Daily Kos

For someone who lies so much, you'd think Mitt Romney would be better at it.

On Wednesday, the news that Mitt Romney had come out in opposition to the Blunt/Rubio Amendment—a bill that will let employers deny coverage for birth control if they find it morally objectionable—caused shockwaves, both on the Left, who couldn't believe he was starting his lurch back to the center so soon and from the Right, who have always been suspicious of his anti-choice credentials:

ROMNEY: I’m not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there.

Almost immediately the Romney campaign complained that the story was being "incorrectly reported" and sent Romney out to claim that:

I didn't understand his question. Of course I support the Blunt Amendment. I thought he was talking about some state law … I simply misunderstood the question.

So, what was the confusing question?

HEATH: Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it? He (Santorum) said he was for that, we’ll talk about personhood in a second; but he’s for that, have you taken a position?

Aha! Trick question! Gotcha by the librul media! So, Romney thought that Ohio happened to have a couple of state lawmakers named Blunt and Rubio who were pushing a bill on contraception at the same time U.S. Sens. Blunt and Rubio were pushing a bill on contraception—and he's totally against that bill. He's just for the other, Godly, Blunt/Rubio Amendment. Is that the story the Romney campaign is going with?

Of course, if Mitt Romney actually had any core convictions he wouldn't lose track of what position he's held on a given issue from day to day to day to day, but ...