The Omnibus Anti-Sully Post

Commenter Carbon Dated sent in this all-encompassing Sully smackdown, detailing his greatest hits (like being in bed with the smoking lobby, printing a pack of lies to help put a torpedo into Hillarycare). I thought this little snippet was telling:

Even after his own magazine recanted the article, in 2007, Sullivan, while admitting “I was aware of the piece’s flaws but nonetheless was comfortable running it as a provocation,” defended his failure, and the catastrophic conseconsequences to millions of Americans, with all the aggressive conviction of a sociopath:

I think the magazine’s refusal to be mau-maued by the Clintons at the time – and Hillary was threatening blue murder against anyone who so much as dared to criticize her – is a feather in the magazine’s cap. We weren’t “out to get the Clintons.” Some of us – well, two of us – were merely worried that America’s excellent private healthcare system would be hobbled by too much government regulation. I am glad we helped head off the Clinton-Magaziner behemoth. Proud, actually.

Justifying his fuckups as “provocations” is weak sauce, and it’s part of the reason I’ve sworn the guy off.

231 replies
  1. 1
    Yutsano says:

    Jeebus. Can we just lock him behind his paywall and move on with our lives? Oh and fuck you Sully: you’d be DEAD if not for the NHS.

  2. 2
    Suffern ACE says:

    What is blue murder? Is that where she gets you so mad you just hold your breath and die?

  3. 3
    Schlemizel says:

    I mentioned this a few days ago in a thread where people were going off the deep end about Greenwald. I do not understand why people cannot forgive GG his failings when he is very much on our side on so many topics but they luvs them some Sully who is so not on our side & so often wrong.

  4. 4

    @Yutsano:

    My thoughts exactly.

  5. 5
    Linda Featheringill says:

    I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that all the times I’ve been wrong I was just trying to be provocative.

  6. 6
    eric says:

    i remember when my daughter first said to me “poop smells” and I said “why, yes; yes, it does.” well, mistermix, “yes it does. Always has, and always will. That is the nature of poop.”

  7. 7
    Cassidy says:

    @Linda Featheringill: I thought in Sully’s world that “provocative” meant dressing like a slut and asking for it?

  8. 8
    PeakVT says:

    Balloon Juice has been trying to move on from Sullivan for five fucking years now. Will this be the year? /clasps hands, looks skywards

  9. 9
    Raven says:

    Well Tweety thinks he’s dreamy. So there.

  10. 10
    Face says:

    His writings are not intended to be factual statements.

    Couldn’t have happened to a bigger prick.

  11. 11
    Donut says:

    I still think people give him far too much credit for being “influential” in the digital age. I honestly don’t know if he can make it if people have to pay to read his drivel.

    One of the greatest ironies in his pride at supposedly destroying single payer health care is that, if we are to give him credit for that, is the fact that we’ve added untold amounts of dollars to our debt since the 90s. The debt that he purports to care so much about might not be so large.

    He’s just a hypocritical sociopath. Nothing new there.

  12. 12
    Punchy says:

    Can we ask DougJ what he thinks Sullivan thinks of Sully?

  13. 13
    Linda Featheringill says:

    @Cassidy:
    Do you think I’m sexy? I’m wrong about all kinds of stuff. Come on. You know you want me.

    To tell the truth, I’ve never tried that line. :-)

  14. 14
    Carbon Dated says:

    Master Sullivan is indeed provocative. He provoked Mark Ames to use the word “rancid” three times in a single tirade.

  15. 15
    liberal says:

    Of course, his biggest sin was popularizing the heinous, anti-scientific _The Bell Curve_.

  16. 16
    MattF says:

    I haven’t so much sworn off as gradually crossed off various topics on a list of ‘things Sullivan isn’t dumb about.’ He’s an inviting writer, but in the end, the subject inevitably turns out to be a specific individual named Andrew Sullivan; maybe that’s just a coincidence but I doubt it. Nowadays, if I want to read an opinion from a not-too-crazy conservative, there’s Larison or Frum.

  17. 17
    Handy says:

    No need to “smack down” Sully, he does that so well on his own. :)

  18. 18
    Scott S. says:

    What bugs me about the “I wasn’t lying, I was just being provocative” crap is that he’s not the outlier — just about every other big media pundit does the same damn thing.

  19. 19
    AxelFoley says:

    @PeakVT:

    Balloon Juice has been trying to move on from Sullivan for five fucking years now. Will this be the year? /clasps hands, looks skywards

    Well, he’s on the Blogs We Monitor And Mock As Needed list (for now).

    See, Schlemizel, even your precious Greenwald isn’t on that list, even though he should be.

  20. 20
    PeakVT says:

    @Punchy: Dug Jay will never quit Sully.

    Also, too: dude’s got issues.

  21. 21
    Cassidy says:

    @Linda Featheringill: Supposedly, us men don’t need lines as we’re just animal savages waiting to hump the leg of anything vaguely female, so women should dress appropriately and keep aspirins between their legs and shut up, that’s why.

  22. 22
    Marc says:

    A healthy political movement embraces converts. The urge to excommunicate someone like Sullivan is quite strong for some, and I don’t understand it. He is very good on some topics. He is very wrong on others. But he is worth reading on a pretty wide range of subjects.

  23. 23
    Marc says:

    @AxelFoley:

    I’d prefer a special “enraged propaganda” category just for Glenn.

  24. 24
    Jeremy says:

    @Donut: Well the Clinton healthcare plan was not a single payer plan but him taking pride in preventing universal healthcare is sad.

  25. 25
    jeffreyw says:

    Jeebus! Throw him under the omnibus, already.

  26. 26
    SenyorDave says:

    @MattF: Larison is a proud member of the League of the South, which appears to be a bunch of embittered old white guys longing for the good old days of the confederacy when they could sit around and drink mint juleps served by a fetching slave girl.

    Being a member of this organization speaks for itself.

  27. 27
    Cassidy says:

    @Marc: Because his “conversion” has nothing to do with any kind of progressive belief or re-evaluation of principles, but only what fits in the category of “what makes Sully’s life uncomfortable” and the things he hasn’t “converted” on are policies that are extremely damaging to millions of people in this country, which is kind of sick as it doesn’t make Sully uncomfortable.

  28. 28
    MattF says:

    @SenyorDave: Yeah, I know, and I don’t like it. But compared to the dead-end nihilism we see from the winger ‘mainstream’, it’s quaint rather than menacing. IMO, needless to say.

  29. 29
    Punchy says:

    Rocky is hanging up his Senate speed-bag. Seems like that’ll be a loss for the Dems.

  30. 30
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Schlemizel: Sorry, mate, I am willing to bet that large number of people are not fans of either. I am not sure that Greenwald is on my side on a wide variety of issues. He is a civil libertarian polemicist and has some value as such. Sully is pretty much a useless git who occasionally gets something right. Honestly, I have very little time for either.

  31. 31
    Marc says:

    @Cassidy:

    I get the same sense about his motives on the road to Damascus as you do. But the Republicans are extremely destructive. If it takes self-interested people to help bring them down I’m OK with that.

  32. 32
    Violet says:

    @Yutsano:

    Jeebus. Can we just lock him behind his paywall and move on with our lives? Oh and fuck you Sully: you’d be DEAD if not for the NHS.

    Is this actually true? Did the NHS treat him for his HIV? I thought he was here at the time. Or are you speaking of some illness he had prior to leaving the UK?

  33. 33
    Alexandra says:

    From a UK perspective, one of the more interesting things (to me) that I’ve noticed over the past year or so with Andrew Sullivan, is that he’s no longer praising the Tories, whose austerity programme he championed. He’s had very little to say about UK politics for some time… down the memory hole, like so much else.

  34. 34
    negative 1 says:

    @Schlemizel: Because people (including myself) think that Greenwald is disingenuous. I don’t want to get in a fight about every post the guy has written, I think he’s talented and very effectively backs up his points. However, he also pretends there is no other argument to be made but his when there usually is. For instance – regarding Osama bin Laden http://www.salon.com/2011/05/02/bin_laden_12/ he very effectively detailed the case for why the rule of law should matter. It’s the topic on which he blogs, so no one should expect any other response, and it’s a good argument. He also details the legality of using force in the situation. However that’s called a ‘legality’ and he peers into his crystal ball to tell us that ‘it will be ignored’. He also then goes the extra mile to start capitalizing arguments others would use against him to point out that if you disagree with him you are a victim of ‘the big lie’.
    Greenwald appears in the dictionary next to the entry on purity troll. Have you ever heard him propose a solution, or just argue against something? Has he ever been able to argue a point without belittling anyone who disagrees with him? I realize I sited only one example and extrapolated, but I believe the example to be very representative.

  35. 35
    raven says:

    “Blue Murder” is a good, if not phenomenal, British police series which ran from 2003 to 2009 (5 seasons all in all). The main character is Detective Chief Inspector Janine Lewis, of the Manchester Police, who has a messy home life (separated from her husband, she’s raising her 4 kids on her own) and a busy career (she is in charge of murder investigations).

  36. 36
    TXG1112 says:

    Sullivan has interesting things to say about art and culture but is basically useless for actual policy discussions. Like many things in life, as long as you have appropriate expectations you wont be disappointed.

  37. 37
    Violet says:

    @MattF:

    Nowadays, if I want to read an opinion from a not-too-crazy conservative, there’s Larison or Frum.

    Frum voted for Romney. Although Sullivan can’t vote, he endorsed Obama twice. If he could have voted, I wouldn’t that mean he’d vote for Obama? Voting for Romney seems to put Frum far outside the “not-too-crazy” category.

