Saturday, October 19, 2002
BUT WHOSE FAULT WAS THAT?:
Well, if Clinton said North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb, what does that say about whoever has been president since Jan. 20, 2001? Not a hell of a lot Bubba can do to enforce that agreement when he�s playing golf and making speeches, is there?
THE SULLIVAN AWARD:
Well, here he goes with another lame award, this time smearing the respected liberal journalist Nicholas von Hoffman. He must have been reacting to our complaint that he has entirely too many of them to keep straight anymore, and that they're sort of juvenile.
But for really wrongheaded predictions? We humbly suggest, after the example of the vacationing Media Whores Online, that the award be renamed the Morris Award, after the former Clinton adviser and callgirl customer whose uncontrollable jealousy over the fact that Hillary Clinton has slept with Bill Clinton many times more than he will ever get to led him to predict that a) Hillary would not run for the Senate and b) that she would lose big time when she finally did.
Didn't TNR�s �Notebook� have something like this a long time ago, anyway? It was sort of fun when they entertained submissions for the world record for bad character judgement (the winner being then-Rep. Stephen Solarz for describing North Korean strongman Kim Il Sung as �unassuming.�) but after a while it was overkill. Now we know where it came from.
Readers are further invited to submit actual examples of wrongheaded predictions from none other than the Sage of South Goodstone himself for publication and nomination here � or, if you have the balls, to the man himself.
SANDBAGGED IN SOUTH DAKOTA:
This by-now widely-linked post by Josh Marshall (with followup here) has blown the Indian-reservation election-fraud non-story wide open. Apparently it now seems that an innocent mistake by a Democratic election worker was purposely and maliciously turned into a fraud allegation by a Sioux Falls TV reporter with close ties to the Republican Senate campaign. (Where we come from, this is called �disinformation�).
And yet Sullivan has not mentioned this, much less apologized to Tim Johnson and the South Dakota Democratic Party.
After all, this is how he thinks journalism is supposed to work.
IN OUR DEFENSE, AGAIN:
Charles Murtaugh, in this post, is the latest to accuse us and Atrios of saying things about Smalltown Boy �which would never be excused if directed at a gay liberal.� Specifically, he complains about us referring to Sully as �The Blog Queen.�
[Groan]. Charles, you�re not going to get Sullivan to link to you, especially that way (largely because he doesn�t want to draw attention to this site). Try something else.
As regular readers may be aware, we dealt with this at length a month or so ago when Andrew Edwards raised the issue.
We will just add to our remarks then that, when young toughs spot a gay man on the sidewalk and shout a word out that begins with �quee,� it probably doesn�t end with �n.� �Queen,� in fact, seems to be a word used more within the gay community than without these days.
And to the larger point, would this be tolerated were Sullivan a liberal and we conservative?
We could just take the easy way out and say that conservatives call liberals gay all the time, without regard to whether they actually are or not (including Sullivan�s own supporters, as this post by Tom Tomorrow shows).
But we�ll go the harder route. Arguing from moral equivalence where this issue is concerned, after all, is Sullivan�s department.
Strictly on the face of it, yes, a conservative doing this to a gay liberal would probably get smacked � at least, one who had never publicly displayed any anti-gay sentiment before (which excludes quite a few). The closest sort of analogy might be when Dick Armey called Barney Frank �Barney Fag.�
But this would presume that there were plenty of openly gay individuals on both sides and that sexuality was not an issue for either (as we�ll see in the very next item, that�s so not the case).
There�s nothing wrong, we think, with being a gay conservative. The direction your compass needle points shouldn�t determine your politics, after all (otherwise het libs would face the same scrutiny).
But to be a gay man or woman and so publicly identify with a movement that, not just within its religious component but perhaps even more so outside of it (David Brock�s Blinded by the Right is especially clear on just how much hatred of gays is just about the one uniting strand of the many branches of the conservative family tree in the current epoch), has such vile, indiscriminate contempt for gays raises a lot of issues. Especially when you stand cheek-by-jowl with so many of the avatars of such hate (Rod Dreher, anyone?). Sullivan�s writings on Catholicism recognize this in a way his political writings no longer do.
Within such a context, one would be remiss not to take note of his essential self-contradictions. As a commentator on Atrios�s reply to Murtaugh noted, Sullivan himself has, as trial lawyers say, opened the door.
