"You're a funny man, Sully ...

that's why I'm going to kill you last."


Saturday, July 31, 2004


Since Sullivan is never shy about bragging about how he and Drudge are friends, and indeed the fact that most of Sullivan’s traffic crawls in from that particular corner of the Internet, perhaps he might have special reason to at least report on this fine example of ethics in journalism, which we learned about through the good offices of Atrios.

When you’re raising all this money and telling your readers how you do this because you don’t want anyone to own you, and some people are raising questions about your assertions in support of that request, isn’t it the least you can do to prove it by publicly taking on a friend over an instance of severe dishonesty and plagiarism?

(This says all about Drudge, incidentally, that you need to know).

posted by Sully 7/31/2004 11:20:00 PM

YEAH, BUT ...:

There’s a bit of a difference between McGovern comparing his service record to Nixon’s and Kerry doing the same with him and Bush.

No one ever accused Dick Nixon of shirking his duties in a time of war. With Bush, on the other hand ...

(And BTW, Sullivan and Saletan ought to remember that McGovern had to fight off a smear from the Birchers that he had wormed out of combat. Yes, this on McGovern, a guy who along with his crew chose to make their last bombing mission a dangerous one, so dangerous that they in fact wound up bailing out in the Adriatic, instead of a milk run).

Of course, given that Dole tried to offer the same sort of contrast between himself and Clinton with similar results, there is a point there.

But then again, the nation was not, as Sullivan never tires to remind us, at war in 1996 either.

posted by Sully 7/31/2004 12:12:00 AM

Friday, July 30, 2004


The Wall Street Journal tried to bury it but a couple of liberal bloggers noticed anyway that Sandy Berger has been cleared of all wrongdoing other than mere sloppiness in perhaps photocopying something he wasn’t supposed to have. No files are missing; no documents were withheld from the commission.

Not his finest hour, but not what was originally advertised.

Still, not something Sullivan will notice and draw his readers’ attention the way he did when the “story” first broke.

posted by Sully 7/30/2004 11:37:00 PM


In fact, one of the reasons I blogged in the first place was to avoid the kind of pressure from editors or publishers or advertizers or readers that most journalists inevitably feel.

This from a guy who sparked a huge controversy in his first few months of blogging because he saw nothing wrong with his site being funded by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (a/k/a the drug industry lobby) while continuing to write about related issues not only on his blog but elsewhere and not disclose it? And only backed away from that, rather reluctantly, after the ensuing outrage?

Oh. Maybe he’s talking about negative pressure to not report things, as opposed to positive pressure to push the party line.

posted by Sully 7/30/2004 11:32:00 PM


The first and most obvious thing to say about Kerry's speech was that it was far too long.

Is he serious? We seem to recall (and we loved the speech, BTW) the commentators on PBS all talking about how Kerry managed to bring it in four minutes ahead of schedule ... i.e., before 11 p.m.

We also read Atrios (who was there)

A lot of people are remarking on the fact that Kerry
tended to rush through applause lines and actually actively discourage ap
plause on many occasions. It’s fairly possible the the two standard explanations - a) he's not quite as skilled a public speaker to know how to handle such moments and b) he was rushing to finish by 11 so Dan Rather didn't get cranky — are the correct ones.

Josh Marshall, discussing the same Pat Oliphant piece Smalltown Boy linked to, mentions “Kerry's sometimes rushed delivery” and then just a graf later:

He would nail a good applause line and then rush into the next verse of the speech.

If Sully really wants to know from long speeches, he should go back and look at a tape of George McGovern’s “Come home, America” acceptance speech in 1972, famously not delivered until the small hours of the morning after a bruising fight over the platform (and this on the heels of a weeks-long fight over whether McGovern should have gotten all the California delegates). Well, it isn’t really that long, but it probably seemed that way to a TV audience nodding off.

And Jo Fish

This coming from a guy who has more posts and has written more words in every media available to him in opposition to the FMA than I care to count. Even his loyal subscribers are telling him to STFU about it already.

