Please explain!

Cut out the filler sentences in the middle of an Andrew Sullivan post and what do you get?

Chait blames the Bush tax cuts – and, to some extent, he’s right. He also cites vast new spending on defense and homeland security. Again, to some extent, he’s right. […] But if that’s all we talk about, we’re not confronting the real issue: the tax cuts and the military spending.

Chait is “to some extent” right to blame the tax cuts and defense and homeland security spending. Oh, and the real issue is tax cuts and military spending. 10-4 Captain.

 

Comments: 3

 
 
 

So would that make his column more filling, less taste?

 
 

It doesn’t take much to pass for a smart conservative, does it?

 
 

Looking at his last two sentences, I thnk maybe he’s just summarizing what Chait says, not disagreeing with it. Although if that’s right, I’m not sure what his point is with the “to some extent, he’s right” stuff. Here’s the last two sentences:

Yes, Jon implies, we fiscal conservatives are right to be mad about Bush’s big non-defense spending binges – especially on Medicare, agriculture and pork. But if that’s all we talk about, we’re not confronting the real issue: the tax cuts and the military spending.

 
 

(comments are closed)