Obama Must Return Foul-Mouthed Comic's Million Bucks or Be Tainted By His Misogyny

At IBD, "Obama Obliged to Return Hate Speech Comic's Million":

Misogyny and hate-mongering are not things President Obama wants his re-election campaign tainted by. There's no avoiding getting his Super-PAC to return sleaze merchant Bill Maher's million dollars.

Just when you thought there couldn't be any worse double standards, a sewer-mouthed "comedian" gives a million smackers to help re-elect President Obama, yet the major media and leading Democrats think it's fine.

The same Democrats and media organizations blew a socket when Rush Limbaugh used "slut" to describe a feminist activist who wants taxpayers to finance her efforts at avoiding pregnancy. But consider how Bill Maher has treated Sarah Palin.

Not only has he called her the c-word in his act, and another four-letter obscenity with the same meaning; he compared Palin to a "pimp" and called her family — which includes a son with Down Syndrome — "inbred."

Maher also lumped former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and Palin together using an obscene four-letter acronym little known outside pornographic chat rooms.

Turn the tables and imagine Mitt Romney, say, taking money from a comic whose routine included using the c-word to describe Hillary Clinton. Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be calling it a GOP war on women, and it would dominate prime time news coverage for weeks.

More at the link.

Michele Bachmann on Rush Limbaugh Attacks: 'I Have Never Seen This Level of Outrage On the Left'

No, you don't get this bullsh*t when progressive hacks smear conservative women.

Rep. Bachmann hits it out of the park:

And see Dana Loesch, at Big Journalism, "Where's My Presidential Phone Call?"

BONUS: At Michelle Malkin's, "The anti-Rush revival revived — and Barack Obama’s petty presidency."

Explaining the Santorum Surge

From Larry Sabato, "The Santorum Surge and Its Larger Meaning" (via Memeorandum):

Buyer’s remorse is very common in the history of presidential nominating politics. Just when it appears that one candidate is headed for the party nod, the voters pause and say, “wait a minute, let’s think about this some more, the frontrunner’s inadequacies trouble us.” Then they opt to keep the contest alive by elevating one of the other candidates — for a while, at least. Rarely, though, has buyer’s remorse been as acute as in 2012. In fact, it is not at all clear that most Republicans have ever bought into Romney at all. Temporary non-Romney frontrunners included Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann, not to mention ghost frontrunners (such as Chris Christie) who never entered the race. Romney has only floated to the top in the absence of a well known substitute.

Of the three remaining non-Romney alternatives, only Ron Paul has never held the title of king-for-a-day. Newt Gingrich has risen from the dead twice, and he will persist as long as his iron will and Super PAC angel Sheldon Adelson’s money hold out. His chances of becoming a three-time Lazarus are not bright, but remembering the first two resuscitations, who would risk real money to bet against him?

However, it is Rick Santorum who wears the current anti-Romney crown. Propelled by an unexpected trio of victories in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri on Feb. 7, Santorum now leads Romney in most national surveys, some by a wide margin. More disturbing for Romney, Santorum led Romney in his own home state of Michigan for quite a while, before dropping back in some surveys. As we’ve just suggested, Santorum is partly on top because he is the latest ”great anti-Romney hope.” But it is more than that. As the economy improves and President Obama’s ratings creep upwards, many Republicans have become less certain that any nominee is going to defeat the incumbent. This may change if worse economic numbers crop up later in the year and high gas prices begin to take a presidential toll. But for the moment, the trend is encouraging activists to look beyond Romney, the economic manager, to someone whose social-issue conservatism and blue-collar image may enable the GOP to serve up a different kind of presidential option.

A few intellectual leaders of the Republican party’s right-wing have begun to convince themselves that Santorum may be a risk worth taking. He gives activists some fallback reasons to vote should economic recovery continue, and he will stir the base, especially Tea Partiers and evangelical Christians. GOP enthusiasm has been on the wane lately but with Santorum, goes the thinking, GOP turnout may increase. (The swing independents in competitive states are another matter. Many independent analysts think Santorum is too far right on social issues to be elected in November.)

That's sounds great, up to a point. Frankly, Tuesday night's debate could be hurting Santorum --- and the debates have been a significant factor in the surging (and resurging) prospects of previous challengers to Romney's lead. See, for example, Los Angeles Times, "Michigan polls show Romney gained after GOP debate."

