Endless terror.

When the topic of the Iraq war comes up, John McCain keeps repeating a certain phrase to summarize what he believes the consequences of a premature US withdrawal will be:

"They (Al-Qaeda) will follow us home."

In other words, McCain believes that our troops in Iraq are holding back the tide of Islamic terrorism, and if we pull out, the fanatics will be free to invade our country and wreck havoc on the good citizens of the United States. John McCain is an intelligent, experienced policy maker and an American hero, but I have to say that this is a ludicrous statement. I don't call it ludicrous because I believe Al-Qaeda doesn't want to attack the United States, which would be equally ludicrous, but because it represents an antiquated view of war which simply doesn't apply in any way to our clash with Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The uncomfortable truth of the matter is that all Al-Qaeda needs to commit an act of terrorism on our soil is just one fanatical suicidal/homicidal maniac willing to blow himself up in a public place. Our military presence in Iraq in no way precludes an attack at home. It all comes down to the very nature of our enemy. If Al-Qaeda were a traditional standing army, with the goal of taking and occupying American territory, people like McCain would be absolutely right; fighting them on their own turf would almost certainly stop them from invading our country. After all, what sane military strategist would consider launching a major offensive on an enemy country if the forces of that country were overrunning their defenses at home?

But Al-Qaeda isn't a traditional standing army. It's a loosely knit, de-centralized group of terrorist cells scattered all around the world. They don't need some kind of central command center in Iraq to launch an attack on America. Al-Qaeda didn't even have a significant presence in Iraq until we came there. At the moment, Al-Qaeda is sending terrorists to Iraq because they want to kill Americans in Iraq. If Al-Qaeda wanted to kill Americans in New York, Boston, or Omaha, they could send terrorists to New York, Boston, or Omaha. They're not an army, they're not concerned with holding territory, and they're not going to get "stretched-out" or "over-deployed" if they send a handful of guys to blow themselves up within our borders. Al-Qaeda attacks don't require massive regimented formations of soldiers, they just require a couple of Islamic nutcases with cell-phones, fake IDs and homemade bombs. Quite frankly, I don't think our current strategy of "keeping on the offense" against terrorism, to quote Rudy Guiliani, really does a whole lot to protect us from terrorism. Are we killing terrorists in Iraq? Yes. Are groups like Al-Qaeda able to replace members as fast as we kill them? Yes. Can they attack us, whether or not we "stay the course" or "cut and run" in Iraq? Yes.

The problem is that politicians from both parties seem to be in an old-war mindset. They view Al-Qaeda as a new Nazi Germany that we can defeat on the battlefield using overwhelming force. If only it were as simple as that. In reality, Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations are completely different from the enemies our nation is used to dealing with. There aren't many clear options for America to take in the battle to counter radical Islamic terrorism, and without an honest inquiry into the issue, none will be discovered. Personally, I think a good start would be to ask "How can we diminish the appeal of radical Islam around the world?" rather than "How can we destroy a specific organization?". There will always be radical Islamic organizations, just as there will always be Nazi organizations, but there may be steps that the West can take to make sure that radical Islam becomes a rejected fringe of society in the Middle East rather than a popular movement. We can kill as many terrorists as we want, but as long as a steady stream of young radicals remains ready to take their place, the "War on Terror" is just treading in water.

In the last presidential election, George W. Bush came pretty close to the mark when he said the following about the "War on Terror":

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way."

Eventually, after enduring intense media scrutiny, he retracted the statement. Too bad. Despite how unpopular that kind of statement may be, it represents something far closer to the truth than the official party rhetoric. The heart of Islamic terrorism is a set of ideas, and no matter how hard you try, you can't destroy ideas. You can destroy governments, dictators, and armies. You can only marginalize, counter, and reduce the attractiveness of ideas. In the future, can we hope to better protect our country against terrorism and reduce the influence of radical Islam? Perhaps. But we can never make our country completely safe, or completely eradicate radical Islam. As in the "War on Drugs", there can be no victory in the "War on Terror". Heads of State can sign a proclamation of unconditional surrender. Terrorism can't.

