romney. … 'Today, we celebrate a great beginning.'

Romney loves to take credit for it.

The law, in addition to providing healthcare coverage for the uninsured and forcing everyone to have insurance, expanded abortion services in the State of Massachusetts. It also required that one member of the MassHealth Payment Policy Board be appointed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.

From Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006:

SECTION 3. Chapter 6A of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 16I the following 6 sections: . . . Section 16M. (a) There shall be a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board shall consist of the secretary of health and human services or his designee, who shall serve as chair, the commissioner of health care financing and policy, and 12 other members: … 1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts … (Massachusetts General Court Website, www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)

In 2007, Mitt Romney was still denying his healthcare plan did this.

QUESTION: "I noticed some of the conservative groups back in Massachusetts, they complain about there's a Planned Parenthood rep mandate to be on the planning board for the health care plan. Is that something you just had to deal with in negotiating with the legislature?"

ROMNEY: "It's certainly not something that was in my bill."

(Eric Krol, "Full Text Of Romney Interview," [Arlington Heights, IL] Daily Herald, 6/17/07)

Except it was. Apparently, like with Obamacare, you had to pass the bill to find out what was in it, but once passed, Romney never read it.

Morning Briefing for December 30, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

December 30, 2011

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Mitt Romney Didn't Just Give Planned Parenthood Money, He Gave Them Extra Power

2. Iowa Poll Update: This news is ridiculous

3. Rick Santorum, Earmarxists, and the Pro-Life Statist

4. "The Chickens of that Effort are Coming Home to Roost[.]"

5. Brain Dead Dem Congressman Thinks Spending is Too Low

6. Once Again, Red Staters Lead the Nation in Private Charitable Giving

———————————————————————-

1. Mitt Romney Didn't Just Give Planned Parenthood Money, He Gave Them Extra Power

You should be quite familiar by now with the fact that Mitt Romney gave $150.00 to Planned Parenthood in 1994 when claiming he had always been pro-abortion.

You should also know that in 2004, Mitt Romney says he personally converted to the pro-life position. In fact, according to ABC News on June 14, 2007, "Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has long cited a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher as the moment that changed his long-held stance of supporting abortion rights to his current 'pro-life' position opposing legal abortion. But several actions Romney took mere months after that meeting call into question how deep-seated his conversion truly was."

What was one of those actions?

Two months after his pro-life conversion, Mitt Romney appointed Matthew Nestor to the bench in Massachusetts. Romney seeming bowed to political pressure making Nestor a judge even after Nestor, according to the Boston Globe as far back as 1994, had campaigned for political office championing his pro-abortion views.

One year after his pro-life conversion, in July of 2005, Mitt Romney vetoed legislation that would expand the use of the morning after pill arguing that it would contribute to abortions. But just three months later Mitt Romney slid back and signed a bill that expanded state subsidized access to the morning after pill.

But that's nothing. Two whole years after the pro-life view had settled into Mitt Romney's conscience and a year after Mitt Romney had vetoed legislation expanding access to the morning after pill, he expanded access to abortion and gave Planned Parenthood new rights under state law. Yes, that Planned Parenthood.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Iowa Poll Update: This news is ridiculous

Rick Santorum. Now? Seriously? This is ridiculous. How are prognosticators supposed to do our jobs if we get a break so late it makes Mike Huckabee look like an early frontrunner? Seriously, Iowa, simmer down now.

All I know is Ron Paul isn't winning. Beyond that, anything's possible.

Well, almost anything.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Rick Santorum, Earmarxists, and the Pro-Life Statist

A number of people read my post yesterday about Rick Santorum and still are scratching their heads. In my book RedState Uprising I spent a bit of time dealing with "pro-life statists" who will be the death of the conservative movement if we do not start standing up to them.

Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. My friend Ned Ryun introduced me to the term and his post on pro-life statists written in the wake of Congressman Mark Souder's resignation sums up every issue I have with Rick Santorum.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. "The Chickens of that Effort are Coming Home to Roost[.]"

The Huntsman campaign just released this video, which scores a pretty solid hit on Paul with the newsletter issue, ending with his embarrassing flight from the Gloria Borger interview.

As we count down the final few days before Iowa, I also wanted to point out and hopefully tie together some of the remaining questions about the Ron Paul newsletters. This somewhat lengthy piece is definitely worth a read even if it is somewhat obviously written by someone with an axe to grind in an intra-libertarian movement fight. I find the conclusion of the piece to be sound, which is that Paul himself probably did not most (or any) of the racist material himself, but he was certainly willing to "toast a marshmallow on a cross that someone else was burning."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Brain Dead Dem Congressman Thinks Spending is Too Low

In case you were wondering why we are doing nothing to slow our inexorable march towards Greek-style insolvency, look no further than those who are vested with the power of the purse string. Yesterday, Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) suggested that we are not spending enough "to invest in research and development, education and infrastructure that would allow America to compete in this increasingly global economy." He proved his assertion by comparing our deficits to….the WWII era!

