So says CBN:
“CBN News has been talking to operatives in the state of Michigan and the news is not good for Governor Romney. I’ve learned that there are at least four Republican Representatives from the Michigan State House that are seriously rethinking their support of Romney for President.
These are members of Romney’s steering committee in Michigan who are now having reservations about recent revelations about Romney’s past comments in regards to marriage, abortion and the Boy Scouts. There’s a good chance that they could jump ship. I know that one of them wrote to Romney’s office demanding specific answers to certain questions. If these members jump ship, the logical choice would be for them to back Senator Sam Brownback for President. Unlike Romney, Brownback has no past skeletons in his closet when it comes to these issues.
Romney has been under criticism lately because of a letter he wrote in 1994 when he was running for the U.S. Senate. In it, Romney thanks the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, a gay Republican group, for its support. He also calls for equality for gays and lesbians. In the letter, Romney also said he supported President Clinton’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays serving in the Armed Forces, describing it as “the first in a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.” Romney has lately been positioning himself as the candidate for family value conservatives in 2008.
As for whether gays should be allowed to be leaders in the Boy, Romney said this in 1994 when running for the U.S. Senate, “I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue.all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
What I’m being told from a well placed source on the ground is that the representatives who may leave Romney are really questioning the legitimacy of his conservative credentials. Romney has always said he has evolved on these issues over the years, but these folks in Michigan think it’s okay to evolve, but some of this seems to be major flip flop material, especially on the life issue where they point out how he’s gone from pro-choice in 1994, to pro-life in 2000, to pro-choice in 2002 and now back to pro-life.
Romney’s office will dispute this, but what they can’t dispute is a potential unraveling among their steering committee in Michigan. Michigan is crucial to Romney. He has significant family roots there and it’s one of the first four primary states. He needs to do well there.”
As I’ve said before, Romney’s raison d’etre — his reason for being — is that he’s supposedly the only orthodox conservative in the GOP field who can potentially win the general election.? All of the other candidates in the field are either heterodox conservatives who deviate from the orthodoxy of movement conservatism on one or more issues (Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, Pataki, Hagel), or are seen as long-shots in the general for one or more reasons, such as fringe candidate status (Brownback, Tancredo) or a lack of gravitas and fundraising capacity (Hunter, Thompson, Gilmore).? Romney’s plan, and it was a good one, was to market himself as the all-around conservative in the race who also had the ability to raise lots of money, appeal to lots of people, and give whichever Democrat the other party anointed a real run for his or her money.? In that event, movement conservatives may have been willing to pass up the more electable candidates in the field (Rudy and McCain) and go long on a guy who could both win AND wouldn’t make them uncomfortable in any particular issue area.
But the whole calculus falls apart if Romney is proven to be yet another heterodox Republican, which seems to be the conclusion that conservatives are now coming to based on Mitt’s past statements about Reagan, the 1992 election, abortion, and gay rights.? If Romney is just another GOP contender whose views are not completely in line with GOP orthodoxy, what reason do movement conservatives have for selecting him to lead the party over equally the heterodox, but far more electable, Rudy or McCain?? It seems to me there is none.? Which is probably why Romney remains in single-digits, even in states where name recognition is controlled for, like Iowa and New Hampshire.
December 31st, 2006 at 3:44 am
It’s funny how a couple of forgoten sentances many years ago can have drastic consequences today. Romney is already being put through the presidential gauntlet. I think many of these people are overreacting to these supposed flip-flops. Actions speak louder than words and his record is 100% conservative. I still believe Romney is the most capable and effective leader among presidential candidates. However, right now he’s losing one of the most important creds for any leader: TRUST. He needs to somehow regain trust among the conservatives or he will not break past the Mccain straight talk train.
December 31st, 2006 at 8:14 am
Exactly how is Huckabee a heterodox conservative? He seems to me to be a pretty standard Southern conservative. e
December 31st, 2006 at 9:05 am
Mitt has peaked and peaked way to early, he will continue his downward spiral. Believe me when I tell that he still has the wool pulled over many conservatives eyes here in New Jersey, but I guess soon enough they will learn.
What you write above is true, now what ? Who moves into that 3rd spot out of the remaining candidates, my bet it’s Gov. Mike TaxHike-abee, equally unappealing to me …
December 31st, 2006 at 11:55 am
A handful of people are considering jumping ship in Michigan, and for David
the ship has already sunk. Romney has yet to announce his candidacy and his
efforts to date have not been focused at all on communicating to the general
public (or even to most Republican primary voters). Rather, he has been
laying a foundation, as yet unseen (thus the meaningless low numbers in the
polls). Thus, to Michael (“Mitt has peaked”), I think the coming months will
prove you wrong–Romney’s campaign will gain traction and he will remain a
strong candidate through the early primaries.