The first televised debate between Republican candidates for the Presidency of the United States is over, but the endless commentary on the subject of "who won" is just beginning. The following is my two cents on the individual performance of the various contenders:


John McCain - B+

The good: Steadfast support for Iraq in spite of opposition will appeal to a lot of the Republican base, very strong on fiscal responsibility, came off as experienced, reminded people that he has a history of uniting politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The bad: A few stutters in the beginning, played into the "grouchy old man" stereotype, his yes to the "do you believe in evolution" question may hurt him with christian voters (along with his pro embryonic stem cell research stance), the McCain plan for Iraq is the Bush plan for Iraq.

Rudy Giuliani - C+

The good: Came across strong on defense, emphasized his record in New York City, referred to Ronald Reagan constantly.

The bad: Humorless delivery, looked uncomfortable with several issues, terribly awkward position on abortion (it's OK to overturn Roe V Wade, and OK to NOT overturn Roe V Wade), terribly awkward comment about the religious right (Q: "Has the increased influence of christian conservatives in your party been good for it?" A: "Uh... Sure, the increased influence of large numbers of people are always good for us... I'd like to go back to the earlier question..."), referred to Ronald Reagan constantly.

Mitt Romney - A

The good: Polished, slick, well-prepared, came off strong on just about everything, didn't say anything stupid.

The bad: Too polished and slick.

Duncan hunter - A

The good: Strong, commanding delivery, knew what he was talking about (defense, border security), looked presidential.

The bad: A bit too hawkish (in the course of the debate, he essentially declared war on Iran).

Tom Tancredo - C-

The good: His strong statement regarding the overturn of Roe V Wade ("After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, I'd say that that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that is, in fact, overturned") might win him a few points with pro-lifers.

The bad: Uncomfortable on stage , hesitant, never smiled, seemed ill-prepared and unexperienced, was upstaged by Hunter on his trademark issue (illegal immigration).

Ron Paul - B+

The good: Disagreed with everyone else about everything, probably right about everything.

The bad: The closest thing to a Mike Gravel in the republican debate; unelectable.

Mike Huckabee - B

The good: As poised and polished as usual, upbeat attitude, displayed a sense of humor.

The bad: If I hear his recycled "my faith explains me" speech one more time, I'll walk to Arkansas and shoot his dog.

Sam Brownback - A-

The good: Appeared more conservative than the mainline candidates without looking like a crazy person, positions seemed reasoned and nuanced, family friendly rhetoric appeals to the religious right.

The bad: Not the most charismatic guy in the world.

There were two other guys in the debate that I didn't include in the list: Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson. Both gave solid performances, but neither stood out for anything in particular.

Now for a few words about Afghanistan...

Over five years after the fall of the Taliban, the promise of a free, moderate, democratic state in Afghanistan has all but collapsed, as Kabul gradually becomes another Tehran.

And for some reason, nobody seems to care.

Sure, there was a little bit of controversy when Abdul Rahman was put on trial for converting to Christianity. But other than a furious volley of indignant finger wagging, the benefactors of Afghanistan's new government did nothing.

Abdul Rahman was deported to Paris.
Christians remain widely persecuted in Afghanistan.

A quick glance at the opening articles of the U.S. approved constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan reveals the root of the problem:

Article One

Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two

The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article Three

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam."

In other words, people can practice non-Islamic religions within the limits of the law, but all laws have to be in agreement with the tenets of the Islamic faith. If freedom of religion conflicts with Islamic law, Islam, not freedom, prevails. So, even though the constitution pays lip-service to the western concepts of freedom of speech, religion, etc., as soon as any of these things are perceived as "contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam" they can be tossed out the window like so much rotten hummus.

Afghanistan is an Islamic theocracy.

In February, Afghanistan's parliament passed a law granting amnesty to any jihadists found guilty of war-crimes committed during the uprising against the Soviets and the civil war of the 1990s, with one representative voicing the opinion that if law enforcement were to pursue these war criminals it would "tarnish the name of jihad". Yesterday, another disturbing development surfaced. The government of Afghanistan is now seeking to control the media in order to silence non-Islamic and other dissenting voices within the country:

(From Al-Jazeera)
"Afghanistan's parliament is on the brink of passing a new media law that may considerably reduce the independence of the country's media.

