As the WaPo describes him, a "top adviser" to the Mitt Romney campaign was caught with a Web site that attacked Fred Thompson:

Before it vanished, the front page of the website featured a picture of a regal Thompson dressed in a frilly outfit more befitting a Gilbert and Sullivan production than a presidential campaign. Under the heading, "Playboy Fred," the site asks the question: "Once a Pro-Choice Skirt Chaser, Now Standard Bearer of the Religious Right?"

Nice. Real classy. Was this done at the request of the Romney campaign? If so, it should be a deal breaker for Mitt Romney. Especially considering Romney's flirtation with abortion is far, far more extensive than whatever Fred Thompson has done on the subject.

We're a long way from Reagan's 11th commandment.

The question is, why on Earth would you? If history is a guide, Mr. Romney seems to show a propensity for changing his mind and going back on the promises he makes while campaigning. Whenever I've written about Romney's chameleon-like tendency--be it on his flip-flop on abortion, or his relationship with Ted Kennedy--Mitt's supporters cry foul. What's so wrong with changing your mind? they ask, as if they'd never vilified John Kerry for his own evolving mind-set.

Sure, a person, over time can have a change-of-heart on a host of issues and still claim to be intellectually honest. Such an argument is harder to make, however, if that person happens to be courting the conservative wing of the Republican party, and seems to be embracing a new-found strictness on matters such as immigration, abortion, and homosexual marriage. Why? Because the same man, Romney, sounded a whole lot different when he was campaigning for the votes of a constituency that was a lot more liberal back in 2002.

Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans.

Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon.

Mitt Romney promised the group of gay Republicans that he'd "keep his head low" on the issue of gay marriage. He'd adhere to whatever the state court decided on the matter. Then, after Romney was elected and the Massachusetts supreme court later handed down its verdict legalizing same-sex marriage, Mitt promptly broke his word and began calling for a constitutional amendment that would ban the unions.

I guess if you are really conservative, you can console yourself with the notion that Romney finally saw the light. But what evidence do you have the Mitt won't turn around and do to you what he did to those log cabin Republicans at the bar.

From the way that some of the leading Republican contenders act, you'd think there was a holy trinity of issues that anyone hoping to capture the party's presidential nomination must never defy.

I speak of abortion, the war in Iraq, and immigration. Of course, a true GOP candidate must be against Roe vs. Wade, for continued support of the surge, and, above all, show a strong antipathy for any position that might be painted as allowing "amnesty." While there may indeed prove to be room for some nuance here or there, as illustrated most vividly by the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, to go solidly against any one of these sacred cows spells trouble. Just ask John McCain.

Yet, as a Democrat, I can't help but notice that all three of these issues are losers for the GOP. Consider the rather overwhelming polling data. On abortion, a solid majority of Americans wants abortion to remain legal, if not limited in some circumstances. On the war in Iraq, overwhelming majorities disapprove of the way the war has been handled, and think we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place. Lastly, on the question of how to solve the immigration issue, the numbers are somewhat less decisive. But even here, a majority of Americans seem to want the bill the president put forth to be passed. And when you break down the specific provisions of the bill, such as whether we should allow people to go home, pay a fine, and come back, the public is strongly pro-immigrant, and doesn't much care about the cries of amnesty.

Granted, immigration is the least equivocal of the three, but it certainly isn't the slam dunk issue that will propel the party to victory. Perhaps the party should go back and read Tuesday's Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Fred Barnes, in which the Fox commentator suggested that the way to avoid being trounced again in 2008 is for Republicans stop acting like Republicans. Good luck on that.

Mitt Romney stood atop his soapbox yesterday and shouted "States' rights!" over and over again. And as you can see from a recent interview with a Nevada television station, the ceding of power from Federal to local control would seem to extend, in Romney's mind, to the topic of abortion.

So then how do we square this idea with his other recent statements that there should be an amendment to the constitution banning the practice of abortion? If he views abortion as murder, then clearly states like Nevada or New York or California should not be allowed to practice the procedure. Pregnancies caused by rape? Incest? Why make exceptions for them? After all, or so the thinking goes, doesn't a second crime simply compound the first? Moreover, how does Romney reconcile the seeming discrepancy between the States' Rights view and his proposed Federal ban on abortion? From today's Washington Post:

Top Romney advisers insisted yesterday that their candidate's statements on abortion this month were consistent with each other. They say Romney supports a two-step process in which states get authority over abortion after Roe v. Wade is overturned, followed eventually by a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions.

So there you have it. Romney's for Big Government, after all. That States' Rights talk is all a smokescreen. He's dead set on a national dictate that makes it illegal for teenage girls who get pregnant to do anything other than carry the child to term. What else would Romney like to make illegal for the citizens of the United States? How about birth control? Never mind that abstinence only education has been shown to be a farce. The Baltimore Sun recently ran an article detailing Mitt's distinction between egg fertilization and implantation:

Mr. Romney's code, deciphered, meant, "I, like you, hope to reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions." In fact, he told the crowd, he already had some practice redefining contraception: "I vetoed a so-called emergency contraception bill that cave young girls abortive drugs without prescription or parental consent."

You see, Dr. Romney believes he knows more about physiology than The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who define life starting at the implantation of a fertilized egg into the mother's womb. After all, if the egg does not implant, the fetus has no possible viability. Whatever your beliefs on abortion, there's simply no denying that Romney has no business spouting off about States' Rights when it comes to this issue.

Mitt Romney, the GOP front-runner in Iowa, popped by conservative talk-radio host Jan Mickelson's show last Thursday and endured a tense, and at times contentious back and forth on the subject of abortion and his religion. I'm not a Romney supporter, but found myself rooting for the former governor. Mickelson, like so many right-wing media personalities, is simply a bully. He envisions punching-out members of the Supreme Court, for crying out loud. Watch the exchange:

There was something reassuring in hearing that Romney will separate his faith from politics, and his example about alcohol was quite good. Mickelson, who insists on a strict correlation between faith and politics, is by far the scarier of the two men. He advocates moral certitude, orthodoxy, and presumes to have all the answers. In short, he's a buffoon. The Romney campaign released the video, rightly seeing it as an opportunity to personalize their candidate. In fact, I much prefer the off-mic Romney to the packaged, pandering version.

Another interesting item in the NYT highlights the difficulty the pro-lifers have this cycle. They can't afford to lose this election, but the leading GOP candidate is not their friend:

The stakes are historically high, which explains why Republican candidates including Mr. Giuliani have been promising to appoint to the court "strict constructionists," widely considered political code for judges with a conservative agenda.

Mr. Giuliani's allies argue that their candidate is sensitive to the need to reduce abortions, increase adoptions and empower the states to regulate abortion. And the Democrats will inevitably nominate a candidate "who will not be a moderate on those issues, but intensely hostile," said Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, who describes himself as both "pro-life" and a Giuliani supporter. Moreover, Mr. Sessions and others argued, Mr. Giuliani can beat the Democrats.

It all comes down to whether they can trust Rudy Giuliani to nominate pro-life, er, "strict constructionist" judges. That strategy was all going fine until sometime in a debate last spring, Rudy admitted that the judges he appoints could go "either way" on Roe. And it all fell apart from there.

Contrary to the title of this article, the Democrats are not so much "rethinking" abortion, as deciding how much of an emphasis to place on it. They're still the party of abortion, but they'd like to be known as the party of "family planning".

The Democrats' public positioning on abortion has been evolving for many years beyond a pure rights-based philosophy to a more nuanced view that takes greater account of many Americans' deeply conflicted feelings while still solidly supporting the principle that women should have the choice of aborting a pregnancy. Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992 with promises he would seek to make abortion "safe, legal and rare."

The party has recently gone further. In the last election, Democrats embraced anti-abortion candidates, at least on the state and local level. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., an abortion opponent, was one of the Democrats' marquee candidates in 2006. And aggressive recruiting of anti-abortion candidates for rural conservative districts was a key component of party leaders' strategy to re take the House.

This is interesting because Roe v. Wade is hanging on by a thread. Specifically, Justice Stevens' thread, as he will be 88 years old in 2008. Unfortunately for NARAL, he can't live forever.

Maybe they feel that they need to go left to win, but John Edwards and Barack Obama are making huge unforced errors that may score them a few points, but ultimately would doom them in a potential general election.

...Obama spoke about his intentions to expand people's access to health insurance, which would include universal coverage for "reproductive-health services." An Obama spokesman clarified that this did indeed include abortion.

...Elizabeth Edwards, speaking for her husband, presidential candidate John Edwards, said that he proposed a "true universal health-care plan," the Tribune Reports. Specifically referring to abortion, she stated that this plan would cover "all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination."

Universal health care all by itself is a tough sell to the American people, but universal health care that funds a procedure that half of all Americans view as murder is something else altogether. Either they haven't thought it through or they are not at all serious about passing universal health care. It's a tough sell and you're going to need every vote. By including abortion you've just aligned yourself against all the libertarians, plus the pro-lifers, plus the business interests. Congratulations, you've just killed any possibility of passage.

Oh and that's not all.

Extreme Makeover: Campaign Edition is a sad spectacle indeed. Few things are more pathetic than watching a politician twist in the wind as he or she tries to disown a past action or stance on a critical issue.

The once proud GOP moderate John McCain is paying for his wild swing to the right with sinking poll numbers and deflating coffers. Like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton's Achilles' heal is the disaster in Iraq; first she was for it, now she's against it. Or something, who knows, who cares. And Mr. Massachussetts Mitt Romney used to go on and on about protecting a woman's right to choose. Now he considers himself an anti-abortion "convert." Just in time for election season too!

Abortion is an issue that could dog Fred Thompson as well. Thompson is the former lobbyist who, according to his exploratory committee, wasn't really a lobbyist. Certainly the second coming of Reagan would never have gone to bat for a pro-choice organization, would he? Except that Fred would, and did:

Thompson was retained by National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association to lobby the administration of President George H.W. Bush to ease a regulation that prevented clinics that received federal money from offering any abortion counseling.

