Attempting to clarify his reasons for not signing the pro-life pledge, he just makes it worse, in my view. From NRO:
I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother…
So, Mitt, your view is that justice is best served by executing the child if his father is a rapist? Or is it that you just didn’t think this dodge around the life issue all the way through? Oh, to be sure, plenty of RINOs over the years have used it…used to work like a charm, too. But the problem is that we know where it leads…and in a President it leads to something like a Justice Souter or Kennedy.
It appears more and more to me that Romeny’s “evolving” positions are nothing but a means of securing support he must have for the GOP nomination. He must have TEA Party support, so he’ll put out some small government rhetoric. He must have pro-life support, so he’s now put out some pro-life rhetoric. But my concern is what will happen once Romney is safely ensconced in the White House…will the rhetoric of the campaign trail rule the day, or will a desire to be liked in the MSM and among the “sophisticated” people lead him to throw TEA and Life under the bus?
Unless and until Romney can provide a convincing answer to this, I won’t be able to back him in the primaries. To put it bluntly, I don’t trust him.