The controversial amendments to the law, proposed by the religious and cultural affairs commission of the parliament, chaired by former regional commander Haji Mohammed Mohaqeq and supported by the government, will bring both private and state media under greater government control.

Proposed changes include an oversight committee that will scrutinise the functioning of the media including its content
....
Control of content will be guided through clauses which include prohibitions that prevent publicity of any other religion than Islam, prohibit the media from producing any content that is unislamic or jeopardises the stability of the nation or any false information which might disrupt public opinion.
...
The government's determination of what are facts will result in one-sided reportage. Already there have been several attempts to impose guidelines for reporting on the media with a wide-ranging list of subjects which should not be reported.

The recently passed amnesty bill, immunising all jihadis from prosecution also sought to introduce a clause which would force the media to honour the jihadis in any reportage. Both moves were dropped under pressure but may be reintroduced through this bill."

The only thing worse than the story itself is the fact that this story was entirely ignored by the American media. In fact, very little about Afghanistan seems to come out of the mainstream media these days. Why? I really have no idea. Maybe people just aren't as interested in hearing about a fledgling democracy traveling down the road towards Islamization as they are in hearing Alec Baldwin cussing at his 11 year-old daughter over the phone.

Still, the silence of the media isn't quite as distressing as the silence of our President and the rest of the government of the United States at Afghanistan's increasing disregard for the liberty we gave them. Apparently, due to the invasion of Afghanistan's status as a "good war", both sides of the political aisle would rather shut up and look the other way rather than admit that our experiment with Islamic democracy isn't going completely peachy.

But whether or not America chooses to ignore it, the situation in Afghanistan doesn't look like it's going to get any better in the foreseeable future. Although moderate Muslims continue to insist that Islam and western-style democracy are perfectly compatible, the facts seem to suggest otherwise.

Romney is a pander-bear.

For a guy who already has plenty of people accusing him of being a greasy, pandering weasel, Mitt Romney seems to have a surprising lack of restraint when it comes to telling obvious untruths in public. Mitt Romney just keeps on making it so incredibly easy to make fun of Mitt Romney.

His latest bout with foot-in-mouth disease?
A misguided attempt to win over the flannel and firearms crowd:

(Glen Johnson, The Associated Press)
"To hear Mitt Romney talk on the campaign trail, you might think the Republican presidential candidate had a gun rack in the back of his pickup truck. 'I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life,' he said this week in Keene, N.H., to a man sporting a National Rifle Association cap.

Yet the former Massachusetts governor's hunting experience is limited to two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia."

Exaggerating one's hunting-cred probably isn't the worst of all possible sins. And, yes, technically one could claim that the nominee-wanna-be's story was true, using a line of reason that would go something like this:

He hunted when he was young, and he hunted when he was old. In the period between hunting trips, one remains a hunter. Therefore, Mitt Romney has been a hunter for most of his life.

But anyone willing to take a fair and balanced look at Romney will quickly recognize him as a man with a disturbing habit of re-inventing himself to pander to whoever happens to be standing within a one-mile radius. It's almost as if he doesn't realize that when a politician in our country says something, it doesn't just vanish into the eternal fog of time and space. It gets recorded, printed in newspapers, published online, played back on television and radio, and if it's something stupid, the American people will know it. A politician who lives by the rule of speak first, answer questions later is going to get shredded into tiny pieces in the vita-mix of free press and served to the public as a delicious smoothie of failed ambition.

Still, I hope Mitt stays around long enough to give a speech in front of the NAACP. One can only imagine the tasty sound-bites that would usher forth from Mitt Romney's golden larynx:

"I became a civil-rights advocate when I was a young man. I've been a person of color pretty much all my life"

Until then, here's hoping that the ridiculously large amount of money that Mitt Romney's managed to plunder from his zombie-like following keeps him going for a few more months. Writing about politics just wouldn't be the same without him.

Obligatory Giuliani post.