If You Don't Believe Santorum Is Electable...

Well, I was kinda caught off guard with Reaganite's comment the other day, slamming Rick Santorum and making the case for Newt Gingrich. Not one of those remaining in the GOP field is my first pick for the nomination (I was for Michele Bachmann early and enthusiastically), although I've been pretty impressed with Santorum and I'm really pleased that he's helped elevate social issues in the campaign.

Reaganite has a big post on this as well, "Billion-Dollar Obama Machine Would Cut Santorum to Ribbons."

That sounds harsh, actually. I'm betting that conservatives and Republicans rally around the nominee in a big way, as it's hard to beat Barack Obama for political polarization. It's going to be a tight-fought campaign.

But Reaganite might want to respond to Dan Riehl, who apparently has some strong feelings for Santorum naysayers. See, "If You Don't Believe Santorum Is Electable, You Don't Believe In Conservatism, The GOP, Or Yourself":

If you insist that Rick Santorum is un-electable at this point, but call yourself a Republican - which I don't btw - then you are wasting your time in the wrong party and may as well go Independent. I did when I left the Democrats and haven't joined another one since. But given these numbers, there is no valid argument in suggesting Santorum would not be an acceptable nominee for the GOP, any more than one can say that about Romney at this point.

But if you are a conservative looking at these numbers and saying Santorum can't win, then you may as well give it up, or stop calling yourself a conservative, because you don't believe enough in what you profess to believe in to even fight for it when called. You assume conservatism is a loser out of the gate. Frankly, I don't believe that, which is why I became one in my twenties. I believe it not only can win in America but must for America to remain strong. And I am always willing to fight to put that assumption to the test.

RTWT.

And then check Legal Insurrection, "Yes, you can be conservative and not support Santorum."

Michele Bachmann Speech CPAC 2012

She's awesome:

And at Washington Post, "Despite lightheartedness at CPAC gathering, tension within movement can be felt."

Michele Bachmann: 'I Was the Perfect Candidate'

Well, she wasn't quite perfect, but far superior to anyone else in my opinion.

See The Hill, "Rep. Michele Bachmann thinks that America missed its opportunity with 'the perfect candidate'," and CNN, "TRENDING: Bachmann says she was the ‘perfect candidate’." (Via Memeorandum.)

I'm pictured with Congresswoman Bachmann last April at David Horowitz's West Coast Retreat in Palos Verdes. She hadn't announced her candidacy yet, but I was certain she'd be candidate and I backed her from the start. No, she wasn't perfect. But I thought she best represented my interests in the race, and I do agree with her contention that no other candidate was as consistently opposed to President Obama and the ObamaCare debacle as she was.

GOP Debates Present Chance to Slow Romney's Momentum

We've got two debates this weekend.

One coming up in less than an hour and another in the morning. Rick Santorum will be featured front and center after his rousing showing in the Iowa caucuses. The rest of the GOP field --- now minus Michele Bachmann --- will be looking to get the hooks into the well-entrenched frontrunner Mitt Romney.

Here's a report, at Los Angeles Times, "New Hampshire debates: Will Romney's rivals try to slow him down?":

If anyone is going to take it to Mitt Romney, it might as well be now.

The slowly diminishing field of GOP presidential candidates, as odd as it may seem, has two debates that will begin within 12 hours of each other, just a couple of days before the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary.

Saturday evening’s debate, sponsored by ABC and Yahoo, will be held at St. Anselm College in Manchester; the Sunday morning tilt, co-sponsored by Facebook, will be held in Concord and shown live on MSNBC and then later on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Together, they represent a chance -- perhaps one of the few remaining ones -- for the other GOP contenders to dent Romney’s growing momentum.

Polls show Romney with a sizeable lead in New Hampshire ahead of Tuesday’s primary and a new CNN-Time poll has him in the lead in South Carolina as well, raising the possibility that the question of the GOP standard bearer could be settled sooner, not later.

Romney felt confident enough about his chances in New Hampshire that he took time out this week to make a quick stop down in South Carolina before returning. It’s expected he’ll try to stay above the fray and keep his sights set on the economy and President Obama, leaving the other participants, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman Jr. and Rick Perry, to come after him.

