Spinsters must die

Reading the punditry makes me want to vomit. So apparently the new Republican take on the debate is that Bush won* because Kerry flip-flopped by calling the Iraq war a mistake and then saying Americans were not dying for a mistake. This seems to call attention to the conservative inability to differentiate between wars (or their underlying belief that Americans just can't, and a strategy designed to pander). I'm not saying I agree with him, but clearly, Kerry is making the argument that launching the Iraq War was wrong (at least, in the manner it was done); however, the war to rebuild Iraq is right.

If I were a Democratic underestimating reductionist, I might point to Bush and shout, "Our president habitually and intentionally confuses all threats as the same one." Or if you wanted in sound bite form: "No wonder our troops are overextended, underfunded, and exhausted: The president believes the whole world is against us."

I reject the cynical game Republicans are playing when they suggest that anyone with nuanced positions is a flip-flopper. What makes John Kerry scummy is his push to accentuate whatever part of his record best supports the popular opinion of the moment. (So, he's just an American politician.) But he's not a guy who's constantly changing his mind. I also reject the Bush campaign team's assertion that changing your mind when facts start contradicting your position is somehow a character flaw. Again, I don't really think this is what Kerry's been doing regardless, but to imply (by comparison) that the president knows everything and always has, it's just a little, um, hard to take.

* How does someone "win" a debate like the one Kerry and Bush had Thursday? Unless one person concedes, or the debate is on a very specific point, or there are judges scoring the event, I don't think someone can really win such a thing. One more thing I'm rejecting today. We all reject for pleasure.