Of course, it�s not sufficient to argue that these factors alone justify making reference to Sullivan�s sexuality when being critical of him. Nor is it to add that he makes that sexuality an inextricable component of his public persona and a cornerstone of his political beliefs (part of our previous argument).
What really burns us up is the way he has seemingly used this status as a visible gay in a non-gay-friendly movement as an excuse to engage in all sorts of the bad behavior that constitutes the most negative gay stereotypes imaginable. He has become devious and hypocritical, libertine and pompous, elitist and even vaguely fascistic.
Really, if back in the 1970s Monty Python or someone like them had decided to create a character who would be the archetypal gay Tory, and had then brought out a Catholic from a working-class background who moves to the U.S., becomes HIV-positive and embraces conservative Republicanism, speaks as if the Pope of homosexuality about the importance of gay marriage while secretly posting ads soliciting unprotected bareback sex, all portrayed as riotously over-the-top, they would have been applauded by a duly-convulsed audience as a demented flowering of twisted comic genius.
However, as too often happens in our time, reality laps the satirical imagination. And if Sullivan insists on playing a character, we�re going to give him a name.
We did not start this blog to be nice to Andrew Sullivan. Dealing with what he has allowed himself to become calls for more than sitting back, looking thoughtful and reflectively nodding while grasping one�s chin in an Adam West sort of way. It calls for walking into the bar, up to his barstool and putting a well-placed elbow into his spleen and then standing over him softly asking if he�d like to make something of it.
(And although we�d relish the opportunity to see if there�s really anything of the legendary proletarian English pub brawler stock he comes from underneath Captain Bareback�s creatine-fed sinews, it would of necessity be a figurative challenge, not a literal one, because any spillage of Sully�s blood would (from the T moreso than the HIV) result in a Level I biohazard evacuation and closure of the venue)).
So, that�s what we think. We don�t feel what we say and continue to say about Andrew Sullivan, his sexuality and most particularly some of the ways he expresses it are beyond the bounds of creatively-expressed legitimate content, and in fact are only responses to things he has himself (however inadvertently) made an issue of.
You might also want to read this Z magazine piece by Michael Bronski that gets at, we think, some of the same things we just said in a more coherent fashion:
Andrew Sullivan was the perfect gay for straight people because he admitted that he was less than perfect. Now that he has been forced to admit that he was even worse than less than perfect � that he had the average desires, impulses, fantasies, and even actions as many many gay men � he may have crossed over and become just too gay.
We also have a little trouble with this assertion of Murtuagh�s:
Pre-Sept. 11, not that many people I know had even heard of Andrew Sullivan, and now he seems to be pretty well-known. Yes, he�s sabotaged himself by going off the rails one to[o] many times on his site, and his star may be fading, but it�s hard to ignore the fact that so many left-of-center bloggers still focus so much attention on the man. Is this the mark of an irrelevant figure?
This man goes to Harvard and he doesn�t know many people who�d heard of Sullivan? What in God�s name is going on up in Cambridge?
If anything, though, Sullivan�s visibility has, as Jim Cappozola has noted, been somewhat on the decline this year. He no longer sits at Marty Peretz�s favorite elbow, has been bounced from the New York Times and now gets his chief exposure from a column in a British newspaper most Americans don�t read.
Oh, we forgot ... he has a blog. That, unfortunately, is the growth sector of his image, and why so many left-of-center bloggers do take his malutterances very seriously indeed (As we�ve asked elsewhere, would you have ignored Rush Limbaugh a decade ago if you had the opportunity to disseminate a near-instantaneous correction?)
MEANWHILE ... AND WE DO MEAN MEAN:
Will Sullivan take time out from twisting his knickers over Mike Taylor to tell us what to think about this interesting report from the president�s home state?
It seems that some Republican actually thinks the state party means what it says about homosexuality in its platform, and it isn�t just about mollifying conservative Christians:
GOP political activist Dave Wilson has a message for fellow Republicans -- If you vote straight, you vote gay.
Wilson is sending Republican voters an automated telephone message telling them not to vote a straight Republican ticket because it includes a gay candidate.
The target of Wilson's attack is Alex Wathen, a Republican candidate for justice of the peace, who is president of the Houston chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans -- the party's leading gay and lesbian advocacy group.
