TheBlaze

It’s been a month since the last debate and I want to send a personal thank-you to CNN for not scheduling it on a Friday or Saturday at 9 p.m as other debates have done in the past.

The debate is the last before Super Tuesday (Mar. 6) and the Arizona and Michigan primaries (Feb. 28). Here are the tid bits:

1. If nothing else, Ron Paul has big ones for talking smack about Rick Santorum to his face. On Tuesday, Paul’s campaign released an ad that called Santorum “fake.” John King, who moderated the debate said to Paul, “you have a new television ad that labels [Santorum] a fake. Why?” Paul responded, “Because he’s a fake.” Ouch. THE BLAZE’s Mytheos Holt has it here.

2. Santorum responded to Paul’s criticism by comparing his own fiscal record to the rest of Congress. “You’re comparing yourself to the rest of Congress?” Paul said, adding, “Their approval rating is at 9 percent!” The problem is, Paul is also a member of Congress. He’s not excluded from that 9% rating.

3. John King deserves credit. I anticipated a boring debate because he’s… boring. But this debate wasn’t. He did a good job.

4. Did you see The Artist Formerly Known as Prince Newt? Check out that royal tie.

5. And while we’re at it, Gingrich should never say the word “missionary” in public again. I don’t even remember in what harmless context he said it. But he should never say it again.

6. Mitt Romney looked like he might be suffering from a cold tonight. That might be why he was a bad sport about answering the final question: “What is the biggest misconception about you in the public debate?” That was a gimme for Romney. But he answered with something generic about America’s future. When asked by King to address the specific question Romney answered, “You get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want.” Okay, suit yourself, Robot. Watch it here.

Here’s the record of our live chat. Thank you to everyone who joined!

John King of CNN (Zzz…) is hosting tonight’s Republican presidential debate in Arizona. It starts at 8 p.m. EST. Don‘t forget to join us for THE BLAZE’s live chat. About an hour before it starts, there will be a link to it at the top of the front page.

Here’s a look at the candidates and CNN prepping ahead of it:

An editorial in the National Review today calls for an end to the presidential primary debates as we know them, without the mainstream media:

Come the 2016 election season, the RNC should set the number, dates, and locations of debates. They should be fewer in number than the 20-odd we will see before this year is out, so that they are not so unduly agenda-setting. And the party should partner with local party officials, conservative think tanks, alternative media, tea-party groups, and grassroots organizations to determine formatting and questions.

By the conservative magazine’s logic, primaries are “parochial,” therefore debates should be organized by smaller organizations rather than the big corporate TV networks. But the editors at National Review want their debates and they want to eat them, too. While they don’t want debates to be run by, say NBC or ABC, they admit “for broadcast purposes,“ the MSM ”may still be necessary.”

Maybe. Probably. But when you need someone and for a pretty big purpose (broadcasting), you don’t get to set the rules exclusively.

The National Review editorial board has an idea. But so did Newt Gingrich when he said if he were the Republican nominee he would “not accept debates in the fall in which the reporters are the moderators.” It’s an idea, but okay, Newt, who’s going to moderate then? Donald Trump? hahaha.

I hate looking at Brian Williams‘s face as much as anyone, but come on.

So long as the MSM has the money (they do) and the audience (they do, even if it has gotten smaller) they’ll be calling the shots.

Known for at times working outside the mainstream and being unafraid to propose grandiose ideas, Newt Gingrich appears to have lived up to his reputation, releasing a 28-minute, 59-second video on energy and gas prices Wednesday.

Gingrich says his plan could bring gas prices down to $2.50 a gallon, proposes more domestic drilling and says he will approve the Canada-to-Texas pipeline shelved by the White House

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Gingrich campaign claims it will run the entire video in “key cities” until Super Tuesday:

“What’s less clear is how the campaign could afford to do so. It had less than $2 million in the bank two weeks ago, and reportedly raised $2 million during a California campaign swing last week.”

Perhaps late night infomercial slots?