  38. 38
    catclub says:

    @Violet: people are complicated. Frum can actually add and subtract (see his analysis of the Ryan budgets versus Sully’s math free praise for seriousness at the start. I assume later Sully blamed Ryan for Sully’s idiocy) Yet he votes for Romney.

  39. 39
    raven says:

    Why this asshole rates thread after fucking thread is beyond me. Never hoid of da bum.

  40. 40
    PeakVT says:

    Frum and Larison qualify as not-crazy because the bar has to be set very low so at least a few conservatives can get over it.

  41. 41
    MattF says:

    @Violet: Frum is a partisan, and has never pretended to be anything but a partisan– as he points out himself, he wrote book praising GWB. So, reading his stuff often raises my blood pressure and makes my head hurt, and when I start to hear that buzzing sound, I stop. That said, he’s a long way from, e.g., the coterie at the National Review, and has smart things to say about the dilemmas faced by conservatives.

  42. 42
    quannlace says:

    Justifying his fuckups as “provocations”

    I am so sick of ‘pundits’ using this excuse when they’re called out on their outright lies and viciousness. Coulter’s fallen back on that as well. Nothing but baldfaced cowardice.

  43. 43
    onlymike says:

    Oh how i wish i had time to read this post and the comments but OT: I was at the va hospital this morning (there’s a shuttle from the shelter) and realized that the paperwork i needed was in a notebook that I had left in the apt while packing up yesterday. I was making phone calls setting up apptmnts and calling about the cats. I have to make a decision about the cats – I’m pretty sure I can get them into a place that will keep them for up to 90 days – but I’m not sure I will be ready to get them in 90 days. Apparently I’m even more messed up than I realized (boy is that going some.) I’ve been advised not to seek employment until i’ve been in treatment for at least 30 days and I’m not actually in treatment yet. Will I be ready in enough time? will I have my own place? Will I find a place that takes cats? I have to talk to my caseworker and get an honest assessment of my prospects… They may be better off adopted which was what I thought to start with. Anyway, I got the noteb0ok and am heading back to the VA hospital. Will be back here this afternoon and should be here til 6:30pm again – still don’t know who was here the other day. Things should stabilize next week and hopefully I’ll be able to catch up on balloon juice and find out things – I think I’ll be able to use my laptop in the VA library. Anyway, again i’ll be back this afternoon (probably around 2 until 6:30 – whoever was here…)

  44. 44
    IM says:

    and it’s part of the reason I’ve sworn the guy off.

    Sure, you can quit any time you want!

  45. 45
    raven says:

    @onlymike: @onlymike: Hang tough bro!

  46. 46
    eemom says:

    The Omnibus Anti-Sully Post

    I thought this was pretty cool, till I thought how much cooler it would be if the words LAST FUCKING EVER were substituted for omnibus. Then I thought how even cooler it would be if people on this blog didn’t spend their lives obsessing over the masturbatory utterances of an overgrown British schoolboy of whose existence nobody outside the blogosphere knows or gives a shit about. Then I thought how ever COOLER it would be if I didn’t spend my time hanging out at a blog where….

  47. 47

    @raven:

    The saying is a lot older than that. It is generally used in the context of “she was screaming blue murder at him” also “bloody murder” is used. I am not sure where the saying comes from and I am too lazy to look it up right now.

    Never mind, it didn’t take that long

    http://english.stackexchange.c.....lue-murder

  48. 48
    Butch says:

    I’ve gotten really, really tired of people who print nonsense and then excuse it as “provocative” or “trying to evoke a discussion” or similar.

  49. 49
    eemom says:

    @onlymike:

    Did you see the response from Rome Again to your post earlier this week?? She lives in Phoenix and she was going to try to help you, and included her e-mail address, here.

  50. 50
    Raven says:

    @Litlebritdifrnt: The only reason I posted it is that I was looking at the cast of the Forsyte Saga and one of the actresses was in it. Otherwise I never heard of it.

  51. 51
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Butch: I see a difference between people whose intent from the beginning is to provoke and those who claim that mantle retroactively to cover up idiocy.

  52. 52
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @onlymike: Hang in there, sending you good thoughts {{{{onlymike}}}}. I hope you can keep your kittehs and things work out. Good luck!

  53. 53
    schrodinger's cat says:

    How long till he signs up with Atlantic or some other publication again? I give him six months.

  54. 54
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: I don’t know why The Atlantic would want him back. They just shed him and McMegan- it has to improve their credibility, yes?

  55. 55
    handsmile says:

    @Yutsano: , @Schlemizel:

    Not sure which number I am in the queue of respective agreement, but YES! to every single word, space, and punctuation mark of your comments.

    Also too, the need to find and validate a “reasonable conservative pundit” (e.g, Frum or Larison [?!]) seems to me analogous to the Village media’s obsessive/compulsive disorder to claim and anoint the next GOP Jesus.

    Chris Christie is but the latest to be fitted with that halo, and on Joe Scarborough’s frat house this morning, Bobby Jindal (Bobby Jindal!) was being discussed as a miracle-worker as well.

  56. 56
    scav says:

    Even the best-off Americans – those who have health insurance, a college education, a high income and healthy behaviour – are sicker than their peers in comparable countries, says the report by the US National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine

    Americans are sicker and die younger based on data from the late 1990s to 2008. So let’s hear it again for Sully’s “provocative” vision of an “excellent private heathcare system”!

    (evidence would suggest that as the system has us spending the most per capita on it, tnen unless he’s gleefully unhinged, therein lies the true beating heart of his metric. Because, oh looky! among all the other mere human debris, the US has the second highest HIV rate and the highest incidence of Aids among the 17 countries.)

  57. 57
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: OK then may be he can join Time, they have Halperin, so credibility can’t be all that important to them, right?

  58. 58
    Violet says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: I give it about 18 months. People are signing up with their membership thing for a year. So he’s good for a year. He’s got to start shilling for money in a year. If he doesn’t get enough, he’ll keep begging and try to hang on. He can probably do that for about six months. So, 18 months.

  59. 59
    RobNYNY1957 says:

    I’ve despised him since his 1988 THR article about gay imagery in advertising, a piece dripping with (internalized, it turns out) homophobia. If you have a TNR subscription, it can be found in the online archive under the title “Flogging Underwear.”

  60. 60
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Works for me. The Atlantic is the kind of magazine I want to like, but their connection with fools made it hard.

  61. 61
    Barry says:

    @PeakVT: “Balloon Juice has been trying to move on from Sullivan for five fucking years now. Will this be the year? /clasps hands, looks skywards ”

    No, because he doesn’t go away. He’s one of those Permanent Pundits who can *never*[1] be wrong enough to be disgraced out of his profession. That’s the whole freakin’ point of that original article, that Sullivan has committed enough crimes against his profession to be cast out in disgrace, if his profession ever had any ethical code at all.

    [1] There actually is one way in which a Permanent Pundit can lose their job – going left-liberal.

  62. 62
    RobNYNY1957 says:

    I’ve despised him since his 1988 THR article about gay imagery in advertising, a piece dripping with (internalized, it turns out) homophobia. If you have a TNR subscription, it can be found in the online archive under the title “Flogging Underwear,” January 18 edition.

    I got a letter to the editor published in response:

    Andrew Sullivan certainly is difficult to
    please. In his article on eroticism in advertising
    (“Flogging Underwear,” January
    18), he criticizes one advertisement
    for lacking passion, another for using the
    word “passion.” He never explains what
    the use of bodies as sculptural elements
    in connection with bold structures has to
    do with Nazi philosophy, except that
    any photo he doesn’t like gets branded
    as “fascist.” The use of bold colors is
    reminiscent of “totalitarian propaganda,”
    but the use of black and white
    is “fascist-realist” and “proto-fascist.”
    Poor Bruce Weber is scorned for being
    too much like Avedon and Penn, but
    also for not being enough like them.
    But Sullivan goes beyond that. First,
    he announces that a lot of ads are homoerotic.
    Fathers, sons, and businessmen
    (by implication straight), he says, have
    been supplanted by gay male images.
    Then he culminates this discussion with
    examples of ads showing heterosexual
    rape and child abuse. At best, this is a
    non sequitur. But I suspect that it is no
    more than an implicit bigotry that puts
    same-sex orientation on the same level
    with rape and child molestation.

  63. 63
    Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937 says:

    Sullivan is a drama queen. He was probably in love with Bill Clinton and jealous of Hillary.

  64. 64
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Violet: OK so we have a range between 6 months and a year and a half. I think he will find that taking care of the admin stuff is not all that fun, and he will go back to a cushy gig which takes care of all the drudgery. BTW does anyone know if he is going to allow comments?

  65. 65
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Don’t they still hold the pseudo intellectual Aspens Ideas festival which gives a platform to dangerous idiots like MoU and Bobo to spout their nonsense, to people who have more money than common sense?

  66. 66
    Joel says:

    Charles Murray is really a worthless piece of shit. He keeps trying to repackage himself for acceptance every decade or so, and occasionally gains some traction amongst totebaggers. I always like to remind the world that he’s a cross-burning, race-baiting, vituperative shit stain that believes in racial eugenics and took money from Nazis.

    He’s basically an uglier René Belloq. I like the fact that Colbert took it right to him when he showed up to promote his latest book/screed (this one against the dreaded poors, IIRC).

  67. 67
    Mike in NC says:

    Sully is a twit, but what do I know? I’m just a member of the decadent left, living in my enclave on the coast. Possibly even a fifth columnist, for all I know.

  68. 68
    eemom says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    The Atlantic is the kind of magazine I want to like, but their connection with fools made it hard.

