October 31, 2004


The ever-changing endorsement of Christopher Hitchens:

October 21: "Why I'm (Slightly) for Bush"

October 26: "Kerry should get his worst private nightmare and have to report for duty."

October 31: "Why I'm voting for Bush (but only just)"

Posted by Tim Blair at October 31, 2004 04:27 PM

Christ, this guy will base his decision upon the effects of the last bag his dealer offered him, it looks like.

I am tired of reading Hitch's tea leaves.

Posted by: Neuroto at October 31, 2004 at 04:52 PM

Hitch is eligible to vote in the US?

Posted by: Kevin at October 31, 2004 at 05:05 PM

He's a Pom isn't he? Citizenship? - I'm not sure.

Posted by: Endgame at October 31, 2004 at 05:13 PM

frankly i have to admire the turnaround of this guy whose intelligence must be respected.
Don't forget he was once buddy buddy with pilger and monbiot!
They now despise him. It shows how isolated the idiots of the left have become.
frontpage reports that he is backing bush and the confusion was media propaganda.
The guy reminds me of some of the brave muslim apostates who are exposing the real islam like ibn warraq, nonie darwish etc.

Posted by: davo at October 31, 2004 at 05:15 PM

Says Hitchens, Objectively, his election would compel mainstream and liberal Democrats to get real about Iraq.

And, I might add, the greater war against Islamo-fascism.

Were Kerry to become POTUS, he would have advisors screaming at him to act, should there be a terrorist act committed against the U.S., lest he be framed by the right, and the general public, as the liberal weenie they said he would be.

He may even over-compensate out of fear of such critisism, and be that much more quick to go Roman on our enemies, should the chance present itself.

Im not too worried. We are loaded for bear, no matter who wins on Tuesday.

Posted by: Thomas at October 31, 2004 at 05:16 PM

I'll take a Drunk and flipping Hitchens over a sober and waffling Kerry any day of the week.

Posted by: Frank Martin at October 31, 2004 at 05:18 PM

The winning energy is with John Kerry. But it is a latent energy and will mainfest itself in subtle, more nuanced ways than we are accustomed to. But I'm sure that John will be comfortable with that and we will in turn grow to be more comfortable with him. We will ride a roller-coaster with him, grow thoughtful with him, look adoringly at him, hold him, carress him, make love to him. He will show us so many new things, as he is so creative. Ever gesture that he makes, every speech that he delivers is creative. He is the innter child of his own creative soul, and it envelopes him. Softly, gently. We must be ready to confront this fact for it will come at us like a surprise.

Posted by: Robert Bosler at October 31, 2004 at 05:33 PM

"The winning energy is with John Kerry."

Yes Robert, Kerry must, daily, feel and enjoy his own winning nature.

Just like Latham did.

(I'm assuming the above post is for real, and not a parody, but I'm assuming awfully hard)

Posted by: Craig Mc at October 31, 2004 at 05:40 PM

Well, here's one guy with some consistency:
Bin Laden endorses Kerry, tours with Springsteen

Posted by: Sean Gleeson at October 31, 2004 at 05:40 PM

The "Robert Bosler" post above = me. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go and take a long, hard shower.

Posted by: Richard at October 31, 2004 at 05:52 PM

Hasn't The Observer just reproduced the initial article, admittedly with some inexpert editing? And the Slate piece is hard to read as any type of endorsement. The point he raises in it, is quite a good one, if Kerry wins (please no) it will force 'the left' to get real about Iraq. That Kerry would be confronted by the reality of the constraints George Bush deals with, and he (Kerry) would have only limited ability to change course.

Anyway a moot point, Bush will win.

Posted by: Emily at October 31, 2004 at 05:56 PM

Well done Richard. Totally indistinguishable from the real thing. Now apply that lye soap like you were an anthrax attack victim.

Posted by: Craig Mc at October 31, 2004 at 06:04 PM

Never mind Hitchens, only a relative handful of people listen to him. What Americans want to know is: who does ALP star recruit Peter Garret enndorse? And what is Garrett's election-winning plan?

