Originally Posted by Piobaire
Pretty easy. You do not have to refer to anyone specifically (your strawman) when the general tone of the public conversation happens to be, "Is Bush too religious."
So, just to clarify, "the left" didn't "slam Bush for praying," the "general tone of the public conversation" concerned "Bush's religiosity"?
For instance, if one were to write an article today concerning Obama and whether or not he's a Muslim, one would not have to level any particular charge but rather the reader (unless he was deficient or playing "miloz" on the Netwebs) would understand that within today's public conversation there are certain fringe elements making this accusation.
Okay, so slamming Bush for praying is the 'fringe equivalent' of arguing that Obama is a Muslim?
Why was "the left" accused of "slamming Bush" then, rather than a 'fringe element.' A fringe element can be accused of anything, so it's fairly irrelevant - there are fringe elements on the left who still think Mao had it right, and fringe elements on the right who think Hitler did.
But let's take your claim a step further - the 'fringe element' you're referring to actually comprises between a quarter and a third of Republicans (per Pew, etc.).
Rather than make weak references to the "liberal blogosphere" (of 2004 lol) and the "public conversation," find the equivalent number of Democrats who "slammed Bush for praying."
So now, let us go back to 2004. While you scoffed at that date for some reason
Because the "liberal blogosphere" was irrelevant (in many cases, non-existent) in 2004. You had KOS. Wonkette was less than a year old and basically political gossip, HuffPo didn't even exist yet, media sources hadn't initiated blogs for their columnists and writers, yada yada yada.
Your reach to make accusations about the 'liberal blogosphere' just highlights the absurdity of your use of that article to defend your argument.
the date is important because at that time, part of the general public conversation were accusations that Bush was "too religious."
Where are these accusations?
(ps, you realize The Economist isn't an American magazine, right?)