Saletan still supports the war. Like Bush, Saletan doesn't change his own support for the war, as the evidence regarding wmd, "imminent threat" or Al Qaeda links is not forthcoming. Saletan is glad that Bush gave the surplus back to the wealthiest Americans instead of shoring up social security, health care, education, job retraining or other non-military spending. Better to spend the money on yachts and vacation homes in the Bahamas. Saletan is sad that Bush wants to change the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Bush is honest according to Saletan. However, next Saletan says that Bush wasn't trying to stimulate the economy with his tax refund to the wealthy. Saletan doesn't explain how this shows Bush's honesty when Bush repeatedly sold the tax cuts as being for everyone and as a stimulation to the economy. Of course we now have Treasury Secretaries O'Neil statement that Bush knew the tax cuts were primarily for the wealthy. Saletan does find one principle fault with Bush. Bush is so strong in his conviction that he doesn't change his position if the evidence changes. We can hope perhaps that Saletan can take this criticism to heart and reevaluate his own support for the Iraq War and the tax cuts for the wealthy in light of new evidence concerning fake intelligence re wmd and the cooked books on the debta and surplus. Perhaps as the evidence keeps mounting, he might even reevealuate his position that Bush is so honest. slate
That is an "interesting" way to read that article. Too bad Will isn't very active anymore...and I mean tht in a very broad, general sense - for every forum.
I must have read a different article than glynch. I don't see it portraying Bush in a positive light at all.
So in your mind, glynch, not finding WMD means that Saddam was in fact in full compliance with all UN resolutions? Ridiculous as usual.
glynch, I would argue that the Bahamas is actually a little past its prime. Unfortunatelly, it's become to commercialized. The BVI or Turks & Caicos Islands are a much better place to build a vacation home.
Glynch: Did you really read that article? I thought it was a pretty damning (and accurate) criticism of all things Bush.
glynch: he ultimately says that "bush can't do the job." that we need to "pull him over and take away the keys." i think he's saying that bush has principled ideas, but that he's not flexible enough to truly lead.
Will wrote: slate <i>......Now, to save the family, Bush proposes to monkey with the Constitution. Why is this necessary? Because conservative states might be forced to honor gay marriages performed in liberal states, says Bush. But didn't the Defense of Marriage Act void that requirement? Yes, Bush argues, but DOMA might be struck down. Unwilling to wait for a ruling on DOMA, Bush prefers to circumvent the court system and local democracy by reopening the nation's founding document. He seeks to impose a permanent federal definition of marriage on "any state or city," regardless of what the voters in Boston or San Francisco want........</i>
FWIW, I thought this was a neutral piece daydreaming about what Kerry could or should do, not the author's personal view. I might be wrong though.
Sam, after a day at the printers yesterday with several corporate securities lawyers, I am convinced that they are nothing more than grunt document proof readers, punctuation and capitalization specialists, and editors. While they were proofing and arguing amongst themselves, the rest of us were gorging ourselves on food and surfing the internet. Tell me again why this profession interests you.
My take: He is saying Bush is morally inflexible and implying that he is intellectually incapable of distinguishing anything other than a linear correlation between cause and effect, and that this correlation is based upon assumptions made under the influence of his inflexible convictions. Glynch is correct in one criticism of the article, however. When Saletan asserts that Bush did not lie as a factual premise for a subsequent supposition. That's Saletan's opinion, and he needs it to construct this pseudo-Quioxotic version of Dubya he is in fact guilty of the very conviction-makes-fact thinking he claims is Bush's weakness. Same goes for his assertions that it was time to take the battle to Saddam, which is an interesting, arguably defensible, but far from certain supposition here stated as a fact on the way to an argument, sort of as an aside. I think that the more legitimate argument against Will here is that he splits hairs about where Dubya's convitions blinded him to reality while at the same time making similarly faith based conclusions himself. It may be Will's opinion that Bush is an almost zealous neo Crusader too rigidly moralistic to survive in the plegmatic wrold of contemporary politics, or that may be the costume that best fits Saletan's preconceptions; either way it is a theory, puprorted to be based on the facts at hand, but in reality no more factual than Bush's beacon to the world.
i think he's saying that bush has principled ideas, but that he's not flexible enough to truly lead. Max, I agree with this, but also think Saletan is also agreeing with the more important ideas of the Bush, giving the surplus to the rich and going to war in Iraq. I do think that he is giving Bush a break on the honesty thing. I know it is tough to at times to decide if Bush is dishonest or dumb or rigid. As one poster who I can't remember pointed out it could be all three. Mango, was it really necessary to support what I said about Will's position on the gay marriage amendment? I do, however, appreciate this support from an unexpected source. Maybe I am being too hard on the articles on Dean that at times really appeared to stretch in order to be critical.
Glynch: I think that while Saletan does justify the nature of the tax cut (giving money back to those who paid it in when it seemed it wasn't necessary -- Bamma and other would agree with this) and supports the demand for force in Iraq (he doesn't come out and say he supports the war -- in fact, he dispels some of the justifications used. I think you could argue his position that a threat was necessary, without agreeing that the threat had to be acted on when Bush insisted it must), he highlights a more critical weakness of the Bush Regime. The perils of conviction. His inflexibility. Inability to 'do the job.' Not letting facts, circumstances or the Constitution get in the way. In my view this is the 'more important' idea. I don't think you'll find agreement on whether Bush has principled ideas, or whether he's morally inflexible and intellectually incapable. But even if you were to agree with his principles (which I know you don't), the article is pointing out that, as has been eloquently said here before, he's still an assclown.
I quoted what you wrote and then quoted what Will wrote to compare - contrast. Nothing beyond that should be construed by you. How you got the impression that Will is <b>sad</b>, is something I do not understand. <b>Puzzled</b> <b>Dismayed</b> <b>Perplexed</b> etc would be words I would have chosen over <b>sad</b> when describing Will's impression of Bush on the gay marriage - Constitution issue.
Well, if I have ever read an article that is spot-on, it is that one. It is written by someone who is apparently not blinded by partisanship as some here seem to be. It characterizes Bush perfectly.
