The appeal espouses the notion that LGBT-rights groups are “desperate to divide the Republican Party,” given Ros-Lehtinen is the lone Republican joining 124 Democrats co-sponsoring the repeal of DOMA.

In a newsletter emailed to donors Tuesday evening, NOM President Brian Brown asked supporters to tell the congresswoman they are “outraged that she would abandon marriage and the millions of voters who have adopted state amendments to protect marriage.”

To make it easy, NOM has crafted a letter for supporters to send:

Dear Rep. Ros-Lehtinen,

I am writing to express my disappointment and deep concern that you would abandon traditional Republican principles of marriage, family, and democratic self-government. Marriage is a bedrock of our society, and I urge you to re-consider your position on DOMA.

By co-sponsoring Rep. Nadler’s bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, you are placing in jeopardy the laws of marriage in more the 40 states, threatening to impose same-sex marriage on voters across the nation who have resoundingly rejected same-sex marriage at every turn.

I urge you to drop your support for the repeal of DOMA, and to respect the voice of the American people, including the people of Florida, who have already voted to keep marriage as it has always been — the union of a husband and wife.

In a statement issued by the Log Cabin Republicans last week, Ros-Lehtinen explained that she co-sponsored the repeal of DOMA because, ”I firmly believe that equality is enshrined in our constitution and in our great democracy.”

The Florida representative has consistently co-sponsored LGBT-friendly legislation and recently joined the brand-new Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus.

“Gay marriage activists know they don’t need to persuade the Republican grassroots to support same-sex marriage – they just need to split off enough GOP elite opinion to provide cover as they force SSM on the entire nation,” Brown writes in Tuesday’s newsletter. “Several prominent GOP elites have already signed on, and gay marriage activists are spending millions of dollars to pressure and persuade more Republican lawmakers that they can support same-sex marriage without consequence.

“And maybe it’s time Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen started looking for a new job,” he added.

While accusing groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the Log Cabin Republicans and Freedom to Marry of using money and influence to sway lawmakers on the same-sex marriage issue and to “gut the [Republican Party] platform of its traditional support for life and marriage,” Brown reminds supporters that NOM has committed to spending $2 million “to defeat the turncoat senators” who broke party ranks to vote for the marriage equality in New York in June.

NOM has taken credit for former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s congressional seat in New York’s 9th District recently going to Republican Bob Turner rather than Democrat David Weprin — because NOM donated money to the race.

The substance of Karger’s complaint, filed under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, is that Fox News did not allow him to participate in the network’s televised presidential debate on Aug. 11 in Ames, Iowa.

“I qualified for last month’s Fox News Channel Debate fair-and-square, and was fully expecting to be on that stage in Ames,” Karger said in a press statement Thursday. “For some reason, Fox News did not want me debating the other presidential candidates.”

Karger claims he met all of Fox’s requirements to participate in the debate, which included reaching an average of 1 percent in five national polls based on most recent polling leading up to the registration day. Karger met the mark: achieving    1 percent support in four polls leading up to the debate (including a Fox News poll from April) and 2 percent support in a Harris Interactive poll from early August, in which he tied with former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is no longer in the race.

According to Karger’s campaign, after Karger met Fox’s requirement, the network “changed its criteria in order to exclude Karger.” Last month, Fox News Vice President of News Michael Clemente told The Des Moines Register that Karger did not qualify for the debate because the polls he cited were not good enough.

On Aug. 18, the day Karger filed his complaint with the FEC, Karger sent a letter (PDF) to Rupert Murdoch, president and CEO of News Corporation, which owns Fox; Fox News Channel President Roger Ailes; and Fox News Vice President of News Michael Clemente. In the letter, he explained why he filed the complaint and accused the executives of changing their “pre-established, objective criteria” as soon as he submitted his Aug. 5, 2011, letter proving he met the requirements for the Ames debate. Karger told the executives he had submitted another letter on Aug. 8 and tried to contact the network various times to learn why he had been turned away from the debate. But, he said, he received no response from Fox, and prompted a petition to let him into the debate.

From Karger’s letter to Fox:

Since I was not allowed to participate, the debate no longer appears exempt from federal campaign contribution laws. That could mean that Fox News Channel has made illegal in-kind corporate contributions to the eight debate participants of upwards of $100 million.

