We Don't Like You Either

  • Sir Baz [Ironic Brit]
  • Teh Puppet Mistress
  • Blue Stockings [Strident]
  • Mr. John Q. Public [So Right It's Wrong]
  • Teh Nutroots [Blue Meanie]
  • Cockney Robin [Bemused Brit]
  • Anna Hosanna [Born. Again. Holier than Thou]

« National Review Online Takes It to the Keyboards | Main | Shorter P.J. O'Rourke »

November 09, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nicholas' post is astonishing in how completely it avoids addressing the central point of Peter Hitchens' diatribe, which was the cult-like quality of President Obama's following, and the fact that his support is built on no record at all.

Nicholas tries to make it seem as though the point of Hitchens' editorial was to paint Obama as a socialist. The words "socialist," "communist," and "marxist" do not appear in the editorial. The phrase "conventionally Left-wing machine politician" does appear once, but the main point even of that sentence is that there's no reason to believe Obama is a savior of any kind.

However, Nicholas does seem to illustrate Hitchens' point. Obama supporters seem so totally devoid of the ability to reason that they're now acting like Moonies, or like devotees of Princess Di. If Hitchens is correct, then we should expect responses like Nicholas', responses that show no evidence that the respondent understands the complaint. Understanding would require self-awareness sufficient to break out of the swooning frenzy and self-deception. That's clearly lacking here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Home Page

Search Our Blog

All We Can Eat

Check This

IDLYE: Guest Columnists (Alternative Viewpoints)

Visit Our Sister Blog: BUCK NAKED POLITICS

Blog powered by Typepad