11 October 2004

Kerry: consistent in his inconsistency?

William Safire has the scoop on how the belligerent, abusive Bush “beat” Kerry at the last debate, by attacking him as a “flip-flopper” and as horrifyingly consistent. On the grounds Safire lays out, both allegations are false. More important, though, are such accusations on general grounds: can one be attacked for consistency if one is inconsistent (and vice versa)?

Aside from W’s shouting down moderator Charlie Gibson, my favorite moments from the debate follow:

  1. It is reassuring to know that Bush won’t appoint judges who support the Dred Scott ruling! (Though it is troubling that Bush doesn’t know why the decision went the way it did.)
  2. At the end of the debate, Bush was so delusional that he could only blame others for any possible mistakes in his administration—his only error was to mention people whom he appointed & who shall be named later. The best part of his answer was when he accused the questioner of trying to trick him into admitting that Iraq was a mistake. Isn’t it usually a bad idea to accuse the electorate of anything?

It should be an intense last debate. Maybe after then I won’t feel like this.


Blogger Erik said...

Update: It turns out that “Dred Scott” is a coded message to certain anti-abortion groups. Tim Noah has the scoop.

October 11, 2004 10:49 PM  

<< Home