the big problem with romney's 2011 pro life pledge is not just that it completely contradicts his abortion pledge of 2002:
or that romney-2011's position also seems to be at odds with his commitment-to-uphold-the-current-law-on-abortion pledge in 2005:
the problem is that in his current pledge he never explains how romney-2002 and romney-2005 became romney-2011. people change their minds sometimes. there's nothing wrong with that. but at the very least he owes the public an explanation of what happened to make him reconsider the issue and what his reasoning was.
on top of that, (as shannon o'brien points out in the top video) romney-2002's pro-choice pledge itself seemed to be a change from romney-1995, when he accepted the endorsement of massachusetts citizens for life in his senate race against ted kennedy.
in the end this really cuts to the heart of why romney-2011 felt today's pledge was even necessary. a certain portion of the GOP deeply distrusts romney, but not because he doesn't say the stuff they want him to say. if that's all it was, then a statement in the national review like the one that romney did today would have done the trick. instead, the reason they don't trust him because at one time or another he seems to have held just about every position under the sun about most issues that are important to them. a new statement of where he stands on the issue. doesn't do anything to resolve that distrust. in fact, in light of his past statements, it just reinforces their reason to distrust him.
