Last week in the Washington Post, George Will proved once again that he's only about as conservative as a regular Washington Post op-ed columnist can get away with.

At CPAC, Romney gave the most polished speech, touching all the conservative movement's erogenous zones, pointedly denouncing the "McCain-Kennedy" immigration bill and promising to seek repeal of the McCain-Feingold law regulating campaign speech. Romney, however, is criticized by many conservatives for what they consider multiple conversions of convenience -- on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, gun control. But if Romney is now locked into positions that these conservatives like, why do they care so much about whether political calculation or moral epiphany moved him there?

Surely it's obvious?

We care because a politician "locked into" a given position -- on abortion, say -- by a given set of political circumstances can very easily find himself unlocked from that position if political circumstances change. Whereas a politician who's had what Will disparages as a "moral epiphany" has something stronger than current circumstance binding him to his positions.

So conservatives very naturally are asking whether Romney's conversion on the life issue is a genuine one, and whether we can trust his positions on other issues as well.

Hugh Hewitt is one conservative who thinks we can. His A Mormon in the White House? 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney, just published today, takes a look at Romney and judges him to be a candidate that even Mormon-shy Bible Belt evangelicals ought to be able to get behind.

What do you think?