Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2638)

nikkibong 02-24-2009 03:25 PM

Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Damn, this feels good. Here, in the parlance of Mr. Sullivan, is the "money quote:"

Sullivan's outrage at my failure of transcription disguises a problem. It is that he is a hero-worshipper, but all his heroes do not go together. He reveres Reagan and he reveres Obama. That is to say, he admires conceptions of government that contradict each other.

No, no, no, Leon, don't you see? Andrew is a true conservative! If he believes it, it is automatically the conservative position!

To Andrew's liberal admirers, I suggest you go back to the Daily Dish archives from 2001/2003/2004. His thuggish hawkishness from the time was breathtaking. Don't forget he accused us of planning to mount a fifth column!

Why anyone respects this clown is beyond me. I cannot believe a magazine as serious as the Atlantic hosts his blog. Or perhaps the "face of the day" is just too stimulating to pass up?

bjkeefe 02-24-2009 04:40 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 104792)
To Andrew's liberal admirers, I suggest you go back to the Daily Dish archives from 2001/2003/2004. His thuggish hawkishness from the time was breathtaking. Don't forget he accused us of planning to mount a fifth column!

Why anyone respects this clown is beyond me. I cannot believe a magazine as serious as the Atlantic hosts his blog. Or perhaps the "face of the day" is just too stimulating to pass up?

As one of Andrew's liberal admirers, I'll say that I am (1) aware of his past work and stances, (2) appreciative that he changed his views and apologized so handsomely for what he had said earlier, (3) respectful without being reverent of him; i.e., I don't accept or agree with everything he says, (4) willing to believe anyone who posts 200 entries a week is going to make mistakes, (5) as much entertained as informed, (6) also happy for all the links and other writers he introduces me to, and (7) overall, delighted by his wit, intelligence, breadth, and find his mercurial nature engaging, if sometimes infuriating.

Oh, and (8) thrilled that someone who believes in God takes such a harsh view of the Christianists.

As to the Atlantic and its supposed standards, I have two words for you: Megan McArdle.

graz 02-24-2009 05:44 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 104800)
As one of Andrew's liberal admirers, I'll say that I am (1) aware of his past work and stances, (2) appreciative that he changed his views and apologized so handsomely for what he had said earlier, (3) respectful without being reverent of him; i.e., I don't accept or agree with everything he says, (4) willing to believe anyone who posts 200 entries a week is going to make mistakes, (5) as much entertained as informed, (6) also happy for all the links and other writers he introduces me to, and (7) overall, delighted by his wit, intelligence, breadth, and find his mercurial nature engaging, if sometimes infuriating.

Oh, and (8) thrilled that someone who believes in God takes such a harsh view of the Christianists.

As to the Atlantic and its supposed standards, I have two words for you: Megan McArdle.

Once again, Brendan articulates my answer to a question better and quicker than I ever could. But I keep hope alive!

An example of the reason why I find Sullivan interesting, is that he blogs about stuff I wonder about:
Such as the reason for the continued popularity of Mickey Kaus?

Exhibit A:
In 2001, Mickey Kaus's blog became devoted almost entirely to insinuating that Gary Condit was a murderer. Among the many, many sentences Mickey wrote on the subject - largely mocking any and all who questioned Condit's guilt - was the following:

Kausfiles' goal is to have no unpublished thoughts on the Chandra Levy story.

But since Condit was cleared, Kausfiles' thoughts are unaccountably private.

bjkeefe 02-24-2009 07:16 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 104805)
Once again, Brendan articulates my answer to a question better and quicker than I ever could. But I keep hope alive!

An example of the reason why I find Sullivan interesting, is that he blogs about stuff I wonder about:
Such as the reason for the continued popularity of Mickey Kaus?

Exhibit A:
In 2001, Mickey Kaus's blog became devoted almost entirely to insinuating that Gary Condit was a murderer. Among the many, many sentences Mickey wrote on the subject - largely mocking any and all who questioned Condit's guilt - was the following:

Kausfiles' goal is to have no unpublished thoughts on the Chandra Levy story.

But since Condit was cleared, Kausfiles' thoughts are unaccountably private.

Who needs to be quick off the draw when you come up with finds like that?

That's a major league Oh, snap!

