Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (81304)	10/28/2004 3:22:36 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793820

limb from limb. Sullivan had a weak reply. FISKED: In the interests of debate, here's James Lileks' dissection of my endorsement. I think it comes down to: he doesn't trust Kerry in any way. If that's your opinion, then I think you have to vote Bush. But it isn't mine. One other thing: there is nothing in his piece about Bush's record. Reading James is always a pleasure. But he could have written this piece a year ago without changing a jot. Has he learned anything from what has happened in Iraq? Or is he just not telling? LILEKS' BLIND SPOT: Here's an email that's harsher than I would be, but it does get to something problematic about the otherwise admirable James Lileks: You wrote about Lileks bleat today, "One other thing: there is nothing in his piece about Bush's record." Until recently I read his column frequently and I have never, not once, seen a single criticism of Bush or any other Republican for that matter. Lileks is as partisan as Ed Gillespie. I haven't read his column since his hateful piece essentially calling gay people a bunch of whiny complainers for being offended by the hatemongering in the Republican party. He had the audacity to compare the privacy of his preschool daughter to that of Mary Cheney. Comparing the hard slog in WWII in the Pacific to Bush's ineptitude in Iraq is absurd and shows just how he's lost his grip on reality. Lileks is a Democrat turned Republican. My theory is that he's lot like every Catholic convert I've ever met. When they're around you can't tell a pope joke without getting a scornful look. Converts of all kinds are the most radical and dogmatic. Of course, we're all products of our own environments. As basically a conservative, I'm much madder at Bush than I'd be if I were a Democrat. My beef is with my own side. Similarly, some of, say Marty Peretz's or Ron Radosh's support for Bush is vested in their own valiant struggles against peacenik see-no-evil Democrats. That's where their passion is. Lileks is similar. But if he had made sensible criticism of the shambles in Iraq, or even acknowledged it in anything but dismissive terms, I'd be more persuaded.