Consistency

I, again, made the mistake of listening to the news radio today. The republican-fu at this point seems to be centering on the fact that Kerry is “inconsistent.” We need “consistent” leadership, they say.

My brain hurts from the sheer genius of this, but I’ll try to explain:

Since getting elected, Bush has gone from (publicly) not giving a damn about Iraq, to blaming Osama, to blaming Afghanistan for hosting Osama, to claiming that Iraq was supporting global terrorism, to claiming that Iraq had weapons and posed a clear and present danger to the US, to (now) saying “okay, none of that crap was true, but it was still the right thing to do because he was a bad man.”

And he’s taking Kerry to task for failing to be “consistent” in his responses to this series of changes and outright lies.

It’s working. It’s working like a charm. People somehow have forgotten that Bush has gone through all of these phases on Iraq, that he’s gone from being a “uniter, not a divider” to that “axis of evil” guy. And they believe in their hearts that the fact that Kerry has had different things to say about each of these perspectives on Iraq is Kerry’s fault, because he’s not “consistent.”

Damn flip flopper.

On the airplane on the way to Alaska, I sat next to a really nice guy who was returning from a stint in the National Guard. He revealed that he’s planning to vote for Bush. No doubt. Without pissing him off on a six hour flight, I really tried to understand why. He said “if Gore had been in power when September 11th hit, we wouldn’t have done anything. We would have apologized to the world for being so bad, and would never have gotten those responsible.” That, and Bush is predictable and Kerry is inconsistent.

The force is strong in these Republicans. They will win this election in a landslide. I’m now giving odds on a greater than 55% popular majority for Bush.

Prove me wrong, people.