Stephen Stromberg nicely summed up last night’s debate (so I don’t have to). But had it not been for “Oops” and “Princess Nancy” and boos over a question about Herman Cain’s character, there is one more takeaway we’d be talking about it: Mitt Romney’s insistence that he’s no flip-flopper.
“I think people understand that I’m a man of steadiness and constancy,” he said.
There are quite a few people who would beg to differ. Romney has been called a “pretzel” by George Will and a “perfectly lubricated weather vane” by another candidate for the GOP nomination, Jon Huntsman. But the gold in Romn-ihilation goes to Erick Erickson, who took a flamethrower to the former Massachusetts governor on this very point earlier this week on the RedState blog:
There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself. You want him to be tough? He’ll be tough. You want him to be sensitive? He’ll be sensitive. You want him to be for killing the unborn? He’ll go all in on abortion rights until he wants to run for an office where it is not in his advantage.
Wow. All that’s left of Romney after that is a chalk outline.
In his “I’m not a flip-flopper” defense Wednesday, Romney said, “If I’m president of the United States, I will be true to my family, my faith and my country.” I don’t doubt for one second Romney’s fidelity to his wife, their marriage, his faith and our country. But there’s plenty of evidence that he’s ideologically promiscuous and stays wedded to an idea until it no longer proves useful.