Thanks for passing it along.

claymisher 02-25-2009 02:51 AM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Sullivan is a weird dude. I think more than anything he's gullible. He fell for the Iraq adventure, he fell for that nice G.W. Bush, he fell for Ron Paul, etc. He fell for The Bell Curve. Now he's dancing with the Austrian cultists.

Then there are those awful awards, which are a holdover from his 9/11 witchhunt days. Plus the Krugman hatred: "I have long found Paul Krugman an insufferably pompous, shrill, Bush-bashing pseudo-populist". At least he gave shrill to The Order of the Shrill.

I'm reminded of a comment on DeLong's site:

Quote:

Hoisted from Comments on "A Proposed Pecking Order for Honest Conservatives": A couple of points about Andy Sullivan:

I read him frequently he has improved, and perhaps enough to be counted an Honest Conservative but he is a lagging Truth-Teller, not a leading Truth-Teller. He eventually gets to the truth, but only after a year or two of sliming, denouncing, and ridiculing the leading Truth-Tellers so my main motivation for reading him is that disreputable pleasure known as Conversion Porn...

bjkeefe 02-25-2009 04:30 AM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 104838)
Sullivan is a weird dude. I think more than anything he's gullible. He fell for the Iraq adventure, he fell for that nice G.W. Bush, he fell for Ron Paul, etc. He fell for The Bell Curve. Now he's dancing with the Austrian cultists.

Then there are those awful awards, which are a holdover from his 9/11 witchhunt days. Plus the Krugman hatred: "I have long found Paul Krugman an insufferably pompous, shrill, Bush-bashing pseudo-populist". At least he gave shrill to The Order of the Shrill.

I'm reminded of a comment on DeLong's site:

Agree about Iraq and Bush. Don't remember him on The Bell Curve or Ron Paul, although the latter surprises me. Not to remember, I mean -- I was reading him regularly before Paul came to prominence.

I won't quibble about that, though. There is something to your charge -- that's what I meant by calling him mercurial in my last. Seems like everything with him is the worst ever or the best ever for about two weeks (Iraq/Bush, unfortunately, longer.) I also suspect he sometimes just tosses stuff out there to stir up the pot, or to air an idea out, or to show that he's edgy and/or intellectually pure enough to consider an idea that's emotionally distasteful. Or to use it as a cudgel, say, in the case of Paul versus every other guy running for the GOP nomination. Or, as I said earlier, if you post 200 times a week, odds are certain you're gonna say some dumb stuff.

"Lagging truth-teller" is a good line, and it may have the added advantage of being true. On the other hand, at least he gets there eventually, right? Compare Sullivan to that tiresome bunch at The Corner, still insisting that George W. Bush was a good president. I'd also say that when he eventually gets to the right place, his passion is rarely matched.

I also think he's sometimes ahead of the curve. He was the first self-described conservative I was aware of to come out strongly against Sarah Palin, for example. At a time when the MSM was still gushing over her, too. And while he took heat for fixating on the whose baby is it, really? question, I kind of liked that as a counterexample to all the craziness being hurled by the Cult of the COLB at Obama.

And speaking of Obama, he was ahead of the (right-leaning) pack on that one, too.

Maybe I'm being too charitable, but for all the reasons I listed before, I like him. And, to repeat for emphasis, I don't accept or agree with everything he says. I'll make no excuse for his being wrong about Krugman, for example.

P.S. As to the awards: you're right about some of them. A commenter on my blog just observed that specifically about the von Hoffman Award. I still think most of them work, though. In fact, looking at the list, I'd say all the rest still do. Arguably, Yglesias doesn't earn his eponymous award so much anymore, and I suppose one could prefer a different name than Moore for that one. But hey, if we can give out peace prizes named after the inventor of dynamite ...

nikkibong 02-25-2009 04:27 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 104838)
Then there are those awful awards,

The worst of these has got to be the Poseur Alert. Whenever prose is too sophisticated for Simple Sullivan to comprehend, he attacks the writer as a 'poseur.' This from a person, who in a hilarious display of both solipsism and false modesty, claims to be partially responsible for the Iraq War.

bjkeefe 02-28-2009 03:50 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
And Sullivan has the last laugh, and cattily (and I'm a total cat person, so that's a good thing) serves notice of it in an unrelated post:

Quote:

But more interesting: if you define MSM reponse to factual errors by, say, ten days (let's call the measurement a Wieseltier), then the WaPo took 0.9 of Wieseltier to respond to an obvious error.
Andrew, FTW.

nikkibong 03-09-2009 02:52 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
SULLIVAN SELF IMPORTANCE WATCH:

"But there are several factual errors, e.g. that I endorsed Bush in 2004, which I famously didn't,"

(italics mine)

bjkeefe 03-09-2009 07:52 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 106251)
SULLIVAN SELF IMPORTANCE WATCH:

"But there are several factual errors, e.g. that I endorsed Bush in 2004, which I famously didn't,"

(italics mine)

Play fair. Supply a link when you're quoting someone.

nikkibong 03-10-2009 01:00 AM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
sorry, forgot:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...wiki-bleg.html

bjkeefe 03-10-2009 01:45 AM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 106321)

Thanks.

I don't know that I'd call this a legitimate "self-importance watch" bust. He's a public figure, with a reputation to protect, and if it's important to him that he be known not to have voted for GWB in 2004, what's so bad about that? And you have to give him a couple of points for not linking to his own Wikipedia page. Is Ann Althouse self-important because she won't stop trumpeting that she voted for Obama? Okay, bad example. ;^)

You could more plausibly mock Sully for cluelessness about Wikipedia etiquette, especially the part where he wonders aloud about editing his own page. On the other hand, this could be seen as a clever way to get his loyal minions over there on the double. (FWIW, the page now shows him as a Kerry supporter in several places, and perhaps related, perhaps not, there have been a flurry of edits the past couple of days.)

You wanna see self-importance run amok? I still treasure this classic moment from the last campaign.

If you're wondering who that is, I say, first, "Exactly." And if the name seems familiar but the details won't come, I'll just say that she was among the more deranged of the B-list Hillarhoids during the primaries, realized her looming irrelevance as April turned into June, and leaped with obvious relief upon HRC's call to her supporters to throw their weight behind Obama. Note the post date -- four days after HRC's concession speech.

bjkeefe 03-10-2009 02:30 AM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
P.S.

Nikki:

Quote:

"But there are several factual errors, e.g. that I endorsed Bush in 2004, which I famously didn't,"

(italics mine)
I've had my attention called to the fact that you italicized famously, which I read right over originally. Is this what you meant by "self-importance?"

If so, eh, maybe. But it also seems to me that Sully's taken a boatload of grief for changing his tune on Bush, so I'd call that a legitimate use of the word on his part.

Lyle 03-10-2009 08:05 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
I've been a regular reader of Andrew Sullivan since 2000-2001, and he has done great harm to himself and his career in the last 3-4 years I think. He's all over the map these days politically, and he has never been totally honest about his move away from neo-conservatism to an anti-Bush (he's a war criminal), progressive, pro-Obama world view.

I like the guy. He's e-mailed me back bunches of times and even published one of my e-mails to him in his blog. However, he's no longer someone I find to be totally objective or to know exactly what he's talking about more than half the time. He even name calls people now and throws the term wingnut around like he's being totally objective. He's a journalistic disaster at the moment, in my opinion.

Although I continue to read him, I have lost a good bit of respect for him.

nikkibong 03-16-2009 12:59 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
A few contributions from the esteemed public "intellectual" and renowned "deep thinker" Andrew Sullivan today. Gosh, he's a modern day Cicero!

Shep Smith is the only "sane" person left at Fox News.

Stephen Baldwin is as "dumb as a post."

A post about - I'm not making this up - sneeze porn.

Brilliant! That's the kind of wisdom and deepthink that led a person to simultaneously endorse liberal Democrat Barack Obama, and rightwing lunatic conspiracy theorist and probable racist Ron Paul.

It's not hard to see what's in front of our nose: an incoherent hack. Cut him loose!

bjkeefe 03-16-2009 03:32 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 107028)
[...]

You're never going to make a case about supposed shallowness by cherry-picking three posts from a guy who puts up eight times that many items every day. Big deal, he passes along "caught my eye" kinds of items. It's a blog. And having a taste for silliness says nothing about one's intellect.

nikkibong 04-01-2009 06:46 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
SHOCKING LACK OF SELF AWARENESS WATCH:

Andrew Sullivan, writes today of the " shameless, unaccountable, relentless upward failure of the neocons in Washington."

