Friday, March 02, 2007

11th Commandment   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Jim Gilmore is no fan of the Republican frontrunners and is going on the attack.

I don't know when I became such a political niceguy, but — this goes back to the back and forth about Brownback earlier in the week a little — I wish Republicans, instead of tearing down the guys up front, would encourage them in the right direction. Unless the second coming of Reagan appears — and, guys, he won't — the nominee will likely be Giuliani or McCain or Romney. Instead of tearing them down and ruling them out, there's something to be said about making them be Right. And watching them as they are in the hot seat — with reporters following their every move — to see if they have their stories straight and know what they're talking. You'd have to be a damn good fake to fake it for the length of this process.

There's something about, for instance, Romney's conversions that the ridiculous length of this cycle is useful for — for us. Fact is, even if his conversions were recently, he had time to lead in Massachusetts on life and marriage. We know that and should not dismiss that. But then the question is: How can we be sure Romney now is the real deal, the real Romney? Well we have months and months of him speaking near everyday and often. There's some assurance that comes with consistency and his ability (or lack thereof) to talk about these issues consistently on the trail will tell us something. It's not everything — it's talk — but if he can not only tell his story compellingly (I still think he needs to give a life speech, more than he needs to give a Kennedy-like Mormon speech) and be consistent in a way beyond giving the impression that he's just checking the pro-life box (as Rich has put it), I think that would be no small thing.

Anyway, I'd prefer an Alan Keyes type challenging people to really talk about conservative issues — I do like Newt's cute we-have-to-have-great-debates obsession — would be more helpful than repeatedly running the same statements from the past. The past is far from irrelevant, but there's something to be said for: Okay, let's say we give you the benefit of the doubt. You changed. Now: What do you believe? How deep do you believe it? How important is it? What will you do?

03/02 08:34 AMShare