Byron York has an interest column out on NRO, one I think he was manipulated into writing.

Some social conservatives in the important primary state of South Carolina are expressing skepticism about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney after reports of statements from the Massachusetts governor that were pro-choice, in favor of expansive gay rights, and dismissive of Ronald Reagan.

"Some" social conservatives in this case are undeclared, at least for 2008, McCain supporters.

“You cannot slam Ronald Reagan or disrespect Ronald Reagan in a state like South Carolina,” says Ed McMullen, head of the economically-oriented South Carolina Policy Council. “This man is the true ideological backbone of what Republicans in South Carolina believe.” (Neither the Council nor McMullen has endorsed a candidate for 2008, although McMullen supported Sen. John McCain in 2000.)

For the record I can't see where Romney dissed Reagan.

Kennedy attempted to link Romney several times during the debate to conservatives such as Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and accused him of trying to return the country to the policies of the Reagan-Bush administrations.

Romney objected to the characterizations, saying: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Is Romney trying to say that he isn't an ideologue? That's what it looks like to me. Ironically, George H.W. Bush wasn't much of a Reagan ideologue either.

Getting to the point though--how does Romney, whose national recognition factor is way, way behind Guiliani and McCain, offend so many social conservatives?

He doesn't. This is simply an effort by McCain and his supporters to frame Romney for primary voters before he can make his own impression.

The irony here is where do so-called "social conservatives" go to get a George Wallace on gay rights? If you spike Romney, is McCain your guy on gay rights? Guiliani?

I think the party is in serious danger of repeating 2006, by alienating moderates and ending up with a solid 35% of the vote.

I know what Romney's position is on gay marriage because its the default position of the Mormon church--marriage is between a man and a woman, but gays and lesbians are brothers and sisters and should be treated as such (as opposed to pariahs). Full civil rights for gays simply means that you should not be able to fire someone for being gay, deny him housing or other rights we take for granted. Clearly we have to make some accommodations for gay relationships in terms on inheritance, trustee rights, etc...

If you can't agree, then we are on opposite sides of the fence. I sure hope gay marriage isn't going to be the defining issue of the 2008 campaign, because I have no intention of voting for a bigot.

The Republicans have a marvelous opportunity here. Democrats are nominating "rock stars" these days, but almost every Republican candidate is a real, honest-to-god mover and shaker. Romney in particular has considerable executive experience, political smarts and yes, "rock star" charisma. McCain is arguably the most effective Senator in Washington. Guiliani is a national hero. These guys have resumes and making the primaries about litmus tests rather than an honest-to-goodness debate about ideas is foolish in the extreme.

UPDATE: Powerline

For me, these are negatives but not deal-breakers. I still lean towards Romney as opposed to Giuliani, an out-and-out social liberal, and McCain whose positions on issues like taxes, campaign finance reform, and the interrogation of detainees make him all but impossible for me to support except in a general election. However, Byron's piece suggests that Romney "has some serious repair work to do in South Carolina and among social conservatives in general." And the door may be opening wider for a fourth major candidate.

I pretty much agree with Mirengoff on McCain. McCain-Feingold is a far more serious affair that whether Romney was sufficiency deferential towards Ronald Reagan. I quote Newt Gingrich earlier today saying:

No. You have—you have more censorship in the McCain-Feingold bill, which blocks the right of free speech about American campaigns than you have from the FBI closing down jihadists. We’ve already limited the First Amendment right of free speech by a set of rules that are stunningly absurd.

If McCain ends up the nominee, Hillary will have to be stinking up the joint pretty badly for me not to vote for her...