You really must read the entire post, but I'll give you this tease:
Besides, for Mickey to talk about unsteady judgment strikes me as a little rich. Hands up who can now recall whether Mickey was for the war or against it? Was he for Kerry or did he loathe him? Is he for gay marriage or against it? This is a man who cannot write a sentence without fifteen parentheses for qualifications, internal rebuttals, self-questioning, meta-meta-spin, obscure references to people he might once have dissed or who might have dissed him, and even an imaginary editor to subvert his own points even as he makes them.
This isn't just towel-snapping anymore. This time, it's personal.
Kaus's baiting has been so demonically successful that he has even succeeded in prompting Sullivan to pop off against Glenn Reynolds, Power Line, and the Belmont Club. (And the ease with which Sullivan does so suggests that he's been spoiling to to claw at these other blogs for some time now. Either that or he's just very facile at tossing off casual, personal insults. I report. You decide.)
Update, 11:13 p.m.: A commenter notes that Sullivan used to refer to Instapundit (his "blog hero") as "Glenn." Now that he's a partisan dupe, he's "Reynolds." I wonder when Andrew disavowed him.
40 comments:
As far as amateur kremlinology in the post goes Instapundit's author is now reffered to as "Reynolds" rather than "Glenn".
Sullivan also was picking on LGF also:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14492_Sullivan_Off_the_Rails_Again#comments
Sully's 15 minutes of fame are just about over. What kind of moron would pick a fight with Instapundit, Belmont Club, Power Line, Little Green Footballs, and Kaus, ALL AT ONCE?
If you didn't think he was crazy before, this proves he's crazy now.
Kaus's baiting has been so demonically successful that he has even succeeded in prompting Sullivan to pop off against Glenn Reynolds, Power Line, and the Belmont Club. (And the ease with which Sullivan does so suggests that he's been spoiling to to claw at these other blogs for some time now. Either that or he's just very facile at tossing off casual, personal insults. I report. You decide.)I agre with this, especially with Wretchard of the Belmont Club.
You write: "Either that or he's just very facile at tossing off casual, personal insults. I report. You decide."
The latter. Sullivan is a master of the art of the casual personal insult. I've noticed for quite a while that Sullivan tends to lash out when criticized, especially if he doesn't have a good rejoinder. He can be quite the street fighter. Even when not personally criticized, he is sometimes comes out swinging in very personal (and often unsubstantiated) ways, like when he called Zell Miller a Dixiecrat and a racist after his speech at the Republican convention.
Does Sullivan ever write about anything but Sullivan? No matter the purported topic, inevitably he gets back to the most important thing: himself.
Sullivan's writing is remarkably formulaic if you look at it. It's kind of like a political Mad-Libs. He is as passionate about deficit reduction as he is about the war on terror as he is about allegations of torture as he is about gay marriage.
Simply change the terms and Sullivan is at all times saddened, hopeful, amazed, shocked, incensed, etc etc.
Sullivan is Horace Greeley.
It may be HIV encephalitis, or another for of HIV dementia. It's not universal among HIV patients, perhaps 10% are at risk.
http://www.link.med.ed.ac.uk/RIDU/Demaids.htm
It's too bad, I used to read him constantly and gave him $20 in his first blogothon. But last summer he became unreadable.
Well I was there stirring the pot with this post. And I don't even get a mention?
I have had it in for Sullivan (with whom I have on occasion corresponded) ever since he went left.
Well any way. Nice to see Sullivan taking some heat for being a Nervous Nellie. He gets so overwrought some days. And really I like the guy. I used to read him regularly before 9/11 and post 9/11 he turned me on to LGF.
Back in those days Charles was lucky to get 4 or 5 comments on a post. I was often one of them.
Now look at him.
Well I still read Charles several times a day. Sullivan hardly once a week. Although I did catch him this week in time to get in on the action.
Blogging is fun.
Get some.