Few outside of Southern California may be familiar with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, but a new profile of the mayor in the New York Times suggests that the Californian is taking on a bigger role in his party, and national discussion.

The Mexican-American cut his teeth as a labor organizer before being elected to the California Assembly in 1994 as a Democrat, elevated to Assembly Leader for his party in 1998, and elected Mayor of Los Angeles in 2005. After being elected with a wave of excitement in 2005, by 2009 a once supportive editorial board of Los Angeles Magazine published a cover story with Villaragiosa’s photo tagged “Failure: So Much Promise, So Much Disappointment.”

The Times notes that Villaraigosa’s popularity collapsed within two years of being in office after “he confessed to an extramarital affair with a television reporter, struggled to run City Hall amid an economic downturn and disappointed supporters who thought he was drawn to the glamour, rather than the grit, of the job.”

Last week, Villaraigosa was named chairman of the Democratic National Convention this September in Charlotte, and his stock appears to be once again on the rise. The Times reports that despite his early troubles, Villaraigosa is building a record on crime, mass transit expansion and the environment:

“With a little more than one year left in the final term in office for Mr. Villaraigosa, a reappraisal of him is under way amid signs that he is orchestrating a shift in his political fortunes. Mr. Villaraigosa’s name has returned to the small list of next-generation Democrats who have been waiting in the wings as members of the old guard of California politics move closer to retirement.

‘There are plenty of people in L.A. who aren’t going to feel great about him personally — that’s always going to be true,’ said Raphael J. Sonenshein, the head of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at California State University, Los Angeles. ‘But he’s really made a comeback that will pay off in a statewide race. He has politically recovered in a lot of ways.’”

The Hill labeled Villaraigosa as a “rising star in the Democratic Party” when reporting on his appointment to lead the convention, noting that the Los Angeles mayor speaks frequently on behalf of Hispanic Democrats and is the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Villaraigosa has also been named a national campaign co-chair for the president’s reelection effort. 

The warm words from the national publication have not rubbed all locals the right way. In response to the Times piece, Dennis Romero writes in LA Weekly: 

“While noting that our mayor has ‘disappointed supporters,‘ the paper says Villaraigosa ’is orchestrating a shift in his political fortunes.’

In other words, L.A. has forgotten about its worst-in-the-nation traffic and potholes, City Hall corruption, and a sex abuse scandal that plagues the very school system he promised to overhaul. (Note his silence when it comes to Miramonte Elementary School).”

[...]

“So, er, good luck in Washington, mayor. And remember, you won’t need all those P.R. folks you surround yourself with to get nice pieces in the NYT, to fail to return our calls and to not put us on their press lists. You don‘t need the people’s approval to be appointed by the president (good thing).”

Still, with his new national party appointment, role in the Obama campaign, rebounding success in a city known for large DNC donors and ethnic background being a key swing voting demographic, its not unimaginable that this national exposure places Villaraigosa on the list of possible names towards the top of the 2016 Democratic Party ticket.

All the GOP primary talk has led some to ponder what situation the Democratic Party will be in come 2016. Should Obama lose in 2012 it seems very unlikely that he will want or assume to be capable of being reelected in 2016, and aside from the obvious first choice of Hillary Clinton, the field for possible presidential nominees seems wide open. Following the passage of a same-sex marriage bill in the state over the summer, The Washington Post drummed up the suggestion of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as the 2016 frontrunner, also mentioning possible candidates in Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley  and Virginia Senator Mark Warner. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has been brought up and I would not rule out former Chief of Staff and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel as threw with national politics.

Who do you think will be the Democratic nominee in 2016?

From conservative author Ben Shapiro:

After being as far as 15 points behind Rick Santorum ten days ago, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has clawed back to a near tie in the state he grew up in, Michigan, before voters there head to the primary Tuesday. The Associated Press reports that as the finish line is approaching, the Romney campaign has hit the phone lines with robo-calls from supporter Donald Trump, disparaging rival candidate Rick Santorum as a career politician who doesn’t know how to create jobs:

“Mitt Romney’s campaign deployed an automated phone call from Trump Wednesday in Michigan, a state that has become a must-win for the former Massachusetts governor. Trump also recorded a Michigan radio ad for Romney.

