By Liz Mair on 12.12.07 @ 12:08AM
Mitt Romney goes after Huckabee on illegal immigration, but that might not be his best strategy.
Yesterday former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney launched the
first negative TV ad of the 2008 cycle, hammering former Arkansas
Gov. Mike Huckabee in Iowa for having "supported in-state tuition
benefits for illegal immigrants" and "taxpayer-funded scholarships
for illegal aliens."
While a valid critique (Huckabee has never denied Romney's
assertions), it was an odd maneuver. Obviously, Romney's campaign
is concerned about Huckabee rising in the polls -- especially in
Iowa, where caucus night is less than a month away. But launching
the ad meant Romney is attacking on what is, at best, shaky ground.
Although he did veto a bill offering in-state tuition to illegal
immigrants, Romney has hardly been an immigration hawk. In November
2005, in an interview with the Boston Globe, he
characterized comprehensive immigration reform proposals, such as
those preferred by Arizona Sen. John McCain and President Bush, as
"reasonable" and "quite different" from amnesty. He also was
discovered last week to still have illegal immigrants tending to
his property -- fully a year after his employment of a landscaping
firm using undocumented workers was first exposed.
Perhaps that's why yesterday -- the same day on which Romney
released his ad -- Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project,
chose to endorse a different candidate: Huckabee, no less. His
backing of the onetime pastor, currently running 10 points ahead of
Romney in Iowa according to the Real Clear Politics average, is
clearly a smack in the face for Romney. But it's a major roadblock,
to boot. How exactly can Romney attack Huckabee on immigration,
when the hero of the border enforcement crowd has given him the
thumbs up? More to the point, if Romney cannot, how else can he try
to pare back the Arkansan's lead in a state that, for him, is
must-win? Surely, he must -- but having put immigration front and
center makes pivoting to discuss other issues tricky, to the extent
it is even possible in the first place.
Romney and his team are well aware that seeking to swipe at
Huckabee on social and moral issues is a non-starter. Huckabee
possesses impeccable credentials where opposition to abortion and
gay marriage, and support for constitutional amendments dealing
with both matters, are concerned. There are, quite simply, no gaps
in Huckabee's social conservative armor -- whereas, of course,
there are plenty in Romney's, despite the positions he currently
espouses. Pope Benedict XVI would struggle to get to Huckabee's
right on values items in this campaign. A formerly pro-choice,
gay-friendly governor from the most liberal state in the nation is
hardly going to manage it.
Of course, Romney could attack Huckabee on fiscal matters. In
fact, his campaign attempted to do just that yesterday following
the ad's release and Gilchrist's endorsement, commenting that
Huckabee's record of "more taxes, more spending" (and, staying on
topic, "weak border security") was "at odds" with the GOP's core
values. But this too presents risks. Not only has the Club for
Growth been attacking Huckabee for a long while for his
tax-friendliness and alleged big government enthusiasm, to
apparently minimal effect in Iowa (which is already serving as
Huckabee's launch-pad to success). More critically, attacks on
Huckabee's tax-and-spend ways are unlikely to benefit Romney,
specifically.
This is not because of a lack of clear contrast between the two
candidates where economic issue positions (and records) are
concerned, but rather because of Romney's positioning in this race.
Having spent months touting his "three-legged-stool" appeal (i.e.,
as just as much a social/moral issues conservative as a
defense/foreign policy hawk or a free-marketeer), his calling card
is not that of "economic conservative" per se.
By contrast, that is the defining characteristic of his
opponent, ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. By most accounts,
Giuliani earned more glowing praise from the Club for Growth for
his economic record than did Romney, and just last week, the group
praised his promotion of school choice prominently on its website.
Meanwhile, Giuliani is also looking more and more like the choice
for staunch tax-cutters and budget-slashers thanks to last week's
big thumbs up from Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.
Following the CNN/YouTube debate, in which Giuliani pledged to
oppose tax increases, Norquist not only stated that "in looking at
the records of all the Republican candidates," Giuliani's "clearly
stands out," but also that he is "the most successful tax cutter in
the Republican field today." This presents a neat quandary for
Romney. If he convinces voters that Huckabee is a bad-news economic
populist, will he simultaneously give them a reason to back his
other chief rival -- who, incidentally, possesses greater
fundraising strength than the Arkansan, and occupies the third
place position in Iowa according to several recent polls?
Romney and his advisers are smart enough to know that the answer
to that question may just be "yes." But if they want to avoid an
embarrassing defeat in Iowa -- one that could diminish their
chances elsewhere -- attacking Huckabee on taxes and spending may
now be their only hope, no matter the risks. One thing is for
certain: victory in Iowa can no longer come easily for Romney --
and if it comes at all, a hefty price tag, in the form of
empowering other rivals, may well be attached.
topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, John McCain, Abortion, Constitution, Immigration
