Sullivanian über-blather Strikes Back...

Oh for crap's sake...

This is my second and last post on Andrew Sullivan.

Ever.

I now realize I may have judged my fellow bloggers too harshly - La Sullivan is like the Tarbaby of the Blogosphere: spend 5 minutes on the Daily Dish and you find yourself mired in cleverly worded illogic.

The man writes beautifully, but the ultimate effect of it all is that it's complete dreck: he's not listening...

The utter inanity of this passage caused my head to explode:

But the competence of the current leader cannot be completely irrelevant. If his incompetence means we actually lose the war, then surely some kind of reassessment is due.

Well now let's look at that one, shall we? The question at hand was whether Kerry was even willing to FIGHT the war in the first place. So if it's a question between fighting a less than perfect war (not that I'm willing to yield that to you, Mr. Sullivan, because I think you're wrong) vs. simply refusing to fight at all... well ... just gosh.

But wait! There's more assinity!

So the question becomes: how incompetent is he? And that's a matter of degree not kind. [Isn't that a movie???... 6 Degrees of Assinity?...oh nevermind] You also have to unpack the notion of "fighting a war."[Note to self: don't go there...] What does that exactly mean? Invading Iran? Or North Korea? Those are not viable options. [Seems to me only Kerry has been broaching those options, Mr. Sullivan, and HE'S YOUR CANDIDATE] We've already invaded two countries in three years.

Why thank you for noticing. And if YOUR CANDIDATE had had his way we'd have invaded.... 0 countries in three years. And just a few minutes ago you were saying that the WOT was worth fighting. How inconvenient...

And much of this war is indeed police work and law enforcement and this president understands that as well. It's a blend of strategies; and the blend will shift with the circumstances. This hyperventilating about who "gets it" only gets us so far. And what disappoints me about Bush supporters is their apparent inability to give specifics about where their candidate differs or would differ from Kerry. I'm listening. And I hear little but rhetoric.

Actually, I've done little else for the past eight months but pound out statistics, day after day on Kerry's voting record, history, and quotes contrasted with his actions to demonstrate, not based on my personal opinion, but on carefully researched fact backed up by multiple sources from the public record, that Kerry cannot be relied upon. That he consistently lies about his Senate record and misrepresents both his Vietnam history and President Bush's record.

And when I go up on the Daily Dish, I see day after day of... opinion. Which is pretty much what I see when I visit liberal blogs.

Not facts.

Not figures.

Not statistics, or numbers.

But what Joe Blow, who used to work for Sally, thinks about Dubya.

Or what 'some unnamed Bush supporter' did to that saint John McCain back in 2000. Because 'we all know'^TM Bush personally directs the actions of every single state campaign office in all 50 states. The man is AMAZING.... for a fricking moron.

How Dubya's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was in bed with the Nazis and drank blood from baby skulls dug up from Geronimo's grave. I keep looking for Prescott Bush's name on my ballot - as yet, I haven't found it. I'll keep you posted.

What an embittered Marine Lance Corporal, home from the war, thinks of our Commander-in-Chief.

It never seems to occur to these people that these are what I call anecdotal evidence. That the opinion of one disgruntled [there's a pun in there somewhere...] Marine LCpl, when three out of four military people support Bush, is hardly a convincing reason to switch my vote.

It's like there's an inpenetrable wall of silliness that nothing can get through.

I give up. From now on I'm only going to post on serious subjects.

I have standards you know.

- Cassandra