The real estate mogul and reality show host endorsed Romney earlier this month.

On the call, Trump says he‘s tired of Santorum ’pretending’ to be the outsider in the race. Trump says the former Pennsylvania senator has been entrenched in the Washington culture for decades.

Trump calls Romney a good man who is working hard.”

The real estate mogul officially endorsed the presidential campaign of the former Massachusetts governor earlier in the month, introducing Romney before a speech at Trump’s luxury hotel in Las Vegas. Whether Trump’s endorsement has been a positive or a negative for the Romney campaign is up for debate. 

Buddy Roemer is trying a different strategy to become president.

NJ Gov. Chris Christie is trying to lose weight.

Sen. Chuck Schumer shouldn’t pretend to know about hip-hop music.

What if President Barack Obama‘s Stimulus package had been bigger?

Heard of “Pinterest“? Ann Romney has.

Piers Morgan, the CNN host with the irritating Twitter feed, had a sit-down with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie last night. And while billionaire Warren Buffett really is a tired topic, Morgan brought him up in the interview anyway as the go-to prop for illustrating income inequality.

Christie responded by saying what was one everyone’s mind, probably even President Barack Obama‘s mind. “The fact of the matter is that I’m tired of hearing about it,” Christie said. “If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check — go ahead and write it.”

Morgan hadn’t even technically asked his question yet, but Christie didn’t care. “I know the question” Christie said. Morgan told him to prove it.

“Do you really think Warren Buffett needs as much attention from the government as the most vulnerable?” Christie guessed. Yes, Morgan ceded. That’s what he was going to ask. Morgan’s immediate thought: “…He’s good.”

“Since I got the question right, I’m not answering the question, how about that. That’s my gift for getting the question right,” Christie said.

Back when he was still in the presidential race, Herman Cain had a catchphrase he would use when asked by the news media about the oddities of his weird campaign: “Let Herman be Herman.” Heading into CNN’s Republican debate tonight, Newt Gingrich‘s campaign is adopting that trite same phrase.

Bob Walker, a top adviser to Gingrich, told the New York Times, “We didn’t let Newt be Newt” in the Florida debates. Many credit Gingrich‘s less than stellar performance in those debates with his big loss in the state’s primary.

Kellyann Conway, another adviser, said the same thing. “Newt’s got to be Newt,” she said. “He doesn’t have to act presidential.”

Let Newt be Newt, okay? It worked out for Cain.

The Blaze has extensively covered the topic of the potential for law enforcement drones to be used to monitor Americans right here in the U.S.of A.  And last Tuesday, that possibility became realty. Buried inside the bill funding the FAA, signed by last week President Obama, was language allowing drones to fly over American cities.

The law does limit drone use by police to small drones (under 4.4lbs) flying no higher than 400 feet above the ground.

Police must have known this law was coming because signs warning of official drone use have already been spotted in Brooklyn, NY.

Photo from Urban Infidel

H/T Urban Infidel

“And for these lame-stream media characters to get all wee-weed up about that, first you have to ask yourself, ‘Have they every attended a Sunday school class even? Have they never heard of this terminology before?”

–Sarah Palin on “Hannity” last night commenting on an old Rick Santorum speech that the Drudge Report dug up and splashed across its front page. In the speech — which was delivered at Ave Maria University in 2008 — Santorum says “The Father of Lies (Satan) has his sights on” America. Regardless of whether Palin approves of Santorum’s “Satan” speech, when did the Drudge Report become part of the “lame-stream media”?

Also, “wee-weed” up is a funny reference to something President Barack Obama said in 2009. Its meaning is explained here.

h/t Real Clear Politics

“Two and a Half Men” creator Chuck Lorre dings Catholics over contraception.

