Nick Gillespie is writing about the bizarre switcheroo in the presidential race:
This campaign got underway in something approaching a Bizarro universe, with Republicans crowing about nation-building (or even region-building) and runaway spending on every possible social program, things generally associated (rightly or wrongly) with the Democratic Party. And the Dems, taking a page from the GOP playbook, were lamenting budget deficits and foreign interventions that were to a significant degree justified on humanitarian grounds (the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now that their homegrown despots are gone). With a little more than a month to go, those sides seem to be flipping again. That may be the only constant thing in Election 2004.
What does this prove? Basically, that both sides will say anything to get elected. Bush becomes “compassionate” once every four years. Kerry, new to this presidential game, becomes “tough” for the first time since he had to do it to survive in Vietnam.
Perhaps the American people aren’t as stupid as we bloggers tend to think: they seem to realize that “character” matters most of all, because you can never trust a politician to tell you the truth. Unfortunately, determining which candidate has the best “character” may be the most elusive thing of all.