In the Chicago Tribune, Paul Begala argues that Mitt the Flip illustrates in micro Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest. After pointing out that the “fittest” does not mean the strongest, but rather the most adaptable, he supports his thesis with examples:
First he was a liberal: he voted for Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary for president, spoke emotionally of a relative who died from an illegal abortion and vowed to be more pro-gay rights than Teddy Kennedy. Then he was a moderate: as Massachusetts governor he signed Romney-care, which included a health insurance mandate — the moderate alternative to nationalized health care.
Now Mittbot 3.0 is a conservative . . . .
That, friends, is what I call adaptable. Romney is a political shape-shifter who will renege (sic) on any promise, abandon any pledge, betray any principle to please his audience.
He goes on to point to Mitt’s one constant: His allegiance to the bankster creed that money means virtue and that any way of amassing money is therefore a virtuous way.
The only constants I see in the Flipper are ambition and entitlement.
He believes he should be President because he believes he should be President because he believes he should be President . . . .
Follow the link for the rest.