My my, Sullivan has a point! Thank God this deep thinker, who supported Dubya in 2000, accused liberals of mounting a fifth column after 9/11, and flayed anyone who didn't support the Iraq war hasn't failed upward. I mean, it's not like someone with a track record like that would go from self-publishing, to being hosted at Time Magazine, to having his blog at one of the most prestigious mags in America, is it?

TwinSwords 04-01-2009 07:00 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 108836)
SHOCKING LACK OF SELF AWARENESS WATCH:

Andrew Sullivan, writes today of the " shameless, unaccountable, relentless upward failure of the neocons in Washington."

My my, Sullivan has a point!

LOL, maybe when Conn Carroll hears, he'll walk over to his bookshelf and throw away Sullivan's book, too. Oh, wait: that reactionary would never have bought Sullivan's book in the first place.


Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 108836)
Thank God this deep thinker, who supported Dubya in 2000, accused liberals of mounting a fifth column after 9/11, and flayed anyone who didn't support the Iraq war ...

And, don't forget, he was and remains an outspoken and aggressive proponet of the racist theory of Murray and Hernstein's The Bell Curve. In a post not too long ago, Sullivan pointed to the lack of widesread internet service in Africa as evidence of the genetic inferiority of black people.



Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 108836)
I mean, it's not like someone with a track record like that would go from self-publishing, to being hosted at Time Magazine, to having his blog at one of the most prestigious mags in America, is it?

LOL. Indeed. The village loves its idiots.

Bobby G 04-01-2009 07:05 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
I feel a bit odd saying this, considering how much I dislike Andrew Sullivan's style, but ...

Is there no point at which someone can forgive someone for what he says? Even when he makes a sincere apology, figures out where he went wrong, and devotes the rest of his effort to fighting against what he used to believe?

AemJeff 04-01-2009 07:10 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby G (Post 108844)
I feel a bit odd saying this, considering how much I dislike Andrew Sullivan's style, but ...

Is there no point at which someone can forgive someone for what he says? Even when he makes a sincere apology, figures out where he went wrong, and devotes the rest of his effort to fighting against what he used to believe?

That is an excellent question.

TwinSwords 04-01-2009 07:15 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby G (Post 108844)
I feel a bit odd saying this, considering how much I dislike Andrew Sullivan's style, but ...

Is there no point at which someone can forgive someone for what he says? Even when he makes a sincere apology, figures out where he went wrong, and devotes the rest of his effort to fighting against what he used to believe?

I feel conflicted about Sullivan. When he's not talking about Ron Paul or the genetic inferiority of black people, I love him. And there is no question that he's a Master Blogger. Agree or disagree, his blog is a constant source of interesting information.

I do think you can forgive people if they retract their previous positions -- and Sullivan has, with respect to Bush and the war and a bunch of other stuff.

For me, the problem is his continued advocacy of The Bell Curve.

nikkibong 04-01-2009 07:20 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
[QUOTE=TwinSwords;108850
For me, the problem is his continued advocacy of The Bell Curve.[/QUOTE]

There's that - and there's also the (to me, pretty unforgivable) fact that in the run-up the war, he constantly ascribed bad motives to war opponents. He made it personal and ugly, and I'm not going to forget that, now that he's had a "change of heart."

I rarely visit his blog anymore; contra to Twin Swords, I just think there's way too much crap on it. (Face of the day?! WTF?!)

bjkeefe 04-01-2009 07:21 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 108836)
SHOCKING LACK OF SELF AWARENESS WATCH:

Andrew Sullivan, writes today of the " shameless, unaccountable, relentless upward failure of the neocons in Washington."

My my, Sullivan has a point! Thank God this deep thinker, who supported Dubya in 2000, accused liberals of mounting a fifth column after 9/11, and flayed anyone who didn't support the Iraq war hasn't failed upward. I mean, it's not like someone with a track record like that would go from self-publishing, to being hosted at Time Magazine, to having his blog at one of the most prestigious mags in America, is it?

The difference is, unlike the wingnut welfare queens, Sullivan has earned his promotions. He's ranked #30 among all blogs on Technorati. According to Alexa, 56.7% of all visitors to theatlantic.com go to andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com, which means, according to Quantcast's data, that he alone is responsible for about 7 million page views per month.

