If you read political blogs, it is sometimes annoying to read something like this from Howie Kurtz. I'm sure Howie gets paid a lot to regurgitate what I had already read a half-a-dozen times a week ago. But what really strikes me as sad are the arguments he repeats from the Left justifying their "hatred" of Bush as a legitimate response to what they perceived as the unjust vilification of their hero Bill Clinton. Come on guys (and girls), if it was wrong then, it's wrong now. Conversely, if it's fair now, it was fair then as well.
Of course, Jonathon Chait is the worst offender since it was The New Republic that accused all of us before the last presidential election (well, almost half of us) of not being serious people if we didn't elect Al Gore. So, apparently, being serious has now been defined down to the point that, "I know you are, but what am I?", constitutes serious political commentary.
Grow up.
I read that Chait thing too and I thought: "Huh? What the hell is your damage?" Sure, when I was in my twenties I'd roll my eyes whenever Reagan came on and did his Grandpa act (as I called it) -- because, ya know, o0ne has to be 'ironic' and all. But then I grew up. For the most part, these people don't even have the excuse of being twenty-somethings. Most of them are my age if not older. Political drama-queens, I call them.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at 06:37 PMI stand by my criticism of Clinton and have no problem with the Democrats attacking Bush. I think Clinton was the worst President in US history. They think Bush is evil. I think Clinton belongs in jail. Teddy Kennedy thinks Bush belongs in Hell. I do not expect fairness or impartiality from the left. I expect the attacks will be spirited and enthusiastic.
There is only one difference between the current critics and myself. I was telling the truth.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at 12:42 PM