Oh, no you don't
Just in case you needed further evidence that the wingnuts are not so happy about being seen with their prom date after he has made a few too many trips to the punch bowl, read the latest from spiritual leader, Victor Davis Hanson.
His latest op ed is titled "Democrats struggle for a unifying theme." This has been a common refrain from the neocons lately -- as everything they touch turns to shit, they seem far more comfortable analyzing the failings of the party that controls precisely nothing than they are with self-examination. But the column is a trojan horse packing a surprising payload: he wants to paint Dubya as a liberal.
According to our man Vic, conservatives went 'round the bend on Clinton because he acted like a conservative by reforming welfare and balancing the budget by cutting spending. He argues that our hatred of Bush flows from the fact that he is really one of us because he ballooned spending, created new entitlements, and went to war for "liberal" reasons.
No fucking way, Vic. You brought this alcoholic ne'er-do-well to the dance, and you're leaving with him.
We don't hate Bush because he "spends like us." We have lots of really good reasons for hating him, and he doesn't spend like us -- he spends like a Republican. There's nothing liberal about his bloated spending spree, unless you want to call Reagan a liberal, too.
A few stupid facts:
Even the conservative Cato Institute agrees. The "liberal = spendthrift" dog just won't hunt, and you know it. So let go of this myth worthy of Joseph Campbell and try looking in the mirror next time you want to look for somebody to blame for Shakes the Preznit, 'kay?
There is lots more of Hanson's trademark absurdity in this piece, but I'm tired taking down of such lame-ass right-wing nonsense. I leave the remaining silliness as an exercise for the reader.
Conservatives are going to try on a lot of reasons for backing slowly away from Boy Blunder. And I called this one, and specifically called out Hanson on exactly this kind of gambit, back in August. But we should not let them get away with any of them -- least of all painting Bush as a liberal. He's all yours, Vic.
His latest op ed is titled "Democrats struggle for a unifying theme." This has been a common refrain from the neocons lately -- as everything they touch turns to shit, they seem far more comfortable analyzing the failings of the party that controls precisely nothing than they are with self-examination. But the column is a trojan horse packing a surprising payload: he wants to paint Dubya as a liberal.
According to our man Vic, conservatives went 'round the bend on Clinton because he acted like a conservative by reforming welfare and balancing the budget by cutting spending. He argues that our hatred of Bush flows from the fact that he is really one of us because he ballooned spending, created new entitlements, and went to war for "liberal" reasons.
No fucking way, Vic. You brought this alcoholic ne'er-do-well to the dance, and you're leaving with him.
We don't hate Bush because he "spends like us." We have lots of really good reasons for hating him, and he doesn't spend like us -- he spends like a Republican. There's nothing liberal about his bloated spending spree, unless you want to call Reagan a liberal, too.
A few stupid facts:
Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt.
Under Republican presidents since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year. Under Democrats, that figure is $30 billion. In an average Republican year, the deficit has grown by $36 billion. In the average Democratic year it has shrunk by $25 billion. The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats.
Even the conservative Cato Institute agrees. The "liberal = spendthrift" dog just won't hunt, and you know it. So let go of this myth worthy of Joseph Campbell and try looking in the mirror next time you want to look for somebody to blame for Shakes the Preznit, 'kay?
There is lots more of Hanson's trademark absurdity in this piece, but I'm tired taking down of such lame-ass right-wing nonsense. I leave the remaining silliness as an exercise for the reader.
Conservatives are going to try on a lot of reasons for backing slowly away from Boy Blunder. And I called this one, and specifically called out Hanson on exactly this kind of gambit, back in August. But we should not let them get away with any of them -- least of all painting Bush as a liberal. He's all yours, Vic.
posted by bluememe at 12/08/2005
1 Comments:
excellent post !! boy, that's some fine writing ! thanks !
Post a Comment
<< Home