    A college acquaintance (and FB friend) of mine is literary editor at Atlantic. I’ve been wanting to ask him what some of those schmucks are like IRL, but I haven’t been able to think of a tactful way to phrase it.

  69. 69
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Mike in NC: He is an English twit, so he at least has the right accent.

  70. 70
    Violet says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Yeah, as any small business owner knows, the admin is a pain and a time suck and takes far more time than you expected. If he doesn’t have an admin person, then the two people he’s taking with him will end up doing it. Or he’ll have to do it himself.

    He’s never allowed comments. Why start now?

  71. 71
    Amir Khalid says:

    @handsmile:
    Have you seen? Christie is TIME’s cover boy this week, and under his ample visage is the caption “THE BOSS”. (There’s also a baby-pix to the present day slide show on the TIME site, titled “Born To Run”. Eye-roll.) His combativeness and heartfelt Joiseyness get played up, his less-than-sterling record of governance pre-Sandy not so much.

  72. 72

    Dayum. Not even 11am, and that article is probably the best thing I’ll read today.

    While it must be quite nice to be popular enough to get over $400K in donations just by asking, Sullivan has basically just constructed his own bubble, with him at the center.

    Within a year, no one outside that bubble will link to him.

    I still don’t see the value in paying for what amounts to color-commentary on content generated by others.

  73. 73
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Violet: Well if I were to subscribe, I would want comments to get my money’s worth.

  74. 74
    Schlemizel says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I am not a fan of either gentleman – my question was, and remains, why so much vitriol here for GG and so little for Sully?

    As with any blogger I try to share them when I think they have a good point and trash them when they don’t. As a percentage of output GG is right more often than Sully (so is a stopped clock but you get my point).

  75. 75
    Jay in Oregon says:

    @Suffern ACE:
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blue+murder

    blue murder – an extravagantly loud outcry; “she screamed blue murder”

  76. 76
    Violet says:

    @Amir Khalid: They interviewed him on the Today Show yesterday too. He looks so funny sitting in the interview chair across from Matt Lauer. Matt Lauer is a normal sized human being. Christie looks like a human weeble with arms. He’s too big to sit in the chair, so he perches. I just can’t see him going mainstream for the long slog of a presidential primary campaign, let alone the actual campaign. I don’t think it’ll play in the rest of the country.

  77. 77
    Schlemizel says:

    @negative 1:

    How does all that make him worse than Sully?

    Again, to be clear, I am not a huge fan of GG. I am just asking why the two guys get such different treatment. Sully is starting to get his due here but it is long overdue and still accompanied with some praise – WTF has he ever done to deserve that? At least I can point to some things GG has written where he was right or had a valid point. GG has occasionally supported our side – when has Sully ever done that?

    Its not that I am a fan of GG I am trying to figure out why the disparity between treatment by commenters here at BJ

  78. 78

    Money quote:

    The pattern, set early, proves that no matter how hard [Sullivan] fails, no matter how disastrous the consequences for journalism or his adopted country, Sullivan’s career advancement is guaranteed to keep rising.

    …perfect example of what I’ve been betching about: Our current cultural rot, led by teflon-coated “Made Men” like Sullivan.

  79. 79
    Barry says:

    @Scott S.: “What bugs me about the “I wasn’t lying, I was just being provocative” crap is that he’s not the outlier — just about every other big media pundit does the same damn thing. ”

    I’m developing a list of offences for various professions which would justify forcing the malefactor to eat one pound of actual BS. I’ve got three so far:

    1) For lawyers, claiming an inability to do math when the math in question is high school math.
    2) For editors and publishers, excusing fraudulent work with the excuse of ‘provocative’ or ‘balance’.
    3) For pundits, (2) and for claiming ‘both sides do it’ when one clearly does it far less than the other.

  80. 80
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Schlemizel: I think Sullivan comes in for plenty of vitriol. Look at this thread.

  81. 81
    Schlemizel says:

    @eemom:

    I think you worded it quiet eloquently right there mom!

    I love TNC and occasionally read others there but too often wish I hadn’t

  82. 82
    Alex S. says:

    Sully started out despicably. He got more liberal/sane with the time, but was it out of conviction or because of opportunism? After all, he came onto the scene with movement conservatism at its peak, early 90’s, Gingrich revolution. And as conservatism shrunk down to its hateful rump he cut himself loose, but after all, his homosexuality would have thrown him out of the club anyway.
    This piece has the look of a requiem and the paywall might lead to his irrelevance. After all, opinionating on the web is easy. And there a re lots of link aggregators out there.

  83. 83
    Marc says:

    @Schlemizel:

    Greenwald targets liberal democrats in a particularly divisive way. It’s not surprising that they have become hostile because of nasty personal attacks (“obot”, “worshiper of Dear Leader”, “love killing brown babies”) directed at them by him and his online allies.

  84. 84
    handsmile says:

    @Barry:

    While not disagreeing with your larger point that “Permanent Pundits” professionally inhabit a disgrace- or shame-free zone, I’m struggling to think of one from that ethically invulnerable class who became “left-liberal,” much less lost their job because of it.

    One might suggest Phil Donahue or Dan Froomkin who both lost their mass media jobs (MSNBC; WaPo blog) for their discomfiting political views, but both were decidedly liberal to begin with. There must be examples I cannot recall at the moment.

    It would seem that to be awarded the “Permanent Pundit” merit badge from the corporate media, one must espouse at least a right-of-center ideology, just like all Real Heartland Americans.

  85. 85
    julie says:

    I do follow the View from your window contest.

  86. 86
    Schlemizel says:

    @Violet:

    Actually met Matt one time & he is not a normal sized human. Seriously I think Tom Cruise would tower over him! I would guess his weight at under 140, he is tiny.

    That would have been quiet a visual him next the that inflated pustual Crust Crusty. I’m just glad I never watch morning TV

  87. 87
    Alex S. says:

    By the way, I still wonder why Sully supports Obama. Isn’t the president a member of a genetically inferior race? Charles Murray would say so.

  88. 88
    Todd says:

    @Schlemizel:

    I am just asking why the two guys get such different treatment. Sully is starting to get his due here but it is long overdue and still accompanied with some praise – WTF has he ever done to deserve that? At least I can point to some things GG has written where he was right or had a valid point.

    If you’re going to build your street cred on carrying water for a murderous nutjub racist like Matthew Hale, you should at least have a substantial likelihood of prevailing. In GG’s case, he was foreordained a loss, but never learned to keep his useless, incompetent mouth shut.

    Later, when he embraced the sobbing emopurityprog mien, some of us were less impressed by his calls for grotesque pain for others as a matter of principle, all while he’d feel none of the pain at all from his safe haven in Brazil.

  89. 89
    Rex Everything says:

    @AxelFoley: Greenwald’s Salon site is on the blogroll, even though he’s long since moved to the Guardian. I think BJ’s frontpagers are a bit too conscientious to just dump him. But they aren’t making his current stuff accessible. Anyway, GG will come back into favor 1 week after the next Republican president is inaugurated; count on it.

    Sully spent quite some time on the regular blogroll during Obama’s first term, before his antics got him permanently mocked (I could be wrong but I think it was his freakout over the first debate that did him in). But he was taken seriously around here for a good long while, as most of us remember, even though he was the exact same bigoted Thatcherite sellout then that he’s always been. It cannot be denied: kissing Obama’s ass always scores huge points around here.

  90. 90
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Alex S.: He probably has a crush on him? Remember the fawning the blued eyed boy Ryan got?

  91. 91
    Violet says:

    @Schlemizel: I’ll take your word for that, since I’ve never seen him in person. But when you see Matt Lauer next to other people–guests or even the tourists outside on their plaza, he seems like a fairly normal sized guy. Maybe he’s on the short/small side, but he’s not and exaggeration of those. Christie, however, looks like a parade balloon. He’s not just large, he’s rotund–like a blimp with arms. I am not trying to beat up on him for his weight–just making an observation of how it comes across when he’s on TV and wearing the suit or clothes he’s chosen to wear. I simply can’t see him holding up under the strain of a long campaign. He’d have heatstroke in Florida in the summer.

  92. 92
    Rex Everything says:

    @eemom:

    Then I thought how ever COOLER it would be if I didn’t spend my time hanging out at a blog where….

    OMG, that WOULD be cool! I think you should go with that line of thought.

  93. 93
    Schlemizel says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Except the thread I originally brought this up in had nothing to do with GG but turned into a two minutes of hate for him. Never seen that with Sully.

    I know our host had (has) a thing for Sully. He had finally dropped his link into the ‘mocked’ category a while back but quietly elevated it until some fresh outrage appeared.

    I can think of a few things GG has written I was glad I had read (not enough that I stop by regularly but I used to) I have never, in my entire life, not even once, read anything Andrew Sullivan has written and thought “WOW! That as great, I feel better/smarter/happier – pick one – for having read that. Because of his treatment here (which I value more than his treatment by what passes for the media today) I have always assumed I missed something. This thread, and to a greater degree that link (I needed a cigarette after reading it B-{D) are telling me I missed nothing.

  94. 94
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Schlemizel: As far as I can tell, everyone who posts here has always hated Andrew Sullivan, to the point where he’s barely relevant. OTOH, Greenwald still gets plenty of defending, both from the front page and in comments, so the arguments are more heated and nasty. So the temperature of discussion around Greenwald is hotter than it is around Sullivan, but no one much cares for Sullivan, and a third to a half of the commentariat still dig Greenwald.

  95. 95
    Violet says:

    @handsmile:

    It would seem that to be awarded the “Permanent Pundit” merit badge from the corporate media, one must espouse at least a right-of-center ideology, just like all Real Heartland Americans.

