Yesterday I recommended an article by George Will. It was . . . odd. Today, I recommend an article by Bob Novak. It is . . . less odd, but odd nevertheless. I have a certain affection for Novak. He is an old, foul, Chicago rivermonster. His reactionary politics are not my reactionary politics, but he isn't a phony, and I admire that. The article is about Carter, Israel, and Palestine, by the way.
4 comments:
Honest or stopped clock? Not sure I give those like Novak and Buchanan much credit for refusing to drink the AIPAC kool-aid. That was a recent development in the GOP. Sure, they can see the I/P and Iraq issues more clearly than their fellow GOP travelers, but the core reasons why they can do so has little to do with how a liberal/progressive reaches a similar conclusion. Which explains why Novak can so easily appear to be inconsistent in his opinions.
I don't see Novak or Buchanan as incinsistent. I see liberalism/progressivism as inconsistent. I see Novak and Buchanan as assholes, yes, but not as inconsistent.
How does a liberal reach a conclusion, anyway? I always thought feelingly, like Lear.
Meh. Novak had like seven versions of the Plame-outing story, depending on who he was talking to. I think that makes him an asshole and inconsistent, but, as we Internet oldsters say, YMMV.
I will admit a certain Sobchakian regard for the Novaks and Buchanans of the world, but not much more than that.
"Outing"? There was a time when people of good conscience and clear sight would have strongly supported "outing" members of the preznit's private unaccountable bureaucracy.
Post a Comment