You may favor Mitt Romney. You may not. Which Romney do you have in mind?
As a candidate for governor or senator in liberal Massachusetts, he was the model moderate. Champion of women's right to choose. Supporter of gay rights. Developer of universal health insurance with a mandatory payment feature.
As a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, quite a different Romney appeared in the primaries and the GOP convention. Champion of right-to-life - he'd gladly sign a bill outlawing abortion. Enemy of any federal funds for Planned Parenthood. Defender of employers' right to refuse to include contraceptives in any health coverage for female employees. Militant repealer of the health care plan he originated. Enemy of regulation. His pitch sold the Tea Party and other extremists (not too tough a task, apparently).
Now a new, third Romney is with us seeking the votes of the entire American electorate. Supporter of exceptions to his abortion ban. Approver of various parts of Obamacare. No problem with contraceptives. Confessor of the need for regulation. Abandoner of the tax plan he preached for months.
It's hard to recall any other major candidate whose only principle was expedience. Which one do you like or dislike?
One other factor. We've become accustomed to distortions and exaggerations in campaigns. Deliberate and sustained lies are quite a different matter. Romney charged the president with removing "work" from "welfare." Every independent, objective fact checker found there was no truth to this charge. In fact, President Obama accepted a proposal by some Republican governors that would make the work requirement more effective. Romney continued to repeat this lie for weeks. Might we expect better from a leader of his denomination? Of course, in a Karl Rove-run campaign, code words and playing the race card are par for the course.
Obviously, none of this bothered the Daily.
Bob Lowerre, Woodstock