Republicans on Republicans Pt. 1

American Spectator reporter Philip Klein kicks Mitt Romney where it hurts:

Supporters of Romney argue that his past stances are not as important as long as he is saying the right things now. Isn't at least saying that you're pro-life better than being openly pro-choice? Isn't being a member of the NRA better than not being a member? Isn't being an opponent of campaign finance reform better than being a supporter of it?

There are several problems with this line of reasoning. It's one thing if Romney changed his position on a single issue such as abortion, which a lot of politicians have trouble navigating. However, Romney has changed his mind on so much, so soon, that it raises doubts about anything that he promises to do as president. The only thing that's consistent about his rather thin public record is that he always takes the position that is most politically expedient at the time. Right now, he's saying what he needs to to win the Republican nomination, but what happens when he's no longer beholden to conservative primary voters?