From Ezra klein:
I’m starting to think that Lieberman knows perfectly well that his ever-shifting rationales don’t make sense, and that he’s inventing them to taunt liberals, not to explain his position. It’s one thing to oppose the public option, after all. It’s another to continually dangle misinformed rationales, implying that if liberals could just explain their argument clearly and logically enough, he’ll change his mind. It’s a deviously brilliant exploitation of liberal psychology. So devious, in fact, that it could only have come from a former liberal.
And then their is this on Sarah Palin:
Palin’s inability to leave a grievance un-aired is quickly becoming the stuff of legend. But the feud with Johnston is one of the more egregious, and ongoing, self-inflicted political injuries I can ever recall seeing. (The irony of her applauding her daughter’s decision to “take the high road” in the same sentence in which she throws her “porn” dig is almost too much.)
The obvious, immensely easy play here would be for her to make up publicly with the boy. But even if that’s too much–as it obviously is–you’d think she could manage some high-road blather when asked about Johnston (“We’ve had our disagreements, as you all know, but he’s good kid and I hope it all works out for him in the end”) and could avoid bringing him up altogether when she’s asked about something else, as in this case. But, no, she somehow seems to believe–and no one close to her can evidently dissuade her–that if she can win a war of words with a semi-employed, 19-year-old high-school dropout, it will amount to an actual victory for her.
Personally, I think that in both cases they are people who will do anything to make the discourse about them, which explains the lack of consistancy in terms of policy. They don’t care about policy they care about being the center of attention and if you examine their statements in that light they are completely consistant.