    The Democrats would do well to figure this out and then continue to push “center-right policies”. Doesn’t matter if those policies are soshulist–just call them center-right. Keep declaring themselves the center-right party. Own that name. Take it back. Or at least attempt to do that.

    Our media is useless. They’ve proven the love anything that is “center-right”. So make sure your own policies are “center-right”, no matter what they are.

  96. 96
    Schlemizel says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    OK – I see that, thanks. At least that is a plausible explanation. I hadn’t noticed that because I have seen Sully pieces put up in what I thought to be a positive light and not heard the sort of hate GG develops. But thinking back I guess GG does have more support amongst the rabble than Sully so you are on to something.

  97. 97
    burnspbesq says:

    @Schlemizel:

    I mentioned this a few days ago in a thread where people were going off the deep end about Greenwald. I do not understand why people cannot forgive GG his failings when he is very much on our side on so many topics but they luvs them some Sully who is so not on our side & so often wrong.

    Because Greenwald is a pompous, sanctimonious, mean-spirited, intellectually dishonest, abusive ass who’s in love with the sound of his own voice and intolerant of opposing views. Sullivan is merely pompous, sanctimonious, and in love with the sound of his own voice.

    It’s a matter of degree, but degree matters.

  98. 98
    Alex S. says:

    @Alex S.:

    Perhaps. That perspective usually trumps everything else with Sully.

  99. 99
    Mandalay says:

    @negative 1:

    Have you ever heard him propose a solution, or just argue against something?

    This is the core issue for the entire world of punditry, whether it is Greenwald, Sullivan, Limbaugh, Hannity, Maddow, the FPers here, or just about EVERYONE else I can think of. The Guardian does not want Greenwald to be a policy wonk, and MSNBC does not want Ed Schultz to present both sides of an issue.

    It is so easy – too easy – to play devil’s advocate on any non-trivial issue. Just google for flip-flops, gaffes, inconsistent positions, etc, mix in a little snark, and then stick the boot in really hard. The media business demands audience attention, and that is the way to achieve that. So that is what the pundits do.

    It happens here all the time as well, and there is nothing wrong with that, as far as it goes, but it only addresses the tip of the iceberg. By the time Greenwald (say) has explained why (say) the killing of OBL was illegal, he just doesn’t have the time or column space (or inclination?) to then say, “OK, so that’s why we shouldn’t have killed OBL. Now here is what we should have done instead…”.

    Same here. There is a feeding frenzy on gun nuts, but who here is suggesting VIABLE approaches to get gun legislation passed? Perhaps a million parent march? Perhaps start a movement that will take their kids out of school if there are armed guards? Perhaps target gun nut politicians in future elections? Hell, I don’t know either. But I do know that coming up with viable alternative solutions is difficult, and “boring” to read about, but the sneer is cheap and easy.

    Nate Silver was correct about punditry being fundamentally useless.

  100. 100
    Schlemizel says:

    @Violet:

    Agree about Crusty – I assume if he actually intends to run for Prez. he will “disappear” for a week or two after which it will be announced that he has started a diet/excessive regime that will cause him to magically lose a couple of hundred pounds. Sort of like Rev Huckelberry did.

    As a group voters really are shallow. If the best possible candidate were overweight or not particularly good looking he or she (particularly is it were she) wouldn’t stand a chance.

  101. 101
    Schlemizel says:

    @burnspbesq:

    I call bullshit! Sully certainly is mean-spirited, demonstrably intellectually dishonest and an abusive ass. Its exactly that sort of failed comparison that makes me ask the original question.

    Add to that I have to ask, of the two which gets more airtime/print? Which do you think does more damage to the country by being quoted by the VSP? Sully wins those races hands down.

  102. 102
    Mandalay says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Because Greenwald is a pompous, sanctimonious, mean-spirited, intellectually dishonest, abusive ass who’s in love with the sound of his own voice and intolerant of opposing views. Sullivan is merely pompous, sanctimonious, and in love with the sound of his own voice.

    Sullivan is being intellectually dishonest when he says “I was aware of the piece’s flaws but nonetheless was comfortable running it as a provocation”. I don’t understand how you can argue otherwise.

  103. 103
    Alex S. says:

    @Alex S.:

    Ouch, I meant to answer to

    @schrodinger’s cat:

  104. 104
    Joel says:

    @Rex Everything: Oh, isn’t that just quaint!

  105. 105
    Rex Everything says:

    @burnspbesq:

    You’re crazy, Burns P.B., Esquire. Sully is a fuckin’ Reaganite. It’s only on the surface that he can even seem tolerable.

    GG may be prickly on the outside, but is liberal, antiwar, anti-state violence, and pro-civil liberties, and he’s making an honest stab at afflicting the comfortable. Since “the comfortable” includes quite a few Democrats these days, he’s made quite a few enemies; and since he’s openly tried to judge the current administration by the same standards he used on the previous administration, he’s seen by some extremely simple-minded partisans as an enemy of the cause. He does important but largely thankless work.

    To say he and Sully differ only in “degree” is wrong, as wrong as can be. On’e a wolf in sheep’s clothing; the other’s a candid friend: truly candid and a true friend.

    And yeah, I know I just ordered the large sack of hateburgers: serve ’em up; I brought my appetite.

  106. 106
    eemom says:

    @Rex Everything:

    fuck you, asshole

  107. 107
    Cassidy says:

    GG may be prickly on the outside, but is liberal…

    And I couldn’t read after that. Seems fits of laughter break your concentration.

  108. 108

    @Schlemizel:
    Because Greenwald lies. He lies like a lawyer, telling you half the truth and pretending the arguments that make his position bullshit do not exist. He lies by claiming the authority of a constitutional lawyer, but doesn’t tell you the actual law, only what he wishes it were.

    That’s bad enough, but he does this under a false flag. A large number of liberals trust him, and assume he’s trying to advance their agenda. He lies to people who trust him as an expert. His lies are designed to harm the liberal agenda, not promote it. He’s not a civil libertarian, he’s just a plain old ‘all government is evil’ regular libertarian. His positions further no cause, they only attack everyone with any power with no distinction.

    To put it bluntly, he’s a ratfucker, and I believe the most effective and important ratfucker in American politics. His lies get a LOT of traction and become narratives. When you put all this together, he’s earned some really grinding hate from liberals who’ve caught him in the act lying.

  109. 109
    Violet says:

    @Schlemizel: I see that as a possibility. Huckabee did it as part of his “send letters to fat kids’ parents” program when he was Governor. Got a lot of good press for it.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I think Christie’s weight is more a part of his brand than Huckabee’s was. He could go on a “diet and exercise program” (surgery) but like Samson and his hair, I think it might weaken him. He’s a bully and he literally can throw his weight around. It works for him. I don’t know how well the bully thing would work if he were a normal size. Not as well would be my guess.

    I think it works in Jersey and general vicinity, but I don’t think that a Soprano’s attitude coupled with a guy who sweats, gets short of breath and has to take a bunch of days off to recuperate is going to play in the rest of the country.

  110. 110
    Kane says:

    I love when he avoids all responsibility by explaining that he’s human and a blogger, and that he’s writing in real time with no filters.

    As if the same doesn’t apply to everyone writing on the Internet.

  111. 111
    handsmile says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    Yeah, it’s inescapable, plastered all over newsstands on NYC streets and subways. And that caption must make Springsteen squirm just a little.

    One sociopolitical phenomenon that’s going to be fascinating to watch develop in the next few years is how fitness-crazed America will come to embrace and identify with the obese Christie. (which is not to suggest that weight discrimination in American culture should not be addressed)

    An early signal: just last week the NYT published an article that the National Institute of Health’s Body-Mass Index (BMI) measure, that now classifies a significant fraction of Americans as overweight or obese, should be reevaluated.

    So I do expect that whether presidential aspirants can shoot hoops or ride bikes (or wind surf) will become increasingly irrelevant to the mass media and public’s estimation of a candidate’s qualifications and character. (“Who would you rather have a keg of beer with?”)

    And with Christie’s demanding schedule as governor and more as a bobblehead show fixture, he probably would not have the time necessary for weight reduction surgery.

  112. 112
    cdamon says:

    Never understood what people see in him. Can’t say more than that because I don’t read him… except his following seems more like a cult than anything else – a mini Steve Jobs thing.

  113. 113

    @Schlemizel:
    I’ve read both on and off since 2001.

    When Sullivan changes his views, he makes it about him and does it publicly. When he doesn’t, he doubles down. Either way, you do at least get to know where he stands at any given moment. Say what you will (and I did, up above), but there’s at least an ethos there.

    GG, on the other hand, transforms himself from ‘brand’ to ‘brand’ and relies on nobody noticing. He started out as a pro-GWB libertarian (low taxes), became a hero of the left during the later Bush years, and is now an anti-Obama ‘civil libertarian’, obsessed with drones. Who knows what he’ll be in 2020.

    The first is just a pompous ass. The second is an out-and-out weasel.

  114. 114
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Rex Everything: No, Sullivan is a Thatcherite. Whether that is worse or better than a Reaganite is a question I leave open. Also, I think it is a mistake to cast Greenwald as either a liberal or a leftist. He is a civil libertarian absolutist. Like most absolutists, he is rigid and inflexible. One can see this a good or bad thing.

  115. 115
    Tomolitics says:

    Maybe for Sully it all just boils down to a pathological need to ingratiate himself with those in power or on the ascendency and all the tortured blather about “my thinking has evolved” and dopey contrarian pseudoscience and “I’m still proud of it” stuff is simply to provide the veneer of independence for his self image.

  116. 116
    Rex Everything says:

    A large number of liberals trust him, and assume he’s trying to advance their agenda. He lies to people who trust him as an expert. His lies are designed to harm the liberal agenda, not promote it. He’s not a civil libertarian, he’s just a plain old ‘all government is evil’ regular libertarian.

    And this, Schlemizel, is what’s known as complete bullshit. You should get used to hearing spiels like this (without one shred of example or citation), from a whole lot of very special people like Frankensteinbeck, if you’re going to bring up GG.

  117. 117
    Rex Everything says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: A Reaganite and a Thatcherite are the exact same thing. Find me one of ’em who would deny that.

  118. 118
    MazeDancer says:

    This is for OnlyMike and everyone at BJ trying to help him.

    Rome Again left her phone number at the office of OnlyMike’s ex-apartment. It’s around corner from where she is. She is in Phoenix and wants to help him. She knows of cheap, good, cat friendly apartments. She can set up PayPal for OnlyMike without a bank account so we can all help.

    If OnlyMike does come back online would anyone who sees him – like eemom posted – let him know that Rome Again’s phone number is at the office.

    Possible plan: If he can move cats to 90 day home he mentioned, then go into treatment for 30 days, then come out, and get good, cheap place with help from Rome Again (and VA and BJ), then cats can come live with him. And he will be stabilized and can get a nice, structure creating, not emotionally draining job, with VA help, and continue treatment and take life like we all do, step by step. It’s just one plan idea among many. But it’s a thought.

    Just passing along the info. Rome Again is the person on the ground willing to help.

    But if everyone can help connect OnlyMike and Rome Again that would be great.

  119. 119
    Jay says:

    Sweet mother.

    If anyone ever writes that kind of long, brilliant takedown of Jamie Kirchick’s work, I will throw a party for him/her.

    And an extra party if it’s linked here.

    And an extra party if the takedown is DONE by a blogger here.

  120. 120
    Joel says:

    Everyone loves lists… what’s the list of Sullivan’s worst?

    I would go with:

    1. Iraq War McCarthyism
    2. Let me introduce you to Charles Murray…
    3. Palin pantysniffing

  121. 121
    Mandalay says:

    @Violet:

    I think it works in Jersey and general vicinity, but I don’t think that a Soprano’s attitude coupled with a guy who sweats, gets short of breath and has to take a bunch of days off to recuperate is going to play in the rest of the country.

    This. Sweat and a five o’clock shadow (in a debate that he won) lost Nixon the 1960 election.

    An obese person will never become president.

  122. 122
    catclub says:

    @Mandalay: never is a long time.

    There is some evidence that an atheist has less chance than an obese person.

  123. 123
    hep kitty says:

    @Schlemizel:

    I mentioned this a few days ago in a thread where people were going off the deep end about Greenwald. I do not understand why people cannot forgive GG his failings when he is very much on our side on so many topics but they luvs them some Sully who is so not on our side & so often wrong.

    YUP! Iraq, also too

  124. 124
    hitchhiker says:

    This thread is over, but here I am tossing a few more chips on the fire.

    Some of us – well, two of us – were merely worried that America’s excellent private healthcare system would be hobbled by too much government regulation.

    That’s the bit that slapped me awake. Sully was wrapped in the cozy excellence of private healthcare and didn’t want to be disturbed at all. What an ass. What sort of person would even think such a thing, much less post it to a permanent, worldwide space and advertise said assishness?

  125. 125

    @Rex Everything:

    A Reaganite and a Thatcherite are the exact same thing.

    One tends to have much better taste in music than the other…

    (…scurries away).

  126. 126
    Mandalay says:

    @catclub:

    There is some evidence that an atheist has less chance than an obese person.

    Neither has any chance at all of winning the presidency, but atheists are at least gaining ground in society. The stigma is going away.

    But there is a visceral dislike for grossly obese people in western societies, and my impression is that it is increasing. They are seen as the people who cause your health insurance costs to increase, the people who cause your baggage allowance to decrease, the people who lack discipline, etc.

    Even obese people don’t like obese people. An obese person will never be president.

  127. 127
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Schlemizel:

    mentioned this a few days ago in a thread where people were going off the deep end about Greenwald. I do not understand why people cannot forgive GG his failings when he is very much on our side on so many topics but they luvs them some Sully who is so not on our side & so often wrong.

    Greenwald is the type of liberal ally who’d start a civil war against his own allies to get his way and then decide they were his enemies all along, attributing the worst motives possible to his former friends. Motives they must have had all along.

    He’s actually not much different than 60s “left”. Those of us who followed that left earlier on in our lives and ended up with nothing don’t see a reason to go following around it’s new form.

    Sully is just a tool. A very bad tool. At one time a more powerful tool. I don’t want him to be considered a “progressive leader” either, and thankfully he’s not setting that agenda.

  128. 128
    Cassidy says:

    GG may be prickly on the outside, but is liberal, antiwar, anti-state violence, and pro-civil liberties, and he’s making an honest stab at afflicting the comfortable. Since “the comfortable” includes quite a few Democrats these days, he’s made quite a few enemies; and since he’s openly tried to judge the current administration by the same standards he used on the previous administration, he’s seen by some extremely simple-minded partisans as an enemy of the cause. He does important but largely thankless work.

    And this is what’s known as complete bullshit. You should get used to hearing spiels like this (without one shred of example or citation), from a whole lot of very special people like Rex Everything, if dare to disparage GG.

    I say show your work, son. Provide some links to show us that he’s a liberal.

  129. 129
    scav says:

    @Amir Khalid: There is that brief moment when one wonders if the whole experience of prohibition and death panel brohahahas have been retconned, but then one remembers this is ‘Merca and so it’s clearly a rhetorical questi

    ETA escuse me for the thread tourism.
    this wreck left as an amusing warning to Keep,your tabs and threads clearly unconfuzzled!

  130. 130
    burnspbesq says:

    @Mandalay:

    I don’t understand how you can argue otherwise.

    If you see that as “intellectually dishonest,” then you and I have irreconcilably different views of what that term means.

    It is most emphatically not intellectually dishonest to say, in effect, “I dont believe in/agree with X, but it is something that needs to be examined so I’m putting it out there for the purpose of facilitating that examination.”

    What you are in effect saying is “it is intellectually dishonest to hold or espouse any view with which I don’t agree.” That’s nonsense.

  131. 131
    burnspbesq says:

    @Rex Everything:

    I don’t hate you, dude. I pity you. Must suck going through life burdened with that much stupidity.

  132. 132
    Ben Cisco says:

    I need a smoke after reading that takedown.

    And I don’t even.

  133. 133
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @negative 1:

    Has he ever been able to argue a point without belittling anyone who disagrees with him?

    Because, as we all know, BJ front pagers and commenters NEVER behave like this toward those with whom they disagree.

  134. 134
    Mandalay says:

    @burnspbesq:

    It is most emphatically not intellectually dishonest to say, in effect, “I dont believe in/agree with X, but it is something that needs to be examined so I’m putting it out there for the purpose of facilitating that examination.”

    It absolutely is intellectually dishonest when you know that the information you are putting out is false, and don’t say so at the time of publication, then, when the shit hits the fan, loftily claim that you were publishing lies “as a provocation”.

    Not only was Sullivan intellectually dishonest, but he didn’t have the integrity to own up to his massive fuckup.

  135. 135
    Ruckus says:

    @Judas Escargot, Bringer of Loaves and Fish Sandwiches:
    Had a prof in college who would “debate” everyone about everything. What he actually did was argue with everyone. And if he convinced you he would change sides and argue with you until you changed back to your original point or stopped.
    In short, he was a bully. There was no underlying point to this other than I think he was bored. But all it did was to piss off anyone paying any attention and trying to learn something. Of course I learned(again) that a bully does not have to be a physical one to be effective. And that is GG’s stick, he is a bully. He uses a lot of words and sometimes actually makes a good point but in the end he is still an ass. Sully just skips the middle part about sometimes making a good point.

  136. 136
    Joy says:

    Wow. I had never read Sullivan during his TNR days and really didn’t even know about the NYT affiliation. I’ve only have read him since the ’08 elections. To say he is passionate really missed the point for me. The obsession with marijuana laws, his meltdown over Obama’s debate, the Trig birtherism, his embrace of McArdle, etc. left a really bad taste in my mouth so much that I stopped visiting his blog altogether. I definitely wouldn’t pay for that type of “journalism” but to each his own. I do thank the author of this piece because I did not know anything about his past except the Charles Murray embrace. I must be really naive because I am literally stunned.

  137. 137
    Rome Again says:

    @onlymike:

    I emailed you twice a couple of days ago. Can you get into your email account? If you can’t, request a password change. I have Gmail also and they are very cooperative about helping you get your account back into your possession. If you have set up a test phrase, all the better.

    I dropped by your complex two nights ago,I left my phone number at the office. I live right behind your complex. I have some ability to help, but I’m not able to place cats. I’m usually the one who cats get placed with. I don’t have any experience with the other end. I would like to help you get a Paypal account and get you set up so we can take up a collection for you. I would also like to help you get a kitty friendly apartment that won’t break your wallet, but apparently you aren’t ready for that yet. Let’s talk.

    I’ll make a trip over there in a short while and see if I can catch you. I missed you two nights ago and then waited yesterday for a phone call after leaving my number but apparently you didn’t get it (ARGH!)

    Talk soon, I hope.

  138. 138
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Because Greenwald is a pompous, sanctimonious, mean-spirited, intellectually dishonest, abusive ass who’s in love with the sound of his own voice and intolerant of opposing views.

    And because NONE of the front pagers or commenters here at BJ ever fit this description. Never.

