In the spring months of this U.S. presidential campaign, we've seen enough things that have provoked the untrained observer into reactions similar to what the AFLAC duck had for Yogi Berra. I've thoroughly enjoyed the attacking style of both sides, but somehow the substance and style of their charges has been either counterproductive to national discourse or downright illogical in their own sense.

Recently, according to a story printed March 23 in the Washington Post, March 23, Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans called Sen. John Kerry a "fellow of a different political stripe who looks French." House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, formerly a bug exterminator and presently an effectively shrill Republican attack dog, sometimes starts speeches with the line, "Good afternoon. Or, as John Kerry might say, 'Bonjour.' "

Anyone think we'll see the Democrats making fun of President Bush's Texan heritage? Probably not -- Texans vote, the French can't.

But now, apparently, young voters can be lured to the polls. Kerry has proposed, in an attempt to appeal to his populist and youth bases, the U.S. government release oil from its strategic reserves to bring down the price of gasoline.

At a campaign rally yesterday, Kerry stated, "I'm going to stand up for students and middle-class families and all those who need relief at the pump."

Well, thank you. Leaving aside the dubious economic fundamentals of this plan, I'm guessing he didn't get the memo about the important issues to our generation being the war, the budget deficit, happy hour specials and gas prices (in that order).

Another thing that didn't really make much sense was Kerry's assertion that world leaders want him to win the election. I understand what he is saying by this; I don't think there are many world leaders who like Bush. But, still, why would he say this if he couldn't back it up with names?

Even stranger, to some extent, is the Bush administration's strong reaction to this claim. It seemed that this whole thing was going to be a non-issue, until the Bush team and the editorial pages at The Wall Street Journal decided to play up the issue.

It's odd, because they were able to slam Kerry for making this extravagant claim while at the same time hoping that some anonymous poll of world leaders would not be taken to show that Kerry was probably correct. Who knows, maybe the administration will portray Kerry as "flip-flopping" by backing away from his statement.

So far, the biggest thrust -- on the negative side -- of Bush's campaign has been that Kerry has "flip-flopped" on every issue. While this may be the case for some issues, has Bush been immune to this syndrome?

After the 9/11 attacks, Democrats were in favor of creating a Cabinet-level department to oversee our defense in the war on terror. However, Bush was against this concept, preferring to let the existing agencies do their tasks.

Now, the Department of Homeland Security -- the group that tells us which colors we're scared of -- is being trumpeted as one of Bush's grand achievements in the arena of protecting America. Not only is this the case, but the Republicans effectively used their creation of this department in the November 2002 midterm elections to bolster their charges that the Democrats are weak on national security.

Then again, what exactly is wrong with changing one's views on an issue? Rather than being respected as one who can absorb new information and realities into formulating an appropriate response, are we supposed to want our leaders to be so rigid and unyielding that they should maintain a consistent disposition, regardless of the circumstances?

For example, it is widely apparent that the events of 9/11 changed Bush and nearly everyone else in this country. Is it only permissible for 9/11 to have done this, and no other events? Who gets to decide what change of course entitles a politician to change his or her view on an issue? If evolving viewpoints are considered a bad thing, then we really are in more trouble than I thought.

The fact that a change of position is labeled as "flip-flopping," rather than as a change (good or bad) in viewpoint, is detrimental for democracy. People change their minds. Of course, there is a difference if they do it for practical reasons (political, strategic, enlightenment) or just because the clouds or stars are arranged overhead in a funny way.

I've noticed that Bush has chosen largely to run on national security issues that deserve our full attention in this time of war. The perception spun by the White House, particularly by the campaign ad featuring the 9/11 image, is that Bush has been a decisive and strong leader for more than three years now -- and particularly after 9/11. But, something seems amiss.

This gets to the whole point of Bush running on his handling of the terror war. Since everyone is so afraid of terrorists (rather than the more dangerous activity of driving an automobile), they should vote for Bush to protect them.

But, if Bush is doing such a great job handling the war on terror, why are people so afraid? People can say they are afraid, but Bush makes them feel safe. To those people I ask, why is the administration so afraid of completely, publicly opening up to the Sept. 11, 2001 commission in Washington? It just seems that both sides, especially the current administration (the incumbent's advantage), have been very evasive this political season.

The bait-and-switch routine has come into fashion.

George Orwell wouldn't be proud.