Given the fact that Rudy Giuliani is still the most popular candidate in recent surveys of Republican voters, I contemplated writing a long-winded piece skewering the political positions and personal life of "America's Mayor".

Then I realized two things:

(1) My blog has a readership of about three people, myself included, and therefore anything I write won't do a whole lot to sway the collective opinion of America's cattle-like masses.

(2) Writing such a piece would be too darn easy.

In theory, convincing a conservative that Rudy Giuliani would make a poor candidate for the Presidency of the United States should be similar to convincing a liberal that Jerry Falwell would make a poor candidate for the Presidency of the ACLU. Giuliani is so diametrically opposed to everything that red-staters hold dear that it's almost absurd to even consider his candidacy a valid one. Let's look at a heavily abridged list of grievances:

Rudy Giuliani is pro-abortion.
Rudy Giuliani is pro-gay.
Rudy Giuliani is anti-gun.
Rudy Giuliani is soft on illegal immigrants.
Rudy Giuliani has had numerous extra-marital affairs and is currently on his third marriage.
Rudy Giuliani has a bizarre penchant for cross-dressing at public events.

Essentially, Rudy Giuliani is a man who has committed every sin against conservatism that one can think of, with the possible exceptions of:

Driving a tiny, European, hybrid car.
Burning the American flag.
Eating a bald eagle.
Driving a tiny, European, hybrid car with a burning American flag attached to the antenna, while eating a bald eagle.

There's no point in writing a lengthy exposition on Giuliani's faults. Everything's already out in the open. Rudy Giuliani is unabashedly, plainly, and completely liberal. The last candidate I wrote about, Mitt Romney, comes as a wolf in sheep's clothing to seduce conservative voters to the dark side of the political spectrum. Giuliani, on the other hand, comes as a wolf in wolf's clothing, wearing an adhesive nametag which clearly reads:
Hello! My name is: Wolf

And yet, despite the hideous 900 pound gorilla of liberalism which remains perched atop Giuliani's candidacy, feasting on bananas of vice and iniquity, Giuliani still enjoys poll numbers that make him the envy of... the candidates who have lesser poll numbers. Why? Every American over the age of 12 knows the three-digit answer by heart: 9/11.

In order to avoid sounding overly cynical, I'll readily admit that Giuliani did an admirable job of uniting a City in a time of tragedy. To millions of people across the country, Giuliani became a symbol of American resolve in the face of terror. And even though it might be possible to make a case for it, I won't charge him with political opportunism. As far as I'm concerned, Giuliani truly loves his city and his country, and poured his heart and soul into the task of healing the gaping wound that was inflicted on both.

But there's a difference between heroism and the ability to lead this country in the right direction. If a dog leaps into a burning building and saves a small child, the dog certainly deserves admiration, praise, and several biscuits. But despite the dog's heroism, no sane human would endorse the canine's candidacy in a race for the highest public office in the country. Heroism is a wonderful trait, but it certainly doesn't qualify someone to become the next president of the United States. Any candidate for any public office should never be judged solely on the basis of their conduct during a single event in their lifetime. Instead, the whole man, his personal behavior, his public record, and his current stance on the issues needs to be put under intense scrutiny. The Republican voters who continue to circle Rudy Giuliani's name on survey forms are making a conscious decision to ignore Giuliani the liberal, and are instead casting votes in favor of Giuliani the hero. Unfortunately, a vote for the latter is also a vote for the former. Let's just hope people realize this by the time the primaries roll around.

Sabotaging the Surge

I'm not the biggest fan of the war in Iraq. We went to Iraq for reasons largely based on faulty intelligence, and the aftermath of Sadaam's fall was terribly mismanaged. But the bill that House Democrats passed yesterday amounted to nothing less than treason. Here's the rundown:

The troop surge in Iraq is getting results. Several top generals, from both the UK and the US, have admitted that our biggest mistake in the early stages of the war was that we didn't put enough soldiers on the ground to secure Iraq. Years later, the military is trying to remedy this security problem by flooding key areas (Baghdad in particular) with thousands of extra troops. And Americans in Iraq, from generals to journalists, have noted a significant improvement in the level of safety in Iraq since the surge began. But in order to keep the pressure on the insurgency in Iraq, the military needs money.

