Eric Alterman: Think Again: Deal Me In

[babylonsister]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/think_again_deal.html

Think Again: Deal Me In

By Eric Alterman

July 19, 2007



It’s getting hard out there for Bush supporters in the punditocracy. Once upon a time, they were the toast of the town: liberating oppressed people with the stroke of a keyboard; gutting Social Security with a bon mot; and wondering aloud, more in sadness than in anger, why it was that anyone who disagreed with them on any of these points “hated America.”

But even Peggy Noonan is casting stones these days; David Frum is barely mentioning Bush in his blog, and then only to criticize him; and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) has been privately saying that Bush “fucked up” the war. On some days it appears that only Bill Kristol has the courage to stand tall. His Washington Post column on Sunday, “Why Bush Will Be A Winner,” set jaws a-dropping all over as he made the case that the president will be remembered as a success.

Kristol starts off his column supposing that he’ll “merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush’s presidency will probably be a successful one.” Well, preposterousness in a pundit is usually deemed to be a positive. But let’s see how well Kristol pulls it off.

He praises the catastrophically expensive Medicare prescription benefit, which was wise, since the ballooning costs have not kicked in yet. And he even has a good word to say for Social Security privatization. He thinks we’re winning in Afghanistan, is plenty pleased with the way Bush is handling Russia, and is even optimistic about—you guessed it—“the surge.” (Its alleged success, he told Brian Lehrer, is “pretty astounding ... pretty amazing ... pretty fantastic.” Never mind the fact that Thomas Fingar, the top intelligence analyst in the Office of the National Intelligence Director, noted that ‘the surge” “has not yet had a sufficient effect on the violence, have not yet been reduced significantly.”

snip//

David Brooks is also welcome to my game, particularly after I read his explanation that Iraq is “beyond the reach of global summits, political benchmarks, and the understanding of any chief executive.” So we launch a war in a country we don’t understand in which political success is not only beyond our reach, but beyond anyone’s reach. In fact, it’s even beyond measurement. Now there’s a plan.

We could round out the crew with the rest of the Weekly Standard team. Fred Barnes, Stephen Hayes, and anyone with the last name Kagan can surge right into my living room. Hell, I’d even let Dick Cheney play, just so long as he didn’t bring his own cards.
I like my odds.

[Buzz Clik]

1. He cannot count on Brooks.

Brooks is more than willing to spout the latest rhetoric and endlessly defend talking points.

[babylonsister]

3. He's not trying to count on Brooks; he's pointing out how these

people defend * despite the facts in their faces.

[Buzz Clik]

4. You're correct.

It took a third read to understand what he was saying. The "game" he refers to is a poker game where the chips are the claims these people (Kristol, Bennett, Brooks) make and the cards are the actual facts.

My first two reads gave me the impression that he thought a lot of rw pundits were changing their minds, with the lone exception of Kristol.

[babylonsister]

5. It's really hard to snip these articles so you get the full flavor of them,

but those are the rules and I do try.

[Buzz Clik]

6. You did fine. I kept missing an important paragraph:

In reading from your link, I'd get bogged down in Alterman's detailed dissection of Kristol and I missed this:

What I wouldn’t give to play poker with this guy. (Too bad it’s a war and not a poker game, with you know, people dying and stuff...)

It all made more sense when I finally captured his intent.

[MasonJar]

2. David Brooks is a W enabler; he makes me sick.