  139. 139
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @eemom:

    fuck you, asshole

    Mommy! :O

  140. 140
    Rome Again says:

    Additional note to onlymike: If you have a place for the cats to go, I can drive you. I have two cat carriers. Let me know.

  141. 141
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    To put it bluntly, he’s a ratfucker, and I believe the most effective and important ratfucker in American politics.

    More proof that you are simple.

  142. 142
    Cassidy says:

    @Ted & Hellen: Man, you just can’t help yourself. You could join in, offer something to this conversation, be a part of a discussion, but instead, you say something deliberately insulting and then say it again to someone else in the vain hope of stirring up an argument. I’ve said it before just to be condescending, but I have never felt more sorry for you than right now.

  143. 143
    mapaghimagsik says:

    Blue murder. Why won’t anyone talk about Smurf on Smurf crime?

  144. 144
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Cassidy:

    Assidy, if you are too dense to perceive that most of my comments regard the qualities and unself awareness of the GENERAL commentariat here at BJ, then I can’t help you.

    If you can’t grasp the hilariousness of a BJ kool kid accusing GG once again of that which front pagers and Kool kids at BJ are very guilty of, then it’s just more evidence of your densitude.

    You are too immersed in the echo chamber to benefit from my commentary ON the echo chamber.

    Please, pie me, fat man. You are embarrassing yourself.

  145. 145
    Suffern ACE says:

    I would totally have been on board with Iraq if I thought it was legal and and not based on lies and the prisoners were treated in accordance with the Geneva convention and I have never forgiven Sully for categorizing me with the anti-american left. I’m just looking for legal wars I can agree with and won’t stop until I get them.

  146. 146
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Cassidy:

    but instead, you say something deliberately insulting

    Because no one at BJ is EVER deliberately insulting to someone they disagree with. Except ME, of course.

  147. 147
    Rome Again says:

    @Ted & Hellen:

    “Assidy, if you are too dense to perceive that most of my comments regard the qualities and unself awareness of the GENERAL commentariat here at BJ, then I can’t help you.”

    The general commentariat here has more couth than to call someone “Assidy”.

    You’re not fooling anyone. YOu’re a childish prick.

  148. 148
    Cassidy says:

    @Ted & Hellen: It’s okay Tim pedobear. I’m not the forgiving type, but I really do feel sorry for you.

    But keep digging. One day you’ll find something to insult me with. Maybe I’ll threaten to sue you.

  149. 149
    Cassidy says:

    @Rome Again: It doesn’t bother me. Hell, some of my fellow Privates came up with that one back in ’99, so he’s off by more than a decade.

  150. 150
    Schlemizel says:

    @Rex Everything:

    Two things:
    I get the same bullshit from those attacking GG – look at people here who try to claim the Sully is less evil for the same shit.

    I’m not really interested in a pissing contest. There have been a couple of good arguments made in 150 comments & a lot of hot air & vitriol that do a much better job of highlighting my point about the love for the two than it does explain it.

  151. 151
    MattR says:

    @Rome Again:

    The general commentariat here has more couth than to call someone “Assidy”.

    No. We don’t.

  152. 152
    Schlemizel says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    And GG IS setting the agenda?

    Not hardly – I would say Sully has a lot more influence with the VSP by a large margine

  153. 153
    Schlemizel says:

    @Cassidy:

    Thats all Douche & Bag ever does. There is never any attempt to discuss, just raw trolling. They someone responds and they get to whack off furiously as it is the only attention they can get.

    If you can’t or won’t filter Douche & Bag out train yourself to skip comments from them. If we ignore Douche & Bag there will be a few days of them trying to flood comments in a desperate cry for attention. They could, at least in theory, make reading comments impossible for a day or two if their tantrum can last that long. But once they are not longer getting their sexual needs satisfied here they will find some other nice people to annoy. I pity Douche & Bag but I pity their victims more.

  154. 154
    Cassidy says:

    @Schlemizel: That’s prettymuch what I’ve been doing lately. But that little performace today struck me as so utterly sad. Yeah, we all say some pretty volatile shit to one another, but in the end, most of us are decent people. Pedobear isn’t, but you can’t win them all. But for the first time I saw that glimpse of that real, pathetic person just begging for attention. It struck me about how terribly lonely it must be. I can understand why, but still.

  155. 155
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Rome Again:

    The general commentariat here has more couth than to call someone “Assidy”.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…thank you for this clear exhibition of obliviousness. BJ is RIFE with childish insults and gleeful name calling. Every single day.

    It’s done by folks you agree with however, so you don’t even see it.

  156. 156
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Cassidy:

    It’s okay Tim pedobear.

    Hmmm.

    What was that you said earlier about “insults?”

  157. 157
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Schlemizel:

    You know, Schleweasel, you’ve been plying this angle here for months. No one’s biting.

    And I’ve been commenting here for at least six years. Cole PAYS me to comment here. It leads to much longer threads and much higher page hit levels.

    Pie me already. Please.

  158. 158
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Cassidy:

    Assidy, you are here quite regularly yourself. Almost every thread. Certainly every thread I comment in.

    Are YOU lonely? Is the boss out of town again? Is that why you’re free to surf BJ from your cubicle so regularly?

    Why are you obsessed with me?

    Pie me, loser.

  159. 159
    eemom says:

    @Ted & Hellen:

    Because Greenwald is a pompous, sanctimonious, mean-spirited, intellectually dishonest, abusive ass who’s in love with the sound of his own voice and intolerant of opposing views.
    And because NONE of the front pagers or commenters here at BJ ever fit this description. Never.

    hmm…..lemme see.

    Abusive, yes, occasionally. Mean-spirited, it happens. In love with my own voice, yes, truly, madly, deeply. Intolerant of opposing views, fer sure.

    Pompous, sanctimonious, and intellectually dishonest, however, are denied.

    You? : )

  160. 160
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @eemom:

    My comments are offered in the spirit of selfless love of my fellow humans, as humble offerings which others are free to reference for self improvement and to emulate in the hope of achieving my own level of enlightenment.

    Why do you ask?

  161. 161
    Rome Again says:

    @MattR:

    Well, we did. I guess BJ Generation 2 isn’t as sophisticated as Generation 1. I have to admit to not being around much. I’m from Generation 1. I’m only here to try to help someone with a situation.

  162. 162
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @eemom:

    BTW, I haven’t forgive you your defense of the hideous Mnemospleen from the other evening…I’ve been standing by my mailbox awaiting your apology. ???

  163. 163
    Rome Again says:

    @Ted & Hellen:

    I never said there were no insults. They were just more sophisticated than I see here. Your act needs more work.

  164. 164
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Schlemizel: Two different things. I don’t think of Sully as a leftie. He’s a gay man with an issue about circumcision who wants to smoke dope, but in terms of the VSPs, he’s not as important as he once was. He actually was very important for changing the gay movements into marriage promoting army joining normal people. And when they write the history in 100 years, that legacy is going to be debated. But these days? No. He’s not Chuck Todd. He was never Tim Russert. Or Drudge.

    But in terms of the american progressives, yes. Greenwald sets the terms through which american military and security issues are interpreted as just or unjust, legal or illegal on the progressive side of spectrum.

  165. 165
    Rome Again says:

    @Ted & Hellen:

    If you’re standing by your mailbox waiting for eemom, you don’t know her very well. Not a smart thing to do. Go on with your life, it’ll wait.

  166. 166
    Cassidy says:

    @Schlemizel: See what I mean? It’s just so incredibly unhappy. You’d almost feel sorry for it, but then it talks again. It’s so unbelievably damaged that it doesn’t know how to interact with others. This is why parents need to be kind and loving or they end up with this. Honestly, While I’ll never feel sorry for it, I do empathize with the people in its life it crosses paths with regularly. Can you imagine being a parent or grandparent to such a thing? They must feel like absolute failures.

  167. 167
    handsmile says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    Re Glenn Greenwald
    Last night we had a difference of opinion on a squib by Ezra Klein, so I would regret if you were to think I’m needling you on what are perhaps degrees of interpretation or emphasis.

    I follow rather closely many left/progressive websites (in fact, on some issues Balloon Juice may be the most conservative blog I read regularly). While Greenwald is certainly a respected voice within the American left (and I generally share that appreciation), it overstates the case that he “sets the terms.”

    On “American military and security issues”, I’d suggest Tom Englehardt, Andrew Bacevich, and Thom Hartmann are more prominent figures. Even on matters of civil liberties and human rights, Scott Horton, Mark Danner, Ronald Dworkin, and Chris Hedges are opinion leaders and shapers as much as Greenwald. The Nation magazine, under Katrina vanden Heuvel’s editorship, is the primary locus of liberal/progressive reporting and analysis.

    Again, I don’t wish to belabor a matter of perspective and of course I regret if I’ve misunderstood your comment. I do want to say that I find myself for the most part in agreement with your commentary. However, it has long puzzled me why, given his relative status and influence, Greenwald is such a bete noire to some regular participants here.

  168. 168
    Jebediah says:

    @Cassidy:
    In the thread (yesterday?) in which Mother Teresa was being discussed, somebody (Gex?) asserted that Mother Teresa was a way bigger asshole than she was commonly assumed to be. T&H did that little “Reliable cites and links, please” thing that he often does. When they were provided, he disappeared for the rest of the thread (or as much of it as I saw) without so much as a “thanks for the links/info.”
    Doesn’t seem to be the behavior of somebody interested in discussion or debate. T&H is a troll with impressive thread-derailing skills and some personal issues. I have him pie’d at home but not at work so I sometimes see his comments. He’s good at getting under folks’ skin and getting them to respond.

  169. 169
    truthofangels says:

    Huh. This is a test. BOLLOCKS ON A STICK!