December 31st, 2006 at 12:29 pm
I think the question is whether the Romney ship stays afloat long enough to bar another candidate from replacing him in the big three. If he stays in the “big three” through the summer it is hard to see another candidate getting the money and exposure to compete with Giuliani/McCain. If he continues to implode over the coming months this thing remains wide open. Personally, if I were on the McCain or Giuliani campaigns I would do everything I could to keep Romney standing, knock him down for real closer to the caucases, and turn this thing into a two-man race.
December 31st, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Why is it that race42008 has Tommy Thompson and Newt Gingrich ahead of Mike Huckabee?
December 31st, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Peter,
Because Huckabee hasn’t put together much organization and has shown little ability to be able to raise substantial amount of money. In fact, the money he has raised so far is almost entirely in corporate donations and can’t be transferred over into a presidential account. Whereas, Tommy Thompson has been in Iowa several times and hired a couple big name staffers. Newt has great name ID and the ability to raise lots of money at the snap of a finger. Generally, that’s why they are ahead of Huckabee.
December 31st, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Newt deserves to be in 4th place. A case can be made that he actually deserves to be in 3rd place ahead of Romney right now.
Huckabee is where he is because he did absolutely nothing to advance his candidacy in 2006.
I fully admit that Thompson in 5th place is pure projection right now.
December 31st, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Romney if he ever peaked, peaked between 4-10%, of the GOP vote. He made his bed with the social conservatives and now will suffer their wrath. He has no natural constituency and no foreign policy experience so it is hard to see where he is going. Having him in the race is a mild boost to McCain who otherwise would face Rudy as the anybody but McCain candidate. I suspect the NY Times and LA Times which have been laying low on Romney will soon do aggressive pieces that will be his final undoing. He will spend more and more time defending the past than establishing his credentials. The party regular conservatives will make peacee with either McCain or Rudy.
December 31st, 2006 at 11:18 pm
It’s not so much Newt, rather than the fact that Tommy Thompson, who has no appeal, is projected ahead of someone like Huckabee?
January 1st, 2007 at 9:19 am
Romney is a bonafide conservative. This is much ado about nothing.
http://www.iowansforromney.com
January 1st, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Sam Brownback first ran for the U.S. House of Representatives as a moderate who was supported strongly by pro-choice forces within his state and congressional district. If he becomes a more viable presidential candidate, this will probably be pursued. Brownback deserves the same kind of scrutiny Romney is getting with regard to changing his views on important issues of the day.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I don’t think it’s wise to right-off a candidate like Romney because of some sketchy sentances 12 years ago. I think this will the extent of the dirt to be thrown at Romney. Yes, he’s played some politics in Massachusetts but look at what he’s capable of for the future and not the past. He’s a brilliant out-of-the-box thinker and very effective manager. His health insurance policy is an excellent example of that. I don’t believe he’s peaked because he has a very distinct publicity trait that far exceeds Mccain and Rudy: he’s very photogenic and charismatic. When people see and hear him rather than read about him through the eyes of a journalist they will see his full potential. He’s also has grown a good connection with Fox News which is largely conservative. Also, I can’t wait to see him clean up at any debate against old, shorty Mccain and baldy Rudy. So, Romney is anything but down and out. He’s got a huge team and lots of money and we will be seeing more of him in the future.
January 1st, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Rudy Giuliani, in particular, will destroy Romney in the debates. Do you think that because Romney has the “Hollywood” attraction, or the apparent youthful look, that he will prevail? Good luck, it is going to a lot more than looks.
Giuliani is one of the most impressive prosecutors to live. Fighting a case, and presenting a plausible argument is his bread and butter. Plus, don’t discount McCain’s age; he is a pit bull when it comes to debates.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Agree Kris. Rudy is perhaps the best debater of the three and is the most experienced in dealing with hostile press after 8 years of war with the NY Times. Romney is going to get his first dose of national scrutiny and can’t just hide behind the skirts of National Review On Line after every bad quote comes out. McCain is going to learn that the MSM is a fair weather friend.
January 1st, 2007 at 10:18 pm
“after 8 years of war with the NY Times”
I think that may be overstating things juuuuuuust….a little bit.
January 1st, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Virginian is right. Go back and read some of the coverage. It makes Bush’s press coverage look glowing.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:35 am
Neither Rudy nor Mitt will destroy each other in any debates. Both will run on their records and
policy positions, and both are nice guys. Both, however, will quietly destroy McCain, who has no executive
experience, lots of votes to expose and little knowledge of domestic policy.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Perhaps I overextended myself on the primary debate. Romney’s photogenic qualities will be a bigger asset in the general election with people who don’t pay close attention to politics and care more for a certain image. The primaries are different and are filled with political activists that really look at policy. Romney is the sharpest of the bunch but Rudy and Mccain know how to debate very well. They will have their shots to give but in the end I think Romney will come out on top of what will be many excellent debates.