Sometimes Andrew Sullivan is simply amazing. He has recently been in a tedious little tiff with Glenn Reynolds and Mickey Kaus (who is telling one side of the story, who is being inconsistent, etc.) that I was mostly able to ignore. Tonight, however, he has outdone even himself:
GLENN’S DEFENSE: He argues that he only covers good news from Iraq because the mainstream media is doing all the rest. But doesn’t that prove my point? He’s deliberately covering only half the story. How that differs from putting fingers in his ears when bad news emerges, I don’t know.
Let’s see- Glenn covers half the story. The MSM covers the other half.
1/2 + 1/2 = Mass Fucking Confusion for Andy
Maybe his point is that he is aware of the bad news but deliberately eschews any reference to it on the blog.
Getting warmer. Except he doesn’t eschew any reference to it- he implicitly and explicitly acknowledges the negative side of the story every time he MOCKS THE MEDIA FOR ONLY TELLING THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF THE STORY.
My criticism of Belmont Club and Powerline is simply that they defend anything and everything done by the Bush administration. I may be wrong here, because I haven’t read their every word.
If you haven’t read their every word, perhaps claiming they will defend ‘anything and everything’ may be a bit much, ehh?
So can anyone point me to a critique of the Bush administration in any way that has appeared on either blog?
Ya lazy bastard. In other words, your accusation stands until someone does the research and tells you otherwise? YOur readers really are getting a helluva return on the 100k in donations you got last year.
I’d be happy to be corrected. Even pro-war, pro-Bush writers must have some small criticism occasionally? Just asking … And is there any conservative blog out there that can criticize my work without some poster eventually imputing it to AIDS dementia?
If it makes you feel better, I think you were drunk when you wrote this. At least I hope so.
Kathy K
Critiques? I’ve had plenty. But I’ve shut up in the past 1.5 years because I realize the MSM does it so much better.
Kinda like Glenn, I suppose. Though I did mention once or twice(maybe more), as our elections were coming up, that I was going to have to hold my nose to vote for President Bush.
(Did I mention I’m not a conservative? I’m not. Even Right Wing News eventually figured that out and stopped sending me ‘right-leaning’ invitations.)
Mason
I think he’s trolling for traffic.
HH
Did Andy not notice that the Atriettes have been talking about “AIDS dementia” and the like, and glorying in the “gotcha” of Andy’s personal ads the past few years. Now suddenly it’s the right’s fault?
Gary Farber
“‘My criticism of Belmont Club and Powerline is simply that they defend anything and everything done by the Bush administration.
I may be wrong here, because I haven’t read their every word.'”
“If you haven’t read their every word, perhaps claiming they will defend ‘anything and everything’ may be a bit much, ehh?”
Speaking as someone who has made a living in the past as an editor, I believe I’m on fairly firm ground in asserting that a “criticism” is a statement of opinion.
But this is an interesting standard you appear to be asserting, John. You appear to be asserting that it is “a bit much” for someone to voice an opinion about their impression of a blog unless that person has “read their every word” of said blog.
I take it that therefore you have read every word Andrew Sullivan has ever published on his blog, although an alternate possibility would be that you consider your own criticism of him “a bit much” for not having done so.
Either way, I’m impressed. (I don’t recall the last day, in recent months, that you’ve not made a post about Sullivan, so I exclude neither possibility; however, I cheerfully admit that I haven’t read anything close to every word you’ve ever written on your blog, nor that of anyone else’s blog, for that matter.)
John Cole
Gary-
I am not going to quibble with you over the definition of a criticism, as you clearly understand my point and chose to ignore it. I will, however, point out that if you look up pedantic in the dictionary, you will find this entry:
pe
Kimmitt
I don’t understand; this is standard Sully. The only difference is that he’s aiming his willful ignorance at the Right instead of the Left.
Dog of the South
Mr. Cole,
The comments of the insufferably pedantic Mr. Farber notwithstanding, please reread the following quote and show me how it makes the slightest sense whatsoever.
“If you haven’t read their every word, perhaps claiming they will defend ‘anything and everything’ may be a bit much, ehh?”
And please don’t tell me that Sullivan’s saying “anything and everything” allows you to establish a legitimate equivalance with “every word.” Does saying that “XYZ is the stupidest thing George Bush has done yet” require one to know of every single action that Bush has ever performed, such as eating peanut butter crackers in the fourth grade?
Sullivan is an outright fool. You’re such a fool that Sullivan isn’t a BIG enough fool for you. Neither one of you can think straight. It’s like watching midgets wrestle.
John Cole
Pay attention to Dog of the South, folks.
If you are going to insult me, that is how you do it.
I take issue with your argument, though. Sullivan is making the point that the two blogs are reflexive Bush defenders, then admits he doesn’t know if they are or not, because he hasn’t really paid close enough attention to what they have written. That is the real heart of the situation.
Thanks for stopping by, though.
TF6S
The thing that is driving me nuts about Sullivan isn’t necessarily his views (which I disagree with), it is the fact that he choses to voice his opposition without even making an argument. It’s really hard to have a reasonable debate over an issue when one party refuses to make an argument.
He is convinced we need more troops, but NEVER made an argument as to why that is the case. So, he fights back against everyone that disagrees with him by calling them names.
Sullivan hasn’t had an orginal thought in years. He’s a reactionary and someone who adds no value to any debates anymore. David Cohen attributed a phrase to him called “Argument Ad Sullivanium.”
That about sums it up.
Kimmitt
He is convinced we need more troops, but NEVER made an argument as to why that is the case.
Actually, this is one of the few places he has an argument, and it’s because he consistently quotes both people on the ground and dissidents within the Administration who have called for more troops.
TF6S
Kimmit, just quoting someone with an opposing view doesn’t make an argument. You form an argument by saying how those troops would be used and the positive and negative consequences to such a maneuver. You then use said people to back up your position. Sullivan, and the more troops crowd, have not done so (If you know of someone, please send me a line, I would be interested in well reasoned “more troops” argument). You cannot just state an opposing position without actually arguing for it.