Find something else to hurl at him. This won't fly.

Also, he realized and apologized handsomely for his errors, as I've pointed out before. Again, unlike the wingnut welfare queens.

Also, your link is broken. Here is the correct one.

Also, it wasn't him who wrote that line. He was quoting someone else.

Did you actually get anything right in your comment?

nikkibong 04-01-2009 07:25 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Actually, it was he who wrote the line I quoted. Check the link again.

Page views do not equal quality or integrity of intellect, either. Fox News is #1 in Cable News.

graz 04-01-2009 07:27 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 108853)
I rarely visit his blog anymore; contra to Twin Swords, I just think there's way too much crap on it. (Face of the day?! WTF?!)

What's wrong with face of the day?

Didn't you just post this?:
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...5&postcount=18

bjkeefe 04-01-2009 07:32 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 108855)
Actually, it was he who wrote the line I quoted. Check the link again.

Oops. Right you are. So you're 1 out of whatever, instead of 0, for that last post.

Quote:

Page views do not equal quality or integrity of intellect, either. Fox News is #1 in Cable News.
That wasn't your original point. You were saying he was undeserving in his promotions. I say that he is. Those data show that he makes money for those who hire him. I would not say that Fox News has not earned its market share, no matter what I think of the quality of their content.

As to "quality or integrity of intellect," it's largely a matter of opinion. You don't think he has it, I do, the end.

TwinSwords 04-01-2009 07:54 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 108853)
There's that - and there's also the (to me, pretty unforgivable) fact that in the run-up the war, he constantly ascribed bad motives to war opponents. He made it personal and ugly, and I'm not going to forget that, now that he's had a "change of heart."

Good point. I agree. I'm sick of being called a traitor by the right. And now that the Democrats have taken back power in Washington, we have wingnuts contemplating revolution because they feel the country is in the hands of a foreign enemy. The rightwing mind is a bizarre, frightening thing. (Note for sensitive people or idiots: I'm employing a bit of hyperbole.)


Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 108853)
I rarely visit his blog anymore; contra to Twin Swords, I just think there's way too much crap on it. (Face of the day?! WTF?!)

Face of the day? I enjoy that. It's photography -- and art. I like art. I like photography. I like his View from your Window, too. It's awesome getting to see all those snapshots from around the world.

graz 04-01-2009 07:57 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 108861)
Face of the day? I enjoy that. It's photography -- and art. I like art. I like photography. I like his View from your Window, too. It's awesome getting to see all those snapshots from around the world.

Agreed. And he has some awesome links to video art.

TwinSwords 04-01-2009 07:57 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 108854)
Also, it wasn't him who wrote that line. He was quoting someone else.

Who was he quoting? Why didn't he put it in quotes? (Or a blockquote?)

Update: Nevermind.

TwinSwords 04-01-2009 08:00 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 108858)
As to "quality or integrity of intellect," it's largely a matter of opinion. You don't think he has it, I do, the end.

LOL. Peevish much? http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...milies/lol.gif

bjkeefe 04-01-2009 08:03 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 108861)
Face of the day? I enjoy that. It's photography -- and art. I like art. I like photography. I like his View from your Window, too. It's awesome getting to see all those snapshots from around the world.

I do, too. I love looking at pictures of people's faces.

graz 04-01-2009 08:12 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 108866)
I do, too. I love looking at pictures of people's faces.

But that doesn't include yours on the Apollo project... keep the myth alive.

TwinSwords 04-01-2009 08:13 PM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 108866)
I do, too. I love looking at pictures of people's faces.

Exactly. You're right: they're pictures of people, and therefore inherently interesting. So face of the day is good for three reasons:

-- photography
-- art
-- people

nikkibong 06-22-2009 05:58 AM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Yep; hes still an idiot:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...different.html

Look; I am completely sympathetic to the Iranian protesters, but comparing them to holocaust victims is lunatic and offensive. And acting as though Anne Frank has anything in common with "twittering" is, again, so insanely stupid as to defy belief.

Just like Sullivan's continued presence at the Atlantic.

claymisher 06-23-2009 01:31 AM

Re: Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 117264)
Yep; hes still an idiot:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...different.html

Look; I am completely sympathetic to the Iranian protesters, but comparing them to holocaust victims is lunatic and offensive. And acting as though Anne Frank has anything in common with "twittering" is, again, so insanely stupid as to defy belief.

