Can you support a woman's right to choose and then not support it? Sure. But can you do it while running for president in an extremely polarized atmosphere filled with near-toxic partisanship? You tell me.
Look at Mitt Romney's record. In 1994, when he was running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy he said the following: "abortion should be safe and legal in this country."
Now he says the following: "abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother."
Why the change? I don't know, but I can speculate. The speculation is that in the liberal state of Massachusetts he needed to support abortion rights. Now he needs to oppose them.
Romney was originally in support of a more lenient policy toward abortion rights because, as Salon.com reported, he had a personal impediment: Ann Keenan, the sister of his brother-in-law died at the age of 21 from an unsafe abortion.
As explained in the article, he was personally opposed to abortion but did not believe in exposing his beliefs upon others. This is a big difference from today, where he now believes that "abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother."
If he and Rick Perry are both treading high within the Republican field, you would think that this will inevitably be a point of attack to appeal to conservative voters. Not necessarily. Perry has some flip-flopping baggage of his own.
Rick Perry was an Al Gore supporting Democrat, who he claims was the "most conservative candidate that was out there." And not only was he a Democrat, but he was the state's chairman for Al Gore's candidacy in 1988!
So who cares about all of this? The Republican base. This is exactly why Jon Huntsman, former and recent Ambassador to President Barack Obama needs to appeal to New Hampshire independents.
Plain and simple...
Romney and Perry: don't hit each other as flip-floppers because the other will likely hit you back equally as hard.
Follow David Helfenbein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidHelfenbein