ComMITTed to Romney!

 WASHINGTON (AP)

Republican John McCain says he opposed President Bush’s tax cuts because they didn’t come with spending cuts. That is not what he said at the time.

In a presidential debate on Wednesday, McCain said he voted against the Bush tax cuts because he wanted to rein in spending.

“I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint,” the Arizona senator said.

The explanation fits with his history of railing against wasteful federal spending. But it does not fit with McCain’s comments when he opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

In 2001, McCain said the tax cuts favored the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. In 2003, he said there should be no tax cuts until the Iraq war costs were known.

His aversion to the Bush tax cuts is just another reason McCain gives heartburn to many in the conservative GOP base. Besides taxes, there is also his more forgiving attitude toward illegal immigration, his effort to limit money in politics and his long-running feuds with leaders of the Christian right.

The debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., came on the heels of Tuesday’s Florida primary, when McCain defeated former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, gaining an advantage going into next week’s Super Tuesday primary.

—

THE SPIN:

In Wednesday’s debate, McCain suggested he opposed tax cuts because they were not accompanied by cuts in spending.

Challenged on his changing story, McCain said he does think lower and middle income people need help. But then he said he opposed tax cuts that were not accompanied by spending restraints. He meant the Bush tax cuts.

“I made it very clear when I ran in 2000 that I had a package of tax cuts which were very important and very impactful, but I also had restraints in spending,” he said.

“And I disagreed when spending got out of control. And I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint,” McCain said.

He added: “And guess what? Spending got out of control. Republicans lost the 2006 election not over the war in Iraq, (but) over spending. Our base became disenchanted.

“If we had done what I wanted to do, we would not only have had the spending restraint, but we’d be talking about additional tax cuts today.”

—

THE FACTS:

Spending was not why McCain said he opposed President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

In 2001, McCain said the $1.35 trillion tax cut benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

“I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief,” McCain said then.

McCain tried but failed to amend the bill to reduce income tax cuts for the wealthiest and give greater benefits to those earning less. He and Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island were the only Republicans to oppose the 2001 tax cuts.

At the time, McCain was still at odds with Bush, who had dealt McCain a stinging defeat in the race for the GOP presidential nomination just one year before.

In 2003, McCain opposed a $350 billion tax cut sought by Bush, this time arguing there should be no tax relief while the cost of the Iraq war and its aftermath were still unknown.

“The tax cut is not appropriate until we find out the cost of the war and the cost of reconstruction,” McCain said then.

One more Republican senator, Olympia Snowe of Maine, teamed with McCain and Chafee to oppose the 2003 tax cuts. They and Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio teamed to limit the size of the tax cut to $350 billion, half the size of what Bush originally wanted.

Incidentally, public opinion surveys do not back up McCain’s claim that Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 over the issue of spending.

Associated Press-Ipsos polling that tracks what people consider the most important issues facing the country picked up hardly anyone citing government spending or the federal deficit as an important problem in 2006. Rather, polling said the economy, Iraq, terrorism and scandals and corruption in government rated highly in 2006.

By Libby Quaid

Michael Reagan:

Until last night, when I watched the Republican debate, I had no idea how much John McCain dislikes me and just about everybody else but Rudy Giuliani, who if you believe The New York Times is a pretty good hater himself.

As I watched McCain and Governor Romney go at it during the debate at the Reagan Library I was struck by the huge gap that separates McCain — whose contempt for his fellow humans is patently obvious — and my dad, Ronald Reagan, who had nothing but the deepest affection and respect for the American people.

The feeling is mutual between McCain and me. I don’t like the way he treats people. You get the impression that he thinks everybody is beneath him. He seems to be saying, “I was a war hero, and you had damn well better treat me as your superior.”

He has contempt for conservatives who he thinks can be duped into thinking he’s one of them, despite such blatantly anti-conservative actions as his support for amnesty for illegal immigrants, his opposition to the Bush tax cuts which got the economy rolling again, and his campaign finance bill which skewed the political process and attacked free speech.

I am appalled by his contempt for the intelligence of his listeners when he flat-out lies and expects them to believe what he says even when the truth is staring them in the face.

A prime example cited by columnist Robert Novak was McCain’s denial that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative, insisting that he recalled saying no such thing, adding that Alito was a “magnificent” choice.

“In fact,” wrote Novak, “multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago.”

In last night’s debate, McCain stubbornly defended his charge, false on the face of it, that Romney wanted a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

“I have never, ever supported a specific timetable” for withdrawing troops, Romney said, adding that McCain’s accusation on the eve of Tuesday’s primary “sort of falls into the dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible.”

What Romney said last April, was merely that U.S. and Iraqi leaders “have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about” in private, which in no way suggests he was in any sense talking about troop withdrawals.

Despite the evidence, McCain charged that “of course he said he wanted a timetable” for a withdrawal, even though he had never said any such thing. It was McCain daring to ask us if we wanted to believe our lying eyes or his demonstrably false allegation.

McCain must think conservatives are dumb enough to allow him to get away with claiming he’s one of them. This is from a man who opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and who twice voted against President Bush’s tax cuts and sponsored the campaign-finance reform legislation that Romney claimed “took a whack at the First Amendment.”

In John McCain’s eyes, conservatives are the Viet Cong of this generation and he treats us as such. It’s either his way or no way.

I despise his habit of talking down to us, like a wise father to an idiot son. He’s just at a loss to understand why everybody doesn’t grovel at his feet and accept his every word as wisdom handed down from his lofty perch atop Mt. Olympus.

I can’t help it. I know in my heart he hates me, and every conservative. If he gets the nomination the only way he could win against Hillary or Barack Obama would be to be part of a McCain-Limbaugh ticket.

Michael Reagan, the eldest son of Ronald Reagan, is heard daily by over 5 million listeners via his nationally syndicated talk radio program, “The Michael Reagan Show.”

This is some pretty powerful language. Michael Reagan is one of many conservatives who sees Republicans making a huge mistake by supporting John McCain. Governor Romney is buying ads in key states and is fighting to the finish. Let’s continue to fight for him.

Posted by mobile phone:
I’m here at Nashville International Airport waiting for my flight to LA and my husband calls and tells me that Sean Hannity point blank said that he is going to be voting for Mitt Romney in the New York primary on Tuesday. Joel made sure to point out that it was not an endorsement but Sean said he had never done that on the air before. Endorsement or not I think its great news.

See ya on the other side so to speak…

All the best,

Ann Marie
via mobile device

The fact that McCain agrees with the democrats on campaign finance will not help him. Moderates don’t jut want democrats and republicans to come together so they can smile for the cameras. They want republicans and democrats to work together to produce legislation that actually fixes the problems. The problem with McCain isn’t that he is too liberal, its that he is incompetent. Every bill that has his name on it, has done the exact opposite of what it promised it would do. McCain-Feingold had the exact opposite effect: there is more dirty money that is not transparent now than ever.

You know how Bush coined the phrase, “compassionate conservative.” I would love to have Romney use the words “competent conservative.” Its not just about saying that you have compassion, or saying that you are a conservative, its about accomplishing something that is able to deliver compassion in a conservative manner. Any of this talk, I’m sorry to say, is many levels over McCain’s head. All that matters to him is working with the other side, not actually fixing problems. That’s what happens when you look at the world from behind a committee, and that is why we don’t elect senators to be presidents.

Gov. Romney rebuts Sen. McCain’s false accusations about support for setting timetables for withdrawal in Iraq.

Governor Romney On The War In Iraq
Thursday, May 03, 2007 08:29 EST

Gov. Romney Discusses Iraq on Larry King Live

Governor Romney On The Mission In Iraq

MSNBC: Governor Romney Strong Statement On Iraq
MSNBC’s Chip Reid on Governor Romney’s Strong Statement On Iraq.

Gov. Romney On The Options In Iraq
Gov. Romney Discusses Options In Iraq At A Townhall Meeting In West Des Moines, IA

Gov. Romney On The Democrat Iraq Mentality

Mitt Romney talks about Iraq
Mitt Romney comments on the Iraq War during a visit to Pittsburgh

Governor Romney On Iraq

Sean Hannity, the conservative talk show host and FOX co host of Hannity and Colmes, is voting for Mitt Romney in the upcoming NY primary.>

MITT will be on Hannity and Colmes TONIGHT Jan 31, 2008

Rally for Romney

Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.
By Mark R. Levin - Endorsement

I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement — from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.

I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldn’t win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasn’t even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagan’s name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.

Of course, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford by the narrowest of margins. Ford went on to lose to a little-known ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. But the Reagan Revolution became stronger, not weaker, as a result. And the rest is history.

I don’t pretend to speak for President Reagan or all conservatives. I speak for myself. But I watched the Republican debate last night, which was held at the Reagan library, and I have to say that I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president.

Let’s get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain’s cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCain’s comments about Romney.

Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a “manager for profit” and someone who has “laid-off” people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his “millions” or “fortune” to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney’s character doesn’t let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.

And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?

As for McCain “the straight-talker,” how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. There’s nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media’s favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.

Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.

Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?

But what about his national security record? It’s a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.

Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives don’t act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.

But wouldn’t the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasn’t enough to motivate the base to vote in November 2006 to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker or the Democrats from taking Congress. My sense is it won’t be enough to carry McCain to victory, either. And McCain has done more to build animus among the people whose votes he will need than Denny Hastert or Bill Frist. And there won’t be enough Democrats voting for McCain to offset the electorate McCain has alienated (and is likely to continue to alienate, as best as I can tell).

McCain has not won overwhelming pluralities, let alone majorities, in any of the primaries. A thirty-six-percent win in Florida doesn’t make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCain’s bandwagon — the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed California’s Republican party.

Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.

Mark Levin, a former senior Reagan Justice Department official, is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.

It’s still the economy

There, I said it. Last night’s debate once again proved that McCain and Huckabee have no sense on the economy. Are you kidding me? A cap and trade system with no limit to the taxes it imposes on the U.S.? Who does McCain represent, anyway? Mitt continues to show that despite good sounding proposals from the other candidates, his knowledge of the economy trumps their half-baked solutions. Want to solve global warming? McCain’s approach taxes U.S. citizens without a cap for a problem we’re only a part of. Want to stimulate the economy? Huckabee’s solution of using infrastructure projects sounds good, but as Mitt points out, they take years to develop. These are insights that McCain and Huckabee couldn’t come to on their own, suggesting their programs as President would continue to have similar flaws. As usual Mitt’s responses were the most thoughtful, substantive and intelligent. For me, in my relatively few 41 years, I saw Reagan take office with little foreign policy experience and end up winning the cold war. McCain’s Vietnam experience was 30-40 years ago and not as relevant now. Mitt would be a fantastic commander-in-chief. But I’m not ready to see John McCain try to run an economy he barely understands, taking risks with my pocket-book along the way while collecting his government salary and living off his wife’s riches. Mitt’s lived in the real economy and has had to perform in a real job, as well as in government. He’s lived in both worlds; McCain has lived in one, out of touch with me and mine.

Kudos to My Wife

Kudos to my wife for finding the following useful information pre-Super Tuesday:

1. Someone on a Canadian website calls it like it is for U.S. Republicans and their choice of Mitt vs. Mac. This person isn’t even a Mitt fan, but recognizes the choice of McCain would be disastrous. If you’re a Republican reading this, whether conservative or moderate, think about John McCain essentially having free-reign to sign bills into law that a liberal Democratic Congress sends to his desk. Do you think he’d stick with Republican ideals? I really don’t think so as his record indicates otherwise.

2. The National Review seems to remain a voice of reason on Mitt vs. Mac. McCain’s coronation is pre-mature. Sure we would have liked to have had Florida, and we’d have been saying the same things about our being a front-runner if we’d won. But the truth would have been, as it is now, that Mitt’s leading in a number of Super Tuesday states, and the race is unlikely to be decided even afterward. See this link for recent analysis from National Review Online.

Super Tuesday: Who Wins Your Confidence?

With 23 states and, as I recall, a thousand or so delegates up for grabs Tuesday, McCain’s “imposing” lead is how many? Twenty-eight whole delegates, according to CNN. This race is not about those delegates, but about winning the 40X that amount available Tuesday. And even then, the GOP nominee still won’t be decided. This cite is from USA Today:

There will be more than 1,000 Republican delegates at stake on Feb. 5, enough to give a candidate a substantial boost toward the 1,191 needed to win the nomination — but only if one man emerges victorious in numerous states.

