To an extent, I agree - which is why I cast my vote for him in the Primary. However, his believability is becoming tarnished with me, as it is clear he is now trying to give the impression that he was never really all that Pro-Choice, but was simply a functionally Pro-Choice candidate when he ran for office.
Previously he had given a rather tear-jerking story about why he was committed to abortion rights; the Romneys also donated to Planned Parenthood and he attended a fundraiser for them.
Ultimately, as I demonstrated when I voted for Mitt in the primaries, I am not against converts to the Pro-Life cause. But it is episodes like this which begin to try my faith, those in which a candidate seems to be more interested in rewriting his tale than in simply confessing, apologizing, and then witnessing on behalf of his conversion.
Upon reading the article again, it seems that the title is slightly misleading/incorrect. Although Mitt does not claim to have never been Pro-Choice, is seems clear that he is trying to imply that he was simply a functionally pro-choice candidate at one time, and was never really committed to Abortion rights. That's what raises my suspicions.
Still, for the record, I would not rule-out voting for Romney over Obama - though as an ORIGINAL Palinista, I am committed to a Primary candidate for 2012.
Mitt Romney naturally was lying when he told that story.
"''Many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion," Romney said in a debate with Kennedy. ''It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that." Last week, Romney's sister, Jane, recalled that the girl Romney cited in the debate was a teenager engaged to marry a relative of the Romneys' extended family."
Thanks for the thoughts. I think that’s a pretty balanced assessment.