Reason.com
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|10.11.04 @ 8:03PM|#
Good to see that Julian has an active imagination, but what was the point putting up that article?
|10.11.04 @ 8:08PM|#
I'm going to take thoreau's role here and predict that we'll see a bunch of "Julian's a leftist" and "I'm cancelling my subscription to Reason" due to this article.
I agree with Julian, though, that the scary thing is that Bush just might really believe in what he's doing, warts and all.
|10.11.04 @ 8:22PM|#
"The terrifying possibility, then, is that Bush is being perfectly honest when he claims he can't think of any mistakes he's made."
I was positively giddy when Bush bested Gore in the last election. I've known some to speculate that Gore might have won if he had embraced Clinton rather than distanced himself so, but I liked to think that Gore lost because he didn't distance himself enough. President Clinton was a liar, and I'd had it with the lies and the lying liars that tell them.
If only President Bush was just another liar. President Bush sent Powell to the UN with bogus photographs, he watched the aftermath of the invasion, he abandoned the Geneva Conventions and turned American soldiers into agents of torture, our traditional allies have abandoned us and President Bush can't think of any mistakes? That is terrifying.
It's all part of God's plan and you've gotta have faith in that. Sometimes God's plan gets someone boiled in oil or beheaded or stuffed in a log and sawed in half or burned at the stake or mauled for spectacle, but as a Christian, I know that it's going to be alright in the end. Someday none of us will have to live under the yoke of leaders who honestly believe that what they're doing is right even when it's so very wrong, and I have faith in that.
...in the meantime, God's plan sometimes gets some innocent soul crucified.
|10.11.04 @ 8:24PM|#
The movie was better than te live play last Friday.
|10.11.04 @ 8:28PM|#
The movie was better than te live play last Friday.
|10.11.04 @ 8:40PM|#
The thing about Bush is, you don't really have to know a lot about him to know you don't want him.
You see him stammer and stutter and smirk and misunderconstrue the language as he vomits up one or another of his talking points, and you realize there is nothing behind that man's eyes whatsoever.
A pathetic coked-out borderline retard.
With Kerry, you actually have to get to know what he's for to realize you don't want him, but Bush makes it a lot easier, so in that regard he should be hailed for simplifying the voting somewhat.
Handsome Dan|10.11.04 @ 10:38PM|#
I just feel the need to say here that I always thought that THE PRESIDENT'S ANALYST was much, much funnier than DR. STRANGELOVE.
Warren|10.11.04 @ 11:28PM|#
Great article Julian. I think you nailed it dead on. Bush just keeps getting creepier. Your theory accounts for his behavior without complicating convolutions.
|10.11.04 @ 11:45PM|#
No, no, no, this is being hit in the head lessons.
|10.12.04 @ 1:02AM|#
I have to agree with Julian, and I think that the points that Julian make expose the chink in the Bush armor that may allow Kerry to take the race in November. Note that I'm no fan of Kerry (nor Bush), I'm talking campaign mechanics here. Kerry has been at least making an attempt to expose the reverend presidents decision-making process. That process is, you start with the answer, and then begin chosing the facts that support that conclusion, to the convenient exclusion of all else. When a contradicting fact is encountered, treat it as a lie or patently untrue (based on nothing) and move on. That is a fine process for reassuring yourself of your faith in the dark of the night, but no good for the chief of policy in America. To quote a fiend 'You can't make the right choice with the wrong information'. (Pace Mark A.)
We saw Kerry point to this process a few times in the first debate, but he never really went in for the kill. In the second debate he seemed to shy away from the tactic, to his loss I must say, and in my opinion came away with a draw. If Kerry goes back to that method in the final debate, he could clinch November. He just has to keep pounding on the facts surrounding the war in Iraq and asking the president to 'prove it' when W says '... and the world is better off'.
As for domestic policy ...
|10.12.04 @ 3:35AM|#
this psychobabble has what to do with 'free minds and free markets'?
anti-capitalist infiltrators are welcome to take over this rag, thereby only making libertarians outside the republican tent weaker and more ridiculous but they'll never join the organized opposition
the vicious Democrat cycle of enhancing state control and auctioning it off to invidiously divided factions will never appeal to those who appreciate the individual as the ultimate basis of value
someday free afghans and arabs will explain to you the extreme righteousness of bush's liberal burden--virtually abandoned to him by his erstwhile allies at home and abroad and for purely cynical reasons
raymond|10.12.04 @ 4:32AM|#
I for one found Julian's psychobabble interesting. But, since I'm pretty sure that being born-again is in the case of GWB a useful political move rather than the result of some epiphany, I think the babble should have dealt more with Episcopalian theology than with the Methodist.
someday free afghans and arabs will explain to you the extreme righteousness of bush's liberal burden
Here's a more immediate prediction: During the next debate, Bush will thrillingly describe how the brave Afghans went out and voted, how democracy has taken hold in a formerly hostile land, how what he has wrought is a shining beacon of hope for all oppressed people. He will mention - in response to Kerry's previous charge that the US has ignored and is estranged from its allies - the cooperation of NATO and the UN in overseeing and ensuring these elections. He will be moved. Truly moved. And outraged that his Democratic opponent does not rejoice with him in the success of Afghanistan. "An insult to the brave German policemen who..." "Mr Karzai, that courageous man, is wounded by your criticisms. Now is not the time..."