Yesterday, the Democrat controlled House of Representatives voted "yea" on an emergency spending bill that would give that much needed money ($124 billion) to our armed forces. With a catch. Before the bill was passed, Democrats added a clause to the bill that would force US troops to pull out of Iraq by September 2008. Setting a date for a troop withdrawal which would occur whether or not peace has been restored to Iraq is, stated as simply as possible, a terrible idea. What kind of message does that send to the people of Iraq? We came in, dismantled their government, and now we're supposed to leave, whether or not the country is rebuilt? Talk about responsibility. And to add insult to injury, the Democrats couldn't be satisfied with merely inserting a declaration of surrender into a war-funding bill. They also stuffed billions of dollars worth of pork spending into the bill, a move that even CBS news called an attempt to "pay off" House Democrats in return for their votes.

But the goal of the Democrats in hijacking this bill isn't to set a withdrawal date for US troops, or to give billions of dollars to pet causes. Instead, the Democrats are forcing George Bush to cut off funding for his own war. By tacking on a clause that Bush simply cannot agree with, the President will be compelled to veto the bill, essentially halting the flow of money to our military at the very time when they need it the most.

The shameless and deceitful way that the Democrats are trying to undermine our last great hope of ending this war in victory is unbelievable. By mouthing phrases like "we support our troops" while ignoring the advice of our top generals and stabbing the military in the back with treacherous bills like this one, the Democrats are proving to the American people that they are precisely the duplicitous, terrorist-supporting snakes the Republican party accused them of being in the last election. The Democrats say that the American people want a new direction in Iraq. I agree. But we want a new direction that leads to victory, not unconditional defeat.

Hopefully, the bill will be defeated in the Senate and sent back to a vote in the House without the Democrat's precious little add-ons. But I doubt this will the last attempt to sabotage the war effort.

Mitt Romney is basically the devil.

As a people-group, politicians have a pretty dubious reputation. The very mention of the word "politician" conjures up the image of a dishonest, soulless, pandering, womanizing, middle-aged white man with greasy hair who will do anything and everything to get elected. Like death and taxes, politicians are considered to be an unwanted yet inevitable part of life. But do they really deserve this tainted image? Are they really that bad? Most of the time, probably not. As a rule, most politicians aren't any worse than the average Joe. But every once in a while, there comes a politician that lives up to the reputation, greasy hair and all. Mitt Romney is one such politician.

Okay, so maybe he's not that bad. For example, to my knowledge he's never been caught in any personal ethical scandals (dishonesty, infidelity, etc.). But the hallmark of the stereotypical, sleazy politician is a willingness to change political views in order to win points with a given audience. In front of a conservative audience, the politician adopts conservative rhetoric, and when in front of a liberal audience, the politician adopts liberal rhetoric. In the last presidential election, everyone heard a word for this kind of person in countless political ads and op-ed pieces: flip-flopper.

Forget Kerry. Mitt Romney is not just A flip-flopper, he is THE flip-flopper. If he was Catholic, he might be considered as a candidate for the patron saint of flip-flopping, because if Mitt Romney succeeds in his goal of gaining the support of the evangelical voting bloc, he'll be able to take credit for a miracle that would make Saint Peter jealous. Think about it: a man who for years ran as a pro-gay, pro-abortion candidate, the governor of the most liberal state in the USA, reinventing himself as a conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage, evangelical-friendly candidate and succeeding.

But why should I waste words attacking Romney? I'll let the man incriminate himself. Romney's first attempt at running for political office was in the Massachusetts senate race of 1994. His opponent was Ted Kennedy, that venerable statesman whose inspiring presence brings to mind a certain literary creation of Herman Melville... the white whale. Romney lost the election, but left behind a few eloquent quotes from a televised debate with Mr. Kennedy. In the course of the debate, Kennedy accused Romney of being wishy washy on the abortion issue. Romney countered with a firm statement of his views:

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US senate candidate. I believe that since Roe V. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of the woman to make that choice"

Romney had previously stated that he personally believed abortion was morally wrong. Using a classic relativistic line of thinking, he harmonized these contradictory viewpoints:

"I have my own beliefs and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear close family relative, that was very close to me, that passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."