Even he has to admit later on that it was rushed. There is no other explanation for this other than that he shares Mickey Kaus’s deep personal dislike of whatever it is in Kerry that reminds him of those qualities he finds deplorable in himself.

UPDATE: On that note, here’s Rising Hegemon on the subject of arrogance:
Yes, almost as arrogant as thinking you deserve money for tripe, and badly written and edited tripe at that. Of course, there is nothing arrogant about declaring “Mission Accomplished” last May, by stuffing a flightsuit and having your sorry, chickenhawk ass flown out to an Aircraft Carrier ordered further out to sea so you cannot see the skyline of an American city.

No sir, John Kerry is way more arrogant than that.

posted by Sully 7/30/2004 11:05:00 PM


The truth is: Biden and Lieberman and Edwards and even Obama were more ressuring on the war than Kerry was.

posted by Sully 7/30/2004 11:02:00 PM

Thursday, July 29, 2004

Uh, Andrew, Judis in that piece did more than just predict something like the Ghailani capture — he reported and quoted by name several reliable Pakistani sources that said something like it was in the offing for exactly this timeslot.
Speaking of which, Steve Mussina’s got the skinny on how suspicious the timing is.

posted by Sully 7/29/2004 11:40:00 PM

Sully’s endorsement/not endorsement of Kerry put him in the sights of yet another high-ranking right-wing online pundit, this time VodkaPundit’s Stephen Green, who fisks it.
Of course, we really don’t agree with much of his points (Green seems, for one, to have missed the story about how in the rush to Baghdad our forces were ordered not to destroy any of the many weapons caches they came across, or how we failed to close the Iranian border a year ago when the Mossad was warning us that country was flooding Iraq with agents to create the insurgency we (excuse us, the new Iraqi government) are now facing, and seems to think something like that couldn’t have been properly addressed in prewar planning, that since Clausewitz said that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy you might as well dispense with any planning and just shoot, among other pillars of hawk logic, but whatever ...) but it’s always good fun to see Sullivan taking some.

posted by Sully 7/29/2004 01:56:00 PM


I think that if I were president today, I would actually agree — I would not send more American troops, but I think I would send international troops because I would try to rekindle the relationships that George Bush destroyed with our allies. Ultimately, now that we’re there and we’ve done all these things to Iraqis, we ought to try to leave Iraq as close to the democratic society as we possibly can. I do believe it’s irresponsible just to pull out the troops. First of all, it’s irresponsible from a position of national security because either Al Qaeda, which is there now, although it wasn’t before we were there, Al Qaeda, is a danger. I think a fundamentalist theocracy in Iraq certainly isn’t going to do anything for women's rights and I think the right thing to do is try to have a democratic constitution with women’s rights protected as much as possible. So, the right thing to do is to turn this over to the United Nations as soon as possible and stop this from being an American occupation, have this be an international reconstruction.

posted by Sully 7/29/2004 01:41:00 PM

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

According to
a later post at Malkin’s, we’re not the only ones piggybacking (or should that be barebacking?) on Sully’s pledge drive.
The Spoons Experience
has sort of a similar idea:
Anyway, purely out of spite, I have decided to hold my own pledge drive. My only goal is to beat Sullivan on a pro rata traffic basis. As of today, According to Sitemeter, Andrew’s average daily traffic is 56,809. Mine has been down a bit, but currently averages 1,319 — 2.3% of Andrews. Therefore, my goal is to raise 2.3% of what he does.
Lawrence Simon is more blatant.
I’m starting a new project, folks. It’s called Give Your Money To Anyone But Andrew Sullivan.

Count us in ... oh, wait, we were here first.
And IowaHawk just has a good laugh.
Of course, what do all those folks have in common? They’re right-wingers. We’re the only left blog doing this. So we think we’ll take the prog dollar/euro/pound/whatever while you guys fight over the scraps.

posted by Sully 7/28/2004 02:32:00 PM

The comment thread over at Michelle Malkin has provided us with some interesting tidbits regarding Sullivan and his appeals for more of the green stuff that we just have to share with you. (We also learned there that John Hawkins of Right Wing News has had enough, too).
Michelle does not as yet seem to allow deep-linking to her comments, so we’ll have to reprint them.
First, the conservatives who read her site seem to have the same snide observations about this whole thing as the left-wingers at World O’ Crap do.
It is the beginning of the end of Andrew Sullivan.

