Who is worse: the person who believes fervently in depriving others of their rights, or the person who doesn't really care but fervently favors it because it is to their political advantage?
Who is worse: the person who wants other people to know about their offensive opinion about something or the person who wants to obscure that opinion while retaining it?
We have -- improbably but, in retrospect, probably inevitably -- fallen into our own set of "primary wars" on this site. Unlike that Clark-Dean-(kerry) arguments here in 2003-2004 and the Clinton-Obama-(edwards) fights in 2007-2008, this one isn't about the Democratic candidate; it's about which Republican candidate we want to fight against. (That's why it's both gentler and more unexpected.) We simply are too used to having opinions about things not to have them here!
People on all sides of that argument present both good reasoning and passion, as usual for this site. Because my side is reeling a bit right now, I want to present an extremely impressive article at Slate, about Romney and abortion, that helps explain why I would prefer Santorum as the nominee -- and, if it came to it, even as what would be an ineffective and unpopular President -- than Romney.
The article explains why I find Romney so despicable. It's about his flip-flops on abortion.
Here again is the link to William Saletan's exhaustive report on Romney in Slate. Saletan is not always my favorite reporter, and he comes up with some strange ideas on reproductive rights issues from time to time, but he's a proficient journalist -- and it turns out that that is what the story of Mitt Romney's views on abortions requires. As a blogger, I like to tout the things that we can do well; this, though, is an example of a tenacious journalist doing a long-form story in ways that we generally can't or don't.
I'm just going to give you a three-paragraph taste; then go click the link. It's a lot to read. It's worth it to get a sense of Romney's character -- or lack of character -- when he moves away from his core beliefs in promoting the Mormon Church and making the rich richer.
To understand Mitt Romney, you have to understand the most difficult passage of his political life: how he changed his position on abortion. Not the story he tells about it, but the real story.
Romney began his political career as a pro-choicer. In the story he tells, he had an epiphany, a flash of insight, and committed himself thereafter to protecting life. But that isn’t what happened. The real story of Romney’s conversion—a series of tentative, equivocal, and confused shifts, accompanied by a constant rewriting of his past—paints a more accurate picture of who he is. Romney has complex views and a talent for framing them either way, depending on his audience. He values truth, so he makes sure there’s an element of it in everything he says. He can’t stand to break his promises, so he reinterprets them.
Parts of the story have been told before. But no one has put it together. And no one has assembled the many video and audio clips that bear witness to what happened. In this article, the first complete examination of Romney’s journey, you’ll see his transformation on camera. (You can also watch a video narration.)
When you see the story in its full context, three things become clear. First, this was no flip-flop. Romney is a man with many facets, groping his way through a series of fluid positions on an array of difficult issues. His journey isn’t complete. It never will be. Second, for Romney, abortion was never really a policy question. He didn’t want to change the law. What he wanted to change was his identity. And third, the malleability at Romney’s core is as much about his past as about his future. Again and again, he has struggled to make sense not just of what he should do, but of who he has been. The problem with Romney isn’t that he keeps changing his mind. The problem is that he keeps changing his story.
Here's a seven-minute video recap (pardon the commercial):