Here are some more great comments by David Reinhard, associate editor of The Oregnonian, that cut through much of the superficial comments on Romney of late (thanks to EFM):

But it's also possible he had an authentic epiphany on the life issue. Many people have. If the pro-life movement didn't let in converts, it would have done without the services of, say, Ronald Reagan.

The recent criticism of Romney's flip-flop on gay rights, on the other hand, is just silly. Critics point out that he reached out to (gay) Log Cabin Republicans in 1994. He promised to be a more effective supporter of equal rights for gays than Ted Kennedy. But then, in 2003, he came out in opposition to the Massachusetts high court's gay marriage decree.

A flip-flop? Hardly. Gay marriage wasn't even an issue in 1994. It's also worth noting that Romney didn't go looking for the marriage issue. His state's high court brought it to him and the people of Massachusetts. The fact is it is possible to oppose discrimination against homosexuals while supporting traditional marriage, though some Boston.com headline writers apparently think this is news. ("Romney against bias to gays despite opposition to gay marriage," Dec. 18, 2006.) Yes, it's possible to reject the extremes and stake out a common-sense middle ground on this set of issues.