Sullivan calls the election an endorsement of the tax cut

· long story short

I guess even when his team is winning the spin never ends: In his Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan slips in “…for the tax cuts” as presumably one of the motivating factors that led the electorate to give Bush both houses of Congress. I don’t see it. Where’s the evidence?
Similary, the nonstop attacks of Krugman continue in that same column. I’ve noticed that the right-wing pundits and warbloggers tend to (1) complain that Krugman is obsessed or nasty, or (2) try to discredit him based on technical errors or with the he-consulted-for-Entron smear. What they don’t do is engage him on the substance of his columns, and they surely don’t understand that to many he is voicing a fair self-evident sanity check based on real numbers and a coherent interpretation of rhetoric vs. action on the part of the administration.
When I see some refutations of his main points, I will be more impressed with the campaign against him. Is it really true that the supporters of the president cannot stand to see even a single voice opposed to him? Hitchens said that Krugman represented the totality of the Democratic opposition to Bush, and sadly this is the truth.