For the record, I call Romney a liar because I don’t know of a single idea of political philosophy that he hasn’t talked out of both sides of his mouth about, nor any course of practical action as President that he has consistently stood by since the one-on-one contest with Obama has started.

Does anybody else know of any?

Thus it is purely a matter of logic that at least 50% of the things he has said he believes in or will do have been a lie. And there is at least a logical possibility that every single such statement might be a lie.

In my half-century of paying attention to politics I have never encountered this level and scale of lying and this level of absence of genuine moral response to it by anybody.

In an “ecumenical Christian magazine” such as this such absence is positively breathtaking.

I have intruded no specific moral judgment of Romney that extends from my own Buddhist beliefs, though Buddhism suggests quite clear ones, I have tried to stick to the barefaced facts as I believe to know them, and am always inviting the correction by anyone who thinks my factual knowledge is wrong.

What else is there left to talk about?

He’s a Harvard Lawyer. Just like Obama, just like John Roberts. Duplicity is their principal art-starting with the insignia that says “Veritas”.

I harbor no delusions about Romney, other than he’s not completely immersed in the Dialectic. Elections are “constrained choices”.

And now a word from our sponsor, Angelo Codevilla.

And now he’s apologized for the 47 % remark.

Maybe tomorrow he’ll say that he and his children have always liked Cookie Monster and Big Bird. And after that he will make a big statement about his commitment to voting rights even for strong Democratic constituencies.

Anyone want odds on which part of the electorate Romney’s going to stab in the back if he occupies the Oval Office in January? By now he will have to do it to somebody.

No one necessarily disputes that there are single issue voters, topiarized (structured as to political thinking) by the NRA, or by NRL. Plenty of plain speaking people will say that if you are a single issue voter swayed by the NRA or by National Right to Life, you probably aren’t voteing for a democrat, or Obama.

My guess is that a good deal of the very folks who probably aren’t or were not going to vote for Obama because of guns and god, where more or less okay with Obama putting it that way. You can say clinging to guns and god, you can say “topiarized” for some marxist flair. Or you can say single issue voters, or multi-pronged “overweight”, bright line test voters, who sort first by NRA or NRL criteria. These folks do exist and they are sort of part of the intellectual property value(trademark power in Washington) of a lobby like the NRA, or National Right to Life. But the flip side is always that if voters did not exist who clinged to Gods and Guns, then the NRA and the NRL would be more bark and less bite.

In addition some undergrad political science, philosophy and economics departments still teach Marx, and some NY Times bestsellers which opine on political demographics still raise the issue. You are a professor, if you are offended by Marx, punch a faculty member who assigns him.

Obama’s humility consists rather in the recognition that he didn’t build that. So Karl Marx has his tomb in London, and copyright law being what it is american journalists weave explanations that loosely seem to build from this academic point of origin.

Basically however you have a sort of faux-sophisticated left libertarian centrist (h/t Lawler)…or any of a huge variety of independents and multi-issue centrists (who probably do end up slightly wishy washy and ad-hoc) and then you have a bunch of folks who don’t have time for politics and thus prefer the flawed but at least consistent mechanism of being topiarized (becomming the intellectual property/bargainning power leverage of a single lobby, and don’t mind being counted as such.)

In any case Lawler (and all political scientists who have ever read or taught Marx, have in many ways more of a property interest in the Obama gaffe as explanation)…an Obama appology is thus insufficient to addressing all the ways in which the statement might even be correct.

But recognizing the partisan rhetorical “tilt” that is supposedly deprecating, I think there are a lot of folks who want to be used as leverage in washington(represented) in just the way that Obama and Mitt Romney commited gaffes.

To put it in the context of political philosophy, one might say that Obama and Mitt Romney’s gaffes are common sense (but bad?), in the modern day equivalent way that Thacymachus speaks honestly in the Republic. That is supposeing that this was a platonic dialogue, and justice consists in giving to each what he “owns” or is “due”, the property interest in Obama’s gaffe was not built by him, nor Romney’s by him exactly, but even more importantly, some number of those who live in the “city”(or country as the case might be) would want Obama to know that the NRA and the NRL are powerful lobbies because they cling to Gods and Guns. When they “hate or are dissapointed in bush they take off the Bush/Cheney bumper sticker, but keep that NRA or NRL one looking proud)Some number of the 47% who may also be counted among the NRA and the NRL may also want Romney to recognize the danger of his 47% remark. Don’t appologize for your remark…own it and walk with trepidation on the issue of middle class tax hikes! Because on a common sense level everything Mitt Romney said was true, if his job isn’t to consider the interests of the 47%, then they will never vote for him, unless I should hasten to add, they are busy self-consciously clinging to God and Guns. That is adding to the trademark value of the NRA and the NRL.

So a not altogether theoretical question: what is offensive about a political candidate getting the mechanics of your support for the NRA or the NRL right?

I suppose the problem is the same problem that gives rise to moderates (or sophisticated folks who are possibly faux-sophisticated by becomming almost ad hoc in multi-factor ballancing tests (not unlike our current constitutional law jurisprudence). It is a capitalism problem, put too much weight on brand and soon enough they are shrinking container size on you. But just as in any serious analysis of markets there are always brand loyalists, the same in my opinion is true in politics.

While I am a sort of consumer reports moderate/independent(and probably inevitably faux-sophisticated), I am not necessarily sure there is much offense from the Ford loyalists over the notion that they cling to Ford, and the loyalist/partisans are proping up the Ford TRADEMARK by doing so. That is just a Brand/bright line rule question vs. a multi-pronged/factor approach.

The problem with Romney’s gaffe is that he already seems to be a car priced outside of the range of the middle class. But some large chunk of the 47%, are not at all embarassed by saying, THAT IS RIGHT! I will prop up the trademark value of bipartisan (consumer reports) organization X.

While both gaffes somewhat reinforced the nature of the servicemarks. Romney’s gaffe is neither capable of being completly wrong, nor capable of being completly right. It can’t be completly right because Obama’s “gaffe” is still right, that is even when it is the economy stupid, members of the 47% stock up on weapons, support the NRA and listen to religious and single issue groups like NRL.

Why do you want Obama to appologize for recognizing the strong servicemark/influence of the NRA and the NRL?

In point of fact rather than these statements really being strongly partisan statements they are statements which are intended to moderate ideological extremes. i.e. I can’t push that far, because excuse/lobby(influence/topiarizing cling-factory) X, Y.

So Mitt Romney gets away with flip flopping on his ideological stop gap, by basically being altogether servicemark laden(Paul Ryan brand) and rhetorical with regards to the deficit.