An e-mail:

While your point about insulating against push-polling is a good one, I think Cost is clearly right that this was driven in large, large, large measure by Romney’s fading in the polls vis-a-vis the more religious Huckabee. But I don’t see how he jumps to the next premise, which is that it’s some kind of flip-flopping. It’s not as though Romney suddenly decided to pull a McCain and declare himself actually a secret Pentecostal or something. He’s just decided to address an issue that’s clearly preventing some folks from feeling comfortable with him. He’s giving them more information, not less, and clarifying, not obfuscating, the issue. I’m a Democrat, so I won’t be voting for these guys in any case, and in general I think Romney has been a little slippery, but I don’t see why the poll-driven quality of this decision should take away from its substantive value. I know that paying attention to your poll numbers is supposed to be some kind of tawdry, un-authentic act, but “poll numbers” is really just a shorthand for how many people are planning to vote for you — in other words, democracy. Romney is responding to what he apparently sees as legitimate concerns in order to convince more people to vote for him. Poll-driven pandering of the very best kind, if you ask me. Cost’s view — that once politicians have decided not to explain themselves to us, they’d better stick with that view, the electorate’s desire for more information be damned! — just stands the whole idea democratic responsiveness on its head.