Good find!
Although the author professes his visceral hatred for Bush, he is at least capable of considering things that most other liberals seem to have decided to skate over, and I think he deserves a thoughtful reading for that reason. He is taking the question seriously (and he also seems to know a heck of a lot more about US history than most liberals).
That said, I still can't understand why liberals HATE Bush so much. It's a truly insane, out of contol hate, and nobody has ever been able to give me an adequate explanation for it. I found Clinton repulsive and embarrassing, and I could hardly wait for him to go away, but I never hated him; but liberals genuinely hate George Bush.
"The reason he will be difficult to unseat in November—no matter what his approval ratings are in the summer—is that his opponents operate out of the moral certainty that he is the bad guy and needs to be replaced, while he operates out of the moral certainty that terrorists are the bad guys and need to be defeated."
I think he nailed it.
Joe Wilson, Al Gore, and Howard Dean, who collectively do not have a single constituent, have lead the liberals to take the bait.
In the end, the liberals *with* a constituency will take the fall, but what do JoeDaLiar Al and Howard care ? They're not going to loose a single vote because they don't have any voter!
I guess what I'm saying is it;s wrong to trust politicians who have no accountability to the people, and the left wing of the democrat party has a lot of explaining to do come November.
Great article...excellent post!
Great article! It is continually surprising to me that 9-11 created a new political animal- a very liberal on social issues but very conservative on security voter. Several of these individuals are pretty high profile. For example: Dennis Miller, Ron Silver and this author. It's encouraging to see that there are a few liberals out there who get it and are not afraid to speak.
While Bush has been courageously fighting the WOT (The War on Terror) the dims have been fighting the WOB (The War on Bush).
ping
Good article. It's nice to see reality start to slowly dawn on a yuppie. The writer's not there yet but he's starting to dimly get it.
This article gives me renewed hope that there must still be loyal and reasonable citizens amongst the Democrats. The tone the writer invokes is rightly serious and reflective. He honestly admits his tendency to dismiss President Bush yet has the moral integrity to question his own bias. It is this precise quality required for our republic to "survive" the nihilistic dervishes bent on our destruction. "What if Bush is right?", he writes. I offer the following excerpt from T.S. Eliot's, "The Hollow Men", as the choice offered to us by the dissemblers, equivocators and priests of expediency:"...
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper."
Thanks for posting that. I've skimmed it, printed it and have put it in the bathroom. I find I'm much more focused there for the lengthy stuff in print and it cuts down on my magazine purchases too.
Thanks again.
His "conclusions" didn't surprise me.
The writer is simply a lying liberal who suspects the truth and wants credit for being thoughtful enough to look at the "other" side as he goes on to trash the "other" side.
HE WRITES:
"I am not comparing George W. Bush to Abraham Lincoln. The latter was his own lawyer as well as his own writer, and he was alive to the possibilities of tragedy and comedy—he was human —in a way that our president doesn't seem to be."
The above is only one and perhaps the least of the vicious shots he takes at Bush. This jackoff wants to have his cake and eat it too.
He makes the case for his side being wrong as he refuses to accept it. He smells defeat and wants some plausible deniability. This makes him one degree more honest than a garden variety Liberal--but ONLY one degree.
That is awesome. This makes me very happy.
Anyone who looks at the facts as opposed to the media's version of them will come to the conclusion that GWB is right.
As Dr. Laura wisely said, "To not judge is to let evil run wild."
Good piece. I think it will appeal to thinking middle of the roaders. Enquire is a good place for it.
Great article!! I hope the Republicans and President Bush do as good a job making their case at their convention.
This should be required reading for any of the fence sitters out there.
I think he nearly gets it, yet, he is held back by his desire to maintain his Liberal credentials (note the a$$hole comment).
In the current battle for the world, and it IS a battle, the blinders might come off of the reflexive Bush haters.
Note that I said might.
Cheers,
knews hound
As a conservative who was raised as a liberal, I recognize in this author the same machinations I went through. He has been ingrained with phony liberal ideas from the get-go. He is finally freeing himself from it. Give him some more time.
The sense I get from most of my liberal friends is a profound longing for a world in which the U.S. government is only one of many participants in a world collegium of negotiation and mutual sacrifice. It is the illusion promoted by the Clintons, the Chiracs, the Chretiens, the Schroeders and yes, the Kerrys. All problems settled by consensus, and the U.S. in particular and the West in general will have to accept less wealth and redistribute the rest to those from whom it was expropriated by - by what? - well, by "capitalism," or "colonialism," they don't usually reason it much further than those abstractions.
This is simply not a world the Islamic radicals have any intention of joining. Their own illusion is one of world domination. Time and historical accident have withheld from them the power to effect this. Technology has placed it again within their grasp if not to conquer, then at least to destabilize and destroy, hoping to become lords of the ruins. They aren't the first.
The vehemence with which this is denied by the left is indicative of a beliefs that (1) the threat is minor, (2) it is directed against the inherently guilty, and (3) if we ignore it the damage done will be no more than a metaphorical mosquito bite. At one time that may even have been true, at least partly. No longer.
Their preferred course of action is to wait and to pretend, and hope that when the big blow comes it will be against someone other than themselves. By then we really will be flinging nuclear weapons about, or just as likely, surrendering them to international control to avoid it. There is a practical alternative - let Bush (for the domestic left) or the United States (for the international one) do the dirtywork and pick up the reins again once it's safe. That is precisely what they did to Churchill, but at least then they waited until the war was won to do so.
dirt, if you haven't been here yet, you've got to read this!