Throw some beads at Fox News’ Bob Beckel and Eric Bolling.

This is NOT Rick Santorum‘s inbox. But still funny.

Actor Will Ferrell skips fundraiser for President Barack Obama.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords‘ husband wants to be the new Callista Gingrich; he’s writing a kid’s book.

Another questionable tweet from Roland Martin; even after being kicked off CNN.

CNN is reporting a virtual tie in their latest CNN/Time/ORC poll of likely voters in Arizona’s February 28 GOP presidential primary, reporting Romney at 36 percent support and Santorum at 32 percent with Romney‘s four point lead within the survey’s sampling error.

A Rasmussen Reports poll released Friday had Santorum behind Romney in Arizona by eight points.

“Arizona Republicans display many of the same ideological divisions that drove the results in earlier primaries and caucuses,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Santorum wins the born-again vote in Arizona by nine points but loses among non-evangelical Republicans by 12 points. Romney loses by three points among tea party supporters but has a 15-point lead among Republicans who oppose the tea party or are neutral toward it.”

CNN notes that Santorum surged in state and national polling after sweeping the February 7th contests in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. The four remaining Republican presidential candidates will participate in a CNN debate in the state Wednesday, before Arizona’s February 28 primary.

POLITICO reports that at a lunch event Tuesday in Maricopa County, Santorum harked on his working steel town roots to distinguish himself from rival candidates:

“‘I’m not a manager. I’m not a visionary,’ he told the crowd in an apparent reference to his GOP rivals Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. ‘I’m a guy from a steel town who grew up understanding what made this country great and for the years that I’ve been involved in public life, put my heart and my effort on the line to make this country the kind of country that we all want to hand on to our children and grandchildren.’

After all the attention around the President condemning super PACs, then making an about face to endorse his own, all the while making sure campaign surrogates made it clear that he didn’t really like them, the Pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA ACtion has made its first play in 2012. The New York Times reports:

“The airwaves in Michigan will soon be thick with political ads as a number of ‘super PACs’ and at least one presidential campaign went on a buying spree Tuesday, nailing down what commercial time they could ahead of the state’s primary next Tuesday.

Making its first major ad buy this year, the super PAC supporting President Obama, Priorities USA Action, has secured $232,000 worth of air time in the Detroit and Flint markets, according to a group that tracks political media spending. Priorities USA Action did not immediately release a commercial or respond to a request for comment.”

Chuck Todd told POLITICO that according to a source the buy will be a weeklong flight beginning on Wednesday and ending on the day of the Michigan primary. There will be 30-second spots at about 575 points in the Detroit market  for about $144,795, about 500 points in the Flint market totaling $30,020, and another $67,390 in cable buys in those two markets.

The president has stood behind his backing for the federal government’s $80 billion assistance package to American auto makers and the Obama campaign sees Michigan as a key swing state in 2012.

Gas prices are kind of starting to refresh the news cycle but the whole birth control, contraceptive thing is hanging on as a prominent issue in the media. That’s in large part because of Rick Santorum‘s strong views on the availability of contraception, which he says act as “a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

The good news is that at least one chastity belt vender has seen an uptick in sales. The bad other news is that it really has nothing to do with Santorum’s aversion to sex for pleasure.

“We’ve had a bit of a boost in sales, but that’s typical this time of year, at tax time,” Donald Hayes, owner, Chastity Belts USA told Vanity Fair, when asked if the debate over contraception has boosted sales. “I think [tax refunds] drive sales of any kind of non-essential items. People have some extra money, they say, ‘Okay, I’ll buy some toys.’”

Toys?

h/t Political Wire

Newt Gingrich caused a stir today when he said, “You can’t put a gun rack in a Volt” while campaigning in Georgia. He was commenting on American energy policy using a reference to Chevrolet’s smaller, energy-efficient car “The Volt.”

One upstanding citizen, who says he owns a Volt, took Gingrich’s words as a challenge. He went ahead and installed a gun rack in the back of the car and uploaded the proof to YouTube (see video below).

