My God, Sullivan was giving Bush exactly the same advice on his blogsite 18 months ago! It's at that point that I decided that Sullivan is totally impossible to take seriously as a political commentator -- a right-wing gay Leninist is a bit much.

That TNR article in question was published in March of last year. From what I hear, he hasn't changed on bit since then.

Correction: May of last year. Doesn't matter to me.

its almost too easy.

Lying about things like say, economic policy is ok, but a BJ is criminal.

Sometimes I actually wonder if he really buys his own BS. I mean its so illogical.

He is under no obligation to buy his own BS ... especially considering he's BS'ing for such high idealistic purpose and all.

I can't believe that it's considered reasonable for people not to believe what they say these days. Most people don't think the administration believes half of what they say, but they shrug their shoulders at it. they don't care. And people here say no one is obligated to "buy (their) own bs." It sickens me.

This is all so silly.

The Republicans spin/lie about the economy.
The Democrats spin/lie about the economy.

In the 2000 election, Gore made a big push
in the last few days trying to convince the
elderly that Bush was going to slash their
social security check.

The Democrats knew that was a lie.
At worst, Bush would have shifted some small
amount of money out of reserves dedicated to finance social security current benefits that would have moved up the insolvency date of social security by a few months from say 27 years out to 26.75 years out.

The notion that Bush's proposals would cause current 70-year olds to ever see a reduction in their check was a blantant lie.

There is a real lack of seriousness about this blog.
You tweak the right for sins that the left and right are both guilty of.

All Sullivan was doing was being honest.
(I don't necessarily agree with his position.)

But the notion that the Republicans lie on
the economy and the Democrats don't is ludicrous.

"All Sullivan was doing was being honest"? Beg pardon? He wasn't saying (as you are) that it's wrong for both parties to lie about the economy; he was saying that it's OK, and in fact good, to lie about the economy! Thus my comparison of him to a right-wing version of Lenin.

My guess is that Andrew Sullivan meant to say that unpalatable truths must be marketed in a cautuius and effective manner. The Republicans know, for instance, that Democrats are going to slam them each and every time the subject of social security reform comes up for discussion. Thus, it’s best for the President to use rhetoric that best accomplishes the task at hand.

I agree that Democrats lie too. However Carmel has conveniently forgotten Bush's proposal on Social Security. I'm not sure I remember it clearly either. I believe that Bush suggested that young people be allowed to invest the equivalent of their social security contributions in stock. This would not just have brought insolvency 3 months ahead. It means, in substance, that he proposed that the current young be relieved of the legal obligation to support the social security administration. That roughly means renouncing the debt the US government has to the current old because they supported the no longer living.

Bush's current proposals are not such a threat. The fundamental reform to social security appears to be off the agenda. Partly, I think, because the decline in the stock market makes the idea of counting on it to finance retirement less attractive. Largely, I think, because it was a snow job to begin with. If actual implementation of the plan were discussed retired people would figure out what it implied and hammer the Republican party.

I believe that the campaign shows that the Bush campaign was practicing the big lie already, suggesting that they had a plan so that the retired get their pensions and the young don't have to pay for them.

Carmel accusing Gore of lying yet he does not address the specific content of Gore's claims at all.