Andrew Sullivan has no intellectual right to write these words about how the Beltway Establishment cowered before the Bush Administration:

[M]uch of official Washington carried on as normal - and those of us who actually stood up and opposed this were regarded as "hysterics". Something is rotten in a country where this can happen with such impunity - and when, even now, highly regarded and respected journalists and commentators simply move on or roll their eyes or sigh world-weary sighs.

Andrew Sullivan invented the New McCarthyism, as David Talbot demonstrated in 2001:

In recent weeks, Sullivan has taken it upon himself to evaluate whether his fellow writers and commentators are sufficiently patriotic. He broods darkly -- in the pages of his native British press, on his Web site and on the Op-Ed pages of the Wall Street Journal -- that America harbors nests of traitors, or in his words "decadent left enclaves on the coasts [that] may well mount a fifth column." And like all Manichaean guardians of national security, from the days of the Alien and Sedition Acts to those of Joseph McCarthy, Sullivan has turned his pumped-up and disproportionate rhetoric toward rooting out these disloyal Americans in his midst.

Until Andrew Sullivan acknowledges and regrets his own behavior regarding the Bush Administration, I will find his sanctimony repulsive. And for the record, Sullivan opposed censuring President Bush. Of course, he was a big supporter of impeaching and removing President Clinton from office.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Transparency And The OLC | Remember The "Gang Of 14?" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Someone clue me in on why he has (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:32:24 AM EST
    written this latest essay.  Does he hope his past participation to go unnoticed now that we are digging up the mass grave?  Why doesn't he just apologize or does he have multiple personality disorder and they all write under his name?

    Ask yourself this (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:35:55 AM EST
    Who besides me, is pointing this out?

    He has gotten away with it.


    Not with me. Not with me. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:41:07 AM EST
    No one (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:12:19 AM EST
    other than you and a few bloggers' commenting.
    He has gotten cover from progressives for a long, long time because many of those so called progressives LOVED anyone who hated and trashed Hillary Clinton.  It is the one thing I will never get over...that so called progressives had such personal hatred and such a sick desire for a vendetta that they tolerated, covered for each others sick and perverted lies about a decent, great woman who her entire life worked to better the lives of the poor, the disenfranchised.  And sadly, NONE of them will ever apologize.

    Because he was an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:53:51 AM EST
    he can now be a GIANT duplicitous liar?  And everyone asleep at the keyboard is conscienceless!

    That's the way it works (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:03:38 AM EST
    Consider only this fact - I was an implacable "hysteric" about the Bush Administration and pretty consistently so for the past 8 years, including two+ years as a FP writer on Daily Kos.

    Among Left bloggers today, and not just because I am a jerk, I am among the most reviled while Andrew Sullivan is quite the respected figure.  

    Ask yourself why.


    And in the real world (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    the best progressive in the Media of the last 8 years, Paul Krugman, was attacked by Left blogs for the past year.

    While Sullivan was praised.

    How much further do you need to look? This is how Cults of Personality work.


    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:12:09 AM EST
    Yes, mainstream cults (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    I think you're less reviled than you think (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:12:32 AM EST
    you are.  The mainstream always has to have a bit of "the gaming of things" involved, and I don't know why.  That's not your bag and you have many many readers because of that.  Yours is an important voice on the left, everybody is always checking out what you have to say even if they are too intimidated to comment. You are a fighter and lefties don't like to fight as much as they like to over analyze EVERYTHING, fighting scares them.  Even if it is fighting for what is right and what we desperately need fighting scares almost all of them witless.

    Well, unless they are shooting each (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:13:26 AM EST
    other in the face during primaries.  They'll jump on that in a heartbeat :)

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:19:45 AM EST
    I've always been reviled. I am not a pleasant person.

    But beyond that, who I criticize is what determines who and how much I am reviled.

    But I've learned to live with that.


    You aren't ignored though (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 11:51:06 AM EST
    Some of your fellow bloggers who in past have reviled you are now finding themselves for the most part irrelevant these days.

    Sorry... this is disgusting (none / 0) (#30)
    by LogopolisMike on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    I'm a long time reviler of Sullivan, since long before the Bush years, but I'll still read him, like I'll read anyone who has interesting things to say and presents them intelligentally.

    But I'm sorry throwing around feminine pronouns as something derogatory is beyond the pale and insulting, especially on a site run by the terrific woman whose thoughts bring me here.


    I find it odd (none / 0) (#4)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:50:40 AM EST
    that Greenwald always references him and usually with praise.  The man is insane:


    02 Jan 2008 06:54 pm

    Barack Clinton
    Almost funny its so shameless:

    "I guess it's because of the polls, but it looks like Hillary's trying to trick us into believing she is, in actuality, Barack Obama. Twenty minutes after Ben Smith posted that she'd stolen the "Fired up, ready to go" line, Howard Wolfson went on Hardball and said that the great thing about Iowa was that Iowans were getting a chance to "check under the hood...kick the tires." Chris Matthews told him with a smirk, "You stole that line directly from Obama."

    They're like my high school students, staring at their neighbor's test and hoping we can't see their eyeballs."

    When you have no inner core, it's sometimes easier to borrow others'. God knows her husband did.

    I find it annoying that Greenwald legitmizes this idiot, but, whatever I guess.


