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

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


Saturday, September 18, 2004


Attaturk takes a poke at Sully over his Rather-bashing here, and John Whiteside finds more evidence of his MPD here.

posted by Sully 9/18/2004 05:33:00 PM

Friday, September 17, 2004


It figures that, on the day when we get hit with an unrelated network outage (or is our server Jewish? Maybe), Atrios would link to our last post and give us our best traffic day ever.

Over eighteen thousand visitors, just to read Sullivan popping off like a circa-1995 teenager who’s read one too many issues of Wired. Thank you all so much (and a small tip would be appreciated).

Anyway, while we were out, Atrios also noted (same link) how Sebastian gladly took up the slack by flagging another Sullivan howler.

posted by Sully 9/17/2004 04:08:00 PM

Thursday, September 16, 2004


Memo to Rather: you can’t break that story, because someone else in pajamas already did. Check the frequency, Kenneth. You are so far from being out front on this, you are leagues behind in the dust. Have you heard of the Internet? You can find it on that weird machine in your office they call a computer. All this proves is the fathomless cocooning of Rather and Heyward. They still think this is the 1980s. They have no idea what media world they are living in. Like Howell Raines, they are so out of it, they don’t even know they’re finished.

It almost brings a tear to our eye to see this sort of flannel-shirted garage-band revolutionary rhetoric from him once again, even if he sounds like a 16-year-old.

UPDATE: TBogg was thinking what we were thinking.
Blogging is just a cyberspace letter to the editor, instant venting, and little else. It’s not “new media” (which sounds like hubris reflux from the days (Fast Company, anyone?)).

posted by Sully 9/16/2004 01:44:00 AM

And its response to the critics is to stonewall and try and change the subject

Now, where might they have gotten the idea from that that was OK?

Scott McClellan, perhaps?

posted by Sully 9/16/2004 01:41:00 AM


The story on Gramm and the faked KKK docs did run, we think. We don’t have the issue handy, but what John Judis did was write about how he almost got conned and how he got an ex-FBI man turned PI to break the forger in a lie detector test at a motel. Sullivan should stop being so self-righteous.

posted by Sully 9/16/2004 01:38:00 AM

Wednesday, September 15, 2004


Notwithstanding this interesting new wrinkle in the saga of the Killian docs passed on by Josh Marshall last night, the emergence of another document that casts doubt on Bush’s integrity and commitment to the Guard, and more proof that Bush is having it both ways here, Steve Mussina pointedly reminds Sullivan and the others that, contrary to their wildest imaginings, they haven’t made much of a difference, nor are they likely to.
It doesn’t matter to these people that Jayson Blair didn’t destroy The New York Times, or that Stephen Glass didn’t destroy The New Republic. Hell, it doesn’t even matter to them that the Clinton mulatto baby story didn’t seem to put a dent in Matt Drudge, as they of all people should know. Like their god George Bush on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln declaring “Mission Accomplished,” these people are premature self-congratulators, and they have a laughably overcaffeinated sense of their own importance.

And, of course, they overlook a key difference. While the authenticity of the actual Killian docs is highly doubtful, unlike the Glass and Blair cases no evidence of outright fakery has yet emerged.

posted by Sully 9/15/2004 01:51:00 PM


Courtesy of Steve Brady.

posted by Sully 9/15/2004 01:47:00 PM


Why is Sullivan publishing an “email from Massachusetts” when he himself has long led us to believe he lives in that state at this time of year? Is he back in DC?

posted by Sully 9/15/2004 01:44:00 PM


Steve also has an excellent fictional example (yet an entirely plausible one) of the sort of disinfo operation we described below in reference to the October Surprise and a discussion of how it may have been used by Karl Rove not only now but in the past as well.

Steve didn’t, by the way, include this element of the story in his post.

posted by Sully 9/15/2004 01:11:00 PM

Tuesday, September 14, 2004


Digby rolls a grenade under Sullivan’s latest outburst of blogger triumphalism:

But, while simultaneously taking credit both for being a superior blogger and a superior journalist he explains that he is actually superior to everyone by telling them that they should all just stop being so superior.


