He ad-libbed one particular portion of his speech that just may give away the game for him with the CPAC crowd. He threw in this line:

“I fought against long odds in a deep blue state, but I was a severely conservative Republican governor.”

What the heck is a severe conservative? The man who likes to fire people should probably fire Miriam-Webster, in addition to whoever came up with his strategy for Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado.

A severe conservative? It sounds more like a critique of conservatives from the left than that of a conservative himself. In fact, if you want to read only one thing on Mitt Romney’s views of conservatives, I actually think Chris Orr of The New Republic captures the situation best.

Orr writes on Quentin Tarantion’s view of Superman as discussed in the movie Kill Bill 2.

Superman was born Superman. It’s Clark Kent that is the invented alias, the pose, the “costume.” And in the way Superman plays Kent–weak, self-doubting, cowardly–we see his critique of the human race.

It occurred to me that the same is true of Romney’s desperate, if never terribly persuasive, impersonation of a conservative Republican. That persona–angry, simple-minded, xenophobic, jingoistic–is exactly what Romney (who is himself cultured, content, and cosmopolitan) imagines the average GOP voter to be.

I think that is perhaps one of the most accurate reads on Romney today and why so many of us think he is not what he claims to be.

Just randomly, on the actual issue of Superman, Jim Pethokoukis is correct that Quentin Tarantino got Superman wrong. I think what he means is that Mitt Romney is actually Bruce Wayne, a shallow playboy super rich businessman. (Kidding)

He is right.

Yet the Republican Party has decided instead of finding a new guy to do what it can to get Romney across the finish line no matter how bad the limp.

On Tuesday, Santorum swept. Romney came in third in Minnesota. Counties he won big in Colorado turned on him overwhelmingly. Our “frontrunner” has won three of the first eight. With the exception of Florida, he has shown he can only win states with strong family ties like New Hampshire and states with strong Mormon participation like Nevada.

That may give him Michigan and Arizona, but it spells trouble elsewhere.

This is the seventh CPAC I have been to. The crowd is the least excited I have seen. On the first day, before the candidates have had a chance to bus in their supporters to stack the deck and straw poll, this is the least excited I’ve seen them. The crowd’s heart is with Santorum. But in their mind they do not think he can win.

Today, Mitt Romney must convince the crowd he is one of them or at least won’t betray them. Rick Santorum must convince them he can beat Barack Obama. Newt Gingrich must convince them he is still viable.

Along the way a funny thing has happened. Romney supporters are starting to be openly critical of him. The business whiz has failed to restructure his own failing organization. His support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

And he has been replaced as front runner by the crowd. They are with Rick Santorum in heart, but also in money and votes. On the horizon looms a brokered convention.

In fact, in his stimulus speech before Congress in 2009, his States of the Union in 2010, 2011, and 2012, and his Jobs Act speech of late 2011, the President repeated referred to spending government money to create jobs to fix America’s infrastructure.

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH), leader of the Republican Study Committee, is confirmed to be leaning toward supporting the plan. His public pronouncements that he is leaning toward supporting the plan is leading House conservatives as a whole to support this new stimulus plan — a stimulus plan to create jobs fixing and expanding America’s infrastructure.

The plan will most likely necessitate a federal bailout of the Highway Trust Fund, which is typically funded through the gas tax and is used to pay for highway projects. But Obama’s new stimulus busts the cap on the trust fund and, like social security, gets into general fund money to pay for the spending binge.

With the House bill, as is typical of Barack Obama’s legislation, spending will outpace income over the next five years by $69.6 billion. Moreso, as is also typical of President Obama’s stimulus schemes, Washington would retain the bulk of control, even though the money would be going to state transportation projects. Federal strings and federal money will come with the legislation.

Oh, and if the House goes along with the Senate’s version of this stimulus plan, Americans could see new taxes on their IRA’s.

So why is Congressman Jim Jordan leading conservatives to support Barack Obama’s latest job creation scheme with federal tax dollars to fund a temporary infrastructure spending binge?

Part of the reason is because highway spending is kryptonite to conservatives. You want to undermine conservative principles, just throw a roads building scheme into legislation.

But the biggest reason conservatives in the House are lining up to bust the budget, bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund, and spend $69 billion more than will come in in revenue is because this is John Boehner’s stimulus scheme, not Barack Obama’s.

It busts the budget, just like Barack Obama.