Posted by: Clem Snide at October 31, 2004 at 06:21 PM

My instinct is all this "Kerry will have to get tough" theorising is bullshit. The guy built his career on double crossing his own country and undermining his government's efforts to combat foriegn menaces. He'll see his election as president as an endorsement of those policies, BECAUSE IT WIL BE.

Kerry is the cut and run, make it all go away, timewarp back to sep 10 candidate. That's his mandate, that's what he'll do in the Whitehouse, you people are deluding yourselves if you think any different.

This man betrayed his comrades and his country for personal political advancement, if you think he won't throw the Iraqis to the wolves you're carzy.

Posted by: Amos at October 31, 2004 at 06:37 PM

I did not consider Hitchen's Slate piece to be an endorsement of Kerry, other than an ironic one.

Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez at October 31, 2004 at 06:40 PM

And another thing, now much of this is coming from that cocksucker, Andrew Sullivan? That spineless fairweather hawk was happy for Big Daddy Bush to come save his homosexual ass from the nasty, gay-stoning Islamists after sep11, but now that three years have passed he feels safe to come out of his hole and knife The Man in the back.

All this rationalising about Kerry being the 'tougher-on-terrorism' choice would be hilareous if it wasn't so maddeningly hypocritical. Sullivan dosen't really believe that. No one does. These back-sliders are just trying to find a reason to hold their noses, vote for appeasment and figure some intellectual ruse to keep looking at themselves in the mirror.

Fuck them. Four more years. Whatever it takes. Finish the job, George.

Posted by: Amos at October 31, 2004 at 06:55 PM

Come on, Hitchens is obviously hinting at Kerry with such a nuanced approach to the question of who to support.

He'll top it off with, "Why I voted for Kerry before I voted against him."

Posted by: Quentin George at October 31, 2004 at 07:55 PM

Oh, and LOL at the Bosler parody.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 31, 2004 at 07:56 PM

So, who flip flops more Kerry or Hitchens ?

Posted by: Le clerc at October 31, 2004 at 08:09 PM

I dunno, I'm one of those who didn't really read the October 26 Slate piece as a Kerry endorsement...the whole "Kerry should get his worst private nightmare" thing seemed more along the myriad "you know, if there wasn't a war on, I'd vote for John and Terayza just for the entertainment value" comments that I've read from reluctant Bush supporters pretty much everywhere.

Posted by: PW at October 31, 2004 at 08:49 PM

...er, who cares?

Posted by: Miranda Divide at October 31, 2004 at 09:09 PM

Wow, Mirander is back, and she has brought along her stunning intellect and a rejuvenated arsenal of incisive wit. As evidenced by the preceding post.

Posted by: PW at October 31, 2004 at 09:17 PM

It is Bush's conversion from isolationism that impresses me, just as it is the lapse into isolationism on Kerry's part that makes me sceptical. Don't like 'the smirking' of Bush? What about the endless smirks about the administration's difficulties, whether genuine or self-imposed? The all-knowing smirks about 'the secular' Saddam, or the innocuousness of prewar Iraq? The sneers about the astonishing success of our forces in Afghanistan, who are now hypocritically praised by many who opposed their initial deployment? This is to say nothing of the innuendos that are now part of pseudo-radical rumour-mongering and defamation. Whoever wins, I shall live to see these smirks banished, at least.

At least. And more, hopefully: lefty intellectual who is too smart for his lefty peers but not smart enough to throw them off completely.

Posted by: ilibcc at October 31, 2004 at 10:06 PM

Post time 9.09 pm that's 5 chardonay's past sanity for Miranda.

Posted by: gubbaboy at October 31, 2004 at 10:15 PM

Hey - I know this worldwide audience would want to help this American soldier and his family:


He has lost both legs and an arm and his family does not have the means to stay with him at Walter Reed. Anything you can do to help or spread the word would be appreciated. Thanks.

It's good to see people coming around to reality. John Kerry is an egotistical nightmare. GWB is the real thing.

Posted by: Kathleen A at October 31, 2004 at 10:31 PM

OT but marginally related: Mark Steyn cuts through all the endorsement nonsense of the last couple of days as only he can.