Two hours of free primetime television to an audience of 5.1 million viewers, weeks of media coverage before and after the debate, facilities rental, the construction of the debate stage, salaries, travel, insurance, equipment, the filing room, the spin room and so much more would all amount to in-kind contributions to the eight presidential candidates.

Karger said he requested an expedited investigation with the FEC because the next Fox News debate is on Sept. 22 in Orlando, Fla., and he hopes to participate.

Poor households, possessing zero or negative net worth, were also found to be disproportionately black or Hispanic: About a third of black and Hispanic households had nothing or less than nothing, compared to 15 percent of white households.

One of the main causes of the high disparity was that minority households suffered much more from the housing crisis and recession than white households did: “From 2005 to 2009, inflation-adjusted median wealth fell by 66% among Hispanic households and 53% among black households, compared with just 16% among white households,” states the report. In this four-year period, the disparity between white households and black and Hispanic households doubled, primarily because these minority groups lost much more in net worth than whites did.

One reason for the sharp post-2005 decline is that black and Hispanic households were much more likely to have invested in the housing market. Another is the sustained high levels of unemployment: African-Americans and Hispanics have much higher levels of unemployment than whites do. Declining income during the recession also disproportionately affected minority households.

Hispanics, an ethnic group which grew faster than any other in the United States from 2000 to 2009, also suffered the most from the housing crash, with the median level of home equity declining by half from $99,983 to $49,145 in the 2005-2009 period. Immigration to a particular area can lead to increases in local housing prices. Many of the states which suffered the most from the housing crisis — Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada — also had the highest levels of immigration in the 1990s and early 2000s.

The report also argues that whites may also have recovered more in the 2005-2009 period because they are much more likely to invest more of their wealth in the stock market, which has recovered faster than the housing market has. And while white households lost more in an absolute sense after 2005 than black or Hispanic households, they did so because the typical white household had much more to begin with. The median white household had $134,992 in 2005, and the median black and Hispanic households had $12,124 and $18,359, respectively

Extremely high racial disparities in household wealth could be one explanation for recent political trends. Last week, Pew released an analysis of survey data which revealed that the Republican Party has been increasing in popularity among white voters while black and Hispanic voters have remained strongly Democratic. Groups where the GOP has traditionally been weaker, including young and lower-income people, have since 2008 grown more likely to identify as Republican if they are white.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee “would be the definitive favorite had he been more aggressive about this process, and thus not allowed candidates like [U.S. Rep.] Michele Bachmann to gain some traction, and lost the support of key evangelicals like Danny Carroll and Kent Sorenson.” In addition, now that it seems somewhat more likely that Huckabee will officially enter the 2012 contest, one of our panelists believe the advantage is handed to more establishment candidates like former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, “because it will further balkanize the more grassroots-favored candidates.”

Such perspectives have been culled from our staff members, additional state political reporters, party activists, academics, elected officials, political consultants and other insiders to create these rankings. While unscientific, the ranks provide insights that cannot be garnered in traditional polling or from any one pundit as to a candidate’s organizational strength in the Hawkeye State.

All those invited to participate are asked to answer one question: “If the Iowa caucus was held tonight, what would be the results?”

The rankings below provide a snapshot in time based on educated guesses and “gut instincts.” Campaigns were evaluated based on personal perceptions and input from others as to the quality of shoe-leather activity, ability to motivate possible caucus attendees and second-choice support. Panelists aren’t provided a specific ballot of potential candidates, and are free to choose from any Republican candidate — rumored or actual.

With all of that in mind, if the caucus was held tonight, this is how we think it would end.

1. Mike Huckabee — The victor of the 2008 GOP Iowa caucuses returns to the top of our rankings for this edition, but only barely. Some of our panelists who had wiped him from their last rankings on a firm belief that he wouldn’t be running — and one panelists who had never listed him for the ranking series on a belief he wasn’t running — suddenly had to reconsider the pastor and why he continues to have so much of a draw with Iowa caucus-goers.

   Huckabee “has a name that people recognize,” said one panelist, while another noted that when you discuss Huckabee “what you see is what you get.” Although still viewed as wishy-washy when it comes to the 2012 contests, most of our panelists view Huckabee as both charismatic and consistent — two qualities seen as sorely lacking in the rest of the potential GOP field.

   “He should have the same support in Iowa, because he’s the same likable person, bringing the same message.”

   What seems to keep Huckabee from totally dominating our Power Rankings week after week is his own apparent hesitation when it comes to 2012, which has subsequently lended itself to many of Huckabee’s key Iowa staff members signing with other candidates. Now that those staffers have gone elsewhere, “he needs to act fast as the activists aren’t going to wait around forever.”

