An Entertaining Read

Sullivan grovels to get back into the good graces of ... Paul Krugman?!

And this man is still a spokesman for conservatives ... how?

Comments

[North Dallas Thirty]

Not to be mean, but his attitude is akin to a man who goes trolling online for bareback sex, then acts surprised when the other guy doesn't want to use a condom.

Anyone who reads Krugman knows that the man is motivated by two things -- narcissism and an irrational worship of the Clinton administration. And yet Sully acts surprised that all Krugman wants to do is use him as an example of a pathetic and vanquished foe?

My advice to Sullivan: read the story of Benedict Arnold, paying particular attention to what happened to him AFTER he betrayed the American colonies over the lure of promised wealth and adulation.

[Patrick]

What a wuss.

[beautifulatrocities]

HA HA HA! He's such a phony, the only reason he ever went after the Times was because Raines fired him. After Raines was booted, Sully lost interest in documenting the Times' hit parade of errors

[gene]

Perhaps Sullivan has finally found that being correct is a more desirable state than being Republican.

[Patrick]

Correct? I'd seetle for consistent and in possession of his balls.

[Queer Conservative]

That's the most blatant admission that he's caved that Sully's written so far.

[beautifulatrocities]

It happens to public intellectuals sometimes. Having gone out on a limb, they saw it off it behind them rather than admit they were wrong. Bruce Bawer is an example of what Sully could have been if he hadn't imploded (in a previous generation, the same thing happened to Germaine Greer)

[Dan]

(looking around) ....

(crickets chirping) ...

nope, looks like sully's on our side now. Guess you're the only conservative cheerleader left, mal...

;)

[Queer Conservative]

Oh no Dan - not true, there's Bruce Bawer, Tammy Bruce, Tom Palmer, and that's just the beginning.

Remember too, Sully is like the rich man that leaves his wife for a mistress, eventually he'll fuck over the mistress too. Watch out, or he'll vacillate all your the left as well.

[Patrick]

By "conservative cheerleader" do you mean someone who doesn't accept the notion that the Left is our true home? Are you saying that we best be getting awselves back tuh thuh plantation 'for masser finds out?

[Malcontent]

Dan, you must read AAtom!

[Malcontent]

Patrick, go easy on him. He reads this site often enough to know how deluded that statement really is.

[Craig Ranapia]

beautifulatrocities:
HA HA HA! He's such a phony, the only reason he ever went after the Times was because Raines fired him.

I reply:
Really? Then I guess Sullivan was a real fuckwit to keep submitting his column to the NYT Magazine - and criticising the paper in his blog - *after* Raines fired him. Come on, criticise the guy if you think it's justified but let's avoid fudging inconvenient realities when they don't suit you preconceived thesis. Remember, Krug-ing can lead to Dowdification then full blown Jayson B-liar syndrome.

[Josh]

Sully is always a victim. It's like, the rules of feminism!

[Robbie]

Dan's comment is probably an inadvertant illustration of the problem I have with many liberals and the Left.

"He's on our side now!"

Side, as in, he bashes Bush regularly?

Like Bush vs Hate Bush is all there is on the Left. It's not about ideas - it's about how much they hate the president.

I'm interested in various ideas, not about how much I like or dislike a single person any given week. For a lot of the Left, it's the exact opposite.

And that is why I have such disdain for that end of the spectrum at this point in time. They're not serious in an age when we need to be deadly serious.

(Mal, when did we become cheerleaders? Have we even written about Bush in the past month?)

[Robbie]

Oh, and on Sullivan. That piece is basically a four year old going, "Nuh uh! I do so hate Bush!"

Think about how Sullivan was when he was editing the New Republic.

Now read that piece again.

It has nothing to do with conservative vs liberal. He's just not the thinker or writer he used to be.

[Dan]

For chrissakes, it was a joke. Ever hear of a trash talking? Just getting a few digs at you guys while the (media) fur's flying.

Yes Robbie, thank you for taking a harmless joke and making a didactic bore out of it. Anybody with an IQ larger than their shoe size is well aware that the whole concept of 'taking sides' is best left in the grade school playground. Why do you think I read this site to begin with?