"I'm asking you to vote principles over party politics," Wilson said in his message to Republican voters in JP Precinct 1.
"Why would Dave do this?" Woodfill said. "I mean, I agree with him on the homosexual issue, and the party position on that is clear."
Wilson said he wants to emphasize a plank in the 2002 Texas Republican Party platform that says homosexual "behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders and shared by a majority of Texans."
Wilson said he issued the message because Woodfill and other local Republican officials failed the party by letting Wathen stay on the GOP ticket. Woodfill should have recruited another Republican to run in the party's primary rather than let Wathen run unopposed, he said.
Wilson, head of Houstonians for Family Values, is a longtime crusader against homosexuality.
Last year, he spearheaded a petition drive that led to a Houston city referendum preventing the city from giving benefits to domestic partners of gay employees.
�I realize that this will hurt Republicans down the ticket� Wilson said. �But, Woodfill and that group are the ones hurting the party for letting this go on.�
Harris County Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Schechter initially chuckled when she heard that one Republican was attacking another.
Then she called the act �disgraceful.�
�Intolerance like this is a reason voters should join the Democratic Party,� she said.
Log Cabin Republicans have had a series of battles with others in their party in Texas. Besides adopting its anti-gay platform, the party has denied the Log Cabin Republicans booths at recent Texas GOP conventions.
Wathen said he has "not been bothered too much" by such party positions.
As one of our correspondents asked, �And Sullivan wonders why gays lean left?�
A FREEPER GETS IT, BUT SULLY NEVER WILL:
Noted in passing.
What about Mike Taylor, in a lean Republican state and the guy gets handed $600,000 by the party that money should go a long way in Montana the guy up and quits the race because of a 20 year old TV ad that suggests he might be gay and quits, what a moron. How did he ever win the primary
Well, not literally. But Wyeth Ruthven (a name that only a South Carolinian could have) has this deconstruction of the Orwellian implications of so much warblogger-speak, including most of all the very self-satisfied (and hardly new to online discussion) technique derived from responses to a certain leftish British reporter�s piece about getting beaten up in Afghanistan. (Link via Rittenhouse).
This led the newly-redesigned Tapped to take the next logical step.
Now if only certain people would stop using Orwell's name and ideas for purposes he would find abhorrent.
POINT WELL TAKEN:
Terry Kreper at ConWebWatch wasn�t speaking of Sullivan in this piece. But it�s certainly not hard to see how this is broadly applicable:
Why is it that when conservatives say they want �balance� in the news, what they really mean is wanting yet another venue to attack people they don�t agree with?
Sullivan�s Saturday posts are attributed to 3:24 p.m., yet, as we type this, it's only 2:18 on the East Coast. Is he using Greenwich time or something?
posted by Sully 10/19/2002 02:28:00 PM
Thursday, October 17, 2002
YET ANOTHER FACT CHECKED:
Good thing we went and read Alex Frantz, who apparently took a close look at those poll numbers that supposedly support military action in Iraq.
It would seem then that the media has thrown enough of a scare into the public that they now believe conservative arguments for going to war, even those that conservatives are unwilling to make directly due to lack of proof. And unsurprisingly, Sullivan feels that this is good news.
But Alex, that was always exactly the plan ... That way conservatives have plausible deniability to save their electoral and intellectual skins if the war goes bad: �Well, I never said that I thought that, but a lot of people believed it ...�
posted by Sully 10/17/2002 11:18:00 AM
Just for the record, we think that hed from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology says it all, too ... about you-know-who (The first sentence of the abstract is also worth a grin or two).
We also think Sully should go check out this story, too (Thanks to Smarter Andrew Sullivan for the link).
FROM THE READERS:
Joe Clark sends this story, interesting in light of The Blog Queen�s constant grousing about public-smoking bans.
We also got a link to the latest Michelangelo Signorile column, on the �gay left ignores Muslim homophobia� thing:
Where the hell has he been? Sleeping in his hammock up in Provincetown? The only �taboo� that I�m aware of is Sullivan�s and other gay conservatives� �taboo� against writing much at all about how our supposed Middle East allies � the ones propped up by the Bush administration � torture and decapitate known homosexuals in the name of Islam! Many of us have in fact been writing about that sort of �Islamic hostility� and discussing it for years now, and certainly post- 9/11, thank you very much.
