John, just a note - Mitt’s a Republican…his problem is that unlike Bush, he has a ”record” in a decidedly blue state and in order to keep the peace there, he did what any Republican electied official would do…either pander or lie. Now’s he’s running for Pres, and he’s searched his soul and found Jesus (do Mormon’s beleive in Jesus?) and can Mitt keep the chickenshit Republican’s safe? 

He was a moderate when it was in his interest, such as when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate in 1994 and when he got elected Massachusetts’ governor in 2002. Now that he seeks to become the Republican presidential nominee, he finds his two chief rivals, Giuliani and McCain, to be of the leftish persuasion, in Giuliani’s case, and the independent moderate one, in McCain’s. That leaves the vast conservative sector for the taking, and, against all reason, Mitt aims to take it.

He presents himself as the candidate most ardently opposed to abortion and illegal immigration, both of which he condoned a very short while ago.

Romney also tells us that he wouldn’t dare torture terrorist suspects, because that would be wrong. But he says he wouldn’t go altogether soft on these guys, either - like, he implies, the actually tortured McCain. In that easy, well-modulated way, Romney says he instead would subject suspects to “advanced interrogation techniques.”

He explains the difference: Torture leaves lasting injury while advanced interrogation techniques do not. That sounds like a matter of cutting off a man’s ear or breaking both his legs. Or maybe not. Just as fractures could heal, an ear could be sewn back.

If you think it’s all right in certain circumstances to torture our suspected enemies in order to seek vital information, then say so. If not, be brave like McCain and say that. What Romney does, though, is call torture by another name, then endorse it. He euphemizes softly to evade hard truth.

Back to abortion and immigration: