Clueless Sullivan Denigrates Himself and Doesn’t Even Realize It.
Posted by WLS:
Rather than violate my own link ban on Sullivan, I’m just going to quote this inanity from his site earlier today:
Mickey’s Got My Back
02 Sep 2008 02:31 pm
P.P.S.–The Case for Excitability : Andrew Sullivan’s role in publicising the rumor seems legit too. The feeding frenzy of publicity is what flushes out the counter-evidence quickly (and then it gets a lot of attention).
But if you follow the link to Kaus Files, you find this:
The Case for Excitability : Andrew Sullivan’s role in publicizing the rumor seems legit too. The feeding frenzy of publicity is what flushes out the counter-evidence quickly (and then it gets a lot of attention).
[Why didn’t kf, self-appointed Guide to the Undernews, write about the rumor?–ed. It seemed more likely that an older woman would have a Down syndrome child. Nor do I see what the huge moral scandal would be if the Palin rumor were true. So I didn’t get to it. I’m not Guide to the Undernews! At least not to All the Undernews. That’s a full time job.** My argument is that the Web as a whole potentially functions as the Guide to All Undernews, as bloggers argue about whatever rumors interest them. …
So, Andy acknowledges that he no longer desires to be taken seriously as a public commentator on matters of politics and policies. He’s now happy as a gossip hound along with the others at Daily Kos pursuing the “Undernews.”
Do you really suppose that Sullivan thinks Kaus is paying him a compliment in describing him in this way?
I think that you violated your link ban with this post, which linked me to Sullivan. Maybe your copy / paste kept the html in it?
carlitos (1b6c91) — 9/2/2008 @ 1:22 pmWLS, I suggest simply not talking about Sullivan. I un-bookmarked him several years ago and haven’t looked back. I’m completely uninterested in what Sullivan has to say because he has no credibility in my eyes. Whether I agree with what he writes or not, it doesn’t matter because I don’t respect his opinion. Sullivan should eventually descend into obscurity.
b10621 (df882e) — 9/2/2008 @ 1:51 pmAnd what’s wrong with John L. Sullivan?
Another Drew (dbf36d) — 9/2/2008 @ 2:12 pmI don’t want to see what Andrew Sullivan wrote.
I don’t what to hear about what Andrew Sullivan wrote.
I don’t want to hear anything about Andrew Sullivan at all.
I will remove from my list of “must read daily” (several times a day, most days) blogs those that persist in violating my wishes.
Feel free to freely substitiute “Colmes” or the name of any other sewer rat in the preceeding.
Larry Sheldon (86b2e1) — 9/2/2008 @ 2:35 pmI do want to hear waht Sullivan is saying. I want everyone to hear it. I want him linked at the top of every major blog.
His breed of hate against republicans and women is something we shouldn’t cover up. We should talk about it, read it, and realize that Palin is indeed a way to fight against sexism and bigotry. Sullivan gets to put the lies out there, so let’s face him straight on.
So what if he makes a few ad dollars? The more important battle is to communicate to the world that Palin is indeed being attacked unfairly.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 9/2/2008 @ 3:23 pmShe’s barely been attacked at all. We still don’t have the whole story of all she’s said and done.
David Ehrenstein (961ad1) — 9/2/2008 @ 3:44 pmWLS:
Yes, but then I also think Sullivan lives and blogs in an alternate reality.
DRJ (7568a2) — 9/2/2008 @ 4:55 pmThat would be fairly deft sarcasm coming from anyone else but Sullivan.
Richard Blaine (8e2461) — 9/2/2008 @ 5:15 pmThose advocating totally ignoring him are fooling themselves. He’s the tail that wags the dog at The Atlantic now. He gets loads of traffic, and will continue to do so, regardless of whether righty blogs ignore him. All you would be doing is ceding the field to his demented disconnection from reality. Much better to quote and ridicule him.
Karl (1b4668) — 9/2/2008 @ 5:46 pmKarl, I’m unfamiliar with Sullivan’s standing at The Atlantic, but if indeed he is the “tail that wags the dog” there, it’s because he generates interest/commentary. If no one is talking about him/refuting his silliness — i.e., treating his commentary with the (dis)respect it deserves — I suspect that his value to The Atlantic would go down steeply. It’s cause and effect. Certainly the content of his musings don’t merit much discussion.
b10621 (df882e) — 9/2/2008 @ 6:43 pmReally? Think not talking about dKos makes them go away? TPM? HuffPo? MoveOn? MSNBC? Note, I think he should be ridiculed — but not necessarily linked.
Karl (1b4668) — 9/2/2008 @ 7:44 pmShould have known that Ehrenstein would be here cheering on more smear attacks.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/2/2008 @ 7:45 pmThey haven’t attacked her enough . . . what a fucking tool.
Icy Truth (80b4e7) — 9/2/2008 @ 7:47 pmDid I say that I think not talking about Sullivan et al will make them go away, Karl?
b10621 (df882e) — 9/2/2008 @ 7:56 pmMaybe Sully provided the Atlantic with muliple references, and all of them shared internet access with Glenn Greenwald.
carlitos (1b6c91) — 9/2/2008 @ 8:00 pmb10621, you wrote that if we ignore him, you suspect that his value to The Atlantic would go down shaply. As his audience is now mostly liberal, and his blog is in the Technorati Top 50, my response is, “no” and my point still stands. It’s not conservative blogs feeding him. And ignoring him is like a political candidate leaving attacks unanswered. Months and years later, AS and his coterie of lefty fellow travelers will occupy various spaces in Google searches without rebuttal. Not good strategy.
Karl (1b4668) — 9/2/2008 @ 10:48 pm