Jay Reding.com

National Review has formally endorsed Mitt Romney in the Republican race for the 2008 nomination:

Like any Republican, he would have an uphill climb next fall. But he would be able to offer a persuasive outsider’s critique of Washington. His conservative accomplishments as governor showed that he can work with, and resist, a Democratic legislature. He knows that not every feature of the health-care plan he enacted in Massachusetts should be replicated nationally, but he can also speak with more authority than any of the other Republican candidates about this pressing issue. He would also have credibility on the economy, given his success as a businessman and a manager of the Olympics.

Romney has some impressive achievements under his belt, but the big question is even if he’s the most reliably conservative candidate (which is debatable), can he actually win in the general election? The essential problem that Mitt Romney has is that he’s too packaged to really connect with the electorate. The victories he’s had have come from spending a lot of money to get his message out, but the rise of Mike Huckabee proves that he hasn’t done nearly a good enough job of closing the deal with Republicans no less the American electorate.

National Review’s endorsement is a big win for Romney at a time he urgently needs one. However, if he doesn’t beat Huckabee in Iowa and loses New Hampshire, he’s out of the race. He hasn’t built the nationwide campaign and instead has pursued then then-wise strategy of building momentum from the early contests. If that strategy fails, it’s going to be increasingly hard to find a Plan B.

All in all, the GOP could do much worse than Romney, but he needs to show he can connect and he needs to demonstrate a sincere commitment to conservative principles, both on economic and social issues. His heart is in the right place—at least for now—but it remains to be seen whether he’ll stick to his principles should he be elected.

I happened to catch most of Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech and was quite impressed by it. Apparently, others have had the same reaction. (NRO’s The Corner has plenty of other reactions.)

Romney could have easily hurt himself with this speech, but at the very least he’s no worse off than he was before—and now that he’s delivered a speech that shows real passion, I have a feeling it will give him a decent boost. Perhaps not enough to keep Huckabee from winning in Iowa, but enough to keep him in the race.

His rhetoric was excellent, and I also appreciated his metaphor of the loss of Europe’s Christian heritage and the rise of radical Islam. However, the part that really got to me was the end:

Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. “They were too divided in religious sentiments,” what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God … they founded this great nation.

I have to admit, in terms of American political rhetoric, I think that part of Romney’s speech was the best of 2007 by a long shot. It was delivered with real passion and conviction, and the message was strong: religious convictions do matter, but they matter in terms of the common principles we all share. There will be those whose theological differences with the Latter-Day Saints will never allow them to support a Mormon for public office—and while I find that attitude perilously close to requiring a religious test for office, there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents individual voters from exercising their individual consciences in picking a Presidential candidate. However, for those wondering just how Romney’s faith will or will not influence his job as a President got their answer.

Romney did exclude atheists and agnostics from his speech, which was a notable and lamentable omission. Still, they’re not the audience that Romney is going for at this point in the race. He’ll have to recognize those groups later and more fully explain how they fit into his vision of America, but that is a task for another day. This was a speech that was directly primarily at Evangelical Christians, and Romney spoke convincingly to his intended audience in language they could understand and appreciate.

In the end, I don’t think Romney will get the nomination, and if he loses Iowa I think he’ll be sunk. Still, today’s speech was a masterwork of American rhetoric, a great speech about our shared values as a society, and it was delivered very well. This was Romney at his best, and he looked and sounded like someone who could do justice to the Office of President. It may not be enough to win the race, but it’s still a speech that will be remembered as one of the best political addresses of the year and perhaps one of the better ones of our times.

Jonah Goldberg has a good column on tomorrow’s speech by Mitt Romney on “the Mormon issue.” Romney will speak from the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas and the speech is widely viewed as being the same sort of speech that President Kennedy gave during the 1960 campaign to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in which he explained why his Catholicism should not be a political issue.

The problem for Romney is that he wants his faith to be relevant. He’s basically trying to do two things at once: convince people that being a Mormon isn’t a political issue, but that because he’s a Mormon he’s a man of conservative values. Those two goals are in tension with each other, as Goldberg points out:

Still, Romney is marching into a theological head wind the other candidates aren’t. It’s not his or any other Mormon’s policy positions that are at stake. Some of the most effective conservatives in Washington are Mormons. What rankles is the widespread characterization — mis-characterization in their eyes — of Mormonism as merely another “denomination” of Christianity. Phrases like “a stronghold of Satan’s” (applied to Utah) and “false prophecy” (applied to the “cult” ) get bandied about in some circles. Others are coldly analytical; a Mormon president, they correctly adduce, would only aid the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ remarkable success at proselytizing in the U.S. and around the world.

How can Romney address this concern? It’s not like he could — or should — say he’s no Mormon role model. And talking theology at all is only likely to exacerbate his problem with the voters who care about it, and those are the voters he needs.

Some people believe that Mormonism is incompatible with Christianity—Romney isn’t going to win them over. Others think that Mormonism isn’t particularly relevant to a person’s ability to hold the office of President so long as that candidate isn’t going to use the Oval Office for evangelization. (I’m in the latter category.) The problem with Romney’s speech is that it doesn’t help either. Those who reject Mormonism as a “cult” aren’t going to vote for Romney. Those who want to look beyond Romney’s Mormonism are going to have to confront it head-on. Either way, Romney’s “opening the door” to attacks against his religion and politicizing his faith.