Gay and lesbian Muslims and Arabs themselves have often led the charge in highlighting homophobia within Islam. In recent years, gay groups have focused on Islamic fundamentalist regimes, and so has much of the gay press, covering during the past year and half, for example, the trials of the �Cairo 52,� men who�ve been imprisoned in Egypt for allegedly homosexual acts. I certainly don�t remember Sullivan writing about that case, nor do I remember him discussing at length Saudi Arabia�s beheadings of alleged homosexuals, nor Pakistan�s brutal treatment of both gays and lesbians.
Sullivan did, however, make sure to focus on how terrible the Taliban was to gay people, and I�m sure he�ll tell us how terrible Saddam Hussein is too. From many gay conservatives, we only seem to hear about how the Bush administration�s enemies treat gays. Rarely do we hear from them about how our supposed �friends� treat homosexuals, let alone how the Bush administration itself treats gays, with its abstinence-only programs and its under-the-table deals with domestic far-right moralists.
Well said. We�d add only that it took a recent TNR article about the persecution of gay Palestinians for Sullivan to write about that group of people as anything but anti-Semitic suicide bombers.
posted by Sully 10/17/2002 11:07:00 AM
TINKER, TAYLOR, SOLDIER ... QUEER? STILL ...:
First, isn�t this exactly the sort of tactic Sullivan (and many others) condemned when it was allegedly used by Clinton�s defenders? Never mind the seriousness of the student-loan fraud allegations, attack the messenger.
And just who are these Montanans for Clean Campaigns? Their website promises �Facts� and �Media� but clicking there gives you a 404 error. Max Baucus is referred to as �Montan�s Senator� and the ad is called �viscious� (Gee, these sound like Sully�s kind of people alright! Also, a big hint ... if you�re going to counteract an ad that allegedly smears someone as gay, don�t use an Art Deco-type font for your heds).
The domain is registered to a �MontanaClean� at a Billings address and phone number ... apparently whoever did this is a little shy after having set the page up last weekend.
Their email addy, however, did produce a few Google hits, including this page. We leave it to you to decide, from at least reading the table of contents, whether this is a crowd you can imagine being comfortable with everything that Andrew Sullivan is.
posted by Sully 10/17/2002 10:49:00 AM
ET TU, CHENEY?:
Looks like Smalltown Boy might have to ask some hard questions of our elusive Vice President.
As he told PBS�s Frontline from the comfort of the Halliburton executive suites in the mid-1990s:
A few weeks later, when the uprisings occurred among the Shi'a in the South and the Kurds in the North,] I was not an enthusiast about getting U.S. forces and going into Iraq. We were there in the southern part of Iraq to the extent we needed to be there to defeat his forces and to get him out of Kuwait, but the idea of going into Baghdad, for example, or trying to topple the regime wasn�t anything I was enthusiastic about. I felt there was a real danger here that you would get bogged down in a long drawn-out conflict, that this was a dangerous, difficult part of the world; if you recall we were all worried about the possibility of Iraq coming apart, the Iranians restarting the conflict that they�d had in the eight-year bloody war with the Iranians and the Iraqis over eastern Iraq. We had concerns about the Kurds in the north, the Turks get very nervous every time we start to talk about an independent Kurdistan.
Plus there was the notion that you were going to set yourself a new war aim that we hadn't talked to anybody about. That you hadn't gotten Congress to approve, hadn�t talked to the American people about. You�re going to find yourself in a situation where you've redefined your war aims and now set up a new war aim that in effect would detract from the enormous success you just had. What we set out to do was to liberate Kuwait and to destroy his offensive capability, that�s what I said repeatedly in my public statements. That was the mission I was given by the President. That�s what we did. Now you can say, well, you should have gone to Baghdad and gotten Saddam. I don�t think so.
We await with bated breath Sully�s attempt to spin this one.
AND SPEAKING OF SPIN ...:
Is Smalltown Boy, in his never-ending effort to plug the South Dakota vote-fraud non-story, carrying water for an RNC effort to suppress the Native American vote in that state? Josh Marshall seems to imply as much.
posted by Sully 10/17/2002 10:22:00 AM
JUST AS SOON AS HE SETS SOME STANDARDS, HE IGNORES THEM:
What the hell does the Lewis Lapham remark have to do with his stated criteria for the Sontag Award? There is absolutely no suggestion of moral equivalence there. Does he mean his Begala Award? (which we�d gloss as �any really effective and witty criticism of George W. Bush.�).