There is just no recovery from his lies to his readers re his phony pledge drive and phony argument about Kerry being the conservative choice.

He’s not even a good liar. His motives are so transparent. Shame on him!
One other thing regarding Sullivan is that if he’s going to constantly cry poor, he might not wanna keep talking about how he spends half the year in DC and half the year at his beach house in Provincetown.

I know he refers to the place as a “shack,” but most of his readers probably don’t have a second house at the beach, shack or not.
This begging for funds is a scam. He probably pays for his beach shack with them. He could easily offset his website costs with some blog ads. Hell maybe Kerry/Edwards will buy some from him.
I do find it amusing that someone who takes such pleasure in bashing fundamentalist Christians employs the tactics of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

Those cards and letters will soon roll in from all those conservative Kerry supporters.


We also get more detail about why this bandwidth thing is a load of BS.
I lease a fairly good server. Dual Xeon, big drives in a RAID, etc. It costs about $3200 per year.

That bandwidth estimation is WAY off, BTW. I did 120GB in one day earlier this month. I'm set to do about 500GB this month. HOWEVER...

My allotment is 1.2 terabytes per month, so I could not care less. And that's for the same $3200.

If Sully really was using the money for a server ... he’d have to be running a server cluster, at Rackspace (the most expensive host I know) and doing 3 to 6 terabytes a month at their extortionist rates.

I’m not going to call the man a liar. I’m just stating that I *know* traffic, I pay through the nose and I track every bit and byte.
And a great suggestion:
Help poor Andrew conserve bandwidth. Don’t visit his site.

He has (no real surprise) lousy customer service. No, wait a minute, make that “non-existent” customer service. Perhaps he should outsource to India.
I sent Sullivan a check donation some time ago. I’m still waiting for an email “thank you” which could have taken all of 30 seconds to write and send.

And he’s still waiting for my second check.

And here’s the most interesting detail:
Not naming any names, but a certain hosting company would have been more than willing to cut Sullivan a hosting deal that would have made these little fund-raisers meaningless. Small wonder they never heard back on their reply to his query. Martyrdom is *so* much more profitable.

Hmm ... Thanks, all of you righties, for confirming things we had suspected.

posted by Sully 7/28/2004 02:14:00 PM


Jo Fish on Sully’s
latest patting himself on the back.
Sure Andrew, Kerry, like the rest of us, is hardly smart enough to find his way out of a paper bag without your divine guidance, inspiration and intelligence for daily assistance.

posted by Sully 7/28/2004 02:06:00 PM

Hillary is now a respectable pol because she got elected.
For the next time (and there will be one) he bashes the Clintons.

posted by Sully 7/28/2004 02:01:00 PM

Lenny and Karl. They’ve been slowly setting you up for this ... remember when Homer and Lenny skipped town after Homer thought Marge was going to leave him for Artie Ziff, and their bus, while parodying Midnight Cowboy’s opening scene (or more accurately, paying homage to it) went past Mount Karl, which Lenny had sculpted in a full bust of Karl’s face one day.
Of course, not that this isn’t yet another round in the increasingly wearying endgame between The Simpsons and the shark, especially given that the “not that there’s anything wrong with that ...” category is so new (Although it really isn’t if you extend it to comic strips. Hmm, Garry Trudeau thinks one day, I need a gay character and I killed off the only one I had because I needed an AIDS storyline ... I’ve got it! The guy with no life and no real relationships who works for NPR ... it’s because he’s gay! Yes! That makes so much sense! I’ll even have Andy come back from the dead as a spirit visitor to suggest it to Mark! Yup! That sure isn’t a transparent gimmick! Whereas, though, if the last Peanuts, or one of the last ones, had ended with Marcy taking Peppermint Patty’s hand in both of hers and saying “Sir, there’s something I’ve been meaning to tell you ...”, that would have been entirely logical. But Schulz never did it, no, he just made the last 25 years or so of one of America’s greatest newspaper comic strips into something less funny than the wallpaper).