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. Once Again, Red Staters Lead the Nation in Private Charitable Giving

The Fraser Institute has released their latest report on charitable giving in the U.S. and Canada, and once again North America's leaders in charitable donations from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Circle reside overwhelmingly in red states. This has been the case for some time, and the reason for it almost certainly comes down to a difference in philosophy regarding charity and the role of private/public institutions in its application. It's unsurprising that conservatives – who by and large believe in the sovereignty of the individual, particularly in terms of fiscal decision-making – choose to give of their own net incomes to charitable causes and organizations that they find worthwhile. It's also unsurprising (and stereotypical) that liberals choose to give less of their own net income to charity, instead leaving that responsibility to the government, which replaces the individual as the evaluator and benefactor of charitable organizations and endeavors. Based on that philosophy of charity and responsibility, it's no surprise that some liberals have been calling on the government to reduce or eliminate the charitable giving tax deduction.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Rick Santorum, Earmarxists, and the Pro-Life Statist

A number of people read my post yesterday about Rick Santorum and still are scratching their heads. In my book RedState Uprising I spent a bit of time dealing with "pro-life statists" who will be the death of the conservative movement if we do not start standing up to them.

Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. My friend Ned Ryun introduced me to the term and his post on pro-life statists written in the wake of Congressman Mark Souder's resignation sums up every issue I have with Rick Santorum.

"A hard-line conservative, Souder recently survived a tough GOP primary in the Hoosier State, edging two opponents who held him under 50 percent. Souder's Republican rivals criticized Souder over his support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and Cash for Clunkers programs."

I take exception to that description: no real conservative would have voted for TARP or Cash for Clunkers. The mistake made is the assumption that because someone is pro-life means he or she is a conservative. Someone who is pro-life, but votes to expand the state and state spending, is in fact not a conservative, but a pro-life statist.

As someone who is deeply pro-life, and became even more so when my daughter was born four months premature, I absolutely believe in the sanctity of life. But I have a problem with many elected officials who call themselves social conservatives, as though that were all that mattered, and then go and vote for more government and more government spending.

The bigger government becomes, the more invasive it becomes, the more it becomes the enemy of life and freedom. So these pro-life statists show a deep ignorance of government and freedom: the greatest freedom is economic freedom. I say that because if you are an economic ward of the state, you can neither be politically or religiously free. Exhibit A: China. The invasive state dictates how many children you may have, the free flow of information, and political freedom is not even worth really discussing.

I believe one of the reasons that we have gotten to this stage as a country, with the massive growth of government, is because some have thought only one or two social issues are all that matter, and willingly give a pass on pretty much everything else. To those people I would say enough, stop living under an illusion. You must become more comprehensive in your conservatism.

Rick Santorum participated in raiding the federal treasury as an earmarxist, perfectly happy to pork away on Pennsylvania's behalf. He did not join conservatives who fought against No Child Left Behind. He did not join conservatives who fought against the prescription drug benefit.

Rick Santorum was part of the problem in Washington. He was one of the Republicans the public rejected in 2006. The voters in Pennsylvania rejected him in 2006 because of his and the Republicans' profligate ways. Along with Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum led the K Street Project, which traded perks for lobbyists for money for the GOP funded with your tax dollars through earmarks and pork projects.

Sure, you can say 2006 was a bad year for Republicans, but in 2006 Rick Santorum fell 18 percentage points behind his Democratic rival and his defeat and terrible campaign can be linked to the loss of four Pennsylvania house seats.

That was not a defeat for Rick Santorum. It was punishment. He is a pro-life statist and I see nothing in his career since leaving Washington that shows he has changed his ways.

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard coined the term "big government conservatives" in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. He wrote

IS PRESIDENT BUSH really a conservative? When that question came up this summer, the White House went into crisis mode. Bush aides summoned several of Washington's conservative journalists to a 6:30 a.m. breakfast at the White House to press the case for the president's adherence to conservative principles. Aides outnumbered journalists. Other conservative writers and broadcasters were invited to luncheon sessions. They heard a similar spiel.

The White House needn't have bothered. The case for Bush's conservatism is strong. Sure, some conservatives are upset because he has tolerated a surge in federal spending, downplayed swollen deficits, failed to use his veto, created a vast Department of Homeland Security, and fashioned an alliance of sorts with Teddy Kennedy on education and Medicare. But the real gripe is that Bush isn't their kind of conventional conservative. Rather, he's a big government conservative. This isn't a description he or other prominent conservatives willingly embrace. It makes them sound as if they aren't conservatives at all. But they are. They simply believe in using what would normally be seen as liberal means—activist government—for conservative ends. And they're willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process.

Being a big government conservative doesn't bring Bush close to being a moderate, much less a liberal. On most issues, his position is standard conservative: a pro-lifer who expects to sign a ban on partial birth abortion, he's against stem-cell research and gun control, and has drawn the line at gay marriage. His judicial nominees are so uniformly conservative that liberals are furious.

That's Rick Santorum. He sees government as the means to conservative ends. But in using government to get conservative ends he has expanded government and set precedents for liberals to use government in the same ways for more liberal government. Rick Santorum was complicit in making Americans more dependent on government and justified it under the rubric of compassion.