It raids government trust funds for pet projects, just like Barack Obama would do.

Over five years, it adds to the federal debt, just like Barack Obama’s schemes.

But the letter next to the plan is an “R” and not a “D”, so conservatives will yet again sell out their principles because John Boehner and not Barack Obama asked them to bankrupt the country.

With leadership like this is it any wonder we’re at $16 trillion in debt?

In fact, it is striking to find Salem’s radio hosts so in the tank for Romney when the top radio shows in the country from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to Glenn Beck to Mark Levin to Neal Boortz to Laura Ingraham have all either stayed on the sidelines or gone largely against Romney.

And if being out of step with the larger conservative movement on this issue weren’t enough, Michael Medved has decided to trot out the newest pro-Romney talking point with some serious condescension. You see, it is not Mitt Romney. It is you hicks, rubes, and idiots that are to blame. “Dammit, why won’t you like him??!!??” Medved comes close to asking.

Mitt Romney has not changed. You people have! This follows an earlier Michael Medved lament where he threw out every straw man he could at both Rush Limbaugh and me in the name of defending his Massachusetts Moderate.

Most interesting, in that earlier opinion piece Medved claimed the Republican Party had to abandon conservatism to win in 2012. This time around, Medved claims Romney actually is a conservative. It’s just conservatives have become radically conservative. He seems to be shifting positions as often as Mitt Romney.

To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht’s “The Solution,” it seems a lot of Romney’s ardent supporters have viewed the base of the Republican Party and decided the base should be replaced with a new base rather than admit the their candidate is the problem.Many Romney backers, as indicative of Medved’s latest column, do seem to want another conservative base instead of the one that exists since the majority of the one that exists keeps rejecting their candidate of choice.

To believe Michael Medved we must accept that Mitt Romney has not changed since 2008, but rather the party has changed. Except Romney has morphed on immigration (again), taxes (again), has scaled back his language on conservatism and is, in fact, running very much as John McCain did in 2008.

We must also ignore the fact that more of the base was focused on Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson in 2008 than on Romney. Medved may have been consistently for Romney as a lot of Republican oriented opinion leaders have been, but the base never was. Romney supporters who claim Romney has been wholly vetted forget that in 2008 all eyes were on Giuliani till his collapse, shifted quickly to Fred Thompson, and then spent a good deal of time dealing with the unexpected rise of Huckabee.

Romney is only just now being more fully vetted by conservative voters. A lot of the opinion leaders who supported Romney in 2008 and reject him now supported him in 2008 as a way to stop McCain and also did not expect the post 2008 Romney to revert to a brand of Massachusetts moderation.

In fact, it is largely accepted that Mitt Romney is running from McCain’s play book this time while in 2008 he ran against and to the right of John McCain.

That the base of the party sees it, resents it, and has redoubled their distrust in Romney because of it, Medved not only does not see it, but drips with condescension at the base because of his willful blinders.

About the only thing we can learn from Michael Medved’s piece is that the Romney campaign serves up some powerful kool-aid. But hey, at least now Medved doesn’t think we should abandon conservatism in favor of moderation. No, now it is that Mitt Romney has always been conservative and the rest of us are just too radical now.

I’ve said since Sunday that yesterday would be the first day of voting that Mitt Romney’s “poor” comment to Soledad O’Brien would have an impact. It typically takes a week for comments like that to be digested by voters. Six days after Romney opened his mouth, Rick Santorum swept the night.

From Missouri to Minnesota to Colorado the Republican electorate sent a very clear signal — they want conviction over electability. They do not like Mitt Romney. They see Santorum as authentic. They see Mitt Romney as a fraud. Rick Santorum swept the races. Romney, the front runner, got crushed by conservatives.

The pattern has held up from Iowa to South Carolina to Florida to Nevada to last night. In every county that saw increased turn out, Not Romney won. In counties with decreased turnout, Romney won most often, but not always.

The real winner last night is CPAC – the conservative political action conference. At the end of this week, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich will, in that order, address the crowd. Conservatives in the heartland last night rejected Mitt Romney as inauthentic. CPAC will be a must win speech for Romney.

Considering how often Mitt Romney has lost in the past decade, you’d think he would have given a better concession speech last night. He did not and will need to up his game for his CPAC speech. He must now seriously woo the conservatives he thought he would not need.