Besides, I've been to a few parties when Sully's in the house. So far as I'm concerned, y'all can keep him ;)

[Robbie]

Oh, I know you were only poking. I just used it as a springboard for something I'd been mulling over lately.

I'll be nicer in a reply to you in the next debate. Promise.

[gene]

Patrick, your problem is that you're wrong - wrong about Bush, wrong about Sullivan, wrong about the Left, wrong about the Right - you're consistently wrong, and what's really very sad, is you're not bright enough to know it. And what is your Dies Irae, your trumpet blast in response, " I'd settle for in possession of his balls."

[Patrick]

Patrick, your problem is that you're wrong - wrong about Bush, wrong about Sullivan, wrong about the Left, wrong about the Right - you're consistently wrong, and what's really very sad, is you're not bright enough to know it. And what is your Dies Irae, your trumpet blast in response, "I'd settle for in possession of his balls."

Do I know you?

[Patrick]

I mean, consistently wrong? In what forum have we previous met?

[Patrick]

I mean, consistently wrong? In what forum have we previous met?

[Aatom]

Perhaps I'm confused, this piece didn't read like groveling to me, or some sort of "I hate Bush too" apology piece. He was merely defending himself against Krugman's smears by pointing out the truth: he has never been afraid to criticize this President when he disagrees with him, yet had the, um..balls I suppose, to support him during a war that he still wants us to win. The tragedy, and this is where I wholeheartedly agree with Sullivan, is that Bush has not been a very effective post-invasion administrator or leader. Many of you have also expressed doubts along these lines, so I'm a b ut confused by your animosity to Sullivan.

If Bush fails at the one central policy decision that led so many of us to support him initially, what exactly does he deserve our support for? Exponentially increasing the size of the Federal government? Raking up unprecedented deficits? Crawling into bed with the worst strains of theocratic wannabe fascists in our political system? If we fail in Iraq, Bush fails. And right now he's most definitely on academic probation as far as I, and many other principled conservatives, are concerned. I think perhaps a distaste for Sullivan personally has tainted the good sense of some otherwise very intelligent people here.

But this is the central crux of his post: "I want to win the war, and we have this president for the next three years. If he does good things, he still deserves our support; and so do the people of Iraq." In a time when public support of the war and of this President is at an all-time low, can a critical voice of reason who is still unafraid to show this administration support when it is warranted be as damaging as you all seem to think it is? I respectfully disagree. A lot of this rhetoric smacks of 'you are either with us or against us', and I have come to expect a bit more from many of you.

[Robbie]

I was talking to Boozhy a little bit about this earlier.

It's not "You're either with us or against us." As you noted, I'm not exactly the most thrilled person about President Bush's handling of the war or federal budget.

I can't speak for Mal, but for me, over time I've been coming under the distinct impression that Sullivan is increasingly relying on bad faith to make many of his arguments - he's motivated on some things by personal emotional animus rather than intellectual conviction.

Now, Juan argued it's the nature of blogs. Naturally, it is. But people like, say, us don't do it for a living. We can be as dumb as we wanna be, and it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things.

Sullivan's a public writer and his work has grown increasingly sloppy, disjointed, at times illogical, and often petty, petulant, and childish.

I don't know if you've read the recent pissing match between Andrew and Ramesh Ponnaru of National Review, but it was really, really awful on Sullivan's part. I mean, you can't even excuse his arguments, because he was so obviously more interested in going after someone than making serious, thoughtful points.

A lot of his stuff over the past few years has possessed similar characteristics. Maybe it's a matter of perception. I haven't soured on him because I perceive he's gone liberal. I soured on him because his work increasingly included temper tantrums, seemingly emotionally driven changes in opinion, really untempered mood swings almost always followed by denials he's changed his position, and it's everyone else that is crazy.

Maybe it's ego, maybe it's a thin skin. I'm not sure what it is. But I really miss the old, thoughtful Andrew. New Andrew has been PMSing for about two years straight at this point.

[gene]

"... he's motivated on some things by personal emotional animus rather than intellectual conviction."

Yeah, and what the fuck motivates you? Divine guidance? Truth, justice and the American way? Get over yourself.