Sullivan, Kaus, Johnson, Wretchard, Hindrocket et al.
Man, that's going to be one tough cakewalk ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WATCH A CAKEWALK: Here's a video of a 1903 cakewalk. The photograph was originally titled "An amusing cake walk, by a company of New York darkies who excel in this line of work." Here's a poster for such a thing, with the title: "Loony Coons." Another one is called "Chocolate Drops." There are others, including one called "Jolly Pickanninies." I don't think there's much doubt, ahem, about the racist message.
- 12:21:42 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have largely stopped caring about Sullivan's point of view when he shifted from a fairly conservative commentator whose homosexuality was just a background aspect to a gay activist whose conservatism--or what was left of it--is a background aspect. Now, looking back on his blog, he seems to have abandoned almost all forms of conservatism if that form of conservatism continues to support Bush.
I think Instapundit went from being "Glenn" to "Reynolds" when he wrote this on January 11:
WAS LINCOLN GAY? Andrew Sullivan cares, and so do the folks at The Weekly Standard. I can't seem to, though. The guy saved the nation, and I'm supposed to care about where he put his wing-wang?
Sullivan's response was:
"WHERE HE PUT HIS WING-WANG": This, apparently, is Glenn Reynold's view of what being gay is. And Glenn is on the side of the angels in this. It's enough to make you despair.
Since then, I don't believe Sullivan has been referring to Glenn Reynold's at all. I did notice, though, that he borrowed the term "Instapundit" to use as the heading for his own comments on Pres. Bush's Inaugural address. And without a nod to Reynolds.
Folks, I find Sullivan's hysterical inconstancy as annoying as any man (and I'm no conservative), but I think we can discuss (and mock!) his gaping intellectual lacunae without resort to stereotypical generalizations about homosexuals as a group. This crudely reductive talk about HIV drug-induced moodswings or multiple-partner lifestyles is tasteless and irrelevant; Sullivan's problems are sui generis and have been noticeable for years, long before he rose to blogging prominence.
sullivan's perception of everything changed when Bush came out for the federal anti-gay marriage amendment. If not for that, I believe Sullivan would still be far more supportive of the war and willing to roll with the admitted punches administered by the terrorists. But he's like a betrayed lover, always willing to bring up something wrong as a way of re-enacting the originals betrayal over and over...and over again. I still read him, but certainly not with the expectancy or enthusiasm I used to.
Last commenter nailed it: Sullivan's support for the war has always been contingent on Bush's gay policy; as soon as Bush announced his support for FMA, Sullivan became anti-war.
Let's face it, the most important day of the past 4 years, to Sullivan, was not 9/11, but, rather, the day Bush came out for FMA.
I used to read Sullivan every day. He has moved so far left of center that I put him in the same category as Daily Kos and read him maybe, once per month. He seems very egotistical and really, quite dreary. He's a real downer, in my opinion.
Sullivan's linked to you and accused Galley Slaves of "imputing" his scappin' and fightin' to "aids dementia". He keeps confusing comments on posts with the blog itself - he did the same thing with LGF. I've seen the MSM and lefties do this for the purposes of disinformation but he should (and probably does) know better.
ps Last week he casually referred to the Weekly Standard as "homophobes". I wonder if Sully would still accept civil unions or is he Gay marrage or bust now?
Sullivan drives me nuts at times, but please remember that he was the favorite pro-war conservative for several years. His criticisms of the war and the Bush admin tend to be knee-jerk, but they should not be ignored. Sullivan hasn't "gone-left", he's always been a social lib fiscal conservative and a hawk. That said, the guy seems to have an ego the size of Texas. Everything is about him ("The Whitehouse issued a statement today, blah blah blah..... full disclosure, I once bought a postcard with a picture of the Whitehouse on it").
He's a gifted writer, but he's also a professional pundit, so nobody should take him so seriously as to wish ill upon him. If you don't like what he has to stay, stop visiting his site.
