Romney and Giuliani both see their past come back to haunt them

Everything has been pointing towards the likelihood that Rudy Giuliani's atypical moderate past finally comes back and permanently damages him in the GOP primary. The big question has always been when Giuliani's rivals will finally start running ads highlighting his past positions on gun rights, abortion, gay rights... How about an ad, for example, using the footage of Giuliani in drags? How would that play with the Republican base in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But it is Mitt Romney who took the first blow for his moderate past, underscoring how unhappy Republicans with their candidates. And the attack did not even come from conservative activists! The Log Cabin Republicans (a group of gay Republicans) has started running an ad in Iowa highlighting past statements by Mitt Romney (you can also watch the ad here). The former Massachusetts Governor has said a lot of things that could hurt him. He was, after all, trying to get himself elected as a Republican in one of the most Democratic states of the country. Most of the quotes used by the ad come from Romney's 1994 Senate run against Ted Kennedy. Among them, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country" and "I was independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

The big question raised by this ad is why would the Log Cabin Republicans care about attacking a politician for having a moderate social past? Should they not be relieved by that? Their statement points to Romney's flip-flop as what they are objecting to, rather than his moderation: "Romney may have forgotten what he used to believe, but Republicans won’t forget." But still, why Romney? Why not do the same exact thing with Giuliani, who has even more damning quotes in his past? Is there some personal animosy between Romney and the Log Cabin? (Update: A commenter makes the very good point that Romney took money from the Log Cabin in his electoral runs, promising he would protect gay rights, and then turned around 100%, explaining why the Log Cabin is so opposed to Romney). Whatever the Log Cabin's motivation, there is no doubt that such ads could seriously hurt Romney. He has been trying to portray himself as the conservative alternative to weak-on-principle McCain and Giuliani, but his record contradicts that.

Meanwhile, Giuliani is by no means off the hook. In the days after news first broke that conservative religious leaders were considering running a third-party candidate if Giuliani won the nomination, the conventional wisdom was that this was simply an attempt to influence the primary process, and that these leaders would not want to throw the election to a Democrat. But the conservatives who first agreed to that statement last week are now pushing back on that conventional wisdom, making sure people know they are serious. First, Dobson published an op-ed in the NYT emphasizing his determination that no pro-choice Republican win the White House. His article basically states that there is no doubt that they will bolt from the party, despite the fact that the statement voted on said "we will consider..." It is a sure thing, Dobson says now, not a "consideration:"

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

Second, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke entered the mix. Burke became famous in 2004 for saying he would deny communion to pro-choice candidates, including John Kerry. Now, Burke is saying the same thing about Rudy Giuliani. Could this finally attract the attention of religious voters?

Third, Richard Viguerie (another of the participants of that meeting last week) has now started an online petition! It is short and to the point: "I am joining the conservative leaders who have pledged that they will not support or vote for any Republican candidates who are pro-abortion." Viguerie commented, "It will be a powerful warning to those in a position of influence that, if the GOP turns against unborn children, a significant portion of its base will not vote for Republican candidates."

Despite all of this, it remains unclear whether the third-party route will be taken. Will these leaders really take the risk of throwing the election to a Democrat? But what does seem sure is that the Religious Right will not stand behind Giuliani the way it stood behind Bush in 2004, and that could very well be enough to doom the Republican campaign even without a third-party vote drainage. If the turnout is lower among evangelical voters, it would probably deprive the GOP of the base it needs to win any election -- and could also hurt the party in down-the-ballot races.

But first comes the primary: Who will benefit from all of this there? Will Giuliani and Romney actually be hurt by this? They haven't been until now, but that could still change if they decide to turn against each other.