Instapundit is in the midst of an all-out blogasm over the Kerry-Christmas in Cambodia flap. How, precisely, is this relevant? For that matter, how is George Bush's service (or lack thereof) in the Alabama National Guard relevant? For that matter, how are John and Theresa Heinz-Kerry's sleeping arrangements relevant? Or George Bush's vacation schedule?
Are we, as a polity, completely retarded? Unless I missed the memo, both candidates have yet to fully flesh out and present their visions for the next four years on a whole range of issues. Policy toward Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Sudan, and about 180 other countries, immigration policy, enforcement of drug laws, and specific numbers on types and levels of agricultural subsidies all have yet to be laid out satisfactorily in this campaign. And the media (both old and *NEW! BLOGGERIFIC!!!*) are on about details from 1968? Are you kidding?
Matt Welch, seems to have it right on this whole lame business.
"What I don't understand is how anyone professes to truly give a flip about what John Kerry and George Bush did 32 or 36 years ago...(i)s this what you're basing your vote on this November? Really? Whatever happened to the New Seriousness after Sept. 11?"
Indeed, as they say.
And, I do realize that the Kerry camp largely brought this up themselves with the constant harping on his medals. But why rise to the bait? A collective refusal to be swayed by these inanities would get both campaigns back onto substantive issues (or onto them in the first place, as the case may be) right quick.
I know, I know; I can dream, though, can't I?