I may have some of the language wrong. But that'll be the gist.
If Kerry wants to prepare for that portion of the debate, I suggest he read "Special Report: Afghanistan" in The Economist of this week.
(Unbelievable but true: I had a dream right before I woke myself up shouting "no no!" this morning. I dreamt I was listening to the news and the announcer said: "Karzai has been overthrown." Oh for the dreams of adolescence.)
|10.12.04 @ 4:34AM|#
Yawn.
|10.12.04 @ 5:28AM|#
yes, the Economist has also taken a disappointing turn against a nuanced, pragmatic extension of individual liberty
raymond|10.12.04 @ 5:50AM|#
yes, the Economist has also taken a disappointing turn against a nuanced, pragmatic extension of individual liberty
When they supported the invasion of Iraq. Yes. But I think they're beginning to see the foolishness of their support.
|10.12.04 @ 7:34AM|#
We have noticed that you have unauthorized equipment attached to our network. Desist immediately.
The Managers at
The Phone Company
|10.12.04 @ 8:56AM|#
"this psychobabble has what to do with 'free minds and free markets'?"
Exactly.
Since Nick Gillespie handed over the keys to Tim Cavanaugh and Julian Sanchez - this is no longer a serious, respectable, coherent magazine.
You should change the name and the moto, to reflect the editorial change.
|10.12.04 @ 9:00AM|#
Did someone just use the words "nuanced" and "pragmatic" to describe the War in Iraq?
|10.12.04 @ 9:47AM|#
so free minds and markets mean automatic support for the biggest spending republican in recent history?
now i'm confused.
|10.12.04 @ 9:53AM|#
So, Jacob and eponymous:
Would you disagree, then, that Bush is a pathetic coked-out borderline retard?
Can you provide evidence to support your view that Bush is anything other than fetid ruminating husk of mystical Christian fundamentalism?
|10.12.04 @ 12:22PM|#
"so free minds and markets mean automatic support for the biggest spending republican in recent history?"
I didn't catch the part in the article where it talked substantively about Bush's spending, although I stopped reading after a couple of paragraphs.
"Would you disagree, then, that Bush is a pathetic coked-out borderline retard?
Can you provide evidence to support your view that Bush is anything other than fetid ruminating husk of mystical Christian fundamentalism?"
Yes, this is exactly the kind of feverish crap we now see filling the (web) pages of Reason. Thanks for the example.
|10.12.04 @ 12:55PM|#
This schtick is getting really old.
Repeat after me: I disagree with his political positions. I disagree with his political positions. He's simultaneously a gibbering idiot and an evil mastermind [SLAP] OW! I mean, I disagree with his political positions ...
|10.12.04 @ 1:13PM|#
JDH,
You failed to provide evidence that Bush is anything other than fetid ruminating husk of mystical Christian fundamentalism.
GH,
Actually Rove's the mastermind and Bush is the gibbering idiot.
|10.12.04 @ 1:17PM|#
Sorry, that last post was for JDM, not JDH.
JDH,
I didn't mean to address you in that last post, but while we're on the subject, can you provide evidence that Bush is anything other than fetid ruminating husk of mystical Christian fundamentalism?
Can anybody?
|10.12.04 @ 1:59PM|#
"Young"-
If you'd care to actually learn about believing Christians, you could do worse than to start here:
http://www.gospelcom.net/
If you just want to rant and rave, carry on ...
|10.12.04 @ 2:17PM|#
Tell Julian that I have lots of opinions, too. Some of them are on that level, but I'm not *proud* of it.
|10.12.04 @ 2:53PM|#
Young Demopublican:
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
I am all for bashing on the candidates, but mindlessly repeating some Jabberwocky-esque concoction of meaningless drivel does not qualify in my book as witty. Whatever Bush's faults, he probably smells okay, he doesn't turn things over again and again in his head/chew cud, and he is certainly not the discarded outer membrane of something or another. Please turn in your internet pass immediately.
|10.12.04 @ 2:54PM|#
GH,
You�d be better off converting to Sufism:
http://www.sufis.org/
|10.12.04 @ 3:08PM|#
Brian,
I?m sorry, but that does not constitute proof that Bush is anything other than a fetid ruminating husk of mystical Christian fundamentalism. Just because you think he ?probably? smells ok, does not mean that he does not in fact stink to high heaven. Simply because it is your opinion that he isn?t a discarded membrane does not mean there is anything filling his head besides Easter grass.
This gibberish you have provided in no way substitutes for the rigorous proof you will need in order to justify your opinion that Bush is anything other than a fetid ruminating husk of mystical Christian fundamentalism. Try again.