Unless, of course, his latest Androgel application has helped him get in touch even more with his inner fascist, to the point that he now equates criticism of the acting president with moral support of the enemy.
You would figure he�d have found a way to blame all this on Clinton, wouldn�t you?
But it really begs the question of why this has been allowed to happen by the Bush administration. You were saying about �losing focus� and what a crock it all was, Sully?
(Hesiod also notes that it makes our stated reasons for invading Iraq look more foolish now if we don�t immediately apply them to North Korea, which has now openly admitted it was developing weapons of mass destruction).
UPDATE: Here's the link.
After being called on this one by Atrios and others, Sully has to make one of his rare admissions of a mistake.
Of course, this begs the question: For all his spouting about Romenesko, does he ever actually read the site?
posted by Sully 10/17/2002 04:47:00 AM
Wednesday, October 16, 2002
AT OUR AFFILIATE:
Smarter Andrew Sullivan has some top-notch stuff up lately (see blogroll for link) such as a more in-depth investigation into the Yale Daily News webforum and a lengthy excerpt from a hateful post there that Sullivan mysteriously refused to note; and (going back a few days) Norah Vincent�s latest inadvertent embarrassment of her mentor.
posted by Sully 10/16/2002 10:18:00 AM
A FIRM GRASP OF THE OBVIOUS:
From his safe perch in Provincetown, longtime DC-area resident Smalltown Boy breathlessly shares this insight on the sniper with us in a way that suggests it took some thought:
That�s an attack on our simple normality, the ease in even the most harrried life, the snatches of freedom that we all enjoy in a free society. That�s his target; that�s what he wants to kill. Again, I'm not saying we have al Qaeda or some other group here. I have no idea. I mean merely that the method is terrorism. The motive could be nihilism, or craziness or fanaticism. It could be some new hybrid of a serial killer mimicking terrorists. But its method is terror nonetheless. And it�s aimed directly at all of us.
Well, duh. This little patch of equivocating banality makes one wonder if Norah Vincent possessed Sully for the afternoon.
NOAH BEFORE THE DELUGE:
Timothy Noah retracts part of his claim that Gore flip-flopped on Iraq between 1991 and today.
Will Sully link or even take note? Not bloody likely.
MORE IMPLICIT CRITICISM:
Tapped, while uncritically accepting claims that Scott Leopold�s Tom White emails were somehow suspect, nevertheless directs Krugman�s critics to John Leo, who should be excoriated for sloppy journalism under the same standard.
�ALMOST TOO PAINFUL TO WATCH�
That�s what The Rittenhouse Review has to say about today�s Daily Howler, in which Somerby feasts on none other than the Sage of South Goodstone:
Andrew Sullivan keeps emerging as one of the nastiest characters in our public discourse. There�s nothing so stupid that Smear Boy won�t say it; no insinuation so slimy he won�t toss it out. It�s amazing to think that so ugly a man was editor of one of our great publications. Socrates warned about people like this. Why, oh why, does the insider press corps keep taking this small man so seriously?
And that�s not all. He also calls him � ... as Clintonian as the greatest of all Clinton caricatures ...�
IRONY OF IRONIES:
Somerby, anda writer to Eschaton were among the �few� to point out Meyerson�s obvious sarcasm when he says that Reagan appeased the Soviets, a point Sullivan appears to have missed.
He took it seriously enough to respond, first by being cute (�If I missed that ironic pirouette, I can�t have been the only one� ... well, how else would one take the assertion from a lefty that Reagan was too gentle on the Soviets?) and then by trying to say why Iraq is not the Soviets:
But guess why not? They had nukes! That's precisely what we�re trying to prevent in Iraq. And the prevention is not simply to stop Saddam using such weapons against his neighbors, but his funneling such weapons to pliant terrorists from the inviolable security of a nuclear-protected terrorist state. It seems to me that in those circumstances, even a Nixonian like Kissinger would shift position, as indeed he has.
Has Sully realized that Kissinger has indeed shifted his position, as we and others pointed out recently, to explicitly opposing an Iraq action aimed at anything more than Iraq�s WMD programs?