I'm unfortunately not surprised by the personal, superficial nature of both Jonathan Last's initial post and a good portion of the comments. I mean, aren't these supposed to be like, wonky heavy political blogs here and not catty, bitchy little gossip columns? "Kaus said such and such about Sullivan", "Sullivan said such and such about so and so", "Oh no he di'un't! girlfriend!" "Sullivan used to call Instapundit 'Glenn' and now he's calling him 'Reynolds'. OMG OMG OMG!"
You sound like teenage girls. Get a life.
I thought the point of this was substantitive discussion of Iraq, the elections etc. It would reflect better on you if you were to keep your criticisms susbstantive and not personal. Of course, Sullivan hasn't been an angel on this score either, but his posts have been much more substantive and less personal, than what's been going on here. The political blogosphere, particularly the pro-war political blogosphere is quickly devolving into a bunch of pointless inter-blog feuds, and this kind of post is no help in slowing that process down.
-Eric Deamer
http://youngcurmudgeon.typepad.com
To be fair to Sullivan, he has always been front and center with his gay marriage stance and he sees it as a conservative issue. He has always been pro-war in Iraq. He just is not pleased with the President's silence on certain issues or certain actions (lack of troops, possible torture). However, unlike most of the posters here, he is not willing to be silent or have blind acceptance. He is more of a thinker than most people on here combined. If you can't handle the fact that he talks ever about homosexuality, then so be it. But he has never changed. You are the one with the problem. To people like him, this is an important issue--how can you deny certain rights to some and not to others? We are extendeding liberty to others in Iraq, but we are restricting more of our own. It is like suggesting in the 50s and 60s that Blacks should not be able to talk about their civil rights and should only pull the party line. To most of the people on this board, Sullivan is more of a conservative than any of you will ever be as long as you support the President's budget busting initiative, religious initiatives that push a specific religion, and big government. You are all blind followers. May Sullivan continue--dissent is important.
Eric, the fact that Sullivan commands such threads and posts even named after him show he is a very important threat to these people. They fear he is powerful and right. They use ad hominems because they can't argue anything else. It is evasion pure and simple.
Nice audience here. I agree with Anonymous above that this crowd does not deserve the mantle 'conservative' -- hysterically antigay and defensive of Bush, but not thinkers, and not conservative.
Sullivan is a bit of a loon, but he's absolutely right that the Iraq war is in a middle ground; the right idea, some poor execution, hopefully going to turn out well in the end, but with lots to worry about in the meantime.
It's really Instapundit who has ossified his position over time, such that he will brook no dissent, no thoughtful critique of Bush's policies and plans.
What one considers a "historic skirmish" says quite a bit about them.
Bloggers talk a lot about Noam Chomsky and Robert Scheer too...does that mean they important and relevant, or just consistently risible? Kinda like Andrew.
I find it disappointing that young Deamer doesn't find the conversation sufficiently edfiying. Regardless, his attack on our host, Mr. Last, is completely out of bounds. JVL has shown considerable courage in shining the spotlight on this epic battle between literary titans and he has shown a carefully modulated neutrality throughout. We are all likely to learn an infinite amount through this enlightening and historic skirmish. We owe Mr. Last an enormous debt for bravely continueing to call this matter to our attention.
As he said, we need him on that wall.
"'WHERE HE PUT HIS WING-WANG': This, apparently, is Glenn Reynold's view of what being gay is."
Well... yeah. Being gay means you have different goals for your wing-wang than those who are not gay. It's pretty basic, really. If I'm supposed to believe that gays are just like non-gays in every way but that one little thing (so to speak), or else I'm a bigot, why is it an invalid view of what being gay is?
This is what was on Andrew Sullivan's blog:
Just asking ... And is there any conservative blog out there that can criticize my work without some poster eventually imputing it to AIDS dementia? It's fair enough - it was clear this wasn't referring to the blog - but the posts from the commenters.
