I know, I know, it’s stunning news. I just recently found out the president can’t walk on water. If I had known that before the election…..well, who knows, maybe I wouldn’t have traveled across the country to work to elect him and instead would’ve voted for John ‘I haven’t had a solid position this entire election season and I don’t ever intend to’ Kerry.
Posted by Karol at 01:59 PM
Reminds me of the old joke. The story goes that LBJ once said, “If I woke up one morning and walked across the Potomac, the headlines that afternoon would read, ‘President can’t swim.’”
I love the ole ‘Reagan was no Reagan’.
A friend of mine who used to identify as a conservative explained to me today why he joined a left-wing activist group. He said that the Manhattan Institute was to blame, as it had canceled its monthly conservative cocktail/lecture event. Apparently whichever side has the most free drinks wins.
When I’ve emerged from reading this piece will I have learned how to drop my tiresome, disrespectful habit of questioning dear leader? I know that there are some, like Andrew Sullivan, who cannot be re-habilitated but please let there be hope for lost souls like me.
And, I don’t see what the problem is with whoever has the best free drinks winning, but I would say that.
Eric, if you weren’t questioning him all along, before you voted for him that’s an issue you should address before the next election. I don’t understand the sudden discovery that Bush is a deeply religious person or that his faith really matters to him.
Also, it’s weird that all these people who are having second thoughts about Bush based on Schiavo have so easily adopted wacky lefty rhetoric like ‘dear leader’ just because their opposition is being criticized. As I’m sure you’ve pointed out to people in the past, your free speech is a right, as is mine to point and laugh at yours.
wow, first she agrees with me on the schiavo issue, now she concedes that Bush sucks and Republicans just ain’t no good. I don’t know what to say….well…actually, I do: Spitzer ‘06, Clinton ‘08 and Summers ‘12.
It’s cool that you support him, as do I on a bunch of stuff (and I still think he’s a good man and all that), it’s just that the lashing out against anyone who’s had second thoughts, or who isn’t as 100% in their support as you is strange. That’s what smacks of the tactics of the left.
I’d personally like to know the number of people and reasons for folks having “buyer’s remorse” after voting for Clinton in ‘96.
I fear you’re right, at the rate the Republicans are going on purging dissenters, and the lenghts they’re going to be generally ethically sleazy (See Delay, Tom) and obnoxious, they’re going to be out of power for awhile.
Eric, one example of me ‘lashing’ out at anyone for not supporting Bush enough, please.
I know, I know, it’s stunning news. I just recently found out the president can’t walk on water. If I had known that before the election…..well, who knows, maybe I wouldn’t have traveled across the country to work to elect him
I would say that this snide, sarcastic dismissal of anyone having second thoughts as merely being the kind of moron who doesn’t understand that politicians aren’t perfect is “lashing out at those having second thoughts”, which is what I typed. I didn’t type that you lashed out at anyone merely for not supporting Bush.
Eric, that’s ‘lashing out’? Really?
Was I lashing out there, Shawn? I completely stand by that piece. If fragmentation had occured before the election, we would’ve gotten Kerry who would’ve represented less of our views than Bush (by ‘our’, I mean libertarians, conservatives etc.)
You accused Matthew Good of all kinds of nefarious anti-Americanism for taking a similar sarcastic tone.
My answers to Matt were in a similar tone to his questions. This is clearly in jest. Or, didn’t the ‘walking on water’ line tip you off?
What is the point of this argument again? Like, if you can cross-examine me and it turns out that I can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt my alleged claims of “lashing out” (which were generalized anyway and weren’t just directed at you), that means what precisely?
My point is that some people are not being very respectful of the second thoughters. That’s all, and I would include you in this post amongst them, but that’s a minor issue. If Republicans ever want to win the second thoughters (for lack of a better description) back they might want to think about handling this a different way. Since winning re-election I know that Bush hasn’t changed, but his supporters have and they are indeed living up to the some of the stereotypes lefties had. Bush (and the Congress) for that matter has to be locked inside a bubble away from criticism for some reason.
Since you’re cross-examining me, here’s a question for you. Have you ever, ever criticized Bush in any way on here? (On immigration maybe I remember) Why are you and Jeff Harrel and the more hard-core Bush people so bothered by anyone having second thoughts now? (I mean you’re obviously bothered or you wouldn’t be posting this stuff.) You might not have noticed, but we won. And I say we because I did hard work for it in a battleground state to. I think the party can handle a bit of a debate on this stuff.
Here’s the thing: you write as if the second-thoughters should be courted by the Republican party. But, really, the second-thoughters ARE Republicans and should be debating with the rest of their party to get their views across. Instead, second-thoughters have gripped onto the idea that the religious right is in control and they’ll just have to go off on their own and form a party that doesn’t worship Jesus.
I have plenty of criticism for Bush. I’ve criticized him on here for his Taiwan position, his immigration position, his medicare prescription drug bill, his spending, growth of govt. etc. I don’t worship him, he’s just president of my country right now. And, since I am an unabashed patriot, I want whomever is best for America. And, in November I thought that between the choices available to me, it was Bush. I believe the same today. He hasn’t changed. I haven’t changed. America hasn’t really changed. Did I always know he was religious? Sure. Did I always know I wasn’t. Of course. And yet, I didn’t care about that then, and I don’t care about that now. Despite your implication that I’m incapable of criticizing Bush or Republicans, November was my first vote for a Republican president ever. I thought it through and then I did it. And I don’t regret it for a second. Too bad for you that you do.
Well, I guess the only place where we differ is that I don’t think it’s the end of the world to have regrets (especially about major choices like this). I think it’s basically inevitable.
So too bad for you that you don’t have regrets poopie-head!
Was I lashing out there, Shawn?
Well you did call the AC article/cover weakness, surrender, muddling of political purpose and fragmentation of the worst kind.
So, we actually don’t differ. Regrets are normal (though, in my opinion, kind of bizarre since really nothing has changed since the election). I just don’t think you should handle your regret by buying too much into what Andrew Sullivan is saying and breaking with the Republican party because you have disagreements.
Shawn, I still think it was all those things. We were going to be ideologically pure with a president who didn’t come close to representing any of our views. I did think it was weak and a surrender and all the rest. I guess we have different ideas on what ‘lashing out’ means. I don’t think it means putting up an argument as to who to vote for.
I guess we have different ideas on what ‘lashing out’ means.
I guess. I think you can still lash out and make an argument at the same time (stating the case for unity…what, five days before the election). No, you didn’t call Pat Buchanan a wobbly mama’s boy but “weak” is a pretty harsh criticism to level.
Well, people often hurt themselves out of weakness. I didn’t want that to happen to us. If five days before the election isn’t the time to make the case for unity, when is?