  170. 170
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Jebediah:

    I have him pie’d at home but not at work

    Please pie me at work too.

    As for your Mother Teresa thing, do YOU always obsessively check back to threads forever and ever and ever? I know I don’t.

    I will look at your links, but I’ve read a lot about the Mother Teresa accusations before, and I just think she did a lot more good than bad. Which is pretty much the most any of us can hope to do. And I can guarantee she did a LOT more good than you and I put together, regardless of her flaws.

  171. 171
    Barry says:

    @Marc: “A healthy political movement embraces converts. The urge to excommunicate someone like Sullivan is quite strong for some, and I don’t understand it. He is very good on some topics. He is very wrong on others. But he is worth reading on a pretty wide range of subjects. ”

    This is assuming that he’s a convert.

  172. 172
    Barry says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: “I see a difference between people whose intent from the beginning is to provoke and those who claim that mantle retroactively to cover up idiocy. ”

    I only see that difference when the people whose intent from the beginning is to provoke actually try to get it right.

  173. 173
    Darkrose says:

    @Schlemizel: Speaking only for myself, I dislike them both for similar reasons: they’re gay white men who only start to give a shit about progressive issues when they impact their own white male privilege.

    Initially I thought maybe Sully might not actually be racist, but he certainly never hesitates to carry water for racists. Then pulled the “Prop 8 is black people’s fault’ bullshit, never once mentioning the about of money the Mormons and his beloved Catholic Church poured into getting that abomination passed, and I realized that there is no reason to take seriously anything from an out gay man who self-identifies as a Catholic because he’s clearly delusional.

    As for GG, I was through with him well before Obama was elected in 2008. His defense of Ron Paul’s racist connections and dismissing David Neiwert’s pointing out that perhaps a guy who takes money from Stormfront might agree with them as “guilt by association” infuriated me. And when he told ABL that she’d defend Obama “even if he raped a nun”, that was so far over the line as to be in another galaxy.

  174. 174
    Barry says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: “I don’t know why The Atlantic would want him back. They just shed him and McMegan- it has to improve their credibility, yes? ”

    I’m convinced that the Permanent Pundit class doesn’t give a flying f*ck about credibility, when it comes to things like facts. And neither do their employers.

  175. 175
    VBKim says:

    @Violet: Thank you.

  176. 176
    Barry says:

    @handsmile: “While not disagreeing with your larger point that “Permanent Pundits” professionally inhabit a disgrace- or shame-free zone, I’m struggling to think of one from that ethically invulnerable class who became “left-liberal,” much less lost their job because of it. ”

    Actually, there is one, and his name is Paul The Krugman.

    And in a way it’s an interesting thing. I know very well why NYT hired him back in ’99/’00 – he was the sort of ‘centrist’ who’d worry most about the people directly to his left. They must have figured that he’d write under the name ‘Even the Liberal Paul Krugman’. The only theory which makes sense contradicts my One Way theory above, and it’s that once they committed to him, they couldn’t fire him, because he was then one of the ‘in crowd’.

  177. 177
    Schlemizel says:

    @Cassidy:

    No, I can’t see Douche & Bags comments. It would be a shame if they ever actually added something valuable to the conversation here.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – gasp – hahahahahahahahahahaha

    yeah, that will never happen. But I am old & have been fighting my whole life so I will continue to campaign for people to just ignore this waste of breath until people stop responding to the bait. Maybe I can win this one. They will continue trolling as long as people respond to them. The only way to put an end to them is to filter and/or ignore them

  178. 178
    VBKim says:

    I love this blog and I heart you guys, but geez, I love this blog and I heart you guys, but I still enjoy reading Sullivan and mostly enjoy reading Greenwald. I don’t get why that’s so bad. (be kind to me, haven’t really posted a lot, although I’ve lurked a bunch.)

  179. 179
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Barry: A hit. A palpable hit, sir.

  180. 180
    Rex Everything says:

    @Cassidy:

    Provide some links to show us that he’s a liberal.

    Very glad to!

    Let’s start with Greenwald’s Guardian page, shall we? His 15 most recent posts are displayed up front, dating back to Dec. 15. I think they give a pretty representative sample of what his concerns are. They are:

    1. The excessive harshness of Bradley Manning’s prosecution
    2. Manning’s mistreatment while detained
    3. Pro-torture sentiment from John Brennan and the film Zero Dark Thirty
    4. Brennan’s unfitness for the post of CIA director, due to his past pro-torture statements and instances of dissembling
    5. Chuck Hagel’s fitness for the post of Defense Secretary, based on his antiwar statements and his apologies for past bigotry
    6. A critique of the “War on Terror” from an antiwar perspective
    7. The French gov’t’s censorship of Twitter (GG opposes this)
    8. Suspicious activity by the Log Cabin Republicans
    9. The renewal of warrantless eavesdropping (GG is opposed)
    10. U.S. brutality abroad causing increased Muslim support for Al Qaeda
    11. The Israel Lobby’s “smear campaign” against Chuck Hagel
    12. The disparate reaction to the deaths of innocent children here vs abroad
    13. A new organization dedicated to freedom of the press (GG supports this)
    14. The racist justice system enabled by the “anti-Terror” paradigm
    15. Pro-torture propaganda in the film Zero Dark Thirty

    These are quintessentially liberal concerns. In every case above, Greenwald’s position is the anti-war, anti-power, pro-civil liberties position. In every case above, GG champions the side on which liberalism has historically found itself, the side of right as opposed to might, the side that has always been the real justification for and strength of the leftist position.

    To say that such a blogger is “conservative” is to engage in a comical level of absurdity. Find me one, just one, conservative blogger whose front page looks looks anything like the above.

  181. 181
    Cassidy says:

    @Rex Everything: 1) I’m glad you came back and posted that. Much appreciated.

    2) Personally, I see positions that are consistent with calling him a civil libertarian. They may at times coincide with liberal positions, but nothing I’ve read from him suggests “liberal”.

    3) I didn’t call him conservative and I don’t recall anyone saying as much.

  182. 182
    Rex Everything says:

    @Cassidy:

    Provide some links to show us that he’s a liberal.

    Part 2: Greenwald urged his readers to give money to Russ Feingold’s 2010 campaign. http://www.salon.com/2010/09/14/feingold_7/ Do you feel that this is the action of a conservative?

  183. 183
    Rex Everything says:

    Part 3: Greenwald speaks at 2011 Socialism Conference in Chicago. Yeah, what a rightie.

  184. 184
    Rex Everything says:

    @Cassidy:

    I didn’t call him conservative and I don’t recall anyone saying as much.

    !! You & others have been calling him a (non-civil-) libertarian nonstop.

    Let me amend what I wrote: Find me a libertarian blogger with such a list of concerns. Or anything even remotely resembling it.

    Find me a libertarian who speaks at the Socialism Conference.

    I can wait.

  185. 185
    Cassidy says:

    @Rex Everything: I think unfortunately we’ve run into that situation where libertarian is confused. I consider him a libertarian; not an ashamed Republican who calls themselves a libertarian to sound cool.

    And again, I don’t see positions inconsistent with that. His goal may coincide with liberals, and I’ve got no issue with pragmatism and allies, but GG isn’t about liberal principles. GG is about GG.

  186. 186
    Rex Everything says:

    Greenwald: “In 2005, American liberals achieved one of their most significant political victories of the last decade. It occurred with the resounding rejection of George W Bush’s campaign to privatise social security.

    “…That victory established an important political fact. While there are very few unifying principles for the Democratic party, one (arguably the primary one) is a steadfast defence of basic entitlement programs for the poor and elderly – social security, Medicare and Medicaid – from the wealthy, corporatised factions that have long targeted them for cuts.”

    Yes indeed, these sound like the words of someone who’s “not a civil libertarian, he’s just a plain old ‘all government is evil’ regular libertarian.” The words of “a pro-GWB libertarian (low taxes).”

    Yes indeed.

  187. 187
    Rex Everything says:

    @Cassidy:

    not an ashamed Republican who calls themselves a libertarian to sound cool.

    In practice, there is no other kind.

  188. 188
    eemom says:

    hey y’all — in the spirit of the earlier part of this thread, how about we take up a collection to buy “Rex” a life?

  189. 189
    Rex Everything says:

    @eemom: Quit trying to change the subject, taint face.

  190. 190
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Rex Everything:

    You do realize who you’re dealing with, right?

    If awareness were a virus, there would be a BJ inoculation.

  191. 191
    Cassidy says:

    @Rex Everything: That’s not true. Maybe I only know the one, but I actually know Libertarians, real ones. Most of them skew Anarchist.

    I think in the end, GG does not take up positions out of liberal principle. He takes them up if they potentially affect them.

  192. 192
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Darkrose:

    And when he told ABL that she’d defend Obama “even if he raped a nun”, that was so far over the line as to be in another galaxy.

    But she totally would.

  193. 193
    Rex Everything says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin): Yes, I know. Patient Zero for the spread of the idea that “snark” is synonymous with “being an asshole.”

  194. 194
    Rex Everything says:

    @Cassidy: Yeah, right, you know the inside of Greenwald’s heart & mind; meanwhile we firebaggers are the “mind readers” …

  195. 195
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Rex Everything:

    taint face.

    lol.

    Sorry, mommy.

  196. 196
    Cassidy says:

    @Rex Everything: Just like you guys know Obama’s, whom you’re always quick to attack. But I guess you’re too pure for hypocrisy?

  197. 197
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Cassidy:

    We don’t just listen to his words. We watch his behaviors. You do understand the diff, right?

  198. 198
    Rex Everything says:

    @Cassidy: Yeah, that’s exactly what I was referring to there, swiftie.