But the problem is, as you might already suspect, a Volt looks ridiculous with a gun rack installed in it. Likely because Chevrolet never imagined anyone would want to put a gun rack in the trunk of the car. Actually, a Chevy spokesman said as much to USA Today: “Fuel efficiency — not the availability of a gun rack — is one of the top purchase considerations for all new vehicles.”

Saying “You can’t put a gun rack in a Volt“ is like saying ”you can’t wear black shoes with a brown belt“ or ”you can’t wear that sweater vest.” Of course you can. You just look stupid doing it.

While campaigning in Ohio Monday Mitt Romney called attention to the record of rival candidate Rick Santorum, saying that the former Pennsylvania senator was no “budget hawk” during his time in Washington:

The Associated Press reports that Romney accused Santorum of helping congressional Republicans spend money “like Democrats.” The former Massachusetts governor said he would cut the federal budget in part by giving control of Medicaid, housing vouchers and food stamps back to the states. The Los Angeles Times reports that Romney said that during two terms as a Pennsylvania senator, Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling five times and the size of the federal government grew by 80%.

Romney urged Ohio voters to back him in their March 6 primary because Ohio “often decides who the president is,” reports the Associated Press.

From hinting at Islamophobia when his aide clearly misspoke, to calling him anti-women when a donor cracked a bad joke, to calling him a bigot when what was widely reported was a sentence that he did not even say, its hard to make the case that there is not a faction of the mainstream media waiting to pounce on outspoken socially conservative Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Now that the former Pennsylvania senator’s blue-collar sensitive, pro-growth, pro-values message has picked up steam, two conservative columnists commented Tuesday on the media aggression towards his views, and how Santorum should handle .

Rich Lowry of The National Review wrote this morning that the media has “unleashed the hounds” on Santorum’s campaign:

“Santorum is a standing affront to the sensibilities and assumptions of the media and political elite. That elite is constantly writing the obituary for social conservatism, which is supposed to wither away and leave a polite, undisturbed consensus in favor of social liberalism. Santorum not only defends beliefs that are looked down upon as dated and unrealistic; he does it with a passionate sincerity that opens him to mockery and attack.”

William McGurn also commented on “the politics of the double standard on social issues” in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, pointing out that while campaigning for president in 2008, Barack Obama went unquestioned when he said marriage is between a man and woman, but when Rick Santorum says the same its a different issue.

McGurn argues that to deal with this double standard, Santorum should not all together drop the views that got him where he is, but “fold them into his larger narrative about the free society.”

“That narrative has to do with pointing out the dependency that comes with an expanding federal government, the importance of family, and the threat to freedom when, say, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or a Health and Human Services secretary can substitute their own opinions on these issues for the judgment of the American people.

Mr. Santorum comes to the task well equipped. He echoes Ronald Reagan, for example, when he talks about how small government requires strong families. Or when he’s pointing out the intolerance of a federal government bent on forcing religious individuals and institutions to underwrite practices (e.g., contraception and sterilization) they regard as abhorrent.”

McGurn goes on to advise Santorum to not take the media bait allowing himself to be dragged into the weeds of theological debate.

Lowry suggests that Santorum’s positions are less extreme than his critics would like to label, and also warns the candidate against comments that play into the negative image of him. But Lowry perhaps goes beyond McGurn in arguing that the strength of Santorum’s values oriented message not only promotes freedom, but appeals to those who recognize that the problems in the American home and private economy are intertwined:

“Although his critics will never credit him for it, Santorum’s social conservatism brings with it an unstinting devotion to human dignity, a touchstone for the former senator. The latest position for which he’s taking incoming is his opposition to a government mandate for insurance coverage of prenatal testing often used to identify handicapped babies who are subsequently aborted. For his detractors, his respect for the disabled is trumped by his unforgivable opposition to abortion.