This must be the bizarro world blogosphere where truth is decisively discovered by an objective judge (perhaps Sullivan himself) who hands down a final order when the facts have been established. In my blogosphere, nobody agrees on what color the sky is.


Here on planet earth even if writers correct their errors, readers pick and choose which versions to believe and continue to battle the arcane details long after everyone else has lost interest, clinging to their own version of reality as if it is a life raft. The “transparency” of the blogosphere is as clear as orange juice with pulp. Nobody gets stuff “right.” They just get stuff. Errors are sustained forever. The “collective mind” is schizophrenic. The blogosphere demystifies the craft of journalism all right and turns it into an endless self-referential loop of The Osbournes. What an nice bizarro blogosphere it is indeed when you just dismiss fully half of it as “moonbats”in order to believe that you ave achieved a pure and real set of facts. I’d like to go there. It sounds soothing. What’s the URL?

In Sullivan’s blogosphere, credibility is granted once everyone (who’s anyone) agrees.

We’d also like to know: didn’t the blogosphere already “come of age” when it toppled Trent Lott (a story, let us not forget especially because we were there at the time, that liberal bloggers pushed without any media attention for several days until conservatives realized it provided them with the golden opportunity to take out Lott that they had been long awaiting)? Why does it have to come of age again?

posted by Sully 9/14/2004 10:58:00 PM


R Morgenstern, the less outgoing other half of Best of Both Worlds, reminds us and Gilliard that it’s a bit sexist to suggest so casually that Ruth Shalit slept her way to the position she once held.

posted by Sully 9/14/2004 10:46:00 PM


When you are down to the level of self-parody (laced, of course, with self-pity), your decline as a force to be reckoned with in the blogosphere is no longer in dispute.

UPDATE: P O’Neill takes note, also observing that Sullivan missed a chance to bash those crazy campus leftists.

posted by Sully 9/14/2004 10:36:00 PM


Matt Yglesias says exactly what needs to be said in the wake of the Killian memos.

[N]ot even anything of importance about Bush’s Guard service hinges on the authenticity of the memos.

Scroll down for our thoughts. Great minds do run in the same channel.

UPDATE: See what we mean about how this kept the larger story in play?

posted by Sully 9/14/2004 04:25:00 PM


Sullivan, you can’t whine about how homophobic your email is and then go use the phrase “stick-up-your-ass” in the pejorative sense.

posted by Sully 9/14/2004 04:15:00 PM


I just hope the Bushes are as tough with Osama as they are with Kerry, that’s all.

Coming 15 months after Bush last mentioned Osama bin Laden publicly, it’s well beyond hope.

UPDATE 9/15: Jo Fish has more on this theme:
Funny how it only took La Sullivina about four years longer than anyone else to figure out that Fearless Leader was a lying, gutless sack of shit. Coming up next: Andrew discovers the wheel and electricity.

To be fair, though, Sully’s vision wasn’t always so clouded, as the “Bush reveals his poisonous colors” link in the blogroll should show.

The question is, where exactly did his mind change? By the beginning of his blog archives, he’s already sold on Bush and loathes Clinton as only someone who refuses to acknowledge the same faults in himself can. And long before 9/11, he’s very warm.

He’s often stated that he was turned off by the tone of the Gore campaign, but that can’t be the only explanation.

posted by Sully 9/14/2004 04:13:00 PM

Monday, September 13, 2004


“Gregg manages to criticize the Bush administration’s miscalculations without demonizing them.” Oh, please! Sullivan, the master demonizer of “the left,” the blogger who spared no rhetorical device, no ounce of self-righteous outrage, no link to an obscure picture or quote somewhere, has long soured on the administration’s mishandling of the occupation but is nevertheless still concerned about someone demonizing them.

Meanwhile we have more than a thousand names to put on another wall on the Mall (and we will probably have more by the time this is all over), many more catastrophically injured and/or psychologically scarred, the good name and credit of the United States of America dragged deep into disdain and alliances built and doggedly maintained by decades of presidencies of both parties unilaterally trashed, but still let us not demonize those who did this!