Just like Sullivan's continued presence at the Atlantic.

He is excitable! I remember Sully comparing Tony Blair to Winston Churchill back when he was warblogging.

nikkibong 09-28-2009 01:39 PM

LMAO
 
Simple Sully's past keeps coming back to haunt him.

Today, James Fallows, when discussing the nauseating right-wing demagauge Betsy McCaughey, was forced to concede this:

(For the record: Yes, I am aware that my friend and current Atlantic colleague Andrew Sullivan, who was then TNR's editor, is the one who decided to publish this article. In the 15 years since the article's appearance, the magazine and its writers have, to their credit, repeatedly pointed out its errors and apologized for spreading its misinformation. Mickey Kaus was doing so immediately after the article's embarrassing selection for a National Magazine Award for "Excellence in Public Interest." Jonathan Cohn, author of the indispensable book Sick, did so early this year. The TNR site has a "link" to the original McCaughey piece, but it's not connected to the article itself.)

Boy, Andrew must find himself having to do a lot of repenting, eh?

Whatfur 09-28-2009 01:57 PM

Re: LMAO
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 131627)
... was forced to concede this:

Not sure you had to go back 15 years to sully sully. Of course, you might if you want to make sure the sully pointed right and not left.

nikkibong 09-28-2009 02:03 PM

Re: LMAO
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 131632)
Not sure you had to go back 15 years to sully sully. Of course, you might if you want to make sure the sully pointed right and not left.

It's not a matter of his being "right," "left" or whatever. I will concede that he's closer to my "side" now than he used to be.

His current orientation (of the political kind!) doesn't change the quality, or clarity of his thought. He was overemotional and unreflective when he was a right winger, and he's overemotional and unreflective now that he's a leftwinger.

He's kept the same bad habits all along: rushing to judgment, vilifying his opponents with unmatched zeal, being a complete and utter hysteric.

Oh, and through it all, he's fought for the rights of white people to call black people stupid.

Whatfur 09-28-2009 03:24 PM

Re: LMAO
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 131635)
It's not a matter of his being "right," "left" or whatever. I will concede that he's closer to my "side" now than he used to be.
...

In this light, I will then concede that my post lacked a point and that we are in agreement with the rest.

bjkeefe 09-28-2009 03:28 PM

Re: LMAO
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 131627)
[...] Today, James Fallows ... [...]

Your peculiar obsession with Andrew Sullivan notwithstanding, thanks for the link to the Fallows piece. That one is worth reading, as is his link to Tim Dickinson's piece in Rolling Stone, "The Lie Machine." I highly recommend the latter to anyone not familiar with the right wing's Astroturfing organizations, their close connections with senior Republican officials, and how they work to stir up "the base."

Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

Far from representing a spontaneous upwelling of populist rage, the protests were tightly orchestrated from the top down by corporate-funded front groups as well as top lobbyists for the health care industry. Call it the return of the Karl Rove playbook: The effort to mobilize the angriest fringe of the Republican base was guided by a conservative dream team that included the same GOP henchmen who Swift-boated John Kerry in 2004, smeared John McCain in 2000, wrote the script for Republican obstructionism on global warming, and harpooned the health care reform effort led by Hillary Clinton in 1993.

"The insurance industry is up to the same dirty tricks, using the same devious PR practices it has used for many years, to kill reform," says Wendell Potter, who stepped down last year as chief of corporate communications for health insurance giant CIGNA. "I'm certain that people showing up at these town halls feel that they're there on their own but they don't realize they're being incited, ultimately, by the insurance industry and the other special interests."

Behind the scenes, top Republicans including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Minority Leader John Boehner and the chairman of the GOP's Senate steering committee, Jim DeMint worked hand-in-glove with the organizers of the town brawls. Their goal was not only to block health care reform but to bankrupt President Obama's political capital before he could move on to other key items on his agenda, including curbing climate change and expanding labor rights. As DeMint told an August teleconference of nearly 20,000 town-hall activists, "If we can stop him on this, the administration won't be able to go on to cap and trade, card check and the other things they want to do."
The article goes on to document many specific players and their funding sources. As I say, well worth the read.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.