The book of Mitt

Yesterday I cast aside Mitt Romney's Republican challengers for the 2012 presidential nomination. Today I will make an affirmative case for his candidacy.

I must begin by disclosing the fact that I was a McCain delegate in 2008 and a co-chair of the Illinois Young Professionals for McCain. Governor Romney was a bitter rival and in my mind lacked the authenticity to claim the Republican mantle to run opposite the historic campaign of then Senator Barack Obama.

This time around, I saw three viable contenders for the opportunity to knock off an increasingly vulnerable incumbent: Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, and Mitt Romney 2.0. TPaw exited stage right after a poor showing in the meaningless Iowa Straw Poll (ask Michelle Bachmann).

I signed on as co-chair of Huntsman's Illinois YP group, finding him more consistently conservative than Romney, and well-positioned on wedge issues like immigration and civil unions for same-sex couples. His campaign failed to gather steam from the get-go. Huntsman positioned himself as a moderate and media darling at the time when all of the energy is on the ideological poles and bashing the MSM is a blood sport among conservatives. Given Romney's late surge in Iowa and comfortable lead in the Granite State, his fellow Mormon is looking like he'll be one and done come January 10.

2012 will be a referendum on the incumbent and the economy he has presided over for four years. The latter is expected to remain lethargic at best, so the Republican contender's task is to present himself as a plausible alternative, and to build credibility that President Obama lacks on the fiscal side of the policy equation. Mitt Romney, given his experiences at Bain Capital, stewardship of the 2002 Winter Olympics, and successful term as a fiscally conservative Governor in deep blue Massachusetts, represents the GOP's best fit for next fall.

My task in the remainder of this post is to dismiss concerns about the nominal frontrunner who has struggled to break the 25% threshold in national polls and among early primary states where he doesn't reside.

Concern 1: Romney is a flip-flopper without a moral core who will say anything to get elected. Political debates centering on sound bite volleys fail to capture the complexity of the issues they engage. Romney, according the Ronald B. Scott, author of a recent objective biography of the potential 45th President (Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics, Lyons Press, 2012), has wiggled little from the positions he has espoused over the course of his political career. While his evolution on abortion is well-documented, he has always been personally pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, consistent with his faith. He remains a proponent of gay rights, but opposes gay marriage. Civil unions are an acceptable, if last resort, compromise (Note that President Obama holds the same position, although his views are "evolving").

Concern 2: Romney is a big government conservative. His Massachusetts health care plan is central to this claim. Bottom line: he delivered coverage to 98% of state residents and worked with a legislature dominated 4-1 by Democrats. It has become fashionable to bash the mandate that made the plan function, but the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and other prominent conservatives were early proponents. Romney has pledged to repeal Obamacare upon inauguration, and to grant states waivers to address reform in a fashion fitting to their unique political environments. While his work in Massachusetts is an albatross in the GOP nomination sweepstakes, it's a trump card in the general election as Romney has accomplished what the President has promised and cannot deliver. Outside of Romneycare, Mitt cut spending and taxes while governor, raising user fees, and delivering a string of budget surpluses in a state known to conservatives as the People's Republic of Taxachusetts.

Concern 3: Romney fails to connect with voters in a personal way. This concern is admittedly apt. Romney is a trained technician who feels at home in front of a spreadsheet and delivering nuanced policy solutions to complex problems. He is not made for retail politicking, as his early losses in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008 laid to bare. This would be a deal breaker if he was up against a genuine populist who connected with "Bubba" like Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush, but he'll square off against a guy who feels at home in Harvard Yard or the arugula aisle at Whole Foods. The economic fixer-upper is what the doctor ordered in November 2012, and Mitt Romney is the right man for the job.

Concern 4: Romney's Mormonism is anathema to the Religious Right. Rick Perry's pathetic campaign was a true threat on this front as he could have galvanized the Evangelical vote and garnered the resources for an epic marathon to Tampa. Splintered allegiances in Iowa will eliminate at least a couple of contenders for the conservative alternative to Romney, and Rick Santorum's potential show won't sell outside of Des Moines and Cedar Rapids. Republican voters are slowing coming to the same conclusion as me: Priority #1 is making Barack Obama a one term president, and Mitt Romney is our best bet to seal the deal. Unlike Huntsman, Romney is really Mormon, having served as a high-ranking lay leader within the faith. Like John Kennedy and Barack Obama, he will likely have to bare all at some point in the campaign and lead the electorate, and especially his own party, past this denominational hurdle. Bottom line, Mormonism embraces conservative values. Romney is a man of true faith. Both belong squarely at the center of the GOP. This realization, and the more pragmatic political calculation articulated above, will provide the nation with a Mormon moment akin to JFK's Catholic coronation a half century ago.