And since when has Smithers actually come out on the show and said, point-blank, “I’m gay”? Yes, the show has had great fun with the broad hints over the years, particularly his computer splash screen, but other than kissing Burns on the face as everyone expected the angel to end the world, there has been no public declaration to that effect. Everyone knows it, but it’s never been spoken out loud.

posted by Sully 7/28/2004 01:42:00 PM

... it’s hard to think he anything but a stellar future.


I have to sya they’re telling me nothing new or interesting ...

posted by Sully 7/28/2004 01:36:00 PM

When he writes about “the pointlessness of being there,” shouldn’t he be remembering that six months ago he wanted to be, and solicited money from his readers under that premise?

UPDATE: Logan Circle Guy thinks Sullivan probably realized a long time ago he wasn’t going to go.

(Also, we wonder, why the donkey on the blog if he’s not going? Was that some sort of gimmick he or Fantascope came up with to promote it that they were stuck with?) 

posted by Sully 7/28/2004 01:33:00 PM

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Because when he claims to have posted 300,000 words this year, he’s not mentioning that a good deal of it is reposts from works published elsewhere.
Because he makes and fails to correct major typoes even as he asks you for money.
Because he was lying to you last December when he said he wasn’t going to do this again for a year. We knew it and he knew it.
Because he’s lying right now when he says his traffic is up.
Because he’s probably lying to you when he says his bandwidth is getting more expensive. (see also here).
Because even the right-wingers know this.
Because a man who whines about the lying of a former president while he lies to you when he asks you for money doesn’t deserve any.
Because he rarely reads fully what he links to, never noticing that it often undermines or contradicts whatever “point” he was trying to make by linking to it in the first place.
Because he refuses to recognize the hypocrisy of getting caught doing this while he was touting gay monogamy and dissing promiscuity.
Because he has become even more pathetic now that he became the last person in America to realize that George W. Bush isn’t going to respond to rational arguments about gay marriage.
Because right after he rakes it all in, he’s going to take a month off. Whatever he says.
Because he takes at least two other unannounced weeks off during the year, too.
Because he pisses and moans about how hard and trying his blogging is, when he manages to own both a condo in Adams Morgan and beachfront property in Provincetown ... not too shabby, as they say.
So, for all these reasons and any more you can think of, we want to see you donate ... well, based on the more accurate statistics we have now that we didn’t have in December, at least $3 (probably $5). That, we think, will be more than Sullivan’s contributions will average out to. If we get about $1,500 from this, we’ll have won by this metric. If not, we’ll make do with what we have. We do intend to complete some of the projects we talked about in December, and perhaps we can attend to them come next month when he’s all flopped out in his hammock.
We know we asked for a little change a couple of weeks ago to celebrate our birthday. And if you gave then, we thank you.
But this time the pride of the blog is on the line. If you give anytime, give now.
We promise we won’t bother you again on this score until December, or whenever he decides to do this gain. (of course, if you want to send some more cash our way between now and then, we have no objection).
All you need to do is click here.

posted by Sully 7/27/2004 04:01:00 PM


S.z (strange to capitalize her (we think) name) over at World O’Crap
has some speculation on Sullivan’s pledge week.

See, unlike other bloggers Andrew “needs” to keep the site financed without dipping into his own pockets because Andrew “needs” beach houses and other nice things. Anyway, I’ll leave to others to figure out how much of the funds he raised last December (I don't know what the take for that one was, but he claimed to have made $79,020 during the Dec. 2002 drive week) was used for bandwidth and how much was his “small stipend,” but I suspect the bandwidth costs have risen about as much as his traffic has. (Not that I’m saying that his traffic is down, just that, per the Sitemeter traffic stats provided by Truth Laid Bear, Wonkette gets almost as many hits as The Daily Dish does, and yet she isn’t complaining about her bandwidth costs, as far as I know.)