But what of Romney vs. Santorum? My prediction is that Romney has nothing to lose and will go negative. He will suddenly become as noxious as his supporters are on twitter and in the Washington Post. It will backfire on him. He will seem Newtish and Newt’s recent complaints about Romney’s negativity will be looked at anew.

Gingrich is a big loser after last night. But I think the untold story is just how terrible Ron Paul did. He had a caucus strategy that has failed across the board. He has won no states. His strategy is failing him.

What a night.

A July 23, 2010 Rasmussen survey found “75% of Likely Voters prefer free markets over a government managed economy. Just 14% think a government managed economy is better while 11% are not sure.” But, among those considered the political class, which trascends party lines, “a government managed economy [is preferred] over free markets by a 44% to 37% margin. . . . [A]mong Mainstream voters, 90% prefer the free market. Outside of the Political Class, free markets are preferred across all demographic and partisan lines.”

Now Scott Rasmussen has taken the next step and written a book called The People’s Money. The subtitle is “how voters will balance the budget and eliminate the federal debt.” He goes straight into the great divide between the political class and most Americans.

Turns out all that polling that shows Americans are a rather conservative lot is true. It also turns out that the public is willing to make cuts and is willing to tackle social security and medicare.

The catch is that voters are necessarily in favor of a lot of movement conservative reforms to social security, etc., but are much more closely aligned to the conservative movement than to the left.

It makes a really fascinating read and could be a blueprint to get the serious discussions moving on our nation’s fiscal solvency. I am not nor have I ever been a fan of poll driven political platforms. But seeing where voters are and what they think provides a lot of insight and can help politicians build a workable platform to solve our serious problems.

You can get Scott Rasmussen’s The People’s Money right here. It is a very thought provoking read.

Since then, I have routinely been asked who I would endorse. Today, after a lot of reflection on this race, I can honestly say my position has not changed and I would honestly prefer Ace of Spades’ sweet meteor of death than any of the candidates left in the race. Only the sweet meteor of death seems capable of stopping both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I can take the easy way out and not endorse because while I recognize politics necessitates compromise, I would have to compromise my intellectual honesty too much to choose any of the remaining candidates. Tonight, on my radio show, I put my weight behind the sweet meteor of death. You can listen to my reasons why here.

The Republican Party is putting itself in the hands of the economy. With Mitt Romney as the nominee, we will be forced to hope for a deteriorating economy because, while I will vote for him and think he is vastly better than Barack Obama, the fact is he has made no case for himself against Barack Obama except that he can do a better job on the economy. And let’s be clear — no Republican should hope or appear to be hoping for a deteriorating economy. It’s just that with no other justification for his election other than electability based on the ability to fix the economy, if the economy fixes itself, suddenly there is no justification for Mitt Romney’s electability.

My sincere and honest hope is that both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich stay in the race as long as possible to deny MItt Romney enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination. I do not think either Santorum or Gingrich have much of a better shot against Barack Obama, but I do think they are at least running on bigger ideas than Mitt Romney — ideas that still translate and survive an improving economy.

For months I have said I am for “Not Romney.” It is not because I think either Gingrich or Santorum have a better shot at winning than Romney, but because I still hold out hope for a broker convention to save us from ourselves.

I may be a Republican, and at one time an elected Republican, but I have always needed more than just a letter of the alphabet next to someone’s name to get me excited. Newt Gingrich excites because he picks fights with all the people I think need to be fought, including Mitt Romney. God bless him for that. But I am under no illusion that makes him capable of beating Barack Obama without a deteriorating economy.

Rick Santorum excites me because, while I think he is a big government and compassionate conservative, he is willing to defend traditional mores in this country in a way few are. HIs bold stand for faith and tradition is honest and refreshing, but it also makes for a massive liability in a general election when he has so little to show voters on other fronts.

As for Romney, he does not excite me and has largely run his campaign making sure conservatives know he can get the nomination without them. That’s all well and good, but he certainly should not expect me or other conservatives to do anything for him in the general election other than, hopefully it won’t just be me, showing up to vote for him. That’s about all I plan to do for the man.

I’ll support the Republican nominee for President. I’ll defend him from meritless attacks and I will oppose Barack Obama. Any one of our candidates is better than Barack Obama. But God help us if any one of them is the nominee.

Until we reach the magic number 1144, which is the number of delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination, I hold out hope that someone or some meteor saves us from ourselves.

