I've been adamant that such an outcome is extremely unlikely. For a brokered convention to occur, there has to be an almost perfect storm of events; the GOP elites can’t just declare shenanigans on the primary season and select a new nominee. Instead, something has to prevent any of the current candidates from clinching a majority of the delegates; if one of them amasses that majority, he will be the nominee on the first ballot at the convention in Tampa.

My assumption -- and the assumption of many -- was that the GOP fight would eventually degenerate into an ideological battle between the very conservative and somewhat conservative/moderate wings of the party, with Romney on one side and a single alternative on the other. Unless there was a late entrant or Ron Paul caught fire in the caucus states, someone was virtually assured of claiming the requisite number of delegates in that scenario.

But for the first time, the two way faceoff doesn't seem inevitable, and a viable path to a brokered convention is beginning to emerge. Let’s start with something else I overlooked. The GOP does have super-delegates of a sort, in the form of the 63 RNC members. They aren’t as numerous as they are in the Democratic Party, but they are still there. While many of them have already declared allegiance to one candidate or another, those commitments can evaporate quickly, as Hillary Clinton learned to her sorrow in 2008.

But more importantly, demographic and geographic splits are beginning to surface in the GOP that resemble the splits in the Democratic Party in 2008. That year, Hillary Clinton laid claim to working-class whites and Latino voters, while Barack Obama laid claim to college-educated whites and African-Americans. This divide continued throughout the primary, right up to the last day of voting.

The GOP split is more speculative at that point. To see it, let’s examine a map of U.S. counties and how they have voted so far. Blue counties backed Romney, red backed Gingrich, green are for Santorum, while white have gone for some other candidate (or not yet voted).

Romney has done well in New Hampshire and south Florida; the latter is basically the North transplanted to the South. This suggests continued strength in the Northeast. He’s also done well in the Mountain West: Nevada was in his camp, as was a large portion of the Western Slope of Colorado. Note also the handful of counties in southern Colorado that went for Romney; they are heavily Mexican-American, and Romney has run well with Latino voters in the GOP contests thus far.

Next, Gingrich. As I noted a few days ago, there is continued resistance to Mitt Romney in the GOP among evangelicals. These voters are concentrated largely, but not exclusively, in the South. And as we see, the former House speaker ran well in South Carolina as well as in northern Florida. This caused many to conclude that Gingrich was on the verge of emerging as the definitive not-Romney.

But now we have to consider that Santorum has won Iowa and Minnesota in the Midwest, and won Colorado largely on the strength of his showing in eastern Colorado (which is basically the Great Plains). He also won Missouri -- which is culturally more southern than Midwestern -- but Gingrich wasn’t on the ballot there.  For now at least, he is the "anti-Romney" in the Midwest.

If this split continues -- Romney in the West and Northeast, Gingrich in the South, and Santorum in the Midwest -- we could easily find ourselves in a scenario where no candidate crosses the 1,144-delegate threshold by the time voting ends. Consider this: Right now, Romney barely has a majority of the delegates. If Gingrich successfully contests the winner-takes-all allocation in the Florida primary (based on the RNC’s rule against such a format before April), no one would have a majority of the delegates as of today.

We will find out how viable this path is in the next few weeks. In the lead-up to Super Tuesday, we’ll probably see Romney win Arizona, Michigan and Maine. Arizona and Maine are in his demographic wheelhouse, while he is a native Michigander and his father was governor of the state. Washington is a coastal state, where Romney’s strength hasn’t been tested, so it is up in the air.

Super Tuesday will likely be tougher for him. Four of the five largest states -- Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Georgia -- are Southern (or in Oklahoma's case, culturally Southern). Romney will likely win Virginia by default, but he will probably fare poorly in the remaining three. If Gingrich can maintain his strength in the South, he will likely win them.

On the other hand, Romney will probably do well in Massachusetts, Idaho and Vermont. Santorum seems well-positioned to win North Dakota.

So the viability of a three-way split probably comes down to Ohio, which has a fair number of evangelicals, though not to the degree that Tennessee, Oklahoma and Georgia do. Santorum has some strengths he can draw on in the Buckeye State, as his blue-collar message could play well even among Republicans there. If he wins, it means that we probably do have a deeply divided GOP, with Gingrich taking the anti-Romney vote in the South, and Santorum taking the anti-Romney vote in the Midwest.

The key is that neither Gingrich nor Santorum can begin to do so well that the other drops out.  Both must remain effectively regional candidates.  If Gingrich’s support collapses in the South, it might leave an opening there for Santorum. We’ve seen some potential evidence of this, as Gingrich’s support in Gallup’s tracking poll is down about seven points since the Florida primary (although it isn’t down in the wake of Santorum’s wins Tuesday night). If that were to occur, we would be back to a two-person race.

Alternatively, Santorum’s support could turn out to be confined to caucus states and/or states where Romney failed to spend money. Remember, Colorado and Minnesota are small state caucuses, virtually ignored by the candidates. Santorum’s win in Minnesota was large enough, however, that it could indicate broader support among the general electorate (as was his showing in eastern Colorado).  This might allow Gingrich to step in, or Romney to wrap up the nomination.

But in the event this scenario does unfold through Super Tuesday, we would then begin a long slog. But unlike 2008, where Obama’s states were frontloaded and allowed him to gain an air of inevitability early on, here the states are spread out. The remainder of March contains Northern caucuses in Wyoming and Kansas. There are Southern states: Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. At the same time, areas with heavily Latino population such as Puerto Rico, and states with relatively liberal Republican parties (Illinois) will cast their ballots. The fact that these contests award their delegates proportionately will prevent any candidate from breaking out.

In April, Gingrich would have a great chance in Texas, Maryland and Delaware (increasingly de facto Southern states in the GOP primary electorate), while Romney would receive large delegate hauls in Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York. Santorum would have primaries in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In the end, we could end up in California in early June with no clear nominee. While that state is nominally winner-take-all for a whopping 172 delegates, in fact it allocates the overwhelming majority of those delegates by Congressional District. Who is voting in a Republican primary in Nancy Pelosi’s or Maxine Waters’ district? I honestly have no idea, but if they’re different from the voters in the Latino central valley districts, and if they’re different than the voters in Orange County, and if they’re different from the voters in the Sierra districts, we really could have a situation where the state doesn’t produce a winner for the GOP.

If this occurs, and Ron Paul wins around 100 delegates along the way, we have a situation where no candidate has more than 900 delegates, and three have more than 400. In that situation, no one would be able to lay claim to the mantle of presumptive nominee. The convention would eventually deadlock, and an outside candidate could emerge.

This would not be without its difficulties. We’ve seen the problem with sudden, late entrants before. The nominee would have to be able to put together a platform, a fundraising organization, prepare for debates, select a running mate, and hit the campaign trail, all in a manner of weeks.

And the candidate would not be fully vetted. There might be some skeleton in his closet, or his family’s. One wing of the party might not be satisfied. Chris Christie’s name is frequently mentioned, but he believes in climate change and favors civil unions. How will the religious right react when that is in the spotlight? Mitch Daniels may bore Tea Partiers looking for a fighter, and his past as Bush’s budget director is a black mark waiting to be exploited by his opponent. Jeb Bush is a Bush. And so forth. While I think some of the choices that have been mentioned are better than others, they all come with risks.

The path to this outcome is still a very narrow, precarious one. But for the first time, I can see it. 

Sean Trende is Senior Elections Analyst for RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at strende@realclearpolitics.com.

The Republican establishment, which has lined up heavily behind Romney, has tried to depict him as the "electable," if not invincible, candidate in the general election this November. But it is hard to maintain an aura of invincibility after you have been vinced, especially in a month when pundits had suggested that Romney might build up an unstoppable momentum of victories.

In a sense, this year's campaign for the Republican nomination is reminiscent of what happened back in 1940, when the big-name favorites -- Senators Taft and Vandenberg, back then -- were eclipsed by a lesser known candidate who seemed to come out of nowhere.

As the Republican convention that year struggled to try to come up with a majority vote for someone, a chant began in the hall and built to a crescendo: "We want Willkie! We want Willkie!"

If there is a message in the rise and fall of so many conservative Republican candidates during this year's primary season, it seems to be today's Republican voters saying, "We don't want Romney! We don't want Romney!"

Even in Colorado, where Governor Romney came closest to winning, the combined votes for Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich added up to an absolute majority against him.

Much has been made of Newt Gingrich's "baggage." But Romney's baggage has been accumulating recently, as well. His millions of dollars parked in a tax shelter in the Cayman Islands is red meat for the class warfare Democrats.

But a far more serious issue is ObamaCare, perhaps the most unpopular act of the Obama administration, its totalitarian implications highlighted by its recent attempt to force Catholic institutions to violate their own principles and bend the knee to the dictates of Washington bureaucrats.

Yet Romney's own state-imposed medical care plan when he was governor of Massachusetts leaves him in a very weak position to criticize ObamaCare, except on strained federalism grounds that are unlikely to stir the voters or clarify the larger issues.

The Romney camp's massive media ad campaign of character assassination against Newt Gingrich, over charges on which the Internal Revenue Service exonerated Gingrich after a lengthy investigation, was by no means Romney's finest hour, though it won him the Florida primary.

This may well have been payback for Newt's demagoguery about Romney's work at Bain Capital. But two character assassinations do not make either candidate look presidential.

If Romney turns his well-financed character assassination machine on Rick Santorum, or Santorum resorts to character assassination against either Romney or Gingrich, the Republicans may forfeit whatever chance they have of defeating Barack Obama in November.

Some politicians and pundits seem to think that President Obama is vulnerable politically because of the economy in the doldrums. "It's the economy, stupid," has become one of the many mindless mantras of our time.

What Obama seems to understand that Republicans and many in the media do not, is that dependency on the government in hard times can translate into votes for the White House incumbent.

Growing numbers of Americans on food stamps, jobs preserved by bailouts, people living on extended unemployment payments and people behind in their mortgage payments being helped by government interventions are all potential voters for those who rescued them -- even if their rescuers are the reason for hard times, in the first place.

The economy was far worse during the first term of Franklin D. Roosevelt than it has been under Obama. Unemployment rates under FDR were more than double what they have been under Obama. Yet FDR was reelected in a landslide. Dependency pays off for politicians, even when it damages an economy or ruins a society. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

The Egyptian revolution, a year on, is struggling to establish a government amid chaos. The spontaneous, leaderless uprising that toppled President Hosni Mubarak has given way, all too predictably, to a disorderly muddle in which anarchic gangs roam the streets, ideologically driven parties are dominant and moderate voices are demoralized. Fayza Abul Naga, the Egyptian minister who launched the witch hunt against the NGOs, warned darkly of the "government's seriousness about discovering some of these groups' plans to destabilize Egypt."

If you've read Crane Brinton's "The Anatomy of Revolution," you know what could be coming next: widening chaos and economic trauma, a rising chorus of blame against foreign manipulators -- followed by the strong leader, the man or mullah on horseback, who promises to restore order, security and national purpose.

But there's another possibility, which is that the young activists who made the revolution will continue to push for the freedom, dignity and social justice for which they risked their lives a year ago. In this evolving situation, the U.S. would make a mistake drawing battle lines too early -- say, by announcing a cutoff in aid to the Egyptian military and civilian government in retaliation for the charges against the American NGO workers. We would make America appear to be the foreign enemy, which we're not.

Let's step back from the chaos in Cairo to make a few simple observations:

-- First, the NGO activists weren't doing anything sinister. I've been reading regular reports from the National Democratic Institute activists in Cairo over the past year, and they're championing the new Egypt, not trying to subvert it. Their goal is to help train Egyptians in the skills they'll need to make democracy and openness work; the same holds for the other three U.S. groups whose members have been charged: the International Republican Institute, Freedom House and the International Center for Journalists. If they failed to file all the necessary permissions in this paperwork-mad society, that should be fixed; but if supporting democracy has become a crime in Egypt, that's sad.

-- Second, despite the benign mission of the NGOs, it's understandable why some Egyptians are nervous. This is a country trying to free itself from generations of subservience and manipulation by foreign powers, often led by the U.S. If they're paranoid about "foreign hands" meddling in their affairs, they have reason to be. And this isn't some weirdo Third World anxiety. Imagine the reaction if the French government was discovered to be quietly opening offices across the U.S. for an "Endowment for Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" to advance Gallic values; Americans would not be amused.

-- Third, my bet is still on the young people of Egypt. Whether they're in secular groups or the Muslim Brotherhood, they are the voices for change. They share a common commitment to empower citizens, which you can recall going back to the foundation stones -- Twitter postings using the hashtag (pound symbol)Jan25, or the Facebook site "We are all Khaled Said." These networks are dispersed, and they don't all speak with one voice. But they have the tools for building a new Egypt in which the government and army will be accountable to the people.

Here's what does worry me, as I look at events in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood, having received strong backing in the parliamentary elections, is now poised to govern. This is a group that proclaims "Islam is the answer." But is it open to other answers, from believers and nonbelievers alike? That's the biggest question for the new Egypt, and it's why I hope the Muslim Brotherhood will join in calls for the release of the NGO workers.

Turkey is often cited as a model for democratic political reform in Egypt, and so it is -- up to a point. But if I thought that the new Egyptian government was going to reduce the independence of the media, the courts and the military, in the same way the Turkish government has done over the past several years, then I would get nervous. Egyptian democracy is a work in progress, and the Brotherhood and everyone else should keep moving toward more freedom, not less. 

Copyright 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

The reason three of the four Republicans haven't paid much attention to young voters is that the under-30 folks have been turning out in the Republican contests in miniscule numbers.

According to entrance and exit polls, voters under 30 accounted for 15 percent of participants in Iowa, 12 percent in New Hampshire, 9 percent in South Carolina, 6 percent in Florida and 8 percent in Nevada.

By way of comparison, voters that age were 18 percent of the electorate in November 2008.

And, in that election, they voted 66 percent to 32 percent for Barack Obama over John McCain. Voters above that age favored Obama by only 50 percent to 49 percent. McCain would have won if the voting age were 35.

In this year's Republican contests, the big winner among young voters has been Ron Paul. His libertarian message -- on monetary policy, marijuana policy and foreign policy -- has brought out the under-30 voters, though many and perhaps most don't identify themselves as Republicans at all.

Paul got nearly half the young votes in Iowa and New Hampshire and carried the young voters -- and little else -- in Nevada. He narrowly edged Gingrich among young voters in South Carolina and finished second among them in Florida.

Young voters were not buying Mitt Romney's act in the first three contests. Only 13 percent of them voted for him in Iowa, 26 percent in New Hampshire and 16 percent -- the lowest among the Republicans -- in South Carolina.

He did do better later, carrying the 18-29 group with 41 percent in Florida, and he only ran 41 to 36 percent behind Paul in Nevada.

Nevertheless, it's fair to say that the candidate who seems overwhelmingly likely to be the Republican nominee hasn't shown much appeal to young voters.

That's problematic for the general election because, while young Americans have clearly soured somewhat on Barack Obama -- the change they hoped for, whatever it was, hasn't arrived -- they are still the most Democratic-inclined age group by a considerable margin.

A poll conducted for Generation Opportunity, a conservative group, reports that 43 percent of young voters are not satisfied with their current level of employment and 77 percent have delayed or expect to delay a major life change -- like buying a home, paying off student loans, moving or getting married.

It also found that majorities believe that the economy grows best when people can create jobs without government interference and that companies would hire more if business profits taxes were reduced.

A Pew Research poll of this Millennial Generation conducted last fall found that Obama's job approval was only 49 percent -- 17 percent below his 2008 support. Only 39 percent of white Millennials approved his performance.

I have long thought that there was a tension between Millennials' former enthusiasm for Obama and the thrust of the Obama Democrats' policies.

This is an iPod/Facebook 21st century generation. Young Americans want to customize their own world. They want to shape their own destinies, not be part of a herd that is shepherded from one pasture to another. They like the advice of Obama appointee Anne-Marie Slaughter: Design your own profession.

The Obama policies are redolent of mid-20th century welfare-state planning. From Obamacare's unaccountable boards determining the care patients get to his affection for high-speed rail that will forever run on the same tracks, choice is limited or eliminated. Central planners determine your future.

It's as if every iPod had an identical play list and every Facebook page were the same.

Romney and the other Republicans can claim that their policies, by providing choices and opening markets to spur innovation that no central authority can plan, will enable young people to choose their futures.

Obama likes to emphasize the Obamacare provision that lets "children" up to age 26 stay on their parents' health insurance. Apparently that polls well with Millennials.

Republicans should counter that they want young people to choose their own health plan, from firms competing for their business. An economy liberated from Obama's taxes and regulations can provide more choices and opportunities.

Romney and the others haven't been speaking to young voters directly yet. They need to get started. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

You've had quite the fashion update. I like how you dress in T-shirts and sweats, just like the proles. I like your boyish grin. No longer a tyrant without a name, you're now Facebook's founder and supreme leader, Mark Zuckerberg.

The old Big Brother sought to conquer and oppress. You exude benevolence as you explain in perfect Facespeak: "Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission -- to make the world more open and connected."

Stock analysts are valuing Facebook as high as $100 billion. That would make your social media company worth more than Caterpillar, Ford or Kraft Foods. The interesting part is that you have absolutely nothing to sell except information about your members.

To justify such a lofty price, Facebook will have to rake in a lot more than the $1 a member it now collects. How will you do that, Big Brother? By finding new ways to extract information from members and sell their digital rap sheets to marketers and other interested parties.

But how will you ramp up the surveillance level? You already know our Facebook conversations, our friends' identities, links we share and the things we "like." If we should change our relationship status to "engaged," you sell that information to wedding photographers who beam ads at us. If we use your service to visit other sites on the web, you know what we did there. Naturally, you know where we live. You know our age, gender, diseases and perhaps fascination with certain porn stars.

The danger for the empire is a mass uprising against being watched. A competing enterprise could offer users shelter from your gaze. Of course, only the oldest among us recall the misty past when personal information was stored in metal cabinets with locks on them. And many may enjoy hitting the "like" button on a post about Kanye West, then having an ad for an upcoming Kanye West concert appear on their page.

The rumblings of resistance, however, are unmistakable.

Facebook recently settled with the Federal Trade Commission over changes it made to its privacy settings without obtaining users' consent. They would have put our pictures, hometown, friends list and other information in the public eye. This upset some of us. But you patiently explained that the changes offered a "simpler model for privacy control."

Variations on the word "simple" can be Facespeak for compromising one's privacy in return for convenience. As Google recently wrote to users, "We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read."

Members of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee looked into this simplification and didn't quite enjoy the vibe. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, complained that Google "danced" around the details while going on and on about its efforts to "enhance the user experience."

Collectors of our data like talking about "people," "power" and "sharing." As Big Brother Zuckerberg wrote, "By giving people the power to share, we're making the world more transparent."

But while transparency might be a plus in corporate financial statements and government programs -- and reports on what's really happening on the streets of Damascus -- must it be applied to bra size?

Friends, time for full disclosure. Yes, I'm on Facebook. And yes, I'm this far from deleting my account. Big Brother, I know you're watching and hope you'd let me. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

The Bush administration tried to find other ways to satisfy the Chinese. Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed regret. Then the president did the same. No result.

Vice President Dick Cheney said the U.S. would not apologize. He was wrong. In the end, the administration got the crew back only after sending the Chinese a letter saying it was "very sorry."

It was such a humiliating outcome that Mitt Romney accused George W. Bush of "apologizing for America," adopting "a policy of appeasement" and being "timid and weak."

Just kidding. Romney has used those words, but he wasn't talking about Bush. He was talking about Barack Obama.

Yes, Obama. The same president who ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, ordered a military surge in Afghanistan, took out dozens of jihadists in Pakistan with drone missiles, used American air power to topple Moammar Gadhafi and stuck to the Iraq timetable set by his predecessor.

Rick Santorum agrees with Romney on Obama, saying that "for every thug and hooligan, for every radical Islamist, he has had nothing but appeasement." Newt Gingrich accuses the president of "weakness, appeasement and timidity."

The problem with Romney and other Republican leaders is not so much that they are wrong but that they have taken up residence in a bizarre fantasy world where concepts like "true" and "false" have no meaning. They operate on the model suggested by Bush political adviser Karl Rove, who famously ridiculed those in "the reality-based community."

Reality, however, has a way of trumping delusions. Calling Obama an appeaser is like calling Eli Manning a klutz. The only thing odder than saying it is expecting anyone to believe it.

But the appeasement line is a treasured and durable GOP theme. Republicans used it successfully in the 1970s against George McGovern and Jimmy Carter.

They revived it to pummel Democrats who opposed aid to the Nicaraguan rebels in the 1980s, the first war with Iraq in 1991 and the second war with Iraq in 2003. Whenever Democrats resisted military action favored by Republicans, they got painted bright yellow.

The Republicans tried it again in 2008, accusing Obama of pathetic naivete in offering to talk with North Korea and Iran without preconditions. But the tactic didn't have its intended effect. _

Obama was the guy who said he would go into Pakistan if necessary to get bin Laden -- while GOP nominee John McCain was preaching the need to get along with Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf.

It's a mystery why they expect this claim to work in 2012. In his approach to foreign policy and national security, Obama has done many things that, if President McCain had done them, would evoke thunderous ovations at this year's Republican convention.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. policy under Obama is not much, if any, different from what we would have expected had Bush stayed for a third term. Even when Obama has diverged from previous policy on other issues, the change cannot be detected without a microscope.

Romney and Co. accuse Obama of allowing Iran to proceed toward getting nuclear weapons -- without noting that much of Iran's progress came under Bush, or that his sanctions are tighter than those of his predecessor. Nor do Republicans mention that under Bush, North Korea carried out its first nuclear detonation.

Santorum says Obama is even "refusing to do anything covertly" to stop Iran from getting nukes. Really? How would he know? Has he not heard about the untimely deaths of Iranian nuclear scientists or the mysterious computer virus (reportedly a U.S.-Israeli project) that destroyed hundreds of its nuclear centrifuges?

The Romney campaign faults the administration for "bowing to Chinese pressure and refusing to sell F-16s to Taiwan." But Obama did increase U.S. arms shipments to the Taiwanese, including Patriot missiles and Black Hawk helicopters.

And guess who else declined to sell them F-16s? George W. Bush. You know -- the guy who apologized to Beijing.

The next time Republicans feel the urge to use the word "appeasement," they might first take a close look at the record. Or buy a dictionary. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

After all, the widely quoted but highly politicized 2007 National Intelligence Estimate claimed that Iran had ceased work on a bomb in 2003 and would not have a weapon for the foreseeable future. That flawed analysis fueled another popular talking point: that the Bush-Cheney warmongers were looking for more phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iran of the sort that had led them into Iraq.

In contrast, Obama proclaimed himself to be a more sophisticated sort of president. His left-wing politics, postracial appeal and his father's Muslim heritage supposedly might win over the heretofore needlessly alienated Iranians -- and most others in the Middle East as well. At no point did candidate Obama stop to consider that the Iranians could view his loud politicking and opportunistic criticism of Bush's hostility toward Iran -- identical to standard U.S. bipartisan policy under at least the four prior presidents -- as weakness to be manipulated rather than magnanimity to be appreciated.

After Obama took office in 2009, we had a new Iran 2.0 policy implemented on a variety of fronts. We courted Vladimir Putin by closing down an Eastern European anti-ballistic missile project in hopes that the Russians would help stop Iranian proliferation. We scheduled face-to-face talks with the Iranians. We did not press initially for economic sanctions of Iranian exports and imports. We largely ignored Iranian terrorists who were killing Americans in Iraq.

The Obama administration kept quiet in spring of 2009 when a million Iranians hit the streets to protest their cruel authoritarian regime. It seemed to apologize for the 1953 overthrow of Iranian Mohammed Mossadegh. It reopened our embassy in Syria, Iran's closest Middle East ally. It jawboned Israel, Iran's worst Middle East enemy.

The result of Obama's Iran 2.0 policy?

Failure on every front. The Iranians sped up work on the bomb. They snubbed every deadline we issued. They increased weapons shipments to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. The Russians aided rather than blocked Iranian nuclear efforts.

More recently, the Iranians plotted to kill a Saudi diplomat in the United States. They issued warnings to the Sunni Arab Gulf kingdoms and tried to stir up their Shiite populations. They turned to Afghanistan and helped supply Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists. They forged an anti-American alliance in Latin America with Hugo Chavez. They are boasting about closing the Strait of Hormuz and warning allies of Israel of possible retaliation.

In the manner that Jimmy Carter's reset foreign policy crashed in 1980 with the communists entering Afghanistan and Central America, and American hostages taken in Iran, and so was followed by a suddenly tough new Carter Doctrine, likewise the Obama administration is now forced to reset its policy.

With Obama's new Iran 3.0, we are flip-flopping and now ratcheting up sanctions. We are announcing the dispatch of additional warships to the Persian Gulf. We are lobbying the United Nations for tougher resolutions against Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the U.S. We are no longer warning Israel to play it cool, but rather publicly and matter-of-factly announcing the likelihood of a preemptive Israeli bombing strike.

In other words, after demagoguing the old Iranian 1.0 containment strategy, the Obama administration is now trying to play 3.0 catch-up after its own failed 2.0 appeasement policy.

The ironic result is that war is now far more likely with Iran than it ever was under George W. Bush, and for far more reasons. Obama faces no knee-jerk, left-wing criticism. Just as the Left went silent when Obama suddenly took ownership of Guantanamo, Iraq, renditions and tribunals, it won't hit the streets if he takes action against Iran. If Obama finds himself behind in the 2012 campaign, such a bold move would win him political unity and advantage in wag-the-dog fashion.

Due to Obama's hostility toward Israel, the United States now has far less knowledge about, and influence with, the Israeli military. And the long-appeased Iranian theocracy is now more likely to miscalculate, thinking either that the confused Obama administration won't stop it, or that any American attempt to stop it would be only half-hearted.

Obama's initial Iran reset policy squandered the American sense of deterrence. Now we are desperately trying to regain the tough bipartisan approach taken under earlier presidents.

But the likely result of this schizophrenia will probably be an Obama 4.0 Iran policy -- in other words, a big war in the Persian Gulf. 

Copyright 2012, Tribune Media Services Inc.

Sorry Rick, you haven't made it yet as an Eastwood-style make-my-day cultural icon. But in different ways, Santorum and Eastwood have demonstrated the limits of both an entirely negative slant on politics and a pessimistic take on America's future.

Santorum's Tuesday sweep of Republican presidential contests in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado was a sharp rebuke to Mitt Romney, the on-again, off-again "inevitable" GOP nominee who has built his campaign almost entirely on attacks. His primary target has been President Obama, but Romney has also been relentless in his assaults on former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who admittedly gives him a lot of material to work with.

What Romney has failed to do is give voters strong reasons to be for him. He's missing what Richard Nixon (yes, that Nixon) called "the lift of a driving dream." And signs of economic improvement are making Romney's critiques of the Obama economy more problematic by the week. In the meantime, Santorum keeps getting more appealing simply by staying out of the Romney-Gingrich slugfest.

As for Eastwood, his Super Bowl ad for Chrysler led many conservatives to reveal themselves as whiny complainers incapable of celebrating the achievements of American enterprise and public policy. To paraphrase the late Jeane Kirkpatrick's effective 1984 jab at Democrats, Republicans always blame American government first. If government (and, God forbid, Obama) had anything to do with the revival of the American auto industry, let's not dare be happy about its comeback.

Never mind that Eastwood was right to offer his lovely tribute to American resilience. "It seems that we've lost our heart at times," Eastwood said. "The fog of division, discord and blame made it hard to see what lies ahead. But after those trials, we all rallied around what was right and acted as one. Because that's what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can't find a way, then we'll make one."

This is a partisan message only if one party embraces the role of advocating "division, discord and blame." And, bless him, that's exactly what Karl Rove chose to do. He grumbled on Fox News that the ad was "a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best-wishes of the management which has benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back."

Let's put aside that most of the money from the Chrysler bailout has already been paid back, and that the initial loan to Chrysler was advanced by the Bush administration for which Rove once worked. Rove's normally sharp political instincts failed him here. Why not celebrate Detroit's resurgence as an American victory and move on?

That's what Rove's Fox colleague Bill O'Reilly did, arguing that Eastwood was "trying to get Americans saying 'we're coming back, we're gonna rally around, we've got bad times, we'll work our way out of it like we've always done.'" It's not my habit to agree with O'Reilly, but good for him for recognizing that maybe it is morning in America, or at least the end of a long, dark night. You don't have to be for Obama to feel good about that.

Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton all understood that Americans prefer hope and optimism to gloomy declarations of impending doom. Why would Romney and so many in his party want to be the doom guys?

