Our favourite Romneyites at Evangelicals for Mitt are predictably not impressed by their natural foe, Sam Brownback, who threatens Romney’s drive to win the support of Christian and social conservatives.  Understandably, they are hitting him on his appallingly bad immigration position (one area where Romney actually does better than old Sam), and have argued his undoubtedly popular and sane opposition to the “surge” is proof of his poor leadership and lack of conservative bona fides (as if perpetuating an aggressive war not in the national interest is a mark of conservatism). 

Whatever else I may think of Brownback, it is Brownback who is taking something of a lead here and carving out a distinct position while almost all of the other GOP candidates are running and attaching themselves to Mr. Bush’s policy.  On foreign policy, Gov. Romney has really been a mere echo of Mr. Bush.  Clearly, the public is interested in something else.  On foreign policy, Bush Redux or Bush Lite will not be acceptable in the general election.  While I consider many of Sen. Brownback’s views on foreign policy to be horrifying, he at least has coherent views that he has articulated and can expound on at considerable length.  His interest in intervening in Darfur strikes me as fairly wild-eyed and dangerous, but he has demonstrated leadership on this and other issues.  If the test is one of leadership on foreign policy questions, Gov. Romney’s grandstanding over Muhammad Khatami’s visit is a poor alternative.  

Can the choice for conservatives really be between a flip-flopping, universal health-care-bill-signing Massachusetts governor who wants to persist in the folly of the Iraq war and Amnesty Sam, champion of Darfur and scourge of cancer?  Surely there is someone else.  Hunter?  Tancredo?  Paul?