  199. 199
    Cassidy says:

    Ted & Hellen Says:

    My name is Little Debbie, baker to kings:
    Look upon my pies, ye Mighty, and despair!

    Man, it is good to be home. Much easier to ignore Pedobear that way.

  200. 200
    Cassidy says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin): I understand your motivations perfectly. If only we could put a finger on what’s different about Obama…what stands out…man, I guess it could be anything.

  201. 201
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Cassidy:

    Then why aren’t you ignoring me?

    PEDOBEAR is cute. I rather like him.

  202. 202
    Cassidy says:

    200 Ted & Hellen Says:

    It may look like I talk about pies a lot, but I’m actually restraining myself from bringing them up more often. They’re that good!

    Gonna be a great weekend. I feel so sorry for you.

  203. 203
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Cassidy:

    I know you pretend to, and yet you go through all the trouble of pie filtering me, and yet you read and respond.

    Interesting. Revealing. Pathetic.

  204. 204
    Rex Everything says:

    @Cassidy:

    If only we could put a finger on what’s different about Obama…what stands out…man, I guess it could be anything.

    Because GG and firebaggers TOTALLY gave the caucasian George W a pass re military aggression, warrantless wiretaps, etc!

    Seriously, dude, it is supremely shitty to go there.

  205. 205
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Rex Everything:

    This is all the Bots, especially Assidy, really have.

    In the end, if they can’t overcome argument with reason, they WILL imply or directly accuse you of being RACCCCCCCCISSSSTTTTTT.

  206. 206
    Rex Everything says:

    @Cassidy:

    I actually know Libertarians, real ones.

    Do they do a lot of speaking at socialist conferences?

  207. 207
    Rex Everything says:

    @Ted & Hellen: I know; one of them did it to me last week. We should take the “racist” accusation as a waving of the white flag.

    I mean, fuck. I voted for Obama twice. I think he’s OK overall.

  208. 208
    Cassidy says:

    @Rex Everything:

    Seriously, dude, it is supremely shitty to go there.

    Perhaps you shouldn’t follow GG there in the first place.

    205 Ted & Hellen Says:

    Apple, peaches pumpkin pie, who’s not ready holler ‘I’.

    It’s so sad. It just can’t stop. It is so lonely for attention and human interaction. Perhaps it should go buy a real doll or a prostitute.

  209. 209
    Ted & Hellen says:

    Again, it responds to pie.

    No wonder it’s so fat.

  210. 210
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Rex Everything:

    I voted for Obama twice. I think he’s OK overall.

    That’s not enough.

    You must surrender body and soul and independent, consistent thought to what is best for Barack Obama’s political career and legacy. Don’t forget, now the library has to be funded and built.

  211. 211
    Rex Everything says:

    @Cassidy:

    Perhaps you shouldn’t follow GG there in the first place.

    The same GG who, like, never even noticed nice white man George W Bush’s transgressions, right?

  212. 212
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Rex Everything:

    I voted for Obama twice. I think he’s OK overall.

    Hmm. I had chicken mcnuggets the other day, and had the same impression.

  213. 213
    eemom says:

    @Ted & Hellen:

    Well I am, of course, a mommy, so I know a 12 year old when I see one….not that it requires any experience with actual children to be tipped off by a zinger like “taint face.”

    Rexie honey, it’s time for bed. Yes, you can wear those Obama Is A Big Poopyhead jammies Uncle Glenn gave you for Christmas, AGAIN.

  214. 214
    Cassidy says:

    @Rex Everything: I wasn’t implying racist. I was implying bigot. There is a difference. As a liberal, I’m sure you don’t support state sponsored bigotry. So, you can take it as admission of your right or whatever, but the underlying implications that you somehow continuously blame the most prominent black man, and our POTUS, for all the ills of the world even when there are clearly other people to blamed says a lot.

    Seriously, help me out here, because I don’t see a lot of other options. Republicans act crazy…Obama’s fault. Republican’s obstruct everything…Obama’s fault. Years of climate danger…Obama’s fault. At what point are we supposed to not wonder what the hell else you could be thinking? The most liberal POTUS in modern America just isn’t good enough for you. So honestly, at this point, I gives a fuck if you’re offended. I give’s a fuck if you’re dismayed. And I certainly don’t give a flying fuck if you feel aggrieved.

    And honestly, anyone who thinks Pedobear has anything worth saying isn’t someone I’m really interested in talking to.

  215. 215
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Cassidy:

    Utter tripe.

    If all the glories of Obama’s policies and true intentions could be actualized by another president if only he or she were white, why then, isn’t it kind of stunningly selfish and arrogant of him to insist on being president at this time in history. Why, think of all the people of color who would benefit if only Joe Biden were president and opposition fell away.

    Clearly, the patriotic, decent thing for Obama to do is admit his mistake and resign immediately.

  216. 216
    Cassidy says:

    Ted & Hellen Says:

    Pie’s gone. I blame Obama.

    Probably. Wouldn’t be surprised. Is it Obama’s fault your parents raised such an atrocious person?

  217. 217
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Cassidy:

    Is it Obama’s fault you are fat and have a shitty job?

  218. 218
    Rex Everything says:

    @Cassidy:

    you somehow continuously blame the most prominent black man, and our POTUS, for all the ills of the world even when there are clearly other people to blamed says a lot.

    I do? Just when, and where, did I do this?

    Republicans act crazy…Obama’s fault. Republican’s obstruct everything…Obama’s fault. Years of climate danger…Obama’s fault.

    Whatever, dude, I’ve never said anything remotely like that.

    It tends to go more like this:

    ME: Huh, the fiscal cliff deal coulda been better.
    OBOT: You don’t know what Obama was thinking! You can’t know! Leave him alone! RACIST ! ! !

  219. 219
    Ted & Hellen says:

    I especially like the bit about “climate danger.”

    Which Obama has barely squeaked about in four long years as things get worse and worse…but he’s half black so I should STFU.

  220. 220
    different-church-lady says:

    @Ted & Hellen: Calvinball: ur playing it rong.

  221. 221
    different-church-lady says:

    People, just do the math: $100 x 4000 = 400k.

    Sully is not going to be deprived of funds. The market doesn’t work like that. There is no meritocracy in hard numbers. He’s only gotta get a handful of readers to turn a profit. People used to do it with quarterly newsletters back in the day.

  222. 222
    cokane says:

    my biggest problem with sullivan right now is this whole “future of journalism” thing that’s being paraded around.

    If sullivan succeeds independently, he won’t be paving a way for journalism. he will be paving a way for punditry or editorializing or simply writing and art. he’s a decent enough writer, and i understand in the big tent of journalism there is room for people who are purely pundits.

    but his success means nothing for the core of journalism — going out there and finding stories, creating original content, giving accurate reports of events of the day. He does none of these things, he does a decent job aggregating some of it from others, but meh. If he succeeds it will be even more revolting to see twitter and blogs and all this shit blow up with some triumphalism for the new future of journalism!

    I’m not sure why some intelligent media folks have even started this idea that he’s paving a new way for journalism. He’s not a journalist. This comprehensive takedown reinforces that fact, thank you for sharing.

  223. 223
    different-church-lady says:

    @Schlemizel: The mistake y’all keep making is trying to take him and her down with arguments instead of insults.

    Damn, people, when it’s a cutting contest, then CUT.

  224. 224
    SoINeedAName48 says:

    Give it a FUCKING REST

  225. 225
    different-church-lady says:

    Oh crikey, folks, the answer’s right there at #135, but y’all don’t want to see it.

  226. 226
    Rex Everything says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Oh crikey, folks, the answer’s right there at #135167, but y’all don’t want to see it.

    …fixed it for you…

  227. 227
    Ruckus says:

    I see we can add to the list.

  228. 228
    dsale says:

    @TXG1112: IMHO Sully doesn’t have anything interesting to say on art and/or culture that I couldn’t get from National Public Radio.

    Full disclosure: during the W regime, I read with interest his posts opposing the use of torture. FWIW they did appear to constitute intelligent and principled conservative opposition at the time… Upon becoming aware of some of the facts Ames includes in his article, I’ve concluded the principles on display were merely those of the first rat who decides to leave the sinking ship.

  229. 229
    El Cid says:

    Well, that all may be true about Andrew Sullivan’s excecrable record of supporting liars, racists, and warmongers, and continuing tendency toward sneering, insulting wrongness, but since he writes with the gift of 8 million Shakespeares times 12 million William Faulkners, I simply must keep reading him.

  230. 230
    Donald says:

    “However, it has long puzzled me why, given his relative status and influence, Greenwald is such a bete noire to some regular participants here.”

    It’s mainly emotion. Greenwald isn’t original–you could find the same criticisms of various Obama policies all across the left, but GG is perhaps the most prominent one who is openly derisive of liberal hypocrisy on human rights issues. Chomsky in his day got the same response from centrist-liberals, but in the pre-internet era it was easier to ignore him or simply distort his arguments in some throw-away line. That option is harder now.

    It’s not that GG is perfect–he could probably win friends and influence people a little more if he toned it down. But comparing him to a college professor who liked to pick fights is silly, as someone did, because college students are a captive audience. If you don’t like GG’s style, you could just read the links he provides. That was Chomsky’s value in his day too–back in the days before the internet, I’d find out about human rights reports from reading Chomsky and sometimes I’d even order them via snail mail from Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch. We need obsessives like that, but invariably some people react with hurt feelings and pay too much attention to the imperfections of the messenger.

  231. 231
    Ramalama says:

    @Suffern ACE: Sullivan is in love with power. GG is in love with a perfect argument.

Comments are closed.