2. Michele Bachmann — Ten of our panelists use some variant of Bachmann “saying all the right things” to describe their justification for placing the Minnesota Republican near the top of their caucus night predictions.

   “In a lot of ways she is like the Sarah Palin of 2012 — coming out of seemingly nowhere and making a big splash, mostly due to her campaign rhetoric. The question is if she can hang on to the momentum or if she has already peaked.”

   Much of what happens to Bachmann in 2012 will not be self-determined, according to our panelists, but will hinge on Huckabee. If he stays away from the race, her fortunes could swell. If he gets into the race, our panelists don’t see this duo as garnering enough support between them to rank first and second on caucus night.

   “Think of Huckabee-Bachmann in Iowa 2012 like Huckabee-Fred Thompson South Carolina 2008. She drains just enough support from Huckabee to deny him the victory.

3. Tim Pawlenty — While many of our panelists spoke of candidate inconsistencies, or the feeling that several are trying to remake themselves publicly as we head into 2012, such feelings were most prevalent as panelists discussed former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

   Even while noting two more key Iowa staff pick-ups for Pawlenty — Tracie Gibler and Dane Nealson — and highly effective organizing around the Ames area (home of the Straw Poll) one our panelists notes that it is getting more difficult to look the other way as Pawlenty tries on different hats.

   “Pawlenty gets a plus for showing up at the Des Moines tea party rally in some bad weather. I was willing to given him a pass a couple of weeks ago for channeling Charlie Sheen when talking to the Iowa Federation of College Republicans convention, but he channeled both the “rent is too damn high” guy and Donald Trump (You’re fired.) at the tea party event. Some people can get away with that stuff. I’m not sure Pawlenty is one of them.”

   Most of our panelists agree, however, that the media perception of him being less fiery and uninspiring combined with his low national name recognition is playing a role in this seemingly never-ended persona revamping.

   “[Pawlenty is] still hanging around. Still not exciting.”

   But while acknowledging why Pawlenty is struggling, our Iowa panelists aren’t willing to shrug it off. Most don’t understand why Pawlenty isn’t willing to grab and hold the potential “moderate middle” that seems his natural base.

   Just like Barack Obama during 2008, “Pawlenty will be able to mobilize many volunteers” from Iowa’s neighbor state. “Key places in north Iowa have already been seeing his ads for years.”

   Another panelist notes that he could be “the ‘conservative next door,’ the trustworthy Boy Scout in the race” and that such a strategy “may make a lot of sense when all the dust settles and the moderates are looking for a place to go.”

4. Mitt Romney and Donald Trump — Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney and real estate mogul turned reality television sensation Trump are currently in a dead heat, according to our panelists.

   Romney returns to the rankings for the first time since our first edition in mid-March, largely due to recent polling that shows he continues to be favored by Republicans despite the fact that he hasn’t had much of a presence in the state for 2012.

   “There is obvious loyalty and name recognition that lingers for Romney among Iowans — and I also think that many view him as the one candidate who could effectively run a campaign against Obama’s national machine in 2012. So, as much as Iowa social conservatives would like to put an ideologist out there for the nation, they want to win back the White House even more.”

   Romney’s Achilles’ heel, say our panelists, is the fact that he pushed for a won health care reform in Massachusetts — something that was viewed as a mostly positive talking point for him during 2008.

   “Romney’s solid video announcing his Presidential Exploratory Committee made a good impression on a lot of folks. Romney still has a lot of explaining to do about ‘Romneycare’ and he needs to reassure conservative voters about some of his positions, but the opening is there for him to make some progress. He may not put as much emphasis on Iowa this time around, but he may still do well if the social conservatives are split among several other candidates.”

   “I was surprised by this week’s results of Public Policy Polling, in that between moderates Romney and Pawlenty, voters were more interested in Romney, even though he hasn’t visited the state much this year, and despite Pawlenty’s presence in Iowa he hasn’t made much impact … I will caveat this selection with the fact that once Romney’s name gets tied to Romneycare, as it likely will, I expect he’ll fall in the rankings. That said, the question is if the caucuses were held today, so he makes my list.”