She sends us over to Michelle Malkin’s blog, where one can also hear the sounds of heads being scratched over Sully’s claim that his bandwidth is going through the roof (interestingly, longtime readers of this blog may remember a similarly puzzling claim made by Norah Vincent — see blogroll for reminder). Usually we could care less than zero for her, but she minces no words here.

Sounds like someone’s getting ripped off.

And her commentators are less nice. There is a general speculation that he timed this to coincide with the Democratic convention (you know, the one he said he was raising money to attend) so Democrats would reward him for his apparent Kerry endorsement.

For those of you who are wondering, yes, we will be having a competing pledge drive ourselves, with a formal announcement soon (this one on Sullivan’s part stinks far more than normal, for so many reasons, and we want to draft a comprehensive appeal as to why you should give us money to show Sullivan what for).

In fact, one of the commentators at Malkin gave us what we were looking for last night, what s.z. should have linked properly in her own post:
Truth Laid Bear’s Sitemeter daily average traffic rankings, which demonstrate Sullivan’s decline as conclusively, but more dramatically, than the Ecosystem.

According to that, he is now as far behind Atrios as we said, and Wonkette should probably surpass him before the election, and if not, definitely once 2005 begins and the election and corresponding Thanskgiving-Christmas lull are behind and traffic is closer to normal. Both Kos and Instapundit pull in more than triple the readers. (We ourselves are down at 382, between dawn Olsen and The Raving Atheist. What strange company we keep).

posted by Sully 7/27/2004 01:38:00 PM


Logan Circle Guy
takes a look at Sullivan’s Kerry “fisking” so we don’t have to.

When I read things like this — much as when I read Andrew's weird misinterpretations of economic indicators — it is so clear that the man has spent too long in his rarefied DC-Ptown circuit and has no clue whatsoever what economic life is like for those in this country who work for a living, instead of begging for funds for further Provincetown home improvements on their blogs.

posted by Sully 7/27/2004 01:13:00 AM

All that damn
UPDATE: Oops. What appeared to us as whitespace (so to speak) and general sloppiness last week turns out, from a computer without ad-blocking software, to have been ... shills for donating to The Blog Queen.

More annoying, we know, but still a lapse on our part.

posted by Sully 7/27/2004 01:02:00 AM

Even by the standards of Sully’s Moore-bashing,
the Joe Roche email (there traced to its source) deserves some special commentary.
First, Shorter Joe Roche:

My fellow soldiers are emotional and intellectual creampuffs who cannot think for themselves and agree with me. But I’d still want them covering my back.
He seems to be a real person, judging from the page Amy Ridenour devotes to him. But one still wonders, especially given the amount of dubious emails from Iraq that have been circulating,whether he actually wrote this.
Roche sounds like a warblogger wet dream ... no, wait a minute, he is. He actually went to Iraq and he still seems to talk and think just like them, picking up without fail every little talking point as if he were an AEI fellow. His language — “this abuse of the First Amendment” — is playbook-perfect, although at the same time suspiciously cornpone at times, rather like that used in German propaganda dropped on GI’s we saw at the museum at Bastogne once.
One also wonders just how the soldiers in Kuwait (not exactly facing daily combat like their comrades to the north, mind you) he describes as being utterly demoralized (that’s his, and Sullivan’s, interpretation of what seems to us like the sort of questioning and indepedent thinking that the free exchange of ideas in a democratic society is supposed to promote. But YMMV ...) have managed to see F9/11 in the first place.
It’s still in theaters and hasn’t been released on video or DVD yet, so they could only have seen it on the big screen, unless the Army is getting heavily into video piracy (which, the way things have been going, it just might be for all we know). He doesn’t tell us what format it’s in, only that many guys (he only uses last names) have seen it. So we can only assume it’s good old 35 mm.
Excuse us, Spec. Roche, but we have a hard time imagining that an Army managed by Donald Rumsfeld is going to so blithely show so many rank-and-file soldiers in the field in a key theater of operations a film so blatantly critical of his boss, a certain deputy, and of course the Rumster himself, not with the kind of control it has over that sort of thing. If it is, that fact itself is explanation enough for the demoralization.
Sometimes, it seems, even Roche isn’t sure what to think:

Moore's commentary and striking video stunts, such as confronting politicians w/ enlistment papers for their kids, of course hurts and affects these soldiers out here badly. These are the ones who have sacrificed much to serve. Moore's stunt is powerful.