Santorum conceives of his social views as a badly needed support for economic aspiration. It’s no accident that the Republican candidate most committed to the traditional family and associated virtues is also the one who talks most about the struggles of the working class. He frequently cites research from the Brookings Institution showing that simply getting a high-school diploma, getting a job, and getting married before having children — the so-called success sequence — are powerful tools against poverty.”

[...]

“Santorum occasionally needs to curb his enthusiasms. But the implicit message of his candidacy is unassailable: Denounce and dismiss it as you please; American social conservatism is here to stay.”

As opposition research against Santorum continues to grow and his public comments are further analyzed, it will be interesting to see if the candidate backs down or stands up to his critics. Throughout this campaign Santorum has not always had the money or organization of his opponents, but has surged because he has something that cannot be bought; a message.

Why change it now?

Mary Romney, wife of Mitt Romney‘s son Craig, has a blog that until recently was open to be viewed by the general public. It has all sorts of pictures of her family doing family things, including this peculiar one below of Mitt spraying a water hose with the help of some children.

What’s going on here? Submit your captions in the comments section below. Make them good! We’ll post the winner and the best runners-up tomorrow.

Caption that photo!

h/t BuzzFeed

Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has already contributed $5 million to Newt Gingrich’s super PAC “Winning Our Future,” on two separate occasions. Now in an upcoming profile in Forbes Magazine the billionaire has indicated he may still donate another $100 million to Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

“They like to trash other people. It’s unfair that I’ve been treated unfair—but it doesn’t stop me. I might give $10 million or $100 million to Gingrich,” Adelson told Steve Bertoni of Forbes. The 78-year-old has a net worth of about $25 billion, so the total $11 million that Adelson and his wife have already donated to the struggling Gingrich campaign accounts for 0.044% of his fortune.

“I’m against very wealthy ­people attempting to or influencing elections,”  Adelson claims. “But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money. I have my own philosophy and I’m not ashamed of it. I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it. I don’t want to go through ten different corporations to hide my name. I’m proud of what I do and I’m not looking to escape recognition.”

Adelson, who was born in Boston in 1933 to Ukranian Jewish immigrant parents, is a strong supporter of Israel and opposed to President Obama’s economic policies.

“I’m afraid of the trend where more and more people have the tendency to want to be given instead of wanting to give,” said Adelson. “People are less willing to share. There are fewer philanthropists being grown and there are greater expectations of the government. I believe that people will come to their senses and not extend the current Administration’s quest to socialize this country. It won’t be a socialist democracy because it won’t be a democracy.”

While Adelson has been supportive of the now back-of-the-pack Gingrich campaign, the billionaire said he likes and knows Santorum and Romney, and “the likelihood is that I’m going to be supportive of whoever the candidate is.”

However, Adelson did say “If Ron Paul is chosen I certainly wouldn’t do that.”

Ron Paul‘s political ads are the best. In his newest one, he goes after Rick Santorum ahead of the Michigan primary. It’s a goodie for the following reasons:

1. The voice over refers to Santorum as “dude.”

2. It uses a bloated, shirtless man to illustrate the Dept. of Education.

3. It says Santorum’s decision to “support the biggest entitlement expansion since the ’60s“ is ”not groovy.”

4. Finally it goes for the knockout: “Rick Santorum a fiscal conservative? Fake.”

Watch:

Just a friendly reminder that you can follow BLAZE writers on Twitter so we can all get to know each other better. Aww:

Madeleine Morgenstern @MadeleineBlaze

Billy Hallowell @BillyHallowell

Becket Adams @BecketAdams

Eddie Scarry @eScarry

Chris Field @ChrismField

Jon Seidl @JonSeidl

Buck Sexton @BuckSexton

Chris Santarelli @Blaze_ChrisS

Mytheos Holt @MytheosHolt

Mike Opelka @StuntBrain

Will Cain @WillCain

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has received a nudge of social media support from News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch. In a tweet this afternoon Murdoch echoed growing sentiments that Santorum has the chance to deal a fatal blow to rival Mitt Romney if polls keep their course and the former Pennsylvania senator wins in the state where Romney grew up and his father was governor. The Australia-born business also commended Santorum for his outspoken stance on “values:”

Mediaite notes that Murdoch previously tweeted a positive sentiment for Santorum in January, writing “Can’t resist this tweet, but all Iowans think about Rick Santorum. Only candidate with genuine big vision for country.”