You can listen live right now on WSB’s live stream. The show started at 6:00 p.m. and will run till 8pm tonight.

Tonight at 7:34 p.m. ET I will make my endorsement for President of the United States.

I will not be endorsing “We the People” as I kind of blame them for this present mess. But I will be making an endorsement and if you are curious you can listen by clicking right here.

In the Bible we read these things:

“And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” Gen 1:28 (ESV)

“Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?” Job 31:15 (ESV)

“Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments.” Psalm 119:73 (ESV)

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” Psalm 139:13 (ESV)

These are clear references to God intending people to procreate and recognize that, even in the womb, God played a vital role in the formation of children and we should not casually destroy life God himself created. These passages of scripture are what inspire so many pro-life advocates to defend the unborn.

Had the President of the United States stood at the National Prayer Breakfast and uttered any of those passages and then announced his intent to protect the unborn, abortion rights advocates would have stormed the White House and the Courts all in the name of separation of church and state. The media would have had on Barry Lynn to proclaim his outrage that the President was mixing religion and politics.

Jim Wallis would have gone on the news to dance around life issues and try his best to neuter God out of them and the media would have treated him as an objective source.

But that’s not what happened.

Instead, the President went to the National Prayer Breakfast and quoted Jesus Christ himself to defend a tax increase. The President paraphrased Luke 12:48, “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” (ESV) He said it was because he was a Christian that he thought the rich should pay more in taxes.

It’s a good thing President Obama did not draw from Matthew 13:12 instead or the poor would really be screwed.

“For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (ESV)

It is worth pointing out that the very same people who would have been outraged had the President quoted clear scripture on life to defend the unborn were willing to be silent or even applaud the President perverting the words of Christ to pursue his tax plan.

It is also worth pointing out that President Obama sat at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, so this might be the best he can do.

But we must also point out that Christians have an obligation to pray for their leaders and, given how the President of the United State just twisted the words of our Lord and Savior, we should pray all the more fervently for him because in reading Luke 12:48, he clearly ignored or has no understand of Luke 12:47, the prior sentence, which reads

“And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating.” (ESV)

One must wonder about the Christian grounding of the people in the White House who encouraged the President of the United States to pervert the words of the Living God.

What the President seems not to know is encapsulated well by Breeanne Howe here.

Christ was not talking about money. The President, in making the case for his tax plan using that passage of scripture, perverts Christ’s meaning. Christ was talking explicitly about the blessings flowing from God to the apostles and us through the Word and the need to proclaim Christ as the Living God.

To better understand what Christ was actually talking about, first understand that he was talking about an individual’s relationship with God. In fact, throughout President Obama’s speech he perverted a number of passages from Holy Scripture having to do with an individual’s obligations toward the poor and toward God, co-opting those passages as claims that the state can then tax and spend in the name of Jesus.

I dare say I’d take peddlers of the “social gospel” much more seriously if they concerned themselves first with the actual Gospel as it pertains to men’s salvation and eternity.

Not to delve deep into the theology, but Luke 12:47-48 is reflected in Hebrews 2:1-4, in which the writer preaches,

“Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”

The Greek used for “pay much closer attention” (prosecho) and “lest we drift away” (pararheo) derive from Greek nautical terminology the original audience would have understood. Prosecho means to tie up or moor a ship in harbor (a metaphor for Christ) and pararheo means to negligently and knowingly let a ship drift past the harbor, or Christ.

In other words, what Christ is telling us in Luke and what the author of Hebrews explains in greater detail is that these passages apply to people who, like the President, claim to be Christians and claim to have experienced blessings in life and then turn their back on or drift away from Christ without securing themselves to him.¹

What both Hebrews 2 and Luke 12:47 say that the President conveniently ignored is that anyone who claims to be a Christian or who has experienced the blessings that flow from being surrounded by believers and then does not accept Christ will be judged more harshly on the last day than those who never knew or experienced Christ’s love. Yeah, those levels of hell aren’t just for Catholics. See e.g. Matthew 11:21-22 in which Christ says,

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.” [Emphasis added]

Unfortunately for the nation, we have a President who claims to be a Christian who is willing to take God’s Holy Word repeatedly out of context, subsume God’s commands for individuals in their conduct with each other and with Him, and try to make the case for the government’s fiscal policy with that perversion.

Contrast that with his other actions this week.