Romney's problem is that he is caught in a cycle he can't seem to escape. Santorum's victories this week reflect Romney's ongoing problems with the right wing of the Republican Party. Romney's solution is to keep trying to win conservative hearts by bashing Obama ever more energetically. His speech after his defeats on Tuesday thus began with a litany of the president's failures. Romney only got to more hopeful talk toward the end by invoking his father, the former Michigan governor who was indeed an admirable man.

But Romney can't summon hope through his dad. He has to offer it himself. Yet his strategy seems to require a constant doubling down on glumness.

Clint Eastwood knows better, and so did Reagan. Romney should not want to be associated with salvos against Obama so repetitious and predictable that he is starting to conjure memories of the Gipper declaring: "There you go again." 

Copyright 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

Oh, for crying out loud! Ethnic-based Cabinet appointees? Do we still need to go out and "seek" people of a certain color or religion to show "fairness and inclusion"? What about considering the best people possible -- isn't that the only appropriate answer to that question?

But Republicans go all Democrat, all too often, in front of black and brown audiences. They say things to show how empathic they are, rather than promote their principles as beneficial to all, regardless of race or gender or ethnicity.

Look at the way former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum answered this Cabinet question. Obviously anticipating such a query, they spat out practically every Hispanic name they could think of short of the Frito Bandito.

Only one, libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, said the right thing. Paul simply said he wanted someone who understands fiscal and monetary policy -- "Hispanic or otherwise." And Paul won't be the nominee.

The perception of Republicans as racist is joyfully promoted by Democrats like Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., who said that Republicans "want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws." Meanwhile, Democrats have successfully airbrushed away their own sordid racist history. This includes the founding of the Ku Klux Klan, which many called "the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party." This includes opposing the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Yet today, by branding the GOP as the party of the racists, Democrats pull over 90 percent of the black vote in presidential elections.

A Republican elected official once asked me what he could do to improve his poll numbers in the black community. "As a private citizen," the frustrated politician said, "I donated hundreds of thousands of dollars for computers in schools. I make all the rounds at the right places in the inner city." Yet in elections he received little black support.

"I'll give you some advice, but you won't like it," I said.

"Try me."

"OK. Stop condescending. Stop apologizing. You can't out-warmth a Democrat. They're pros at showing minorities how much they 'care' by promising special programs or incentives that either don't work or make things worse.

"Say something like this: 'You are not a victim. Racism, sexism and homophobia are in full retreat in American life. Today, your fate is determined far more by what goes on in your home -- rather than what goes on in city hall.' Make the case that we all want clean streets, safe neighborhoods and competitive schools. Make the case that your agenda -- low taxes, less regulation and choice in schools -- empower individuals, no matter the race, to make their own choices.

"Say: 'I don't wake up saying what black or brown or white or yellow thing I intend to do today. We are Americans before we are members of a racial group or religion or ethnicity. And, if we want our prayers answered, let's get off our knees and work to make them come true."

The politician said, "I can't say that."

In a piece called "California's Demographic Revolution," Heather Mac Donald describes the result of a March 2011 poll on the unfavorable view California Hispanics have toward the Republican Party: "The top two reasons were that the party favored only the rich and that Republicans were selfish and out for themselves; Republican positions on immigration law were cited less often."

How does the GOP turn that around? Simply saying, "No, we're not selfish, we care," won't work. Make the case for choice in school and private accounts for Social Security. Explain how the liberal feel-good polices -- welfare, public housing, urban renewal, assigned government schools, minimum wage laws -- hurt the very groups Democrats claim to help. Argue that it is condescending, if not racist, to believe that certain people cannot compete because of their race.

President John F. Kennedy, in 1963, was asked whether "Negroes" should receive special race-based hiring to compensate for slavery and discrimination: "I think it is a mistake to begin to assign quotas on the basis of religion or race -- color -- nationality. ... On the other hand, I do think that we ought to make an effort to give a fair chance to everyone who is qualified -- not through a quota -- but just look over our employment rolls, look over our areas where we are hiring people and at least make sure we are giving everyone a fair chance. But not hard and fast quotas. ... We are too mixed, this society of ours, to begin to divide ourselves on the basis of race or color."

Kennedy said that 49 years ago. It's what Messrs. Romney, Santorum and Gingrich should say -- right now. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

For yet another day, the White House hung back while the discussion in Washington took on distinctly partisan and gender-rich overtones.

House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday vowed to legislatively block the Obama administration rule finalized by the Department of Health and Human Services in January. The fight, he said during an impassioned floor speech, is about whether church-based employers can be forced by the government to violate the tenets of their faith.

“If the president does not reverse the [Health and Human Services] Department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must,” he said.

“In imposing this requirement, the federal government is violating a First Amendment right that has stood for more than two centuries. And it is doing so in a manner that affects millions of Americans and harms some of our nation’s most vital institutions,” Boehner added.

But elsewhere in the Capitol, a band of female lawmakers, Democrats all, organized what they called an “emergency” conference call with the media to argue that the Obama administration had not attacked religious liberty, but was instead remedying insurance inequities while promoting “freedom” and “choice.” A similar group of senators also stepped forward to back the administration. Health insurance is part of women’s reproductive choices, preventative health care, and economic well-being, they said.

“It’s not a radical rule,” Rep. Lois Capps of California asserted, for the government to require employers to offer health insurance to employees that covers contraception without co-pays, co-insurance or deductibles. (The rule exempts churches but applies to church-related institutions such as hospitals and universities.) Critics of the administration, she said, were “using women’s health as a political football.”

And while the issues might embolden Republicans to challenge the administration today, the arguments for religious liberty -- misplaced, they argued -- might wind up encouraging women to vote for Democrats tomorrow.

“I believe there will be a backlash,” predicted Illinois Rep. Jan Shakowsky. Polls suggest “there is overwhelming support for this kind of rule, and I think there will be a backlash. The women of America will feel that over the years we’ve seen ourselves be discriminated against in health care, and in 2012, we’re just not going to go backwards. I think there’s going to be a great mobilization.”

The freedom that American women want, including Catholic and religious women, are the opportunities to “make their own decisions” about contraception, rather than leaving those decisions up to employers, Shakowsky said.

The White House did not echo those forceful predictions that American women might rise up against the speaker or other conservatives. Instead, for the third day in a row spokesman Jay Carney underscored President Obama’s sensitivity to criticism of the administration’s policy, his vague promise to “allay concerns” through the gradual implementation of the HHS rule, and a forceful re-emphasis of the president’s central policy aims.

The administration believes “there are ways to approach this that would ensure the rule is implemented so that women have access to these important health care services no matter where they work, but also that hopefully would allay some of the concerns expressed,” Carney said repeatedly.

Women make up the majority of American voters, and in 2008 they backed Obama against John McCain. For years, political analysts have dissected a discernible gender gap in presidential elections, a gulf the president has in mind again this year. 

Alexis Simendinger covers the White House for RealClearPolitics. She can be reached at asimendinger@realclearpolitics.com.

Obama made history in 2008 by becoming the first Democrat since Lyndon Johnson to win the Old Dominion. But his candidacy there has been lagging this time around: Plagued by poor job performance grades, he trailed Republican front-runner Mitt Romney in several polls late last year.

However, a Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday shows the president leading the former Massachusetts governor, 47 percent to 43 percent. (A Quinnipiac poll taken in December had Romney ahead by two points.) Obama has larger leads over the other contenders for the GOP nomination. He leads Newt Gingrich by 14 points, Rick Santorum by eight points and Ron Paul by seven points.

Romney is ahead of his GOP rivals in Virginia, according to the poll, but only he and Ron Paul will be on the primary ballot there in March. Gingrich and Santorum failed to acquire enough signatures to participate. 

Obama's support in this poll appears to be buoyed by women voters and independents, two key voting blocs in the fall  election.

Obama edges Romney, 45 percent to 41 percent, among independents. And he holds a commanding lead among women, 52 percent to 40 percent. Romney takes a 47 percent to 43 percent lead over the president among men. In December, Virginia independents were split between Obama and Romney, 41 percent to 41 percent. At that time, Romney held a 45 percent to 42 percent lead among women.

While these numbers deliver positive news for the president, he still needs to improve his grades. Forty-six percent of Virginia voters approve of the job he is doing as president, while 49 percent disapprove.

Still, some voters might to be warming to the idea of him serving another term. By a slight 48 percent to 46 percent margin, voters don't think Obama deserves to be sent back to the White House. But he has improved in the past two months. In December, 53 percent said Obama did not deserve another four years, while only 41 percent said he did.

Obama likely won't be the only high-profile Democrat on the ballot in November. Former Gov. Tim Kaine, who most recently served as Democratic National Committee chairman, is expected to win the Democratic nod for an open U.S. Senate seat. George Allen, a former senator and governor, will likely be the Republican candidate in what is expected to be a hotly contested race. Polling has shown the two candidates neck-and-neck throughout the cycle.

The Quinnipiac poll shows Kaine leading Allen by a marginal 45 percent to 44 percent. The key in this race, as in the presidential, will be independents. Among this group, Kaine leads, 44 percent to 40 percent. He also wins over women by eight points, while Allen takes men by seven points. Both have positive favorability ratings.

Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,544 registered voters, including 546 likely Republican voters, from Feb. 1-6. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The sampling error for Republicans is 4.2 percentage points.

Caitlin Huey-Burns is a reporter for RealClearPolitics. She can be reached at chueyburns@realclearpolitics.com.

Santorum triumphed, as well, in a nonbinding Missouri primary that was worth bragging rights but no delegates.

"Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota," the jubilant former Pennsylvania senator told cheering supporters in St. Charles, Mo. Challenging both his GOP rival and the Democratic president, he declared that on issues ranging from health care to "Wall Street bailouts, Mitt Romney has the same positions as Barack Obama."

Returns from 83 percent of Minnesota's precincts showed Santorum with 45 percent support, Texas Rep. Ron Paul with 27 percent and Romney -- who won the state in his first try for the nomination four years ago -- with 17 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich trailed with 11 percent.

In Colorado, the state party chairman, Ryan Call, said Santorum was the winner in a long, slow count.

He spoke as returns from 79 percent of the precincts showed the former Pennsylvania senator with 38 percent support to 35 percent for Romney. Gingrich led Paul for third place, although both men had 13 percent of the vote.

Romney showed no sign of disappointment in remarks to supporters.

"This was a good night for Rick Santorum. I want to congratulate Sen. Santorum, but I expect to become the nominee with your help," he told supporters in Denver.

If the night was good for Santorum, it was grim for Gingrich, who made scant effort in any of the states that voted during the day. He ran far off the pace in both caucus states, forced to watch from the sidelines while Santorum boasted of being the candidate with conservative appeal.

There were 37 Republican National Convention delegates at stake in Minnesota and 33 more in Colorado, and together, they accounted for the largest one-day combined total so far in the race for the GOP nomination.

The victories were the first for Santorum since he eked out a 34-vote win in the lead-off Iowa caucuses a month ago, and he reveled in the moment. "I don't stand here to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama," he told his supporters.

He had faded far from the lead in the primaries and caucuses since, and Gingrich seemed to eclipse him as the leading conservative rival to Romney when he won the South Carolina primary late last month.

While Romney throttled back after victories in Florida and Nevada in the past several days, Santorum campaigned aggressively in all three states on the ballot, seeking a breakthrough to revitalize his campaign.

He won Minnesota largely the way he did Iowa, dispatching his organizers from the first state to the second and courting pastors and tea party leaders alike.

Romney's campaign moved swiftly to take the sting out of the Missouri vote. The state's Republican Sen. Roy Blunt, a Romney supporter, congratulated the winner but noted the state's delegates are still up for grabs. He said, "Mitt Romney has the organization and the resources to go the distance in this election, and I believe he'll ultimately win our party's nomination."

And it was not clear where Santorum could exploit his victory. Aides have already said he has little hope in Maine caucuses that end this weekend, the next event on the calendar.

Paul, a Texas lawmaker, has yet to win a primary or caucus. He claimed credit for a strong second-place finish in Minnesota and said he was optimistic about his chances in Maine.

Romney began the day the leader in the delegate chase, with 101 of the 1,144 needed to capture the nomination at the Republican National Convention this summer in Tampa. Gingrich had 32, Santorum 17 and Paul nine.

Though the delegate total on Tuesday was high, the campaigning was a pale comparison to the Iowa caucuses or primaries last month in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.

Television advertising was sparse; neither Colorado nor Minnesota hosted a candidates' debate, and there was relatively little campaigning by the contenders themselves until the past few days.

The same was true in last weekend's Nevada caucuses, which Romney won on the heels of a Florida primary victory days earlier. The same pattern holds in Maine.

Not until primaries in Michigan and Arizona on Feb. 28 is the campaign likely to regain the intensity that characterized the first few weeks of the year.

Then it roars back to life with a 10-state Super Tuesday on March 6 with 416 convention delegates at stake. Georgia, where Gingrich launched his career in Congress, is the biggest prize that night with 76 delegates. Next is Ohio, which has 63 delegates at stake and where early voting has already begun.

Santorum, in particular, was eager to seize the relative lull to redeem the promise of his Iowa victory.

He campaigned more aggressively this week than any of the other contenders, and he spent Tuesday hopscotching from Colorado to Minnesota to Missouri in hopes of nailing down at least one victory. Touting himself as a true conservative -- a slap at Gingrich -- he sought to undermine Romney's electability claim at the same time by predicting the former Massachusetts governor would lose to Obama.

Romney responded by assailing Santorum as an advocate of congressional earmarks -- shifting the criticism he had leveled at Gingrich when the Georgian seemed a more imposing threat.

In the hours before the caucuses convened, the front-runner sought to lower expectations.

"Mitt Romney is not going to win every contest," Rich Beeson, the campaign's political director, wrote in a memo for public consumption.

"John McCain lost 19 states in 2008, and we expect our opponents will notch a few wins, too," Beeson wrote. McCain, the Arizona senator, won the Republican nomination four years ago.

In fact, Colorado and Minnesota were among the states that McCain failed to win, and he lost them to Romney.

In the four years since, the GOP has become more conservative in both. That posed a challenge for Romney, who runs as the Republican most likely to defeat Obama and is still trying to establish his credentials among tea party activists suspicious of a one-time moderate who backed abortion rights.

Two years ago in Minnesota, establishment candidates for governor were swept aside in the primary, and tea party-backed insurgents for governor and the Senate in Colorado won the party nominations.

In Romney prevailed in both Minnesota and Colorado in 2008, the first time he ran for the nomination, but the GOP has become more conservative in both states since then under the influence of tea party activists. And he lacked the overwhelming advantage in television advertising, including fiercely negative attacks on his rivals, that had helped him in other states this year.

Gingrich spent the day campaigning in Ohio, one of the primary states on March 6.

His campaign went into a downward spiral after he won the South Carolina primary in an upset. The former speaker was routed in the Florida primary to Romney, then finished a distant second in Nevada over the weekend. all three cases, Democrats won in the general election that fall. 

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Then came the liberal revolution based on the idea of individual freedom. Only then did they start thinking that happiness might be possible on earth.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, the right to pursue happiness has been perverted into a government-backed entitlement to happiness.

British Prime Minister David Cameron says, "There's more to life than money. ... It's time we focus not just on GDP, but GWB -- general well-being."

Well-being sounds good. But is that something that government programs promote?

Philip Booth, an economist with London's Institute of Economic Affairs and editor of "... And the Pursuit of Happiness," says no. I spoke recently with Booth and economist Christopher Coyne of George Mason University, who contributed to that volume.

Since the country of Bhutan got all kinds of publicity by using a measure it calls "gross national happiness" instead of gross national product, and The New York Times says it's a "new measure of well-being from a happy little kingdom," I asked them if there is anything to it.

"It's not a model that most Western societies would want to copy," Booth said.

I didn't think so. In Bhutan, people can get locked up for criticizing the government. Yet one study ranked the United States 23rd in the list of happy places. Bhutan was higher on the list.

That's nonsense, said Coyne. It makes more sense to judge a country's ability to make its citizens happy by whether foreigners want to move there. Clearly, more people want to move to America than to Bhutan. "The way to think about this," Coyne said, "is the fact that so many people want to come to the United States indicates that they at least perceive there is the opportunity to pursue what makes them happy."

What does make people happy? People fantasize about leisure and luxury, but the best data show that such things don't create lasting happiness. What does make for happiness is obtaining work that allows you to move toward goals that you find meaningful. In other words, what's important is not just employment, but purposeful work. So is having control over your workplace. Chrysler found that if workers have more control on the assembly line, they are happier. The freedom to decide your own goals is crucial.

Other things that make people happy are religion, having family and friends you care about, giving to others (face to face or via charity) and money.

Actually, money makes you happier if you're miserably poor. But once you have a certain amount -- maybe enough that you no longer have to worry about your family's well-being -- more money doesn't make much difference. Lottery winners report that, a year after their windfall, they were no happier than they were before.

That's counterintuitive. Instinct tells us that wealth brings happiness. It's a reason why some people envy the rich and why income inequality causes lots of angst today. One left-wing journalist writes, "Every model shows the most unequal societies are the least happy."

"There's no evidence that this is true," Coyne said. "Even the staunchest proponents of government intervention to increase happiness admit that there's no relationship."

You wouldn't know that reading The New York Times.

The mainstream media claim that the way to make people happy is to have government protect them from misfortune and give them stuff. The research doesn't bear that out, says Booth.

"In fact, the bigger government is, the less happy societies tend to be. There is a direct relationship, stripping everything else out, between the government allowing people more freedom and well-being increasing."

Yet politicians move in the other direction. The socialist likely to be France's next president wants to lower the retirement age from 62 to 60 and institute a "maximum-work" law.

When will they learn that you don't make people happier by taking their options away? 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

President Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, who served as White House deputy chief of staff for operations before assuming 2012 re-election duties, announced the super PAC super-flip-flop in a mass e-mail to supporters and a blog post published on the left-wing Huffington Post website. In a related conference call to major campaign finance bundlers, Messina encouraged these high-dollar donors to start funding Priorities USA Action. That's the Democratic super PAC founded by former White House staffers Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney.

Super PACs and campaigns are barred from coordinating with each other. Nevertheless, Messina said that "senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events." Of course, they "won't be soliciting contributions." Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

This brazen about-face for Team Obama is a goldmine of campaign lies, contortions and epic hypocrisy. Let us count the ways.

-- A bundle of contradictions. "Bundling" is the rustling up of aggregate contributions from friends, business associates and employees, a practice to circumvent individual donation limits that Obama has long condemned. When he announced his presidential intentions in 2007, candidate Obama decried "the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play." He indignantly singled out "the best bundlers" who get the "greatest access" to power.

Last week, Obama acknowledged raising at least $74 million through his team of big-time bundlers who have been showered with access, tax dollars and plum patronage positions. This elite group of Hollywood celebrities (such as open-borders actress Eva Longoria), political cronies (such as Chicago bagman Louis "The Vacuum" Susman) and politically correct businessmen (such as bankrupt Solyndra investor George Kaiser) now totals a whopping 445 gold-card members.

-- The roar of the revolving door. In his Monday announcement, Messina bragged about how the White House has enacted "sweeping" reforms to "close the revolving door between government and lobbyists." In truth, the administration has widened the carousel and removed the brakes. The Obama-cheerleading Fishwrap of Record (The New York Times) itself identified at least 15 bundlers "involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies."

Moreover, "at least 68 of 350 Obama bundlers for the 2012 election or their spouses have served in the administration in some capacity; at least 250 of the bundlers visited the White House, and another 30 have ties to companies that conduct business with federal agencies or hope to do so in the future," according to a recent iWatch News report. Several first-time 2012 bundlers already have snagged administration posts:

-- Norma Lee Funger, of Potomac, Md., who raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama, was appointed last month to the board of trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

-- Glenn S. Gerstell, of Washington, D.C., who bundled the same amount, was appointed to the National Infrastructure Advisory Commission last fall.

-- Richard Binder, of Bethesda, Md., another $50,000 to $100,000 bundler, was appointed to the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health last spring.

And note: The most transparent administration ever still refuses to disclose recusal orders involving the nearly 100 lobbyists and ex-lobbyists on its payroll.

-- Super PAC super-hypocrisy. "Super PACs" are federal political action committees that only make independent expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, candidates. Their birth and growth were fueled indirectly by the Supreme Court's Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling in 2010. The decision overturned severe campaign finance restrictions that essentially criminalized certain forms of political speech. As Chief Justice John Roberts put it during oral arguments: "We don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."

Until this week, the Obama administration vehemently condemned the Citizens United decision and vowed to eschew super PACs. The entities are a "threat to our democracy," Obama railed two years ago. The ruling would "open the floodgates for special interests," he warned. And last July, Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt kept talking the anti-super PAC talk. "Neither the president nor his campaign staff or aides will fundraise for super PACs," he asserted. Now? President Obama and his wife won't fundraise for the democracy-undermining super PACs. But countless other Cabinet members and advisers, partying with Obama bundlers gone wild, will.

In 2008, Obama lambasted rival Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for criticizing independent expenditures while raking in big PAC bucks: "So you can't say yesterday you don't believe in them, and today you have three quarters of a million dollars being spent on you. You can't just talk the talk."

Obama 2012 campaign motto: Empty talk? Yes, we can! 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Ajami's Cold War frame is very instructive -- to a point. The ongoing diplomatic defense of Syria's Assad dictatorship by Russia's Vladimir Putin, with the semi-fraternal support of (still communist) China, has definite Cold War echoes. Syria was a Soviet client state; deep ties remain between Putin's Moscow and Bashir Assad's Damascus.

Ajami noted other Cold War elements threading the Syrian thickets. In 2011, as the Arab Spring revolts spread, the Soviet Union's arch-Cold War nemesis, NATO, prosecuted regime change in Libya. Libyan strong man Muammar Gadhafi, a Soviet client of a sort, died in that war -- shot by his own people. Now NATO, with Turkey its frontline, turns on Syria's strong man. Putin, a former KGB officer, was schooled in Soviet Cold War-era repression. For a KGB man, vetoing a U.S.-crafted United Nations condemnation of the Assad regime must evoke thrilling Cold War muscle-memories.

Ajami tied the Cold War analogs to 21st century matters. Strong man Putin, overseeing a KGB-mafia oligarchy challenged by a disenchanted domestic opposition, has decided that in Syria secret police-fear will triumph and the strong man will survive. Though "the sun has set on the Soviet empire," according to Ajami, Putin and his cadre believe that "a line has to be drawn in defense of an autocratic cabal of nations."

I agree completely with his assessment of Putin's objectives. However, we are not dealing with the last battle the Cold War, and I am not referring to a potential nuclear war with the world's Stalinist holdout, North Korea -- that would be a Cold War coda.

The current Syrian revolt, the entire Arab Spring phenomenon, and for that matter, the Cold War share a sobering (and I suggest more explanatory) origin: World War I, the Great War. Four authoritarian empires fell in that conflagration: the Ottoman Turk, the German (Hohenzollern), the Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) and the Russian Romanov. The Western Front slaughterhouse damaged France and Britain; though decolonization came decades later, the democratic imperialists never really recovered. What to do with all the imperial fragments? The Nazis, exploiting German grievances with World War I's outcome, tried to create a super German empire, but lost. The Soviets did resurrect the Russian empire, and extended it, until 1991. Gone forever? As Ajami noted, Putin exhibits commissar tendencies. He is not above creating an empire with an authoritarian sword.

The European Union seems to have solved the Franco-German border issues, which it was designed to do. The EU, however, 100 years after the First Balkan War (1912), now confronts a Balkan crisis in Greece. Though Greek austerity protestors decry German financial imperialism, this is a battle of budgets, not bullets. Parliamentary democratic politics direct Berlin, not the Kaiser's whim.

Not so in the Near East, where World War I's aftermath remains most unsettled.

Follow Arab Spring's Mediterranean littoral. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria were at one time Ottoman provinces. (For that matter, so was Yemen.) The Turco-Italian War of 1911-1912, which was fought in Libya, set the stage for the Balkan Wars, which ignited World War I. Aspiring Italian imperialists snatched Libya from the decaying Ottomans. Rome won, Constantinople lost, the desires of Libya's Arab and Berber residents be damned.

By 1918, however, "self-determination" mattered enough that Woodrow Wilson said the "interests of the populations" (the residents) must be balanced against "questions of sovereignty" (political authority of the imperial power). The ex-Ottoman provinces missed the balance. T.E. Lawrence's Arab guerrillas harried the Turks. They thought they were fighting for independence; they got Sykes-Picot, and became satraps.

Which dovetails with Ajami's analysis. He noted that China, vexed by Tibetan separatists, insists on "unfettered claims of national sovereignty." Hence Beijing consorts with Putin's Moscow to draw a line in Syria -- yet another attempt by empires of the sword to thwart self-determination. That great war continues. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

But with several world trouble spots flaring up in recent weeks, Romney's foreign policy team is operating at a general election-like level in both size and scope. This robust group of advisers is busy preparing a former governor with limited experience in foreign affairs to be ready take over as commander-in-chief in less than a year.

Though world events continue to receive relatively short shrift on the trail, Romney has a deeply experienced team working on his behalf. Its members include high-level veterans of previous GOP administrations, prominent academics, and State Department and intelligence officials whose areas of expertise and backgrounds encompass a wide range of conservative foreign policy thought.

Three weeks ago, the campaign initiated a weekly foreign policy conference call with the more than 40 experts who are advising the GOP front-runner on international affairs, RCP has learned.

“People are taking a more serious approach every day,” said one Romney foreign policy adviser.

As is the case with the candidate himself, who earned a joint business and law degree from Harvard, Crimson runs deep through the two Boston-based staffers who run the campaign’s foreign policy shop on a day-to-day basis.

Policy director Lanhee Chen holds bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees from the Ivy League institution, while the campaign’s director of foreign and defense policy, Alex Wong, earned his law degree there.

A George W. Bush administration veteran who was also on board for Romney’s first presidential run, Chen serves as the direct conduit to the governor on both domestic and foreign policy, while Wong helms the campaign’s weekly foreign policy conference call.

Chen acknowledged that John McCain’s 2008 strategy of portraying Obama as a dangerously inexperienced neophyte on the international stage is not an effective line of attack against an incumbent president, but he expressed confidence that Obama’s record offered myriad vulnerabilities, despite several conspicuous military achievements, including killing Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Moammar Gaddafi and winding down the war in Iraq.

“The argument about inexperience versus experience isn’t primarily where the critique of the president is,” Chen said. “I think the critique of the president has to do with what he’s done in his time in office and how he’s approached the world.”

A Washington Post poll released Monday showed that foreign affairs and national security were two of Obama’s strongest suits in the eyes of most Americans.

Among registered voters, Obama led Romney, 55 percent to 38 percent, when it came to the candidate respondents most trusted to handle international affairs, and the president bested the former Massachusetts governor by a nearly identical margin (54-38) on whom they trusted to handle international terrorism.

But while Romney has credited Obama for the bin Laden raid, the Republican has consistently made the case that the president has been feckless, eager to apologize to the rest of the world, and guilty of “appeasement” on the international stage.

The potential for full-scale civil war in Syria and the increasingly real possibility of Israeli military action against Iran are two key prospects that could test Obama’s solid standing on foreign affairs in the coming months.

Romney has frequently cited as some of Obama’s biggest failures Iran’s unchecked progress toward acquiring a nuclear weapon and his administration’s inability to tighten the reins on that nation’s emboldened leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Key members of Romney’s foreign policy team argue that no matter what happens in the months ahead, Obama will be vulnerable in November on defense spending, his shaky relationship with Israel’s leaders, and a “reset” policy with Russia that many observers see as ill-fated.

Most of all, Romney will continue to make the case that despite the president’s emphatic avowals to the contrary, Obama sees himself as overseer to an inevitable decline of American power.

“The president saying that he’s pursuing policies of an America in ascent doesn’t make it so,” Wong said. “If you look at his record going back three years, across the board he’s implementing policies which, as he termed it, implement a doctrine in which America is supposed to ‘recognize its limits.’”

As is the case with Romney’s campaign apparatus as a whole, most members of the foreign policy team are veterans of his 2008 run and have personal relationships with the former governor going back at least five years.

Cofer Black, who was the director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center on 9/11, generated scrutiny when he served simultaneously as vice chairman of the private security contractor Blackwater USA and as the head of Romney’s counterterrorism policy advisory group in 2007 and early 2008.

Black has since left Blackwater and is back on board with the Romney campaign as a special adviser, where he works alongside more than 20 prominent members of the conservative foreign policy establishment, including former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden, and former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent.

Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton endorsed Romney last month after flirting briefly with his own presidential run and has since taken on an active role providing advice to the candidate and advocating publicly on his behalf.

A hardliner on defense issues, Bolton was dispatched on Romney’s behalf to South Carolina, Florida, and Minnesota ahead of each of those states’ voting contests.

While aides say that Romney values Bolton’s perspective, they are careful to note that the former Bush administration Iraq war hawk does not hold particular sway over the candidate.

