Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Inciherence in pursuit of the presidency

Oh, That Liberal Media:

Last Friday, John Kerry gave a speech at Temple University outlining his so-called plan for winning the war on terror. The speech contained numerous inconsistencies with other statements made by Kerry and his surrogates, not to mention a number of internally inconsistent statements. I mention some of these bewildering contradictions here. Among Kerry's inconsistencies were that an essential part of his plan to win the war on terror is to:

promote the development of free and democratic societies throughout the Arab and Muslim world

At the same time, he also stated that the war to promote the development of a free and democratic society in Iraq is not "the real war on terror".

Nevertheless, none of the major media reports about this speech pointed out or asked any follow-up questions about the absurd incoherence of Kerry's remarks. Instead, we get largely uncritical coverage under the following headlines:

Associated Press: "Kerry faults Bush for pursuing Saddam Hussein at cost of capturing bin Laden"

Knight-Ridder: "Kerry hits Bush for "wrong choices" on terrorism, Iraq"

New York Times: "Kerry Promises to Refocus U.S. on Terror War"

Washington Post "Kerry Blasts Iraq 'Diversion'; Challenger Says War Has Hurt the Fight Against Al Qaeda"

Of course it's fair game to critique the incumbent administration's past choices and accomplishments. But shouldn't the coverage of the challenger's speech be about his alternative plan? And shouldn't that coverage start by asking whether that plan even makes any sense?