Contrary to what Easterbrook and Sullivan want you to believe, it was not a good-faith honest mistake. Plenty of information was available, plenty of plans were available that could have kept us out of this situation or given us ways of dealing with it when it did go bad, but those in charge chose to discount or suppress them in favor of what they wanted to hear, what their mysterious nöospheric Straussian Force told them was the deeper truth negating all these superficial objective facts.

We are reminded, as we look back on the unintentionally but totally aptly Solzhenitsyn-esque prose two grafs back, of the bit early in Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being wherein Tamas’s essay in response to Communists who said they didn’t know about all the torture and imprisonment going on in Stalin-era Czechoslovakia, reminding them that Oedipus didn’t know he’d married his own mother either yet still chose to put his own eyes out as penance is published (and then shortly afterwards, the Soviets invade, leading Tamas to feel subliminally guilty that he inspired it, which colors his actions for the rest of the novel). And Oedipus had a better excuse than the neocons ... it wasn’t like there were warnings he chose to ignore.

And just what the hell is it with Easterbrook’s implied assumption that it was alright for the administration to devote more resources to the war it thought it would be easier to win? Whatever happened to John F. Kennedy’s reminder that “we do not do these things because they are easy, but because they are difficult”? Do you think FDR and Churchill had the luxury of picking and choosing where and how they would resist and oppose Naziism? Did they think Hitler and Japan would accomodate them?

No, the mistake was not in the execution but in the underlying philosophy, the natural result of the Supreme Court allowing a rich layabout who had made a career out of lowering expectations and trying to do things the easy way and misrepresent them later into the presidency of the United States. See, that’s why Bush’s past is so relevant. Will Sullivan ever be able to see that?

UPDATE: Josh Marshall takes on the “lump of terror” fallacy here.
Added to this, is the idea — as antiquated as it is ridiculous — that fighting “the terrorists” in Iraq prevents them from hitting us in the United States. Have these fools heard about globalization Grant the false premise that the Iraqi insurgency is being run by bin Laden. He can’t spare a couple dozen jihadis to come over here to spring another 9/11 on us? What about al Qaida demonstrates their strategy of hitting us where our defenses are strongest?


Of course that leaves untended the fact the guerillas we're blowing up in Iraq aren’t the folks running the safe houses in Karachi and Peshawar who constitute the real threat. Adrift as well is the straightforward matter that turning Iraq into a killing field isn’t really compatible with making it into a redoubt of democracy, prosperity and western values.

Knocking holes in this argument is really too easy and after a bit beside the point. The real problem with this argument is its proponents — folks who seem inclined to put insipid wordplay above the lives of American soldiers and marines, indeed, above against the future security of the country itself

posted by Sully 9/13/2004 01:59:00 PM


Via Roger Ailes, we have a story from the San Diego Union-Tribune (TBogg’s hometown paper ... how’d he miss this?) about blogs and making money from them (or, rather, not) that quotes the Blog Queen hisself talking about this very subject.
Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, has a high-profile blog that takes American Express and PayPal payments and posts an address for checks or money orders. Bloggers point to Sullivan as the blogger most likely to be succeeding.

But Sullivan said in an e-mail he makes his living through freelance writing and speaking. “I’ve managed to pay all my expenses and an intern and give myself a minuscule salary, thanks to the generosity of my readers,” he wrote. “I couldn’t live off the blog alone, and I see no prospect of that happening in the near future, despite having one of the biggest audiences.”

Hmm. No mention there of the bandwidth costs that were supposedly eating him out of house and home in July.

Also, we love how he has “one of the biggest audiences.” He forgot the part about the steady decline he’s experiencing, one sure to accelerate as he drifts further and further off the reservation.

Of course, the real problem, the real reason Sullivan can’t make ends meet with his blog alone despite making thousands from his pledge drives is his lifestyle. We’re pretty sure that, if he sold the apartment in DC and the beachfront place in P-Town and went off to live with the beagle and the boyfriend somewhere in, say, the Berkshires, he could easily live even off the reduced fruits of his more recent pledge drives.