In bolstering his own foreign policy credibility, Romney frequently cites the international contacts that he made during his decades-long business career, particularly his brief time working at The Boston Consulting Group alongside current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Romney met most recently with Netanyahu during a visit to Israel in January 2011 -- an excursion that also included stops in Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan, where he also met with President Hamid Karzai and U.S. Gen. David Petraeus.

During a trip to the United Kingdom last July, Romney visited British Prime Minister David Cameron and other UK leaders, but a Romney aide told RCP that currently there is no regular channel set up between the campaign and any foreign officials.

If Romney does become the presumptive nominee, the late-July opening of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London will provide an inviting opportunity for him to show off his international chops during the campaign lull that will likely precede the GOP convention in Tampa.

Romney has attended every Olympics since the 2000 Summer Games in Sydney and has been a member of the Olympic Movement since 1999, when he was named president and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games, leading the effort to rescue that troubled operation from scandal and financial disaster. 

Scott Conroy is a national political reporter for RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at sconroy@realclearpolitics.com.

Reinhardt praised himself for overturning Prop. 8 on "the narrowest ground." It is also on the shakiest ground. The narrow ruling is based on the fiction that Prop. 8 eliminated a right without a legitimate reason. Prop. 8 was born of "animosity toward the class of persons affected," he wrote.

The worst part is that if it were not for political shenanigans and judicial activism, Reinhardt would not be able to reason as he wrote.

A quick history lesson: In 2000, 61 percent of Californians voted for Proposition 22, which prohibited same-sex marriage.

In 2004, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom decide to ignore state law and opened San Francisco City Hall to same-sex marriages. Later, the state Supreme Court ordered Newsom to stop the illicit nuptials and invalidated Newsom-issued marriage licenses. Some gay newlyweds appealed.

In 2008, in a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court found that marriage is a fundamental right for all. Some 18,000 same-sex couples tied the knot. And they are still married.

Meanwhile, that same year, opponents of same-sex marriage fought back by placing on the ballot a constitutional amendment to ban it. Some 52 percent of California voters approved the measure.

In 2009, the state Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8 and the right of the people to write their own state constitution, in a 6-1 decision.

"Prop. 8 didn't take away any right that the state constitution ever really conferred," noted Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, an advocacy group. "By adopting Prop. 8, the people of California exercised their sovereign power to correct the state Supreme Court's misreading of the constitution."

Enter the federal court in 2010. Now-retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop. 8. On Tuesday, Reinhardt upheld Walker's outcome.

Because Newsom had flouted state law, there was a hiatus between the decision that allowed same-sex marriage and the decision that banned it. That allowed the judges to maintain their construct that Prop. 8 took away something that only existed because Newsom had gamed the system.

Dissenting Judge N. Randy Smith was not impressed. As he pointed out, unless given no other option, federal courts should defer to state law.

Reinhardt and Judge Michael Hawkins did make two smart findings: They ruled that Walker did not have to vacate his anti-Prop. 8 ruling because of his being gay. (Who would be the next target, Catholic judges?)

They determined that because state officials (i.e., Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown) refused to represent the voters in court, Prop. 8 proponents had a right to argue for the measure. As a result, the Prop. 8 case should reach the U.S. Supreme Court sooner rather than later.

"It's simply one step along the way," opined Jesse Choper, a University of California, Berkeley law professor.

When the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, Newsom stood on the steps of City Hall crowing, "It's going to happen -- whether you like it or not." Newsom didn't bother trying to win Californians over to his cause. He figured the courts would impose same-sex marriage on them. And then voters don't have to like it. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

In a series of vapid non sequiturs, Clint Eastwood's gravelly voice pinned the promise of a city -- no, a nation -- to government dependency, claiming that "the people of Detroit" lost almost everything but because "we" pulled together and the "Motor City is fighting again" -- punching, roaring, imbued with American grit -- we survived.

Or, some might argue, after screwing stakeholders, discarding legal contracts, rewarding failed business models (while punishing those who employ better ones) and sticking taxpayers with the unions' fat pension tab, America got a heaping spoonful of the Obama administration's economic policy.

Either way, it's odd that we didn't hear much griping about "corporatism," oligarchies and Citizens United, though a corporate-sponsored campaign spot laid out the president's re-election narrative rather nicely. Now, I have no beef with Chrysler's running a campaign ad, but the thing is that if Obama had his way, Republicans would have a good case for banning this kind of politicking. You know, for the good of democracy.

You may remember that the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision centered around the ability of a corporation to air a documentary critical of then-candidate Hillary Clinton. In her first case as solicitor general for the Obama administration, in fact, current Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan went so far as to argue that the federal government should be empowered to ban books if Washington deems that they amount to "political electioneering." Let's just say the spirit of Voltaire is not exactly soaring in Washington these days.

You may also remember that when Ford ran a TV ad praising its innovative strategy of competing without taxpayer charity (a bit of a myth itself), the White House was reportedly incensed, viewing Ford's defense of free enterprise as an attack on the president. Needless to say, upsetting this administration is bad for business, and Ford pulled the ad.

What about commercials? What about commercials produced by companies that benefited (in this case, a Bush bailout supported by Obama) from policies supported by this administration?

What about "It's Halftime in America"? Well, cheers all around! White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, "Saving the (American) Auto Industry: Something Eminem and Clint Eastwood can agree on." (Eminem apparently read a script that was written by the same people who wrote the script that Eastwood read.) Obama's campaign architect, David Axelrod, tweeted: "Powerful spot. Did Clint shoot that, or just narrate it?"

Hmm. Not sure. David -- if I may -- maybe you could ask Clint or the agency that created the commercial, Wieden+Kennedy, because it is reportedly staffed by folks who have worked on Obama campaigns and Democratic causes for years.

As for those super PACs -- the main boogeyman of Citizens United -- The Washington Examiner reminded me, the president once asked voters to "challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us (in) stopping it." Join us? Let's start with Obama, who is going to have to challenge himself, as this week, his campaign asked top fundraisers to support his own super political action committee.

Admittedly, brutes like me live under a preposterously antiquated notion. We believe that citizens should be free to support any candidate with as much money as they'd like -- anonymously, if they desire. But if super PACs and corporate-sponsored politicking are really jeopardizing the very fabric of American life -- Obama once claimed they were a "threat to democracy" -- why would the president partake in this orgy of gruesome selfishness?

It was reported that Obama had one of his internal "evolving conversations" on the issue, conversations that always seem to evolve into Obama's rationalizing whatever is best for Obama. Conversations that are educational. Because the next time the administration claims that more speech is threating democracy -- corporate speech, super PACs, Citizens United -- what it really will mean is that more speech is threatening its second term.

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Thank you, everybody. Everybody have a seat.

Well, welcome to the White House Science Fair. (Applause.) It is -- I just spent some time checking out some of the projects that were brought here today, and I’ve got to say, this is fun. It’s not every day that you have robots running all over your house. (Laughter.) I am trying to figure out how you got through the metal detectors. I also shot a marshmallow through a air gun, which was very exciting. (Laughter.)

Science is what got several of our guests where they are today, so I just want to make a couple of introductions. We’ve got a real-life astronaut and the head of NASA, Charles Bolden, in the house. (Applause.) We have the Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson is here. (Applause.) The Director of the National Science Foundation Subra Suresh is here. (Applause.) My science -- there’s Subra, over here -- my science advisor, John Holdren, is in the house. (Applause.) We’ve got a couple of people who’ve dedicated themselves to making science cool for young people. We’ve got Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye the Science Guy. (Applause.)

Now, it is fitting that this year’s fair is happening just two days after the Super Bowl. I want to congratulate the New York Giants and all their fans. (Applause.) I just talked to Coach Coughlin; I’m looking forward to having the Giants here at the White House so we can celebrate their achievements. But what I’ve also said -- I’ve said this many times -- is if we are recognizing athletic achievement, then we should also be recognizing academic achievement and science achievement. If we invite the team that wins the Super Bowl to the White House, then we need to invite some science fair winners to the White House as well. (Applause.)

Now I’m going to talk about how great all of you are in a second. But before I do, I want to give the parents a big round of applause because they work hard to help you succeed, and I know this is their day. They’re really proud of you. As a parent, I know that seeing your kids do extraordinary things brings the greatest happiness that a parent can have. So congratulations to all the parents of all these incredible young people. (Applause.)

But parents aren’t the only ones who helped you get this far. Every one of you can think of a teacher, or maybe a couple of teachers, without whom you would not be here. So I want you to promise that the next time you see those teachers, that you give them a big thank you, not just for yourselves but also from me. Because teachers matter. They deserve our support. And I want to make sure that we are constantly lifting up how important teachers are to making sure that not only you succeed, but this country succeeds. So give teachers a big round of applause. (Applause.)

Now, as I was walking around the science fair, I was thinking back to when I was your age. And basically, you guys put me to shame. (Laughter.) What impresses me so much is not just how smart you are, but it’s the fact that you recognize you’ve got a responsibility to use your talents in service of something bigger than yourselves.

Some of you, that means developing new products that will change the way we live. So Hayley Hoverter -- where’s Hayley? There she is, right over here -- invented a new type of sugar packet that dissolves in hot water. It’s flavorless, it’s colorless, and potentially could save up to 2 million pounds of trash each year -- and that’s just at Starbucks. (Laughter.) So MasterCard has already awarded her $10,000 to help turn her idea into a business.

Some of you are here because you saw a problem in your community and you’re trying to do something to solve it. Benjamin Hylak -- where’s Benjamin? There’s Benjamin right here -- was worried that folks at his grandmother’s senior center were getting lonely. So he built a robot with a monitor and a video camera, so it’s like a moving Skype. And it moves around the center, and it allows seniors to talk to their kids and their grandkids, even when they can’t visit in person. So inventions like Benjamin’s could make life better for millions of families.

For some of you, the journey you took to get here is just as inspiring as the work that you brought with you today. There’s a rocketry team from Presidio, Texas -- where’s my team here? Where are you? Stand up, guys. Stand up. This is part of the fourth-poorest school district in the state of Texas. And I was told that teachers cooked food to sell after church, supporters drove 200 miles to pick up donuts for bake sales, they even raffled off a goat -- (laughter) -- is that right? Just so they could raise enough money for the rocketry team to compete. And the majority of the kids at the school are ESL, English as a second language. And the presentation they made could not make you prouder. So way to go. (Applause.)

There’s a group of young engineers from Paul Robeson-Malcolm X Academy. And nobody needs to tell them the kinds of challenges that Detroit still faces. Where’s my team from Detroit? In the house -- there they are. Stand up. (Applause.) They believe in their city, and they’re coming up with new ideas to keep Detroit’s comeback going.

And there’s Samantha Garvey -- where’s Samantha? Just saw Samantha. There she is. Stand up, Samantha. (Applause.) Samantha spent years studying mussel populations in the Long Island Sound. And when she learned that she was a semifinalist for the Intel Science Talent Search, when she found this out her family was living in a homeless shelter. So think about what she’s overcome. She wants to, by the way, work maybe for NOAA or EPA. So this is Dr. Lubchenco, she’s the head of NOAA. (Laughter.) Lisa Jackson, right there, head of EPA. (Laughter.) You might just want to hook up with them before you leave. (Laughter and applause.)

The young people I met today, the young people behind me -- you guys inspire me. It’s young people like you that make me so confident that America’s best days are still to come. When you work and study and excel at what you’re doing in math and science, when you compete in something like this, you’re not just trying to win a prize today. You’re getting America in shape to win the future. You’re making sure we have the best, smartest, most skilled workers in the world, so that the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root right here. You’re making sure we’ll always be home to the most creative entrepreneurs, the most advanced science labs and universities. You’re making sure America will win the race to the future.

So as an American, I’m proud of you. As your President, I think we need to make sure your success stories are happening all across our country.

And that’s why when I took office, I called for an all-hands-on-deck approach to science, math, technology and engineering. Let’s train more teachers. Let’s get more kids studying these subjects. Let’s make sure these fields get the respect and attention that they deserve.

But it’s not just a government effort. I’m happy to say that the private sector has answered that call as well. They understand how important it is to their future. So today, led by the Carnegie Corporation, a group of businesses and foundations is announcing a $22 million fund to help train 100,000 new science and math teachers. A coalition of more than 100 CEOs is expanding innovative math and science programs to 130 sites across the country. And other companies are partnering from -- everybody from Will.i.am to Dean Kamen -- to make sure we celebrate young scientists and inventors and engineers, not just at the White House, but in every city and every town all across America.

And many of these leaders are here today, and I want to thank them for doing their part. We’re going to do everything we can to partner to help you succeed in your projects. And I’m proud to announce that the budget I unveil next week will include programs to help prepare new math and science teachers, and to meet an ambitious goal, which is 1 million more American graduates in science, technology, engineering and math over the next 10 years. That is a goal we can achieve. (Applause.) That’s a goal we can achieve.

Now, in a lot of ways, today is a celebration of the new. But the belief that we belong on the cutting edge of innovation -- that’s an idea as old as America itself. I mean, we’re a nation of tinkerers and dreamers and believers in a better tomorrow. You think about our Founding Fathers -- they were all out there doing experiments -- and folks like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, they were constantly curious about the world around them and trying to figure out how can we help shape that environment so that people’s lives are better.

It’s in our DNA. We know that innovation has helped each generation pass down that basic American promise, which is no matter who you are, no matter where you come from, you can make it if you try. So there’s nothing more important than keeping that promise alive for the next generation. There’s no priority I have that’s higher than President -- as President than this.

And I can’t think of a better way to spend a morning than with the young people who are here doing their part and creating some unbelievable stuff in the process. So I’m proud of you. I want you to keep up your good work.

I’m going to make a special plea to the press -- not just the folks who are here, but also your editors -- give this some attention. I mean, this is the kind of stuff, what these young people are doing, that’s going to make a bigger difference in the life of our country over the long term than just about anything. And it doesn’t belong just on the back pages of a newspaper; we’ve got to lift this up. We’ve got to emphasize how important this is and recognize these incredible young people who are doing things that I couldn’t even imagine thinking about at 5th grade or 8th grade or in high school.

And so pay attention to this. This is important. This is what’s going to make a difference in this country over the long haul. This is what inspires me and gets me up every day. This is what we should be focusing on in our public debates.

And as for all the folks who are here, don’t let your robots wander off anywhere. (Laughter.) All right?

Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it. Congratulations. (Applause.)

12:07 P.M. EST 

But right now, joining us is Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker, thanks very much for coming in.

Correct me if I am wrong, you have basically given up on these three important battleground states, is that right?

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: I haven't given up on them. We were in Colorado yesterday and we were in Minnesota last night. We had a huge crowd in Minnesota. Over 700 people showed up. We gave an energy speech at the College of Mines in Golden, Colorado yesterday and also had a town hall meeting and a rally.

But I think we're looking forward to Ohio, which is where I am now, which has started early voting. Arizona, which has began early voting. Tennessee starts next week with early voting. So we are trying to look at the whole country at the same time. I stayed in Florida and fought it out. Senator Santorum decided to go to other states. So each of these campaigns is making its own decisions about what to do right. But we're having a great time here in Ohio, and we, I think, have a very real chance of winning Ohio. So it's very exciting to be here.

BLITZER: March 6th, Ohio, part of super Tuesday, an important battleground state as all of our viewers know. But you really -- your campaign or even the super PAC supporting you really didn't spend any money at all in these three states, Missouri -- you're not even on the ballot there -- Minnesota, or Colorado. Is that right?

GINGRICH: Well, Missouri, this is entirely a beauty contest. Has no effect at all, and was actually in some ways an accident of the legislature. Missouri, will be caucuses in March, and we'll be very aggressively in Missouri for the caucuses, and we're working very hard in Missouri to get as much support as we can.

But we did -- we came in second in Nevada. We came in second in Florida. We came in first in South Carolina. I think we're going to do very well on super Tuesday. We are going to compete very intensely in Arizona and Michigan. So I think everybody has got to figure out their own campaign strategy on a nationwide basis. And I think the big story coming out tonight is going to be that it's very hard for the elite media to portray Governor Romney as the inevitable nominee after tonight is over. I think you have seen a steady decline in turnout wherever he's been dumping his negative ads. You saw even in Nevada a real drop in the number of votes he got. I came in second, as I said. We're delighted.

We split the total delegates between the Romney-not Romney side in a state he was supposed to carry. I think tonight, he may be as much as 20 points behind in Colorado where he was four years ago. I think he may be similarly behind in Minnesota from where he was four years ago.

So I think after tonight, you will see, this is a wide open race and you are going to see a lot of people out there campaigning.

We have had a great time. We were in Dayton today and visited Orville Wright's home and talked about the development of the airplane as an example of American ingenuity, all of it done in the private sector, all of it done for a total cost of $500. And it was great fun.

BLITZER: So everything you're saying is, you're not going anywhere. You're staying in this contest as long as it takes. You have no intention, no matter what happens tonight or in Arizona or Michigan, super Tuesday, you're in this race.

GINGRICH: We're in the race all the way. I just talked to Governor Rick Perry today. We have a very strong operation in Texas. We have a very strong operation in Georgia. Our goal is through super Tuesday, we then go to Alabama and Mississippi, and then we go to Texas. And our hope is by the time we get to Texas on April 6th, that we'll basically be pretty close to a tie with Governor Romney. I think the positive ideas we're developing, the dramatic contrast. He talks about not caring about the poor because they have got a safety net. I want to create a springboard to help them all get jobs and to help them all work and to help them all have a chance to pursue happiness. They ridiculed my ideas about us competing in space. I don't want to let the Chinese and the Russians dominate space. When you go to the Wright Brothers' home, you look at what they did and how they did it. And you realize they discovered how to fly for 500 bucks, while the U.S. government was throwing away 50,000 in the same cycle failing to fly. It's a pretty good model for what I want to do, liberating space from the bureaucracy, getting entrepreneurs to come in and do exciting positive things for America's future. By the way, things which will create jobs in America and make us once again the technological leader of the world, which is, I think, what we have got to be.

We are only going to be a successful country if we are consistently the most innovative and the most technologically advanced country in the world.

BLITZER: I don't know if you have seen these stories over the past few days about you suggesting that you want more debates or you want no more debates. I wonder if you wanted to clarify. Do you want a lot more presidential debates or are you over all these debates?

GINGRICH: Look, I'm happy either way, Wolf. As you know, we did very, very well. I think most people believe that I won 15 out of 17 debates and tied one and probably you could argue I lost one. I think that's a pretty good track record. I'm happy to debate. I'd much rather have a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. I would love the opportunity to have head-on with Romney, with no moderator, just a timekeeper. Let's take a couple of big ideas, let's talk about them together.

I have a very bold tax plan to create jobs. "The Wall Street Journal" said the boldest plan. He had a plan so timid, "The Wall Street Journal" said it was comparable to Obama. It would be great to have a tax debate with Romney, or have a debate over his attitude towards the very poor and my idea of trying to create a springboard to give them a chance to become middle class, to work hard, to have a better future.

I'd love to have those kind of debates. But you call one, Wolf, I'll show up, whether he does or not. I'm happy to do it either way.

BLITZER: All right, good to know that. Let me ask you about Syria right now. We're spending a lot of time looking -- the slaughter is continuing right now. It's a brutal situation. I don't know if you heard John McCain saying the U.S. should start thinking at least of some -- providing weapons to the opposition to Bashar al- Assad. Barbara Starr is reporting from the Pentagon tonight that the U.S. military beginning to think of some potential contingencies out there.

If you were president of the United States and you saw thousands of innocent people, protesters, simply slaughtered by this regime, what would you do?

GINGRICH: The first thing you have to ask yourself, Wolf, is what has happened to the Obama administration? We are months into this and they're starting to think? You would have thought by now they would have covertly worked with our allies in the region to be funneling all sorts of assets into the rebels. It's clearly in our interest for Assad to drop -- to be kicked out of power. This is clearly an ally of Iran, and we frankly want to get him replaced if we can. So I'm amazed that they're starting to think -- something they should have done about five months ago.

BLITZER: So if you were president, would you actively start providing at least weapons to the opposition?

GINGRICH: Well, I would actively have -- first of all, as president, I wouldn't tell you. I would seek to have genuinely covert operations in which we worked with our allies in the region that had people who are fluent in Arabic, who were deeply engaged in helping them. And I would ensure that those folks had adequate weapons.

But you know, weapons in that part of the world aren't hard to get. And that's pretty easy to attain. The trick is to also have advisers. I don't think they should be American, but I think it would not hurt if we were helping a group of advisers from the region go in and help organize to defeat Assad. It is definitely in our interests to get rid of Assad as a dictator, because he is an ally of Iran. It would be a major blow to the Iranians if Assad were kicked out of power.

BLITZER: One final political question, Mr. Speaker, before I let you go. You remember 1976, Ronald Reagan challenged Gerald Ford, went all the way to the convention. You remember what happened. Are you in this at least until the convention? Do you think that it will go that far?

GINGRICH: Well, I don't know yet. I mean, I think -- I'm certainly in it all the way to the convention. We'll see what happens. You could have -- at the rate we're going, you could have the first open convention since 1940, which would give you something to cover that you would just love.

I have no idea how this is going to evolve. I know that I stand for the growth-oriented Reagan wing of the party that wants to see us be very dynamic and very different. And I think that fight with the establishment, as you pointed out, just like Reagan-Ford in 1976, I think that we are going to probably go a long way in distinguishing between Governor Romney's position and my position over the next couple of months.

But in addition, I think it's not harmful -- remember, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were in a contest all the way up to mid- June. It didn't seem to hurt them. John McCain won early, didn't seem to help him. So I think having us out here testing out ideas, showing people that there are genuine -- not just personality differences, there are philosophical differences about how we approach America's future. I think that's very healthy for the Republican Party, and I think we're going to be a party of better new ideas and better new solutions as a result of this process.

BLITZER: Mr. Speaker, as usual, thanks very much for joining us.

GINGRICH: Thanks. Good to see you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Thank you. 

RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Wow! Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota. Thank you all so very, very much. It is great to be here. I just can't thank the people of Missouri. We doubled them up here and in Minnesota.

I want to also thank, I have to always thank -- first off, let me just thank God for giving us the grace to be able to persevere through the dog days, and blessing us and blessing our family.

My wife Karen here, what a rock. I mean, what a rock through the last few weeks. We have had -- we have had more drama than any family really needs. And she has just been an amazing rock and a great blessing to me. And I just want to thank you in particular, my sweet, for all you've done. Thank you.

KAREN SANTORUM, WIFE: Thank you. I love you.

R. SANTORUM: I want to thank my kids, the two that are here, Elizabeth and John, and all the kids listening at home. I'll be home in a couple of days. It's been a while. And I just -- I just want a particular little note to my Bella, who I know is watching me, looking at her daddy. So I love you, sweetie. Thank you so much. Get healthy.

Your votes today were not just heard loud and wide across the states of Missouri and Minnesota, but they were heard loud and louder all across this country. And particularly in a place that I suspect may be in Massachusetts. They were heard particularly loud tonight.

Tonight this was not just a victory for us. Tonight was a victory for the voices of our party, conservatives and Tea Party people, who are out there every single day in the vineyards, building the conservative movement in this country, building the base of the Republican Party, and building a voice for freedom in this land. Thank you.

There's probably another person who maybe is listening to your cheers here also, and that might be at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. You better start listening to the voice of the people.

But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't listening. Why would you think he would be listening now? Has he ever listened to the voice of America before?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

R. SANTORUM: Why? Because he thinks he knows better. He thinks he's smarter than you. He thinks he's someone who is a privileged person who should be able to rule over all of you.

But we have a different message for him. He's someone who, well, let's just go look at the record. If you look at when it came to the Wall Street bailouts, did the president of the United States listen to you when it came to bailing out the big banks?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

R. SANTORUM: Why? Because he thought he knew better. He and his friends on Wall Street knew better than what was good for the country.

When it came to the problems that were being confronted on Obama care, when the health care system in the country, did President Obama when he was pushing forward his radical health-care ideas, listen to the American people?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

R. SANTORUM: Why? Because he thinks he knows better how to run your lives and manage your health care.

When it comes to the environment, does the president of the United States listen to the American people, or did he push a radical cap and trade agenda that would crush the energy and manufacturing sector of the economy? Did he listen to you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

R. SANTORUM: No, because he thinks he knows better.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need a president who listens to the American people. When the majority of the American people oppose these ideas and they speak loudly against them, we need a president who listens to them.

Here's the problem. The problem is in this Republican field, you have been listening. Tonight, the voters of America, the voters here in Missouri, the voters in Minnesota, and I'm hopeful the voters in Colorado, right?

I hope you have been listening to our message because if you listen to our message, and you found out that on those issues -- health care, the environment, cap and trade, and on the Wall Street bailouts -- Mitt Romney has the same positions as Barack Obama. And in fact, would not be the best person to come up and fight for your voices for freedom in America.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We pick Rick! We pick Rick! We pick Rick!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We pick Rick! We pick Rick! We pick Rick!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We pick Rick! We pick Rick! We pick Rick!

R. SANTORUM: Tonight -- tonight we had -- tonight, we had an opportunity to see what a campaign looks like when one candidate isn't outspent 5 or 10 to 1 by negative ads imputing their integrity and distorting their record. This is a more accurate representation, frankly, of what the fall race will look like.

Governor Romney's greatest attribute is, "Well, I've got the most money and the best organization." Well, he's not going to have the most money and the best organization in the fall, is he?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

R. SANTORUM: No. We're going to have someone who has other attributes to commend themselves to the people of America. Someone -- someone who can get up and make sharp contrasts with President Obama. Someone who can point to the failed record of the administration and say that Barack Obama needs to be replaced in the Oval Office.

People have -- people have asked me, you know, what is -- what is the secret? How -- why are you doing so well? Is it your jobs message? And yes, we have a great jobs message, talking about everywhere we go and particularly here in the industrial heartland of Missouri, where they still make things here in Missouri, by the way.

It's a message of -- as the "Wall Street Journal" called our economic plan, supply side economics for the working man, is resonating here in Missouri and here in Missouri and across this country. And you see that, when you have a Republican out there talking about growth, we're talking about growth for everybody, right? That Americans respond.

Because I do care about not 99 percent or 95 percent. I care about the very rich and the very poor. I care about 100 percent of America.

The real message, the message that we've been taking across this country and here in Missouri, is a message of what's at stake in this election. This is the most important election in your lifetime. This is an election, we've seen it so evident just here in the last week. This is an election fundamentally about the kind of country you're going to hand off to your children and grandchildren; whether they are going to have the level of freedom and opportunity that you have.

And we have a president of the United States, as I mentioned, who's someone who believes he knows better. That we need to accumulate more power in Washington, D.C., for the elite in our country, to be able to govern you because you are incapable of liberty, that you are incapable of freedom. That what this president believes.

And I -- and Americans understand that there is a great, great deal at stake. If this president is re-elected and if we don't have a nominee that can make this case and not be compromised on the biggest issues of the day, but can make the case to the American public that this is about the Founders' freedom; this is about a country that believes in God-given rights and a Constitution that is limited to protect those rights.

The president does not believe that. The president over the last few years has tried to tell you that he, in fact, the government, can give you rights. The government can take care of you and provide for you. They can give you the right to health care, like an Obama care.

But look what happens when the government gives you rights. When the government give said you rights, unlike when God gives you rights, the government can take them away. When government gives you rights, the government can tell you how to exercise those rights.

And we saw that just in the last week with a group of people, a small group of people, just Catholics in the United States of America, who were told, you have a right to health care, but you will have the health care that we tell you you have to give your people, whether it is against the teachings of your church or not. 

I never thought as a first-generation American whose parents and grandparents loved freedom and came here because they didn't want the government telling them what to believe and how to believe it. That we had a first amendment that actually stood for freedom of conscience, that we would have a president of the United States who would roll over that and impose his secular values on the people of this country.

And it's worse than that. When one of the Catholic bishops tried to communicate that through Army chaplains, the Obama administration said no, you can't do that. No, because your language is seditious. And they made them change the language of a letter from a bishop to his people.

Ladies and gentlemen, freedom is at stake in this election. We need to be the voice for freedom.

(APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: And that founding document, the declaration of independence, at the end of the document, the founders signed their names. But the last clause of the document said we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Ladies and gentlemen, every generation of Americans doesn't create freedom, but they have in many respects a harder job. They have to maintain freedom. Your charge tonight, your charge tonight here in Missouri because we're not done yet with you here in Missouri. You have a caucus coming up next month.

(APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: Go out and pledge, pledge, no, not your lives, maybe your fortune, RickSantorum.com is the Web site, but your honor, the honor that you stand on the backs and shoulders of your ancestors. The people here in St. Louis, the people here Missouri, the people across this country who sacrificed for this country, for the freedoms we have.

America's honor, your honor is at stake. Go out and preserve the greatest country in the history of the world. Thank you all and God bless.

