Comments on: How Can You Have Any Pudding If You Don’t Eat Your Meat?

By: Kevin Carson

Kevin Carson — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:48:35 +0000

McCain is contemptible. After what Falwell and Robertson did to him as proxies for Bush in S.C. back in 2000, he went sucking up to them in hopes of being anointed. If he had his head any further up Falwell’s ass, he’d have had to have been buried in the same coffin. And after all the dirty push-polling and slander by the Bush campaign in 2000, McCain turned around and acted as a willing accomplice to the Swiftboaters.

Contemptible, hell. He’s beneath contempt.

BTW, I think Michael Ware is the new “straight talk express.”

By: phil

phil — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:22:07 +0000

Personally, I have decided to back Arnold as he is such a great speaker. He would a unique and different dimension to the debates as you can see from this excerpt:

http://eeuauaughhhuauaahh.ytmnd.com/

By: Bill K.

Bill K. — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:04:58 +0000

Iraq is such a “success” we should probably expand this “success” to Iran and Pakistan.

And we should continue to isolate potential allies because we want to control their backyard also.

By: Chris S

Chris S — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:17:45 +0000

McCain’s campaign is Weekend at Bernie’s.

By: lester

lester — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:10:31 +0000

he’s returned to the neo cons loving embrace. oh yay!!

By: Dennis

Dennis — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:15:07 +0000

Apparently, the Straight-Jacket Express is back out of the ditch, powered by our newfound “success” in Iraq.
How long before Sullivan reverses field again, recanting his recantation of his early enthusiasm for the war? Wouldn’t that be a logical progression for the “right-war-faulty-execution” model?

By: Matt Barganier

Matt Barganier — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:40:46 +0000

Sullivan has been decent in his coverage of the race. I just object to the tone Very Serious People adopt when telling us peons what we need, which always ends up being something that fortifies the establishment.

By: John Lowell

John Lowell — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:59:26 +0000

“I have to say that, although I’m under no illusion as to the limits of the tactical successes in Iraq, I didn’t expect the surge to be this effective at reducing violence, because I trusted Petraeus’ previous metrics. But McCain was right, and he deserves credit for it. I find myself wanting him to be the nominee more and more. He’s deserved it.”

You sure that metamucil is sufficient enough emetic in a case like Sullivan’s, Matt? The “surge” a “success”? Is there no one that contests this absurd premise? How a success when any measurable reduction in violence that has been identified to date can be tied directly to decisions of Sunni chieftains to disown Al Qaida hamfistedness in their districts? What has that got to do with the presence of 30,000 additional American troops? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

And what are we to think of this kind of oafal:

“On torture and climate change, McCain is also a rare Republican prepared to embrace reality rather than base-bluster.”

It was the duplicitous McCain, more than anyone else, that had responsibility for the passage of the MCA, his pretense respecting torture plain enough for anyone to see. Yet here we have a paen to McCain’s embrace of reality? Why is it that we are paying any attention at all to someone like Andrew Sullivan at this blog? He has nothing of value to bring here.

By: Peace

Peace — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:55:19 +0000

Andrew Sullivan is so awful. No wonder he admires McCann.