However, the Mitt Romney who now stands before the 2012 Republican National Convention as their newly anointed leader has reversed his opinions on these and other issues and is now nothing like the elder Romney nor the younger Mitt.
On gay rights he opposed eliminating "Don't Ask Don't Tell" which prevented gays from serving openly in the military.
On abortion he is now unequivocally pro-life although contrary to his Party's platform he would allow it in cases of rape.
On the minimum wage he is now saying that he would just look at existing inflation and employment data to determine whether or not to make a change. A stance vague enough to draw the support of those in his party who oppose the minimum wage.
On gun control he has stated that he opposes any new gun laws. Beyond that it is difficult to determine where he stands, as it is on many issues, on whether or not the assault weapons ban he supported should be brought back.
Concerning healthcare, he insists that one of his first acts as president would be to repeal Obamacare even though it so closely mimics his own Romneycare plan in Massachusetts.
Why the turnaround? As a businessman he has had to roll with the punches to be competitive. He has brought this ability to change and adapt to the environment to his political life. But is this the kind of politician that voters want? Or do they want someone who is a known quantity and can be trusted to not change his mind on important issues after he is put into the White House? The latter seems to be true.
Romney's main weakness has been his propensity to change his mind on key issues. Nobody has earned the label of flip-flopper more than Mitt Romney. Most of the above referenced issues are the kinds of issues that some call the "civil rights" issues of the day. What would his father say about Mitt turning his back on these civil rights issues.?