(By the way, along those lines, we might while our daily average is still in four figures due to last week’s high-profile links humbly suggest that any of you who came over here to read about Ruth Shalit’s wedding show some appreciation of the dead-presidential kind by clicking the white box at right. A few bucks is all).

posted by Sully 9/13/2004 01:46:00 PM

I’m afraid Glenn is wrong on all of this.


Just don’t hold your breath waiting for Glenn to criticize those Republicans now preparing to get another vote on it in the House

Sullivan taking a potshot or two at Reynolds ... even we could never have foreseen that two years ago.

posted by Sully 9/13/2004 01:45:00 PM

My early hope was that, having stabilized the country, U.S.
forces could indeed have attracted professional terrorists to Iraq and killed them.

Sounds like the result of a shotgun wedding between that old joke Army recuitment slogan and an economic-development brochure.

posted by Sully 9/13/2004 01:43:00 PM


“The very idea that pampered seniors should actually pay for something!” Wow, you’d never guess that there’s far less to the plan than meets the eye!

And, really, who is the drug industry to use its shills to complain when the law explicitly bars the government from using its purchasing power to negotiate volume discounts?

posted by Sully 9/13/2004 01:33:00 PM

I always assumed that Bush got cushy treatment his entire life in everything he did from military service to business to politics. I don’t see how that really affects the important question of whether he’d be a the best pick to lead the country for the next four years.

To say it again just one more time: What does it do to a man’s character, what does it say about his ability to make decisions, when he is consistently insulated from having to pay for the consequences of his own many mistakes?

Sullivan, unsurprisingly, completely fails to see the connection between Bush’s Guard service and the ways Iraq is going horribly wrong he is acknowledging elsewhere.

Bill Clinton, remember, was voted out as governor of Arkansas after his first two-year term. He learned enough from that experience to govern well enough to be re-elected many times once he returned to that office.

What mistakes has George W. Bush said he would never make again? Letting the Rangers trade Sammy Sosa, ha ha, yuk yuk.

posted by Sully 9/13/2004 01:23:00 PM

Sunday, September 12, 2004


Atrios and Digby have been combining to suggest that those of us on the left of the ideo spectrum who are not 100 percent convinced of the Killian memos’ authenticity are falling victim to a naïve sense of principle at a time when no quarter can be given, just as Michael Dukakis did 16 years ago when he refused to respond to the Willie Horton ads, believing the public wanted the sort of election they say they want.

We respectfully disagree. While some may see this as principled, we appreciate the compliment but that is not the reason we’re doing this.

It’s primarily about strategy.

Max, we believe it’s entirely possible that this may have been a forgery meant to be exposed as such.

And let’s just imagine what effect it would have on the entire left of the blogosphere if we all went rushing forward with this ... only to have someone come out and admit they made it all up.

First, we would all suffer a serious loss of credibility with a mass audience ... at a time we can ill afford any setback. Let’s assume Rove and the Republicans realize that liberals are beginning to find in their greater blog community what conservatives a decade or so got out of talk radio. What better way to discredit that than a herd of bloggers having to eat crow?

More serious is what would happen to the entire AWOL Bush story. These memos are presumed to be the smoking gun. They’re not ... they only prove that influence was exercised at some point to allow Bush to avoid some of those Guard commitments. But even without them there is much more to dig through ... Paul Lukasiak has identified the retirement-point credits summary as the most damning, and just about every aspect of Bush’s time in the Guard has something fishy about it (We think it’s about the right time to focus on why there is no record of a Flight Inquiry Board convened to address young Lt. Bush’s suspension from flight and corrective measures, if any. The Bush campaign and all its apologists have never, to our knowledge, even indirectly addressed this issue). And in that context,
this story deserves some more attention, too (Once again, Steve Gilliard raises the right questions).

However, the media right now, in the midst of a hot presidential campaign, in their infinite myopia, is seizing on this as the be-all end-all of the story. If it’s “debunked” by this one thing being exposed as a forgery, forget ever gaining any traction with it. And then forget using that to build the narrative which continues through his business career and the Iraq war of Bush as a man with little in the way of real skills save efficiently consuming most of the alcoholic beverages within a certain radius, a man consistently saved by the intervention of more powerful others, a man who cannot be said to have been allowed to learn from his mistakes and who thus knows not how to, a man far beyond the limits of the Peter Principle in his inaptitude to the responsibilities of his job.