(APPLAUSE) 

In a policy turnabout, the president is now encouraging his surrogates from the White House and the campaign to actively back the independent political action committees. This comes despite Obama's oft-stated condemnation of the "corrosive effects" on American politics of unlimited money from businesses, unions and other special interests. The president since 2010 has criticized the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

During his State of the Union address in 2010, Obama gazed down at John Roberts and other justices seated in front of him and said, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.”

Obama is betting that the election appears bloody enough by now to convince supporters uncomfortable with big-money campaigns to overcome misgivings that he has abandoned principles in pursuit of politics. The president decided “he is not going to fight with one hand tied behind his back,” one of three senior campaign advisers told reporters Tuesday under ground rules that they would not be named.

In that same 2010 speech, Obama noted that he “campaigned on the promise of change. Change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change or that I can deliver it.”

If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. In Democratic politics, the explanation offered by nominees in 1992, 1996, 2004 -- and recycled again Tuesday -- is that Democrats, however eager to achieve campaign finance reforms, should not “unilaterally disarm” under existing laws, as long as doing so might be self-injurious.

The knife-fighters on Obama’s mind are the hundreds of Republican-friendly businesses, wealthy individuals and interest groups eager to unseat him. Unconstrained, they have contributed huge sums since 2011 to help nominate GOP presidential candidates. The Obama campaign has made no secret in recent weeks of its concerns that independent groups will bombard the airwaves with negative advertising about the president -- ads that could help defeat him.

Just weeks ago, senior campaign adviser David Axelrod assailed Mitt Romney for what Axelrod called the candidate’s none-too-subtle “dog whistles” to his super PAC to take down serious challengers with negative ads, even while claiming an arm’s-length relationship. Obama’s own announcement Tuesday through his campaign team was a “dog whistle” of its own, encouraging Democrats to regard Karl Rove and the Koch brothers -- the brain and bucks behind the largest GOP super PACs -- as threats.

The president’s campaign advisers said the super PAC supporting Obama, unlike its GOP alternatives, would disclose its donors, and that Obama, Vice President Biden, Michelle Obama and Jill Biden will not appear in person at super PAC fundraisers, in an effort to enhance the perception that they are not in cahoots with PAC strategists.

Obama, trying to keep his job despite weak economic indicators, is vulnerable to a barrage of ads focused on his words and deeds in office. Early versions created by the Republican National Committee and posted to the Web this year have highlighted the president’s “broken promises” -- getting a jump on the general election campaign. Academic researchers believe the effects of the Citizens United ruling have already impacted the trajectory of the GOP primary race.

The amounts of money now sloshing through super PACs in some cases exceed the resources raised under legal limits by candidates’ campaigns and by the two parties, tilting influence away from small-dollar donors and even the candidates. Contributions to the super PACs are unlimited and donors do not have to be disclosed. The PACs and the candidates are barred from coordinating strategies with one another. Reports filed with the FEC as of Feb. 7 show that independent contributions to the new entities have exceeded $98.6 million in this cycle.

Obama’s team studied Romney’s campaign and the pro-Romney super PACs, which have throttled the president as well as GOP primary candidates Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich with negative advertising. With Obama’s blessing, they decided that the pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action -- which has raised more than $4 million, according to the most recent federal report -- needed some help. Obama campaign officials said Tuesday they were persuaded to lend a hand to Priorities USA because GOP super PACs might raise $500 million to put a Republican in the White House.

"This is largely a reflection of the intensity on the Republican side," a campaign official said. "We knew Citizens United opened the door to an increase in spending. We had no idea that a half-billion dollars would come on line for Republicans for one singular purpose: to defeat the president." 

Alexis Simendinger covers the White House for RealClearPolitics. She can be reached at asimendinger@realclearpolitics.com.

Kerrey, a former senator, governor and one-time presidential candidate, was considered the Democrats' last best chance to keep the seat being vacated by Ben Nelson.

But his no-go decision isn't all that surprising: Even with his past record and national profile, it was clear he would be a long shot in a state that has been trending redder since Kerrey's days in office. Even Nelson, considered among the most moderate of Democrats in the upper chamber, faced an extremely difficult re-election campaign, which is why he chose retirement. Republicans had already been attacking Kerrey as a liberal who left Nebraska to run the progressive New School in New York City, where he now resides. Kerrey also toyed with running for an open seat in 2008, but opted out that time too.

In a statement, he apologized to those who had urged him to run but said, "I have chosen what I believe is best for my family and me."

Though Kerrey faced tall odds, his candidacy would have forced Republicans to expend a significant amount of money and resources in the state. Without a top Democratic contender in the race, the GOP is poised to move closer to winning the majority in the Senate. Completing that quest requires a net gain of just four seats, and the party has been intensely focused on Nebraska since well before Nelson announced his retirement.

Republicans say Kerrey's exit reflects the challenge Democrats face in battleground states, especially with President Obama at the top of the ballot. "Kerrey’s decision to stay in New York is a blow to the Democrats’ hopes of holding their Senate majority and reiterates why we believe Nebraskans will elect a fiscally-responsible, conservative Republican Senator next fall," said National Republican Senatorial Committee Spokesman Brian Walsh in a statement.

The NRSC vows to remain neutral in Republican primaries. The establishment has privately coalesced around Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, but Tea Party groups are split between him and rival Don Stenberg, the state treasurer. Democrats have been hammering Bruning for campaign gaffes and ethical questions about his purchase of a lakefront home. Stenberg is also on the attack. He recently accused Bruning of running for public office to advance his personal wealth and called him a "conservative of convenience," the Nebraska Watchdog reported.

But publicly, Democrats insist they have a fighting chance. The GOP primary will be so brutal and divisive, they say, that whoever emerges as the nominee will be weakened. "The Republican primary in the state has become a proxy war between Mitch McConnell’s ethically challenged candidate Jon Bruning and Jim DeMint’s tea partier Don Stenberg, which will provide an opportunity for Democrats to remain competitive," said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Matt Canter in a statement.

Democrats argue that divisive Republican primaries in other key races will hurt the GOP's chances at winning the majority. DSCC Chairwoman Patty Murray has thrown her support behind candidates in some Democratic primaries to avoid such bloody battles.

With Kerrey out of the Nebraska race, Democrats are eying Omaha state Sen. Steve Lathrop and Chuck Hassebrook, executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs.

But in a statement, Democrats implied they don't need to hold on to the state to keep their majority in the Senate.

“We continue to play offense this election cycle in Massachusetts, Nevada, Arizona, and Indiana, and remain fully confident that we will hold the majority next year," said the DSCC's Canter. 

Caitlin Huey-Burns is a reporter for RealClearPolitics. She can be reached at chueyburns@realclearpolitics.com.

The Public Policy Polling (D) survey shows the former Massachusetts governor leading with 37 percent in Colorado. Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, comes in second with 27 percent; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has 21 percent; and Texas Rep. Ron Paul has 13 percent.

In Minnesota, however, Santorum leads with 33 percent support. Romney is in second with 24 percent, just two points ahead of Gingrich. Paul is a close fourth with 20 percent. In PPP's Sunday poll of the race, Santorum led Romney by two points, 29 percent to 27 percent.

The candidates stumped in both states ahead of Tuesday's contests. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum campaigned in Colorado on Monday. Santorum, Gingrich and Paul made stops in Minnesota as well. Romney didn't visit the state but has the support of former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Romney aims to get his fourth win of the nomination season in Colorado, where he has built a formidable campaign organization after winning the state handily during his 2008 presidential run. Romney also won Minnesota in 2008, but this year's race appears to be much more competitive and fluid. Paul, for example, has focused on Minnesota over Colorado, and, despite his position in the PPP poll, could be a threat to win given his strong organization and enthusiastic support.

The candidates are looking to build momentum or, in the case or Romney, maintain it on Tuesday. Santorum has been making the case that he, not Gingrich, is the best alternative to Romney in the race. For his part, Gingrich is looking to surge again once March arrives, when delegate-rich Southern states that are more favorable to his candidacy vote.

Romney aims to continue his roll after a dominating victory in Florida on Jan. 31 and a win in Nevada on Saturday.

PPP (D) surveyed 938 likely Republican caucus-goers in Colorado and 864 likely caucus-goers in Minnesota on Saturday and Monday. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points in Colorado and plus or minus 3.3 percentage points in Minnesota. 

Kyle Adams can be reached at kadams@realclearpolitics.com.

And so everything's gone according to plan.

There’s just one problem: After waging warfare on his GOP competitors in each of those elections -- all in swing states that could be critical in a November matchup against President Obama -- Romney has left those contests less popular than when he started campaigning in earnest.

The news Monday in a national Washington Post/ABC News poll made waves: Obama’s approval rating shot up to 50 percent; the president bested Romney in a general election matchup; and he led his likely GOP rival among crucial independent voters.

And so the Romney campaign issued two memos to effectively distract from those findings. The first one, authored by campaign pollster Neil Newhouse, addressed the new survey.

“The poll introduced specific negative information about Governor Romney immediately prior to asking [about] the ballot matchup against President Obama,” Newhouse noted. He re-listed a series of questions the Post/ABC pollsters asked, including what respondents thought of Romney’s corporate work and his effective tax rate of 14 percent just before addressing the general election matchup. Newhouse concluded that “the questionnaire design . . . is seriously flawed.”

Romney spokeswoman Gail Gitcho distributed the polling memo to the press but did not respond to a request to expound.

The second memo was a rallying cry with the subject line “On a Roll,” which Romney political director Rich Beeson sent to supporters Monday afternoon.

“Another swing state -- another big victory,” Beeson noted. The memo was brief and pointed out that Romney won key conservative coalitions in Nevada, including tea party supporters, evangelical Christians and “very conservative” voters.

What it did not mention was that caucus turnout dropped precipitously from the 2008 contest, and that Romney did not perform as well on Saturday as he did then.

Ryan Erwin, Romney’s consultant in Nevada, put it this way, “This year, the excitement is different: This isn’t about going to Disneyworld; it’s about paying your mortgage.”

Maybe so, but in Florida and New Hampshire, the former Massachusetts governor’s favorability ratings have declined as negative campaigning in the GOP primary has raged.

A new WMUR Granite State Poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire showed that likely general election voters favored Obama over Romney, 50 percent to 40 percent. In October, the same survey showed nearly the reverse, with Romney leading the president, 50 percent to 42 percent.

Florida polls have bounced around depending on the pollster, but the most recent survey -- an NBC/Marist poll with the largest of sample sizes -- shows Obama besting Romney by eight percentage points.

Some Romney allies concede that the numbers aren’t good now, but they dismiss the current polling for a multitude of reasons. Their candidate suffered losses over the past month to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, noted one former Romney aide. And Jamie Burnett, Romney’s 2008 political director in New Hampshire, suggested Obama has gotten a free ride since the State of the Union, while the Republicans are the ones under media scrutiny.

Those dynamics may indeed be at play, but it doesn’t change the fact that Romney has some repair work to do if he hopes to win in November. 

Erin McPike is a national political reporter for RealClearPolitics. She can be reached at emcpike@realclearpolitics.com.

But Romney's statement about not worrying about the poor -- because they "have a very ample safety net" -- was followed by a statement that was not just a slip of the tongue, and should be a defining moment in telling us about this man's qualifications as a conservative and, more important, as a potential President of the United States.

Mitt Romney has come out in support of indexing the minimum wage law, to have it rise automatically to keep pace with inflation. To many people, that would seem like a small thing that can be left for economists or statisticians to deal with.

But to people who call themselves conservatives, and aspire to public office, there is no excuse for not being aware of what a major social disaster the minimum wage law has been for the young, the poor and especially for young and poor blacks.

It is not written in the stars that young black males must have astronomical rates of unemployment. It is written implicitly in the minimum wage laws.

We have gotten so used to seeing unemployment rates of 30 or 40 percent for black teenage males that it might come as a shock to many people to learn that the unemployment rate for sixteen- and seventeen-year-old black males was just under 10 percent back in 1948. Moreover, it was slightly lower than the unemployment rate for white males of the same age.

How could this be?

The economic reason is quite plain. The inflation of the 1940s had pushed money wages for even unskilled, entry-level labor above the level specified in the minimum wage law passed ten years earlier. In other words, there was in practical effect no national minimum wage law in the late 1940s.

My first full-time job, as a black teenage high-school dropout in 1946, was as a lowly messenger delivering telegrams. But my starting pay was more than 50 percent above the level specified in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Liberals were of course appalled that the federal minimum wage law had lagged so far behind inflation -- and, in 1950, they began a series of escalations of the minimum wage level over the years.

It was in the wake of these escalations that black teenage unemployment rose to levels that were three or four times the level in 1948. Even in the most prosperous years of later times, the unemployment rate for black teenage males was some multiple of what it was even in the recession year of 1949. And now it was often double the unemployment rate for white males of the same ages.

This was not the first or the last time that liberals did something that made them feel good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake, especially among the poor whom they were supposedly helping.

For those for whom "racism" is the explanation of all racial differences, let me assure them, from personal experience, that there was not less racism in the 1940s.

For those who want to check out the statistics -- and I hope that would include Mitt Romney -- they can be found detailed on pages 42 to 45 of "Race and Economics" by Walter Williams.

Nor are such consequences of minimum wage laws peculiar to blacks or to the United States. In Western European countries whose social policies liberals consider more "advanced" than our own, including more generous minimum wage laws and other employer-mandated benefits, it has been common in even prosperous years for unemployment rates among young people to be 20 percent or higher.

The economic reason is not complicated. When you set minimum wage levels higher than many inexperienced young people are worth, they don't get hired. It is not rocket science.

Milton Friedman explained all this, half a century ago, in his popular little book for non-economists, "Capitalism and Freedom." So have many other people. If a presidential candidate who calls himself "conservative" has still not heard of these facts, that simply shows that you can call yourself anything you want to. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Probably.

Even at this point, after Romney trounced Newt Gingrich in the Florida primary and the Nevada caucuses, there are some fairly compelling reasons for Republicans to pause before bowing to the party establishment's decision that Mitt must be It.

First is the fact that so many GOP voters still can't summon much enthusiasm for their likely standard-bearer. In a poll released last week, the Pew Research Center found that an incredible 52 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents consider the field of candidates only fair or poor. Just 46 percent assessed the field as good or excellent -- compared to 68 percent who were satisfied with the contenders at the same point in the battle for the nomination four years ago.

In Florida, exit polls confirmed Pew's findings: Nearly four in 10 GOP voters said they were unhappy with their choices. It is reasonable to assume that many Republicans who didn't bother to vote -- and thus were not sampled in exit polls -- are probably even less enthusiastic.

Last May, as the roster of candidates was shaping up, just 43 percent of Republicans thought the field was fair or poor, according to Pew. In other words, the better Republican voters come to know these candidates, including Romney, the less they like them.

Still, somebody is going to get nominated. At this point, Romney has shown he can beat Gingrich almost everywhere. But that "almost" is important.

Gingrich won big in South Carolina. And while Romney rolled up huge margins in the southern and central parts of Florida, Gingrich beat him in the panhandle counties that border Alabama and Georgia -- a part of the state, demographically and culturally, that isn't South Beach but, rather, just plain South.

This is significant because the South is the Republican Party's heartland. Romney has shown in other contests that he can put a check mark in every ideological box -- that despite Gingrich's taunt of "Massachusetts moderate," he can still win the support of voters who call themselves "very conservative" or who say they are tea party members. But maybe the relevant pejorative is the "Massachusetts" part.

So far, Romney has not shown that he can connect with and excite voters in the South the way Gingrich does. If the bruised, battered, underfunded Gingrich campaign can survive long enough -- and if Gingrich can rediscover the in-your-face mojo that gave him such a lift in the South Carolina debates -- he could potentially beat Romney in Georgia and Tennessee on Super Tuesday, March 6, and in Alabama and Mississippi a week later.

At that point, if I were a GOP pooh-bah, I'd have to worry about going into the November elections with a candidate at the top of the ticket who had received so little love from the party's most loyal supporters.

Maybe the Gingrich insurgency will prove to be nothing more than a sad, divisive ego trip. Maybe Romney will show that he can win -- or at least compete -- in the South. Realistically, chances are that his superior resources, organization and discipline will prevail in the end.

Then what? Well, if you believe the polls, Romney probably loses to President Obama in the fall.

A new Washington Post poll, released Monday, shows that Obama leads Romney by 51 percent to 45 percent among registered voters. The poll also showed that Obama's approval rating is at 50 percent, the first time it has reached that benchmark since May, right after Osama bin Laden was killed. On protecting the middle class and dealing with taxes, international affairs and terrorism, voters believe Obama would do a better job than Romney.

But perhaps the most important figure -- found not in the poll, but in Labor Department statistics released Friday -- is 8.3 percent. That's the unemployment rate for January, and it is the lowest since February 2009, right after Obama took office.

Romney's central argument for the presidency is that he will do a better job of managing the economy. Despite their overall preference for Obama, many voters buy that premise. But if the unemployment rate continues to fall, it won't matter whether Republicans go with the safe bet or the mercurial firebrand. Economic recovery almost surely equals four more years. 

Copyright 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

Romney announced this decision — saying it was the "right thing for hospitals" to do — just two days after he had taken the opposite position.

The story begins in 1975, when Massachusetts enacted a law that said, "No privately controlled hospital .. shall be required to permit any patient to have an abortion ... or to furnish contraceptive devices or information to such patient ... when said services or referrals are contrary to the religious or moral principles of said hospital ... ."

Twenty-seven years later, when Romney was running for governor, he filled out a questionnaire for NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. It said: "Emergency contraception does not cause abortion. Rather, it prevents pregnancy from occurring. Will you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?"

Romney said: "Yes."

The next year, the Massachusetts legislature considered an "emergency contraception" mandate. It would have allowed pharmacists to sell Plan B — an abortifacient — without a prescription and without parental consent. It also would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of the availability of such "emergency contraceptives" and provide them to the rape victim if she wanted them even when they would cause an abortion.

Maria Parker of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy organization of the state's Catholic bishops, explained in testimony to the state legislature why Catholic hospitals could not do this.

The normal Catholic ban on artificial contraception did not apply in a rape case, Parker said. But while contraception was acceptable in such a situation, killing an unborn child was not.

In keeping with this moral understanding, one Massachusetts Catholic hospital chain would later explain to the Boston Globe that its practice was to test a rape victim to make certain she was not pregnant and only then give her emergency contraceptives. If the test proved the woman was pregnant, the hospital would not give the woman the drugs because they could not prevent conception but they could kill her child.

Parker concluded her testimony by quoting what Cardinal Frances George of Chicago had told the Illinois legislature when it proposed a similar law: "Our hospitals cannot and will not comply with this law."

In that session, the Massachusetts Senate passed the "emergency contraception" bill, but it was blocked in the House.

As Planned Parenthood and NARAL demanded action on the bill, and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference continued to speak out against it, Gov. Mitt Romney remained mum.

"Shawn Feddeman, spokeswoman for Gov. Mitt Romney, declined to comment on the governor's position on the bill," the Boston Globe reported on July 1, 2004. "'We'll review it when it reaches the governor's desk.'"

The bill was reintroduced in the next session — and Romney remained mum.

Romney had "no opinion on the bill," his spokesman, Eric Fehrnstorm, told The Associated Press in April 2005. "We'll take a look at the bill should it reach the governor's desk."

But the bill had veto-proof support in both chambers of the Democrat-controlled legislature in 2005.

In July, the House and Senate reached a compromise on it that would protect Catholic hospitals from being forced to act against their faith.

At that time, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference published a bulletin explaining what happened. "The House worked to make sure that the conscience rights of Catholic hospitals and medical workers would not be stripped away," said the bulletin. "As a result, private hospitals will not be forced to dispense emergency contraception in rape cases where the pills may be abortifacient."

The House had included language to "expressly apply" the 1975 conscience law protections to the new emergency contraception law, the bulletin explained. The Senate had included language saying the new law should apply "notwithstanding" any existing law.

"In the end, neither amendment was included in the bill," said the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. "Even though the House amendment was taken out, the Senate amendment was rejected too. By avoiding the worse-case scenario of adding the Senate's 'notwithstanding' language, Catholic hospitals achieved a substantial victory. House Majority Leader John Rogers, who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to defend the hospitals' right of conscience, made it clear during floor debate on July 21 that the House blocked the Senate amendment so that the 1975 conscience statute would continue to have full effect."

"[S]ince the new bill does not expressly nullify the older statute," the bulletin concluded, "the conscience protection on the books still remains in force."

The conference provided me with a copy of this bulletin, and Rogers assured me its account was "accurate and true."

The Catholic Church still opposed the bill because it would facilitate abortions. But at least the religious liberty of Catholic hospitals had been preserved — or so it seemed.

On July 25, 2005, Romney vetoed the bill — even though it was clear his veto would be overridden.

He published an op-ed in the Boston Globe the next day explaining his decision. "The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception," he wrote. "The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception." Romney said the veto kept his pledge not to change the state's abortion laws.

Romney made no mention of the religious liberty issue in his op-ed. But then, the bill, as the Massachusetts Catholic Conference and the House majority leader understood it, did not allow coercion of Catholic hospitals.

On Dec. 7, 2005, a week before the law was to take effect, the Boston Globe ran a piece headlined: "Private Hospitals Exempt on Pill Law." The article said the state Department of Public Health had determined that the emergency contraception law "does not nullify a statute passed years ago that says privately run hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception."

Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. told the Globe: "We felt very clearly that the two laws don't cancel each other out and basically work in harmony with each other."

Romney spokesman Fehrnstrom told the Globe that Romney agreed with the Department of Public Health on the issue. The governor, he said, "respects the views of health care facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue."

"The staff of DPH did their own objective and unbiased legal analysis," Romney's spokesman told the Globe. "The brought it to us, and we concur in it."

The Globe itself ruefully bowed to this legal analysis. It ran an editorial headlined: "A Plan B Mistake." "The legislators failed, however," the Globe said, "to include wording in the bill explicitly repealing a clause in an older statute that gives hospitals the right, for reasons of conscience, not to offer birth control services."

Liberals joined in attacking Romney's defense of Catholic hospitals. But that defense did not last long.

The same day the Globe ran its editorial, Romney held a press conference. Now he said his legal counsel had advised him the new emergency contraception law did trump the 1975 conscience law.

"On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view," Romney said. "In my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape."

A true leader would have said: I will defend the First Amendment right of Catholics to freely exercise their religion — against those who would force them to participate in abortions — all the way to the Supreme Court. 

Copyright 2012 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

That third red line is of utmost importance. It explains why Israel is more likely than not to strike Iran, even if it triggers a conflagration that involves U.S. as well as Israeli targets -- and shoots the price of oil through the ceiling. That last may cause even steadfast supporters of Israel to wonder if a little Jewish state is worth $15-a-gallon gas. For Israel, that's a small price to pay.

The fact is that the Iranian regime is doubly unstable. It faces considerable domestic opposition, but it also can be astonishingly violent. In addition to the attempt on the life of the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Iran had its own former prime minister stabbed to death in a Paris hotel room, allegedly was behind the bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish center (85 dead) and is blamed for the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in which 19 U.S. airmen were killed. This is a dangerous regime.

The Obama administration operates as if these incidents are departures from the norm. The Israelis see them as the norm -- and more to come. President Obama wants the Iranian regime to turn its nuclear sword into a plowshare. The Israelis would welcome such a development, but they would not trust it. The regime they know will, sooner or later, revert to its nuclear weapons program. It's in its DNA.

In his State of the Union address, Obama was pretty clear about U.S. intentions: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal." The next sentence had a different, more forgiving, tone: "But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations."

This -- the vaunted carrot -- is startlingly naive. Where is the evidence to suggest that the men who now run Iran will slap their foreheads, say zowie (in Farsi) and conclude that they were wrong to pursue a nuclear weapons program? More likely, they will conclude that North Korea survives because it defied the U.S. and continued to develop nuclear weapons. And Iran will further conclude that if it had a nuke back in 1980, Saddam Hussein would never have invaded -- a war that lasted eight years and cost Iran as many as 1 million lives. Israelis are not the only ones who say, "Never again."

The Obama administration announced the Iranian attempt on a Saudi diplomat in Washington -- and then did nothing about it. Washington seems neither angry nor the least bit annoyed. This is a serious miscalculation -- reasonableness gone amok. The lesson for Iran is stall and prevaricate, because Washington lacks the stomach to be ugly. In the view of the Saudis, it even abandoned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a dictator but more pro-American than the authoritarian regime that's likely going to replace him.

The real danger for Israel and the Middle East in general is not an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel -- although the use of a proxy to do something like that cannot be ruled out. (How to retaliate against a terrorist organization?) Instead, the danger is that Israel will lose its nuclear monopoly and Iran can loosen Hezbollah (50,000 or so rockets) from the north and Hamas (even more rockets) from the south on Israel. A nuclear Iran would probably mean a nuclear Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well. An increasingly unstable Middle East would become even more so. There's no sleep here for anyone.

The ultimate remedy is Iranian regime change. This is not as improbable as it sounds. The Tehran regime is hardly popular and will become even less so as economic sanctions bite even harder. In the meantime, Obama must ensure that Iran perceives no daylight between the U.S. and Israel, and no chance that Washington will become naive about Iran's intentions. This looming crisis is not only about Israel. It's about America, too. There are more red lines coming. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

No fewer than 26 Democratic senators signed a letter to Komen saying, in part that, "It would be tragic if any woman --let alone thousands of women -- lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack. We earnestly hope that you will put women's health before partisan politics and reconsider this decision . . ."

Intoning that, "Politics have no place in health care," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a $250,000 matching grant to Planned Parenthood. Ever alert to the politically correct posture on everything, Bloomberg added, "Breast cancer screening saves lives, and hundreds of thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for access to care."

But the real firepower came from the press and the Internet. NBCs Andrea Mitchell bore down on Nancy Brinker, the foundation's founder, pressing her to admit that women's health would suffer as a result of the Komen board's decision. The decision was "all about politics," reported the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times editorialized that for "a long time Komen's name will be connected more with ugly politics than with pink ribbons."

The foundation caved under the pressure with all of the groveling its opponents could have wished for. "We want to apologize to the American public," said the group's press release "for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives . . ."

So, all together now, Planned Parenthood is all about saving women's lives, and any criticism of PP is "ugly politics."

Except that observers of events over the past week may draw other conclusions. They may notice that any criticism -- even implied criticism -- of PP leads to a full-dress onslaught by the liberal echo chamber. And they may detect a certain over eagerness on the part of PP to downplay their abortion work.

The Susan G. Komen decision elicited such a heated response because it threatened to remove the "women's health" fig leaf from PP. By now, everyone has learned that PP, its own claims notwithstanding, does not provide mammograms. It provides referrals for mammograms. Considering that about 80 percent of PP clients are under the age of 35, and only 5 percent of breast cancers are found in women under the age of 40, it is unlikely that PPs manual breast exams and referrals for further screening are medically significant. Mayor Bloomberg could surely find better recipients for breast cancer screening contributions.

Throughout the Komen imbroglio, PP circulated another misleading statistic -- that only 3 percent of PPs services involve abortions. As Charlotte Allen revealed in a 2007 Weekly Standard essay, that figure is, well, inventive. They arrive at that number by counting every service individually. When a client comes in for an abortion, she gets a pregnancy test (one service), a pelvic exam (second service), an STD test (third service), a breast exam (fourth service), a package of contraceptives (fifth service) and so forth. But calculated as a percentage of revenue generated, abortion accounts for about a third of PPs business.

And 1 of out 3 clients who walks into a PP clinic is there for a pregnancy test. A third of those go on to have abortions.

Charlotte Allen drew attention to something else PP wants to obscure -- its dedication to providing confidential abortions, even to very young girls, which may be enabling statutory rape. A 14-year-old Cincinnati girl who was impregnated by her 21-year-old soccer coach was brought to a PP clinic by the coach. He paid for the abortion with his credit card. PP asked no questions.

Pro-life activist Lila Rose posed as a pregnant 15-year-old (she was a college student at the time) having a relationship with a 23-year-old. Together they visited two PP clinics in California pretending to seek an abortion. No employee expressed concern at the ages of the young people, though a PP employee in Santa Monica advised Rose to "pick a birthday that works" so that the clinic would not have to report them to the police.

That's why the initial Komen decision was so potentially damaging and elicited such a furious response. Those mammogram referrals are window dressing for a business with plenty to hide. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

"I have to believe that the Republican Party is noticing what just happened in a matter of 24 hours," Kellie Ferguson told me. Ferguson is executive director of a group called the Republican Majority for Choice. "Our members were outraged," she said.

As the name suggests, the Republican Majority for Choice supports women's reproductive rights, including the availability of abortion. While polls show more Republicans opposed to abortion rights than for them, the gap between the two groups is not so wide as the party's conversation suggests. When framed as an individual's decision and not the government's, Ferguson says, well over half of Republicans side with her group's view.