ON THE SAME SUBJECT:
Matthew Yglesias reprimands Sullivan for his bait-and-switch, regarding his aside �and we are still told we should debate going to war� over Bali:
But no one is suggesting that we should debate whether we should go to war with al Qaida, what was suggested was that we should debate going to war with Saddam Hussein. In case this point has somehow failed to penetrate the right-wing protective bubble of self-righteousness, let me be clear Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are different people. They both hate America. And they're both Arabs. But they're different people. They have different ideologies. And different allies. And different methods. Indeed, one might say that they're rivals for the job of Chief Arab Badass and Number One Enemy of America and that if we knock Saddam down al Qaida (or Iran) will fill the void. But why should we debate a little thing like what the consequences of our action will be?
CHEAP SHOTS AND GOOD QUESTIONS:
Exposing Aussie letters-to-the-editor writers to worldwide ridicule and comparing them to Sontag may be fine for Sully, who with his usual equaninimity waits till the very end of his item to tell us that of course these people don�t represent the majority of left-wing thought in that country.
But what we read, at least in the first one, was a pointed question to that country�s Prime Minister, John Howard: Apparently Howard assured Australians when they assisted the US effort in Afghanistan that doing so would not subject Australians to an increased risk of terrorism. Now, obviously, it has.
If Howard was actually dumb enough to tell his voters this, he should be kicked out of office. Even George Bush didn�t deny the possibility.
In fact, we remember a certain blogger actually hoping, back in the hot depths of July, that another attack down the stretch would help the Republicans at the polls. Looks like he got his wish, but, as his Ellis item proves, it may not help).
posted by Sully 10/16/2002 04:15:00 AM
Tuesday, October 15, 2002
THE LAST WORD, WE HOPE:
Jim Capozzola has some truly thoughtful commentary on the anti-Taylor ad.
In fact, it reminds us of the sort of thing that might have been written in The New Republic a decade ago.
In the interests of equal time for new words at the expense of political opponents (after �Fisking�), Atrios has this suggestion:
Sullivation (n) � the drooling sensation some reactionary bloggers get whenever a dark-skinned person is suspected of doing something bad. from the verb "to sullivate."
The lone commentator adds this:
Sullivambulist - A person who wanders about in an angry rage induced haze cursing and ultimately ignoring all of the evidence. syn. see, dittohead
And TBogg has this to offer.
Would someone please explain to Andy for the umpteenth time that Saddam runs a secular state, that Osama hates him, and that we recognize that he is trying to link the two together just so he can use his neologism that he is soooo proud of: Islamofascists. Writing about the Bali tragedy just so you can use your new catch phrase is a sign of.... Sulli-vanity.
See. You can play at home.
TBogg also shows how Bush�s people have admitted that the Times correctly reported its poll results from last week ... you know, the story that got Sully linking to Dick Morris.
Our entry in the neologism contest. The example goes like this:
Al Gore opposes war with Iraq
Pat Buchanan, in his new magazine, opposes war with Iraq.
Therefore, Buchanan and Gore are political soul mates.
On second thought, isn't that another logical fallacy? Something about an implied middle term?
(Of course, the supporting logic is only found in the link, whereby one reads that Buchanan wrote an article in the second edition of The American Conservative praising Gore�s speech. Oh, now we understand.
posted by Sully 10/15/2002 01:06:00 AM
Monday, October 14, 2002
C�MON JOSH, COME OUT AND SAY IT!:
Josh Marshall, further proving that great minds run in the same channel, has the same observations as we did, except fifteen minutes earlier so we can�t claim he ripped us off, concerning Sullivan�s reliance on an Insight magazine.
Then, he takes on the supposed South Dakota scam, which frankly to us sounded no different from the sort of things that go on, and are alleged, by both parties in an election runup.
We increasingly get the feeling that Sullivan is dropping like a stone in Marshall�s estimation.
Sullivan tries to respond today with another link. What he doesn�t say is that it amounts to two workers simply copying names out of the phone book who were easily caught.
Wrong, yes, but hardly some sort of vast DNC-controlled conspiracy.
HOW TO HELP SOMEONE SPREAD A SMEAR:
1) Cry like a little bitch when the smear happens. Insist on no ambiguity whatsoever, despite there being plenty of it.
