House of Eratosthenes

…and this is starting to annoy me quite a lot. It’s like getting poked in the ear, with a stick, repeatedly, by an irascible little kid whose parents won’t do anything about it. It goes from “this is weird” to “what the fuck” to “time to lay the smack down,” at warp speed…and the flip-flopper thing has been going on since Kerry was running, some seven years ago.

The act seems to arrive in three parts, kind of an unholy trinity thing:

1. My position has been completely consistent since Day One^TM;
2. You’re an idiot for not seeing it that way;
3. I’m getting really irritated so don’t ever ask that question again.

Perceived front-runner Mittens demonstrates at 4:43…the question is asked at 4:05…through the sixth & seventh minutes things start to get testy. By 7:25 starts walking through the three items listed above and, frankly, acts like a bit of a snot.

He had further words for Bret Baier afterward. I’m not the first to say this and I won’t be the last, but if Romney really hopes to be the nominee he’d better get ready for a lot more grilling than what we saw in the clip. Baier discusses this further with Bill O’Reilly here.

Although Romney did a good job clarifying the immigration question and I find his quibbling somewhat reasonable, I call bullshit for two reasons. They have to do with the phenomenon overall, not quite so much with Romney, although they both apply here:

One. Logically, the argument of “There are subtle differences here that are going over your head because you’re not looking closely enough” — works when you’re arguing two things are different, against an opposition who insists they are the same. It doesn’t work when you go the other way.

Two. If you are indeed unfairly maligned as a flip-flopper because your comments on this earlier occasion, or on this later one, were taken out of context and some false meaning was read into one of them — the rational thing for you to do would have very little to do with dissuading people from looking further. If you’re sincere, you would pick up on where the mistaken perception set in, and then you’d go after it like a pit bull. Which, to be fair, Mitt did. But why then is it on others to bring it up and give you the opportunity to do this clarifying? Mitt should want to do that, and instead, here he is snapping at people.

Let’s walk through the meaning of this very carefully. It’s high time someone did.

People who are CompletelyConsistentAllTheWayBackToDayOne, are going to be somewhat passionate about that position. Indeed, if they’re picking up flak about being a flip-flopper, whether it’s deserved or not, it might very well be because the voters who care about the issue have gotten the gist that their concern isn’t being shared by the candidate. In other words, perceived inconsistency might not have anything to do with it at all. Now if I can figure that much out, rest assured the candidates can and Mitt Romney can. So this tactic of “Let’s move on, and you’re an even bigger idiot if you ever bring it up again” just exacerbates the problem. If the candidate isn’t concerned about that, then he must not be concerned about the issue. He looks guilty. And generally, he probably is. There’s no reason for you to move on unless you just don’t give a damn.

The flip-floppers are proven…or at least, strongly suggested to be…guilty as all holy hell every time they do this, and they’ve been doing it a lot lately. They’ve been doing it because Kerry got away with it. Didn’t win, but you could see this was working well for him and it looks like someone out there took good notes. Now they’re trying to get away with the same shenanigans as the encyclopedia salesmen:

There’s a much broader problem going on here though. I think Romney’s irritation is genuine, as was Kerry’s, and the same goes for the current President when these luminaries are confronted by audiences who aren’t radiating the emotional vibe being sought by the luminary. So this part of the problem doesn’t concern the candidates for the office, or even the current holders of the office, it has to do with the office itself. It is becoming an imperial position. People going after it don’t want to be asked whatever questions, or be confronted by whatever concerns. They want to tell the peasants want to think about things, how to prioritize things, and what emotional reactions they should be having. The candidates are being unfairly inconvenienced by the fact that such matters are under the control of other people.

Thing I Know #112. Strong leadership is a dialog: That which is led, states the problem, the leader provides the solution. It’s a weak brand of leadership that addresses a problem by directing people to ignore the problem.

Even though it’s over 200 years old it’s still relevant today.
- bpenni | 12/01/2011 @ 08:29
I’m a big fan of inconsistency when it means someone’s gonna come around to my point of view on things.
- mkfreeberg | 12/01/2011 @ 18:33
Our masters are trying their best to winnow the questions we’re allowed to ask them to one: Rope or bullet?
- chunt31854 | 12/02/2011 @ 09:39

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Flip Floppers Are Acting Like Encyclopedia SalesmenThursday, December 1st, 2011

Flip Floppers Are Acting Like Encyclopedia Salesmen
Thursday, December 1st, 2011