A reader writes:
You can’t really argue that Romney hasn’t explained why he’s changed his position on ENDA. He did give a reason to the NRO:
"My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges."
Here’s where the real follow-up question to Romney should focus:
"You say your experience as a governor changed your mind on ENDA. Well, it happens that you‚Äôve been governor of a state that has had a law on the books since 1989 prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Has Massachusetts in fact seen a litigation floodgate? Can you cite any examples of employers who’ve been unfairly penalized at the hands of activist judges? During your term as Massachusetts governor, did employers come to you complaining about how the non-discrimination law was harming then?
And if not, then how can you claim your experience as governor leads you to believe that a federal version of your own state’s law would have all these harmful consequences?"
C’mon, K-Lo. Ask him.
The Dish 