   The same polling that elevated Romney seemed to diminish an Iowa standing for Trump and, in many ways, our rankings show similar results. There was not an overwhelming majority of our panelists who placed Trump in their top five, but those who did overwhelmingly ranked him high — a situation that could be an indicator that Trump is viewed as a viable second-choice by Iowa caucus-goers.

   “We laugh right now [at the thought of Trump becoming president], but a lot of us laughed when Arnold Schwarzenegger ran in California. What Trump is saying right now in the news appeals to both the hard right and the fiscal right.”

   “Despite the slings and arrows of the terrified Republican establishment, the Donald has now surged to or toward the top of most polls. The more the establishment attacks him, the better he looks. Americans are sick of slick and Trump is the beneficiary d’jour of that revulsion. Republicans will turn out in big numbers at an upcoming Republican dinner. This turnout will be the first test of Trump’s appeal to the activist base.”

5. Newt Gingrich — What keeps Gingrich in the Power Rankings week after week isn’t a surge of high-placement by a handful of panelists, but a steady flow of mostly fourth and fifth place predictions from a very diverse group that isn’t convinced Gingrich can claim support among social conservatives so focused on marriage.

   “Gingrich seems very serious about being a candidate, particularly given that he recently hired some Iowa folks for his team. He has the name recognition and gravitas to be a favorite among Republicans. The big question mark with him will be how his political and personal baggage will play. The personal issues will bother some Republicans and both will be used as points of attack by Democrats. The question will be whether Republicans will see him as too vulnerable to such attacks.”

This edition of Power Rankings also so the most mentions ever of Sarah Palin, mostly due to her appearance in Wisconsin. “Sarah again followed up a great week with a low-profile week. This follows a strange pattern in which the biggest Republican celebrity since RR (Ronald Reagan) appears ready to sweep the nomination field with long periods of little apparent activity. But the public is still talking about her appearance before the hostile crowd in Madison and this keeps her in third place.”

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas also continues to have his following among our panelists, but not enough for this edition to keep him in the top five. “I’m sticking by my prediction that there remains a libertarian bent to some GOP activists in Iowa and I can see Paul galvanize them.”

Former Godfather’s Pizza chief executive and radio talk show host Herman Cain also received more widespread support from our panelists than he ever has previously, but it wasn’t enough to pull him into our top five. “Cain has a small but devoted and hard-working grassroots organization, and might be the most dynamic speaker of the bunch. I don’t think he can win, but he can certainly play spoiler and play a role. He will be heavily courted for his endorsement (and to drop out) down the stretch like Tom Tancredo was in 2008.”

Others that received only passing mentions by our panelists were:

• Ambassador Jon Huntsman — “Huntsman doesn’t stand a chance. He’s too close to the Obama administration.”
• Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore — “He could potentially make a bigger impact if Huckabee weren’t in the race, but the network of pastors across the state he needs to do that is still pretty loyal to Huckabee and/or impressed with Bachmann from what I understand.”
• Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour — “Seems to have fallen off the face of the earth,” and “if anyone sees him they should signal with a flare.” Another panelist joked that Barbour was obviously hanging out with former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and “arguing over what cabinet position they’d like to hold.”

Gentry Collins, one of the first candidates to publicly challenge current chairman Michael Steele, has ended his campaign to claim his former boss’ position. Collins — a former Iowa GOP operative — made a splash with his entrance in the race, as he had served the RNC as political director during Steele’s term leading the party. Before he declared himself a candidate, Collins resigned from his RNC position with a scathing letter attacking Steele’s tenure leading the GOP. But since entering the field, Collins has struggled to gain support from RNC delegates, with only three members having publicly pledged their support to him before he ended his bid.

Though Steele now has one fewer opponent, his path to reelection appears to have closed. Politico approached the RNC delegates and found that over half intend to oppose Steele when the GOP votes on Jan. 14.

A weeklong canvass of the party’s governing board by POLITICO revealed 88 members who have decided not to vote for Steele, either opting to support one of his opponents or simply ruling out Steele as a choice in the race.

With 165 voting members, a candidate needs to claim support from at least 85 delegates to claim the RNC chair position, a number that now appears completely out of Steele’s grasp. Only 15 RNC members have said that they intend to vote for the current chairman.