The President, through the Department of Health and Human Services, has ordered religious organizations — targeting more specifically the Catholic Church — to offer health plans that cover the costs of contraceptives and abortifacient drugs. I started this post with, unlike the President’s use of Luke and Proverbs, un-perverted scripture Christians use to show their objections to abortion. But moreso, these are non exhaustive passages of scripture Catholics rely on as foundations both to their opposition to abortion and to contraception. God himself said, “Be fruitful and multiply.”

The President this week chose to pervert God’s Word to make the case for a tax increase, but he also chose to ignore God’s word on life and is ordering Christians, while he claims to be one, to violate their Christian conscience on abortion — requiring Christian organizations to provide health insurance that will cover the cost of drugs that induce abortions.

He is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to use God’s Word to defend a tax policy that dissuades individuals from giving gladly and charitably to the poor as God instructs and is ignoring God’s Word in order to force fellow Christians into violating their Christian conscience — something about which God cares a great deal.

This cannot end well for him, particularly doing this claiming to be a Christian. And it might not end well for the rest of us either. Barack Obama has gone to war with Christians’ consciences and he is perverting God’s word in the process to get his way on public policy.

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” 1 Timothy 2:1-2 (ESV)

Pray hard. The President needs it.

In fact, according to people I’ve spoken to who are aware of the decision making processes at Komen, Fleischer had nothing to do with Komen’s strategy or decision on this matter. I use the word “pre-emptive” because it seems Think Progress and the left wanted to get this out there quickly, damn the facts, to distract from Brendan Daly.

Brandon Daly is Nancy Pelosi’s former press secretary. He now works at Ogilvy Public Relations.

According to people close to the Komen Foundation I’ve spoken to, it was not Fleischer who was involved in the strategy and PR related to the Planned Parenthood decision, but rather Nancy Pelosi’s former press secretary and Ogilvy Public Relations executive Brendan Daly.

Think Progress seemingly wanted to jump the gun and blame a Republican for a disastrous PR strategy when it was not just any Democrat, but one tied to Nancy Pelosi, who was quick out of the gate condemning the Komen Foundation.

Maybe Komen should have gone with Edelman instead.

I heard today that while small donations are up more than 100% to the Komen Foundation, major funders have threatened to pull money allocated to Komen because of Komen’s Planned Parenthood decision. Killing children in utero is the sacrament of the Church of the Secular Left and any person or organization that becomes the slightest threat to abortion rights must be destroyed. Because the Susan G. Komen Foundation dared to stop giving money to an organization that kills kids despite its spin, major liberal donors of Komen decided abortion outranks curing breast cancer and Komen had to be stopped.

The media headlines today are that the Komen Foundation has reversed itself. If you gave a donation in the past few days and want it back, you should call (800) 996-3329. But I hope I can provide for you some rational explanation for a mishandled PR exercise.

As a Komen Board member told Life News, the reversal is not really so much a reversal as a clarification of Komen’s grants procedures, which will still impact Planned Parenthood’s future funding from the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

The major outrage against Komen funding Planned Parenthood came after an undercover sting of Planned Parenthood proving conclusively that Planned Parenthood does not offer mammogram services. Komen claimed it funded Planned Parenthood because of its mammogram services. Planned Parenthood’s dodge is that they referred women to places to get discounted or free mammograms, which itself is not true.

In walking back its denial of funds to Planned Parenthood, my understanding is that Komen will not cancel already approved grants to Planned Parenthood, but in the future will only fund organizations that provide mammograms themselves. That, in effect, still shuts out Planned Parenthood unless they actually invest in in-house infrastructures to give mammograms instead of just killing kids in-house.

The point I try to make is that the conservative movement is going through a necessary transition after the Bush years. You can read the whole thing here but a really relevant part is here:

The internecine fights we are witnessing are about a conservative movement starting to separate itself again from Republican Party. Unfortunately, neither of the front runners have legitimate conservative integrity to claim the banner of conservative movement leader, but they will both try. Romney will hold the banner for conservatives within the GOP and Gingrich will hold the banner of the traditional alliance of conservatives with the GOP.

I see this playing out in, of all things, my friend Ann Coulter’s column defending Romneycare. Mark Levin offers the definitive rebuttal, which you can listen to here, but there is a point that too few are making that needs to be made.

It relates to the dangers associated with supporting Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter’s column is exhibit A on why supporting Romney portends disaster for the conservative movement.

