He took three positions in 13 years on forcing business owners to hire alternative sexual minorities: For it in '94; against it in 2006; then in Dec '07 he decides he's for it again--only not the feds...he wants the states to implement it.
He took three positions on embryonic stem cell research: He was for it in a June, '02 speech. He supposedly "converted" to the entire pro-life cause over this issue in Nov of '04. By Dec of '07 he was telling Katie Couric that he was pro-choice on parents of such embryos exercising either the choice to give up their surplus embryo(s) for adoption, or to "donate" them to "research" (dissection).
In two back-to-back sentences, he uses the terms "parent" and "adoption" to apply to embryos; only in the next sentence to use the terms "parent" and "donate" and "research"--saying this was "acceptable."
He was pro-civil unions in 2002-2005...especially when he was trying to broker a late-ditch alternative to same-sex marriage...then he was anti-civil unions after that.
He first came to the side the Catholic adoption program re: being forced to adopt out kids to same-sex couples; then he backed away and told them he couldn't help them.
In back to back sentences in 1994 October debate with Ted Kennedy, he backed the right of the Boy Scouts of America to make their own policies, but then said they shouldn't discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation." (Yeah, that's what we want: Every flavor of every "sexual orientation" in each of these tents on overnight trips).
His abortion weaves were even worse: Pro-abortion in 1994; didn't wish to be labeled "pro-choice" in 2001; back to his heftiest pro-abortion actions & rhetoric in 2002; pro-life actions in Winter/spring 2005; pro-abortion commitment re-stated on May 27, 2005 sandwiched between pro-life actions; back to aiding & abetting Planned Parenthood & taxpayer subsidized abortions in Spring of 2006.
Then a year full of 2007 where he would alternately tell us that he was "effectively pro-choice...the last multiple years" but that he was "always pro-life" (11 days apart). By 2007, he was saying he was "never pro-choice" 'cause he never allowed to call himself "pro-choice."
Can you please cite a source where he's against state level anti-discrimination laws? My understanding is that he's consistently favored them.
He took three positions on embryonic stem cell research
Not true. On this issue, he's only had one. He's always opposed embryo farming, i.e. cloning embryos for research, and that is what sparked his conversion on abortion. However, he's always supported giving parents the choice donate "surplus" embryos for research. I wish he would flip on this, but he hasn't.
He was pro-civil unions in 2002-2005...
Not true. He always opposed civil unions. I defy you to find a single instance where he supports them.
especially when he was trying to broker a late-ditch alternative to same-sex marriage...then he was anti-civil unions after that.
No, he always opposed civil unions. He tried to push an amendment through the legislature defining marriage as between a man and a woman after the SJC forced gay marraige on the commonwealth. Unfortunately, the legislature refused to adopt the amendment unless it included a civil unions provision. Romney opposed the provision, but he supported the amendment after it came out of the legislature because it was better than no amendment at all.
That's called pragmatism.
He first came to the side the Catholic adoption program re: being forced to adopt out kids to same-sex couples; then he backed away and told them he couldn't help them.
He backed away when he realized the law was against him. A governor cannot defy a the law.
In back to back sentences in 1994 October debate with Ted Kennedy, he backed the right of the Boy Scouts of America to make their own policies, but then said they shouldn't discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation."
There's nothing inconsistent here. He believes the boy scouts have a right to exclude gay scoutmasters, but he doesn't think they should. Just because you think some organization should be allowed to do something doesn't mean you think they should actually do it. Why is this so hard for Romney haters to grasp?
His abortion weaves were even worse: Pro-abortion in 1994; didn't wish to be labeled "pro-choice" in 2001;
This is semantics. He didn't like lables. So what? The substance of his position was pro-choice prior 2002, and it was made abundantly clear in his statements, if you bother to read them in their entirety rather than just a few soundbites ripped out of context.
back to his heftiest pro-abortion actions & rhetoric in 2002;
No change in substance from 2001. Maybe a change in word choice. Big deal.
pro-life actions in Winter/spring 2005; pro-abortion commitment re-stated on May 27, 2005 sandwiched between pro-life actions;
What pro-abortion committment?
back to aiding & abetting Planned Parenthood & taxpayer subsidized abortions in Spring of 2006.
That's just false.
Then a year full of 2007 where he would alternately tell us that he was "effectively pro-choice...the last multiple years" but that he was "always pro-life" (11 days apart).
This isn't hard. Prior to 2005, he was personally pro-life in that he thought abortion was immoral, but he did not want to make it illegal. That's why he didn't like the pro-choice label, because to some people in means that you approve of abortion as well as want keep it legal. Prior to 2005, he didnt' approve of abortion, but he still wanted to keep it legal. He has explicitly said this. You're taking a few of his poorly worded sentences and ignoring his very clear explanations of the substance of his positions.
By 2007, he was saying he was "never pro-choice" 'cause he never allowed to call himself "pro-choice."
See above. He was never pro-choice in the sense that he approved of abortion, and he didn't like to be called pro-choice for this reason. However, he did not want to make abortion illegal prior to 2005.
If you would stop ripping words out of context and read the full context of his statements, you would see that his position on abortion, the change in it, and his reasons for it, are crystal clear. Yes, there was a flip here. One discrete change in 2005. One change in position and nothing more.