Like he did today on Iraq (New York Magazine):
In an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd today, Mitt Romney asserts that “of course” invading Iraq was a bad idea now that we know Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. (“If we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction, if somehow we had been given that information, obviously we would not have gone in.”) Four years ago, Romney said just the opposite. (“It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time; I support it now.”)
The writer of this piece, Jonathan Chait, illustrates why no conservative in their right mind should consider Romney to lead the party against Richard Milhous Obama.
The thing I’ve always found endearing and (to some degree) comforting about Mitt Romney is that his flip-flops betray pure contempt for the Republican base. He treats them like angry children, and their pet issues as emotionally driven symbols of cultural division rather than as serious positions.
Romney reminds me of another Presidential candidate from Massachusetts.
Kinda looks like him too!
But he's "electable." That's the lemon that the Ditzy Chick Ann Coulter, Michael Weiner Savage, National Review (William F. Buckley is spinning in his grave), Nikki Haley, Fatboy Chris Christie, Christine O'Dumbell, and the Obama Lapdog Media are trying to sell us.
Don't buy it!