A serious matter for debate

Patterico checks into comments to dispute my characterization of one of his posts. I believe we've reached the point where must agree to disagree. Read it for yourself and decide. I stand by my words.

He hurls the label partisan at me, as an insult. I've already covered this previously. Yeah, I'm partisan, Patterico is partisan, we're all partisan on this bus. So what? This ploy of turning an argument aside with outraged denials and name calling wears thin.

In this trivial squabble it doesn't matter, but it does bring up a bigger point because this is same tactic used over and over by the Bush bloggers. Rather than refute our evidence, they dismiss any challenge to their thinking as "the left" seeking only to score partisan points, and thus unworthy of serious debate. Obsidian Wings addresses this in a post today. [via Jack Grant]

This is important. If all criticism of the administration were out of bounds, we would have no way of registering any of its failures. And people who dismiss all criticism as scoring political points prevent themselves from any serious examination of this administration's record. By conflating people who believe the administration has fallen short because they take every opportunity to slam George Bush with people who hold the same belief because they have examined the evidence and concluded that it is true, they spare themselves the trouble of actually thinking about George Bush's record, or about the possibility that some of his critics might be right.

Indeed. One hopes it won't take finding themselves on a sidewalk holding their dying, dehydrated baby, for the Bush loyalists to admit the possibility they might be wrong.