Concerning Romney, he was pro-life before he ran for Gov, but then ran as essentially a pro-choicer in Mass and then became a public pro-lifer when he started to run for President.

In fact, here’s his wife on her husband’s views…

“Both of us are pro-life,” Ann says. “But Massachusetts is a pro-choice state.” In fact, she says, “He’s always personally been pro-life. Given our faith, we obviously believe in God, we believe in the sanctity of life. He was responding to how he thinks the government should be involved in the issue. And Mitt totally thinks it should be turned over and let the states decide, and get the bickering over with.”

Sorry Michael, but I don’t accept that Romney’s views were “development” and his own wife confirms it.

And if you’re extending this acceptance to Romney’s flip flop, why not McCain? In fact, McCain’s views have changed far less than Romney’s.

Again, I have problems with you applying different standards from candidate to candidate. This is the issue you and I have had from the beginning of this campaign, and this latest condemnation of McCain is just another example of it.

And Romney’s changes can all be explained as development, yes really unlike what hit-and-run bloggers have pretended, whereas McCain’s changes happened overnight. Romney became increasingly more pro-life as a Governor for instance.

Lastly: McCain doesn’t have the temperament to hold the highest office.