Nationally, 37 percent of Americans say abortion should be generally available, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll taken last month. Another 37 percent want it available under stricter limits. That makes 74 percent in favor of some basic right to abortion.

The Republican debates have largely ignored the majority opinion, but the party should not misread the broader public's quiet as lack of interest. To backers of reproductive rights, nothing real was happening. When they think something real is happening, sirens go off. The Komen affair was a perfect example.

Few women who supported Komen's work knew that its founder is a prominent Republican donor. Nor did they care until the group's leadership insanely thought it could cut off funding for Planned Parenthood's breast cancer screenings without severe consequences.

Social conservatives have long dogged Planned Parenthood for offering abortion, which accounts for 3 percent of its services. A year ago, House Republicans voted to stop all federal funding of Planned Parenthood -- even though it's been shown time and again that Planned Parenthood uses no federal funds for abortion.

Widespread contempt greeted Komen's explanation that it cut off Planned Parenthood following a House investigation launched by Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican. Then came the revelation that Komen's new senior vice president for public policy was Karen Handel, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for Georgia governor long hostile to Planned Parenthood.

What on earth were Komen's leaders thinking? While Planned Parenthood may be reviled in the tight quarters of the Republican base, it is respected, if not beloved, by most American women. And it remains the last resort for many poor women needing birth control.

Which brings us to the Republican candidates' attacks on President Obama for insisting that Catholic organizations include birth control in their employees' health plans. This is a tricky subject. Many who disagree with the church over birth control feel nonetheless that Catholic groups have a right to deny that service as a matter of religious conscience.

The principle on the other side, though, is that women have a right to basic health services, and birth control is pretty basic. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Catholic women ignore the church's position and use birth control.

So what many hear in the Republican campaign is a general piling-on against women's reproductive choices. As Ferguson put it, "When you start to dig a little deeper, some of these candidates are crossing the line over the choice of abortion debate into the birth control debate."

The Komen affair showed how fast and furiously the sisterhood will respond to a perceived attack on reproductive rights. Imagine if something similar happened a week before the November election. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

"We don't believe they've actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon."

Before the hearing, as James Fallows of The Atlantic reports, Clapper released his "Worldwide Threat Assessment." It read, "We do not know ... if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."

Clapper thus reaffirmed the assessment of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007, reportedly repeated in 2011, that the U.S. does not believe that Iran has decided to become a nuclear weapons state.

In December, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that if Iran went all out, it might be able to build a nuclear weapon in a year, Pentagon spokesman George Little hastily clarified his comments:

"The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon."

On Jan. 8, Panetta himself told CBS:

"(Is Iran) trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us. And our redline to Iran is: Do not develop a nuclear weapon."

On Super Bowl Sunday, President Barack Obama told NBC's Matt Lauer that he hopes to solve the Iranian problem "diplomatically."

From the above, we may conclude that the administration does not believe that Iran has crossed any redline on the nuclear issue -- and President Obama does not want war with Iran.

Who, then, does want war? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

From their actions, it would appear not. If Iran wanted war with the United States, any terror attack inside this country or on U.S. forces in Iraq or Afghanistan could bring that about in an afternoon.

Expulsion of the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from the Natanz enrichment facility, covering up the IAEA cameras, breaking the seals on the low-enriched uranium stockpiled there, or removing the LEU would be a fire bell for the Pentagon.

But the IAEA inspectors and LEU are still there.

When the alleged plot by a used-car salesman in Texas to hire Mexican cartel criminals to blow up a D.C. restaurant and kill the Saudi ambassador was revealed, Iran denied it emphatically and demanded to interview the alleged mastermind.

Moreover, Tehran has yet to retaliate for the assassinations of five of its nuclear scientists and four terror attacks by Jundallah in Sistan-Baluchistan and PJAK, a Kurdish terrorist organization operating out of Iraqi Kurdistan. Iran has alleged Western and Israeli involvement in these attacks.

Now that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has denied any U.S. involvement, Mossad is the prime suspect behind the killing of the nuclear scientists. And U.S. writer Mark Perry, in Foreign Policy, alleges that Mossad agents posed as CIA and used U.S. dollars in London to recruit Jundallah.

If this is true, this would be a false flag operation to provoke Iran into lashing out at America. Apparently, Iran did not take the bait.

Why have the Iranians not followed through on their threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and begun to dial it back?

War with the United States would be a disaster. Though the Tehran regime might survive -- as Saddam Hussein's survived Desert Storm -- Iran's navy, most of its armor, anti-aircraft and anti-ship defenses, and its strategic missile force would be destroyed, as would much of the country's infrastructure. Iran would be set back years.

Who, then, wants war with Iran?

All those who would like to see exactly that happen to Iran.

And who are they? The Netanyahu government and its echo chamber in U.S. politics and media, the neoconservatives, members of Congress, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

And as the Obama administration is the major force in U.S. politics opposed to war with Iran, its defeat in November would increase, to near certitude, the probability of a U.S. war with Iran in 2013.

Yet if the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community are correct -- Iran does not have a bomb and has not decided to build a bomb -- why should we go to war with Iran?

Answer: Iran represents "an existential threat" to Israel.

But Israel has 200 atomic bombs and three ways to deliver them, while Iran has never built, tested or weaponized a nuclear device. Who is the existential threat to whom here?

And though a U.S. war on Iran would be calamitous for Iran, it would be no cakewalk for Americans, who could become terrorist targets for years in the Gulf, Afghanistan, Baghdad's Green Zone, Lebanon and even here in the USA.

Year 2012 is thus shaping up as a war-or-peace election, with Republicans the war party and Democrats the peace-and-diplomacy party.

And as the months pass between now and November, this will become clear to the nation. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

The initial reaction concerned the rights of institutions. Catholic organizations naturally resent being forced to buy health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and drugs that can end a pregnancy soon after conception. The Obama administration seems to have calculated that since contraceptives are popular and the Catholic Church is not, the outcry would be isolated.

But religious liberty is also popular, given the Constitution and all that. Even those who have no objection to contraception -- the category in which I have repeatedly placed myself -- can be offended when arrogant government officials compel religious institutions to violate the dictates of their conscience. Religious liberty that applies only to doctrines and practices of which we approve means nothing.

In this case, however, the main harm Barack Obama has done is not to institutions. It is to the people they serve.

The provision of social services in America, and by America abroad, is a partnership between government and religious groups, both of which have advantages. Religious charities are compassionate and trusted by communities. Government has greater reach and resources.

A humane partnership between the two has depended on an uneasy compromise. Religious groups must use public funds for public purposes, not for proselytization. Government, in turn, allows religious charities to maintain views and practices that are different from those of public institutions.

At first, Obama endorsed this consensus -- in his "Call to Renewal" speech in 2006 and his Zanesville, Ohio, speech in 2008. Now his administration is applying an ideological wrecking ball. It asserts that only churches merit serious religious liberty protection. The government's views and standards must prevail when religious groups serve nonmembers -- an apparently unlimited power to regulate religious institutions that don't distribute the bread and wine.

The health care mandate is not an aberration; it is a culmination. In the Hosanna-Tabor Supreme Court case, the Obama administration opposed any special ministerial exception to federal law -- a radical argument unanimously repudiated by the court. The Department of Health and Human Services recently denied a grant to the Migrant and Refugee Services committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to assist women rescued from sex trafficking, ostensibly because the organization does not refer for abortions.

In a variety of international settings, I have seen religious groups, with support from the U.S. government, engaged in AIDS treatment, fistula repair, malaria control and the promotion of child and maternal health. Dr. Ram Cnaan of the University of Pennsylvania has documented the domestic role of "sacred places that serve civic purposes" -- homeless shelters, food banks, health care, welfare-to-work, prisoner re-entry programs. Cnaan estimates the "replacement value" -- the cost to government agencies of assuming these roles -- to be about $140,000 each year for the typical community-serving religious institution.

Take the case of one city: Philadelphia. There are about 2,000 such faith-based institutions, many of them Catholic. Replacing them would require about a quarter of a billion dollars every year. Catholic Social Services helps more than 250,000 people a year in soup kitchens, shelters and centers for the disabled. Its Community-Based Services division runs adoption and foster-care programs, staffs senior community centers and supports immigration services. The Catholic Nutritional Development Services, working in partnership with public agencies, delivers nearly 10 million meals a year -- accounting for about half of all meals delivered to poor children in Philadelphia in the summer months when school is out.

Much of this good work -- and similar work across the country -- is now threatened. If federal policies make it impossible for religious nonprofits and hospitals to work in conjunction with federal, state and local agencies in providing social services, millions of poor and vulnerable Americans -- Catholic and non-Catholic, religious and nonreligious -- would suffer. The task of building alternatives would cost hundreds of billions of dollars -- and then lack the distinctive human touch provided by religious groups.

All because Obama seems determined to establish secularism as a state religion. There is, however, an easy solution to the problem: The president could respect the rights and views of those who disagree with him. The relevant portion of the Bill of Rights is easy to find, because it comes first. 

Copyright 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

Already, insiders are calling Newt's Saturday Las Vegas news conference the modern equivalent of Richard Nixon's pronouncement "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore."

Saturday night, after placing a distant second place in the GOP Nevada caucuses, Gingrich dispensed with the customary concession speech and instead held a news conference. The former speaker of the House both cajoled and berated the media and then complained that his opponent Mitt Romney outspent him 5 to 1 in Florida and ended by promising to stay in the race.

It was "like a 22-minute version of the Howard Dean scream," observed political consultant Chris Lehane, a former spokesman for President Bill Clinton. "For a guy who's afraid of seeming erratic," Lehane observed, "he certainly leaned into the negative storyline."

It would have been a lot smarter for Gingrich to acknowledge that Romney won and then thank his supporters. But no, Gingrich is too clever for that, as he constantly reminds others.

In June, the Gingrich campaign staff resigned en masse because the candidate wouldn't do what aides said he needed to do to win enough states. Turns out they were right. But Gingrich has long maintained that he doesn't need to listen to advisers; he is his own best compass.

So how did Gingrich explain his stumble during the second Florida debate? A reporter asked: Would a political consultant perhaps have helped?

No political consultant, Gingrich raged, could have trained him to fend off the Romney machine's ruthless and dishonest attacks. He was stunned into silence, Gingrich explained, when Romney said he never had voted for a Democrat when a Republican was on the ballot -- a statement PolitiFact found to be "half-true."

It was a bizarre claim. A cornerstone of the Gingrich campaign has been the candidate's zeal to challenge President Barack Obama to seven three-hour Lincoln-Douglas-style debates. Now Republicans learn that Gingrich gets tongue-tied over half-truths.

What I want to know is: How did Gingrich manage to come in second place in Florida and Nevada?

During the Clinton years, Republicans frequently argued that voters should demand leaders with character. As then House speaker, Gingrich did more than risk his second marriage when he had an affair with his current wife; he was also reckless with the Republican Party's reputation. And he so lacked the ability to govern himself that the GOP House reprimanded him on an ethics charge and later made him ex-speaker. Why would any Republican who lived through the Clinton era support a candidate with the Newter's oversize ego and checkered record?

"It's a weak field," answered Larry Sabato, the sage of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Character, Sabato says, is a standard that partisans reserve mainly for the other side.

Now we see the problem with the Gingrich campaign: It's all talk. There is no character. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Well, tomorrow night might be his last best chance. Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado are voting. And while no delegates are immediately at stake, all three states offer Senator Santorum an opportunity to prove his argument.

Senator Santorum with us live tonight from Golden in Colorado. And let's just get straight to that question, Senator.

Is the next 24 hours, are they the most critical in your campaign, as you try to bring in more money and sustain it, to prove your point?

RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, actually, we are beginning a lot more money. We've -- we've done very, very well over the last couple of weeks. And our campaign feels great.

As you saw, some national polls have us running ahead of the field on head-to-head match-ups against Barack Obama. In fact, one poll, we were the only one that actually defeats Barack Obama.

I think people are beginning to realize that the -- the contrast between Obama and Romney is just not going to work for us and that we need somebody who can make Barack Obama the issue in the campaign, not the -- the irresponsible policies of our nominee.

KING: But do you need a win to prove the point -- I was on TV when we were counting the votes in Nevada Saturday night saying my Patriots are going to win the Super Bowl. Tonight, I'm standing to you in front of you congratulating the New York Giants.

At some point, do you need a win...

SANTORUM: Right.

KING: -- to prove your point, that you're the strongest?

SANTORUM: Well, I think we're -- you know, we're -- we need to win in the sense that we need to perform very well. I think we're going to run ahead of Speaker Gingrich, at least -- obviously, Missouri is not on the ballot. We feel very comfortable that we can run ahead of him in -- in one, in fact, maybe both the other states and -- and even potentially win one of those states.

So, yes, you know, winning -- winning -- winning would be great, but doing well and showing that we're a strong -- we still have a strong base of support out there is -- is going to be good enough for us.

KING: You've been making the case that Governor Romney would be a disaster to send into the fall campaign, if conservatives want to make the case that you have to repeal President Obama's health care law.

Here's a little bit of how you put it earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANTORUM: How are we going to fix this problem?

The only way to fix this problem, there's two ways. Governor Romney has chosen one path, along with President Obama, and that is, he believes the government should control everything. (END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now, political fact checking groups have said government doesn't control everything in the Massachusetts plan.

But I want to ask you this -- I want to ask you this. If you go back to 1994, when you win a primary for the Senate seat and you read the Allentown paper, "The Morning Call," it says, quote, "Santorum and Watkins" -- your opponent -- "would both require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits."

In 1994, Senator, were you for an individual mandate?

SANTORUM: No. That's -- that's just flat-out wrong. What they got confused was that I was for a plan that Phil Gramm offered that said if an employer provided health insurance, that they would have to offer a medical savings accounts, that are now called health savings account program. And they just simply got it wrong.

But, no, I -- I don't think you'll find anything else or anyway else that I advocated it. In fact, during the campaign in 1994, you'll find that I made -- made the whole point that I was against government-mandated health care. I ran against Harris Wofford, who was the author of Hillarycare.

So my record is pretty clean on this one. I think, you know, one reporter got it wrong and misunderstood what -- what one bill was about.

KING: The Romney campaign is clearly worried about you. They put on a conference call today, including the Minnesota governor, Tim Pawlenty, who was once a candidate. They're trying to peel away your Tea Party support by raising your support of earmarks in Congress.

And Governor Pawlenty said this on the call. He said, Santorum, quote, "wants Minnesota conservatives to believe he's as conservative as they are, but he's not."

And you responded on the earmark question, hitting back at Governor Romney.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANTORUM: I understand that Governor Romney is having -- having a little fun time attacking me on earmarks?

And I just want to say that, for the record, as you know, Governor Romney had -- was an advocate of earmarks, number one.

But number two, this is typical Romney.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: As you know, Tea Party voters care a lot about earmarks.

So are you making the case that they shouldn't vote for either you or Governor Romney because you both supported earmarks?

SANTORUM: Well, Jim DeMint, who was a favorite of the Tea Party, supported earmarks the same time I did. And just like I did, I now oppose earmarks because they were abused.

But during the time that I was supporting them, so was Jim DeMint. So was just about every other member of Congress. It was abused and -- and it should be banned and I have taken the position of banning them.

But at the time that I was supporting them, so was Governor Romney and so was just about everybody else. And the, you know, that was -- that was something that I think we all saw the error of our ways and -- and have -- have changed our position.

KING: We're almost out of time, Senator.

Let's end with setting your standard for tomorrow night.

Do you think -- do you -- do you believe in your heart -- I know you have to be careful -- but do you believe in your heart you can win at least one of these states tomorrow, maybe more?

SANTORUM: I think we can do very well there. Yes, I -- I think we certainly have a chance of winning one or -- or more of those states tomorrow. But, you know, a strong showing is a strong showing. And, you know, we're -- we're very encouraged that we're going to have a strong showing in all three states. And we'll -- we'll go from there.

KING: I'm very jealous of Senator Santorum tonight. I have been looking for the snow this whole primary season and he's found it in Golden, Colorado.

Senator, best of luck tomorrow.

We'll talk later down the road and see how things work out in Missouri...

SANTORUM: Thanks, John.

KING: -- Minnesota and Colorado. Rick Santorum tonight from Colorado.

Thank you, sir. 

The poll shows Obama leading Romney, 51 percent to 45 percent, among registered voters. The fierce GOP primary race as well as recent gaffes appear to have taken a toll on Romney's numbers. Last month, the former Massachusetts governor led the president, 48 percent to 46 percent. Now, 53 percent of adults surveyed say Obama better understands the economic problems facing Americans while only 36 percents ay the same of Romney. Those surveyed also trust Obama over Romney when it comes to protecting the middle class by a 56 percent to 37 percent margin.

A day after his win in the Florida primary, Romney said in an interview on CNN that he's "not concerned about the very poor" because they have a "safety net." He insisted he's most concerned about "middle-income Americans" who have been "most badly hurt during the Obama years." He has since said that he misspoke.

The president leads Romney on the issues of international affairs (55 percent to 38 percent), taxes (49 percent to 45 percent) and terrorism (54 percent to 38 percent). 

When it comes to handling the economy and federal budget deficit, however, Romney has an advantage. By a 50 percent to 44 percent margin, voters trust Romney more than Obama on the economy. And voters are more confident in Romney managing the deficit by a 52 percent to 39 percent margin.

When it comes to creating jobs, voters are split between the former governor and the president, 46 percent to 46 percent.

The president holds a substantial lead over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in a head-to-head matchup, 54 percent to 43 percent. Gingrich places a distant second place behind Romney in the race for the GOP nomination, according to the poll. Romney has 38 percent, and Gingrich has 24 percent support among registered Republican voters. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum gets 18 percent of the support, and Texas Rep. Ron Paul received 14 percent.

Obama's job performance grade may be bolstering his lead over his Republican rivals. For the first time in nine months, the president has reached a 50 percent approval rating. While half of the adults surveyed give him a positive grade, 46 percent disapprove of the job he is doing as president. Last month, voters were split, 48 percent to 48 percent, on Obama's job performance. In November, his ratings were upside down, with 53 percent disapproving and 44 percent approving. The news comes days after the January jobs report showed the national unemployment rate down to 8.3 percent.

But the president still has a lot of ground to make up on a variety of fronts. A majority of participants (53 percent) disapprove of the way he is handling the economy, while 44 percent approve. Fifty-one percent give him a poor grade on creating jobs while 44 percent give him a positive grade. And 58 percent disapprove of the way he is handling the federal budget deficit, while 38 percent approve.

In a Sunday evening interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, the president said he deserves a second term, but admitted there is more work to be done. Based on his performance to date, 50 percent of the participants in the Washington Post survey agree that Obama deserves another four years in the White House, while 48 percent disagree.

For this poll, the research firm Abt-SRBI of New York surveyed 1,000 adults, including 879 registered voters, from Feb. 1-4. The margin of error is plus or minus four percentage points. 

Caitlin Huey-Burns is a reporter for RealClearPolitics. She can be reached at chueyburns@realclearpolitics.com.

I think Cost is right that the split is about something other than ideology. Romney’s vote share has tended to be consistent across ideological groups in each particular state, the opposite of what we’d expect if the divide were primarily ideological. In South Carolina, for example, Romney won 19 percent of very conservative voters, 30 percent of somewhat conservative voters, and 34 percent of moderate/liberal voters. That’s not a particularly huge divergence across the ideological spectrum. Similar trends have popped up in other primary/caucus states.

But I think there’s more going on here than just geography. Demography is implicated as well. Harry Enten, an up-and-coming election analyst, observed late Saturday night that you could explain Romney’s vote share in each state just by looking at the evangelical vote in that state’s primary electorate.

This piqued my interest. After all, analysts like Jay Cost, followed later by Nate Silver, had done similar analyses to project a close Democratic primary in 2008 very early in the process. So I think Enten’s onto something here. The problem, as he observes, is that when you look at the race at the state level, you only have five data points, which is a thin reed upon which to hang a regression equation.

But at the county level, our data set is quite a bit larger. Now, we don’t have exit polling at the primary level. But we can get demographic data at the county level for the most relevant variables. We can build our regression from there (the variables we use tend to divide heavily by partisan affiliation anyway; most evangelicals in a county will vote in a Republican primary).

Before going on, I should note an important discrepancy between what we’re doing and what exit polls tell you. Exit polls will tell you that a particular demographic group voted a certain way in a given state. What we’re finding is that the demographic makeup of a particular county tells you something. What Enten is saying is that states with large evangelical populations tend to vote more heavily against Romney. While we might then deduce that evangelicals are voting against Romney, we can’t infer it. It’s a subtle distinction, but a reasonably important one.

The Regression

For my dependent variable (in other words, what I’m trying to explain), I looked at Romney’s share of the non-Ron Paul vote at the county level (I exclude Paul because his vote share is dependent on other factors, such as whether a contest is a primary or caucus, and whether its open or closed). I also only looked at Florida and South Carolina, because in other states the non-Romney/non-Paul vote is divided among more candidates (i.e., Huntsman voters in New Hampshire are probably Romney voters now).

For my first independent variable (in other words, the factors that I believe explained the dependent variable), I look at the percentage of residents of each county identifying as evangelical (taken from this amazing data set, which stretches back in the late 1800s). The second independent variable is the percentage of residents who are African-American. This is both to filter out black evangelicals -- about 66 percent of African-Americans, and who tend not to be in the GOP electorate – and to test racialized voting in the white GOP electorate.

The third independent variable is the percentage of residents who are college-educated. This is a useful measure of class divide across counties and states. The more straightforward approach would be median income, but making $100,000 in rural South Carolina means something quite a bit different than making a similar income in Miami. So this is a decent stand-in. Finally, we know that Romney has done well among Latino voters, so there is a variable for those voters as well.

The Results

The results are pretty solid. The r-square is .69, meaning that we’ve explained a pretty good share of the change in Romney’s vote share at the county level using these four variables. And the variables are strongly significant (the largest p=0.000575652), and they “point” the way we’d expect: As a county’s Latino and college-educated population grows, so too does Romney’s vote share.

As a county’s evangelical population expands, Romney’s vote share declines. Interestingly, as a county’s African-American population expands, Romney’s vote share declines as well. Overall, the most strongly significant variable is the percentage of evangelicals in a county.

If we go back and plug the resulting equation back in for each county, the predicted result is only substantially off from the actual result (the difference is technically known as the “residual”) in five counties out of 113. So it’s a pretty decent model.

As a final check, I wanted to see how the regression equation predicted the counties in Nevada. The counting in Clark County is only three-quarters finished, so it is excluded, but here are the results for the remaining counties:

The results aren’t great, but they aren’t half bad either. But something’s obviously missing. There’s a method to the madness here, however. Romney’s vote share is badly underestimated in Elko, Esmeralda, Lincoln and White Pine counties. Three of these four counties border Utah. So I went back and re-estimated the equation using the share of each county’s population that identified as members of the Mormon faith. This, of course, makes sense, as we know this group votes heavily for Romney.

Our adjusted r-square improves to .8. All the variables remain significant, and the variables point the way we’d expect. Romney’s predicted vote share is now within 10 points of his actual vote share in all but six counties. In other words, we have a pretty good model now.

Conclusions

The frustrating thing about regression analysis is that it is an incredibly powerful tool that yields limited results. All it tells us is the strength of correlations. You have to draw conclusions about the causal mechanisms at work yourself.

Regardless, we see that a large portion of the GOP fight can be explained very well using only demographic variables. This is what I believe Cost picked up on when he found that northern conservatives voted for Romney, while southern conservatives voted against him. In the north, the conservatives tend to be non-evangelical. In the south, they tend to be evangelical (in Florida, they’re split).

Why this is the case is open to interpretation. The simplest answer is anti-Mormon bias, but that seems a bit too easy. After all, the alternatives are a pair of Catholics. The other possibility -- and this is a problem with regression -- is that religion could be a stand-in for ideology, and that, regardless of self-identification, a self-described conservative evangelical Republican is significantly to the right of a self-described conservative who is non-evangelical. Or it could be some third possibility: Perhaps evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike in heavily evangelical counties vote against Romney for an additional reason.

The other interesting observation is Romney’s decreased vote share in African-American counties. Again, this is susceptible to many interpretations. It could be that those few African-Americans who vote in Republican primaries are simply voting like their white evangelical brethren. Or it could be that whites in heavily African-American communities are reacting to Newt Gingrich’s attacks on food stamps and such, just as Democrats imply.

The most interesting conclusion we can draw -- and this is pretty firm -- is that very little has changed over the past three contests. This is both good news and bad news for Romney. In the short term, it is very good news for him. If these trends continue, he should sweep the contests between now and Super Tuesday, with the possible exception of the Missouri primary. In fact, he should win majorities of the non-Ron Paul vote.

But after that, things get difficult. There are more southern and border state contests, with few heavily Mormon counties, and huge evangelical populations. If Romney can’t put the contest away by the end of this month, Santorum or Gingrich might have a chance to regain some momentum in March. 

Sean Trende is Senior Elections Analyst for RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at strende@realclearpolitics.com.

The first time was in an article last April on Obama's foreign policy in which he quoted a "top aide" (National Security Adviser Tom Donilon? It sounds like him) saying that the president was "leading from behind" on Libya. Not what most Americans expect their presidents to do.

Now, in an article based on leaked White House memos marked up by Obama, Lizza has done it again.

Contrarian liberal blogger Mickey Kaus sums it up: "The president's decision-making method -- at least as described in this piece -- seems to consist of mainly checking boxes on memos his aides have written for him."

A $60 billion cut in the stimulus package? "OK." Use the reconciliation process to pass the health care bill? A checkmark in the box labeled "yes."

Include medical malpractice reform in the health care bill? The man who as an Illinois legislator often voted "present" writes, "We should explore it."

According to Lizza, Obama prefers getting information and making decisions by staying up late and reading memos rather than meeting with people -- a temperament that's a liability because face time with the president is one of his major sources of political capital.

Lizza's reporting undercuts the stated thesis of his article: that Obama sought to bring bipartisan governance to Washington, but was foiled by Republicans' partisan intransigence.

Evidence that Obama ever seriously considered Republican approaches is minimal in the New Yorker article. The alternatives Lizza describes Obama as considering are for even more spending and government control, such as a much bigger stimulus package.

He mentions just in passing that Obama "had decided to pursue health care reform" as well as the stimulus package -- a choice that inevitably made bipartisanship harder to achieve.

At one point Lizza does quote Obama writing on a memo, "Have we looked at any of the other GOP recommendations (e.g., Paul Ryan's) to see if they make any sense?" Another president might have looked at Ryan's proposals himself or might even have called him on the phone.

George W. Bush, in contrast, worked with Democrats -- and sometimes even talked with them -- on his education plan, his tax cuts and the Iraq War resolution. He even tried, unsuccessfully, to negotiate with them on Social Security.

And on Obama's failure to reach a "go big" budget agreement with House Speaker John Boehner last summer, Lizza presents only the White House talking point: "conservative colleagues rebelled, and Boehner withdrew." He doesn't mention Republican claims that Obama upped the ante, demanding more tax increases.

Lizza's White House sources apparently didn't leak any memos about some of Obama's more recent actions, but his article provides a jumping off place for understanding them.

As in Chicago, Obama seems to live in a cocoon in which Republicans are largely absent, offscreen actors that no one pays any attention to.

His personal interactions are limited to his liberal Democratic staff -- and to the rich liberals he meets at his frequent fundraising events. He has held more of these than George W. Bush, who in turn held more than Bill Clinton.

Two decisions in particular seem tilted toward rich liberals. One was the disapproval of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, even after it survived two environmental impact statements.

Obama says he wants more jobs and to reduce American dependence on oil from unfriendly foreign sources. The pipeline would do both, and is endorsed by labor unions. But Robert Redford doesn't like Canadian tar sands oil. Case closed.

The other astonishing decision was the decree requiring Catholic hospitals and charities' health insurance policies to include coverage for abortion and birth control. Here Obama was spitting in the eyes of millions of Americans and threatening the existence of charitable programs that help millions of people of all faiths.

Catholic bishops responded predictably by requiring priests to read letters opposing the policy. Who's on the other side? The designer-clad ladies Obama encounters at every fundraiser. They want to impose their views on abortion on everyone else.

Obama fundraising seems to be lagging behind its $1 billion goal, and Democrats fear Republicans are closing the fundraising gap. So Obama seems to be concentrating on meeting the demands of rich liberals he spends so much time with. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

WASHINGTON -- It must now be obvious that, economically speaking, we're in another country. Things we once took for granted no longer apply; things we never imagined occur all the time. We've entered a zone of ignorance where familiar experience and ideas count for less. "Thirty years ago, if you'd said that the United States and Europe were going to be the centers of financial crises, people would have thought you were crazy," says economist Fred Bergsten. The unforeseen is now routine.

