By W. James Antle, III on 8.25.06 @ 12:09AM
Mitt Romney is quietly emerging the most viable presidential candidate to the right of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
Things are looking up for Mitt Romney. Not only has the outgoing
Massachusetts governor been getting reasonably favorable press from usually hostile places but,
courtesy of George Allen's Macaca moment, his position in the 2008 Republican
presidential field suddenly looks more secure -- the most viable
candidate to the right of front-runners John McCain and Rudy
Giuliani.
Romney appears to sense the opportunity. For social
conservatives, he has swung
pro-life on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. To
burnish his supply-side credentials, he has pressed the Democratic
legislature to lower tax rates and signed into law the nation's
largest sales-tax holiday. And when Sen. John Kerry
argued that Iraq wasn't part of the war on terror, Romney -- who
traveled to Baghdad in May -- countered by saying the 2004
Democratic nominee "shows a complete lack of understanding of the
kind of enemy we're facing."
Despite daunting early poll results, Romney might have a chance
if he can win over small-government conservatives who have
unhappily resigned themselves to McCain and religious rightists who
aren't aware of Giuliani's pro-choice stance. That means the Mormon
from Massachusetts will need to appeal to evangelical voters. Can
he?
The people behind Evangelicals for Mitt hope so. They make the
case that evangelicals are politically sophisticated enough to
support a candidate who shares their values even if he doesn't
share their theology. The website's mission
statement calls for a president who not only "shares our
political and moral values and priorities" but "can win in 2008,
and can govern effectively thereafter."
David French, a veteran conservative activist and devout
evangelical who co-founded the group, told me that Romney is the
only candidate in the running who he believed can meet all those
criteria. "He has a proven track record as a social conservative
yet was able to get elected in a state as liberal as
Massachusetts," French said. "He is the best candidate for people
of faith while being someone who can reach out to the blue
states."
But that blue-state appeal brings its own baggage. To win over
Massachusetts independents who love low taxes but aren't overly
fond of religious conservatives, Romney sometimes tacked to the
center -- or left, depending on your perspective -- on social
issues. In both his 1994 Senate bid and 2002 gubernatorial
campaign, he ran as a pro-choice candidate.
It will be hard for Romney to live down his pro-choice sound
bites from those races. Twelve years ago, he insisted that
"abortion should be safe and legal." Before he was elected
governor, he pledged to "protect the right of a woman to choose
under the law of the country and the laws of the commonwealth" even
though he disapproved of abortion "on a personal basis."
"Romney had a genuine conversion on the abortion issue," French
acknowledged. "In that he is no different than Ronald Reagan." He
might have added George H.W. Bush, who was embraced by pro-lifers
in 1988 despite a pro-choice past.
Pro-Mitt evangelicals maintain that Governor Romney has already
proven his pro-life mettle by vetoing two popular bills on
right-to-life grounds. The first expanded embryo-destructive
research and the second allowed access to emergency contraception
without parental consent. (Both vetoes were easily overridden by
the 87 percent Democratic legislature.) Romney has stated that
human life begins at conception, a stricter stand than his own
church's antiabortion position.
On the debate over the definition of marriage, Romney's record
is more consistent. He opposed the Supreme Judicial Court's
Goodridge ruling imposing same-sex matrimony on
Massachusetts. Romney helped engineer the preliminary approval of a
constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. When that
compromise fell
apart, he endorsed a version that didn't include civil
unions.
Romney enforced a state law that kept out-of-state gay couples
from marrying in Massachusetts -- preventing, Evangelicals for Mitt
claims, "a national constitutional crisis." And he has lobbied for
the passage of a federal marriage amendment. Even on this issue he
is not without conservative critics, but Romney's support for
traditional marriage in a liberal state will be a major selling
point to Christian-right caucus-goers.
But some evangelicals insist that they aren't just looking for
single-issue candidates. "We need someone who can tie economic
progress to strong families and cultural vitality," French
explained. "The war on terror is a values issue. Do we have the
moral fiber to beat the jihadists or are we too weak to live in
freedom?"
By this logic, the best way to appeal to evangelicals is simply
to be the most thoroughly conservative candidate. If so, Romney may
be limited by Mormon theology less than New England geography.
"People get how a Mormon would be socially conservative," French
laughed, "but not a Republican who could get elected in
Massachusetts."
Yet Romney's Bay State service didn't hurt him in at the
Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll earlier this year. His supporters in
Memphis made light of his Massachusetts residency, wearing Yankee
Governor, Southern Values t-shirts.
French reminded me that it once would have seemed unlikely that
evangelicals would vote for "a divorced former actor from Bel-Air."
Maybe a Reaganite platform can work once again for a happily
married former businessman from Belmont, Massachusetts.
topics:
Taxes, John McCain, Business, Abortion, Constitution, Law, Iraq, NATO, Unions