Continue reading.

Also, at Legal Insurrection, "Pre-Debate."

BONUS: At The Other McCain, "Santorum Surge Hits Hollis, N.H."

Explaining Michele Bachmann's Epic Collapse

I'd say two words explain Bachmann's collapse: Rick Perry.

That is, Rick Perry stole her thunder by entering the race the same weekend that Bachmann won the Ames straw poll, and Bachmann torpedoed her own campaign with her attack on Governor Perry on the Gardasil issue. I didn't really understand why she was hammering that issue at the time. It wasn't her best moment and she never recovered. Perhaps there were other campaign problems as well, organization and fundraising, and so forth. But it was Rick Perry who stopped Bachmann's momentum and her attempts to regain it by attacking Perry sunk her ever further.

The Los Angeles Times has more, "Michele Bachmann: What happened to the once-promising candidate?"

Michele Bachmann Quits Presidential Campaign

London's Daily Mail has a video, "Michele Bachmann quits White House race just six months in after disastrous Iowa result and warns U.S. is in 'serious trouble'."

And see ABC News, "Michele Bachmann Drops Out of Presidential Race." (At Memeorandum.)

I'm not surprised at all, although Bachmann was my candidate. She was the clearest, most unambiguous candidate speaking out against the Obama-Dems' progressive socialism.

I'll have more on all of this throughout the day.

Added: Here's the announcement:

Bachmann Crashes in Iowa

I'm going to check for a full clip of her Iowa speech.

Bachmann seemed pretty upbeat to me. But see Weasel Zippers, "Bachmann’s Campaign Manager Says She May Drop Out After Last Place Finish In Iowa…" (Via Memeorandum.)

More at Los Angeles Times, "Michele Bachmann: Iowa caucus system 'worked'," and London's Daily Mail, "Is this the end of Michele Bachmann? 'Queen of Rage' dealt massive a campaign blow after abysmal turnout in Iowa caucus."

America's Iron Lady

Michele Bachmann's going big in Iowa.

At CNN, "‘Iron Lady’ goes back up on Iowa TV." (At Memeorandum.)

Maybe this will help.

The Financial Times reports that 41 percent of Iowa caucus-goers are still undecided. See, "Final Iowa polls show fragmented field."

Focus on Electability as Caucuses Near

At New York Times, "In Final Days in Iowa, Focus on Who Can Defeat Obama":

DES MOINES — Rick Santorum and Ron Paul defended themselves on Sunday against claims that they could not win in November as a new poll suggested that they were now the primary threat to Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination, with two days left before the Iowa caucuses.

Appearing on several Sunday news programs, Mr. Paul waved aside the findings of a poll by The Des Moines Register that suggested nearly a third of Iowa voters believed he would be the least able of the candidates to defeat President Obama.

“Maybe it’s not true,” Mr. Paul, a congressman from Texas, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “I’ve been pretty electable. I was elected 12 times once people got to know me in my own Congressional district. So I think that might be more propaganda than anything else.”

On the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Mr. Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, criticized Mr. Santorum as a “big-government type of moderate” who will not fare well as people learn more about his record.

“A lot of people don’t know that because he hasn’t surged to the top yet, so he hasn’t had much scrutiny,” Senator Paul said. “When he has the scrutiny, I think he’s going to have some of the same problems that some of the other fair-weather conservatives have had.”

Mr. Santorum, whose support tripled in the latest Register poll, predicted that his campaign would emerge from Iowa with “a big jump” because voters wanted someone who could defeat the president in the fall.

“The people of Iowa, the more they look, the more they are going to see the person who is exactly the right person,” Mr. Santorum said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press.” He said that if he could finish higher in caucuses than Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, “we’d be in good shape, and we’re moving towards that right now.”

Bachmann Calls 'Occupy' Protesters 'Obama's Advance Team'

You gotta love Bachmann.

At MSNBC:

URBANDALE, Iowa – During remarks to supporters inside her campaign headquarters Saturday, Michele Bachmann linked President Barack Obama to a large protest that had been unfolding outside the building only minutes before.

"You may have seen all over Des Moines the Barack Obama re-election advance team is already out there in the various parking lots of all of the campaigns," Bachmann told about 70 volunteers.

