Somewhat interesting Post article on how the candidates are playing on voters' fears to get elected. This is a more sensible version of the bogus Post story from a few weeks ago that Cheney had said the US would be attacked if Kerry were elected. Anyway, there's a funny quote in the middle:

"Brooks Jackson of the nonpartisan FactCheck.org said a recent Bush ad was 'egregious' in splicing together footage of Kerry remarks to make his 'reasonably consistent stand on Iraq sound like he was all over the lot.'"

Why is the Post so susceptible to the misbegotten notion that criticizing your opponent on what he has said and voted for somehow amounts to an illegitimate method of campaigning? Also, is Brooks Jackson high or something? What is "reasonably consistent" about Kerry's position on Iraq?

Also, in cas you missed it, my piece on the anniversary of the signing of the Contract with America here