So if not Steele, who is likely to claim the chairmanship? Former Wisconsin Republican Chairman Reince Priebus is the apparent leader in the race for the moment, with 30 delegates already publicly pledging their support. But since the RNC chairman is chosen through multiple rounds of balloting until one candidate secures half the votes, the battle to win the election may hinge more on which candidate positions him or herself as the second choice of the most delegates. However, the other candidates do have a significant amount of ground to make up if they are to equal Priebus’ level of support. Former RNC Co-Chair Ann Wagner currently sits as the second-place challenger to the incumbent, with 12 public supporters, followed by former Michigan GOP Chair Saul Anuzis with 10 backers and Maria Cino with only six supporters.

The candidates will meet in Washington, D.C., Monday in a debate moderated by Grover Norquist and Tucker Carlson.

CNN reports:

Ann Wagner, one of six candidates seeking the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, is promising not to support Chairman Michael Steele under any circumstance if she happens to come up short in her bid to lead the organization.

The former Missouri GOP Chairwoman and onetime Ambassador to Luxembourg told CNN Monday that she will “absolutely not” endorse Steele or tell her supporters to do so if she fails to make it to the final round of what is likely to be a multi-ballot election come January.

[...]

“I would ask any of the candidates out there to not to move any of their support to Michael Steele, regardless of the outcome of any one individual,” she said.

While affirming that she is “in the race to win it,” Wagner said numerous committee members have, in the course of their conversations, asked her not to back Steele if she fails to advance to the late stages of the election.

“I have made that commitment to many of the men and women who have asked me that,” Wagner said. “They want a new direction, a new leadership. That’s my commitment.”

Wagner’s opposition could be a sign of things to come among the other candidates challenging Steele’s position atop the party. As TAI detailed last week, the other candidates have largely entered the field to pick up the anti-Steele voice of the party.

According to an updated whip count of RNC voting members from the Hotline on Monday, Reince Priebus has opened an even wider lead on Steele. The Wisconsin GOPer has 16 RNC delegates who have publicly pledged their support, compared to only 12 for Steele. Wagner is then tied with former Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis with 10 delegates each.

[h/t The Corner]

The speculation over Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele’s future with the group will come to an end tonight. At 7:30 p.m. EST, he is scheduled to speak with members of the RNC during a conference call. Fox News’ sources indicate that Steele will announce that he will not seek a second term during the call, but the chairman has remained coy about his decision. The next RNC chair will be selected when the organization’s members meet in the middle of January.

Steele’s two years as chairman of the party been filled with both positives and negatives for his image. In terms of results, Steele has overseen two of the most successful years for the GOP; when he took the helm in early 2009 the party was in a state of crisis after Barack Obama swept Democrats to wide majorities in both chambers of Congress, but the GOP regrouped in 2010 and won historic margins in Congress for the midterm elections.

At the same time, Steele himself has been plagued by a continual series of gaffes that distracted from his other work, and the party closes 2010 with its future weighed by over $15 million in debt. Though the RNC chairman is not selected by any form of popular vote, rank and file Republicans have turned against Steele. Almost half of Republican voters would oppose Steele if he ran for the chairmanship again according to a recent poll.

A host of other candidates are already in the race no matter what Steele announces Monday night. Wisconsin Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus is projected as an early front runner. He has already wrapped up the support of Wisconsin’s GOP and is backed by influential Mississippi Gov. and former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour. Also among those running: former Michigan Republican chairman Saul Anuzis, Gentry Collins who was the RNC’s political director until he resigned last month with a scathing letter against Steele, and former RNC co-chair Ann Wagner.

Those currently running have fairly low public profiles, much like Steele before he won the chairmanship in 2009. That could come back to haunt the party, though, as these individuals’ past ties will be subjected to greater public inspection if they win the chairmanship. Anuzis, for example, has defended Young Americans for Freedom, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center termed a hate group over its white nationalist statements.

If suspicions that Steele will not run again are confirmed, other possible candidates may be willing to enter the race. Former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman has been speculated about as a possible candidate earlier this year. He recently stated that he would not oppose Steele but did not deny his interest in running if the current chairman steps aside. Coleman — who helped found the conservative nonprofit American Action Network after he lost his Senate election in 2008 — would likely have the highest name recognition of any candidate if he chooses to run.

Mike Duncan, Steele’s predecessor as RNC Chair and current chairman of American Crossroads, is weighing whether to run for his old position. American Crossroads was the biggest outside player in the 2010 midterm elections, becoming a symbol for undisclosed spending after Citizens United. Duncan would be a major player if he puts his hat into the ring. The RNC chair is primarily responsible for party fundraising, so Duncan’s success leading American Crossroads would augur well for his ability to lead the RNC out of its debt problem as they seek to reclaim the White House in 2012.

