eudaemonia

Redux

My thoughts on last night's debates are being confirmed by a wide population of blogs and reviews. As I publish here Drudge is breaking with a Kerry camp. 66 page operational directive calling for baseless charges of voter intimidation. The litigation trick of sewing the appearance of controversy to better accompany a cascade of baseless civil complaints is common. The thinking is, if you poison the environment enough the ensuing vacuous complaints will make it into court without being dismissed out of hand. Please note, there is no care on the part of plaintiffs to actually argue these cases on the merits, just to keep the appearance of impropriety in the headlines. Doesn't this argue for a litigation bill of rights where attorneys can be sued for malpractice if their cases are found to be straw-dogs?

Again, security will carry the day on November 2.

Also, I learned some political wisdom about debating over this last series. I'm on record for believing Bush lost the first debate. But some old wiser hands stated that Bush really won. How to reconcile the these opposites? Despite a contemporaneous swell of opinion arguing against excessive optimism, my interlocutor's point has come to fruition. These sage prognosticators observed that while Bush committed no gaffes, Kerry committed a huge mistake when he articulated a "global test" governing United States' use of military power. Specifically, they stated that this latter mistake would be the only memorable line from the whole first debate two weeks out. The are right. Kerry's "global test" has been infused into the debate on the most salient issue in this election: national security!

posted by spelunker @ 8:10 AM