???
What’s erratic about answering the question Beck had with an answer that refers back to the same question/comment??
Nothing is erratic about answering the question with an answer that refers back. Senator McCain has a developed a tendency (one I recognize because I do it too much myself as this parenthetical phrase demonstrates) of putting too many qualifiers, disclaimers and asides in the middle of his sentences. Sometimes he wanders back to the original point of the sentence and sometimes he doesn’t. He sounds more like Obama in that regard than the straight-talk guy from the Saddleback debate.
Here is an example:
“ I know this, that if something doesn’t turn around, and again I go back to a whole lot of aspects of our financial system but what was the fact that lit the fire was home values and home loan mortgages and that has in my view.”
That is an unmitigated train wreck of a sentence.
Or as I suggested earlier, I wouldn’t misunderestimate the possibility that the transcriber had an agenda.
“What’s erratic about answering the question Beck had with an answer that refers back to the same question/comment??”
Right out of the communist play book, answer a question with a question!