But if this is all really true, Roche doesn’t ask himself the obvious question: why might these soldiers be receptive to the arguments in the film? He has to fob it off with, ironically, the same sort of sentimentalism about the basically good kids in the field that Moore ends his film with.
But perhaps these kids are already scared shitless that they’ll get redeployed within months and weeks of returning home? That they’ll get stop-lossed out on that sand-pit from here to eternity? That while in Iraq they spent an awful lot of time guarding Halliburton trucks driven by guys who make at least four times what they do and precious little doing the sort of good stuff they show in the recruitment ads? Trucks that might well have turned out to be holding “sailboat fuel”?
That’s the sort of thing that might make seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 a real watershed (Roche, of course, doesn’t mention the many interviews with soldiers in Iraq in the film, as well as the guys recovering from injuries back home, one of whom says he’s done being a Republican. Nor does he touch on Lila Lipscomb and her story ... and you can bet every soldier out there has imagined their parents in her shoes more than once. Like a thousand times).
But fortunately he and his close friends have their heads screwed on straight, and sound like they’ve never been stationed anywhere worse than Fort Free Republic.
And apropos of nothing, he states without any attribution that Hazbullah is distributing copies of the film, and tries to imagine someone doing this to Roosevelt in the 1940s (as indeed the Germans did try to, but it didn’t work because we were fighting a just war and we knew it and they knew it).
Perhaps we’re not missing anything by keeping the 101st Fighting Keyboarders Stateside.
UPDATE: You didn’t think Jo Fish
would stay silent on this one, did you?

If you read the piece the Dim Duchess links to, it’s an excercise in listening to a soldier bitch about what he perceives as Michael Moore abusing what he (the soldier) perceives as Moore abusing the First Amendment. What surprises me more than anything about this is that Sullivan would so blithely link to someone who so narrowly interprets the First Amendment. The same soldier might (and I conjecture here) be as opposed to Sullivan as he is to Moore for both First Amendment (an active proponent of Gay Rights and all with a media presence) and “moral” reasons (a “Levitican”).

Sometimes it really is fun to watch Sullivan shoot himself in the foot with a howitzer...

Oh please ... don’t encourage us.

Logan Circle Guy on another baseless assertion.

posted by Sully 7/27/2004 12:16:00 AM

Monday, July 26, 2004

The good news is that our traffic keeps going up
No, it doesn’t. We see a distinct downward trend.

The fact is that since he started keeping stats in late January, he has gone from a daily hit average of 70,000 or so to 55,000. He has dropped from about third or so to sixth in the
Blog Ecosystem rankings at the Truth Laid Bear, falling behind Atrios, who pulls about 80,000 or so now, Josh Marshall and the Daily Kos.

It’s one thing, we suppose, when he lies to you for political reasons.

It’s entirely another when it’s to get your money.


Don’t give it to him.
Give it to us instead. And let him know why.

posted by Sully 7/26/2004 11:22:00 PM

Does all this represent a capitulation to the “left”?

Andrew dear boy, you just don’t get it.
Poor idealistic soul that you are, you probably did get the memo, you got multiple copies in fact, but you refused to believe that it was anything more than campaign boilerplate. See, conservatism since 9/11 is really Bushism. Bush is conservative; therefore, whatever he says and does is by extension conservative. What he doesn’t, isn’t ... and the sooner you get over that silly idea that it was a set of principles and philsophies independent of any one human being, the happier you’ll be.
If you don’t feel as close to Bush as you used to, as the preaching man always says, well, guess who moved?

posted by Sully 7/26/2004 04:34:00 PM

If Bush favored an amendement restrcting the rights of, say, Catholics ...

