Sullivan pseudo-endorses Dean
well, it's not exactly an endorsement, but hey it is a start!
Still the litany of evils that he invokes betray a massive ignorance of the issues. Portraying Dean as soft on terror and wanting to raise taxes is essentially asinine. It's obvious he hasn't bothered to actually listen to Dean at all. Sullivan has much more on the topic of Dean on that post, where he argues that maybe a super-lefty version of Bush deserves an equal shot at the ideological wheel of the ship. Separating out Sullivan's ignorance from the rest, you can see that his basic point about offerring the people of America a choice is actually not that different from what Dean himself has said.
Except that we know whose vision wins on the merits. It ain't Tom Delay's.
A CASE FOR DEAN: On the issues - going soft on terror, raising taxes, neo-protectionism, paleo-liberalism on race - I have a hard time even considering Howard Dean as a potential president. On character, I think it's pretty clear he's an unpleasant person - prickly, angry, self-important, know-it-all. So why do I find myself rooting for Dean to win the nomination? In part, of course, it's the lack of a credible alternative. I like Lieberman on substance but he's unelectable and his religious grandstanding gives me the heeby-jeebies; Edwards has run the classiest campaign, but these are not the '90s; Gephardt is too left on economics and healthcare; Kerry is about the worst candidate I've observed since Al Gore. Clark - well, I have a visceral aversion to his megalomania and to the cynicism with which the Clintonites have rallied around him. A campaign based entirely on regaining power, by using a candidate as a cipher, is a dangerous thing. Besides, I think Clark is a crackpot. My hankering for Dean is therefore a little like Bill Kristol's. I think it would be refreshing for this country to have a real choice and debate this year, not an echo or yet another focus group.
Still the litany of evils that he invokes betray a massive ignorance of the issues. Portraying Dean as soft on terror and wanting to raise taxes is essentially asinine. It's obvious he hasn't bothered to actually listen to Dean at all. Sullivan has much more on the topic of Dean on that post, where he argues that maybe a super-lefty version of Bush deserves an equal shot at the ideological wheel of the ship. Separating out Sullivan's ignorance from the rest, you can see that his basic point about offerring the people of America a choice is actually not that different from what Dean himself has said.
Except that we know whose vision wins on the merits. It ain't Tom Delay's.
Comments