“I think you could have two or three viable (GOP) candidates” following Super Tuesday, said Ohio Republican Chairman Robert Bennett.

“Somebody’s going to have some big wins, but you’re going to go into March 4, and you’re not going to have an apparent (GOP) nominee,” Bennett said.

So the race is still up for grabs.

If you’re a California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, etc. etc. voter voting this Tuesday, and you’re choosing between Mitt and Mac, think about who’d you rather have trying to stem the tide from a Democratic Congress: Mitt Romney, the consistent choice of the conservatives in every state so far, or John McCain, choice of the liberals.

Don’t think it matters? Remember the recent debate about expanding SCHIP, the welfare program Congress wanted to expand by multiple billions of dollars? Democrats in Congress passed it, but who stood in the way? President Bush. Without his veto pen, we’d be looking to foot that tax bill now when it’s become clear that tax rebates are required to stimulate the economy, and not huge welfare projects that increase the deficit. When the next bill comes to the desk of the President, and we know it will come, are we confident McCain would vote according to Republican principles? If you think so, think again: McCain was one of two Senators to vote against the Bush tax cuts (McCain admits he was wrong, but if he’d had his way the economy would have been tanked); illegal immigration (McCain supported a permanent residence for illegals, and now only partially admits he was wrong and has assumed Mitt’s position on securing the border); campaign finance reform (he’d do it again); global warming (bad approach, and he’s a co-author). It’s nice to admit when you’re wrong, but it’s even better not to be wrong in the first place on issues that will cost us billions. On issues as complicated as the economy, and even on national security, we need an intelligent man who can figure out what to do before he forms an opinion.

We are not alone.

All us Mittsters, and those who feel they align with Mitt but aren’t sure about voting for him due to the press’ coronation of McCain, should realize that there are a lot of people out there that are looking at Mitt vs. Mac for the first time, whether because they left Fred or Giuliani, because they realize Huckabee isn’t going to win (just look at the Ron Paul-like marginalization of Huckabee in last night’s debate) or whether they just can’t stomach McCain and his liberal past, and Mitt will win among principled Republican voters. Let’s also remind ourselves of the hundreds of thousands that have already voted for Mitt: the total number of voters who have decided 1st vs. 2d in Iowa, NH and FL has been very small. I’d be interested in seeing what the current popular vote count is (the difference between McCain and Mitt is not large). And if we work to get Mitt more delegates than McCain on Super Tuesday, McCain’s 28 delegate lead will recede into memory.

No Scaling Back Now

Some reporting went on this morning about Mitt scaling back advertising, but the National Review pointed to this article at Yahoo to the contrary.

McCain Stole Florida

For those of you first-time readers, you should realize that John McCain’s apparent momentum (all of 5% of the voters in Florida) was the result of what many have reported to be dirty politics. In 2000 McCain got am-Bushed in South Carolina with lies and innuendo. The people who did it to him worked for George Bush, and now work for McCain. And they pulled a similar trick last weekend: they purposefully distorted Mitt’s record supporting the surge and as Massachusetts governor. Issues aside about the actual record (both issues are Mitt strengths), many media outlets have continued to ask McCain about this (including in the debate last night) because it takes a real contortionist to come up with an argument that McCain was using “straight talk,” and Mitt of course called McCain on it. The media then said the fight was getting “nasty,” but in reality it was Mitt responding to lies about his positions. The resulting swing, based on McCain’s untruth’s and the public’s perception of the race getting ugly, turned some in McCain’s favor. Of course it’s ugly to call someone dishonest, but it’s even uglier if that claim is true. In addition there were reports of lots of mis-deeds reported elsewhere on this site. Bottom line: don’t be fooled by the reported “momentum.” The margin of victory wasn’t significant, conservatives are voting for Mitt, many when faced with Mitt vs. Mac are repulsed by the latter, and, last but not least, the most qualified candidate is still Mitt Romney, who hasn’t resorted to the sorts of dishonesty as McCain has.