"This tells you that he is nervous," she continued.  "He doesn't want me on the stage. I want you to know, I'm not nervous. I'm fearless."

The rhetoric signifies a heightened effort to paint Obama as out of touch, something the campaign acknowledges is an element of Bachmann's closing argument to voters three days before the Jan. 3 caucuses.

And more coverage at Robert Stacy McCain's, "‘Occupy’ Protesters at Bachmann HQ: Proof That Gardasil Causes Retardation?"

Michele Bachmann's Damage Control

Actually, I believe her. Her top staffer went for the payout, but with the way things are shaken out for her in Iowa, people had a lot of incentive to jump ship. And politicos lie about stuff, so what can you do?

At Washington Post, "Michele Bachmann's Campaign Flameout":

DES MOINES — The rise and fall of Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) may well stand as an allegory of the most turbulent GOP presidential primary in memory, one whose latest turn has been bitter and bizarre.

With just days to go before the Iowa caucuses, where a poor finish would almost certainly mean the end of Bachmann’s presidential hopes, the candidate who only months ago led the field here is being all but counted out.

A CNN/Time poll released Wednesday showed her running last among the six serious contenders in Iowa, garnering support from only 9 percent of likely caucusgoers surveyed.

Her story line went from poignant to poisonous on Wednesday night. Bachmann’s own Iowa chairman, state Sen. Kent Sorenson — who just hours earlier had appeared with her at a campaign event — suddenly turned up onstage at a rally for Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) and announced that he was ditching her.

She fired back with an accusation that Sorenson “personally told me he was offered a large sum of money to go to work for the Paul campaign.”

Then came another twist: Wes Enos, Bachmann’s political director, contradicted his candidate, saying in a statement that Sorenson’s switch “was in no way financially motivated.”

Sorenson issued a statement saying that he “was never offered money from the Ron Paul campaign or anyone associated with them and certainly would never accept any.”

That Bachmann’s once-promising endeavor should end up in such a surreal place speaks to the larger forces that have defined the primary contest.

More at that top link.

Also at Des Moines Register, "Bachmann reasserts that defector was paid."

And more at Memeorandum.

Michele Bachmann Aide Kent Sorenson Defects to Ron Paul in Iowa Caucuses

At the Des Moines Register, "Breaking: Michele Bachmann campaign co-chairman endorses Ron Paul" (via Memeorandum).

The guy appeared just today at a campaign event for Bachmann in Indianola, his hometown. I guess it's a sign of Bachmann's campaign implosion. Weird that the dude went for Paul, though. If you're going to hop on the bandwagon, at least hop on something good and decent. Ron Paul would be a horrible nominee and even worse president.

UPDATE: Yeah, that late turnabout sounded kind of strange. Allahpundit has one of thos breaking/update posts with the red highlighting, "Drama: Bachmann’s Iowa chairman endorses Ron Paul — three hours after appearing at an event for her; Update: Sorenson “saddened” by how Bachmann’s been treated; Update: Sorenson told us Paul offered him a “large sum,” says Team Bachmann."

Here's the source for the "large sum" claim, on Twitter.

And now here from Alexandra Moe at NBC, on Twitter:

Sorenson DENIES Bachmann statement, calls it "absurd" and that he was not offered money by Paul campaign via @AnthonyNBCNews #iacaucus

Added: More bad news, it looks like, "Bachmann SuperPAC Defects to Romney."

Romney Makes Major Push in Iowa

The New York Times reports that the fluidity in Iowa lured Mitt Romney "back for a full-throated effort to win the state, including a last-minute decision to spend New Year’s Eve here."

And at Los Angeles Times, "Romney looks poised for Iowa victory, maybe even if he loses" (via Memeorandum):

 After a campaign effort that has defied convention and angered top Iowa Republicans, Mitt Romney is well-positioned to emerge as a big winner in Tuesday's presidential caucuses.

The tightest GOP caucus contest in decades features Romney, Ron Paul and a fading Newt Gingrich in a virtual tie for the lead, making the final days of politicking unusually consequential. And another candidate, Rick Perry or Rick Santorum, could get hot at the end and knock one of the favorites out of the top three.

