Hackles, Politics January 16th, 2008
[Update: if you wandered here by clicking my trackback at MichelleMalkin.com, IMO this post may work for igniting one of the gaseous issues emanating from NYT’s fat penumbra, but you may wish to read my post favoring Romney and opposing McCain and Huckabee (link).]
Three blogs I’m seeing relay and question a story in the New York Times: Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, The Autopsy - it’s probably all over the place.
My comment: show
this is a subtle variation of the “He’s too perfect to be real” criticism. We rail politicians because they are flawed, and then when one who lacks those flaws comes along, we rail on them anyway. Whatever.
The irony is that the allegation that Romney is disingenuous is itself disingenuous. Shouldn’t a candidate identify what he has that folks want? The assumption is that if someone says what wants to be heard they must have made it up just for the sake of being well-received. There’s as much basis for that as there is for believing they genuinely held the position before advertising it. Between the two choices is a path of either cynical negative bias or basic trust in the goodness of other people. Without any hard proof for either as valid, why not risk or put faith in the better option?
And the allegation of flip-flopping is just as cynically illogical and unfounded [as I went into on my post now linked at the top of this entry].
Leave a Reply