By Chuck Muth

In assessing the Iowa caucus results, we can safely say that social conservatives Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry lost big in this rural, white socially conservative state. They’re out.

Jon Huntsman was never in.  And never will be.

Rick Santorum ran on a social conservative anti-abortion/anti-gay platform in a rural, white socially conservative state in which the voters have a far greater interest in those issues than most of the voters in most of the other states.  He also darned-near literally lived in Iowa for a year.

And yet….he still only pulled a quarter of the vote.

Santorum claimed in a fundraising email this morning that he is “the only authentic, passionate conservative who can unite the GOP.”  Not.  He has no national network, and while his fundraising will surely enjoy a bump, it won’t be anywhere near what he needs.  I predict his fifteen minutes of fame is more likely to last about seven.

Mitt Romney’s folks did a good job at playing the expectations game.  By not seriously campaigning there, the Romney team would have us believe that the Iowa results were terrific news.  Not.

This is the guy who is the presumed nominee and has been the presumed nominee for a long, long time – including GOP establishment endorsements up the wazoo.  And people in general have a human desire to be associated with winners.  Yet, Romney still only received a quarter of the vote despite his surrogates and the Romney super-PAC dumping a ton of money into Iowa.

Weak.

No matter how you spin the Iowa results, Romney was not chosen by 3 out of 4 conservative Republican voters.  His 25 percent ceiling remains in place.  I suspect he can and eventually will break through that ceiling, but it’s real and he certainly didn’t crack it in Iowa.

The most significant, positive performance in Iowa was by Ron Paul.  He, too, has had a ceiling in the neighborhood of 10-12 percent, but chalked up a strong third-place finish as a pro-life, libertarian isolationist.  No easy feat.

Unlike Santorum, Paul also has a national network of grassroots supporters dating back to even before his 2008 presidential run.  And he will surely be able turn on the fundraising spigot after his performance in Iowa.

Paul’s problem is on national security – the most important function of the “Commander in Chief.”

While many can accept that Paul is an isolationist, they aren’t willing to accept a pacifist.  We all know what Ron Paul wouldn’t use the military for; however, in this dangerous world, under what circumstances WOULD he find use of force appropriate?  Inquiring minds wanna know.

Again, Paul is pro-life, so social conservatives can live with him.  He proved that in Iowa.  And he’s clearly the most fiscally conservative/limited-government guy in the race.  But he cannot win the GOP nomination without giving voters a strong sense of confidence that a serious, unprovoked attack on America would result in an old-fashioned royal butt kicking.  Voters don’t have that sense at this point, and I’m not sure they ever will.

And then there’s Newt Gingrich.

I don’t look at the Iowa results and compare them to where Gingrich was six weeks ago.  I look at the results and compare them to where he was six months ago.  And six months ago, the consensus was the man was toast.  Stick a fork in him.

Yet in Iowa yesterday, Gingrich defeated two socially conservative candidates – one who won the straw poll there just last summer; the other with a cache of cash.  He also defeated Jon Huntsman….but hey, EVERYBODY beats Jon Huntsman.  So no big deal there.

Also consider this: Because of his rise six weeks ago, Gingrich had over $9 million worth of negative ads dumped against him in Iowa.  Indeed, it’s been estimated that 45% of all advertising in the closing weeks of the campaign were anti-Gingrich ads.  And yet he still lost by less than 14,000 votes to both Romney and Santorum.

Unlike Santorum, however, Gingrich has a national network of supporters and donors built up over more than two decades who will carry him forward in all the other states.  Unlike Paul, he’s solid on national defense.  And unlike Romney, he’s perceived as a conservative.  So maybe it’s just wishful thinking, but I don’t think anyone should (again) write Gingrich off at this point.

If you’re going to kill the king; kill the king.  They didn’t kill the Gingrich campaign in Iowa.  He has lived to fight another day. And that’s historically when Gingrich has proved to be most dangerous politically.  He campaigns much better as an underdog challenger than as a front-runner.

Prediction: By the time the campaign (finally) makes it to (irrelevant) Nevada, it’ll already effectively be a three man race between Romney, Gingrich and Paul. And after Super Tuesday, it’ll be a head-to-head matchup down the stretch between Romney and Gingrich.

Or not.

SOWELL’S GOP PREZ PICK

Columnist Thomas Sowell is one of the smartest, most well-respected conservatives in the nation today.  As such, his assessment of the 2012 Republican presidential nomination race, inked BEFORE the Iowa results – is well worth considering:

“Barring some astonishing surprise, the contest for the Republican nomination for president boils down to Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich. It is doubtful whether either of them is anyone’s idea of an ideal candidate or a model of consistency.

“The fact that each of the short-lived front-runners in the Republican field gained that position by presenting themselves as staunch conservatives suggests that Republican voters may have been trying to avoid having to accept Mitt Romney, whose record as governor of Massachusetts produced nothing that would be regarded as a serious conservative achievement.

“Romney’s own talking point that he has been a successful businessman is no reason to put him into a political office, however much it may be a reason for him to become a successful businessman again.

“Perhaps the strongest reason for some voters to support Governor Romney is that the smart money says he is more “electable” than the other candidates in general and Newt Gingrich in particular. But there was a time when even some conservative smart money types were saying that Ronald Reagan was too old to run for president, and that he should step aside for someone younger.

“Washington Post editor Meg Greenfield said that the people in the Carter White House were ‘ecstatic’ when the Republicans nominated Reagan, because they were convinced that they could clobber him.  Today, it is said that the Obama administration fears Romney, but would relish the opportunity to clobber Gingrich because of his ‘baggage.’  CNN has already started digging into Gingrich’s most recent divorce.

“Much depends on whether you think the voting public is going to be more interested in Newt Gingrich’s personal past than in the country’s future. Most of the things for which Gingrich has been criticized are things he did either in his personal life or when he was out of office. But, if we are serious, we are more concerned with his ability to perform when in office.

“Even some of those who believe that Gingrich would devastate Obama in head-to-head debates on substantive issues nevertheless claim that all Obama has to do is come back with questions about Newt’s work for failed mortgage finance giant Freddie Mac.

“But, even at the personal, point-scoring level, Barack Obama can open up a can of worms by going that route, since Freddie Mac at least never planted bombs in public places, like some of Obama’s political allies.

“There are no guarantees, no matter whom the Republicans vote for in the primaries. Why not vote for the candidate who has shown the best track record of accomplishments, both in office and in the debates? That is Newt Gingrich. With all his shortcomings, his record shows that he knows how to get the job done in Washington.”