Video: Metaphor of the day
posted at 6:41 pm on August 31, 2012 by Allahpundit
To cleanse the palate, I’ll give you two options on this. One: It’s a metaphor for the Democrats’ Mediscare offensive ever since Paul Ryan joined the ticket. Two: It’s a metaphor for Romney’s decision to let Clint Eastwood do that performance art piece in primetime. I’m sticking with number one, partly because it makes me feel good and partly because I’m not remotely convinced that Eastwood is any kind of liability for Mitt.
Having watched this three times, I still don’t understand why the Towson guys tackled him. Granted, it didn’t really matter — the play was ultimately ruled dead as soon as the ball was touched near Towson’s end zone — but that’s some mighty dumb football all around. Exit question: What percentage of the reaction to Eastwood’s speech on both sides is being driven purely by partisanship? Ninety-seven? Ninety-eight?
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
That just reminded me, I saw a bumper sticker or t-shirt in Manitou Springs last weekend that said “You call me witch like it’s a bad thing”. Pretty typical stuff for that area.
dentarthurdent on April 26, 2013 at 11:14 AM
Well… most the original neo-conservatives were disillusioned Trotskyites, so Mathews has that correct. However, they are those who rejected Trotsky Communism, and became adamant anti-communists.
Sackett on April 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM
Chrissy,
it does not matter if YOU are well read or not, (my bet is on ‘not), nobody is going to donate money to build a Chris Matthews library.
Sir Napsalot on April 26, 2013 at 1:59 PM
Yes, Irving Kristol, who is considered sort of the father of neoconservatism was, as a young man in the 20s and 30s, a Trotskyite communist. That was because he believed it was the only answer to the fascist threat that was threatening the west. Norman Podhoretz, another influential neoconservative, had a similar experience.
But they broke with communism, Trotsky-version (they were always anti-Stalinist) in the 1940s and 50s, and became anti-communist and pro-American/pro-Western advocates.
But what does this have to do with the neoconservatives in the Bush Administration? None were Trotskyites as young men and none were Straussians. Irving Kristol had a friendship with Strauss but what does that have to do with the Bush Administration?
Matthews read an article somewhere – my guess is that it was one written by Hitchens – and extrapolates from events 80 years ago to today.
It’s sophomoric, historically illiterate, and intellectually simplistic.
But those are Matthews’ best qualities.
SteveMG on April 26, 2013 at 4:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2