|
June 13, 2009
Time for "damn tired" nostalgia
Calling himself an "intellectually honest fiscal conservative" (in a post titled "Insta-Hack Watch") Andrew Sullivan attacks Glenn Reynolds as a partisan "hack" (for this post) and contrasts Glenn's "silly posturing about pork" (by which he means the PorkBusters movement) with his own so-called "actual proposals for serious structural spending cuts." For starters, I remember PorkBusters quite well. Glenn went after the free-spending Republicans with such determination that Trent Lott lashed out, quite vehemently: Said Lott when asked by an AP reporter about criticism of the project he has long championed and which was just funded in a Senate Appropriations Committee bill to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as additional Hurricane Katrina relief:Remember, this was when the Republicans controlled everything, and guys like Tom Delay were actually saying there was no pork to cut! That prompted this remark from Glenn: Give it to me, Tom. I'll find some things to cut. Starting with your salary, which you don't seem to be earning . . .I think it is very impressive that Glenn and a few bloggers were able to rattle them. It is the antithesis of "silly posturing." But what really baffles me is Sullivan's charge that opposing Republican pork projects constitutes being a partisan hack. What sort of "partisanship" would that be? Republican partisanism? Since when do partisan hacks attack their own party's programs? Could Sullivan mean partisan Democratic hack? A libertarian partisan hack? Partisanship is defined as "the tendency of supporters of political parties to subscribe to or at least support their party's views and policies," and I don't see how PorkBusters did that in any way. I think Sullivan's charge of hack partisanship at least warrants an explanation of what sort of partisanship he means. I think it's only fair to point out that I supported PorkBusterswholeheartedly, so I might be said to be guilty of partisan PorkBusterist hackery. In the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out that yes, I even bought one of the official PorkBusters coffee cups, which I still use. Photo taken today: And here's the "DAMN TIRED" rear: [Hmm... maybe I shouldn't have put it exactly that way. No pun intended, OK?] I've had the cup for four or five years, and I'm just as much of a hack now as I was then. I'm for slashing as much government spending as possible, especially spending on so-called "entitlements" which I see as the most ruinous in the long term. I think PorkBusters anticipated the Tea Party Movement -- which Sullivan also attacks and derides in a similarly unprincipled manner. This all begs the question: is Andrew Sullivan an "intellectually honest fiscal conservative" with "actual proposals for serious structural spending cuts"? I don't think it's intellectually honest or fiscally conservative to dismiss pork-cutting advocacy as "silly," and as to his actual proposals, when I clicked on Sullivan's links, I was dumbfounded, even horrified. Both Sullivan's own proposal and that of Bruce Bartlett call for additional taxes -- namely the value added tax. As to entitlement spending, Bartlett pretty much sums up the mentality: In other words, the damned baby boomers will demand lots of money, so we need to create another huge tax scheme to give it to them! Money machine? I'd call it a pork machine. It's anything but fiscally conservative. Where does Sullivan get off calling himself that? Factoring in that Sullivan is also on record as supporting confiscatory estate taxes, and higher (a dollar a gallon) gasoline taxes, Sullivan is anything but a fiscal conservative, and he is in no position to call Glenn a hack. Little wonder Sullivan is winning Ann Althouse's "Who's the bigger partisan hack?" poll. Even though he's winning by 94% to 6%, Glenn is at least conciliatory enough to predict that Andrew Sullivan will change. Considering that Dick Cheney is solidly to the left of Obama on gay rights, it's high time for Andrew (who once had a reputation for gay single issue thinking) to wake up and smell the coffee. My "damn tired" cup has now been emptied in his honor. posted by Eric on 06.13.09 at 12:01 PM
Comments
Gas tax at $1.00 per gallon would still be on the low end of average for developed western world countries. hugh · June 13, 2009 03:19 PM Filbert is on to it. Why in the name of all that is wholly would an intelligent being know what Sullivan drooled, much less care? Larry Sheldon · June 13, 2009 05:26 PM I can't believe I did that. Why in the name of all that is HOLY would an intelligent being know what Sullivan drooled, much less care? Larry Sheldon · June 13, 2009 05:30 PM "Gas tax at $1.00 per gallon would still be on the low end of average for developed western world countries." a talking point masquerading as informed opinion n · June 13, 2009 09:02 PM I LOVE outspoken people with confused political identity. I might be bucking up some wrong tree here, but personally? It seems to me, we should WISH for a nation of said people. They keep the ball moving...here...there...nearly anywhere. Unfortunately, we've have become a nation of cheerleaders and line backers. Penny · June 13, 2009 10:28 PM Intellectual consistency is not Sullivan's strong suit. He can't figure out which side he is even on most of the time. He belongs to 'no party or clique' because no one will have him. Ken McCracken · June 14, 2009 05:25 AM I challenged Mr. Sullivan on his claim of Reynolds's partisanship around April 15, during the spending protests. Sullivan wrote back that Reynolds "never seriously attacks" the GOP; I suppose in his mind the word "seriously" erases every criticism Reynolds has made, and continues to make, of GOP knuckleheads like Lott et al. Sullivan, as Ann Althouse's readers have figured out, has flipped 180 degrees so hard that it will create some serious cognitive problems should he ever have to admit in public how disingenous he's become in the last 4-5 years. Mark · June 15, 2009 10:22 AM We need to forgive Andrew - he has been spending months doing exhaustive research on the important issue of who is Trig Palin's mother. Rollo_Tomasi · June 15, 2009 11:43 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
June 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2009
May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
easing the way into the day
Cloud Cover Murderers don't fill out the proper forms! How to prevent an urban renaissance How To Thrive In A Drug Obsessed Culture The Advent Of The Video Phone Iran Reaches Critical Mass Time for "damn tired" nostalgia Triple Cross Queen Of Spain Vs American Peasants
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Remind me again why Andrew Sullivan should be taken seriously about anything at all?
Reynolds has been admirably consistent over the years. The same can not be said of Sullivan.