There is no need to fisk Ann’s column line by line. I’ll only quote the first paragraph, which is

If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food industry or housing, Romneycare would probably still be viewed as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles — as it was at the time.

I love Ann. She is brilliant. In fact, she is too brilliant to think that Romneycare is a “massive triumph for conservative free-market principles.”

It is free market economics 101 that a free market requires that individuals have the right to opt-out of a transaction. In other words, zero must be contemplated in the equation. Consider it a null function. When individuals are, through state power, forced to opt-in to a transaction as individuals are forced to buy health care as a condition of breathing in Massachusetts, it is inherently not free market because a free market depends on the freedom to not purchase. Forcing demand is more akin to the keynesian economics Obama is pushing, not Milton Friedman or Adam Smith.

But it also is not conservative.

As Mark Levin notes in his monologue, when the state — whether it is a nation or one of the fifty states — can force an individual to engage in commerce it upends the relationship between the individual and the state. The conservative view of government is that the individual is supreme. The socialist view is that the state is supreme for the betterment of the collective.

In other words, in Ann Coulter’s first paragraph she calls Romneycare both free-market and conservative, when any intellectually honest review of the facts would have no choice but to conclude it is neither. She confuses federalism and conservatism. Certainly, in our federal system, a state has plenary power to do as it wishes except for those powers it chose, in adopting our federal constitution, to cede to the federal government. But just because something is federalist does not make it conservative.

To use an analogy based on hyperbole as Ann does in her column, under the constitutions of one of the fifty states that state could constitutionally require all people buy a copy of the Communist Manifesto. It would be arguably permissible under the concept of vertical federalism, but it sure would not be conservative. Delete “Communist Manifesto” and insert “health insurance” and you have Romneycare.

During the Bush years, conservatives all too often sided with the Republican Party rather than their own principles. As I note in this week’s Time:

By the time George W. Bush arrived in Washington, the conservative movement had fully moved within the Republican Party. Conservative Democrats had walked across the aisle making bipartisan outreach unnecessary. By the the mid-point of George Bush’s Presidency, people were talking non-ironically about “big government conservatives,” which prior to Bill Clinton’s term would have been merely Republicans who put party ahead of principle.

As George Bush left office, conservatives who had seen his father put David Souter on the Supreme Court were championing Harriet Miers, fighting each other over immigration policy, supporting TARP, were okay with saving General Motors, and turning a polite blind eye to Bush’s claim that he had to kill the free market to save it.

Leaders and strong voices within the conservative movement have an obligation to speak up in favor of, so to speak, true north within conservative principles and then leave it to the politicians to decide how far away from true north they must drift to build a coalition to enact policy.

Debasing ourselves with silly defenses of Republicans along with a willingness to put party politics ahead of principle will, yet again, see voters rejecting conservatives. Groups like the American Conservative Union, the Heritage Foundation, etc. have all made mistakes and have usually had to repent. But in making those mistakes, they have opened up both conservatives and the Republican Party to temptation and temerity that ultimately caused collapse at the polls or ceding issues in debates. Look at the Heritage Foundation and healthcare mandates. Look at the Republican politicians who expand the federal government’s budget while hiding behind their ACU rating as proof that they are conservative.

The conservative movement has been sick for the past decade. The further it became absorbed within the Republican Party, the less it could shine with conservative ideas. It compromised with itself because it had become part of the Republican Party and was as much about the acquisition of political power as it was about advocating particular policy.

I am afraid supporting Mitt Romney will undo a lot of the repairs made to the conservative movement in the past few years. Already people are defending inherently not conservative ideas by calling them conservative. Already people are too willing to keep their mouth shut to do no harm to the party and, in the process, are doing harm to the intellectual capital built up within the conservative movement.

Ann Coulter’s defense of Romneycare, released on the same day Romney rejected years of conservative arguments against the social safety net and the welfare state, is a canary in the coal mine. We are returning to that point where the voters decided they could no longer trust conservatives to be principled.

Then Newt Gingrich found a bright line rule in the Republican rules that clearly and precisely states that all delegates awarded before April 1, 2012, must be proportional. There goes giving Romney all fifty delegates from Florida despite what Florida’s GOP Chairman says.

Then National Review and other Romney supporters , taking a bit of comfort in his secure win in Florida, decided they could finally express some buyers remorse, or at least now stop zealously defending him and criticize him some.

