The race may be essentially over and his campaign suspended, but former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum appears to be in no hurry to back presumed nominee Mitt Romney. Santorum held a conference call with supporters tonight to thank them for their work and discuss his future plans.

Supporters could submit questions for the former Pennsylvania senator, and one asked if Santorum might “un-suspend” his campaign if he got enough votes in upcoming primaries. “Is there a reason why [supporters] shouldn’t vote for you still?” One asked, specifically referring to next week’s Pennsylvania primary?

Santorum didn’t say no. “Well, I would just say this. This best thing they could do is stay tuned. We really are serious about making sure that the issues that we brought up during this campaign are continued going forward.” “As far as who you vote for for…it’s really up to you as to who you support in the upcoming elections,” he said.

As for his own activities, Santorum vowed to be a “voice” in the presidential campaign, but it’s unclear for whom he’ll be speaking. “You’ll see me active and engaged,” he said, “but as far a specific presidential candidate, I haven’t had a chance yet to talk to Newt [Gingrich] or to Governor [Mitt] Romney, but we’ll be talking to both of them, and we’re going to go out and do what we think is best for our country and winning this election and making sure that we have a conservative…who will follow through with that conservative message after the election.”

Mitt Romney’s name was hardly mentioned during the entire call.

He also hinted at perhaps starting an independent grassroots organizing group, like fellow ex-candidate Herman Cain’s. “We will have a place to organize and to rally to make a difference. And we’re working on something right now about how to best make that happen,” he said. “So I would just encourage people to stay tuned,” he added.

In an interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer that will air tonight, Mitt Romney refuses to say whether he would sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, a law that helps women hold accountable employers who discriminate in the pay practices based on gender. Asked about the law, Romney said he supports equal pay for women and has no plans to change the law, but wouldn’t say if he would have signed it, laying out the odd standard that he won’t weigh on “prior laws”:

DIANE SAWYER: I want to talk about a couple of issues relating to women. This 19 point difference between you and the president on women. Here are some specific questions. If you were president– you had been president– would you have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Law?

MITT ROMNEY: It’s certainly a piece of legislation I have no intend– intention of changing. I wasn’t there three years ago–

DIANE SAWYER: But would you have signed it?

MITT ROMNEY: –so I– I’m not going to go back and look at all the prior laws and say had I been there which ones would I have supported and signed, but I certainly support equal pay for women and– and have no intention of changing that law, don’t think there’s a reason to.

Previously, the Romney campaign said the presumed GOP nominee would not seek to change existing laws. That came after the campaign had said they weren’t sure where Romney stood on it.

Romney’s suggestion that he won’t revisit prior law when it comes to Lilly Ledbetter is unusual, especially considering that he’s had no problem saying that he would have vetoed and will work to repeal plenty of laws, such as the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law.

The Romney campaign’s efforts to win women voters with a ginned-up controversy last week over a Democratic strategist’s comments on Ann Romney appears to have fallen short, as new CNN poll taken this weekend finds President Obama with a formidable 16 point lead among women over his presumed GOP challenger:

– Among women, Obama has a 16 point lead over Romney, 55 percent to 39 percent — virtually unchanged from last month.

– Asked to the name the candidate who “is in touch with the problems facing women today,” 55 percent said Obama, 27 percent said Romney. That’s a 28 point gap.

Obama is also ahead on almost every other key issue. For instance, 51 percent saying Obama “is in touch with the problems facing middle class Americans today,” compared to just 33 percent who said Romney. Meanwhile, a wide margin pick Obama as the best candidate who “can handle the responsibilities of commander in chief,” 52 percent to 36 percent.

By a greater than ten points margin each, respondents picked Obama over Romney as more “likable,” “honest and trustworthy,” inspiring, admirable, and as the “strong and decisive leader.”

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of the House Republicans, has posted scores of attack ads on YouTube already over the course of this campaign cycle. But a little-noticed February spot — targeting Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) — may be the most laughable ad so far this cycle. The 30-second video contains the narration:

They say money can’t buy you love, but don’t tell Jerry McNerney. McNerney backed Obama’s plan, feeding half a billion to Solyndra, the solar company that was heading for bankruptcy. And Solyndra’s big investor? Also a big investor in McNerney’s campaign. The same investor who raised big money for President Obama. McNerney, Obama, Solyndra. Apparently, money can buy you love.

Watch it here:

The committee’s press release for the ad was subtitled “McNerney Happy to Waste Taxpayer Money in Order to Receive Donor Checks.”

The vote the ad mentions is the February 13, 2009 House roll call on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — the stimulus package. The bill’s funding for Solyndra and other alternative energy development efforts were just a tiny fraction of its hundreds of billions of dollars in investments. Though McNerney was one of 246 House Democrats who voted for the bill, he was not one of the bill’s authors. So the inference that McNerney’s vote for the bill just to receive a donor check strains already strained credulity.

But the unnamed Solyndra investor to whom the ad refers is George B. Kaiser. An examination of Federal Election Commission records reveals that Kaiser did indeed donate $2,400 to McNerney’s campaign — in 2010, i.e. after he could have bought a vote on the Recovery Act. McNerney raised over $3.2 million for his 2010 re-election efforts, making Kaiser far from a “big investor” in his campaign before or after the stimulus vote.

The NRCC told a local paper that it would spend just about $6,000 to air the ad on cable television — perhaps a sign that even they knew how comical its charges were.

To believe the NRCC’s ad, you would have to believe that McNerney’s vote for $787 billion in economic stimulus came only because the less than 0.1 percent of the bill benefited a company whose investor had given him no significant contributions at the time and would give him not that much afterward.

But, as the NRCC must know, money can buy you really bad attack ads.

