I am partially vindicated in my claim that evangelicals clearly do not like Mitt Romney. After the former Massachusetts governor won the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, U.S. evangelicals are apparently in a near-panic, according to The Washington Post.
On Friday, more than 100 leading evangelicals will gather at a Texas ranch owned by Paul Pressler, a prominent Southern Baptist, to devise a strategy to stop Romney, according to The Dallas Morning News.
Many of the attendees believe the Jan. 21 South Carolina primary may be their last chance to do so.
Time magazine reported that the evangelical leaders are considering three anti-Romney candidates to back: Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum. Paul, however, will not be under consideration, wrote TIME's Elizabeth Dias.
It is understandable why evangelicals like these three candidates; they are socially conservative and war hawks who staunchly support Israel.
Paul, on the other hand, largely shies away from social issues (his stance is mostly that the federal government should not interfere) and is a committed non-interventionist.
But Paul, however, deserves a second look from evangelical Protestants.
Paul himself is a churchgoing Baptist while Santorum and Gingrich are actually Catholic.
I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate, Paul wrote on his Web site.
He does not talk about his faith often in public, though, because he wants to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain.
As an obstetrician, Paul never performed an abortion and never felt it was necessary to do so in order to save a mother's life; he even steered women considering abortion to alternative options like adoption.
Paul also believes his anti-Federal Reserve stance aligns with the biblical principle of honest weights and measures (Leviticus 19:36). This issue certainly resonates with some U.S. evangelicals, although it is not at the forefront the Christian Right agenda.
Surprisingly, what is very much missing in the U.S. political discussion - among evangelicals and in general - is the matter of personal and political virtue.
The Bible touches on this subject in the Book of Proverbs; Proverbs 16:12 states it is an abomination for kings to commit wicked acts, for a throne is established on righteousness.
In the last few years, the American public has accused Washington of exactly that: committing the wicked acts of pandering to lobbyist money and bailing out Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. Americans have also been horrified by the seemingly nonstop personal scandals coming out of Washington.
On this matter, Paul is peerless among 2012 Republican contenders.
Gingrich tries to cast himself as a pro-faith and family candidate, but cheated on his wife and married his mistress. Twice.
Santorum touts himself as a champion of blue-collar workers. In the last few years, however, he worked as a stealth lobbyist and made more than $1 million, in the words of Sunlight Foundation editorial director Bill Allison.
Paul, on the other hand, routinely turned down money in his personal life out of principle; he rejected a Penn State scholarship as a student, Medicaid and Medicare payments as a doctor and the congressional pension as a congressman.
As a politician, he large avoided pork-barrel spending for his district. As a presidential candidate, he is almost the only one not funded by Wall Street money.
Still, evangelicals may not change their minds any time soon and choose to stick with their choices of Perry, Gingrich and Santorum.
Even so, they may end up voting for Paul anyway.
Paul's Christian Right credentials may not stack up well against Perry, Gingrich and Santorum, but they arguably look a whole lot better than Romney's.
Assuming Perry, Gingrich and Santorum drop out of the race - which may happen soon if Romney and Paul continue to dominate the contest - Paul may very well carry the evangelical vote and win the 2012 Republican nomination race.