The question is, besides his talking about being in denial about Bush’s out-of-touchness, what he originally saw in Bush’s “Texas style of governing” to trust him in the first place?
After all, as a consultant to Lt. Gov Bob Bullock, he’d surely been enough of an Austin insider to hear about Bush’s Karla Faye Tucker imitation cackle, Bush’s funeral home crisis troubles and more.
In other words, Matthew Dowd was in denial in 1999, long before his claim to have recognized his denial in 2004. Dancing with the devil called Karl Rove is proof enough.
A skeptical leftist's, or post-capitalist's, or eco-socialist's blog, including skepticism about leftism (and related things under other labels), but even more about other issues of politics. Free of duopoly and minor party ties. Also, a skeptical look at Gnu Atheism, religion, social sciences, more.
Note: Labels can help describe people but should never be used to pin them to an anthill.
As seen at Washington Babylon and other fine establishments
Pages
▼
i can't get my brain around how anyone did and still does support bush - but that "falling in love" analogy takes the cake. brought a tear to my eye.
ReplyDelete