The editors of National Review, who in about a year will probably suck it up and endorse Giuliani, semi-quasi-defend flip-flopping prez candidate Mitt Romney today in a classic of political back-scratching.
[T]he gleeful pounding away at Romney's changes from some on the right is counterproductive. Do any of these critics really wish that Romney had remained pro-choice? Pro-choicers didn't object when Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and Jesse Jackson moved their way on abortion — they welcomed the converts.
Yes, this is a real problem with the modern GOP: its refusal to act more like 1980s Democrats.
A conservative Republican would be unelectable in liberal Massachusetts, so it is understandable that such a badly outnumbered politician would emphasize some issues and soft-pedal others. It is natural that he might say he is personally pro-life, but would not try to change laws in Massachusetts;
This is not what he said. He said: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time my mother took that position in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate."
that he would oppose same-sex marriage, but otherwise promote gay rights; even that he would duck the Reaganite label.
Reagan won Massachusetts twice. Romney only won it once.
There's theoretically nothing wrong with political conversions: If Joe Lieberman made an America for Lieberman presidential bid and decided to become anti-war, anti-censorship, and pro-privatization, he might become worth voting for. But there's a difference between a road to Damascus experience and a cowardly flip-flop. Romney doesn't take many trips to Damascus.