The group argues that King and Smith’s anti-illegal immigration rhetoric and policy ideas, which include a proposal to end birthright citizenship for the American-born children of illegal immigrants, would alienate Latino voters and ruin the Republican party’s chances of defeating President Obama in 2012.

DeeDee Blase, the Somos Repubicans founder, explains:

Though it is constitutionally impossible that a mere Congressional “statute” will decide who gets to be a citizen, we believe that this insensitive and constant assailment on our Hispanic Community may push Hispanics further into the Independent, Libertarian or Democrat Party. Moreover, Hispanic voters were crucial in electing seven new Republican Hispanics to Congress and two new Republican Hispanic governors. However, Hispanics also vehemently and strongly rejected those Republicans that utilized harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric and opted for a Democrat, as it occurred in the West Coast, Colorado and Nevada.

It is our sincere belief that if representatives Smith and King were to become the Chairs of the House Judiciary and Subcommittee on Immigration, and if they indeed continue such insensitive rhetoric towards Hispanics, the conditions for a Republican presidential candidate to garner the necessary Electoral College Delegates to win the 2012 presidency will not be possible. Most of those states with the highest number of Electoral College delegates reside in highly populated Hispanic states such as California, Texas, Florida and New York.

It’s tough to pin down exactly what determines Latino voting patterns — given, of course, that Latinos aren’t a unified voting bloc. But polls indicate some broad trends among Latino voters, such as general support for immigration reform and opposition to immigration crackdowns like Arizona’s SB 1070.

More specifically, nearly 80 percent of Latino voters said they opposed changes to the Constitution to alter birthright citizenship laws, according to a Pew Hispanic Center survey released Oct. 28. Another 18 percent of Latinos overall said they supported changes to birthright citizenship. The number was slightly higher among Latino Republicans, 23 percent of whom said they supported changes to the 14th Amendment.

Beyond Latino voters, there is a near certainty that an effort to change birthright citizenship requirements would fail in the Senate or, at the very least, would be vetoed by Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has expressed opposition to the idea.

Even if it were to pass, some Republicans have said ending birthright citizenship would hurt the GOP. After the 14th Amendment became a hot topic in the Senate in early August, two Bush administration officials called the idea of changing the amendment “offensive” and said doing so would harm the party’s legacy and turn off minorities.

Pawlenty praised Republicans who won elections in Iowa and New Hampshire on Tuesday. Beyond noting the GOP gains in the Hawkeye State, he also touted Iowans’ vote against retaining the three Supreme Court justices on the ballot, a prominent cause for the social conservative base in the state during the election and a topic that Pawlenty addressed in visits to the state earlier this year.

Pawlenty has invested much of his time and his political action committee’s money in these first-in-the-nation states. While many potential 2012 Republican aspirants have taken a measured approach toward launching their Iowa campaigns, Pawlenty has frequently visited his neighbor state to stump for Republican candidates.

Pawlenty’s full statement on the Iowa results:

Voters in Iowa rejected big government and elected conservatives up and down the ticket. Governor Branstad, Secretary Schultz, Secretary Northey, Auditor Vaudt, Kraig Paulsen and the newly elected Republicans in the state legislature will fight for fiscal responsibility and keep a lid on taxes to create new jobs. Our Freedom First PAC in Iowa was proud to support dozens of these candidates and congratulates them on their historic victories.

To their great credit, voters in Iowa yesterday exercised their right to remove judges who were making laws, rather than interpreting them. They broadcast to Iowa and to the nation the clear and strong reminder that the Constitution says ‘We the people’ not ‘We the judges’. The people of Iowa defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and activist judges wrongly attempted to undermine that.

Patrick Caldwell reports for The American Independent.

Presumptive House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) (Pete Marovich/ZUMApress.com)

Pundits may differ over which natural disaster analogy was most fitting — tidal wave or  earthquake? — but Republicans made large gains in both chambers of Congress and various statehouses across the country on election day. And while, at the time of writing, races in several key Western states were far from decided, the election night shaped up to be one of few surprises for either party. Republicans guaranteed themselves a majority in the House, while Democrats can rest assured that they’ll retain a majority in the Senate come 2011.

[Congress1] The evening began with quick victories for GOP Senate candidates Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida, raising expectations of a Tea Party-backed surge in Congress. Bellwether House races, including those of Rep. Barron Hill (D-Ind.), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), all went for their Republican challengers, causing pundits to revise their estimates for GOP House gains from the 50s up into the 60s, or perhaps higher.

