[pissant]

I think he's onto something. He wrote this piece and proved what a blithering idiot he (effeminate, elitist liberal) really is.

[hushpad]

>>> We have to slide horizontally into another universe and try to figure out a different way to communicate<<

ROFLOL! Shouldn't be hard to do for any worthwhile democrat.

[etcetera]

"... he'd been impressed by Bush's handshake."

I've always liked a good, firm handshake. My Dad taught me how to shake hands like a man, and I've always appreciated that ability in other men. Only women give you the four flat finger touch.

[IamConservative]

"NASCAR celebrity Darrell Waltrip explained his support for Bush by saying that he -- Waltrip -- wasn't "an issues guy" but that he'd been impressed by Bush's handshake."

An entertainer smart enough not to make political commentary and alienate half of the audience is "stupid."

[pnome]

Well, he's right about one thing: "The real battle is people who reason versus people who don't. "

[Betaille]

"Can you argue facts or logic with people who still believe that Bush has made us safer?"
It seems to me that his main criteria for determining "who uses logic" and "who doesn't" is whether or not they agree with his views. He bashes conservatives for not looking at both sides of an issue. Well what about him?!?

[ripley]

"we need to persevere in teaching young people how to think critically."

really means....."we need to persevere in instilling in young people the need to criticize American institutions."

[KC_Conspirator]

Neal Starkman is a moron. Hating America is no way to go through life.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Let's reduce this to the personal: Shortly before the election, NASCAR celebrity Darrell Waltrip explained his support for Bush by saying that he -- Waltrip -- wasn't "an issues guy" but that he'd been impressed by Bush's handshake.

Wasn't "The personal is political," something the left said?

Never mind. More important point: Not everyone is a political wonk, nor has time to. In situations like that they are going to make judgments based on less issue-based factors -- on personalities, on attitudes, and, yes, on handshakes. And for those people, that is a rational, reasoning mechanism.

In fact, it may be the key one. In every Presidential election I can remember (which is from 1976, on) it has been the candidate who portrayed himself as more optimistic who has been elected.

[Shisan]

Yes. Neal Starkman is an arrogant , condescending dork but beware George Lakoff. He writes very clearly and understands the issues better than most, then chooses the wrong side. I can't figure out what his primary pathology is.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It was my contention that, although the S factor applies to people across the political spectrum, it went a long way to explaining the apparent popularity of President Bush in the face of facts that indicated he was neither competent nor virtuous.

It explains why people would vote for an admitted baby-killer who wants to raise our taxes and drop our defenses.

[opus86]

Ah. So Darrell Waltrip is a doofus because he likes the president's handshake. Sheryl Crow, OTOH, is a friggin genius spouting phrases like "karmic retributions". Have I got that straight?

[wbill]

It's much more basic than that: The real battle is people who reason versus people who don't.

This author and I are in complete agreement with each other, but I suspect for different reasons. :-)

[wbill]

Also, I would like to add that the gist of this article is: "Hey, if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot."

I might need to modify my philosophy of life to include this liberal mantra. I'll do it in the name of "diversity".