House Republicans are seething after it was revealed that their Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-VA), made a $25,000 contribution to an anti-incumbent PAC that has targeted numerous GOP congressmen.

The Campaign for Primary Accountability, which goes after incumbents from both parties, has already played a major role in ousting two Republican congressmen, Reps. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) and Don Manzullo (R-IL). It also unsuccessfully went after Reps. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and Jo Bonner (R-AL). Next up on its radar are Texas Reps. Joe Barton (R) and Ralph Hall (R), as well as Tim Murphy (R-PA).

Some Republican congressmen, who did not divulge their names, said that Cantor’s donation, which came via his ERIC PAC, “raises questions about the majority leader’s political judgment.” The Hill has more:

More than a half dozen Republican lawmakers, stunned by the news of Cantor’s donation, agreed to speak with The Hill on the condition of anonymity to vent their frustration without fear of retribution. The lawmakers interviewed included both younger and senior members of the GOP conference.

One veteran lawmaker, upset with the majority leader’s perceived aggression toward members of his own party, said House GOP members will now fear payback when they speak out or vote against leadership.

“It is a serious breach of trust,” the lawmaker said. “It sends a signal to the rest of us that if we don’t fall 100 percent in line…they will come after you.”

The matter may come up in the House this week as lawmakers return to Congress for the first time since Cantor’s donation became public. Though Cantor claims that his donation was only meant to support freshman Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), who ultimately prevailed in his primary race against Manzullo, the money could have been used at the PAC’s discretion. For those incumbents currently being targeted, their anger at Cantor is understandable.

Some Republicans see a more ulterior motive behind Cantor’s decision. “I think it [was] designed to show Boehner the door after this election,” said one lawmaker. However, with his donation now public, the ensuing backlash this week and beyond could outpace any positive feelings Cantor is able to engender among freshmen.

Last week, 31 of the 32 Senators in the Dominican Republic’s Congress sent President Barack Obama an apology. The reason? Highly offensive comments by former Dominican Republic President Hipolito Mejia, who is currently seeking to reclaim the job he held from 2000 to 2004. He lost in a landslide defeat amid a national economic crisis and financial near-collapse.

Mejia recently told a gathering of New York clergy that Obama “came from Africa and grew up over there.” Watch the video:

But there are two noteworthy things about this incident for followers of American polics.

First, as ThinkProgress exclusively reported in February, Mejia has retained a U.S. lobbyist to represent his presidential campaign’s interests before the U.S. government. His lobbyist is Ignacio E. Sanchez, of DLA Piper, and that makes Sanchez a registered foreign agent.

Sanchez is one of a growing number of lobbyists who are also “bundlers” for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. He’s already reaised at least $86,700 in bundled contributions for the former Massachusetts governor.

President Obama does not accept campaign contributions donated or bundled by federal lobbyists or foreign agents. In last his January State of the Union address, he said, “Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa — an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.” He also voluntarily discloses all of his major bundlers, as did Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and President George W. Bush (R) in their 2000, 2004, and 2008 races.

But Romney — who has not voluntarily disclosed any bundlers who are not lobbyists — is apparently all too happy to accept money from those who are paid to influence policy decisions on behalf of special interests, foreign and domestic. Apparently, even if they represent foreign leaders who make unfounded scurrilous attacks on the legitimacy of the United States president and the credibility of its political system.

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that the minister next to Mejia in the video, who bursts out into enthusiastic laughter at the comment, is Pentecostal Christian Rev. Ruben Diaz Sr. Diaz is the rabidly anti-gay New York State senator and volunteer National Organization of Marriage spokesman. While nominally a Democrat, Diaz has crossed party lines to endorse anti-gay Republicans over pro-equality Democrats.

As the presidential campaign has become embroiled in “mommy wars,” a passage from Mitt Romney’s autobiography sheds more light on what seems to be his bifurcated prescription for mothers.

For most women, Romney maintains that a choice to work or to stay at home with the kids should be regarded as equally valid, his campaign made clear last week. But for poor women who receive government assistance, staying home is not an option — they should work. Video recovered yesterday shows that Romney said in January that he wants to “increase the work requirement” for mothers who receive welfare. “Those parents [need] to go back to work,” he explained.

A passage from Romney’s book, No Apology: The Case For American Greatness, elaborates on this. In it, he argues that children of “nonworking parents” will be conditioned to have “an indolent and unproductive life:”

In some quarters, however, the American work ethic is waning. Some people devote themselves to find ways not to work. Some seem to take a perverse kind of pride in being slipshod or lackadaisical. In many cases, where our work culture has deteriorated, shortsighted government policies share a good part of the blame.

Welfare without work erodes the spirit and the sense of self-worth of the recipient. And it conditions the children of nonworking parents to an indolent and unproductive life. Hardworking parents raise hardworking kids; we should recognize that the opposite is also true. The influence of the work habits of our parents and other adults around us as we grow up has lasting impact.

While Romney’s sentiment is understandable and common among conservatives, it doesn’t fit easily with his view that all “all moms are working moms.” He’s quoted in Michael Kranish and Scott Helman’s book The Real Romney as saying motherhood is its own profession. “It’s one which is challenging, it’s demanding,” he said. “It requires being a psychologist, a psychoanalyst, an engineer, a teacher,” he added.

If nonworking mothers on welfare produce “indolent and unproductive” children, then why doesn’t the same hold true for other women?

No one is questioning the difficulty or value of motherhood, but many critics have pointed out that while Romney’s wife was able to devote herself full time to the work of the house, other women must juggle both home life and a job to supplement their partners’ incoming. Meanwhile, millions of other mothers — including a disproportionate number on welfare — have to do all of this on their own, without a partner.