Before Rick Santorum was purged from Washington for his pro-life statism, the Washington Post summed up his, George Bush's, and the GOP's sins in an editorial titled "Big Government Conservatism."

Back in 1987, when Mr. Reagan applied his veto to what was generally known at the time as the highway and mass transit bill, he was offended by the 152 earmarks for pet projects favored by members of Congress. But on Wednesday Mr. Bush signed a transportation bill containing no fewer than 6,371 earmarks. Each one of these, as Mr. Reagan understood but Mr. Bush apparently doesn't, amounts to a conscious decision to waste taxpayers' dollars. One point of an earmark is to direct money to a project that would not receive money as a result of rational judgments based on cost-benefit analyses.

Mr. Bush, who had threatened to veto wasteful spending bills, chose instead to cave in. He did so despite the fact that in addition to a record number of earmarks the transportation bill came with a price tag that he had once called unacceptable. The bill has a declared cost of $286 billion over five years plus a concealed cost of a further $9 billion; Mr. Bush had earlier drawn a line in the sand at $256 billion, then drawn another line at $284 billion. Asked to explain the president's capitulation, a White House spokesman pleaded that at least this law would be less costly than the 2003 Medicare reform. This is a classic case of defining deviancy down.

This is why I do not support Rick Santorum. I do not want a co-conspirator to government largess premised on the rhetoric of compassionate or big government conservatism being rewarded.

The Horserace for December 29, 2011

Nobody knows the winner of Iowa but Jesus. That's the dirty little secret.

Matt Lewis hits the nail on the head on this. Nobody knows. Why? Well, the caucuses are a big event. You don't just go into a voting booth, check a box, and leave. You're there for a while. You hear speeches. You get persuaded. Then you vote.

It is slow going.

And we don't know who will turn out. Even the best pollsters have a hard time getting the caucuses right.

We can guess that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney will be in the top three. But as for the third who may finish in second place or may finish in third place? It could be Gingrich. It could be Perry. It could be a late surging Rick Santorum.

It's anybody's game, but one thing is certain. If Perry or Gingrich are in the top three, we have a real race headed into South Carolina. If it is Santorum, we might as well sit back and declare Mitt Romney the nominee.

Michele Bachmann

Kent Sorenson, Michele Bachmann's campaign chair in Iowa, betrayed her and went over to Ron Paul. Betrayal garners sympathy, which hurts Ron Paul and helps Bachmann, but I don't think enough to seriously boost her numbers.

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich is plummeting in Iowa. He's still doing well nationally, but trending down. It comes down to his finish in Iowa and whether his campaign can transcend traditional campaigning. Convention wisdom says Newt's campaign should be falling apart because it is so untraditional. We'll see. My guess is Newt finishes third or fourth and if fourth it depends on the size of Ron Paul's margin. But Santorum is suddenly a wildcard.

Jon Huntsman

The game doesn't even begin for Huntsman for another two weeks. He has bypassed Iowa and I think he has done so to his peril. Huntsman could give Romney a run for his money in New Hampshire, but I think he made the mistake the Giuliani team made in choosing to ignore Iowa altogether. It's going to be tough to go from New Hampshire to Florida, because he'll largely be bypassing South Carolina too.

Huntsman can be competitive in New Hampshire, but he'd have to really, really scramble if he won. I think it will be tough.

Ron Paul

Not gonna happen. Ron Paul won't, I don't think, even take first in Iowa. It is possible. I won't say he cannot. But the polls showing him the strongest also rely heavily on new voters, young voters, and voters who are not Republican. I don't think enough of them will go to a caucus. He may take second place, but that'll be the end of the show for Ron Paul.

Rick Perry

Perry has continued a slow and steady surge in Iowa, but I get the sense Santorum is now cutting into that. Perry will probably come in third or fourth, but Santorum's creep up could put Perry in fifth like the CNN poll shows. That said, Perry has a stronger Iowa organization than Santorum and has spent more money there. I think Perry and Gingrich battle it out to be the non-Romney. If Perry is in fourth, but Ron Paul surprises us all with a stronger than expected showing, Perry can stay in the game into South Carolina.

Mitt Romney

It is still Romney's race to lose and I would not be surprised at all by a first place win in Iowa. That'll cause a lot of people to start settling for Romney, but I think we'll have one last hurrah for the non-Romney candidates headed into South Carolina. It really all depends on — whodathunkit — Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum will not be the nominee. Rick Santorum could do well in Iowa. If Rick Santorum does well in Iowa it (A) provides further proof that Iowans demand candidates spend time in the state; (B) provides further proof that Iowa is an anomaly undeserving of its first in the nation status; (C) provides further proof my fellow Evangelicals are terrible at politics; and (D) largely ensures Mitt Romney is the nominee.

The Romney camp must be delighted by Rick Santorum. I expect he gets a cabinet position out of this if Romney were to win.

None of the above

I think if Romney does well in Iowa, it short circuits the idea of someone else getting in. And that is the most likely scenario.