Sometimes you wonder what these people really expect us to believe.
Mitt Romney ran for office twice in a pro-choice state, Massachusetts, and told the voters he was pro-choice. That's why he has the credential, that title of governor, to run now for president. Now he says it was all a mistake, he should never have gotten himself elected in Massachusetts by buying into the majority politics of that state on abortion rights.
But again, if he hadn't gotten himself elected by bowing to the pro-choice politics of that state, he wouldn't have the standing now to run for president. So I'm not sure mistake is the right word we're looking for here. Could it be that the other 'M' word is more in order, something like 'masquerade'? Or could it be that his current portrait of himself, the one he began in his run-up to this campaign, as a politician who wants to outlaw abortion, is the true masquerade?
It's hard to tell since both self-portraits, one devoutly pro-choice, the other devoutly pro-life, have seemed just right for each occasion, one to sell the liberals in Massachusetts, the other to sell the conservatives in Iowa. Got to keep an eye on this guy. He just tagged Obama for switching from being a Jane Fonda to a Dr. Strangelove. But if I were Mitt, I might be a tad bit careful about calling out another fellow for changing his mind" ("Hardball," 8/6).
To me, at least, this seemed both odd and personal ...
H/t: On Call