E-Mail This Article to a Friend Upward mobility (continued)

BY FAR, the best example of Romney’s play to a national audience is his handling of the divisive issue of same-sex marriage (see "Schiz Romney," News and Features, May 14 and "State of Matrimony," News and Features, June 11). While his actions have made him something of a hero to religious conservatives across the country — national Christian-right organizations like the Family Research Council and the Concerned Women for America have applauded Romney’s "bold steps" in trying to block same-sex couples from marrying here — his crusade has stunned many people back home. Sheila Decter, of the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action (JALSA), in Boston, a social-justice group fighting for civil-marriage rights for same-sex couples, finds the intensity with which the governor has battled against the issue "mind-boggling." No one would have expected it, she says, given the image of tolerance toward gay men and lesbians that Romney presented during the 2002 gubernatorial campaign. At the time, he trumpeted his support for "benefits for domestic partners," by which he meant not just health insurance, but also hospital visitation and survivorship rights. In fact, Jim Brinning, a former board member of the local chapter of the Log Cabin Club, a political-advocacy group for gay Republicans, publicly apologized for his support of Romney during the 2002 gubernatorial election in a letter to the editor of Bay Windows. In the letter, published in the July 15 issue of the paper, Brinning charged that Romney "misled us on his positions regarding same-sex relationships" when he sought Log Cabin’s endorsement in 2002.

Meanwhile, the governor’s call to roll back state income taxes — a run-of-the-mill Republican issue that won’t earn him invites to speak before the National Press Club — should also be viewed, nonetheless, through the prism of national ambition. Almost as soon as Massachusetts experienced a modest rise in tax revenues — $700 million in surplus funds, as of the end of the 2004 fiscal year, in June — the governor began pushing for a cut to the income tax from 5.3 percent to five percent. This, even though health and human-services programs have endured more than $1 billion in budget cuts over three years, and the governor continues to chop away at vital programs for the poor and disadvantaged. Just this month, in a series of vetoes to the state’s $22.4 billion fiscal year 2005 budget, he wiped out $10 million from the state’s Medicaid program — including $5 million earmarked to provide health care to 2800 elderly and disabled legal immigrants who lost their coverage last year. In another brutally harsh cut, he slashed $5 million from a unique state program that helps low-income seniors pay for their prescription drugs.

Romney’s push for a tax cut only reinforces the perception among human-services advocates that the governor, says Judith Meredith, a veteran advocate with Health Care for All, "is totally insensitive to the needs of the poor, the disabled, and the vulnerable in this state." As she sees it, the only rationale for such a move is that the governor "wants to be able to say, ‘I have succeeded in restoring the Massachusetts economy. I made all these budget cuts with minimum pain. We have a surplus, and it’s time for a tax cut.’" After all, she adds, "It’s a great message among conservatives."

Finally, there is the Romney administration’s hostile attitude toward labor unions — an attitude that plays well with the national Republican Party. Romney’s hard-line approach to public-employee unions has reared its head most recently in the state’s financial bailout of the City of Springfield. Last month, he drafted legislation that would have given the fiscally strapped city $52 million on the one hand; on the other hand, it would have suspended all the city’s collective-bargaining agreements. When the legislature took steps to protect the union contracts in its version of the bailout bill, Romney balked. Instead, he slashed $30 million from the package on July 10 — a move widely viewed as payback for dropping his original anti-union provision.

All in all, the governor’s stances on such issues serve to solidify his rightward-leaning record in the eyes of Republicans everywhere. State Democratic Party chair Philip Johnston sums up the image best: "Here you have a union-busting, tax-cutting, anti-gay Republican elected in Massachusetts. How can this not build his national résumé?"

THE QUESTION remains, however, will Romney succeed in making a jump from the Bay State to DC? Most of the speculation surrounds a possible run for president in 2008. In order to do that, though, he needs to win re-election in 2006. Will Bay State voters re-elect him now that his national aspirations and his social conservatism are clear for all to see? Fehrnstrom, for one, recognizes that Romney doesn’t easily fit the mold of a centrist Bay State Republican following in the footsteps of former Massachusetts governors like William Weld, Paul Cellucci, and Jane Swift. Yet he maintains that the governor’s record thus far has been "moderate and in the mainstream" — even on gay marriage. Explains Fehrnstrom, "The governor believes marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s hardly an extreme point of view."

But even loyal Republicans think that Romney has veered too far right of the Massachusetts mainstream when it comes to same-sex marriage. It’s safe to say that much of his agenda — on tax cuts and unions — would appeal to moderate Republicans and the independent voters who dominate state politics here. But Republican consultant Kevin Sowyrda notes that there is one thing that this constituency cannot tolerate: "all the obsessive-compulsive talk about homosexual sex." Sooner or later, says Sowyrda, "the governor has to start preaching jobs, jobs, jobs. People are much more worried about jobs than about other people’s genitalia. As a Republican in this state, you cannot get elected on gay sex."

In the meantime, Romney’s national profile seems destined to keep rising. Fehrnstrom contends that this emerging image has yet to cripple the governor’s "signature achievement" — indeed, he says, the governor "took office with a $3 billion budget deficit and has turned things around without raising taxes or borrowing money. Not a lot of governors can say that." It sounds like an impressive re-election slogan (or, for that matter, a presidential stump speech). But will Massachusetts residents remember Romney for this? Or will they remember him as a governor who spent more time outside the state than in it? Will they remember how, as the Democrats’ Johnston puts it, "This governor has done nothing but grandstand and run for the presidency his entire tenure?"

Only time will tell.

Kristen Lombardi can be reached at klombardi[a]phx.com