Votes Like A Bush, Quacks Like A Bush

by tristero

Watching at the debate party we had with friends in our building, this exchange caused our collective jaws to hit the floor. Looking at what McCain said in the cold light of day shows it to be even more revealing than I originally thought :

SCHIEFFER: But even if it was someone — even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?

MCCAIN: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.

Think you understand that? Chances are you only think you do, ’cause when you examine what McCain actually said, it really doesn’t make much sense. But its incoherence has a strange property, especially when spoken: You hear in it what you want to hear.

If you’re a member of the reality-based community, your mind boggles, as ours did: In the space of two sentences, McCain flatly contradicted himself – he would impose an abortion litmus test then claimed he wouldn’t – and he doesn’t even know it! If you’re undecided or a McCain fan who supports abortion rights, you’d give him the benefit of a doubt: a President McCain (perish the thought) would not weigh a nominee’s opinion on Roe in determining whether s/he was qualified.

But if you’re a pro-coathanger nut, however, McCain just sent you a clear message. He said that anyone who supports Roe v. Wade doesn’t have the “qualifications” to be on the Supreme Court.

Now, who else speaks this way, often seeming to be befuddled and incoherent when he’s actually sending dog whistles to the far right? I know, that was an easy trick question.

McCain claimed he was not Bush – a line I’m sure his campaign thinks made the perfect zinger.

But, considering the way he talks and the way he votes, the main difference between Commander Codpiece and St. John of Scottsdale is, as some brilliant wag once noted , that Bush may have been the better pilot.

UPDATED with a link to the “brilliant wag.” Thanks to our commenters for tracking that down!