Sitting on the fence. “With just days to go before the candidates descend on South Carolina after Tuesday’s vote in the New Hampshire primary, few of the state’s top elected leaders have publicly committed to a candidate in a race where the field’s leanings go from moderate to tea party.”

The Islamists are sitting pretty. “The Muslim Brotherhood said Saturday it had won at least 41 percent of the seats in Egypt’s lower house of parliament, with Islamists of various stripes occupying almost two thirds of the assembly so far. Banned under deposed President Hosni Mubarak, the Brotherhood has emerged as a major winner from the uprising that toppled him, exploiting a well-organized support base in the first free legislative vote in decades.”

Mitt Romney is sitting in the cat-bird’s seat in South Carolina. (Recall he got only about 15 percent of the vote in 2008.) “Mitt Romney’s taken a modest lead in South Carolina. He’s at 30% there to 23% for Newt Gingrich and 19% for Rick Santorum. None of the other candidates hit double digits- Ron Paul at 9%, Rick Perry at 5%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 1% round out the field.”

First he sat on the couch with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Now he’s sitting with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). She just loves, loves those attacks on Bain.

Wasserman Shultz probably thought sitting down with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday was going to be a walk in the park. He pummeled her: “The president was a venture capitalist. He put taxpayer money into Solyndra and a thousand people lost their jobs. . . . So is the president responsible for the thousand people who lost their jobs at Solyndra?” Read the whole exchange. Brutal.

While New Hampshire voters have been sitting in front of the TV for the debate marathon weekend, Romney is pulling away in Gallup’s national poll (31 percent), while Santorum moves into second at 18 percent.

Has he been sitting in a cave for the last six months? “Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday but is not yet building a bomb, and he called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step. As he has previously, Mr. Panetta cautioned against a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region.” Does this sound like an administration that will ever act preemptively?

While the administration is sitting around finding excuses to do nothing the leading GOP presidential contenders understand the stakes. “The administration apparently believes, as former White House official Dennis Ross recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, that we ‘have the time and space needed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability through nonmilitary means.’ This assumption is likely based on U.S. intelligence community assessments of Iran, assessments that have repeatedly turned out to underestimate Tehran’s nuclear progress. But it is more fundamentally based on President Obama’s obvious preference to avoid dealing with Iran as a serious threat during an election year. . . . The best hope for deterring Iran is not to equivocate but to be clear, not to run away from discussing the military option but to put it front and center. The serious Republican candidates for the presidency seem to understand this. It is dangerous that President Obama does not.”