It seems as if the leading Republican candidates for statewide office think their words have a shelf life measured in days, if not hours.
Republican Senate candidate Ron Johnson was for oil drilling in the Great Lakes before he was against it, for gun licensing before he opposed it, but against selling his BP stock - - before he said he would, then amended that to a maybe.
Fast forward to the Mark Neumann-Scott Walker debate earlier this week.
When it came to BadgerCare, a Tommy Thompson health care initiative, Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker condemned and mischaracterized it, though had voted for it when a legislator, then explained that yes, he had mischaracterized the program, but only because he had to give quick answers in the debate.
I'm surprised he didn't say he'd been out campaigning all day and was under the influence of sun spots.
After all, if sun spots cause climate change, as Johnson claimed, then surely they could cause campaign change, too.
And then there was Neumann, looking to score points using the high-speed train issue by saying the money should be moved from the rail project to tax cuts - - when it has been repeatedly pointed out that the train funding is in a budget just for rail projects, and though it could be move to another state's rail program (penalizing Wisconsin workers and manufacturers), it cannot by law be used to build roads, cut taxes, or buy everyone in Wisconsin a boat.
Do these candidates actually know anything, or believe in anything?
Do their campaign narratives come with an automatic rewind?
Do they believe that you can just get up and spout whatever comes to mind, with no one discovering the difference between truth and fiction?
Or do they think we're plain stupid?