Huckabee Supporters’ Coming Crisis of Conscience

If you’re a Huckabee supporter, I believe you have a real crisis of conscience developing. Should you support Mike, who represents your views on social issues but is unlikely to get beyond Tuesday, or do you bet on Mitt or Mac. With McCain’s less than solid record on social issues (other posters help me out here), you may want to consider whether you’d be comfortable with McCain as the candidate. Mitt may be your only choice for a real, pro-life, pro-family, anti-gay marriage candidate. It’s been nice to have Mike in the race I’m sure, as he probably looks like folks you know and see in church on Sunday. But who’s closer to your real ideals, Mitt or McCain? I believe it’s Mitt, and would encourage you to really think about who you’re voting for Tuesday. Damaging Mitt for Mac’s gain is counter-productive to your real concerns, and I believe it’s time to switch horses. It looks like Fred Thompson’s supporters have come our way, and it’s likely many Rudy supporters (though not all) will move to McCain. Who are you most like? Conservative Fred, or socially liberal Rudy? Notwithstanding our candidates’ disagreements, we’d welcome you into the fold.

What you can do to help win

Super Tuesday isn’t about Mitt, it’s about us. He carried the load in the “retail politics” states of Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. But now we need to get out in our own areas with signs, buttons, phone calls and reach out to everyone we know to pull them into Mitt’s fold. So, no. 1, get out and vote. No. 2, make those calls if you’re in the campaign. Talk to friends. If they’re pro-Mitt, or supported Fred, Rudy or Huckabee, tell them they have a choice: Mitt vs. Mac, and they need to choose who they really want. Let’s go.

Hat Tip to Ranzel for bringing this excellent analysis to our attention. Mitt Romney is nailing down the Reagan coalition.

NEW YORK TIMES

Tags: Florida, John McCain, Mitt Romney

Does Mitt Romney have a victory to cling to in Florida? Joshua Trevino, vice president for public policy at San Francisco’s Pacific Research Institute (and one of the founders of the conservative blog RedState), breaks down the numbers on his personal blog.

“Mitt Romney is in a bad way,” Trevino writes. “He blew through $10 million in Iowa and lost; and outspent McCain eight to one in Florida, and lost that too. But for all this, Mitt Romney is not done yet and the reason lies in the breakdown of this evening’s Florida vote.” He continues:

CNN has the exit-poll numbers, and they reveal some surprising things:

* Romney won pro-lifers.
* Romney won the mainstream religious. (Huckabee won the very religious ­ less than one-fifth of the pool.)
* Romney won the Protestants.
* Romney tied Huckabee with Evangelicals.
* Romney won the pro-GWB voters.
* Romney is the primary second choice of Giuliani voters, Thompson voters …. and McCain voters.
* Romney won the immigration hard-liners.
* Romney won the upper-middle class, earning between $100,000 and $200,000 annually.
* Romney won the terrorism-oriented voters.
* Romney won the self-identified conservatives and the self-identified very conservative.
* Romney won the values-oriented voters.
* Romney won the white voters.
* Romney won the tax-cutting voters.

In short, Mitt Romney won the Republican Party’s idea of itself ­ and that, too, is a big deal. If you’re white, Protestant, anti-abortion, go to church on Sundays, think well of the President, want lower taxes, hate terrorists, make a good living, want to do something about immigration, and live in Florida, chances are you voted Romney. The question before Florida was whether McCain could win a closed Republican race, and now we know he can. The question now is whether he can win conservatives ­ and in Florida, he did not.

THANK YOU so much for stepping up to contribute to Governor Romney’s campaign at this crucial time!

Today, I received a call from a close friend of Governor and Ann Romney who asked me to express gratitude on their behalf for your generosity. In the last three days, you have contributed over $8,000 to the campaign! Those contributions were in amounts from $15+. The commitment I made for the TSUNAMI TUESDAY fund is almost filled. Please help cap off the commitment today and make a contribution to the campaign. You are all doing so much at this important time to help Governor Romney. Please click this link to put us over the top — Don’t forget to type in the Source Code: ECA064 that slots your contribution to the commitment bucket:

TSUNAMI TUESDAY COMMITMENT

No contribution is too small — Please contribute whatever you are able. And again, THANK YOU very much for all you are doing!

~ Vic