Why is Friedman such a tool? Todays NYT op-ed

[edhopper]

Thom Friedman in today's NY Times
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/opinion/03friedman.html?hp
Sorry it's Times Select.
He makes some valid points and does a good job criticizing current energy policy, but then says this;
Seriously, there is something really disturbing about the utterly shameless, utterly over-the-top Republican pandering and Democratic point-scoring that have been masquerading as governing in response to this energy crisis. The Republicans are worse, because they control all the levers of power and could move the country if they proposed a serious energy policy — but won't.

"We used to say the system is broken because it won't respond until there is a crisis," said David Rothkopf, author of "Running the World," a history of U.S. foreign policy. But now it's really broken, "because the system can't even respond to a crisis!"

What to do? I'm hoping for a third party. The situation is ripe for one: America is facing a challenge as big as the cold war — how we satisfy our long-term energy needs, at reasonable prices, while decreasing our dependence on oil and the bad governments that export it — and neither major party will offer a solution, because it requires sacrifice today for gain tomorrow.

I wrote this in response on the Times website.

Mr. Friedman,
I agree with your stand on environmental issues and energy policy. But about the need for a third party.
Were you awake during the 2000 and 2004 elections? Did you see no difference between Al Gore ("Earth in the Balance",“An Inconvenient Truth,”) and G W Bush.
Do you really think we would be in thew same situation today if either Gore or Kerry had been elected?
Do you truly believe that Bruce Babbette was the same as Gale Ann Norton?
Instead of trotting out the old "both parties are the same" canard, maybe you should review where the Democrats stand on the issue and compare that to the mess the Republicans have made.

[Demeter]

1. Friedman Can't Handle Reality

He can see Reality, report accurately on Reality, but he really can't respond to it other than to close his eyes and whisper: "I DO believe in fairies, I do, I do!"

[MADem]

2. Because he has ALWAYS been a tool

I can't help but observe that he often reverses direction, yet claims he was right all along.

He loves himself. I certainly don't share his view.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. That's the truth. Always was a tool....

[Downtown Hound]

5. So very true

That's probably the best description I've ever heard of Friedman. He'll champion something such as the Iraq War to no end and lambast it's critics, until even he can't ignore the reality of it anymore and then he finally starts criticizing the Bush administration (at least in terms of how it waged the war, not the idea of going to war at all). But does he ever stop to admit he was wrong? Nope. He still takes the high road and talks down to all of those people who were in fact right as though they are his intellectual inferiors.

[Inland]

4. It was, indeed, a particularly stupid column.

But then again, I never did think much of third party ideas, just as Friedman doesn't think much of democrats.