Hey, I thought our man Mitt had already sewn up the evangelical vote and established himself as the ONLY conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani in the “two-man” GOP primary showdown.  If that’s the case, why is Governor Romney apparently still trying to prove himself to the brethren?  Or could it be that the brethren are not yet fully convinced?

The presidential campaign of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday that Romney does not favor punishing women who have abortions but does favor punishing abortionists, perhaps even with incarceration.

The description of Romney’s abortion policy was made in a statement that Romney Communications Director Matt Rhoades issued to Cybercast News Service after Cybercast News Service asked a Romney spokesman about an answer Romney had given in a November 19 interview with Human Events.

 That answer evidently needed - um, what’s the word I’m looking for?  Oh, yes - clarification:

“Several of your rivals said they opposed criminalizing abortion, by putting the women or the doctors involved in jail. Do you agree?” Human Events asked Romney.

“You know,” Romney replied, “I don’t see putting doctors and women in jail. I don’t believe that’s ever been part of our history, even when states were able to put in place effective pro-life legislation.

“I haven’t seen provisions of that nature ever being proposed. But I do believe that the next step that should be taken is to overturn Roe v. Wade, and to no longer have the Supreme Court impose its one-size-fits-all philosophy on the entire nation. There will be steps beyond that, of course, but the next step is to overturn Roe v. Wade,” he added.

Note that he never gave a direct answer to Human Events on the question they actually posed.  You can almost hear the wheels turning in his head as he crafted his evasion and redirected the discussion toward the safe harbor of his nearest abortion talking point; one that would not put him out front and center on the abortion issue while still keeping both feet in his hard-won space in the pro-life camp.  Which, of course, was why CNS bore down on that specificity and wouldn’t let the Mittster escape from it.

The reply that CNS received was as broad as Romney’s press spokesman could make it.  And, of course, it would lie beyond the towering barrier of overturning Roe v. Wade, so I have no doubt that the Romneylans feel the whole topic is still safely hypothetical.  But even being open to “anything from disciplinary action to incarceration” for aborticians puts Mitt farther out on that particular social policy limb than anybody else in the Republican field, and may spook some GOP primary voters (like Ace of Spades, for example) who have been pondering a switch to the Bay Stater toward a more ”reasonable” alternative.

The irony is that if Romney’s campaign had ducked CNS’s follow-up altogether, evangelical voters’ doubts about Mitt would have flared anew, and all that hard work cultivating social conservative support might have started unraveling, which could only have redounded to the benefit of that same reassuringly authentic alternative - and I don’t mean Mike Huckawhatsis.

What will happen to Mitt Romney’s carefully laid “win early, win it all” strategy if he falls victim to an isolated “insurgency” in Iowa?  Did CNS lay an inescapable, double-edged trap?  Guess we’ll find out how nimble the Commodore’s man really is.