[zigzag]

The most sensible and sober piece that I have yet read on the election:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=qFFI...nY1tkQ2m%3D%3D

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by zigzag:
The most sensible and sober piece that I have yet read on the election:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=qFFI...nY1tkQ2m%3D%3D

Thanks for being honest enough to not add "unbiased" to your list of praises.



Maury

[zigzag]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Thanks for being honest enough to not add "unbiased" to your list of praises.



Maury

Edit: I seem to have taken RAILhead's reply in a way that wasn't intended so I'm deleting my comments on same.

[finboy]

Sullivan lost me when he stated:

"Domestically, Kerry is clearly Bush's fiscal superior."

[mr. natural]

Posted by finboy:

Sullivan lost me when he stated:

"Domestically, Kerry is clearly Bush's fiscal superior."

Obviously, you're one of Dubya's Economic Faith Based Supporters.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Thanks for being honest enough to not add "unbiased" to your list of praises.



Maury

How could someone ever write an endorsement and not be "biased?" Sullivan comes about as close as you can - he endorsed Bush in 2000, he supported and continues to support the war in Iraq, he has plenty of negative things to say about Kerry. What more can you ask for in an endorsement?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by finboy:
Sullivan lost me when he stated:

"Domestically, Kerry is clearly Bush's fiscal superior."

How could anybody be worse than Bush on that count?

[xi_hyperon]

Good article, and fair points on Kerry and Bush, both looking back and forward.

I found Sullivan's remarks on Bush interesting near the end of the article, when he reflects on his 2000 endorsement of Bush:

But, in every election, we decide on unknowables. When I read my endorsement of George W. Bush of four years ago, I see almost no inkling of what was about to happen and the kind of president Bush turned out to be. But we do the best we can in elections, with limited information and fallible judgment.

I think a lot of people were surprised and disillusioned by Bush's hard turn to the right after he was elected, myself included.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Thanks for ruining the thread before it's even started.

I stated my opinion about the piece - if I were pretending to be unbiased, I wouldn't have praised it. I expect thoughtful adults to read it, decide for themselves, and if they have intelligent responses to it, pro or con, to offer them, hopefully in specific terms. Based on your posts in general, and this one in particular, you do not appear to qualify as a thoughtful adult.

When I started the thread, I thought about warning the juveniles off, but changed my mind, figuring they would probably just ignore it. I appear to have miscalculated.

Didn't know I ruined it -- your knickers sure wad fast. Cripes, I merely gave you a friendly thumbs-up for not praising the article as being the be all-end all.

Oh well.

Maury

[deedar]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Didn't know I ruined it -- your knickers sure wad fast. Cripes, I merely gave you a friendly thumbs-up for not praising the article as being the be all-end all.

Oh well.

Maury

You didn't ruin it, but you sure are a dick, mien kapitan.

[itai195]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Thanks for being honest enough to not add "unbiased" to your list of praises.



Maury

Classic Bush campaign logic. Anyone who supports the other guy doesn't count because they're biased. Nevermind that Sullivan (and others who have endorsed Kerry) endorsed Bush in 2000.

[mr. natural]

From Andrew Sullivan's New Republic essay supporting John Kerry for President:

He was right to cut taxes as the economy headed toward recession.

It may have been right to push for a tax cut heading into a recession, but it is another thing -- i.e., a fiscally irresponsible thing -- to keep pushing for and allowing for tax breaks, especially for the wealthy and insane corporate welfare now.

Has this guy any idea that he can VETO bad Congressional bills? Obviously not!

[H]e was right to push for strong federal standards for education.

I'm sorry, but Mr. Sullivan entirely misses the boat here. Most teachers I have spoken too and heard from via various media sources think Dubya's No Child Left Behind initiative is a huge piece of bunk. It does absolutely nothing for all the students in need and with no money.

But frankly, I don't really give a sheeit, because I'm home schooling my kids. Still this is a load of crap.

The real and unanswered question remains: What Is Education For?

But with the results in this country, no matter where you look, Dubya's education reform obviously ain't about making us smarter.

[H]e was right to respond to September 11 by deposing the Taliban.

Gee, this is a real no brainer! Even Scooby-Doo would of seen the relevance of this move.

Sorry, I'm not particularly impressed that Dubya pulled the trigger on the Taliban.

The real proof is in the pudding of what Afghanistan looks like a decade from now.

[H]e was right to alert the world to the unknown dangers, in the age of Al Qaeda, of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

It is one thing to "alert the world to the unknown dangers," and another thing entirely to pre-emptively (and foolishly it now seems) to invade and occupy Iraq "in the age of Al Qaeda."

"Bring It On!"™

Another occasion.

He is still right that democratization is the only ultimate security in an age of Jihadist terror.

Yes, but how does one best get from here to there.

Dubya thinks we get there by blasting our way there. I disagree. It's a matter of does the means justify the ends. So far, I think we are losing the war for the hearts and minds of the the very folk we want on this democracy side of the fence. They may want it too, but not as we are handing it out!

And when you see women bravely exercising their right to vote in Afghanistan, you are seeing something that would not have happened without our current president. That moral achievement can never be taken away from him.

Give me a break.

Like I said above, even Scooby-Doo would of overthrown the Taliban after 9/11. It was a no brainer. So was allowing women to vote.

If this is the best that can be said for Dubya by a bright pundit like Andrew Sullivan, all I can wonder is: Where's the Beef?

Speaking of which, it's time to go grill my dinner (not wild venison this time but wild salmon). This will suffice for my initial commentary as of now. More later.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by deedar:
You didn't ruin it, but you sure are a dick, mien kapitan.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Good article. I'm glad to know there are intelligent people out there that, although they endorsed Bush in 2000, are smart enough to see what a horrible President he has become. Blind allegiance to an ideal is dangerous. Just goes to show that just because a candidate agrees with you on your position on things, doesn't mean he will be a good President FOR THIS COUNTRY.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Didn't know I ruined it -- your knickers sure wad fast. Cripes, I merely gave you a friendly thumbs-up for not praising the article as being the be all-end all.

Oh well.

Maury

I took it as sarcasm. However, if that's not how it was intended, I apologize and would say that my comments towards you should be directed at myself.

Mostly, I was interested in responses to the ideas expressed in the piece, pro or con. It's not unbiased, and its criticisms are pointed, but I think it makes a good effort to be evenhanded. Of course, I could be wrong and so could Sullivan.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I took it as sarcasm.

Zig, that's how I meant it -- you and I have sparred enough to where I was sure everyone would know it was in good bipartisan fun.

Maury

[zigzag]

So far we've had objections and compliments on the piece from both sides of the aisle. To me that means that it's probably worthy even if one comes to a different conclusion than Sullivan does.