I'm blogging from DFW, so forgive the poor style. In an article today, Andrew Sullivan is hyperventilating about Obama self destructing in the debate. Amidst his panting is this:
"Romney is now the centrist candidate, even as he is running to head up the most radical party in the modern era"
I've seen this "radical" and "extreme" nonsense elsewhere. Does anyone know what it's all about?
3 comments:
But of course I know what it's about.
The party the speaker[1] is not a member of is generally filled with radical extremists. They must be, because they are saying that the speaker is wrong. Only a radical could be so wrong-headed!
The party the speaker *is* a member of is always moderate and reasonable. They must be. Don't they agree with the speaker? And aren't all of the speaker's opinions moderate, reasonable, and the only possible way that the world can work? Well, there you are, then.
[1] Or writer. Doesn't much matter which one. Pretty much all political commentators seem to call the people in their least-favorite party "radicals" or worse.
it's because the tea party tried to blow up a bridge in cleveland.
Post a Comment