And, needless to say, it would be a lot harder to pry the necessary number of swing voters away in key states without that narrative.

(The sort of phenomenon we’ve outlined above in the event the Killian memos are conclusively exposed as forgeries is not, of course, in any way new. Conoisseurs of conspiracy theories will remember how the media dropped the October Surprise story when it was supposedly proven that William Casey was in London, not Madrid, on the day he met with Iranian operatives there in 1980 because a logbook kept by the organizer of the historical conference he was attending has a checkmark indicating he was there — when in fact the organizer said, and his log shows, that the checkmark pertaining to Casey for the afternoon session which he may have skipped to go to Madrid was in pencil, merely indicating that he expected Casey to show up, rather than the ink used for the days Casey actually was seen there. One juicy but not essential aspect of the conspiracy theory is conspicuously debunked by a major news organization within a week or two of the theory being propounded, and then no one’s interested anymore except the so-called tinfoil-hat crowd. It’s far more effective in suppressing these inquiries than arranging car accidents. And cleaner).

There are other points to make, most pertinently those evoking images of broken (as in stopped) clocks. Just because the wingnuts are making easily disprovable arguments (what else is new?) regarding the availability of proportional fonts on typewriters and the history of Times New Roman does not eliminate the underlying issue, not when no one’s given a good answer on the superscripted “th.”

And we also tell ourselves that, because the White House/Bush campaign isn’t questioning the authenticity of the documents, that means something.

We suppose then, that that means that Iraq really was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. After all, the same bunch of people thought those documents were authentic, too.

Really, this whole idea that we should all put on a unified front and act decisively and ignore or suppress doubts or suspicions about the evidence upon which we are basing our course of action sounds rather like something else we’ve experienced recently, doesn’t it?

We will note in closing that our skepticism goes both ways. While we are not convinced of the memos’ authenticity, neither would we be comfortable coming out and calling them forgeries either on the basis of what has currently been discussed. As a phrase most Americans are going to hear at some point today goes, “the replay was inconclusive.”

And you know what that means.

(Gilliard has
a good response to Digby, too).

UPDATE: Digby has, as we would expect him to, responded.

For our rejoinder, we should say once and again, clearly and unequivocally: We are not doing this because we believe that we will be rewarded for our integrity and that such reward will translate into votes for John Kerry ... we were born well before yesterday, after all (On our blogroll is a somewhat lengthy early piece we did within the first couple of months of opening for business showing clearly that Sullivan went beyond the bounds of gross incompetence when discussing a graph of Alaskan climate changes in the twentieth century into actively misrepresenting it. We still think it’s one of the most damning indictments of Sullivan as dutiful right-wing propagandist we’ve ever done. Yet only a few people saw it when it ran, and it has never received mention anywhere else despite some rather high-profile condemnations of Sullivan in published books and articles).

We are, let us repeat, skeptical about the authenticity of the memos because they don’t quite yet pass the smell test and we believe that to incorporate them into the case against Bush could be an overall strategic loss. Digby is right when he says that it is futile to seek acclaim from the major media by being a Boy Scout (after all, it has never given credit to the left for largely abandoning the story from the early days of the Bush administration that a government mapmaker got fired for putting out a map which showed high caribou counts near the area oil interests supposedly wanted to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If we were the right, we’d repeat that as sooth and we’d still be chortling about Rick Perry getting caught by his wife fucking his Secretary of State in the ass. We’d still care very passionately about Brett Kimberlin).

Yes, though, there is also a case to be made for a principled skepticism here.

Let us repeat it more clearly than above, where we thought subtlety would make the point.

A little over two years ago, the United States was set on a course for an ill-thought-out war because some people in positions of power came across some documents that told them exactly what they wanted to hear. The documents were exposed by experts in what they discussed as obvious forgeries very quickly, but these people didn’t listen. The war went ahead and a thousand troops are dead with no end in sight.

If you want to criticize them for that when you have a chance to remove them from their jobs for it, it ill becomes you to do the exact same thing.

