Is Rick Santorum qualified to run a lemonade stand?

One of the deans of conservative punditry -- not to mention baseball writing -- George F. Will opines in Sunday's Washington Post that Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour and Tim Pawlenty are the only "plausible Republican presidents" out there. Then he adds:

"But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons."

Yikes. Will, it seems, can be rather fickle: Just a month ago he was saying Rick could be the new Nixon (unlike most Nixon references, it was meant as a compliment).

Polling: Quinnipiac is out with a gauge of how "warmly" Americans feel toward certain political figures. Michelle Obama is the winner with 60.1 "degrees" on a 1 to 100 scale, edging former President Bill Clinton. Santorum comes in the middle of the pack with 43.9, which ties him with George W. Bush -- but one key difference in their scores is that 63 percent didn't know enough about Santorum to form an opinion, while with Dubya that score was zero. (His overall name recognition was still ahead of Pawlenty, Huntsman, Barbour and Daniels.)

Among possible 2012 hopefuls, Santorum trailed Chris Christie (57), Mike Huckabee (51.8), Romney (50.4), Pawlenty (48.2), Huntsman (47.9), Ron Paul (46.3), Michele Bachmann (45.6), Daniels (45.1) and Donald Trump (45). Strikingly, Sarah Palin is rated at 38.2 -- ahead of only Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in the frigid cellar.

Among Republicans -- as tallied by the Hill's GOP12 -- Santorum comes in ninth among 2012 potentials at 60.6, ahead of more moderate-friendly Huntsman and Daniels but trailing Newt Gingrich and Palin, among others.

The Schedule: Santorum is joining a gaggle of candidates today at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition's Spring Event in Des Moines.

UPDATE 10:49 a.m.: Santorum is keeping up the Defense of Marriage Act drumbeat with an op-ed in the Des Moines Register, invoking the trials of the Revolutionary War -- at least he wasn't talking Crusades again -- and our Founding Fathers' fight for religious freedom:

I believe if two adults of the same sex want to have a relationship that is their business. But when they ask society to give that relationship special recognition and privileges, then we should be able to have a rational debate about whether that is good public policy.

We should also ensure the debate takes cognizance of its constitutional implications. And with the President's decision, the free exercise of religion will be eviscerated.

Santorum notes that Iowans last year voted out state Supreme Court members who voted to legalize gay marriage -- a fight he was quite involved in -- and closes thusly:

Some have argued this is not the time to wage this fight; that we have to focus solely on the vitally important job of limiting government, reducing the debt and creating jobs and growth. I agree these issues are at the top of our national list, but a big nation can focus on more than one thing at one time, just as men like Jefferson and Madison fought for religious liberties when arguably more consequential issues were occupying the public mind. In the end, it simply will not profit a country to gain wealth and lose its soul.