Profound changes to the global economy contributed to today's crisis and make it harder to resolve. Bergsten -- director of the influential Peterson Institute for International Economics -- cites three shifts.

First is the rise of "emerging market" countries, led by China, India and Brazil. In 1981, when the Peterson Institute was founded, these nations were laggards. "Now, they're more than half the world economy and are growing three times faster than high-income countries (the United States, Japan and European nations),” Bergsten said in an interview. “They drive the world economy."

Second, the United States has moved from the largest-creditor to the largest-debtor nation. Through the 1970s, the United States generally ran trade surpluses, and U.S. multinational investment abroad overshadowed foreign investment here. But since 1980, U.S. current account deficits exceed $8.5 trillion. (The current account is a broad measure of trade.) And foreigners have invested trillions in U.S. stocks, bonds, factories and real estate.

Finally, financial crises have mushroomed. After World War II, countries restricted the flow of money across borders. This changed in the 1970s and 1980s, when these controls were gradually dismantled. Unexpectedly, rapid inflows and outflows of foreign money caused booms and busts: first in Latin America in the 1980s; then in Asia and Russia in the late 1990s. And the American and European financial crises, though largely homegrown, have had global repercussions.

Globalization, it turns out, is a double-edged sword. It raises living standards by promoting trade and spreading modern technology around the world. But it also causes disruptions and deepens downturns. The future of the world economy hinges heavily on whether this instability is modest and tolerable or massive and intolerable. As Bergsten asks: "Are we on a path not only of crises but also of crises of increasing frequency and rising severity?"

We don't know. What we do know is that mutual dependencies have grown. For years, U.S. trade deficits promoted globalization by boosting other countries' exports. Ideally, emerging-market countries would now return the favor. Their fast economic growth would swell demand for U.S. and European exports, making it easier for these countries to pay their debts and reduce unemployment. The odds of this happening seem no better than 50-50.

What countries see as their narrow self-interest may subvert their collective interest in a stable world economy. Political power has fragmented along with economic power. The currency dispute with China is a case in point. For years, American presidents have failed to persuade China to stop undervaluing its currency and, thereby, subsidizing exports and penalizing imports. Indeed, some economists argue that China's trade surpluses -- converted into dollars and invested in U.S. bonds -- fueled America's financial crisis by driving down interest rates. Low rates then encouraged riskier mortgage loans.

By nature, Bergsten -- who will retire as Peterson's director after a successor is found -- is an optimist. Unlike the 1930s, he argues, we have institutions (the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and others) that allow enough cooperation to avoid disaster. Europe will muddle through its crisis, he argues, because its leaders recognize that the alternatives are grim. Joblessness would surge. Political and social cohesion would collapse. So the European Central Bank (Europe's Federal Reserve) will lend whatever is necessary, and Germany will pay whatever is necessary.

Maybe. Even Bergsten's optimism is tempered. "The next crisis could be a dollar crisis," he warns. Foreigners own roughly $23 trillion in U.S. stocks, bonds, real estate and factories; Americans own about $20 trillion in foreign assets. That's the reality of being the world's largest debtor. A loss of confidence could trigger a sell-off of American stocks and bonds that -- given the dollar's role as global currency -- would reverberate around the world.

Foreign faith in the United States ultimately rests on a belief in America's political stability and economic vitality. Could huge federal budget deficits shake that faith? "The European crisis has shielded us from our follies," Bergsten says. Worried investors have channeled funds from European securities into American bonds, reducing U.S. interest rates and making borrowing easier to cover $1 trillion annual deficits. There's no telling what comes next. We are, after all, in another country. 

Copyright 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

Two years ago, Citizens United tore down a century's worth of law aimed at reducing the amount of corruption in our electoral system. It will go down as one of the most naive decisions ever rendered by the court.

The strongest case against judicial activism -- against "legislating from the bench," as former President George W. Bush liked to say -- is that judges are not accountable for the new systems they put in place, whether by accident or design.

The Citizens United justices were not required to think through the practical consequences of sweeping aside decades of work by legislators, going back to the passage of the landmark Tillman Act in 1907, who sought to prevent untoward influence-peddling and indirect bribery.

If ever a court majority legislated from the bench (with Bush's own appointees leading the way), it was the bunch that voted for Citizens United. Did a single justice in the majority even imagine a world of super PACs and phony corporations set up for the sole purpose of disguising a donor's identity? Did they think that a presidential candidacy might be kept alive largely through the generosity of a Las Vegas gambling magnate with important financial interests in China? Did they consider that the democratizing gains made in the last presidential campaign through the rise of small online contributors might be wiped out by the brute force of millionaires and billionaires determined to have their way?

"The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy." Those were Justice Anthony Kennedy's words in his majority opinion. How did he know that? Did he consult the electorate? Did he think this would be true just because he said it?

Justice John Paul Stevens' observation in his dissent reads far better than Kennedy's in light of subsequent events. "A democracy cannot function effectively," he wrote, "when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."

But ascribing an outrageous decision to naivete is actually the most sympathetic way of looking at what the court did in Citizens United. A more troubling interpretation is that a conservative majority knew exactly what it was doing: that it set out to remake our political system by fiat in order to strengthen the hand of corporations and the wealthy. Seen this way, Citizens United was an attempt by five justices to push future electoral outcomes in a direction that would entrench their approach to governance.

In fact, this decision should be seen as part of a larger initiative by moneyed conservatives to rig the electoral system against their opponents. How else to explain conservative legislation in state after state to obstruct access to the ballot by lower-income voters -- particularly members of minority groups -- though voter identification laws, shortened voting periods and restrictions on voter registration campaigns? Conservatives are strengthening the hand of the rich at one end of the system and weakening the voting power of the poor at the other. It's a clever set of moves if you can get away with them.

Those who doubt that Citizens United (combined, it must be said, with a comatose Federal Election Commission) has created an entirely new political world with far broader openings for corruption should consult important news reports last week by Nicholas Confessore and Michael Luo in The New York Times and by T.W. Farnam in The Washington Post. Both accounts show how American politics has become a bazaar for the very wealthy and for increasingly aggressive corporations. We might consider having candidates wear corporate logos. This would be more honest than pretending that tens of millions in cash will have no impact on how we will be governed.

In the short run, Congress should do all it can within the limits of Citizens United to contain the damage it is causing. In the long run, we have to hope that a future Supreme Court will overturn this monstrosity, remembering that the first words of our Constitution are "We the People," not "We the Rich." 

Copyright 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

A Gallup/USA Today poll of 12 key swing states shows President Obama beating every Republican comer except one, Mitt Romney. After months of pounding by Republican rivals and the president's team, Romney is up a point over the president, a statistical dead heat.

35 percent of swing state Republicans say they are extremely enthusiastic to vote this year, as compared to 23 percent of Democrats, 20 percent of independents. that's called an enthusiasm gap.

Also troublesome for the president's prospects, four of the 12 swing states have jobless rates over 9 percent, and four are in the top ten for highest foreclosure rates.

Joining us now, Bob McDonnell, head of the Republican Governors Association, and his counterpart at the Democratic Governors Association Martin O'Malley. Gentlemen thank you both for joining us.

I want to -- before we get to the swing states, and I'll start with you, Governor O'Malley, do you think, put on your analyst hat now, is the Republican nomination race over in all but the gathering of delegates with Mitt Romney's big win last night?

O'MALLEY: I'm not sure it is all but over. I think what people are still looking for within the Republican Party and certainly independents is whether any of the candidates actually have a credible plan for creating jobs at a faster rate than our economy is now starting to create jobs. And that's something that we have yet to see, even with all of the intrigue and the ups and downs of this race.

So I think this race still has a ways to go. Clearly former Governor Romney has some momentum and now people will ask, well when he was governor why did his state rank 47th in job creation if he has such great ideas for creating jobs?

So I think people are still shopping.

CROWLEY: And you guys are pretty grateful to still have Newt Gingrich kind of doing your advance work for you.

But let me bring in Governor McDonnell here and ask you, and we should you say you are a Mitt Romney backer, but as you look at this race, do you see a way that he could lose it or is it his to lose?

MCDONNELL: Well, good morning, Candy and good morning, Martin. I think Mitt Romney has got tremendous momentum now. He's won three out of the five, tied the other one in the northeast, the southeast, the rocky mountain states and winning across every spectrum of the Republican base -- moderate, very conservative, evangelical, Tea Party, and just you know, regular folks.

So I think he's on a roll. There are 17 primaries and caucuses in the next 30 days and the map is lining up very well for Mitt Romney, because here's the bottom line everybody knows he's got the best chance to beat President Obama.

You said at the top of the show that it's neck and neck between the two. The president knows it, most people know it and we want to win. And so I think he'll be the nominee, the only question is when.

CROWLEY: And the poll was about swing states. And it did show that it's really a dead heat in the states that really decide the election.

Governor O'Malley to you, when you look at this at the swing state picture, what turns this around for the president? Because these are must wins for either candidate, but what turns it around for him?

O'MALLEY: I think really there's one central issue, and that is the economy. And I think the best two indicators of whether or not the economy is becoming better after the Bush recession or whether it's getting worse is the job creation numbers, 23 months in a row now of positive job creation. We haven't done that as a country since 2005.

CROWLEY: But remember, four of these 12 swing states have unemployment rates over 9 percent. And they vote state by state.

O'MALLEY: Which makes it even more -- this issue even more acute and even higher on the radar screen of people there.

The second thing, and you mentioned this in your piece, is the foreclosure rates in all of those states.

CROWLEY: Again, four in ten of these states have...

O'MALLEY: Four out of 10, and yet we have now driven, because of President Obama's choices and policies, we've driven foreclosures down to their lowest rate in 49 months. Foreclosures are now lower than they were before. What is Mitt Romney's response to foreclosures? Let it bottom out. Do nothing. I don't think that's going to be an alternative to people in any states really think is a responsible one for homeowners.

CROWLEY: Governor McDonnell I'll give you a chance to respond to that, but I also want you to address something else that Democrats are bringing up and that is they say sure, at this moment there is this what looks like a statistical dead heat in the swing states, but if you look at the past two races, in particular, meaning Florida and Nevada, they note that the number of people participating, number of Republicans participating in these contests is down. And they say that that means that Republicans aren't all that enthusiastic about any of these guys, and that that does not bode well for you this fall.

MCDONNELL: Well Candy, I disagree. You gave at the top of the show the difference in the enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats by about 12 points in terms of their interest in this race.

This race is coming down to three things, it's leadership, it's jobs, and it's the national debt and deficit sit. And on all of those, President Obama's failed. He spends most of his time blaming Republicans and the Tea Party and Wall Street for all the problems in the country and not taking responsibility. He's completely failed to get the national debt and deficit under control. He's contributed nearly $5 trillion to the national debt with no plan to get out of it.

And despite Governor O'Malley's stats, the bottom line is we've been over 8 percent unemployment for virtually his entire presidency, 36 months. This is a president who said pass my big stimulus spending bill and we won't be over 8 percent, well we haven't been under 8 percent in all that time. He got no budget done when he had his own party in control. So it's been a complete failure of leadership. He cannot run on his record. He's had no plan for jobs or energy that he got passed so he's got a tough -- I'm glad the economy is starting to recover, but I think it's because of what Republican governors are doing in their states, not because of the president.

O'MALLEY: Well, that's very interesting. In fact I was going to ask Governor McDonnell, Candy, if his state is creating jobs again or is Virginia still losing jobs as you were in the recession? And that's a rhetorical question, governor. Your state is now creating jobs, my state is creating jobs, throughout our country, Candy, we're now creating jobs again.

Now we could create jobs faster, Governor McDonnell, if your party were not captive of the right wing Tea Party folks in congress who want to keep anything from happening. But facts are stubborn things. We've gone 23 months in a row of positive job growth, we've driven foreclosures down to their lowest rate in 49 months and unemployment has now been driven down to its lowest rate in three years.

And there's more progress we still need to make. It's all about creating jobs and bringing people together to do that.

CROWLEY: Governor McDonnell, I want to ask you -- go ahead, go ahead.

MCDONNELL: Well, let me just respond to my friend, Martin.

By the way we get along. We do a lot together in the Washington area but I just flat disagree with him. 11 out of the top 15 states in America that are ranked by CNBC as top places to do business are Republican states. Seven out of the 10 states that have had the biggest drop in unemployment are states run by Republican governors.

And he and I disagree. His plan in Maryland is to increase taxes on income, on gas, on cigars and everything else, but the bottom line is, I'll take our record in Virginia of creating jobs, we're at a 6.2% unemployment, Maryland is at 6.9.

O'MALLEY: Actually 6.7.

MCDONNELL: From the time I became governor I've had -- well, Ok, it's going to fluctuate.

O'MALLEY: And we're creating jobs four times the rate that Virginia is, Candy.

CROWLEY: Let me move you on to a slightly different...

MCDONNELL: Well, the point is that's...

CROWLEY: Let me move you on to a slightly different subject because I'm going to -- you all are going to talk through this and I won't be able to get this in. And this week what we've seen is some real outrage within the Catholic community about the president's decision to require Catholic entities, charities, churches and schools to provide contraception and other things within their health insurance plans.

E.J. Dionne, who is no raving Republican here, had this to say in his column, "it is so remarkable that Obama utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health care law. His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the church who had originally sought to derail the health care law."

And I want to quickly play for you something that Newt Gingrich said last night about this same issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The Obama administration has declared war on religious freedom in this country and people need to understand that. This is a decision so totally outrageous, and the illustration of such radical secular ideology that I believe the entire hierarchy will oppose it every inch of the way.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CROWLEY: So, my question to you in the final 90 seconds we have, has President Obama damaged the Catholic vote as far as Democrats are concerned? And you, as I understand it, are Catholic.

O'MALLEY: I am Catholic.

O'MALLEY: And I think, Candy, there has been a little bit too much hyperventilating over this issue. It's one of those issues that they want to use...

CROWLEY: Well, it came from Catholics themselves in the hierarchy.

O'MALLEY: Well, some, and most of those members of that hierarchy are also Republicans. And if you look at 28 states, Candy, this is not about abortion, it's about covering contraception as part of the health care coverage, mandatory basic coverage. Twenty-eight states already require this, and in Europe countries that are...

CROWLEY: But you're not thinking about the state, the federal government, telling a religion what it must cover in a health care policy.

O'MALLEY: Well, there is an exemption for churches themselves. The exemption does not necessarily extend to institutions like hospitals or universities that employ people of all faiths.

But these same rules apply in countries like Italy which have overwhelming numbers of Catholics, and yet we did not see the reaction in those countries to these sorts of things.

CROWLEY: Well, and I'm going to give the last word to you, Governor McDonnell. Is there an opening for Republicans to seize in the Catholic vote sector, which is very large as you know, in some very important states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, et cetera?

MCDONNELL: Absolutely. As a pro-life Catholic, I think the answer is yes. Besides the health care bill being unconstitutional and a great expansion of federal government, I think if it does not respect people's individual religious views and makes groups or individuals do things that are contrary to their deeply held beliefs, there is going to be a visceral negative reaction. And I think the Catholic voters will look very favorably upon Mitt Romney this year.

CROWLEY: Governor McDonnell and Governor O'Malley, as always, I have many more questions to ask you. So you have to come back. Thank you so much for joining me.

O'MALLEY: Thank you very much.

MCDONNELL: OK. Thank you. 

Once Obama was elected, Wexler continued to serve as his Jewish shill. Wexler traveled to Israel multiple times in the early months of Obama’s presidency, to pressure Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to submit to Obama’s demand and embrace the cause of Palestinian statehood. After Netanyahu finally announced his support for Palestinian statehood at his speech at Bar-Ilan University in September 2009, Wexler returned with a new demand – that Netanyahu enact a moratorium on Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post at the time, Wexler promised that Israel would be richly rewarded if it took the unprecedented step of denying Jews the right to their property in Judea and Samaria simply because they were Jewish. Even if the moratorium were temporary, Obama would view the discriminatory measure as proof of Israel’s good intentions.

Moreover, he would expect the Palestinians and the wider Arab world to respond to Israel’s move by taking steps to normalize their relations with Israel.

For instance, Wexler claimed that Obama had demanded that the Arabs respond to an Israeli moratorium on Jewish property rights by among other things opening trade offices and direct economic ties; conducting cultural and economic exchanges; and permitting Israeli airplanes to overfly their territory.

And in the event that the Arabs refused to rise to the occasion, Wexler proclaimed, “You can rightly say that all bets are off.”

Wexler continued, “I want to call their bluff. I want to see, if Israel makes substantial movement toward a credible peace process, whether they are willing to do it. And if they are not, better that we should find out five or six months into the process, before Israel is actually asked to compromise any significant position.”

In the event, Netanyahu bowed to Obama’s demand and enacted a temporary ban on the exercise of Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria. And in the aftermath of his stunning move, the Arab world did nothing.

Amazingly, far from calling their bluff, Obama doubled down on his pressure on Israel.

Among other things, since squeezing the first temporary ban on Jewish property rights out of Netanyahu, Obama has demanded that the moratorium be made permanent and be extended to Jerusalem.

As for his vision of the “peace process,” Obama has demanded that Israel accept the 1949 armistice lines as the basis for negotiations.

He has used the US veto at the UN Security Council as a means of pressuring Israel to make further unreciprocated concessions to the Palestinians.

And the pro-Israel US president has demanded no similar concessions from the Palestinians.

This week, Wexler, now the head of the far-left S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, was back in town. Speaking at the Herzliya Conference, he said that Israel should consider extending the ban on Jewish property rights to within the 1949 armistice lines. Wexler based his claim on then-prime minister Ehud Olmert’s 2008 peace offer to Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Olmert’s offer, which Abbas rejected, involved a “land swap,” in which in the framework of a comprehensive peace deal, Israel would give the Palestinians land from within its 1949 boundaries in exchange for land in Judea and Samaria that Israel would permanently retain. According to media reports, Olmert offered Abbas 4.5 percent of Israeli territory in exchange for a similar amount of land in Judea and Samaria.

While Wexler appeared at the Herzliya Conference as the president of a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, his continued intimate relationship with Obama is well known. Last fall, Commentary’s Omri Ceren documented that Zvika Krieger, Wexler’s vice president at the Daniel Abraham Center, authored documents for Obama’s reelection campaign. Among other things, those documents cited articles authored by Krieger and Wexler in which they championed Obama’s record on Israel from their nonpartisan perch at the Daniel Abraham Center.

Given Wexler’s close ties to Obama, it is reasonable to assume that his suggestion that Israel cease exerting its national sovereignty over its sovereign territory in the interests of the peace process is not simply his personal view.

There is much to criticize about Wexler’s suggestion.

But more important than its arrogant, insulting absurdity, and more disconcerting than Wexler’s own hypocrisy, is what his suggestion tells us about the dangers inherent in Netanyahu’s current negotiations with the Palestinians.

To understand the connection we need to recall the nature of Olmert’s offer to Abbas.

Olmert’s negotiations with Abbas were based upon the proposition – repeated ad nauseam to the Israeli public – that “nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.”

The idea was clear. True, on the one hand, the prime minister was conducting negotiations far from the spotlight, and refusing to tell the public what was on offer. But on the other hand, we could rest assured that that nothing he offered would have any significance whatsoever unless the Palestinians agreed to a final-peace deal with Israel. If they rejected peace, then everything Olmert said would become null and void, and be tossed down the memory hole.

In accordance with this basic proposition, when Abbas rejected Olmert’s offer, and made no counteroffer, it was naturally assumed that Olmert’s proposal was rendered null and void.

Yet four years later, here is Wexler, Obama’s surrogate, advocating a policy of unilateral abrogation of Israeli sovereignty over 4.5% of its national territory in order to enable the eventual implementation of an offer that was predicated on the notion that “nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.”

And this brings us to the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. For the past month, under the aegis of the Middle East Quartet, Netanyahu’s representative attorney Yitzhak Molcho has been conducting negotiations with Abbas’s representatives in Amman, Jordan. Last week, Molcho reportedly outlined the government’s general positions on lands it is willing to cede to the Palestinians.

Without presenting any maps, Molcho reportedly said that a permanent agreement would involve most of the Israelis living in Judea and Samaria remaining in Israeli territory. The media interpreted this to mean that like Olmert, Netanyahu expects for Israel to retain perpetual control over large blocks of Israeli communities that take up less than 10% of the overall landmass in Judea and Samaria.

For his part, Netanyahu this week reiterated his position that Israel must maintain a long-term military presence in the Jordan Valley. This has been interpreted to mean that Netanyahu is willing to cede sovereign rights to the area to the Palestinians.

Taken together, what Molcho’s statement and Netanyahu’s statement indicate is that at a minimum, in exchange for peace, the Netanyahu government is willing to expel some portion of the 350,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria from their homes and to transfer sovereignty over a significant portion of the territory to a Palestinian state.

From the vagueness of what has been reported, it is apparent that Netanyahu has been far less specific about the scope of the territorial concessions he is willing to undertake than his predecessor was. But then again, Olmert made his offer after conducting negotiations with Abbas for over a year. Netanyahu only entered these talks a month ago.

And while no one in or out of government believes that these negotiations have any chance of leading to a peace deal, the fact is that Netanyahu is feverishly working to ensure that the talks continue. He spent a good part of his day on Wednesday speaking on the phone to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and meeting with Quartet envoy Tony Blair and UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon, begging the foreign leaders to convince the Palestinians not to abandon the negotiations.

As he put it in his joint press conference with Ban, “You cannot complete the peace process unless you begin it. If you begin it, you have to be consistent and stick to it.”

For his part, Abbas is doing everything in his power to make clear that he does not wish to negotiate, and that even if negotiations continue, he will never cut a deal with Israel. To underscore his bad faith, next week Abbas will travel to Egypt to meet with Hamas terror chief Khaled Mashaal. The two men are set to discuss the means of implementing the unity government deal they signed last May.

Netanyahu is obviously under great pressure to continue with these talks. A day doesn’t go by without some US official or European leader talking about the need for talks, or a leftist politician or political activist at home blaming Netanyahu for the absence of peace. But none of this pressure can justify the damage that is done to Israel’s position by continuing to engage in these negotiations.

As Netanyahu’s own experience with Obama (and Wexler) shows, concessions never bring a respite from the US leader’s pressure. They only form the baseline for demands for further concessions.

Beyond the narrow confines of Obama’s personal hostility towards Israel, Netanyahu’s current engagement in negotiations with the Palestinians is devastating to Israel’s position in two ways.

First, it makes it impossible for Israel to extricate itself from the lie of PLO moderation and to start telling the truth about its Palestinian “partner.”

Quite simply, as Abbas’s continued courtship of Hamas and his open embrace and glorification of mass murderers such as the murderers of the Fogel family make clear, the PLO has returned to its roots as a terrorist organization. It is no longer credible to claim that the PLO has abandoned terror in favor of peace.

By engaging in peace talks with the PLO, Netanyahu renders it impossible to make this critical claim. Consequently, he damns Israel to a situation in which we continue to empower and politically legitimize a terrorist organization committed to our destruction.

The second way continued negotiations devastates Israel’s position is by eroding our ability to claim our rights to Judea and Samaria and so extricate ourselves from this fake peace process with terrorists. As Wexler made clear, from the international community’s perspective, everything that Israel offers at the negotiating table is catalogued. Regardless of Palestinian bad faith, irrespective of actual prospects for peace, every theoretical Israeli concession becomes the new baseline for further negotiations.

American “friends” like Wexler and Obama play Israel for a fool again and again.

In truth, we should thank Wexler for coming here this week and reminding us of his bad faith, and the bad faith of the president he serves. But it is up to Netanyahu to draw the appropriate lessons. 

caroline@carolineglick.com

With back-to-back victories fueling him, Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney is looking toward the next states that hold GOP nominating contests as main rival Newt Gingrich brushes aside any talk of abandoning his White House bid — all but ensuring the battle will stretch into the spring if not beyond.

Shortly after losing big to Romney here, the former House speaker emphatically renewed his vow to campaign into the party convention in Tampa this summer. His goal, he said, was to "find a series of victories which by the end of the Texas primary will leave us at parity" with Romney by early April.

Next up to vote are Colorado and Minnesota, which both hold caucuses Tuesday. Maine follows on Saturday during a month that promises to be as plodding as January was rapid-fire in the presidential race.

Romney will look to maintain his position of strength, if not build upon it, as his rivals continue working to derail him even as their options for doing so narrow with each victory he notches.

As Saturday turned to Sunday, the former Massachusetts governor held a double-digit lead over his nearest pursuer as the totals mounted in Nevada, where fellow Mormons accounted for roughly a quarter of all caucus-goers. Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul vied for a distant second. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum trailed the field.

Returns from 16 of 17 counties showed Romney with 42 percent support, Gingrich with 26 percent, Paul with 18 percent and Santorum with 13 percent.

Yet to report its results was Clark County, which includes Las Vegas and often accounts for half or more of the votes in a statewide election. Officials said it could be Sunday before those were released.

Romney's victory capped a week that began with his double-digit win in the Florida primary. That contest was as intense as Nevada's caucuses were sedate — so quiet that they produced little television advertising, no candidate debates and only a modest investment of time by the contenders.

A total of 28 Republican National Convention delegates were at stake in caucuses held across the sprawling state. Romney won at least 10, Gingrich at least four, Paul at least three and Santorum at least two. Eight were still to be determined.

That gives Romney a total of 97, including endorsements from Republican National Committee members who will automatically attend the convention and can support any candidate they choose. Gingrich has 30, Santorum 16 and Paul seven. It will take 1,144 delegates to win the Republican nomination.

Preliminary results of a poll of Nevada Republicans entering their caucuses showed that nearly half said the most important consideration in their decision was a candidate's ability to defeat President Barack Obama this fall, a finding in line with other states.

About one-quarter of those surveyed said they were Mormon, roughly the same as in 2008, when Romney won with more than a majority of the vote in a multi-candidate field.

The entrance poll was conducted by Edison Research for The Associated Press at 25 randomly selected caucus sites. It included 1,553 interviews and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. 

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

For Gingrich to disavow divisiveness is the equivalent of Mark Zuckerberg renouncing modern technology: Without it, we never would have heard of him. Newt has spent his career ceaselessly inventing ways to foment and exploit hatred of one group by another.

He's the guy who warned of "a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us." He likened those supporting a mosque near Ground Zero to Nazis.

He said Democrats are "the party of total hedonism, total exhibitionism, total bizarreness, total weirdness, and the total right to cripple innocent people in the name of letting hooligans loose." Oh, and the poor? He said poor teens don't work "unless it's illegal." Nobody but us unifiers here!

Romney's comment has been described as a classic political gaffe, which consists not of telling a lie but telling the truth. In fact, it was classic political nonsense, in which inartful wording is twisted to pretend the speaker meant something he clearly didn't.

It was done to John Kerry in 2004, when a line intended as a jibe at President George W. Bush -- saying those who don't "study hard" end up "stuck in Iraq" -- was alleged to be a slander on the intelligence of American troops.

It happened to Romney when, referring to the right of consumers to "fire" unsatisfactory health insurers, he said, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." Cut off the last five words, ignore the context, and gotcha!

What Romney meant in his latest episode is that, while he favors providing an adequate safety net for the poor, his primary focus is on generating jobs and economic growth for the mass of people. If he had been caught saying, "Who gives a damn about poor people?" he would be guilty of rank callousness. But he didn't, and his policies on poverty are not readily distinguishable from any other Republican's.

Still, few Republicans will be moved to vote against Romney out of tearful solicitude for the bottom 5 percent. If the economy is floundering next November, swing voters will have no trouble forgetting this incident.

His obstacles lie more with his wooden insincerity and his history of flip-flopping. But those stem from a bigger problem that has largely escaped notice: the mystery of why he's running.

Romney takes pride in not being a career politician, a boast that evoked one of Gingrich's few illuminating retorts: "Let's be candid, the only reason you didn't become a career politician is you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994." If going into politics to create jobs is justified, why isn't it commendable to spend a career in politics to create jobs?

He extols his record of building businesses and creating jobs in the private sector. If he's so good at that, though, why not stay there?

We know why most candidates undertake the race -- Al Gore to avert environmental catastrophe, George W. Bush to carry on the family business, John McCain to serve his country and Obama to heal racial and ideological divisions.

Romney just seems like a rich guy who needs a new challenge. "I have a good life with my family, my wife," he says. "I don't have to win. I just want to win because I care about the country."

Ronald Reagan could have said the same thing, but with him it was believable. Reagan was driven by a distinct vision of what America should be. Romney, by contrast, is willing to serve whatever cause will get him elected.

His attitude is: Tell me what you want me to be and I'll be it. But one thing voters want is someone who doesn't do that.

About Gingrich's motive, there has never been any doubt: to feed an insatiable ego that makes him imagine he has a historic, God-given mission to transform the country. He's a mad scientist, mixing volatile potions that may cure cancer or may blow up the lab. Either way, he'll have fun.