    I guess I part ways with you (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by dk on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:59:52 AM EST
    when you write:

    Until Andrew Sullivan acknowledges and regrets his own behavior regarding the Bush Administration, I will find his sanctimony repulsive.

    During the brief period, in 2006, when he was in between spewing irrational cr*p defending Bush and spewing irrational cr*p attacking Hillary Clinton, I believe he did address his "third column" comments.  He did not give a flat out apology, of course, nor admit how dangerous his comments were, but he did acknowledge the error of his ways in trusting Bush (don't make me look in his archives, I have long since sworn off going to that man's website).

    My position, however, is that whether and how much he apologizes, regrets, whatever you would like to call it, is pretty much irrelevant.  The real problem is that he shattered any credibility, permanently, with the third column stuff.  There is nothing he could say that should allow him to regain credibility as someone whose opinion on anything political should be taken seriously.  Forever.  That's not to say he should be taken out and shot.  Perhaps he could find success writing a food column or something.  But as a political analyst, he's a fool.

    Same goes, in my opinion, for Progressive Blogosphere 1.0 of course.  For all those who spewed lies during the primary wars, their credibility is shot.  Credibility is a fragile thing, and once it's broke, it's broke.  For all of those who took part in the lies, from Avriosis to Moulitsas to Sirota and beyond, perhaps they could join in the food blogging too.

    At most he admitted to being taken in (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:19:46 AM EST
    by Bush. He did not admit to his own horrible behavior towards those of us who were not taken in. Now he will probably act the same way towards those not on his current side.

    I did not read him when he was on the right, and I sure don't read him now.


    To be clear, I did not (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by dk on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:22:21 AM EST
    intend to defend Sully in any respect.  My main point is that a focus on whether or not he apologized or regrets anything is rather misguided, in my opinion.  The effect of the third column stuff is irreversable, period, as far as his reputation as a political analyst is concerned.

    to be clear (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:25:11 AM EST
    the phrase is Fifth Column. It is euphemistic for "traitor."

    Ugh...my bad. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by dk on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:27:14 AM EST
    Sully gets me so angry I mix up my columns!

    Do me a favor . . . (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 11:23:03 AM EST
    and do NOT suggest food columns/blogs for the likes of Sully etc! Just take their keyboards away and leave us in peace :)

    Andrew Sullivan (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:08:17 AM EST
    is a selfish, sanctimonious hypocrite, an elitist who prefers his place in gated communities, and loves to hang out with the rich and powerful.

    Sullivan, like so many (Matthews, Williams, Russert, Gregory and much of the press corps) has blood on his hands.  While they loved blaming the Clintons for everything; hate on Hillary in particular, they put W into office; enabled him and admired him.
    They are sick, perverted people with man crushes determining who should be the head of their plutocracy.  I want Sullivan and the rest to be taken to task for their hypocrisy and lies but the MSM cover for each other....and push to side anyone who will call them out on their lies.

    Ahhhh ha ha ha ha (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 04:02:20 PM EST
    They are sick, perverted people with man crushes determining who should be the head of their plutocracy.

    I love Talkleft, I can only find such finer pointed truths here :)


    He's a real beauty (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Mikeb302000 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    to have opposed censuring Bush and to have supported impeaching Clinton. The mind boggles.

    OT (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:25:36 AM EST
    Gordon Brown is giving a pretty partisan speech before Congress, promoting social democracy.

    And knighting Teddy Kennedy (none / 0) (#21)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:33:46 AM EST
    putting him in terrible company for that 'honor'...or is it 'honour?'  Rudy Juliani, George HW Bush and Teddy?  Ugh.

    Hey, and the Beatles and Elton John (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    Knight away

    Yes, well....I was listing the (none / 0) (#35)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:16:14 PM EST
    American politicians who were chosen.

    I'm with you on British musicians!


    It was sort of remarkable (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 04:05:02 PM EST
    That thing about how it's not New Europe or Old Europe but your friend Europe (Rumsfeld gets to pick dirt out of his teeth).

    Talbot nailed Sully's (none / 0) (#22)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:41:55 AM EST
    hide to the wall and there's no going back now.  Why anyone reads Sullivan after that column is beyond me...unless, of course, it's to comment on public hysteria.  So many opportunities...

    Problem is, attention of any kind is what fuels the fire of needy hysterics like Andrew.  

    If he is getting attention (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:45:17 AM EST
    then I want to do my small part in making sure it includes attention to all the awful things he wrote.

    I hear you. So long as (none / 0) (#25)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:55:35 AM EST
    he has a megaphone, hard to ignore his blathering...and he still has a megaphone, enabled by people who should know better.  So, remind them of his disgrace and rub his nose in it until he disappears.

    Sullivan killed his parents and pled for the mercy (none / 0) (#23)
    by jerry on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:42:45 AM EST
    of the court since he was now an orphan.

    Reading people like Sullivan is what I call (none / 0) (#29)
    by mkevinf on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    electronic rubbernecking; he's really awful, like a horrible highway accident, but I can't help looking.  There always comes a point when I'm glancing through his blog when his haughtiness comes through.
    Sullivan has never said that the war was wrong; he only believes it was terrible conducted.
    As a Catholic, I just don't get his touting his Catholicism when he so obviously is full of vitriol regarding the Clintons.  We have a bad enough reputation already; we don't need it worsened by an acrimonious person like Sullivan.