Perhaps ths is one chp that ddn’t fall where it should have.
And one “e” that did fall where it shoulden’t have.

posted by Sully 7/26/2004 04:30:00 PM

When I started this blog over four years ago — yes, when Clinton was president and 9/11 was unimaginable ...

Waitaminute. Hasn’t one of the neocon articles of faith (it’s too superficial anymore to refer to them as mere talking points) been that 9/11 was all too imaginable because Clinton supposedly did nothing (“nothing” in this case being defined as “not invading Iraq”) in the wake of the embassy and Cole bombings? Have not they pointed (as indeed Sullivan has, or did after 9/11) to the cover of the final Hart Commission report, which came out a year or so before 9/11 and showed the World Trade Center in the crosshairs?
Sullivan is, as usual, being his two-faced self. For how else could he have written this if he didn’t actually think that back then?
(And just what the hell is a “new media methodology”? Does he maybe mean just “method”? We suspect someone is trying to sound all big and impressive and educated again)

posted by Sully 7/26/2004 04:22:00 PM

Did you notice who wasn’t on the list in
that WSJ article? (Besides us). Yup. Andrew Sullivan, who brayed at the beginning of the year about how, if we all gave him enough money, he could go to the conventions and blog.
So why is he in Provincetown, which is in the same state as Boston but only slightly closer to it than Williamstown (even Atrios seems to have
better accomodations). Who’s meeting there? The Leather Party? Did he raise the money only to blow it all going to Chicago over Memorial Day weekend? Inquiring minds want to know.
And for
a contrarian take on all the blogger self-congratulation, here’s Josh Marshall, accredited to cover the convention as a real journalist.

I’ve never been much for the blog triumphalism that seems always to be so much a part of the blog universe. Blogs make up a small, specialized niche within the interdependent media ecosystem — mainly not producers but primary or usually secondary consumers — like small field mice, ferrets, or bats.

When I see the mainest of mainstream outfits buying into the concept or the model I really don’t know what to think. The best way I can describe my reaction is some mix of puzzlement and incredulity.

I’ve always thought of this as just a vehicle for writing — a mix of reporting and opinion journalism, done in a format that allows a maximum degree of flexibility, not bound by limitations of space — the need to write long or short — or any of the confining genre requirements that define conventional journalism.

The whole thing is mystifying to me.

Thank God for sanity.

posted by Sully 7/26/2004 02:01:00 PM

Did Sullivan read anything more than the subhed of the BBC piece? (for a guy who makes no secret of his dislike for the BBC, he sure does a lot to keep them going).
All we read in the BBC is a restatement of an argument that, we understand, has been going on for a long time in competitive cycling circles. Armstrong has never been as popular in France and among the fans as his countryman Greg LeMond (the first American to win the Tour, not Armstrong) was, because of his prickly personality and the fact that, unlike LeMond, he did not grow up eating, breathing and sleeping the sport, and doesn’t seem to even now.
The article also points out that Eddie Merckx, the Belgian who was just as disliked in his day (to the point of being punched) managed to win his five Tours while also doing the whole circuit of bike races, something Armstrong has declined to do in recent years, sort of like the tennis stars who blow off or throw minor tourneys like the Canadian Open to concentrate on the big four.
This is an argument based purely on sports statistics, not nationalism. Armstrong’s perceived weaknesses as a competitor are mentioned without any reference to his nationality. While certainly increased anti-Americanism in the world may make it more likely that people will receive this, it certainly isn’t presented that way here. It may be on the writer’s agenda, but Majendie isn’t wearing it on his sleeve, rendering it a purely subjective judgement to call him anti-American.
How does Sully know that? Probably via the same secret Straussian Jedi powers that enable other conservatives to “know” that even though Meryl Streep says her portrayal of the Angela Lansbury role in the new version of The Manchurian Candidate isn’t based on Hillary Clinton, it really is.
(Consider also this piece we read over the weekend, which among other things argues that Wayne Gretzky was not the greatest hockey player of all time, because he was almost exclusively an offensive player. All the writer is doing is collecting grievances about Gretzky that were muttered by hockey fans even when Gretzky was in his prime. By Sullivan’s logic, it’s anti-Canadian).

posted by Sully 7/26/2004 01:44:00 PM

Sunday, July 25, 2004

“ ... astronishing yet unsurprising”
“ the pablum abhout not treating people as members of a group”

posted by Sully 7/25/2004 09:35:00 PM

Powered by Blogger


All material on this site copyrighted by author or authors.



