George Conway of National Review links to some interesting articles about Mitt Romney's "evolving" positions.
For instance, did you know Romney refused to sign a "no new taxes" pledge while governor of Massachusetts? Yet, according to the Brockton Enterprise, he signed such a pledge immediately after leaving office, as part of his Presidential campaign.
I cannot fathom the unrestrained enthusiasm of conservatives like Hugh Hewitt for Romney. I suspect that, given the lack of viable truly conservative candidates on the horizon for 2008, folks like Hewitt are seeing what they want to see, rather than seeing what is -- Romney is a RINO. He does not have consistent conservative principles which he has lived by and articulated for many years; rather, he is changing some of his positions for convenience because he wants to be President.
Given Romney's recent past positions in areas such as abortion and gun rights, I would have absolutely no confidence in his judicial nominations, which are a key area of concern for me, along with terrorism and taxes. And considering his refusal to sign a "no new taxes" pledge when he was actually in a position to follow through on that concept as governor, I don't trust that he would maintain his recent "no new taxes" pledge as President. Romney bends with the wind and says what he thinks will get him elected, whether he's appealing to the more liberal voters of Massachusetts or to the national conservative base.
How ironic that of the "Big 3" Republican candidates, the only one I'd even consider voting for at this point is Rudy Giuliani, the most liberal of the three. A couple things in Rudy's favor: Unlike McCain, Giuliani does not disdain and belittle conservatives, even if he disagrees with them, and unlike Romney, Giuliani is at least honest about his political viewpoints.
I'm having visions of sitting home on election day while one of these candidates runs against a Hillary-Obama ticket...arggghh.
Ronald Reagan, where are you?