2. So you are saying that she is lying or intentionally embellishing the truth. That stands to reason; one of them must be. Or might Romney have failed to recall the 1994 conversation?

3. I don’t view Romney or Mormonism with rose-colored glasses and I wouldn’t vote for him, but I don’t have any negative predisposition about his morals or character. With regard to lying, you may know of a Romney quote that directly contradicts Ms. Dushku, but in the absence of one, I’m perfectly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

4. You may be tired of defending Romney on this issue, but I think you’ll find that readily apparent truth has enormous staying power. I don’t imagine that Reid or Romney have red hotlines in their home enabling them to “take orders” from Salt Lake, but let’s face the fact that the LDS church tries very hard to hold its members to a monolithic set of doctrines and guidelines for behavior that defines its public face. Combine that with Ms. Dusku’s recollections and we have what amounts to considerably more than a “shred” of evidence.

And 5. Well, you actually argue the point for me

He would not want to take a position that would affect his standing in the Church, and as a former stake president he probably was concerned about the example he would be setting.

Undoubtedly true, and as we get further into the campaign, Romney is steadfastly holding up the value of his standing in the Church with an eye toward being a much greater example than he has ever been before. I just think it is naive to insist that LDS leaders in “high position” will have no input when it comes to deciding policy. If Ms. Dusku is to be believed, Romney didn’t merely say that the brethren advised him toward a particular stance, but that they told him what position he could take. This implies (if her recollection is accurate) that they could have disallowed the position.

1. The alleged conversation took place in 1994. How clearly do you recall conversations you had in 1994?

2. As you note, Ms. Dushku is someone whose favorite cause and favorite candidates benefit from portraying Mitt Romney as not only a flip-flopper but also as someone who takes orders from Salt Lake City. Caution is warranted.

3. You yourself seem quite disposed to believe the negative about Romney, especially as relates to his religion.

4. The subject of Romney taking orders from Salt Lake is a very tired one by now. We have blogged on that subject repeatedly. Do you think Harry Reid takes orders from Salt Lake? Anyway, there is not a shred of evidence that such communication takes place. Romney has categorically stated, in the clearest possible terms, that he has not sought instructions from Salt Lake, that he will not seek instructions, and that he has never gotten instructions, as an elected official, from his church. You are certainly free to choose to believe he is a liar.

5. As a Mormon, I can easily imagine how such a conversation could take place, if it did indeed take place. Romney was a former stake president. During the time (probably nine years) that he served in that very time-consuming and challenging position, he surely would have come into contact with, and become acquainted with, a number of the church’s “general authorities,” who preside over the church. As a neophyte politician he may have realized he would have to take the abortion position he took in 1994 in order to have a chance of actually winning against Ted Kennedy. He would not want to take a position that would affect his standing in the Church, and as a former stake president he probably was concerned about the example he would be setting. So he called someone in a high position to get advice. This is not different than a Catholic politician getting advice from a bishop or cardinal, or an orthodox Christian consulting with his pastor, or a Jewish candidate talking to his rabbi.

And that’s all I have to say about that! Thanks for your comment.

Here’s just a small excerpt:

Judy Dushku: …Then in 1994, when Romney was running for the Senate, he came out in favor of choice for women — which was surprising to me. I was pleased and called, asking to see him. I told him I suspected that we had our differences, but that maybe I could work with him if he’d come to a really good position on women and childbirth.

And he said – Yes, come to my office.

I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was – Well they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts.

Suzan Mazur: Who’s “THEY”?

Judy Dushku: I asked him the same question. And he said “the Brethren” in Salt Lake City.

Now as a pro-life Republican, I might be tempted to look at the hyperbole of this interview’s title and discount out of hand anything said by a “radical Democrat”, but if Ms. Dushku’s memory of the conversation is accurate, I’d say this speaks volumes about Mitt’s “world view” or rather the one that he is told he can adopt.