Blogging the Blog Queen


“appl[ying] a magnifying glass to Andrew Sullivan’s performing-flea antics” – James Wolcott, Vanity Fair, April 2004.

Passionate rebuttal to Andrew Sullivan's frequent rants.

The Guardian

sullywatch AT

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More


There Is No Crisis: Protecting the Integrity of Social Security

Also see:

Smarter Andrew Sullivan (on hiatus, alas)

More blogs about Andrew Sullivan.

And for satire:

Neal Pollack (on hiatus as well)

Our inspiration:

Media Whores Online (presently out to pasture, but hopefully to return soon now that they are needed again)

Other watchers:


WarBlogger Watch

LGF Watch




DeCal (Cal Thomas)



The Daily Howler

Media Matters


The small village of bloggers who try to keep Sullivan honest (among other things):


Democratic Veteran

By the Bayou


Best of Both Worlds

Steve Brady

Other blogs of interest:



The Daily Kos

The Rittenhouse Review

Roger Ailes


Max Sawicky

Very Very Happy

Talking Points Memo



No More Mister Nice Blog

Steve Gilliard



Abu Aardvark

Ted Barlow (now at

Crooked Timber)

CalPundit (now at the Washington Monthly as Political Animal)

David Ehrenstein

Brad Delong

World O’ Crap

Tom Tomorrow

Oliver Willis

skippy the bush kangaroo

Public Nuisance

Bruce Garrett

are you effin’ kidding me?

Light of Reason


Onanism Today

The Suicide Letters

The Antic Muse (now Wonkette)

Sadly, No!


Anonymous Blogger

Scoobie Davis


Baghdad Burning

Whiskey Bar

Busy Busy Busy

We Report, You Deride


The Tooney Bin

Adam Kotsko

Nasty Riffraff

A Brooklyn Bridge

Suburban Guerrilla

Dave Cullen

Approximately Perfect

Trust me, you have no idea how much I hate Bush.

Beautiful Atrocities




Also worth checking out


The Cursor

Journal of American Politics

The George Bush AWOL Project

The Daily Kos



Greatest Hits (ours):


The Alaskan climate graph examined

Proof positive that Sullivan cannot, and should not, be trusted as a journalist to get his facts right.


The fisking of Norah Vincent

How we drove her out of Blogistan almost all by ourselves.


Excerpts from Lee Siegel's 2001 Harper's piece

Online here exclusively.


Why we blog the way we blog

A reply to some legitimate and friendly criticisms from Andrew Edwards


Why we blog the way we blog, Part II.

A reply to some of the same criticisms from the less friendly (back then) Arthur Silber


Bush-hating and proud of it

Our response to David Brooks.


Who Was That Masked Man?

The Horse remembered.


How the media lynched O.J. Simpson

Off-topic and our most controversial post ever.


Journalists behaving badly, updated.

Our wedding gift to Ruth Shalit, former TNR It Girl




Eve Tushnet's classic zinger

Sullivan has never quite been put in his place like this. Even Mickey Kaus thought it was funny.


"Bush reveals his poisonous colours"

Diane E. goes digging through the memory hole and finds a Times of London column Sullivan would prefer be forgotten.


The Datalounge list of potential titles for his memoirs

As reposted by Atrios


"The Princess of Provincetown"

Jim Capozzola goes further in that direction than we would ever dare.


Sullivan urges the Bush Administration to lie to the public

Brendan and Ben catch him in the act.


The Washington Times: An irredeemably left-wing rag

Bob Somerby shows the consequences of Sullivan's own logic of media bias


The Central Tenets of the Blogosphere

Derived from Sullivan’s blogging by s.z. of World O’ Crap and posted as a comment at Sadly, No!