[oldembed width="420" height="245" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" flashvars="launch=49684613^954539^1030263&width=420&height=245" fid="2"]
One of the few memes about Mitt Romney that got traction over his six years of running for president is one of flip-flopper. It has hurt his credibility and favorability to be on literally every side of every issue at one point or another.
So what are partisan hacks like David Brooks and David Gregory to do? Float an idea out there that flip-flopping could actually be a good thing in a president:
The bottom line is this: If Obama wins, we’ll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we’re more likely to get bipartisan reform. Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He’s more likely to get big stuff done.
What a nakedly obvious and pathetic ploy to sell a weak and failing candidate. And of course, there's no conservative meme that David Gregory is unwilling to echo out as a serious Beltway notion.
For what it's worth, there's no factual precedent behind the notion that Romney has worked in a more bipartisan fashion. Do we really think that the same man who had his vetoes over-ridden nine out of ten times in Massachusetts is the guy who is going to get big stuff done? Do either point out that Obama has offered up bills that were by and large created and promoted by conservative think tanks only to find reflexive partisan obstructionism?
Of course not. That would be counter to the cognitive dissonance necessary to be the kind of partisan hack that Brooks and Gregory so obviously desire to be.