Posted by: PW at October 31, 2004 at 10:41 PM

"Were Kerry to become POTUS, he would have advisors screaming at him to act, should there be a terrorist act committed against the U.S., lest he be framed by the right, and the general public, as the liberal weenie they said he would be."

Thomas while this may be a nice thought it would not be his advisors that would decide how Kerry would act. It would be polls and his political base, because once Kerry were elected the next important thing on his narcissitic brain is how to get re-elected. He cannot do that without his base and his base is telling him to cut and run in Iraq and fight the WOT with negotiations if possible and with law enforcement where not possible.

The only two reasons that the left is voting for Kerry at all is their pathological hatred of George W. Bush and their belief that Kerry is actually lying when he says he will stay the course in Iraq and hunt down terrorists. Which if his record and personal history are any indication he is. So if Kerry fails his base on this then he too will become a one term President because he would unable to win the Democratic primaries for 2008.

Posted by: Harry in Atlanta at October 31, 2004 at 10:48 PM

The two bush "endorsements" appear to be pretty much the same article, published in two different placces, a week apart.

Posted by: Tom at November 1, 2004 at 12:20 AM

Senator Kerry has made a career of doing nothing except stroke his own ego, feed his desire for power and attention. Since entering politics, he has does nothing of note except draw a paycheck and look important.

If he had not been born into wealth, I expect that he would be the daytime manager of a downtown motel that rents rooms by the hour.

So if we were to have a "President Kerry" (ugh!) and the terrorists attacked, I expect him and his minions to do nothing, because that's been his pattern -- hot air and BS. Anything that gets done would be done by everyone else.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 1, 2004 at 12:46 AM

Harry in Atlanta Have you seen the names of Kerry's advisors? They'd be in a bigger tizzy than the time the tea cart was overturned in the faculty lounge...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 1, 2004 at 01:16 AM

Cut Hitch some slack. It's very difficult to be a contrarian when the polls are tied.

Posted by: Alex Vance at November 1, 2004 at 02:52 AM

re: Hitchens: "Christ, who's checking the green cards around here?" PJ O'Rourke

Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 1, 2004 at 03:19 AM

Harry in Atlanta. I'm with Richard and TRJ. Biden or Holbrooke as Sec of State. Some sunflower planter as Sec of Defense. Some form over subtance woman as NSA chief because she has Rice as her last name. What price to the country for a four year term? Even if we don't get hit in those four years the cost in lost time would still be agregious. The future defense projects that would come on board in 2015-2020 would be scraped or diminished. The loss of confidence by our allies in our ability to follow through on anything would be curbed. You can't count on Republicans to counter this. Too many Republicans and not enough conservatives. (paragraphs! We don't need any stinking paragraphs!)

Posted by: Yojimbo at November 1, 2004 at 06:10 AM

That's egregious. Sorry.

Posted by: YoJimbo at November 1, 2004 at 06:17 AM

I think what's really going on here is that Hitch has a deep, wicked desire to see the following scenario happen:

President Kerry: "So who will bid on the new widget project? It's important we get this right."
Advisor: "Halliburton."
PK: "Halliburton?!? Halliburton is evil! Halliburton is vile! The American people elected me President because they're tired of the old Halliburton policies of the past! Just because my predecessors were in the pocket of Halliburton doesn't mean that I am! Now, who else will be bidding?"
Advisor: "Halliburton."
PK: "I hate Halliburton! WHO ELSE?"
Advisor: "Halliburton."
PK: "But-"
PK: "What-"
Advisor: "Hal-li-bur-ton."
PK: (in a small voice) "There's no one else who can do the job?"
Advisor: "Well, there's Kellogg Brown & Root..."
Advisor: "...which is a unit of Halliburton."
PK: "sob"
Advisor: "Sorry, sir. The widgets are extremely specialized."
PK: "But what will Michael Moore say? Oh no..."

Posted by: mbesg at November 1, 2004 at 08:13 AM

Followup: David Horowitz is reporting that Hitchens intended his blurb at Slate to be in support of Bush, but that something got mixed up somehow. Horowitz got it from Ron Radosh, who got it via e-mail from Hitch.

Posted by: mbesg at November 1, 2004 at 11:08 AM