Tuesday, 6 July 2004

Intellectual honesty

Well, you’ve got to concede that at least Matthew Yglesias freely acknowledges his newfound status as a Democratic party hack:

Three, and most least importantly, I’d gone way out on a limb with the Gephardt-bashing and wasn’t looking forward to needing to defend him after all once he got the nomination.

Yes, heaven forbid that Yglesias actually not defend the indefensible. After all, there’s an election to be won, so who wants to be stuck with taking a stand on principle?

Update: Yglesias has updated his post to indicate he was joking on this point. I prefer to think of it as an inadvertently revealed preference, but since he went to Harvard and I didn’t, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt.


Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

Ah irony—saying one thing and meaning another…or, if you prefer, saying one thing and signifying something else.

Looks like you misread this one.


Ah, but was he joking, or was his subconscious just accidentally revealing itself? Inquiring minds want to know ☺.


Wow—you give new meaning to “signifying nothing”!

[Permalink] 4. NBarnes wrote @ Tue, 6 Jul 2004, 1:54 pm CDT:

Because, of course, you’re a strong iconoclast, Chris, who honestly thinks Dick Cheney is the best man for the job, and that Bush was a better choice than McCain?


If you’d prefer a joke, ahem: Please do not encourage my sibling Democrats to engage in fratricidal bloodbaths. We’re already too prone to them as it is.

[Permalink] 5. David Perlman wrote @ Tue, 6 Jul 2004, 2:07 pm CDT:

What principle would you suggest he take a stand on? The selection of the VP is about winning the election and nothing else. He has been bashing Gephardt because he didn’t think he was the best choice, if Kerry had selected him, having to defend him on the grounds of whether he would be a good president (or whatever) would not have been intellectually dishonest.

Now defending Bush and Cheney, that’s indefensible!


NBarnes (and David): Well, I’m not a Republican, so thankfully such contortions of congnitive dissonance aren’t necessary for me. (And, no, I’m not a huge Michael Badnarik fan either.) FWIW, I think Bush is more attuned to the mainstream of the Republican Party than McCain is, but I don’t think either of them would make (or, in the case of Bush, are) great presidents.

Actually, I think Cheney would make a pretty good president (heck, I had a Cheney 1996 button), despite the “dark prince” mystique. Then again, if you believe most of the Democrats, he already is!


And, to those of you new to SN, I’d suggest a gander at the post above this one to disabuse you of the notion that this weblog is a fan of the current POTUS.


I don’t know about Cheney but I think Bush was a better choice than John “Keating Five” McCain.

Comments are now closed on this post.