The Triple Crown of Hackery
I'm glad Roger Ailes took care of this, because I just can't even read Mickey Maus any more. I search the site in vain every morning to find a way to write to the editors of Slate to explain that he cheapens their otherwise great zine.
Anyway, Crooked Timber debunks another Kaus cheap shot at Kerry.
And, yes, I think Atrios is on to something here, though I think more highly of goats than that.
The thing that baffles me about Kaus is the vapidness of his attacks on Kerry. There's plenty to go after in terms of policy, consistency, etc. But at a time when we are truly at a political crossroads in this country, when decisions made now could have repurcussions for years to come, attacking Kerry's hair, for instance, is insane. And because Kaus has gone so far over the line in his hatred for Kerry, his posts aren't even amusing anymore.
Maureen Dowd is a similar case, but she's a lot hotter looking than Kaus. And funnier.
But, nevertheless, her columns on the moral equivalencies of Bush and Clinton, or Bush and Gore, or Bush and Kerry, are ridiculous.
So let's see. What's our swell choice here?
A guy who mimed being a fighter pilot on a carrier versus a guy who mimed throwing his medals over a fence?
An incumbent who sticks with the wrong decisions based on the wrong facts versus a challenger who seems unable to stick to one side of any decision, right or wrong?
A Republican who's a world-class optimist, despite making the world more dangerous and virulently anti-American, versus a Democrat who looks like a world-weary loner, even as he pledges to make the world safer and more pro-American?
A president who can't go anywhere without his vice president to give him the answers versus a candidate who can't go anywhere without his campaign butler/buddy to give him peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?
Bush campaign strategists don't seem worried that every positive development the administration predicted would happen if we invaded Iraq has soured into the opposite.
...Bush strategists seem to believe that the worse Mr. Bush makes things, the better off he is, because nervous Americans will cling to the obstinate president they know over the vacillating challenger they don't know.
Senator Kerry's talent for turning a winning proposition into a losing one is disturbingly reminiscent of Al Gore, who somehow managed to lose an election he won. So is Mr. Kerry's sometimes supercilious manner, and his habit of exacerbating a small thing with an answer that is not quite straight.
Um, Maureen, I think the choice is a pretty easy one to make.
Anyway, Crooked Timber debunks another Kaus cheap shot at Kerry.
And, yes, I think Atrios is on to something here, though I think more highly of goats than that.
The thing that baffles me about Kaus is the vapidness of his attacks on Kerry. There's plenty to go after in terms of policy, consistency, etc. But at a time when we are truly at a political crossroads in this country, when decisions made now could have repurcussions for years to come, attacking Kerry's hair, for instance, is insane. And because Kaus has gone so far over the line in his hatred for Kerry, his posts aren't even amusing anymore.
Maureen Dowd is a similar case, but she's a lot hotter looking than Kaus. And funnier.
But, nevertheless, her columns on the moral equivalencies of Bush and Clinton, or Bush and Gore, or Bush and Kerry, are ridiculous.
So let's see. What's our swell choice here?
A guy who mimed being a fighter pilot on a carrier versus a guy who mimed throwing his medals over a fence?
An incumbent who sticks with the wrong decisions based on the wrong facts versus a challenger who seems unable to stick to one side of any decision, right or wrong?
A Republican who's a world-class optimist, despite making the world more dangerous and virulently anti-American, versus a Democrat who looks like a world-weary loner, even as he pledges to make the world safer and more pro-American?
A president who can't go anywhere without his vice president to give him the answers versus a candidate who can't go anywhere without his campaign butler/buddy to give him peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?
Bush campaign strategists don't seem worried that every positive development the administration predicted would happen if we invaded Iraq has soured into the opposite.
...Bush strategists seem to believe that the worse Mr. Bush makes things, the better off he is, because nervous Americans will cling to the obstinate president they know over the vacillating challenger they don't know.
Senator Kerry's talent for turning a winning proposition into a losing one is disturbingly reminiscent of Al Gore, who somehow managed to lose an election he won. So is Mr. Kerry's sometimes supercilious manner, and his habit of exacerbating a small thing with an answer that is not quite straight.
Um, Maureen, I think the choice is a pretty easy one to make.
posted by John at 5:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home