In RealClearPolitics average polling from 2/11-2/19, Santorum leads Romney in Michigan by 5 points before the state’s February 28 primary.

With much speculation that on and off campaign front-runner Mitt Romney may be on a course for a defeat in his homestate of Michigan to Rick Santorum, who has drawn the ire of feminist groups and progressives for comments made by the candidate and supporters in regards to social issues, pundits and some within the party have talked about the entrance of new candidates or a brokered convention. The rumors are additionally fueled by polling throughout the campaign which has suggested dissatisfaction with the choices Republicans have to vote for, and back of the pack candidates like Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul having made it clear that they plan to continue their campaigns to the convention.

When asked on NBC’s Meet the Press if he thought another candidate could still enter the race, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan said he doesn’t see how it could happen; “It’s just too late, I think.”

However, POLITICO reported Monday that there are once again growing calls for Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to enter the race.

“Indiana GOP Chairman Eric Holcomb, one of Gov. Daniels’s closest advisers, revealed to POLITICO that ‘the whispers have become shouts, the knocks on [Daniels’s] door have become fist pounding.’

‘Republicans are fretting the four dancing now can’t beat Obama in the fall — so their national talent search continues,’ Holcomb said, adding that the pleas had come from ‘the adults’ in the party.”

POLITICO writes on the possibility of a“contested” or “brokered” convention:

“There is also the scenario, first reported by POLITICO’s Mike Allen, in which a late entrant (like, say, a Daniels or a Christie) arrives after Super Tuesday on March 6, which is still before the filing deadlines in some of the most delegate-rich states such as California and New Jersey.

A document is circulating among several Washington Republicans titled ‘GOP Delegate Count Will Build Slowly,’ noting how many delegates are still up for grabs after Super Tuesday.

A ‘contested’ convention could result, meaning the party heads into August without a clear nominee. A late entrant could try to amass enough delegates to win the nomination, given that only 34 percent of the total delegates are in play in contests before Super Tuesday. But they might have to pick up the remainder in a contested convention where delegates would still be up for grabs.

A candidate entering under that scenario — and it would mean amassing the necessary ballot-access petitions, which can take weeks, in an extremely short amount of time — would make a play by winning delegates in post-Super Tuesday states and then heading into the convention where they could peel off delegates.

Then there is the ‘brokered’ convention, at which a new candidate could essentially be airlifted in, and, through an arranged deal, awarded the right number of delegates. The notion of dropping in a candidate at the last minute strikes many as extreme and hard to imagine.

But a ‘brokered’ convention could also be the end result of a contested one, with power players uniting if no one agrees with a majority of delegates, or if no one can assemble a majority after the first few rounds of balloting.”

The last time the GOP race was unsettled at convention time was in 1976, the last brokered convention for Republicans was in 1948. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a would be candidate often rumored to benefit from such a turn of a events, can’t see it happening.

“I’ve heard it, but, man, that is an unbelievable scenario. It’d be really hard to achieve that,” Bush told Fox News in a recent interview.

“I think it’s about as remote as life on Pluto,” George W. Bush’s chief strategist Karl Rove told Fox.

A USA Today/Gallup Poll released Monday finds that 66 percent of Republican and GOP-leaning independents surveyed would prefer one of the four remain candidates secure the nomination before Tampa in August and are opposed to a brokered convention.

USA Today notes that 38 percent of all Americans predict Obama will definitely win in November; 22 percent say the Republican will win. In the middle, 32% say November’s outcome depends on whom the Republicans nominate.

Among Democrats, more than two-thirds predict an Obama victory.