2) Link to every little discussion of it in the media. Make sure the issue doesn't die.
3) Then, just in case people haven�t seen it, link to stills from it.
If Taylor feels he was depicted as gay, and wants to sue, he should make sure one of those process servers heads out to Cape Cod.
THE REAL REVELATION:
�Put this together with the gay groups� insouciance, and you�ve just given Republicans carte blanche to gay-bait opponents at any opportunity ...�
Is this, then, a tacit admission that groups like the Independent Gay Forum have about as much pull with the Republican machine as a bucket of warm spit?
GLENDA THE GOOD WITCH:
Is anything she said any different from his way of dealing with his opponents?
And by the way, did Mr. Privacy get her permission to publish the email, as he so often claims he does as a matter of principle? We intend to email Prof. Gilmore and find out.
Or she can email us if she�s reading ...
BEFORE HITTING �POST & PUBLISH,� IT GENERALLY HELPS TO REREAD WHAT YOU WROTE:
�Here are two stills from the ad for those of without internet connections.�
Not only did he forget �you,� (one of the most inconvenient words in the English language for him, after all), he seems to forget that people without internet connections aren�t going to be reading this in the first place (Or does he really think his blog is that influential?).
(Reminds us of someone who gave us directions in an unfamiliar location that included �Turn left where that church used to be ...�).
We somehow don�t think that they�d go through in large groups of 200. Nor does The New York Times have the power to bomb the hell out of the plant if Iraq doesn�t cooperate (Or does Sully think that it does? Probably).
FROM BALI TO SUOMI AND FAR BENEATH THE CORAL SEA ...:
Although it will probably turn out that the Balinese bombings may have had some connections to al-Qaeda, one should remember that no one�s yet stated that it does. Much like the Finnish mall bombing that now seems to have been the work of the Popular Front for the Liberation of the World From Stupid Teenagers, which Smalltown Boy seemed to have determined to be the work of Osama & Co. at first, such a judgement could well turn out to be premature.
Just a possibility.
And by the way, how is �I've been to Bali, with my old friend Max Kennedy, about fifteen years ago ...� in any way grammatical, unless he realized at the last minute that he had to name-drop?
So, if one reads him right, the Administration should take military action that is highly likely to result in increased terror attacks or attempts of such in the U.S. in the name of protecting our national security?
posted by Sully 10/14/2002 01:46:00 AM
Sunday, October 13, 2002
NEVER LET THE FACTS, OR RATHER THE LACK THEREOF, GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD WORLDVIEW:
Never mind that the story makes it clear that the bomber was Finnish himself and probably not Muslim. The bottom line is that, if a bomb goes off and kills someone somewhere, it probably was set by a Muslim as far as Smalltown Boy�s concerned. So much so that if the evidence contradicts him or otherwise fails to support the assertion, he just keeps on talking as if it were true, as he does here.
posted by Sully 10/13/2002 01:20:00 AM
As if leaning on David Horowwitz�s vanity website wasn�t enough, Sully has to give some credibility to the Washington Times� weekly magazine Insight to do his continuing dirty work (Apparently, Charles Murtaugh must have been on to something: it�s not so much that the ad may have left the the impression that Taylor was gay, it was the way it suggested he was gay that hurt Sullivan the most. We now strongly suspect that if the ad had shown Taylor pumping iron with some thong-clad slice of beefcake, Sullivan wouldn�t have made a fuss at all and would have denounced Taylor for dropping out).
What does Insight�s crack staff tell us? That the ad was paid for by the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee! Wow! It only says that in the text at the bottom of the ad when it ends! Big discovery there!
(And, as you may have guessed, we�ve now seen it. Our impression of Taylor from it is not so much �gay� as �sleazeball.�)
Oh, and check this out ... apparently Taylor�s internal polls had him within the margin of error as recently as three weeks ago.
Well, first off, three weeks is a lot of time in a campaign; and second of all, like internal polls everywhere, it should be taken with a grain of salt. We�re sure that the Cincinnati Bengals� internal polls give them a reasonable chance of making the playoffs this season, too, at this point.
Why was Taylor�s campaign so poor if it was so close to making a race of it? You don�t quit if you can still win.
posted by Sully 10/13/2002 01:15:00 AM