This is what bothered me about Romney all along. It was obvious reading his statements from just a few years ago that he was saying that he "deeply" held these beliefs. He "deeply" believed in a woman's right to choose. He "deeply" believed in the gay agenda.
And now he says he "deeply" believes in the sanctity of life and in the marriage amendment.
That's was the great contradiction. One of those positions is a lie, but how to know which one? What if the deeply held anti-life and pro-gay agenda is the true deeply held belief?
And, in all his public life, THOSE are the beliefs on which he actually had a chance to act. And where did he come down: on the side of anti-life and the gay agenda.
His statements and his acts damn him as a demagogue.
Let's look at this logically.
Romney lived in Boston because that is where he and his business partners based Bain Capital.
However, Romney left Bain in 1998 to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. Presumably, he spent at least a large portion of the next four years in Utah. By all accounts, Romney did a magnificent job on the Olympics. He was brought in to at least salvage some credibility after the scandal and he not only overcame that, he turned it into a huge success.
So, the question then becomes, why go back to Massachusetts? Romney is worth AT LEAST $200 million, he can live anywhere he wants. Why not stay in Utah and run for governor there?
The people in Utah loved him for what he had accomplished and his religion would NEVER be an issue there. And the people of Utah would NEVER push for government funding for abortion or homosexual marriage.
In short, Romney had two choices: he could either stay in a very conservative state where people loved him or he could return to a very liberal state where people remembered him as a wealthy businessman who had been soundly defeated when he ran against Kennedy for the senate. The ONLY logical conclusion is that Romney went to the state where he would be the most comfortable with his true political beliefs.