Thompson, a social conservative these days, says he "has no recollection" about that. Nope, can't remember a thing about it. Of course, Thompson's an actor. Maybe he'll be able to give a convincing performance to the religious right on the abortion issue when and if the curtain ever goes up on his campaign.

The ruling is here. We have a good summary by Ed at Bench Memos, and this was tipped off to me by fellow Ohioan Brain Shavings.

First, let me say that while I am pro-life I do consider partial-birth abortion a particularly gruesome and disgusting procedure that should certainly be banned. Details on the procedure itself are in the ruling. I consider this law and this ruling a victory for humanity itself.

Politically, the interesting thing is that, for now, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is the swing vote on the Supreme Court, is not in favor of throwing out Roe vs. Wade. Kennedy signed on to the Casey decision which in the early '90s upheld Roe for the most part with additional possibility for regulation. This is as expected, but it was made clear in the ruling when Kennedy applied the previous Casey decision to the current question.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia filed a concurring opinion which made it clear that they were not only in favor of chucking partial-birth abortion, but Roe and Casey as well. Newly appointed Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito did NOT sign on to that concurring opinion. Either they did not agree or they are holding their cards.

It's clear that there will be no big changes in the abortion law with the current makeup of the court. But conservatives can cheer that President Bush did replace one swing vote (Sandra Day O'Connor) with a solid conservative (Alito).

Well, better put, he kind of, sort of tries to explain it. He admits that he was for abortion rights before he was against them, as he told to the National Right to Life Committee conference this past week. Fine, people change their minds. No biggie. But take today's clip from an interview with CNN's John Roberts.

Though Romney was very clear as a candidate that he supported a woman's right to choose, he is effectively telling us that, once elected in Massachusetts, he proudly acted in the opposite regard. The question is, who exactly is this revelation of two-faced behavior supposed to comfort? The people who actually believe what he's saying this time around, or the ones who don't? Maybe it's time for a new campaign slogan. Vote Romney: Anything Might Happen!

In an interview destined to reshape perceptions of Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper, an old friend of his recounts to New Zealand newspaper Mitt's efforts to intimidate a mother of four out of an abortion -- an abortion she sought because her life was in danger if she carried the baby to term:

So then Mitt came in to the hospital. X thought Mitt had come to be comforting because that's what bishops do. They have a pastoral role. But she said that instead he was critical.

He said – What do you think you're doing?

She said – Well, we have to abort the baby because I have these blood clots.

And he said something to the effect of – Well, why do you get off easy when other women have their babies?

And she said – What are you talking about? This is a life threatening situation.

And he said – Well what about the life of the baby?

And she said – I have four other children and I think it would be really irresponsible to continue the pregnancy.

X said she found herself arguing with Romney about her medical crisis, said he was very unsympathetic, very critical, and said that under the circumstances in no way did he condone her aborting the child. And he left.

She was extremely distraught. Talked it over with her husband. They decided to go ahead with the abortion. After that she left the church.

The thing is -- this is exactly the sort of case that makes it clear for most Americans why abortion needs to remain legal. Because responsible parents often face tragic decisions. That Mitt has now clearly switched positions on abortion multiple times in his life -- and always for political expediency -- says volumes about the man.

Let the grandstanding begin! Today Rudy Giuliani released his so-called Ten Commandments "Twelve Commitments to the American People." This hollow P.R. stunt ranks right up there with the Hillary Clinton's disingenuous "Listening Tour," and Mitt Romney's creepy "Five Brother's Blog," in terms of smarmy political pandering. In an attempt to out-channel Fred Thompson for the ghost of Ronald Reagan, Rudy lets us all know that it's morning in America again.

"I believe America solves its problems best from strength, not weakness, and from optimism, not pessimism," Giuliani said. "My Twelve Commitments are a promise to this generation and generations to come that we will keep the American dream alive. I believe it's the kind of leadership and common sense accountability the American people need in Washington."

So, without further ado, The Twelve Commitments:

1. I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists' War on Us.

--Seriously, the website capitalizes the word "us."

2. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.

--The epitome of pandering. Every non-citizen? The libertarian wing is very excited to be forced to get a biometric i.d. card.

3. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.

--Is there a candidate out there that doesn't say he or she is going to do this?

4. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.

--Another revolutionary idea. Bush I & ll promised the same on the tax code, so did Clinton.

This was the funniest moment of last night's debate. Signaling His displeasure with the permissive, liberal turn of the Republican party, God himself threw lightning bolts down upon the proceedings. In specific, God took pains to short out Rudy Giuliani's microphone so that America's Mayor couldn't get out his heretical position on abortion. How else can we explain the utter lack of interference with pseudo-creationist Mike Huckabee's remarks on whether or not the earth was created in six days? See for yourself.

I have to admit, this one snuck up on me. Why? It seems like we just had one of these a couple of weeks ago. Oh. Right. We did. Sheesh, how many of these debates will we have had by January?

Anyway, I was able to catch up on some (hopefully most) of the relevant video here. Overall I'd have to say that the format and pacing of this debate was just better, or the candidates are getting much better at this debate thing. Probably a little of both.

YouTube helpfully has some of the highlights.