But it seems increasingly likely that Romney, condemned only last month by Iowa's Republican governor for ignoring the state, has managed to finesse the tricky voter test that he failed four years ago. He ran second then to upstart Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and ex-evangelical minister, despite investing huge amounts of time and money.

Just before flying to Iowa on Tuesday for a four-day campaign swing, Romney said that expectations were "very different this time." He then tried to lower them, noting that a couple of weeks ago he "was a distant third in Iowa, and you just don't know what's going to happen in this process."

The Times delivers a conspicuous non-mention of Michele Bachmann there, but what can you do?

And a win for Ron Paul is a win for Romney, or so it goes.

Politico has more, "Mitt Romney in striking distance of Iowa win":

Don’t look now, but Mitt Romney suddenly seems like the Iowa front-runner.

The former Massachusetts governor has carefully tempered expectations in Iowa all year, visiting only a handful of times and saving the bulk of his television spending for the final weeks of the race. But as a crowd of conservative opponents keep the anti-Romney vote divided, his odds of a victory in the state that humbled him four years ago have never been better.

Even as he tried to keep talk about his prospects in check Tuesday, a slew of public and private polling and anecdotal evidence on the ground suggests that Romney is within striking distance of a first-place finish in Iowa — especially as Ron Paul’s momentum spurt appears to have run into the reality of front-runners’ scrutiny.

Iowa and the Future of the GOP

This is a point I argued previously.

From David Yepsen, at Wall Street Journal, "No matter the outcome, Ron Paul's strength indicates a resurgence of the libertarian and isolationist wings of the Republican Party":

This race feels a bit like 1980. Democrats and some pundits tee-hee about the "dwarfs" in this race, but perhaps their snickers are premature. Can "has-been" politicians stage comebacks? Yes. Can new stars emerge? Yup. With the right candidate, can the party pick off a sitting Democratic president with weak poll ratings? You betcha.

Some insights to consider as the contest enters the final days:

• No matter the outcome, Ron Paul's strength indicates a resurgence of the libertarian and isolationist wings of the Republican Party. Hard times and unpopular wars will do that.

It's always wise to watch which candidate is attracting new people because they—or their message—are on to something. That was true with George McGovern in 1972 and Pat Robertson in 1988. In this race, the one candidate attracting hordes of new people is Mr. Paul. Many of them are young—and while Mr. Paul is unlikely to become the GOP nominee, those young adults will mature into a political force, just as Mr. McGovern's antiwar factions and Mr. Robertson's religious conservatives have done.

• The Iowa contest will also help the party chart its course on immigration—and it may not be a successful or wise one. Candidates are falling over themselves to bash illegal immigration.

While that plays well to GOP activists, it fuels the fire of nativism that burns so hot inside the GOP today. It also alienates people of Latino ancestry and is driving them and their children into the Democratic Party. That shift will have a huge impact in the fall campaign, since many toss-up states could be decided by the votes of Latinos.

You'd think the GOP would learn. Just as the Yankee Brahmins drove the Irish into the Democratic Party generations ago, many GOP leaders are pushing Latinos there today.

• Too much is made of the power of social conservatives, perhaps because both politicians and pundits tend to fight the last war. Polls show that only about 40% of likely caucusgoers describe themselves as evangelicals or born-again Christians. That would mean 60% aren't. (In 2008, some polls had it 60%-40% the other way.)

Continue reading.

Yepsen warns that the GOP could end up like McGovern in '72 --- getting clobbered in a landslide of epic proportions. But I'm not down with that suggestion. A conservative candidate --- I'd prefer Michele Bachmann --- can beat the president by hammering the administration on the economy. Progressives laugh when they hear such stuff, but hubris will do them in, and the president's the most hubristic of all.

New York Times Decries 'Right Wing Extremism' — Again

Well, since I've been reading the Times' editorials, here you go with the latest attack on the "extremist" right, "The Race to the Right":

The toxic effects of right-wing extremism in Washington were vividly on display during the payroll-tax fiasco — even to the right wing. On the campaign trail, though, those lessons are being ignored. The leading Republican presidential candidates are overtly competing for the title of Most Conservative, distorting their own records and advocating increasingly radical positions.

Candidates often move to the ideological edges to win a primary, because that’s where the primary voters are, but the frenzied efforts of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are particularly hard to watch. Neither has a record as a dogmatic conservative, and they are competing with candidates like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann who have much longer and more consistent conservative records. That makes their rush to the right all the more desperate and convoluted.

Last week, Mr. Romney blasted Mr. Gingrich as “an extremely unreliable leader in the conservative world,” citing specifically Mr. Gingrich’s criticisms of Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan and his appearance with Nancy Pelosi in a commercial against global warming. Mr. Gingrich, in turn, claims he’s “a lot more conservative” than Mr. Romney.

Real conservatives, in their columns and magazines, say neither of them qualifies, noting that both have previously called themselves “progressives” when appealing to very different audiences than the ones in Iowa and New Hampshire. Mr. Romney once supported abortion rights, though now he says he has changed his mind. Mr. Gingrich fiercely opposes the government’s role in the housing market, but worked for Freddie Mac. Both have supported an individual mandate for health insurance, as well as the TARP bailout of Wall Street.

To make up for their lapses in orthodoxy, each has now adopted positions at the far end of the ideological spectrum. Mr. Romney wants to send home all 11 million illegal immigrants and make them wait many years to return. He equates the president’s goal of raising taxes on the rich with redistributing wealth until the government achieves “equal outcomes” for everyone, all but calling President Obama a Marxist. Rather than demonstrate prudence after the death of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il, he recklessly demanded that the United States now push for regime change there. (Without feeling any need to explain just how that might be done, just as he has failed to explain precisely how he will end Iran’s nuclear ambitions once and for all.)

Mr. Gingrich, meanwhile, is now dispensing with the Constitution in his call to drag federal judges before Congress to explain their decisions...

Continue reading.

Call me a right wing extremist, because I don't think any of that stuff from Romney is that exceptional. Sure, both Romney and Gingrich are pandering to the base, but frankly, the concerns of the tea party and others at the grassroots aren't going to be easy to ignore heading into the general election. Republicans have to stay on  message on the economy. They have to hammer this administration for painting extreme economic conditions  in order to seize more power for a massive bureaucratic response to the recession. It hasn't worked. Just keep plugging away on that and in no time the payroll tax debacle will be ancient history and Obama will have to run on his economic record fair and square. And screw the New York Times' editors. These people are pathetic losers cheerleading for more of the same old failed policies. Progressives suck like that.

Michele Bachmann Hates Muslims?

Politico reports, "Paul on Bachmann: 'She hates Muslims'."

And lots more at Memeorandum.

Also, on Bachmann attacking the Gingrich campaign for alleged vote-buying in South Carolina? At The Other McCain, "‘Shorter Ace: Bitches Lie’."

Ron Paul's Ground Game in Iowa Could Be Decisive

I mentioned this possibility at my essay this week at PJ Media.

See New York Times, "Paul’s ‘Ground Game,’ in Place Since ’08, Gives Him an Edge":

ANKENY, Iowa — It was four years ago that Ross Witt, a soft-spoken electrical engineer at John Deere, overcame his natural discomfort with knocking on hundreds of his neighbors’ doors during dinnertime as a precinct coordinator for Ron Paul’s campaign.

But when Mr. Paul dropped out of the national race in June 2008, Mr. Witt did not stop, because, in a sense, neither did Mr. Paul: Mr. Witt and many other supporters here joined the Iowa branch of an independent political group Mr. Paul established after the race. They carried on his libertarian message, and picked local organizers. And when Mr. Paul announced that he was running for president this year, Mr. Witt and others jumped back onto his campaign, a force more motivated and efficient than before.

Alone among the Republican field, Mr. Paul, a Texas congressman, has a built-in network from 2008 that gives him a decisive organizational edge. Iowa Republicans say that advantage is an important reason some polls show him within striking distance of a victory in the Jan. 3 caucuses, with a battle-tested ground game poised to take advantage of a lack of passion for the rest of the candidates, a stark contrast to 2008, when evangelicals rallied around Mike Huckabee.

“This isn’t a year-and-a-half campaign,” Craig Robinson, a former Iowa Republican Party political director during the caucuses four years ago, said of Mr. Paul’s organization. “This is a five-year campaign.”

More at the link.

RELATED: At ABC News, "Ron Paul Takes Swipes at GOP Rivals, Says Michele Bachmann ‘Hates Muslims’." (Via Memeorandum.)