Could Romney pull it off? If he delivers a truly great speech, it could revitalize his campaign. But it’s a major risk, especially with Huckabee doing so well with the evangelical vote. Romney’s campaign is in serious trouble: he needed the momentum from Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan to carry him into the later contests. Now with Huckabee surging, he might not even get that. He doesn’t have the strength nationally to compete without the boost of winning Iowa, and with the expectations game he’s set from himself, to not win Iowa convincingly could be a death blow to his campaign.

Romney may not have much of a choice but to reassure skittish conservatives that his Mormonism isn’t an issue but his faith should be—but if he doesn’t deliver it could spell the end of his campaign. The eyes of the nation will be on him tomorrow, and this will be the greatest test of his campaign. Pull it off, and he could stay in the race and has a shot at the nomination. If he fails, he could end up losing it all. In a race that’s so far up in the air, a moment of consequence like this could have major impacts on the shape of the race.

I managed to catch the CNN/YouTube debate tonight, and it certainly was different from most others. The problem was that the questions that weren’t planted tended to be questions based more on Republican stereotypes rather than on substantive issues. Yes, it’s somewhat interesting to know whether a candidate believes in the Bible or not—but is it the sort of question that should come up at a national debate?

The Good

I think this debate was “won” by Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Huckabee came off as the candidate I’d most like to have a beer with some time, and John McCain came off as the elder statesman. McCain put Ron Paul in his place (which is always a good thing for a Republican to do), and he spoke with great moral authority on torture against Romney’s non-answer. Huckabee’s answer that Jesus was too smart to run for public office was a great line. Huckabee came off as very natural and very personable. McCain came off as a man of integrity and honor.

Mitt Romney was also confident and poised. He confidently failed to give a clear answer with great poise. Both he and Giuliani hurt themselves by fighting over abortion—neither one of them are strong on that issue, and both hurt themselves there. Romney’s a very poised candidate, and he has an impressive business background. His honesty on the abortion issue was questioning. It’s nice to have a candidate willing to come out and admit his mistakes.

There were some decent questions that wouldn’t normally be asked in a Presidential debate. As a space exploration fan, I liked the question about the candidate’s vision for space exploration. NASA consumes a very small amount of the federal budget, and the candidates missed the opportunity to talk about private space exploration. Huckabee’s answer wasn’t bad, but it could have been better.

Fred Thompson was very poised and gave very responsive answers. He didn’t knock it out of the park, but he showed the best mastery of the issues. The problem is that he needs to do better—it’s a crowded field and he needs to stand out more. He’s got the substance, but he needs more flash. He has some great ads out that would have done much better than the attack ad he used.

The Bad

First of all, I think Rudy hurt himself with his exchange with Romney. He’s the front-runner (at least nationally), so he doesn’t need to go on the offensive. Hitting Romney below the belt won’t help him, and made him look like a bully. Overall, his answers weren’t a strong as they could be. Rudy needs to get a boost, and this wasn’t it. While he’s still ahead nationally, he’s vulnerable.

The same applies to Fred Thompson’s attack ad. While all the others talked about themselves, Thompson’s offensive seemed out of place. Not only that, but Romney came back with a very human answer that helped him. Huckabee also had a good response. The other campaigns are calling the video an act of “desperation”—and while I don’t think that’s the case, it wasn’t the right call. I’m in Fred’s corner, but even I don’t think that running an attack ad at that point helped him at all.

Ron Paul is a nut. When given a question that basically asked him whether he believes in a bizarre conspiracy theory, he basically said “yes.” I’ll give him some credit for eschewing an independent run, but he’s still the sort of paleoconservative on national defense issues that we don’t need now.

Rudy also hurt himself with his Second Amendment answer. This was not the right crowd to split hairs on regulating guns. This was not a good night for Rudy, and it may hurt him.

This was a solid and substantive debate (at least on the part of the candidates, if not CNN), and it could end up changing the dynamics of the race. Rudy and Romney, the two frontrunners, engaged in a fight that ended up making them both look bad. Mike Huckabee demonstrated once again why he’s gaining the most traction—he was confident and had a decent command of the issues. Fred Thompson did nothing to take him out of the race. John McCain’s campaign was on life support only a few months ago, but he’s not out of the race by any chance, and many may be willing to take a new look at him after tonight.

The biggest loser: CNN. Having a Clinton campaign advisor not only be allowed to ask a question, but then to follow up live demonstrated incredibly poor judgment. At the very least CNN could have Googled the people they were having speak. Either they were trying to bias the debate or they were simply asleep at the wheel—either way it reflects badly on them.

This race is still entirely up in the air, and even with weeks left until the Iowa Caucuses the rankings could change dramatically. Fortunately, the Republican Party has a solid group of candidates to pick from. The problem is that eventually the field must be narrowed to one—and who that may be is anyone’s guess.