It shouldn’t really come as a surprise that Kathleen Parker would defend Mitt Romney’s flippity floppity-ness with her recent article. Flip floppers must circle the wagons and protect one another, don’t you know. Ms. Parker takes a presumptive presidential candidates fatal flaw and attempts to humanize him. What’s becoming a trademark theme with Ms. Parker’s columns is an inability to multitask an article and have a nuanced prose. In other words, she can’t help but funnel down Romeny’s rhetorical inconsistency to a wedge issue change of heart, because she herself cannot write in anything but the singular.

My issue with this article is two fold. First issue, The attempt to humanize a politician is laughable. To then attempt to humanize Mitt Romney is Sisyphean in it’s endeavor. To then also approach it with same simplistic mindset that dictates that the federal government is a business, and therefore must be run by a businessman is the other issue. So of course Romney can be inconsistent morally and ethically. Aren’t we all? Issue one first.

People change, I get that. A lot of world views are shaped by just simply living ones life. To tie in to the whole abortion issue, my take on it was informed by a loved one being raped when I was a teenager. It had a profound impact on me and shaped my views on not only abortion, but women’s (and a larger degree everyone’s) rights to their bodies. I could even argue that if a right-winger ever made a nuanced enough argument about abortion, I could probably at least engage with it, and maybe change my mind, if it made sense. Typically their only argument is:
“It’s Wrong!”
But Why? Do you have a personal problem against it?
“No. ‘cuz God!”
The End
But a politician is not of this world. They are an amalgamation of everything that’s unholy and unkind to every man, woman and child. They will do anything to grab the brass ring of public office, and that mentality does not alter or change no matter the office. They will dance for the highest bidder, and they will do so unashamedly and with gusto.

As an aside, it’s also nice to see a bit of their own medicine washing up on the GOP in terms of this flip flop bullshit. How often during the 04 Presidential run did Kerry have to deal with that nonsense.? Any person with the dearth of publicity is going to be awash in inconsistencies. The same argument being supplied for Romney’s inconsistency.

The idea that a politicians ethics and morality are purely personal is purely bullshit. When Romney wanted to get elected in Massachusetts, he had to out Kennedy a Kennedy. That’s not something that’s done easily, especially on their home field. But Romney did it. Now that he wants to win a GOP nomination he’s going to out republican, out TEA Party, out crazy every single person up on the dais. Right now, all he has to do is sit back and let the also rans fly too close to the sun, which explains the even keel of his poll numbers. To keep with the mythological bent, his inconsistency is the Achilles heel keeping him from getting on top and staying there.

Ms. Parker's argument is that Romney is a man who’s growing and changing as he learns. Not that he’s changing stripes and colors as is politically advantageous to him at any one time, or that his inconsistency as a political figure is on full display for scrutiny. The thing is, sure he can change his mind. But the argument against Romney isn’t just random bouts of flip flop, it’s the full blown outbreak of it that springs up at every turn. For example one day he’s standing outside promoting states rights and that they should handle their own issues, then the very next day saying oh no perhaps some federal oversight is needed here and there. To say that corporations are people one day, and then try and relate to Occupy Wall Street when he’s the kind of person they’re protesting, is just a taste of one of the flavors you can enjoy from the Romney ice creamery and malt Shoppe.

Column size, status quo and protecting like minded inconsistency aficionados, not to mention her inability to craft a nuanced article about a politicians tack-less politicianship is what propels Ms. Parker to provide a singular example of how Romney flipped flopped on abortion. When he was governor he was under intense scrutiny to end a law protecting embryos from that awful “science” stem cell research. Since all politics are local, it was mostly about Harvard striking out as the beacon of all stem cell research (and all that pharmaceutical/federal research cheddar that would flood the state). But did Romney stick to his deeply (supposedly secret) conservative roots and uphold the law? No, but he did have a lunch with a professor of biomedical ethics and was told the birds and the bees. The conversion of a man who was pro-choice, of which Ms. Parkers provides no real proof, to an entrenched pro-life candidate is now proof that Romney isn’t inconsistent at all! Because, here’s the “Aha!” moment, it was a flip flop of the "highest order".

There you go again, Ms. Parker and every evangelically patronizing right-winger. Because, in the end, God and Religion is ALWAYS on the right side of things, this was merely a Saul/Paul revelation to the almighty and not Romney/Romney doing what was politically expedient as a Massachusetts governor who maintained MA pro-choice stance, instead of doing the “right thing” and not doing the will of his states people. But then years later say he’s always been pro-life all along. This isn’t textbook inconsistency? No ma’am this is a politician, through and through.

The lizard brain that dictates the right-wing and most of Ms. Parker’s articles is that there’s a one to one corollary between the general public and public figures. At the end of the day, yes we’re all the same. But public figures have the power to do things that mere mortals cannot, and will not, ever do. They have the power to shape the narrative, change the conversation, and make the world in their own image, if they so choose. If we’re going to lampoon one public figure for perceived inconsistency then every public figure is going to be allowed the same scrutiny in the future. Just because you have an excuse for why it shouldn’t be doesn’t make it any less applicable now. Higher order or no.

Romney is a political operative through and through. Once the GOP circus clowns go away, one by one, the general public will realize this too. Isn’t there a phrase in the bible about a person’s faith being found to be lukewarm would be spat from the mouth God? Inconsistency held no water in ancient times and it holds none now.