Tutti frutti, yes. The roundup you send to is OK, but not quite representative, eg, NRO has a ton of stuff on this. At any rate, the consensus seems to be this speech was long on style, but the substance can be boiled to (1) more money for nanny state; (2) move on on Wright.
Incidentally, Kristol has been rather weak on all this. On the other hand, I was impressed how forthright and forceful Juan Williams has been (on Fox): I think of him as a standard liberal, but it turns out he's not a robot, and can think for himself, and say it like it is, if he feels like it. At some point, they had a roundtable on Obama-Wright, and he was quite forceful in denouncing Obama, while Kristol was waffling, hemming and hawing. Kinda strange...
Sowell is a bit over the top, but he makes some novel parallels:
A con man’s job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe. [..] Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the “useful idiots” useful.
1) Where's the NRO roundup. AI? You know I don't like party organs but I'll have a look.
2) Juan Williams can criticize because he's black. That's a PC rule you still haven't understood though you are now officially A I Ferraro. Anyone says anything about any black is a racist, unless he's black too. Duh.
I thought Kaus was best on the speech. The nanny state code I was not interested in. I am looking at this as a pure campaign speech. Seems you bought the subtitle: A Major Speech on Race as if that portentousness couldn't mean 'support me because I'm black'.
AI, I wonder if you'll ever understand US politics. Maybe you ought not vote.
1) Just click on things, JJ. You're slippin', man.
2) Hmmm... Are you sure? His middle name is Avuncularo. Sounds Italian to me.
Codicil: How do you say "up yours" in polite company? (Note though that MA, being closer to a one-party state than, say, Kazakhstan, one may as well disenfranchise oneself.)
6 comments:
Tutti frutti, yes. The roundup you send to is OK, but not quite representative, eg, NRO has a ton of stuff on this. At any rate, the consensus seems to be this speech was long on style, but the substance can be boiled to (1) more money for nanny state; (2) move on on Wright.
Incidentally, Kristol has been rather weak on all this. On the other hand, I was impressed how forthright and forceful Juan Williams has been (on Fox): I think of him as a standard liberal, but it turns out he's not a robot, and can think for himself, and say it like it is, if he feels like it. At some point, they had a roundtable on Obama-Wright, and he was quite forceful in denouncing Obama, while Kristol was waffling, hemming and hawing. Kinda strange...
Sowell is a bit over the top, but he makes some novel parallels:
A con man’s job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe. [..] Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the “useful idiots” useful.
1) Where's the NRO roundup. AI? You know I don't like party organs but I'll have a look.
2) Juan Williams can criticize because he's black. That's a PC rule you still haven't understood though you are now officially A I Ferraro. Anyone says anything about any black is a racist, unless he's black too. Duh.
I thought Kaus was best on the speech. The nanny state code I was not interested in. I am looking at this as a pure campaign speech. Seems you bought the subtitle: A Major Speech on Race as if that portentousness couldn't mean 'support me because I'm black'.
AI, I wonder if you'll ever understand US politics. Maybe you ought not vote.
Here's Kaus.
1) Just click on things, JJ. You're slippin', man.
2) Hmmm... Are you sure? His middle name is Avuncularo. Sounds Italian to me.
Codicil: How do you say "up yours" in polite company? (Note though that MA, being closer to a one-party state than, say, Kazakhstan, one may as well disenfranchise oneself.)
Post a Comment