Then people really examined the exit polls in Florida. What they found was that turnout fell from 2008. But in counties where turn out was up, Newt Gingrich won. Where turnout from 2008 was down, Romney won. This pattern followed South Carolina. The base remains unexcited about Romney and his comments yesterday about the poor and the social safety net keep the base from getting excited.

What should have been Mitt Romney heading into February securing his nomination now becomes an effort to stave off a rear guard action to pick him off. Gingrich and Santorum now have the ammunition they need to keep the Great Coalescing from happening.

What should have been a clear path to the nomination is suddenly in jeopardy.

We’ll get into it all in the Horserace.

Newt Gingrich

You would not know it, but Gingrich has put his campaign through a bit of a shake up in order to instill more discipline within the campaign and hopefully within himself. His erratic messaging and attacks hurt him in Florida. He knows it.

The campaign knows that Newt Gingrich’s debate strategy — naps and quiet time — I AM NOT JOKING — will no longer serve him. The Romney camp sought to destroy the myth of Gingrich the Great Debater and largely succeeded in Florida.

Gingrich has much to do. He needs more focus, more message discipline, and more delegates. The RNC rule on proportional delegates will help him. Like Florida, Arizona had intended a winner take all primary, but that is not to be. And lucky for Gingrich, Mitt Romney’s comments on the poor and the conservative outcry over them will give Gingrich an issue with which he can focus on jobs, the economy, and Mitt Romney. If Gingrich is serious about staying in till the convention, he could deny Romney a first ballot win and spare the base from the man they don’t like, even if Newt himself cannot get the nomination.

He is more of a long shot today than he was a day before Florida, but he can still be the nominee.

Ron Paul

The spectacular disaster of the Ron Paul campaign has been one of the least told stories on the campaign trail. The media is officially ignoring Ron Paul because they don’t want to deal with the crazy that will come out if they even deal with Ron Paul objectively.

He came in third in Iowa. He came in second in New Hampshire. He came in fourth in South Carolina. He came in fourth in Florida. Yes, he may currently lead Santorum in delegates, but consistently coming in behind the winner does not help him. He has not won a single state. He is the only candidate left standing to not win a state.

He hopes that Nevada will be that state. Caucuses are notoriously hard to poll, but the polls show he won’t come in first. It is Ron Paul’s best shot at a first place win. If he does not come in first in Nevada, his only other hope is to go to a brokered convention. That becomes harder and harder for him as we get to winner take all states if he can’t win at least one now.

Ron Paul will not be the nominee. But might Gingrich and Santorum ally with Paul in Virginia and throw their support to him? It would bolster Paul there, but more importantly it would hurt Mitt Romney badly. Santorum and Gingrich are not on the ballot there.

Mitt Romney

Had Mitt Romney not gone on Soledad O’Brien’s show and said what he said, he would be fully secure in his nomination. He has put himself in jeopardy. He gives Santorum and Gingrich wiggle room to keep playing.

I have to agree with Jamie Dupree of Cox Media Group’s Washington Bureau. Mitt Romney is too message disciplined for something like this to happen accidentally. There had to be campaign preparation for this. There had to be campaign strategy behind the statement. My only guess is that, like Gingrich, Romney is exhausted from three weeks of grueling campaigns. He didn’t get the talking points out right. He flubbed.

But to go on CNN and say what he said and then reiterate it later with a surrogate saying Romney won’t change policies for the poor had to be a planned strategy. The messaging had to have gotten screwed up though. That, or the Romney camp really is out of touch.

This is still Mitt Romney’s race to win or lose. The next few states favor him. But he just gave powerful ammunition to Gingrich and Santorum. How those campaigns use it will tell us more about them than Romney.

Rick Santorum

The Romney camp is actually nervous about Santorum. They believe he can do well in the caucus states that, even though they are non-binding, will put wind into Santorum’s sail. They are nervous.

Santorum has not shown he can compete past Iowa. He does not have the money. He does not have the resources. He does not have a large enough team. But he has passion. And I maintain that Santorum staying in the race hurts Romney more than Gingrich because ultimately Santorum’s voters will drift slowly to Romney.

That won’t happen with Santorum in the race. And if, like in South Carolina, Santorum is able to pick up steam and money, Romney will have both Gingrich and Santorum firing at him. That’s bad news for Romney.