You provide no evidence for a multiple changes. Let's look at the evidence you provide:
Pre-Christmas 1994 (October): “We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden…” Oct. 6, 1994 Romney for U.S. Senate letter to Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts
Yes, he was for a Federal ENDA 14 years ago. We know all that.
Pre-Christmas 2006 Interview (mid-December): Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today? Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.
Okay, so now he opposes a Federal ENDA, which we already know. So we have exactly one change in position. A flip, made over the course of 14 years, and a pretty minor one at that, but no flop.
You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it? GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this. MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level. GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/
So he continues to oppose a Federal ENDA, but supports it at the state level. Where's the second change? He supported a Federal ENDA, but now opposes it. There's no change in his position on state-level ENDAs. That's one change.
Or did your mother never teach you to count?
For some reason you have a mental block here. Here, let me help you out by just switching to another hypothetical issue that we'll just treat as parallel (please note that the most important component of the hypothetical parallel below is bold-faced & underlined; whereas the secondary consideration is italicized):
Candidate R wants slavery legalized at the fed level. A dozen years later, he does a u-turn: No slavery at the fed level. One year beyond that, he takes a new position which you say is not new.
Effectively, your argument in this illustration is tantamount to saying: "Hey, his position a year before was no legal slavery @ the fed level and his position this year is no legal slavery @ the fed level. What's you're problem? You can't count the # of changes?"
The problem is you are just making a technical point on the secondary portion of the concern in order for you to claim a phantom consistency. The problem is that a candidate who would go from a pro-fed slavery position to an anti-fed slavery position and then onto a pro-state-level slavery position is certainly more pro-slavery than he would be re: any anti-federal imposition considerations!
But nice try. Quite Clintonian of you, in fact. (Have you ever thought of running for public office?)
To hear you tell it, the door thru which legislation passes is all that matters for consistency sake. (It doesn't matter about the content of the issue itself).