I post, you decide.
Yeah, whatever, Chris, just as long as you vote for Bush.
Hey guys, a vote's a vote.
I find Hitchens despicable after the vile hit piece he wrote about Reagan shortly after Reagan's death, but I guess anything that helps defeat Kerry. . . .
Hitchens is still a socialist atheist, but he had an epiphany after 9/11 on certain matters. Do ya think Hitchens could have imagined himself being even "slightly for" anybody like George W. Bush ten years ago?
LOL! It's a funny world we live in.
I think you are being too critical. "Slightly for Bush" by Hitchens is saying a lot.
Guess he's trying to keep his lib creds but losing in logic points, IMHO.
I'll take it.
I think you got the analysis right.
Chris Hitchens is a drunken, socialist nut who sometimes sobers up enough to see some truth, but I'm rooting for him anyway...
In Kabul recently, I interviewed Dr. Masuda Jalal, a brave Afghan physician who was now able to run for the presidency. I asked her about her support for the intervention in Iraq. "For us," she said, "the battle against terrorism and against dictatorship are the same thing." I dare you to snicker at simple-mindedness like that.
So the libs actually capable of independent thought are
slowly beginning to realize that they have a choice to
make (or default) in a few days, and that they know full
well what Kerry really is.
i am betting that hitchens only got his wife "a little pregnant". oh well, as long as he casts for bush, it's a win for us.
By sheer coincidence, I am slightly in favor of Christopher Hitchens.
I have worked in Silicon Valley for 20+ years watching so-called intellectuals [Venture Capitalists] with MBA's fund streetwise company founders [like George Bush] to make outsize returns for all the stakeholders. So which one is the smarter the intellectual VC or the scrappy founder? I'm tired of this "Bush isn't intellectually curious" talk. I would rather have 20 minutes face-to-face with George W. Bush than Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or Stephen Hawking.
What a self-important windbag...I don't care who he's voting for.
Make no mistake, the leftiest Hitchens is being entirly consistant by supporting the President.
Bush's war vision is as liberal and idealistic a policy that any American administration has ever pursued. History has truly been spun on it's ear.
I'm not quite sure he's making that point.
It seems to me he is more saying;
Imagine for a moment all the critisms of Bush common on the left are true - he is overly religious, dumb, and arrogant. He is still the candidate best suited to defeat the forces of Islamism, which are almost the antithesis of everything the Left claims to be for.
-Eric
One hypothesis is that amoung blacks and Jews (and I'm a Jew) and in certain pockets of Blue America you don't get a lot social reinforcement by announcing that you're voting for President Bush, so a significant number of people within these populations are keeping quiet about it but will vote for President Bush on November 2nd.
I hope this hypothesis is true, and I look to articles such as the one above by Hitchens as possible illustrating this phenomoenon of post-9/11 converts from liberal quarters. But Hitchens is willing to talk about it and give his reasons.
It should be a no brain for democrats when they get into the voting booth. This is why there is so much emphasis on absentee voting.
The rats have no candidate, and they know it. They must protect their power however, but the more thought they give the problem, the less likely they will vote at all.
I'll take it. I'll take all the support we can get.
Why Hitchens isn't (Totally) stupid.