Food For Thought From the Chuck Wagon
I found this via Andrew Sullivan and found it interesting. I think he (Andrew) tends to find people who support his biases (who doesn't?) which is why this piqued my curiousity. Certainly this guy is not a member of the loyal opposition or anything approaching it.
To me, it's clear he's a paleocon. Many paleocons feel abandoned by the new GOP which is more socially liberal than the GOP of the Reagan years.
The bit about the Religious Right combining politics and theology is not entirely accurate. Today in America, politics are firmly infused with personal identity. That is, how you vote and whom you vote for is seen (rightly or wrongly) as part and parcel of who you are. We talk about the red/blue divide and both sides of that divide view any attacks on their candidate as impugning their character. Politics matter now and people see that this is not just a game anymore. I could easily argue the other side and say that I'm a secular Democrat and the anti-war left of the Democrat party scares me. They actively embrace the state as some sort of religion in and of itself. The more extreme fringe of the left is not just anti-war but anti-American. They see no problem taking millions of dollars from a non-citizen who's interests do not coincide with the interests of our country. In fact, he has a history of putting his own interests ahead of nations as citizens of Britain will remember when he destroyed the pound to make his billions.
Does W. deserve criticism? Certainly. It's come from me on many matters domestic. I hold that the sop to steelworkers in PA was unwise and unprincipled. The No Child Left Behind was absurd and so on. Get serious about domestic policy this term George, we need it.
That said, my own minor and hopefully measured criticism is drown out by those with the Bu$h = Hitler loons who make reasonable debate nearly impossible. I think such over the top criticism causes people who would otherwise hold the president's feet to the fire to defend him instead.
I found this via Andrew Sullivan and found it interesting. I think he (Andrew) tends to find people who support his biases (who doesn't?) which is why this piqued my curiousity. Certainly this guy is not a member of the loyal opposition or anything approaching it.
To me, it's clear he's a paleocon. Many paleocons feel abandoned by the new GOP which is more socially liberal than the GOP of the Reagan years.
The bit about the Religious Right combining politics and theology is not entirely accurate. Today in America, politics are firmly infused with personal identity. That is, how you vote and whom you vote for is seen (rightly or wrongly) as part and parcel of who you are. We talk about the red/blue divide and both sides of that divide view any attacks on their candidate as impugning their character. Politics matter now and people see that this is not just a game anymore. I could easily argue the other side and say that I'm a secular Democrat and the anti-war left of the Democrat party scares me. They actively embrace the state as some sort of religion in and of itself. The more extreme fringe of the left is not just anti-war but anti-American. They see no problem taking millions of dollars from a non-citizen who's interests do not coincide with the interests of our country. In fact, he has a history of putting his own interests ahead of nations as citizens of Britain will remember when he destroyed the pound to make his billions.
Does W. deserve criticism? Certainly. It's come from me on many matters domestic. I hold that the sop to steelworkers in PA was unwise and unprincipled. The No Child Left Behind was absurd and so on. Get serious about domestic policy this term George, we need it.
That said, my own minor and hopefully measured criticism is drown out by those with the Bu$h = Hitler loons who make reasonable debate nearly impossible. I think such over the top criticism causes people who would otherwise hold the president's feet to the fire to defend him instead.
Comments