It’s one thing to not be taken seriously and thought to be an untrustworthy source of information. It’s another thing to give people a legitimate reason to believe that (And then it’s a third thing entirely to be Matt Drudge).

It also seems to us that Gilliard has been vindicated. Falling into this picayune discussion of typewriters, fonts and typography may have seemed stupid in the short run, but guess what? The establishment media is already beginning to move on to other aspects of the story, as he predicted, because the Guard story remained on at least medium heat for a couple days longer than it should. We mentioned the story about Bush’s flight logs showing an unusual reverse in his learning curve that AP ran; now it’s growing legs.

More importantly, Atrios reports, US News and World Report, of all places, has picked up an aspect of the story long known to us online Bush opponents that is obvious from doing the math on records released a long time ago by the White House, but hitherto avoided by the major media: that any way you slice it, Bush did not come close to meeting the time commitment to the Guard he’d agreed to. How long can it be before we finally hear about how the hell he could have gotten all those ET dates in 1972 well outside of the periods permitted by AF/AG regulations of the time, without any accompanying special orders?

And as we learned from Digby himself today, a few more memoes have surfaced at USA Today. They may advance the debate about legit/not legit a little (we think, from our review, that it will be a wash), but the issues raised by them are certainly genuine, do focus attention on things that are known to have happened in Bush’s Guard career, and will doubtless get some play in news coverage ... certainly making sure Rove keeps his Maalox within easy reach.

This is exactly what we were hoping would happen. Yes, we can say, maybe the memoes aren’t authentic, maybe they are ... but look at this and that and the other thing! You’re missing the larger issues!

This is a debating trick conservative pundits have long demonstrated mastery of on TV and elsewhere; it helped them win support for the Iraq War (“Yes, Professor Cole, maybe this report isn’t true ... but Saddam is such a bad guy! And we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud!”) and it’s exactly what they’d be doing in this situation.

We have the material available to turn this trick ourselves. Can we?

(One more comment: We totally agree with Digby on the major media’s unfortunate tendency to let itself get buffaloed by the conservative media machine when it should really stand its ground. We refer you to the story of how NBC got bullied by GM into “admitting” it “faked” the explosive crash of a pickup truck ... well, we would if we could find any evidence of the short but devastating Spy article from June 1993 pointing out how it happened, the only place this was ever reported, or information derived from it, online).

Oh, wait, we found the original copy of that story. Some relevant excerpts:

“The point was, first they settled and then they investigated — which is crazy, and I don’t think it would have happened at ABC, or in most other news organizations,” says one observer of the incident. The point also was, of course, what GE stood to lose by alienating General Motors; not only the sufficiently discussed advertising dollars (a long term contract signed in 1990 worth half a billion dollars) but also GE’s other business relationship with GM. It did not escape notice in the NBC newsroom when, a month after NBC’s apology, General Motors took out a full-page ad in The New York Times to thank its “1992 Suppliers of the Year” for their business. Among them, prominently displayed, was General Electric.

The final report on the Dateline incident, compiled by lawyers Robert Warren and Lewis Kaden, was exactly the sort of Lewis Carroll-like sentence-first-verdict-afterward product one has come to expect from “investigations” by attorneys. The igniters Dateline had used, prominently featured in top NBC shill Jay Leno's recent monologues, are a case in point: Even the lawyers acknowledge, without contradiction from General Motors, that the igniters did not cause the GM truck to catch fire. (One of the colliding car’s headlights did, as you may have the opportunity to discover if you are stupid enough to continue driving a GM truck.) But even though the report ultimately concluded that no rigging had taken place, it also obstinately insisted that Dateline should have told its viewers that “the use of igniters was significantly related to the subject of the demonstration, even if the igniters did not ‘cause’ the fire.” Or, in other words, while the truck blew up all by itself, it might not have. Meanwhile, the report only acknowleged in passing that igniters are standard elements of this type of fire test; in fact, had the lawyers investigated further, they would also have discovered that even GM had used igniters openly a few years ago in a demonstration to prove the danger of Ford pickups.

posted by Sully 9/12/2004 01:17:00 AM

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!