He made a sloppy mistake. I agree. Glad people brought it up. But I think its hilarious that people have to demonize the guy for making a pretty articulate and solid argument with everything else. Seems like we are still in a place where if you disagree with someone, its best to just accuse them of being biased, hateful, or moronic. No wonder this country is in such a mess.
The comparison is ridiculous, but it doesn't undermine the fact that there has been a serious economic recovery that is underway---barring Europe setbacks and a concurrent Chinese slowdown (which will probably occur around March with a Greece bankruptcy if the current political paralysis continues), President Obama is virtually guaranteed re-election.
don't know, SL. I too thought this was one of Sullivan's weaker pieces. Too much wiggling with stats and circumstances to hammer points which could have been more fairly made. And the "conservative" label was also a bit leading: given he's been a very strong backer of Obama, and critic of Bush. Didn't realize he'd also endorsed Kerry -- which is a little relevant if you're holding him out to be a spokesman of the 'conservatives.'
I'll backtrack some and agree that it's sloppy, but I don't think his intention here is to compare job creation between the two Presidents. Rather, it's to note that the actual job creation under Obama post-stimulus (which is when you can begin to reasonably critique his jobs record) is far better than what the GOP is claiming. The comparison to Bush's net job creation is simply a bit of punctuation - it's not the meat of the observation. And it's not a lie - misleading maybe (only if you really believe the point was to compare job performance of the 2 presidents), but not a lie.
Yeah, the thread title is misleading. But you could easily just say (1980's Conservative) and be spot on. In terms of the article, it does bring out and underline some huge disconnects in rhetoric versus reality. (e.g. "raising taxes" =/= actually lowering taxes.) I also think he's correct that the right is on shaky ground when criticizing Obama's foreign policy; I would suspect that this will not be a big focus for the GOP in the general election. Libya? Too brash and he took a back seat. Okay, scoreboard. Going into Pakistan whenever we want? Some call it reckless. Okay, scoreboard. Pulling out of Iraq? Yeah, it was underway already, but again, everyone loves the result. Iran? Good luck selling another middle east war to the American public. I don't even think Fox news can sell that one, but we'll see. The left and Ron Paul actually have better footing for criticizing his foreign policy, if you ask me.
I agree. He's a good writer. And an insightful guy. Just a little too much unnecessary DailyKos editing in this piece, for my taste. The...um..'punctuation?' muddied some good points...Kind of light shouting "brah" after every point. I found myself disputing his examples more then agreeing with his criticisms. I'd love to read a reasoned rational for some of the stuff coming out of GOP candidates. So far I haven't found any. (and Ron Paul does NOT have better footing.... Simply....NO. Leave him in the fringe bin, where he belongs, Bob. Please don't invite him to the big kids table).
Obviously. He's smart enough to know that if he puts a mistake in there it will a) be likely be caught and b) will undermine the credibility of the entire article because of the way people judge. But the error would not have mattered to you. You would have dismissed the article nonetheless. This is just an easier excuse for you to use.
The majority of Sullivans points should lend credence to the disaffection that liberals feel- many of the policies/positions listed are actually conservative policies. Northside Storm really hit the nail on the head as many people feel Obama's policies and positions up till now leave a lot to be desired. What I find curious is the level to which many Obama supporters feel threatened by criticisms of him. It's as if acknowledging Obama's shortcomings (and there have been many in his first term) undermines their entire platform, and there's a genuine fear that people might vote elsewhere. One of the largest reasons for this (imho) is simple partisanship- people love to claim independence, but when it boils down to it, most people wouldnt dare consider voting for a candidate of the opposing party, let alone a third party candidate. A great article on this subject can be read here- some excerpts:
Rather than pure partisanship, I think some supporters are just over-sensitized to criticism that has been bat**** crazy. One day Obama is a pure fascist tool of the rich, and the next day he is an axe-weilding muslim socialist. So against this, some people feel like they can't give an inch -- why try to talk common sense and discuss actual shortcomings? I picture it like trying to talk about the weather with a loon: Loon: This is the coldest day EVER! Must be an ICE AGE!!1!1 You: You know, in fact, this isn't even close to the coldest day ever. Loon: You have drunk TEH KOOLAID, brah! You: Um, what? What data are you using about historic cold? Loon: I needed to wear mah sweatpants today and I didn't need to yesterday! (key point) You: Okay, it is colder than yesterday -- that's true, just barely. Loon: SEE! Finally, you admit reality. This is the coldest day EVER and we are starting an Ice Age all caused by Obama! I guess I am teh antidope for teh Obama Koolaid! So it's kind of like, (1) why try at all, and (2) if you're stuck in this "debate," definitely don't even say it's colder today than yesterday.
What's interesting to me is that you could take quotes from William F. Buckley that would make him sound more progressive than some seem to think Sullivan is. Context counts. A body of work counts. Now, is someone going to put the late Mr. Buckley in a "progressive/liberal" slot? Because he was one of the more real conservatives it has been my pleasure to read, and listen to, over the years. I wish he were here commenting on this campaign. He would view dismay just what is going on in his party, and what his Conservative movement has become, in my opinion.
Yeah, but the "big boy table" now includes, front and center, a man who actually wrote the following, just eight months ago. <iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/24027690?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" width="400" height="226" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/24027690">Lithgow does Newt (on Colbert)</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user4703455">wally danger</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>
I see where you're coming from, but I guess the points I was going after were twofold: Firstly, that the entire debate and perspective is deeply partisan- one side is portrayed as being beyond demagoguery, rational, and holding viewpoints that are obviously 'correct.' It's the tendency to speak in universal terms, but from a particular ideological perspective. Within such a discourse, multiple sides on an issue are rarely evaluated (here, I mean more than the two sides being presented in the public arena), and one particular politically informed perspective is taken to represent an ontological reality rather than position of preference. This is key, because the resulting discourse serves as a powerful tool for dominating a particular discussion and silencing alternative viewpoints. I am more than willing to concede that contemporary conservatism has within itself segments that tend to focus on useless topics (Obama's birth certificate, religion, party in the WH, Ground Zero mosque, etc.). I'll even admit that they forcefully manufacture disagreements in order to prove that they are a viable alternative, especially in areas that Obama has taken conservative positions. But at the end of the day, the entire political discourse is entrenched in a partisan, republican/democrat dichotomy that creates 'teams' or loyalties through which people appropriate sides rather than evaluate issues of concern. Secondly, although 40% of the electorate prefer to call themselves independent, very few lack a party preference. The truly 'independent' crowd in any election is marginal, and in presidential elections the swing is maybe 10% at best. The reason this is significant is the reasoning behind people identifying themselves as independent- people prefer thinking of themselves as open-minded and inclined to judge candidates on the basis of merit. Therefore, most people- particularly those with higher education- value independence and critical thinking. But when it comes to how they practically manifest their political persuasions, they exercise very little independence and align themselves to a party.
