Hitch not just in favour of war, but now, apparently, also opposed to 'Massachusetts liberalism'
I must apologise: I had every intention when I started this blog to produce rapid-fire deconstructions of each of the late Christopher Hitchens' apostatic, pustular cooked meats that he considers to be columns and opinion pieces. However, the chubby sozzled Judas seems to be on vacation currently, his last piece that I can find being some barely readable contractual obligation meandering for The Mirror dribbling his approval of John Edwards. You will have to wait until he has returned from Fiji, or wherever it is that members of the Wednesday Morning Club go en vacances, for something more substantial.
An example, explaining why Edwards was a good choice:
"John Kerry's appeal doesn't carry very far, if at all, beyond the limits of his own party base.
"Massachusetts liberalism is not the style in huge swathes of the country. And especially not in the South, where the party last time failed to capture a state."
'Massachusetts liberalism'? 'Massachusetts liberalism'?! What, like single payer health care and proper funding of public education? Oh, I think that would play very well amongst 'huge swathes' of the country if any presidential candidate ever dared suggest such things, but Kerry is too much in hock to the Democratic Leadership Council to do anything of the sort.
Surely endorsing a pair of criminal, murderous wars does not also require signing up to the mythology that the United States is uniformly conservative outside Boston, New York and San Francisco. For Pete's sake, Nick Cohen may have lost his marbles over the war on terror, but he at least still manages to skewer PFI and other non-foreign policy New Labour fartings.
Or maybe Hitch is talking about gay marriage (wait, no, that can't be right - Kerry's opposed to that too). Nope. I'm at a loss. Exactly what godless commie position does Kerry hold that is a problem for the late Mr. Hitchens?