The Media and Mitt Romney

The media (or is it primarily the Washington Post?) has been going after Mr. Romney with a vengeance lately - yesterday we posted on a Richard Cohen- penned screed bashing Mitt for his evolving positions (although my post was mainly focused on Cohen's free use of hate-speech); today the WaPost backs him up with a column by Ruth Marcus, who recites an anecdote from over two years ago:

Precisely two years ago, Mitt Romney, then the governor of Massachusetts but already eyeing a 2008 presidential bid, sat in the coffee shop of a Washington hotel, doing his best not to explain his views on abortion.....

She goes on to mock what may very well be some convoluted reasoning, and concludes thusly:

Those considering Romney in 2008 have reason to wonder what a politician who admits so freely to...manipulation is willing to do to win their votes.

Again, not necessarily an unfair statement - but only if evenly applied. How about applying the same standards to Hillary Clinton and her "evolving" poistions on the war, which seem to mutate with each passing day and every new public opinion poll?
Or to John Edwards - the media gushes over his tax-raising health care plan, but never mentions, you know, that multi-millionaire ambulance-chasing lawyers like Edwards have caused the very crisis in healthcare that he/they now claim needs "fixing". At the very least, his new $6 million dollar family compund should be featured (and not in the "Home" section, either!).
And how about Obama - can someone tell me why the media is refusing to question his inexplicable taunts of some of our staunchest overseas allies (messing with John Howard and the Aussies? are you kidding?), and his child-like view of the world in general? Or perhaps he is their idealistic "JFK" for 2008 (see Kerry, John)...and if you want to talk religion( as everyone wants to do with Mitt), perhaps someone could explore Obama's devotion to the quite non-traditional church he belongs to on Chicago's South Side. Maybe Obama's positions have not changed much (started stupid, stayed same), but since he has far less experience than one pilloried ex-Vice President known as J. Danforth Quayle, one would expect a bit more scrutiny...

Again, this blog is not huge on Mitt Romney (we've already endorsed Rudy), and if we were to offer any advice, it would be to...be yourself, a moderate Republican, and see where the chips fall in '08. Don't listen to the pundits that tell you that you need to position yourself "here" or "there" to win votes; the man who is true to himself will gain more supporters than any artifically endorsed positioning.

But my point remains - if you are going to pound Mitt for position shifts, then do the same for the Democratic candidates, or don't do it at all. Otherwise, you may come across as politically biased (and we know that isn't true!), or as just another anti-Mormonite....