Addition to the I M mean to) Chait gallery.
He said Romney flip flops because he ran in Ma and then nationall and not because he has a character defect. I comment that Chait has a severe logic defect.
the fallacy more common than any other fallacy and than any valid methos of reasoning the false dichotomy. Either "either/or" or actual examination of the evidence. You argue that Romney's words do not demonstrate a character defect, because he ran for office in Massachusetts and then in the nationwide primary campaign. The basis for your certainty that it is impossible thatsomeone with a defective character could run in Ma then nationwide is in no way explained.
I don't fault your writing. I think you give no explanation of your reasoning because you have no reasoning to explain. Bear with me and imagine for a second that Romney's Ma to USA history isn't proof of sound character. How could we possibly examine his character if flip flops can be explained in another way. Is it possible that there is other evidence related to character than flip flops ? For example does Romney, compared to say Richard Nixon, tell an astonishingly huge number of lies ? Does he repeat lies after they are rated pants on fire by politifact? Has Steve Benen's weekly list of Romney falsehoods expanded like the German money supply in 1923 ? (no on that last one but it's growth sure dwarfs US inflation in the 70s). Does having felt the need to win in Ma explain why Romney tells all of those lies ? Did Willard Mitt Rpmney really have to say "Mitt Romney and yes that's my real name"? Does your theory explain the NY Times op-ed by the guy in private equity who said that Romney lacked the integrity necessary for the proper functioning of the vulture capital industry ?
What evidence could conceivably convince you that, by the standards of US politicians, Romney is extraordinarily dishonest ? Finally when have you ever ever paid the slightest attention to evidence presented in support of the character defect hypothesis which you dismiss ( again) ?