Giving our readers what they want.
This article describes the condescending liberal hubris we've referred to before.
Regarding the claim that the war in Iraq creates more terrorists and puts us in danger--Charles Krauthammer (hat tip: SJL) and this post from a year ago.
This one's for you Raisin.
If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
2 comments:
Good article. I agree that Kerry was being condescending, but isn't that essentially what a cutting remark is? Nowadays, it seems all candidates are condescending to their opponents, and in this instance it was Kerry framing himself as the intellectual superior. (Which if judged by the test scores cited in the article, he is not.) Big deal.
As for liberals throwing the "stupid" insult around freely, I also agree that Democrats have generally characterized Republican leaders that way, many times unfairly. But it hasn't gotten them anywhere, seeing how Republicans have ruled for most of my life, with a small blip during a moderate Clinton period. Conservatives also have their worn out condescending characterizations for liberals- weak, degenerate, immoral, and godless to name a few. The pages of this blog are littered with condescending characterizations of liberals. It's the reality of political discussion today, and both sides are guilty of it.
As for Bush being stupid, I have made similar comments many times and it is more an expression of contempt than it is a calculated statement that must be defended. It's my liberal bias, I can't help it. (That's a cop-out, you little liberal pansy.) Sure Bush seems to be pretty dense at times, but you don't make it to his level unless you have something special, and I can accept that. The Presidency isn't usually filled with morons.
But that doesn't mean that Bush is competent in his office and capable of delivering the right course of action. I believe he is not, but fortunately, our country was designed pretty well and it created checks and balances and limitations of power to keep any one person or group of persons from mangling things too bad. And if he/she/they do, the voters will recall them. It can be argued that the Executive Branch can actually do very little to control many aspects of the nation, including the economy, and I agree that in many cases less government is better. I also agree that the tax cuts seem to have helped our national economy, but I wonder if the same advantages of returning capital to the upper class could have been achieved through more distribution to the middle and lower classes. Yes, the economy survived some difficult times and the tax cuts may have helped, but let's not start the high fiving and butt slapping just yet. We have massive deficits, a slowing economy, a cooling housing market, volatile energy prices, and inflation concerns. This is all part of the nature of economics, but things could become much tighter for the average American in the coming years. I am grateful that the national economy has weathered some of the recent storms, but I wonder- if the top 1% of Americans control 40% of the wealth, then will a correction take place? I consider myself to be another one of those fiscal conservative and social liberal types, but I feel that some wealth must be redistributed through effective means to the masses and something seems to be blocking that from happening, and the tax cuts didn't do much to help in that category. All this blabber leads me to a question or two for you Jake:
What would a significant tightening of the financial resources of the average American mean for the current alliance of Wall Street Republicans and Evangelical Christian Republicans? Do you see a split coming, and do you fear a subsequent populist shift? Please, peer into your crystal ball.
Excellent comment raisin. Even if you are a little liberal pansy.
Question for you: How do you think the wealth should be re-distributed?
Post a Comment