Last night in the debate, Mitt Romney went after Rick Perry over Perry’s characterization of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme. I happen to agree with Perry. The payroll taxes of currently employed workers are used to pay beneficiaries and even the Social Security Actuary agrees that the current model is not sustainable more than 20 or so more years.

Mitt Romney went on the attack today on Sean Hannity’s Show. I’m not opposed to attacks on your opponents over policy. I am opposed to flip flopping.

According to Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner (ht to NRO and Ace):

“The issue is not so much how we finance Social Security, it’s that Gov. Perry in his book ‘Fed Up,’ says that Social Security has been forced on us, and by no measure is Social Security anything but a failure,” Romney said. “That is being against not just how you finance Social Security, but being against Social Security. One, in my view, that is wrong. I am for Social Security. I want to save Social Security, it’s an essential safety net for the American people. And number two, it’s terrible politics. If we nominate someone who the Democrats can correctly characterize as being opposed to Social Security, we will be obliterated as a party.”

This stands in stark contrast to whatever version of Mitt Romney wrote his book last year where he says:

“Let’s look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing. Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren’s education. Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for its own purposes, so that when the grandchildren turned eighteen, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years.”

Last night Mitt Romney nearly made me forget why I disliked him so much in 2008. In 2008, Romney surrounded himself with smug, arrogant little twits who lied to bloggers just to keep in practice. Everyday my inbox would have a emails slinging mud on other candidates always labeled “Not For Attribution.” And everyday Romney would seek to reinvent himself from a pro-choice liberal governor into a conservative into Heaven Knows What.

The whole sorry spectacle was only mitigated by the hilarity of watching NROs KLo swoon over every syllable the man uttered.

Last night I liked Romney and told RedState contributors in an email discussion that I thought I could not only accept but actively support Romney if he wins the nomination. The cheap, tawdry flip-floppery we’ve seen today is making me reconsider.