Good to know where you stand. Must be part of that nuance thing that our betters are always instructing us about. Besides, I'm not completely critical of Mr. Obama. I like the tie he's wearing in the picture -- it's very classy. There -- just with that statement, I bet I get at least five more points on the ol' I.Q. test.
16 comments:
the dumbness of some of obama's detractors can best be summed up in the intellectual hypocrisy of the GOP base:
they complain about govt growing, but didnt give Bush much grief when he was doing it.
the complain about socialism, but didnt stop to think that TARP (govt owning banks) was exactly that, approved by bush, and endorsed by their candidate of the day, McCain.
we cant afford govt provided health care, but we can afford more wars under questionable reasoning.
they complain about a 'war against Christianity', while endorsing a war for Judaism that also displaces Christianity.
Sullivan actually spends about half the article on Mr. Obama's liberal critics (of which I guess I would count myself as one) who don't think he's done enough on civil liberties, equality, and rolling back the warfare state.
i guess i'll have to buy Newsweek this week.
Gino,
I take your point, but the question then becomes - well, that's in the past, so what are people to do in the future? Because Republicans didn't do enough complaining about Bush, do they then forfeit their right to complain going forward?
I know you don't believe that.
And for the record, I'm not advocating another war, although I believe we'll have one, but it will come on the current president's watch.
Gino--don't clutter your house:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html
" Because Republicans didn't do enough complaining about Bush, do they then forfeit their right to complain going forward?"
not completely, but when they line up to vote for the same bunch of fools, and all but demand another war from their candidates, it does look suspect.
not completely, but when they line up to vote for the same bunch of fools, and all but demand another war from their candidates, it does look suspect.
I don't know which Republicans you are referring to, but the folks I hang with aren't calling for a war at all.
the ones i saw in the debate audience, and those who ridicule Ron Paul for his desire to mind our own business.
the ones i saw in the debate audience, and those who ridicule Ron Paul for his desire to mind our own business.
The problem there is as much a part of the debate system as anything else. You can't communicate Paul's notions in a 30-second soundbite. Non-intervention and its potential implementation, as I understand it, is a lot more complicated than it sounds. But it is easy to caricature, which of course his opponents want to do.
The point I'd make is this -- the Republican electorate needs time to understand these concepts; you've been thinking along these terms for years. Most people haven't. I'm only now getting my arms around the concepts and while I'm not sure I agree with Paul, I'm willing to at least listen to what he has to say. But in turn, I would ask that my views not be caricatured as being "pro war." Deal?
as for you, personally: you've long expressed for a desire that we be less involved internationally.
i wouldnt say you are at the same level of noninterventionism as myself, but you definaely dont fit the profile of a standard GOP debate audience.
of course, Paul's detractors can always wiki 'noninterventionalism', but spelling it is not as easy as mocking.
also, it would require them to stop allowing Sean Hannity and friends to explain what a conservative foriegn policy is, and look to other sources of debate.
of course, Paul's detractors can always wiki 'noninterventionalism', but spelling it is not as easy as mocking.
Right. But do Paul supporters want to make the sale or not? If they do, they'll have a lot better chance if they try to engage the Hannity fans than not. Right now what I see are people who are talking past each other.
thats not what i see.
noninterventionism isnt some strange new way of thinking that needs to develope doctrinally. it used to be the prevailing conservative viewpoint.
but its easier to accuse us of surroundering to jihadofacsim and sharia law than it is to make the case for what the alternate endgame is.
The broad brushstrokes of both platforms are problematic. In recent years we've seen what a pain interventionism can become. That doesn't mean that there aren't very real problems in the other direction.
What can hold a right-wing coalition together is that either way, American self-interest is the criterion for (in)action. This is in opposition to commonly used left-wing criteria: pacifism or do-goodism.
In any event,there are no easy answers and someone always gets hurt.
it used to be the prevailing conservative viewpoint.
Yeah, but that was, what, over a half century ago? So the argument needs to be made again. Which is why Ron Paul is making it.
its easier to accuse us of surroundering to jihadofacsim and sharia law than it is to make the case for what the alternate endgame is.
Right. But if you won't make the counterargument, you lose the argument by default. Because the argument never ends.
Believe me -- I get weary of it, too. If it were up to me, I'd being doing Guilty Pleasures posts with Fearless Maria and chatting up sports. I love music and sports a hell of a lot more than politics. But you gotta do what you gotta do.
Did you happen to see my friend Ben Kruse's alternate cover?
I hadn't seen that, Brad. Well played by our man Ben.
Post a Comment