THE PRESIDENT’S TRIP
The surprise visit to the troops in Iraq was a huge success, mostly because it was indeed a surprise. It was rather amusing, especially after several reports throughout the morning about the Bush family menu, that he managed to pull this off and surprise the soldiers–along with the press.
Most of the news coverage I’ve seen has been positive, albeit with the requisite “this will help him in the polls” aside. My guess this only helps with those who supported him to begin with, especially coming with the election nearly a year away.
Meryl Yourish thinks it was a “gem” and says the president nearly gets her vote just for this alone.
Matthew Yglesias wondered how much the “stunt” cost the taxpayers and is annoyed that Bush didn’t invite any Democrats to share in the photo-ops.
Sean Hackbarth is pleased and has a roundup of others who had mixed reactions.
Andrew Sullivan thinks this was “one of [the President’s] finest moments” but laments that he didn’t use to opportunity to announce his support for gay marriage and denounce the New York Times. (The latter two sentiments require reading between the lines.)
Steven Taylor says Wowie and Wowie again, mainly just marveling at the sheer audacity of pulling this off without the press getting wind of it.
Chris Lawrence thinks the visit (along with Sen. Clinton’s to Afghanistan) was admirable, helps pro-war Democrats, and also makes it tougher to back out.
John Cole has a couple of good posts responding to Matt and other Democratic cynics.
Matthew J. Stinson thinks both Bush and Sen. Clinton are engaged in “the highest form of constituent service.”
Rob “Acidman” Smith thinks Bush showed real courage, in contrast to his predecessor. I would note that Clinton made a trip to Bosnia to visit our troops, although the danger level was certainly lower.
Kevin Aylward says the trip was “cool.”
Glenn Reynolds says, Indeed.
“Rob “Acidman” Smith thinks Bush showed real courage, in contrast to his predecessor. I would note that Clinton made a trip to Bosnia to visit our troops, although the danger level was certainly lower.”
Well, why was the danger level lower? See also http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001389.shtml
“Rob “Acidman” Smith thinks Bush showed real courage, in contrast to his predecessor. I would note that Clinton made a trip to Bosnia to visit our troops, although the danger level was certainly lower.”
Well, why was the danger level lower? See also http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001389.shtml
“Rob “Acidman” Smith thinks Bush showed real courage, in contrast to his predecessor. I would note that Clinton made a trip to Bosnia to visit our troops, although the danger level was certainly lower.”
Well, why was the danger level lower? See also http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001389.shtml
James,
Why did you swipe at Sullivan with that “reading between the lines” comment? There is nothing in that post at all that indicates Sullivan was even thinking about that.
Unless, of course, you’re one of those who thinks that the only thing ever on Sulivan’s mind is gay rights. That’s tremendously unfair, and your loss if you feel that all of his posts, no matter what the subject, has this “hidden agenda.” Sullivan’s post was completely in support of Bush. It did not in any way waver from the story about the trip.
I’m not sure why you felt the need to get that swipe in.
I thought the “swipe” was pretty funny, myself. It’s pretty clear it’s only meant as a tongue-in-cheek bit of friendly ribbing, given the “between the lines” remark.
Michael Demmons you musta not read Sully enough.
The line was brilliant.
Maybe you don’t read him enough. If you take away the “gay rights” posts and the “NYT sucks since they fired me” posts, you lose 80% of his content.
Lighten up, it was funny.
Nobody questioned his support of Bush and trust me, nobody has even accused Sully of having a hidden agenda. KnowhatImean?
Arug! I hate it when there is a typo in the punch line!
…and trust me, nobody has EVER accused Sully of having a hidden agenda. KnowhatImean?