Andrew Sullivan should refrain from attacking blogs for the content of postings in comments threads until he opens HIS blog for comments. That's only fair. Then, if anybody decided to post anything nasty in his blog, it would be his fault and he could be attacked for it.
I ran across this long post on a Balloon Juice trackback.
http://allyourtv.com/aviewfromcenter/index.php?p=277
Here's the money quote for me:
"Their wrath is even greater for anyone they considered one of "their own" until they were led astray. What seems to me to be at least 50% of the critical posts aimed at Sullivan include some comment along the lines of "well, he used to have an articulate pro-war blog, but he’s sucked since last summer, when he began criticizing the war."
In other words, "We love you just as long as you agree with us."
RE: "We love you just as long as you agree with us."
That quote seems less relevant to the intellectual collapse of Andrew Sullivan than to the Democrats' reaction to Zell Miller.
"Boo hoo--Sullivan is so unreadable ever since he stopped agreeing with me."
Please.
"Boo hoo--Sullivan is so unreadable ever since he stopped agreeing with me."Well, I'm the one that suggested HIV dementia, so you can all jump on me now.
I actually agree with Sullivan on most things. I'm for gay marriage, increased HIV spending, the government out of our bedrooms and condom distribution. I'm against profligate spending and I voted for Bush as the lesser of 2 bad choices. I'm for the war, and hope it expands to Syria and Iran.
But over the past year, he's become unreadable. He'll have three sentences in a graph that have NOTHING to do with one another. He changes his priorities because it's Tuesday, or because the neighbors dog barked.
When someone of his talent and intelligence looses it like that, there has to be a reason. If it were someone who worked for me the first thing I'd suspect is substance abuse. Since he's very health conscious, I figure in this case, that's probably not it.
In the 90's I had a LOT of friends that died of AIDS, some before things like Pentamadine became available. A couple of them had HIV dementia. Is it possible in his case? The odds are low, but it's possible. He's talked about the mood swings he gets from testosterone, maybe it's a medication that's doing it - like Steven Denbeste.
Sullivan has lost it. He's NOT the writer he once was. I'm regret that, he articulated my positions wonderfully. Now he's slapping at shadows. I hope he gets better.
Whenever I read a slur about AIDS dementia, I tend to assume the writer is too lazy and bitchy to discuss serious matters civilly: oh, he's a crazy loon, torture is good, war planning is bad, unbridled spending is the bee's knees, us good, them bad. I have been reading Sullivan on and off for years, and have never seen the degeneration in writing standard so loathesomely alleged.
Amazing
Until now I didn't know that science had invented an idiot magnet. Yet this site presents definitive proof that said device exists. Amazing, simply Amazing. I'm anxiously awating the discovery channel documentery with all the details.
"Until now I didn't know that science had invented an idiot magnet."
You're here, aren't you?
I think all of you need to get a life. Read what blog you want and quit bitching about who is right and who is wrong. Didn't ya'lls mama ever tell ya if you don't have something nice to say about someone, to keep your mouth shut? Find other ways for home entertainment rather than to write in and snipe at people. It ain't healthy.
I think all of you need to get a life. Read what blog you want and quit bitching about who is right and who is wrong. Didn't ya'lls mama ever tell ya if you don't have something nice to say about someone, to keep your mouth shut? Find other ways for home entertainment rather than to write in and snipe at people. It ain't healthy.
Didn't ya'lls mama ever tell ya if you don't have something nice to say about someone, to keep your mouth shut?If we all did that the Blogosphere would fall off it's axis and spin into the sun.
Sullivan's concern and dismay, 24 hours a day, are only equaled by Tom Daschle.
Hey ##NAME##, you have a great blog covering Marketing my affiliate website here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you! I have a Marketing my affiliate website site which pretty much deals with Marketing my affiliate website. Come by and check it out if you get some time. :-)
Post a Comment