Whether one voted for the Obama health care bill, like Rep. Tom Periello (D), or against it, like Rep. Glenn Nye (D), being a House Democrat in Virginia tonight ended up spelling doom and setting the tone for Democrats’ chances in House races across the country. Even veterans like Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C), chairman of the House Budget Committee, and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, were not spared by the GOP wave that swept Southern and Midwestern Democrats. And while DCCC head Rep. Chris Van Hollen criticized the news networks for calling the House for the GOP early, a takeover quickly began to look inevitable.

While liberal Democrats like Rep. Alan Grayson (Fla.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.) also lost their seats, groups that had backed them maintained that Democrats lost because they failed to fight and defend their liberal values. “Democrats lost because party leaders never truly fought for popular progressive reforms like the public option and breaking up the big banks, leaving voters uninspired to come to the polls and vote Democratic,” wrote Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green. “What the average voter saw of Democrats was weak, watered-down change — and weak Democratic leaders who cut deals with the very Wall Street banks and insurance companies they are supposed to be fighting.

On the Senate side, however, quick and decisive victories for Gov. Joe Manchin (D) over John Raese (R) in West Virginia and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) over Linda McMahon (R) in Connecticut allowed Democrats to breathe easy about their control of the upper chamber.

“Tomorrow starts the rebuilding, the road of rebuilding America,” Manchin told supporters in his victory speech. “We must start tomorrow. And I really believe that Washington can learn a few things and a few lessons from West Virginia.” What kind of Democrat Manchin will be after having to run so far to the right to win office remains a big open question for Democrats.

A solid defeat for Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, meanwhile, at the hands of Chris Coons (D) put Republican chances of taking the Senate nearly out of reach and revived questions about the efficacy of the Tea Party in aiding a GOP wave. “It gave me no pleasure to say that she was unlikely to win,” said Karl Rove after her loss became clear. “But this again provides a lesson. This is a candidate who was right on the issues but who had mishandled a series of questions brought up by the press.”

Likewise, a victory for the Democrats’ very vulnerable majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, over Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle confirmed the dangers of a Republican nomination process that often stressed ideological purity over electability.

Democratic Senate candidates Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Alexi Giannoulias in Illinois got off to strong starts in the polls with high turnout and early reporting from Philadelphia and Chicago, prompting talk of small but significant upsets for the Democrats in those races. But as the rural counties began reporting their tallies, Republican Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Mark Kirk in Illinois eventually took control of both races. Likewise, Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado, who shot out to an early lead over Ken Buck, fell slightly behind as more ballots were counted.

In the governors’ races, Democrats lost seats as well but managed to hang on to victories in close races in Colorado, where Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper held off his American Constitution Party challenger, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, and Minnesota, where Democrat Mark Dayton was the beneficiary of a three-way race and defeated Republican nominee Tom Emmer*. But in key races in other swing states — ones that President Obama will likely have to win to secure re-election in 2012 — Republicans can look forward to being in control. Rick Scott (R) rode the coattails of Rubio’s victory, defeating Alex Sink (D) in Florida, while the close race in Ohio never got close enough for incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D), who lost to challenger John Kasich (R).

As for the fate of the Tea Party, early decisive Senate wins for Paul and Rubio were offset by decisive drubbing of Christine O’Donnell and a narrow loss for Angle. In the House, Tea Party candidate Sean Bielat, who at one point looked to be posing a credible challenge to Rep. Barney Frank (D) in Massachusetts, lost by a wide margin — but enough Tea Party candidates claimed seats to form a sizable caucus in the next Congress.

Speaking at the Grand Hyatt Ballroom in Washington, likely House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was unable to hold back his tears. “Listen, I’ll be brief, because we have real work to do, and this is not a time for celebration,” he said, “not when one in 10 of our fellow citizens are out of work … not when we have buried our children under a mountain of debt … not when our Congress is held in such low esteem.

“While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government. The American people have sent an unmistakable message to him tonight, and that message is: ‘change course.’ We hope President Obama will now respect the will of the people, change course, and commit to making the changes they are demanding. To the extent he is willing to do this, we are ready to work with him.”

*UPDATE: Democrat Mark Dayton continues to lead Republican Tom Emmer in the Minnesota Governor’s Race, but the margin is so slim that a recount appears likely.