Romney doesn't have an obvious reason to run for president. That's his trouble. Gingrich does. That's his. 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

That year, 1912, stands as a hinge in American history. It was when the Republican Party reverted from its new identity as the party of reformers back to being the party of business, when the Democrats transformed themselves from outsider social critics to insider social activists, when questions about the character of capitalism filled the air, and when the power -- and limits -- of personality in politics were glimpsed.

Often we view the past not so much through a mirror as through a magnifying glass -- Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater, the combatants from 1964, for example, seeming so much bigger and more substantial than their counterparts from our own time -- but in truth the principals of Election 1912 were larger than life, arguably larger than their equivalents from Election 2012.

American politics rarely repeats itself, but in the few occasions it does, it sometimes happens with almost eerie century-long congruity. The elections of 1828 and 1928, for example, were both about the accessibility of the White Hous e to outsiders, just as the elections of 1864 and 1964 both were choices between continuity and radical departure. This election in 2012 has strong echoes of 1912, with the Republican Party holding a remarkable, completely unexpected seminar, perhaps even a public hearing, about the capacities and dangers of capitalism -- and about the capacities and dangers of government regulation.

Only once or twice in a generation does the country examine with such searing rhetoric and sharp-eyed judgment these kinds of fundamental questions about business and government. It has been great sport to argue that this year's early political contests have been dominated by farcical characters. But no one can plausibly argue that the contests themselves have been about peripheral issues. These are the bedrock questions of a democracy and of a mature economy.

Such were the issues a century ago, when President William Howard Taft veered from the one true progressive, reformist religion of the GOP predecessor who hand-picked him, Theodore Roosevelt. Both Taft and Roosevelt were vast, important departures from the Republican presidents who preceded them, smaller men like William McKinley (an unlikely role model for George W. Bush to have chosen) and Chester A. Arthur (nobody's role model), and from the Republican presidents who would succeed them, commerce-oriented men like Warren G. Harding and Herbert Hoover.

Roosevelt was so alienated from his onetime protege that he broke, like a bull moose, from the Republican Party he had transformed and mounted an independent candidacy. The Democratic nominee was the misty-eyed idealist from Princeton, Woodrow Wilson, perhaps the greatest reformer to cling to the odious racial values of the segregated South. Also on the ballot was Eugene V. Debs, who had played a cameo role in many of the signal struggles of the time, including the Pullman Strike, and would later h elp to form the Industrial Workers of the World, known as the Wobblies. Debs would draw almost a million votes.

These were major, enduring figures on the American scene. "Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson invented the activist modern presidency," Bard College political scientist James Chace wrote in the authoritative account of the 1912 election. "TR's commitment to use Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends was not unlike Wilson's use of executive power to promote free competition that would prevent big business from stifling local economies. Their legacy was the use of centralized power to create greater democracy."

That is no mere achievement, nor an irrelevant aspect of our politics today, for in the wake of the bruising Florida primary, the very existence of centralized power and the definition of greater democracy once again are at the heart of American politics.

President Ba rack Obama may be, as his onetime allies on the left believe, a reluctant progressive, but he remains firmly in the Theodore Roosevelt camp, as his December 2011 journey to Osawatomie, Kan., the site of TR's "New Nationalism" speech of 1910, vividly demonstrated. Though the president disavowed "a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all society's problems," in Kansas as in the capital, he believes in a large regulatory role in American commerce.

And though the Republicans are engaged in a vital debate about business and responsibility, the prevailing GOP ethos is deep skepticism about regulation and devout conviction that centralized power is inimical to greater democracy.

But the role that former Speaker Newt Gingrich is playing -- his remorseless critique of former Gov. Mitt Romney's years at Bain Capital standing as a symbol of a new stream of business sk epticism within the modern Republican Party -- does have historical antecedents.

After the election a century ago, the Republicans, as University of Wisconsin historian John Milton Cooper Jr. put it in his classic "The Warrior and the Priest," a dual biography of Roosevelt and Wilson, "reverted to pre-1912 patterns." But a strain of business skepticism, personified by figures with GOP roots such as Sens. Robert M. La Follette, George W. Norris, and William E. Borah, endured for a time.

Gingrich, like Roosevelt, may not have sorted out whether he is, in the formulation the late Yale historian John Morton Blum developed for TR, a conservative radical or radical conservative. Some days he is more the one, some days more the other, and some days the two converge in a fantastic melange never before seen on the American political stump.

And though the questions he is posing about Romney's business e xperience are designed to achieve a narrow goal -- to advance his candidacy and diminish Romney's -- Gingrich nonetheless has had a broad and important effect, changing the dynamic of the 2012 race, providing it with echoes from the 1912 race on the right to match those Obama set in motion on the left, and perhaps setting the Republican Party, maybe even setting all of American politics, on a new course. It is a rare primary fight that does so much. 

Copyright 2012, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

As he does in nearly all of his stump speeches, Romney next recited some of his favorite verses of the patriotic song "America the Beautiful."

The crowd, which had been boisterous up until that point, was subdued as the former Massachusetts governor extolled the song's unnamed "heroes" who "proved in liberating strife" that "more than self their country loved and mercy more than life."

The collective energy among those at the parking lot rally seemed to subside even further as Romney lauded the “patriot dream that sees beyond the years,” and the crowd did not come to life again until he shouted down a protester with particular gusto.

Romney’s recitation of “America the Beautiful” rarely, if ever, generates much reaction from the multitudes whom it is intended to rouse or inspire. And yet, the lines remain in his stump speech.

So why not try something else that might resonate a bit more?

Because, as Romney says, he loves the hymns.

“There are a lot of people who make suggestions to the governor and provide drafts to him, but the governor uses a heavy red pencil” in his speeches, said spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. “Everything that he says -- whether it’s at a news conference, a debate, or a formal speech -- flows from his own pen. He is ultimately his own speechwriter.”

After decades of management experience, Romney has no problem delegating to his large staff most of the countless daily tasks that are part of an effective presidential operation, and he makes no attempt to run the do-it-all-yourself campaign that Newt Gingrich has largely helmed.

But speechwriting is one aspect of his presidential enterprise that Mitt Romney takes a particularly active role in.

The former governor may never be accused of challenging President Obama’s oratorical prowess, but he nonetheless has full ownership of his words on the trail.

Though he is known primarily as a data-driven numbers wiz, Romney was an English major and the valedictorian of his graduating class at Brigham Young University, and penned his own 2011 political manifesto, “No Apology.”

Romney’s confidence in his writing ability is self-evident, and as opposed to the extemporaneous Gingrich, he is far more effective when speaking words written in advance than speaking off the cuff.

In contrast to his GOP opponents, Romney in his most high-profile addresses typically reads off of a teleprompter -- the high-tech politician’s crutch that has been the butt of so many Republican jokes about Obama’s frequent reliance on it.

Despite the risks of coming across as overly scripted, Romney’s victory speech in New Hampshire last month received high marks from many pundits, especially when he called on his audience to “remember how special it is to be an American.”

“I want you to remember what it was like to be hopeful and excited about the future, not to dread each new headline,” he said that night. “I want you to remember when you spent more time dreaming about where to send your kids to college than wondering how to make it to the next paycheck.”

On a day-to-day level, Romney’s ability to deliver the goods in a pithy and engaging manner has improved since his first presidential run, and he has eliminated from his arsenal some of the hokiest stories and corniest jokes that just never seemed to connect with listeners.

But there have been some private rumblings within the lower ranks of his campaign that the candidate’s standard stump speech -- particularly the part about hymns -- has grown stale.

When asked whether Romney might be due for a stump speech tune-up, chief campaign strategist Stuart Stevens noted that the question was coming from a reporter who has had to listen to it repeatedly over several months.

“The basis of the argument in the stump speech, I think what’s most important, is the reason that Mitt Romney’s running,” Stevens said. “If you go back to his announcement speech, it hasn’t changed. So we’ll talk about the same thing in different ways with fresh perspective.”

Last fall, the campaign hired two writers who have provided the foundation for Romney’s written work before the candidate takes his turn at revising and refining it.

Hudson Institute fellow and former editor of Commentary magazine Gabe Schoenfeld -- whom Stevens praised as “kind of a genius” -- writes op-eds for Romney, and GOP speechwriter Lindsay Hayes drafts his major addresses.

A speechwriter for Sarah Palin during her 2008 vice presidential run, Hayes earns universal praise from Team Romney for her writing speed and an ability to provide a sharper edge to the candidate’s typically staid voice.

Despite public avowals that they are taking nothing for granted, Romney aides say privately that the tone of his speeches will begin to adjust as the Republican front-runner moves closer to a direct face-off with Obama.

But until Super Tuesday, the tried and true themes that Romney has been hitting throughout the primary season will remain the same.

Hayes is currently at work drafting Romney’s speech for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which the candidate will deliver in Washington next week.

Romney may or may not indulge his penchant for somber hymns at CPAC, but there is no doubt that he will offer plenty of red meat to suit the palates of the conservative activists in attendance.

“It’s just not something that’s going to happen tomorrow,” one Romney communications aide said of the transition to a tone more crafted to independents than GOP primary voters. “If we do go up against Obama, we will have to change the campaign to gear it toward a general election race. But we’ve been taking it to Obama for the last nine months, and he’s going to continue to take it to Obama.” 

Scott Conroy is a national political reporter for RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at sconroy@realclearpolitics.com.

Partly from Jack Kemp’s work, and partly from his own experience, Ronald Reagan believed the same thing. He knew that growth is the single best solution for our economic ailments. And neither Reagan nor Kemp saw the world in terms of specific income classes or categories. They looked at the whole economy and realized that everyone is tied together. Dragging down the top earners will not help the middle class. And providing an ever larger safety net will not solve poverty. Reagan believed in the safety net, and maintained it. But he knew it was a stop-gap, not a solution.

Does Mitt Romney understand this?

The worry stems from Romney’s ill-advised statement this week. He said, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” That raises doubts as to whether he understands the Reagan-Kemp model. Perhaps he does. But he will have to tell us more.

Incidentally, the safety net has been expanding at an alarming pace. Transfer-program spending has been soaring. It’s up $600 billion, or about 35 percent, in the last three years. Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment insurance have seen benefit levels rise and eligibility expand. This is a huge drag on the economy. We are paying too much to not work, and rewarding too little to work.

Welfarism is not compassionate. Opportunity is.

But now it’s up to Romney to propose moving the very poor out of the poverty trap by making it pay more after tax to work rather than not work. And he must persuade the electorate with a clear and detailed prescriptive agenda.

Part of the solution is tax reform, especially getting rid of the 10 percent bottom tax rate. Another part of the solution is education reform: Revive real choice and competition; spread merit pay and performance to judge the schools; and insist on high-school diplomas or associate degrees or streamlined training programs to bring the unemployed into the high tech age.

In his Florida victory speech, Romney said, “If this election is a bidding war for who can promise more benefits, then I’m not your president.” Good. But he must build on that. He has to make it clear that when the unemployed return to work they will not face huge marginal tax rates. In other words, there must be an incentive to leave government dependency and move into the productive economy.

That’s why a bold tax-reform plan is so important. The unemployed face a 10 percent bottom tax rate. But the middle class faces 25, 28, and 33 percent tax rates. That’s way too much. Why not flatten the code to just two rates, say 15 and 25 percent, and then simplify by getting rid of the other brackets and wiping out the unnecessary deductions, credits, and carve-outs?

Such tax reform will not only provide growth incentives, it will provide anti-poverty incentives as well. Job creation for everyone.

People know Romney is a successful business man. And I suspect most folks think he understands the free-enterprise economy better than Obama. But they’re not sure he has a specific plan that will translate his experience into real economic improvement for the whole country.

The same is true for the budget mess. Back in November, Romney put out an excellent statement on reforming entitlements, cutting $500 billion out of the budget by 2015, and getting spending down to 20 percent of GDP. It’s time he hit the reset button and started selling that plan all over again.

Railing against the Obama economy will not be enough to win. The latest jobs report shows a quickening pace of recovery: 243,000 nonfarm payrolls, 847,000 new jobs in the small-business household survey, and an 8.3 percent unemployment rate. Combine that with other strong readings on the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors (the ISM reports), car sales, chain-store sales, and jobless claims, and you have a 3 percent economy with good momentum.

Of course, coming from a very deep recession, growth and jobs should be better. The Reagan recovery was far stronger. But there’s no double-dip out there, and unemployment is not going back to 10 percent. So the trick for Mitt Romney is to show folks he has a detailed plan to make the economy and the budget better.

He needs to prove to people that he knows what to do and how to do it. 

Does President Obama deserve credit for this positive trend?

NEWT GINGRICH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, he's going to take credit for it. We've been in a -- the longest, deepest race since the Great Depression. We already have a report out from the Congressional Budget Office this week, warning that it's likely to go back up this fall and that we're likely to see more unemployment. They're now projecting no end to this before 2014.

I think -- think, you know, vetoing the Keystone Pipeline, the -- proposing the kind of taxes he has don't help the economy any, but I'm sure the president will take credit while explaining that all the months of unemployment aren't his fault.

And the truth is that if it gets better and better and better between now and the election, he will get some credit. On the one hand, if this is a lull before it starts getting worse, his reelection will be in enormous trouble.

BLITZER: I asked the question because if the numbers were going in the other direction, unemployment going up, jobs weren't being created, you would be blaming him, at least in part, for that disaster.

GINGRICH: Right. And I -- I think he will get some limited credit. And it depends on how much the economy recovers and what the rest of the year looks like.

BLITZER: But -- but you don't think, as of now, he deserves any credit, is that what you're saying?

GINGRICH: No, Wolf, it's irrelevant. Give him some credit. If it makes you happy, give him some credit. The fact is he's -- his policies in general have driven up the national debt massively. They have weakened the United States economically. They have increased the price of gasoline so it's double what it was when he came in. The economy, even at 8.3 percent, is dramatically weaker than it was under Ronald Reagan at this exact same point in his first term. And he's not going to be able to go to the public and say look how successful I've been. The most he'll be able to say is, I'm -- I'm less destructive now then I was a year ago.

BLITZER: Mitt Romney now says he misspoke the other day when he said he really wasn't concerned about poor people because there's a safety net, if it needs some tweaking, they can fix it.

Do you accept that from him?

GINGRICH: look, I think what he said and the underlying part of that is very revealing. I don't -- I think we want to replace the safety net with a trampoline. We want to have policies -- Jack Kemp and I used to work on policies to help the poor become middle class, to help people get out of poverty.

I -- I'm not comfortable saying, oh, well, at least they have a safety net. I think that we ought to be -- in fact, my campaign is based on paychecks, not food stamps.

So I want people to have a chance to leave welfare, leave unemployment, leave poverty behind and live a better life. And I thought that, while I'm sure he didn't mean the exact comment about not caring about the poor, I think his underlying rationale, which is they have a safety net, we don't have to worry about them, is wrong.

Leaving Americans trapped in a safety net is not pursuing happiness, it's not their creator endowed right. We should have an aggressive conservative position that we can do better than liberals at helping people rise and helping them have jobs.

BLITZER: I just want you to clarify the whole George Soros comments, the billionaire, the liberal billionaire. You've been suggesting and a quoting source there's not much of a difference between Romney and President Obama.

But you believe there is a significant difference, I assume, right?

GINGRICH: Well, I think if you go to Newt.org, you'll see a fascinating George Soros videotape where we take Soros sitting in Davos with all the other big guys talking to a European reporter, saying you know, there really isn't much difference between Romney and Obama, we don't care which of them wins, because they'll bring different people with the same policies.

And then the rest of it, to the -- to the YouTube piece puts together Romney and Obama. It takes -- it takes ObamneyCare and it shows you that Tim Pawlenty was right, they're remarkably similar. It takes their position on gun control, which is remarkably similar. It takes their position on taxes, which, in many ways, is similar.

It's a -- it's a pretty interesting -- you can see it at Newt.org. It's a pretty interesting video and I -- it also points out that all of the big guys in Wall Street who supported Obama have now switched to supporting Romney almost uniformly. That -- that is actually from a news report from one of the -- actually, from Fox News.

So it's interesting to watch -- look at this developing. And what I've said to audiences is, we need a conservative alternative to the Soros approved candidates. And I think that's part of why we're doing better and better.

Our fundraising has been up since Florida, frankly, as people look at the race and they look at Romney's record and they look at things like his recent mistakes and they think, geez, is this the guy I really want to send to Washington when, in fact, "The Wall Street Journal" said his tax program is so timid, it could be Obama's.

BLITZER: All right, let me move on. I want to get to some... GINGRICH: But they're...

BLITZER: -- issues of the day.

GINGRICH: -- that's their quote, that's not me.

BLITZER: Right. I want to get to some other issues of the...

GINGRICH: OK.

BLITZER: -- the day.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure, they've now reversed themselves. They said they are going to continue, after all, to provide funding for Planned Parenthood for breast screening examinations.

Are you OK with that?

GINGRICH: Well, I think it's unfortunate. I think that they were beginning to make progress. Planned Parenthood needs to split into two totally separate organizations, because what it does today is it takes money for seemingly positive health things to sustain the largest abortion clinics in America. Planned Parenthood performs more abortions than any other institution in the United States. The money is all fungible. So when you -- when you lure people in for women's health needs and, by the way, right down the hall you have an abortion clinic, I think that's inappropriate. And I think if Planned Parenthood is going to get any kind of help, they ought to split into two agencies.

As president, I would eliminate all of the Planned Parenthood funding and transfer it to an adoption service to give young women the choice of life rather than death as part of their future. And I think that, in that sense, that Planned Parenthood does not do the public a good service when it actively encourages abortions.

BLITZER: It's been reported, as you probably know, the Defense secretary, Leon Panetta, is suggesting that Israel may attack Iranian nuclear facilities as early as April, May or June of this year.

Here's the question to you.

If you were president of the United States, what would you do if you had intelligence that the Israelis were likely to go after Iranian nuclear facilities?

GINGRICH: Well, if I were this administration and I had failed totally in my effort to stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons, I don't know what they can do.

Israel has the right to defend itself. Israel cannot tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon. Three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust. It is an -- it would annihilate the Jewish population of Israel.

And therefore, if you were the Israeli primary state, you would be faced with a very tough decision. I don't think they will ever allow the Iranians to have an operational nuclear weapon. And I think that the -- that's a fact.

If I were the American president, I would tell the Israelis that I would do everything I could to ensure that they went conventional. I would rather provide support to the Israelis at a conventional level than force them, out of desperation, to use their nuclear weapons.

And people should not kid themselves. The Israelis are not going to take the risk of a second Holocaust. And that is exactly what Ahmadinejad with a nuclear weapon represents.

BLITZER: So basically, just to be precise on this, if the prime minister of Israel said to you, as president of the United States, this is what Israel is going to do, you would insist on being a full partner in that operation?

GINGRICH: I wouldn't insist. I would say if you believe the survival of your country is at stake, what is it we can do to help you?

BLITZER: Well, that's pretty precise.

GINGRICH: But I think that...

BLITZER: All right...

GINGRICH: -- you know, no -- look, no -- no American has the moral right to -- to lecture an Israeli primary state about what risk he or she should take with the survival of their country. And given the record of World War II and the massacre of seven million Jews, I think people should be a little cautious when they listen to Ahmadinejad and they understand this guy will -- will destroy Israel if he has a chance. He says so publicly.

He cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: Ron Paul!

(CHEERS)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: So, why are millions of young people hanging on every word from the 76-year-old Texas congressman?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure.

I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty.

I don't remember voting on a declared declaration of war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Why is the GOP so afraid of him?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: Allowing the people to make their decisions and not get the government involved.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Tonight, Ron Paul, one on one, no holds barred.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: I'm willing to challenge any of these gentlemen up here to a 25-mile bike ride any time of the day in the heat of Texas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Now, he's already changing the face of the Republican Party.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: If you have an irate, tireless minority, you do very well in the caucus state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Ron Paul answers my questions and yours from Twitter tonight.

Piers Morgan interview starts now.

(MUSIC)

MORGAN: Good evening.

Tonight, the Piers Morgan interview comes to you from Las Vegas, on the eve of the Nevada caucuses. I'm at Koi at Planet Hollywood, talking to Ron Paul.

He's running distant fourth here in Nevada, but his influence to young people is greater than that. His supporters are making him a force to be reckoned in the Republican Party.

And tonight, his formula for keeping America great. That, (INAUDIBLE) a lot of supersize only in America.

But right now, Ron Paul. Welcome.

PAUL: Thank you. Nice to be with you.

MORGAN: Now, this will sound like shameless name-dropping, but last time I dined in this restaurant was with Sylvester Stallone and the parallel to me is clear. You are the Rocky Balboa of this campaign.

How do you feel about that analogy?

PAUL: I have no idea how to respond to that. I hope that's very positive. It sounds like it could be positive.

MORGAN: Well, I guess, I mean, every -- Americans love an underdog. And you remain an underdog despite this continual extraordinary support with young people. People still perceive you as the underdog. Do you believe, like Rocky Balboa, you could surprise everyone and win this race? Do you genuinely believe you could become the nominee?

PAUL: Yes. Obviously so. And I think the record of this campaign, you know, the Republican campaign these last almost 12 months now shows you that a lot of candidates are coming and going. You know, they come in and they peaked out, and all of a sudden, they're gone. We did have nine. We're down to four right now.

One thing characteristic of our campaign is its steady growth. And I saw a clip the other day on the Internet that says once you become a Ron Paul supporter you remain a Ron Paul supporter.

MORGAN: Also, once you have a Ron Paul principle, your supporters say, you stick to the principle. And that is certainly a great plus, I think.

You look at someone like Mitt Romney. Everybody knows he changes his mind on a lot of issues.

I suppose what I would say to you about is it can be a stick to beat you with in the sense that if you never change your mind about anything, is that in itself healthy?

PAUL: Time and history help change your views. I have changed and modified my views on what I think about the death penalty. So, it's not overly rigid. But I see it as a refinement and growth in developing a philosophy that is a defense of liberty.

Liberty -- the concept of liberty has been around for, you know, bits and pieces for thousands of years. And, of course, we've had a grand experiment here. And I'm motivated by the fact that I'd hate to see it lost. And I'd like to refine it, pick up the pieces where we left off a while ago and actually improve upon what we had in the past.

MORGAN: You are the oldest candidate. You have been even when there were nine candidates and yet the one many say has the most energy and you have the biggest youth following.

What do you put this down to? A, where do you get all this energy from?

PAUL: Well, you know, I don't know exactly where does health come from? There's a lot of things. Mental health is important.

MORGAN: Do you have a regime on the campaign?

PAUL: Yes, and it gets interrupted sometimes in the campaign. I can't quite do it. But historically, you know, for 30, 40 years, as long as I can remember, I have had a strict regime. It involves a lot of exercise and also eating habits are very important.

MORGAN: So, what do you do exercise-wise when you have time?

PAUL: OK. When I have time, I would get up in the morning and I want to get outside. I'm sort of -- outside gives me relaxation. So, I don't want to ride an exercycle inside. I ride a bike and I walk. But in the morning, I like to walk between three and four miles. It takes me about an hour or so to do that, and that sort of clears my head, and loosens me up.

And good health habits, I think, can prevent usage of a lot of medications. So I strive for that. And fortunately, but I think my parents may have had a little bit to do with good health. They lived in old age.

MORGAN: What about diet? What do you do for eating and drinking? I mean, do you have a strict regime on that?

PAUL: Not overly strict. I'm not fanatic. But I do watch the white things -- white sugars and -- although I do eat meat. I think fish is better.

But it's not overly radical, you know? But I think fresh vegetables are good. Most of it's probably more common sense than anything I learned in medical school.

MORGAN: You look good. Is this part of the reason you think the youth are energized by you? They look at you as a role model and also, they like the fact that you are a guy who sticks to his principles.

PAUL: I think that is it. I think sometimes they will translate to he sticks to his principles about health habits.

But I think it's the principles of liberty that are so inviting to young people. I think their minds are more open. I don't think their minds have been cluttered. I don't think they have been forced to accept things and accept the status quo.

And besides, we live in an era today where the failure of government programs is so blatant. And although I have been doing this for a long time and we have had a lot of interest in the last five to 10 years, it really came to life once the financial crisis which many of us who have been involved in Austrian economics predicted would come and sort of confirm it. And people are very uneasy about the future whether here or in Europe, of course, we are all interconnected now with global trade and global banking.

So, I think that has, you know, energized the people because I have been talking and warning about things.

MORGAN: Does it help also that you were a child of the Great Depression? You know, you grew up to the depression. You came out the other end and saw what it took, I think, to do that. I was fascinated to read the sheer volume of jobs you did when you were a younger man.

I mean, you did all sorts of stuff. You worked with your father on the dairy, but you did countless jobs. You worked very, very hard.

Do you see that kind hard work ethic now in America? And if the answer is no, is that one of the fundamental problems that the work ethic has evolved over the years?

PAUL: I think that's a big issue. People ask about how my parents might have had influence on politics. They were conservative Republicans, but they were more Republicans than anything else.

But I think where they contributed a lot to my thinks was a work ethic -- Depression and World War II. As a matter of fact, the Depression didn't end until after World War II, because -- I remember World War II better than the Depression and actually, things got worse because there was rationing and there were no new cars and all. So, the work ethic was very, very important. I think that had a large impact on me. At the same time, I worked it into a philosophy.

But I think -- and I talk a lot about it at my speeches, especially on the college campuses of not depending on the government. They're not there. They're bankrupt. They tried to give everybody a free house. And now, they don't have jobs and they don't have their houses.

So, therefore, you have to assume responsibility for yourself.

MORGAN: But how far do you take it? Because although I agree with you to a certain degree, I think I take issue when it comes to something like health care where you've got quite provocative views here. I mean, your belief is that if you can't afford the insurance for Medicare or whatever it may be, then you've got to fend for yourself somehow, or get your local community to bail you out. Am I misrepresenting you? Was that basically how you feel?

PAUL: Yes, but it's a lot more compassionate than the way, you know, it might sound.

MORGAN: Is it, though?

PAUL: Yes, really because if you see the extent of total socialism, it's not very compassionate. People end up with no care at all. I mean, what happened at the end of the Soviet system, everybody had free care but they were Soviet system. They were totally bankrupt because they had an empire that failed.

And today, nobody -- we have had -- I was in medicine when we had no government. And I don't remember the problems as badly as I remember the problems now.

MORGAN: Well, what about -- what about as we have in Britain, the basic right to health care for every citizen? What is wrong with that as a principle, an ambition to aspire to?

PAUL: Well, I think the basic principle is wrong in that you don't have a right to somebody else's life or money. You have a right to your life and you have a right to your liberty. You have a right to keep what you earn, but you don't have a right to take food from somebody else.

You say, well, I'm not going to take it. The government is going to take the food.

You don't have a right to somebody else's house. Oh, yes, but the government will take the house for me.

So, we who believe in the freedom philosophy believe that you can't use violence to get what you want, but you can't use the government to use violence and force.

MORGAN: But what if you don't have the ability to get your own health care? You have no means to do that. What do the people that Mitt Romney was dismissive of the other day -- and we'll come to that -- what do those people do, absolutely the most vulnerable parts of society? What do they do?

PAUL: Well --

MORGAN: Under your presidency, what would they do to get health care?

PAUL: You have to understand the difference between interventionist economy and a socialist economy. If you really want to produce the best medical care and the best prosperity, the largest middle class, you have to do it through freedom.

If you do it through redistribution of wealth you reduce the availability.

MORGAN: Let's take a little break. I want to come back and talk to you more about the economy. Also about how you keep America great through tough times like this and what you think of today's jobless figures, whichever way you look at it -- pretty good news for Barack Obama.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, FROM RONPAUL.COM)

ANNOUNCER: What's up with these sorry politicians? Lots of bark, but when it's showtime, whimpering like little Shih Tzu's. You want big cuts? Ron Paul has been screaming it for years. Budget crisis? No problem. Cut a trillion bucks year one. That's trillion with a T.

Department of Education -- gone. Interior, Energy, HUD, Commerce -- gone. Later, bureaucrats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: That was a campaign ad for Ron Paul.

It's really interesting to me, because I follow what you say about how you get out of tough times and it's probably completely opposite to how Barack Obama is doing it. Yet, today, we saw jobless figures which are the best since he became president.

Do you give him credit for that? Do you think he's doing a good job reducing jobless figures? Or how would you summarize your feelings?

PAUL: I wouldn't give him too much credit. Of course, everybody should be pleased that there are more jobs now than there were a month ago. But they are pretty puny to what we should be doing.

But if you look at those figures and dissect them out there, they are not that glamorous because during that last month -- 1.2 million people dropped out of the workforce. So, if you get 200,000 new jobs and 1.2 dropped out, you still lost a million jobs. So, if you take that into consideration, you can't turn these people into non-people. You can't fudge the figures. And that's what politicians do.

