It’s funny to read utter bullshit by otherwise intelligent people. Ed Koch, the former Democratic mayor of NYC, has an editorial on NewsMax claiming that he’s supporting Bush because of the Bush doctrine. The bullshit? Well, reading this article, you’d think that Dean won the Democratic primary:

“However, you are misinformed on my position as to why I support President Bush for reelection. I support him because of the Bush Doctrine, “we will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them.” He has demonstrated that he means it by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, both threats to their regions and to the U.S. I do not believe that the Democratic Party, which is now dominated by those who preferred Governor Dean for president, but decided he could not win, has the stomach to take on worldwide terrorism. Indeed, a New York Times-CBS poll of the delegates at the Boston Convention demonstrated their opposition to John Kerry’s position which is not to get out of Iraq now. It is the party activists who the candidate has to rely on to get elected and whose positions generally prevail. [emphasis added]

Look, people didn’t vote against Howard Dean, they voted for the guy they wanted. I don’t think Dean won even one state or had a strong showing in more than 2 or 3. I’m tired of reading this “radical-left”, “liberal” nonsense without any sort of appreciation for the facts involved. Edwards and Kerry are more moderate than Republicans are comfortable admitting, and Dean is yet further to the RIGHT of both Edwards and Kerry. Just look at their published positions on various issues. It’s ridiculously unfair to call the core supporters of Kerry/Edwards or Dean “radical left” anythings. I would consider the core supporters of the Bush doctrine (the denizens of FreeRepublic.com, for example) to be more exemplary of “radical” people.

I also found this amusing:

Does anyone seriously believe that Kerry saw the offending reference for the first time when he delivered that major speech? A major speech on foreign policy would have been vetted and practiced by the candidate and his advisers a dozen times before delivery. Does anyone believe that if he disagreed with a statement in that speech, he would not have deleted it? Does anyone believe that while disagreeing with the statement, he delivered it anyway, thinking there would be less damage than if he removed it?

I’d consider the State of the Union address to be a “major speech on foreign policy,” yet we had George Tenet saying those “sixteen words” shouldn’t have been in the speech. I wonder what Koch thought of that?

Update: per a discussion with Doug, I feel like ought to clarify that I’m not calling everything Koch wrote “utter bullshit” but instead focusing on his attempts to portray Democratic voters (e.g. me) as “Deaniacs.” In the end, I was simply pointing out that Koch uses his decision to support Bush as an opportunity to attack Kerry rather than an opportunity to promote his candidate, Bush.