I don't get it. Why is this an absolute "must read"? It is a politician who has already had plenty of space justifiying a series of obfuscations and half-truths and pretending that Kerry could not protect his family, an utterly stupid personalization of something with no basis in reality. Big Tent's standards for "must-read" are getting awfully low. This idea that Kerry is somehow dangerous is colossally, irresponsibly stupid. Those who proliferate such nonsense are either irresponsible or are so blindly partisan that their conception of "must read" should not be taken seriously. "Must reads" are, to my mind, thigs that are so insightful that anyone who knows about it and has access to it ought to read it. "Must reads" aree rarely the whiny self justifications of politicians whose records are so twisted and gnarled that they make a pretzel vendor envious. dc
Zell Miller's speech has been attacked since he gave it at the convention. This article is his response. It is an absolute must read from my perspective because he gives voice to Democrats who think that their party has abandoned its proud tradition of kicking ass in wars. If more Democrats thought that way, they wouldn't have nominated such a wobbly candidate on the war.
In my oft-repeated opinion, and Mark Helprin's in the must read article linked by Stephen below, Miller could just as easily say that President Bush isn't kicking enough ass in this war. For reasons he laid out in his speech and in the article, Miller is choosing to back the president. That is his call, and it means has become partisan for the president. That choice obviously bothers people in his party, but it doesn't change my opinion that his speeches and articles have been absolute must reads.
Tom -- I guess I just have higher standards for "must read" than you do. Solipsistic self-justifications do not rank especially high on my list. Absurd assertions that we (or I should say, Zell Miller's children) would be less safe under Kerry (less safe, than, say, we were on September 10, 2001?), misreadings of Kerry's Senate votes, dubious recollections of conversations with Jimmy Carter and other pathetic nonsequiters do not a must-read make to me. dc
Once again, it is a must-read because it is the not-often-seen perspective of Democrats who are mad at where their party has gone since September 11. Obviously you disagree with the perspective and how Senator Miller interprets the facts, but I happen to think he does pretty well, so to me his speeches and articles have been must-reads.
4 comments:
I don't get it. Why is this an absolute "must read"? It is a politician who has already had plenty of space justifiying a series of obfuscations and half-truths and pretending that Kerry could not protect his family, an utterly stupid personalization of something with no basis in reality. Big Tent's standards for "must-read" are getting awfully low. This idea that Kerry is somehow dangerous is colossally, irresponsibly stupid. Those who proliferate such nonsense are either irresponsible or are so blindly partisan that their conception of "must read" should not be taken seriously. "Must reads" are, to my mind, thigs that are so insightful that anyone who knows about it and has access to it ought to read it. "Must reads" aree rarely the whiny self justifications of politicians whose records are so twisted and gnarled that they make a pretzel vendor envious.
dc
Zell Miller's speech has been attacked since he gave it at the convention. This article is his response. It is an absolute must read from my perspective because he gives voice to Democrats who think that their party has abandoned its proud tradition of kicking ass in wars. If more Democrats thought that way, they wouldn't have nominated such a wobbly candidate on the war.
In my oft-repeated opinion, and Mark Helprin's in the must read article linked by Stephen below, Miller could just as easily say that President Bush isn't kicking enough ass in this war. For reasons he laid out in his speech and in the article, Miller is choosing to back the president. That is his call, and it means has become partisan for the president. That choice obviously bothers people in his party, but it doesn't change my opinion that his speeches and articles have been absolute must reads.
Tom --
I guess I just have higher standards for "must read" than you do. Solipsistic self-justifications do not rank especially high on my list. Absurd assertions that we (or I should say, Zell Miller's children) would be less safe under Kerry (less safe, than, say, we were on September 10, 2001?), misreadings of Kerry's Senate votes, dubious recollections of conversations with Jimmy Carter and other pathetic nonsequiters do not a must-read make to me.
dc
Once again, it is a must-read because it is the not-often-seen perspective of Democrats who are mad at where their party has gone since September 11. Obviously you disagree with the perspective and how Senator Miller interprets the facts, but I happen to think he does pretty well, so to me his speeches and articles have been must-reads.
Post a Comment