MORGAN: I understand.

PAUL: Let me try to finish that. If you do that actually the unemployment rate is 11 percent, not 8.5. It went up, rather than gone down, if you count those people.

MORGAN: Is that the problem here though that if all the Republicans keep dumping on what are apparently good figures, then the momentum, the positivity that America needs to get itself out of recession gets stymied a bit. I'm going to read you a quote here --

PAUL: Can I answer that?

MORGAN: Well, let me read you this quote. This is from Jeb Hensarling, who's a Republican representative. He said, "Today is an indication of another failure of this president's policies -- 36 months in a row with 8 percent plus unemployment." Which is a ludicrous way of spinning it.

How can you say this is another example of a president getting things wrong on a day when actually the official figures, any way you dress them up, are positive? Isn't it better? Isn't it a better thing that the more credible position for Republicans to say, is to say, I am encouraged by this, but he should have gone further?

PAUL: To me, it's more important to admit the truth. So, if I'm speaking the truth, so we might have to compare figures. But let's assume for a second that I'm speaking the truth and the 200,000 jobs was a net benefit. But what I'm saying is, we quit counting people, we disavowed them.

So, if I'm speaking the truth, the most important thing is we know the truth. Not the politics.

As a matter of fact, you'll probably have a hard time -- you probably haven't heard me in a speech. I do talk about the president a little bit mainly on attacks on civil liberties and maybe not doing enough about the wars. So, I'm not in the same people that said, well, the president didn't do enough, it's all the president's fault, because it isn't.

He hasn't done anything to come in my direction of going back to a market economy or looking at the balancing the budget. Nobody, Republicans or Democrats don't want to cut anything.

MORGAN: What about Mitt Romney's comment that he's not concerned about the poor? Let's just play this, and then I'll get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.

It was a misstatement. I misspoke. I've said something that is similar to that but quite acceptable for a long time. And, you know, when you do I don't know how many thousand of interviews, now and then you get it wrong. And I misspoke.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: And then he says now it was a misstatement, but he didn't say that immediately. And it just sounded awful, that, didn't it, for somebody aiming to be president to talk about the poor in that way?

PAUL: Yes.

MORGAN: It seemed callous at best.

PAUL: The way I (INAUDIBLE). I don't have probably any agreements with Mitt on policies -- foreign policy, monetary policy, spending policy, bailout policy. But, you know, I think this is a big issue because of politics, because of the opposition, the demagoguing, the media jumping on this.

And actually, I think I end up defending him more than he defended himself, because I don't believe that for a minute that if Mitt Romney was sitting here, that if he release everything in his heart. He says, you know what? The truth is I really don't care about poor people. That is -- I don't believe that.

MORGAN: But what he did say unequivocally is that they wouldn't be a priority. And I found it extraordinary. If I was president, which I'll never be because I'm British, the poor would be my absolute priority.

PAUL: OK.

MORGAN: Would they be yours?

PAUL: If that's your number one priority, if you listen to what I have been talking about and understood free market economics, you would say the most important thing you can do is give them a sound currency, limited government, free markets, contract rights.

Don't bail out anybody. No privileged classes. And that's when the poor would get the benefits. That's when the jobs would come.

But this whole fallacy of saying that we have -- see, I'm concerned about the poor more than anybody or as much as anybody. But I don't think robbing one group and giving more money to the poor and saying, well, you can have your house, just pay the bills but he can't do it.

So, it's a failed policy.

MORGAN: But when you have --

PAUL: It's a good intention, but the good intentions don't solve our problems.

MORGAN: When you have someone like Warren Buffett, one of the richest, most successful men in history begging to be taxed more, publically saying, tax me, tax me. Give the money to those who don't have it.

What is wrong with that?

PAUL: Well, let him pay. Remember going around --

MORGAN: What is wrong with having a tax system which just taxes people like him more?

PAUL: It destroys the economy if you just --

MORGAN: He says it doesn't.

PAUL: Let him pay.

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: He can send more money to the Treasury.

MORGAN: Yes. But there is little evidence that raising taxation for the very rich ever destroys an economy. It doesn't.

PAUL: Well, that I disagree with.

MORGAN: Historically, it hasn't.

PAUL: That I disagree with because government -- what are they going to do with the money? Are they going to subsidize the housing industry again and have that thing blow -- are they going to start another war? That's why they need the money.

MORGAN: The problem with the housing wasn't that poor people got housing. It was that greedy bankers and financial institutions brought in the subprime mortgage scams which preyed on people who didn't understand the system. That's what happened.

PAUL: But where would the speculation come from if you didn't have easy credit? Where did the money come from? If it had come from savings, they wouldn't have done it.

MORGAN: Yes. I agree with personal responsibility and all the middle classes people are rushing to support I think over maxed credit cards, spent money they didn't have, and they are trying to absolve themselves in many cases --

PAUL: Right.

MORGAN: -- from personal responsibility.

But I come back to this. When Mitt Romney said what he said about I'm not concerned with the poor, I really felt offended for everybody in America. You've got to have a president. PAUL: I think you --

MORGAN: -- you got to have a president who prioritizes the poor, haven't you?

PAUL: OK. Now, if I had been confronted with that, the answer would have been different. But the answer would have been different than your answer. But you would want more government and more spending. I would have said that is my deep concern.

If you are a true humanitarian, if you care about the poor people and if you care about not shrinking the middle class, like it's going on right now, we are getting more poor and shrinking of the middle class, you cannot do it without looking at that monetary policy. If you don't do anything else, exclude everything else but you just depreciate the currency, the middle class gets wiped out.

If you're on the receiving end, the banks, and the corporations, military industrial complex, they got tremendous benefit. The wealth is automatically transferred from the middle class. The poor get poorer and the wealthier get wealthier.

Then when the bailouts come, they even benefit more and the bad debt which should have been liquidated is dumped on the people.

MORGAN: The flip side to the bailout argument is when you look at the car industry, Barack Obama did bail out the car industry and now they are doing very well. So, bailouts can work, indisputably.

PAUL: But you're making an assumption it was going to work with honest bailouts. It's not an honest bailout.

MORGAN: You don't know. It's chicken and the egg, isn't it? But the point is --

PAUL: No, you don't know it isn't. If you had an honest bailout, the people who owned those bonds would have been protected. But he turned ownership over to the unions. So, that is not fair. He used force to transfer -- he was wrong to break the contract.

Governments are there to enforce contracts, not to adjust the contracts to benefit of their constituency.

MORGAN: Even if it works?

PAUL: Oh, especially if it works. I mean, if a criminal robs a bank and it works, you don't justify robbing the bank.

MORGAN: Let's take a break and come back and talk foreign policy, and specifically the threat of war with Iran.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MORGAN: Right now my special guest Ron Paul.

Let me ask you this -- you have lived through many American military conflicts in your lifetime, since the early part of last century. How many of them do you believe were justified?

PAUL: Well, justified plus legal --

MORGAN: People assume you are a pacifist. I don't get the feeling you are a pacifist.

PAUL: No, I'm not a pacifist.

MORGAN: I think you believe in military action where it is legitimate.

PAUL: Right.

MORGAN: But how many of the major conflicts have been legitimate?

PAUL: Well, from a constitutional viewpoint I don't want to fight any wars that aren't declared. So, that means since World War II, nothing has been justified because we didn't go through the proper process. But when you look back --

MORGAN: Do you support the conflict in Afghanistan?

PAUL: I did, but that's to go after only those responsible for 9/11. Not going into nation-building, not going in, you know, into Iraq.

MORGAN: But it was war, wasn't it?

PAUL: To go after al Qaeda, it was like going after criminals. As a matter of fact, at the time, what I did was --

MORGAN: Was it constitutional?

PAUL: Yes, to a degree because it was limited. But what I introduced was a resolution to clarify this. Don't turn it into an excuse to go into countries and occupy countries and take over countries and go into nation-building. I said, look to our history about the Letter of Marque and Reprisal -- when you are attacked, say, at Pearl Harbor, declared war, that's certainly legitimate.

Even though we had a declaration of war in World War I, it was a constitutional war but it was a very foolish venture.

MORGAN: What is beyond the ideological difference between being attacked in Pearl Harbor or being attacked at the World Trade Center? I mean, if you are under --

PAUL: But a country didn't attack -- I mean, a bunch of thugs attacked us, not a country. So, there is a big difference.

It's -- there were probably people -- I imagine that there weren't even 100 people that knew 9/11 was coming. Maybe there were 50, maybe there were 40 for all we know. So, it was a band of thugs that had a grievance with us and they were trying to get our attention. So, that's entirely different than --

MORGAN: Have you modified your opinion of what the motivation was? You get flak at a time, although a lot of support as well suggesting that the main motivation of the attacks was revenge from what was going on in Iraq. I'm sure a lot of it was.

But you also said that you didn't believe it was an anti-West sentiment, an anti-riches, anti-capitalism. I'm not sure that's true, is it? I mean, certainly, if you were to interview the 9/11 attackers, I'm pretty damn sure they would also say, we are against Western values. We are against capitalism and so on.

Wouldn't they?

PAUL: There is no evidence to that. If you read Robert Pape and Michael Scheuer, you'll find out, they are pretty much the experts on this subject, and that's not their conclusion. But if you look at the 9/11 Commission, if you look at the DOD studies, if you look at the CIA -- even if you look at what Paul Wolfowitz has said, you know, the great neocon, they have come to the conclusion that our presence in the Middle East was the most significant reason on why they wanted to come here and kill us.

MORGAN: And let's assume you become President Ron Paul. If Iran was to strike back at Israel, what would you do?

PAUL: Well, I go and look to the rules. And the rules that if our national security is threatened, you explain it to the people and then you go to Congress and say, is our national security threatened to such a degree that we declare war against a particular country?

MORGAN: If you believe Iran had enough enriched uranium to genuinely launch a nuclear attack against Israel, would that knowledge alone mean you would countenance military action?

PAUL: Well, the one thing that we should set aside is there's our CIA and the Mossad. Israel are now arguing that they have the case. And even Israel said, the leader of the Mossad said, even if they have a weapon, it's not an existential threat to them.

MORGAN: You wouldn't ever countenance any preemptive strike?

PAUL: No, not really. Why should we? That's aggression.

We are not supposed to commit aggression. I mean, that's left for the dictators. But, you know, we now don't do aggression but what we do is preemptive war.

MORGAN: If you have got knowledge --

PAUL: But preemptive war is equivalent to that and I think it's very dangerous.

MORGAN: But they have already said, Ahmadinejad has made it quite clear he believes in wiping out Israel if he got a chance. PAUL: OK.

MORGAN: If you were president of the Second World War, and you had been given knowledge the Japanese were planning Pearl Harbor, you would have preemptively struck, wouldn't you?

PAUL: Well, let me touch your first subject first. And that is quoting Ahmadinejad, because that's a misquote, but 99 percent of the people in the media would misquote it. And everybody in Washington believes it.

What he actually said, on the proper interpretation, was that the regime in charge of Jerusalem should be removed from the pages of time. He did not say that Israel should be wiped from the face of the Earth.

Just think of the difference on that, removing the regime, like getting rid of our administration or something.

MORGAN: You're not seriously defending Ahmadinejad, are you?

PAUL: I'm trying to defend honesty. And I'm trying to defend openness and willingness -- willing to stop a war just --

(CROSS TALK)

PAUL: Please let me finish my sentence. Just like John Kennedy was able to talk to Khrushchev. If we can talk to Khrushchev, and he had 30,000 missiles, why can't we talk to a country that doesn't have a nuclear missile, and they're not -- according to the record, they're not on the verge of it either.

MORGAN: There are a lot of Americans who may like -- they may like you personally or whatever. But they think you are weak on this, because of the preemptive issue. I come back to that question I put to you: if you had knowledge and you were president when Pearl Harbor happened, if you had pre-knowledge of that happening, would you have attacked?

PAUL: Imminent attack -- if we're sitting here and we see the planes come over, obviously, yes. An imminent attack --

(CROSS TALK)

MORGAN: Intelligence it may happen.

PAUL: An imminent attack is quite different when the planes are coming, versus this fiction. Just we shouldn't have such short memories. Everything they are saying about Iran we said about Iraq. And they were all lies. How many men died? Eighty five hundred Americans died; 44,000 --

(CROSS TALK)

PAUL: It's the same principle.

MORGAN: I as a newspaper editor -- as a newspaper editor back in Britain, I opposed the war in Iraq vigorously and loudly.

PAUL: Then you should oppose us going into Iran.

MORGAN: I think Iran is a different situation.

PAUL: Why?

MORGAN: Because I think that they would, if they could, consider attacking Israel. If you're America, you can't let that happen. The Israelis --

(CROSS TALK)

PAUL: Why shouldn't they depend on the British? Why doesn't the British take care of them? They used to -- they have a lot of influence over there. Let all the British kid goes over there and die.

I mean, why -- why is it assumed that we are the policemen of the world, that it's our moral obligation? Besides, we're broke.

MORGAN: But aren't there times when you have to be the policeman of the world?

PAUL: No.

MORGAN: Really?

PAUL: It is not. We should provide for our national security. We do not have the authority. We do not have the money. And we -- we don't have the moral authority to do this because it leads to trouble.

MORGAN: Let's take a break, come back and talk social issues. I want to talk to you about marriage, gay marriage, abortion. See what you really think.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Newt Gingrich calling Ron Paul totally outside the mainstream. This is the man who wants a moon colony, Mr. Mainstream. Let's talk social issues, because people often say you are a conservative liberal. There aren't many of those around, Ron Paul.

Let me ask you about your view of gay marriage, because I have read differing twists on this. What's your honest opinion about gay marriage?

PAUL: I -- I am totally neutral on the cause of liberty when people want to be married and call it a marriage, it's none of my business. I can set my standards, and then others can decide whether they want to follow me or not. But I would never use force.

MORGAN: You don't believe in abortion under any circumstances. That's something that's driven I think by your time as a doctor. You have delivered many, many babies. I read a heart rending thing you once said, that you once delivered I think a two and a half pound baby that -- as you said, you had to put into a bucket.

PAUL: Not me. I wasn't a participant. I was a very, very casual observer as a student.

MORGAN: But you witnessed this?

PAUL: Yes. I walk in a room and it happened. It was five minutes. It was over. I walked out of the room and thought, wow, what did I just see?

MORGAN: But that clearly scarred you.

PAUL: It was the lack of respect for life that dawned on me.

MORGAN: Here's the dilemma, and it's one I put to Rick Santorum very recently. I was surprised by his answer, although I sort of understood from his belief point of view that he would come up with this.

But it's a dilemma that I am going to put to you. You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen. But if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?

PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen or give them --

MORGAN: You would allow them to abort the baby?

PAUL: It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story.

But somebody arriving in an emergency room saying, I have just been raped and there is no chemical -- there's no medical and there's no legal evidence of a pregnancy --

MORGAN: Life doesn't begin at conception?

PAUL: Life does begin at conception.

MORGAN: Then you would be taking a life.

PAUL: Well, you don't know if you're taking a life either, because this is an area that is -- but to decide everything about abortion and respect for life on this one very, very theoretical condition, where there may have been a life or not a life.

MORGAN: But here's the thing: although it is a hypothetical, it does happen. People do get raped and they do get impregnated. And sometimes they are so ashamed by what's happened that weeks go by before they may even discover they are pregnant.

They have to face this dilemma. And they are going to have a president who has a very, very strong view about this.

PAUL: This is like the proposal that the people who like abortion, endorse abortion because it's the woman's right to her body. You say, well, does that mean one minute before birth, you can kill the baby? I did this on one of the TV programs where some women were opposed to what I was saying.

I said, this nine-pound baby is in the woman. She has the right. She argues her case. I said you would abort this baby because the woman has had unfortunate some circumstances, so the doctor gets paid a handsome fee to kill this nine-pound baby?

Oh, that's not what we're talking about. But that is what they are talking about. They are talking about a human life. So a person immediately after rape, yes. It's a tough one. I won't satisfy everybody there.

But to tell you the truth, what I saw happening in the 1960s and the change in the law and -- no, the change in attitude, people were doing illegal abortions. To me it is a moral problem. It was to change the morality of the '60s, the lack of respect for life, leads to the lack of respect for liberty and all the things that I believe in.

So it was a change in morality that had the Supreme Court change the law. So I don't believe the change in the law is the magic cure. I do believe, though, very sincerely, if we don't have an understanding of life and have a lot of respect for life, I can't defend people on their personal liberties. I can't be as tolerant as I am on how they use liberties.

So that's why I think it's really a moral issue, rather than a legal solution to all these problems. As a physician, as a gynecologist, I have had to face some of these very, very difficult problems. I understand them. Even before Roe versus Wade, many of those problems that existed, where there is no perfect answer, they were taken care of, but it was always done -- they respected the fact that they were dealing with a life.

MORGAN: Finally on this point, do you accept there is a slight contradiction between a candidate who is pro liberty, pro personal choice, pro personal responsibility in almost every other area, but on the specific area says no, you don't have choice?

PAUL: See, I don't see the inconsistency because I see the nine- pound baby that's still within the mother as deserving some protection, too. Who deserves protection? That fetus has rights, because if I do harm to him, I get sued. If you have a car accident and kill a fetus, there are legal right there. But to say that it's only the mother, it's very, very unique.

If you carry your argument to the -- all the way through, we have a right to our homes. Shouldn't we have the privacy of our homes? Do we have a right to kill the baby one minute after birth? No. Everybody say -- as a matter of fact, this is what happens: we can kill the baby before it's born and a doctor is paid. One minute after birth, if the woman who was unfortunate enough to have this baby -- if she throws the baby away, she gets arrested for a homicide.

To me, the one minute before birth and one minute after birth isn't a whole lot different.

MORGAN: You understand that to a lot of people with serious religious conviction, it is. They say life begins at conception.

PAUL: Life does begin at conception.

MORGAN: So it's a moral maze. Let's have a break. Let's come back and talk about your family, because you have an incredible family. You have five children. How many grandchildren?

PAUL: Eighteen.

MORGAN: How many great grandchildren?

PAUL: Five.

MORGAN: Amazing. Let's come back and talk about your extraordinary family and your wife.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: We have been on a pretty extensive tour. And my wife's been with me. She didn't make it this morning because this was her day -- I said that she could sleep in. And I provided her breakfast for her this morning, because it's our 55th wedding anniversary day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Ron Paul on how he and his wife Carol celebrated their 55th anniversary this week. Congratulations.

PAUL: Thank you.

MORGAN: An amazing achievement. What's the secret to a long lasting marriage, do you think?

PAUL: I think a lot is respect and acceptance of both of our shortcomings. And I just think that if you have respect for other people and reject the whole idea that you force people, either intimidate or -- you know, I don't like it in politics. I don't like it in interpersonal relationships; you do it my way or else. I think people get into trouble when they try to force their way on others.

And certainly in a good marriage, you shouldn't be using intimidation and force to try to get along. There must be a better way.

MORGAN: If Carol was here, what would she say your shortcomings are?

PAUL: She'd probably be pretty generous, you know.

MORGAN: What do you think they are? If you were being self- critical?

PAUL: Well, I can get upset. Most people don't realize that I do get upset. Unfortunately she gets on the receiving end. You know, if I get tired in the campaign, if I complain about the campaign, I usually don't go to the campaign manager. I complain to her.

But I think that's been part of it. You know, if she has a problem, if she's not feeling well or she has something, she's allowed to come to me. So maybe part of that -- a good marriage is being a sounding board for the other person.

MORGAN: What do you believe about discipline with children? Were you a spanker when you were young?

PAUL: No, not really. But I wasn't spanked, you know, when I was growing up. Our kids didn't get spanked. There would be a time, you know, you might have to give them a little tap or something to remind them.

MORGAN: Do you believe parents should still have that right to give their kids a little tap?

PAUL: Oh, yeah, as long as they're not practicing severe child abuse.

(CROSS TALK)

PAUL: Boy, I'll tell you, I would work real hard to promote an understanding that you don't achieve a lot -- you don't achieve a whole lot by using force and intimidation. Just like in politics, you know, I reject the use of force telling other countries what to do and what to do with your personal behavior and all.

So raising kids would be the same way. I can remember growing up, we had certain real strong beliefs and I thought back, I wonder when my parents ever talked to me about behavior, drinking or anything. They never did. It was sort of through osmosis that you know what the standards are.

And fortunately we have had five wonderful children. And I think there must have been a little bit of osmosis there, because I certainly wasn't a lecturer on exactly what they had to do.

MORGAN: What were the most important values your parents instilled in you, do you think? We discussed hard work, but what else?

PAUL: I think it's hard work. They had a lot of respect for religious values. We did go to church routinely. I was raised in a Lutheran Church. And confirmation in the church was a major event. When we were old enough to decide we wanted to be confirmed in a church, that became a bigger event than any birthday party or any other kind of celebration. That was pretty important.

MORGAN: I want to end with two things that have happened this week. One is about to happen, one has already happened, which, in many ways, sum up the very best of America, in my view. One is the Facebook situation, where you have a young kid who has a brilliant idea, and it turns into a hundred million dollar idea, and he creates a thousand millionaires.

Is that a good think? When you look at that, do you see any negatives? Or do you think that's what the American dream, at its purest, is about?

PAUL: I think it is. And I think you picked a good example, even though I don't know all the details, because he provided a service. And he didn't make money as much as he knew something that he anticipated people might like.

He became wealthy because he gave a service. The consumer voted him to have this. Now there are many in society today -- so I'm sort of on the side of Occupy Wall Street when they complain about the one percent. But I separate the two. If you made your money because you provided a service and the people bought it and they didn't get subsidies from the government or benefits, say, from an inflationary system, and they didn't get bailouts and all these things, that to me is entirely different.

MORGAN: Giants or Patriots? Giants or Patriots, Super Bowl?

PAUL: Super Bowl, haven't paid much attention to it. I have been paying attention to Nevada and a few other primaries.

MORGAN: Now, let's talk Nevada very briefly at the end. You're trailing in the polls at the moment. How confident are you of a good performance in Nevada? How important is it that you perform well in Nevada?

PAUL: I think it's very important. But I think -- I don't think it's the end of anything. And I think we are going to do well. Each primary, we have done much, much better than we did four years ago. So that's one thing to compare it to.

And we're down to four candidates right now. And we have a good organization in Nevada.

MORGAN: Will you ever drop out of this race? Or are you here until the bitter end?

PAUL: Yes, I'll drop out if someone gets inaugurated next January? MORGAN: But Nothing will stop you before the convention?

PAUL: I'm not thinking in those terms because I'm thinking in campaigning where the next stop is. Where do I go this evening And I where do I sleep tonight? And how I'm going to encourage all of the workers to get the vote out.

MORGAN: Hypothetically, if you got to a point where you did want to drop out, could you imagine endorsing another candidate? Would you do that? Or are you implacably opposed to doing that just on principle?

PAUL: Well, it would be a real challenge, but I think people change their minds. Some of them change their minds more easily than others. So if they change them favorably and they can convince them, my -- I would certainly be open to that.

MORGAN: Ron Paul, best of luck at Nevada and the rest of the campaign.

PAUL: Thank you.

MORGAN: You certainly have a lot of energy, drive, and I can tell you one thing, we will get more reaction on Twitter and Facebook to this interview than any interview I have done with any other candidate. That is a given.

PAUL: Wonderful. Thank you very much.

MORGAN: That's Ron Paul. When we come back, a sympathized Only in America. 

Nevada's Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, endorsed Rick Perry early on, but he hasn't backed anyone since the Texas governor dropped out.

Governor Sandoval joins us now.

Thank you, Governor, for being with us.

GOV. BRIAN SANDOVAL (R), NEVADA: Oh, it's my pleasure. Thank you, Jessica.

YELLIN: Thanks.

First of all, let's just dispose with the headlines. There have been some headlines that Newt Gingrich canceled a meeting with you amid reports that you weren't going to endorse anyone. One of his advisers told "The Washington Post" -- quote -- You're a Republican presidential candidate coming into a state with a Republican governor. It's common courtesy to meet him."

Sounding annoyed. Are you insulted the speaker didn't meet with you? Or is this much ado about nothing?

SANDOVAL: I think it's the latter. It really did kind of get blown out of proportion.

The speaker and I have talked on a few occasions. I have a lot of respect for him. We were called by a representative of his campaign asking for a meeting. I gladly accepted. After we accepted that, we received notice that he had to cancel and it went from there.

But it wasn't a problem at all. I'm just pleased that he as well as all the other candidates are here in the state and campaigning very aggressively. We're very excited about the caucus tomorrow. We have 4,000 volunteers at 125 locations. We think it's going to go extremely well.

YELLIN: Let's talk about Mitt Romney. What is your relationship with him? At CNN's debate recently in Florida, he said that he would consider you for a Cabinet position.

SANDOVAL: Yes.

No, and I was surprised and humbled that he would speak of me in that regard. The governor and I have talked on several occasions. He was a supporter of mine in my run for governor. I think he's a very strong candidate. And I look forward to watching him in the state.

YELLIN: What position would you want in his Cabinet if he becomes president?

SANDOVAL: You know, respectfully, I was real humbled by his mentioning me, but I love my job. I think I have the best job in the United States of America.

YELLIN: Smart answer.

SANDOVAL: I have only been in office for one year.

(LAUGHTER)

YELLIN: Yes.

SANDOVAL: And we have accomplished a lot.

YELLIN: Let's talk about Nevada for a bit. The unemployment rate in your state is 12.6 percent, higher than the national average, significantly.

SANDOVAL: Yes.

YELLIN: Respectfully, sir, are you concerned at all that your stewardship could be a drag on the eventual Republican winner?

SANDOVAL: Well, of course I'm concerned about unemployment.

When I came into the office one year ago, our unemployment rate was 14.9. I think we have done well in terms of getting it down to 12.6. We have a ways to go. We are being very aggressive with regard to economic development in our state and modernizing our economic structure, attracting businesses here.

We just got a report today that we have the third most favorable tax environment in the United States of America. We have strong universities. We have a great quality of life. So I'm going to be providing my full support to the ultimate nominee and look forward to doing that.

YELLIN: Can't President Obama take some credit also going into the general then for the fact that the unemployment rate has fallen in your state, as you point out?

SANDOVAL: Well, he can try to do that.

There's -- part of this is, I have written to the president. One of our great success stories in our state is the mining industry. It's going extremely well. But we have several mines that are in the queue that could create thousands of jobs in our state. Because of the regulatory structure...

YELLIN: So it will be a battle. Right. It will be a battle.

SANDOVAL: It will be a battle.

But he has suffocated our ability to open some mines in Nevada. And I hope that we can continue to have conversations so we can get people to work in that industry.

YELLIN: Another major issue for voters in your state is the housing challenge there.

For 60 consecutive months, Nevada has had the highest home foreclosure rate of any state in the nation. I know you know this. In Las Vegas, two out of every three home mortgages are underwater.

Let's listen to a moment, to what Governor Romney said about the housing crisis in an interview with the "Las Vegas Journal Review" editorial board.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: To encourage housing, one is don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YELLIN: The Democrats and the Obama campaign are going to try to make a lot of that, because it suggests that he doesn't -- they will say he doesn't want to try to help current homeowners.

Will that haunt him if he's the nominee in your state?

SANDOVAL: Well -- and I'm glad he's here in Nevada, so that he can have some conversations with these folks that are struggling.

I mean, we have a lot of struggling families, as I described. We want to get them back to work. Me personally, we're working on a foreclosure mediation program that brings the lenders and the borrowers together. We're going to have a huge event in Las Vegas that does the same thing in terms of bringing those borrowers and those lenders together to get these things worked out.

I'm hopeful that I can sit down with Governor Romney and let him know specifically about what we're doing in our state to help our residents.

YELLIN: And maybe move him a little over to your position?

SANDOVAL: Yes. YELLIN: OK.

Finally, Mitt Romney is looking pretty good for tomorrow's caucuses. That's based on the polling. Ron Paul, though, is always full of surprises. From where you sit, what do you think we should all look out for, for tomorrow night?

SANDOVAL: Well -- and I probably -- or you have probably seen the same polling that I have, that Governor Romney is doing extremely well. He's got a great organization in this state. He campaigned very aggressively four years ago here. So he does have a lot of people on the ground.

Congressman Paul has done the same thing. He's got a lot of fervent support in this state. So I think that you're going to see some good results from both of them.

YELLIN: So, Romney, then Paul is what you're telling us?

SANDOVAL: Likely, yes. And I think obviously the speaker is going to be there -- right there as well.

YELLIN: OK.

Governor Sandoval, thanks so much for your time. And I look forward to seeing you in person some time soon in Nevada.

SANDOVAL: And likewise. Thank you for having me, Jessica.

YELLIN: Thanks.