So not only does Mitt Romney state that he is pro-choice, he gives a personal anecdote which shows how personal the issue is to him, and how deeply he cherishes his pro-choice views. Later in the debate, he was asked to reconcile his liberal views towards gay-rights and his status as a board member of the Boy Scouts of America. He responded thusly:

"I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the boy scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.

So far, Romney clearly isn't winning any points with the evangelical establishment. But it must be acknowledged that over time, views can change. So let's fast-forward 8 years to the 2002 gubernatorial elections in Massachusetts, where the issue of Abortion was brought up once again in a televised debate. This time his statement is even stronger:

"With regards to my views on protecting a woman's right to choose, and I've been very clear on that: I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. And I'm devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change ANY provisions of Massachusetts' pro-choice laws ... I want the voters to know exactly where I'm going to stand as governor and that is I'm not going to change our pro-choice laws in Massachusetts in any way. I will preserve them. I will protect them. I will enforce them. And therefore, I'm not going to make any changes which would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself"

You don't get much more clarity than that. Mitt Romney is pro-choice. End of story.

But wait! In a quote from 2005, taken from the Mitt Romney for president website, we find this quote:

"I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."

Suddenly Mitt Romney:

(1) Is Pro life.
(2) Believes that Roe V Wade is wrong.
(3) And believes that states can vote for their own abortion laws.

What happened to "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose"? A little something called Presidential ambition. Since as early as 2004, insiders knew Romney had his eyes on a certain house lacking in pigment. As an MSNBC article stated during the last Republican convention:

"It has been talked about for some time now within tight political circles that Romney has his own sights set on the White House. Romney dismisses the speculation and says he is staying put at the State House, even beyond 2006."


Now we know how sincere his dismissal of speculation was. And we also know that when you're running for office in Massachusetts, the bastion of American liberalism, it pays to be pro-choice, and when you're trying to get the presidential nomination from the country's conservative party, it pays to be pro-life. All he had to do was switch positions. Of course, that in itself presented a challenge. He had to find a way to make it sincere. So Mitt Romney and his family came up with a story that would explain how he became pro-life:

"Romney says he changed his mind in November 2004, when he met with a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Romney claimed in a June 2006 interview that the researcher had told him: "'Look, you don't have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days.'" Romney went on to say that both he and his chief of staff had an epiphany, recognizing that embryonic stem cell research cheapened respect for human life."
(Weekly Standard, Jennifer Rubin 2/5/07)

So, due to his encounter with a Harvard scientist, he realized that human embryos were human beings, and deserved protection. It all makes sense. Of course, the scientist denies ever saying the magic words that converted Romney:

"Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it, I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life, and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases."

Maybe I'm just being mean. Maybe I'm unreasonable. Maybe it's not just political maneuvering on his part. Maybe Mitt Romney is a sincere man, who truly believes in the unalienable right to life. But maybe I'm right. Maybe Mitt Romney is a political opportunist, pure and simple, willing to shift his views to any side of the political spectrum if it means votes on election day. Maybe his neatly packaged conversion story is a little too reminiscent of another neatly packaged conversion story:

"Many, many years ago, I had a dear close family relative, that was very close to me, that passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter."

He told that story in '94 to convince the voters of Massachusetts that he was pro-choice. Now he's telling another story to convince Republicans of his commitment to the pro-life cause. Where does Mitt Romney really stand? His opponent in the 2002 gubernatorial race summed it up this way:

"When Mitt Romney ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, he accepted the endorsement of Mass. citizens for life. When he went to Utah and was thinking about running for governor of the state of Utah, he made a point of writing a letter to the editor, to the Utah paper out there, specifically stating he was not pro-choice. And then when he came back to Massachusetts, he's become a passionate supporter of a woman's right to choose. Ted Kennedy said it best: Mitt Romney isn't pro-choice, he's not anti-choice, he's multiple choice."

And for once, I agree with Ted Kennedy.