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

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


Saturday, January 08, 2005


It’s interesting to note that Sullivan’s overdue embrace of the call for more troops in Iraq (as if that were possible without a draft, as he well knows) rises as he drops entirely the “flypaper” theory (for those of you who don’t remember this, it was the idea that having all these U.S. military men and women in Iraq would be such tempting bait for the terrorists that they would immediately drop their plans for nefarious dirty-bomb attacks as if conditioned by Pavlov, and spend all their effort attacking a suddenly target-rich environment, the obvious rejoinder that Iraqis who might never have thought of going out of their way to aim RPGs and mortars at the 101st Airborne might do so if it overstayed its welcome being capably dismissed among those who count by the glib reassurances of Ahmad Chalabi).

It then behooves us to put it on him to ask himself how the two are unrelated, that purposely invading Iraq with less-than-adequate numbers (to say nothing of materiel) to ensure basic force protection levels (God, we can so use military terminology!) was always part of the plan. Otherwise the terrorists wouldn’t have dared; otherwise the American people would have believed the problem was solved, that everything was A-OK, that our troops were largely safe and the Iraqis and we were working to establish something resembling democracy, and thus we would have had no further interest in either a) re-electing Bush out of fear for our country or b) the neocons and their crazy scheme to make the Middle East safe for Israel with American lives and tax dollars.

And if it was, then Sullivan himself is a useful idiot (or was useful, anyway), intellectually complicit in the death of each and every one of the now more than 1,300 U.S. personnel killed in Iraq.

VERY EARLY MONDAY UPDATE: According to Atrios, Kevin Drum says much the same thing:

In other words, when Rumsfeld commented that you go to war “with the army you have,” he was exactly right. Kagan and Sullivan both supported the Iraq war, but it never would have happened if Rumsfeld had acknowledged that we needed 100,000 more troops than we had available at the time.

For that reason, conservative critiques of Rumsfeld on these grounds strike me as hypocritical. Would Kagan and Sullivan have supported delaying the Iraq war a couple of years in order to raise the troops they now believe are necessary? If not, isn’t it a little late to start complaining now?

And Atrios added himself:
All of these people who fought this war to, among other reasons, demonstrate the invincibility of American power have managed to clearly demonstrate its limits.

History does have this totally weird but reliable way of fucking you upside the head, doesn’t it?

To put it in its most succinct form ourselves, the war cannot be lost ... because it could never have been won.

Stratfor is misguided ... there never was any opportunity to crush the insurgency (although it might have helped a great deal to have adequately maintained law and order after Saddam fell, to have guarded at least something other than the Oil Ministry, to have gotten the power and water going instead of punishing French, German and Russian companies for their governments’ non-support of the war) once it began.

(Hey, maybe we’ll make a bumpersticker out of that).

posted by Sully 1/08/2005 05:18:00 PM


Atrios beat him to it by at least 24 hours.

posted by Sully 1/08/2005 05:15:00 PM


Courtesy of Daily Kos we have this CJR article rereporting the Killian memos controversy from last fall and noting how, far from lording one over the mainstream media, blogs may have stampeded the story through at the behest of the Bush campaign without allowing for a fuller reporting of just how truly unspontaneous this was.

Of course, we still believe the memos are inauthentic, and this other diarist at Kos agrees then and now. But the way the story was kindled, and how sources colluded, is worth paying attention to even if the Bushies had entirely wrong reasons for being right. Because it suggests the extraordinary lengths the Mighty Wurlitzer goes to manipulate the media it never ceases to avoid accusing of bias, and just how determined the Bushies are to keep questions about W’s Air Guard service record from so much as being asked.

One of the story’s top blogs,, is registered to a firm run by Richard Viguerie, the legendary conservative fund-raiser. Some were fed by the conservative Media Research Center and by Creative Response Concepts, the same p.r. firm that promoted the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. CRC’s executives bragged to PR Week that they helped legitimize the documents-are-fake story by supplying quotes from document experts as early as the day after the report, September 9. The goal, said president Greg Mueller, was to create a buzz online while at the same time showing journalists “it isn’t just Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge who are raising questions.”


Other pieces of context might have been helpful, too. For example, Maurice Udell, the former commander of the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, in which Bush served, first came to Bush’s defense in 2000 and was resurrected for the same cause in 2004. After Memogate he was a guest on Hannity & Colmes and was quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, saying the memos were “so totally false they were ridiculous.” He also popped up in The Richmond Times-Dispatch and an Associated Press story. No one noted the cloudy circumstances of Udell’s exit from the military (probably because the relevant clips are hard to find in electronic databases). In 1985, after an Air Force investigation into contract fraud, as well as misuse of base resources, Udell was ordered to resign. The initial probe included an allegation of illegal arms shipment to Honduras, but the charge came up dry.


When the central charge is a cover-up, as it was in the CBS story, vigilance is required. Thus, the connections between Bush’s old associates should have seen print. Together the men formed a feedback loop, referring reporters to one another and promoting a version of events in which Bush’s service is unquestionable, even exemplary. With such big names and old grudges in play, journalists are obliged to keep digging.


When the smoke cleared, mainstream journalism’s authority was weakened. But it didn’t have to be that way.

posted by Sully 1/08/2005 01:57:00 AM


Roger Ailes cuts through the line of bull Kaus peddled on Carlson:

Yes, the oh-so-sensitive Carlson — who lied about Senator Wellstone’s memorial and joked about the fates of John Edwards’s severely injured clients — was forced by CNN to act belligerent and ignorant. And Hairless Hack knows this for a fact because his PBS show is teddibly civilized. (It couldn’t be that PBS is forcing Carlson not to be a dick.) CNN execs chained Carlson to the set and threatened his kill his family if the decibel level dropped below acceptable levels, an idea they stole directly from Speed.

Might the fact that Crossfire got worse and worse be the result of Carlson’s performance on the show?

Yes, we should all bemoan the firing of a pretend journalist who performs like a trained monkey and “does what he’s told.”

Emphasis in original.

Funny how the more phonies like Kaus and Sullivan wrap themselves in the guerilla-journalism mantle of blogs, the more they reveal themselves as exemplifying the most insufferably clubby tendencies of the mainstream media they propose to array themselves against.

posted by Sully 1/08/2005 01:47:00 AM


We’re glad to see that calling attention to the pornographic fantasies disguised as outrage of Daniel “Akruh kullhum al-‘araabii!”Pipes and gleefully passed on by Sullivan have helped spur some good pre-emptive pushback in the blogosphere.

The best is from Totally Without Merit John, who quotes this bit (among many others making the same point) from the original Journal story.
Mauritania is the only nation today where force-feeding of girls is systematically practiced, mostly in rural areas.

That settles it, we think.

posted by Sully 1/08/2005 01:37:00 AM

Friday, January 07, 2005


To answer Sullivan’s question about why the Catholic Church and so-called pro-life writers, as has been said, roar their opposition to abortion yet whisper any complaint they happen to have with the death penalty, we’d say that what most people would interpret as support for the sanctity of human life is not, in fact, that support.

As we said a couple of weeks ago, the apotheosizing of “life” makes it all too possible to excuse the destruction of the lives of individual human beings toward that goal. Given that, particularly in the modern epoch, the two remaining developed countries where execution is still imposed as a punishment for crimes (the U.S. and Japan), it is mainly for murder ... so the idea that a life is taken to protect life as a whole is easier to rationalize.

It also, of course, has a lot to do with two other things.

First is that the Catholic Church, ever since its real political power was diminished to just the environs of Vatican City (corrected hours later after some coffee) and its indirect influence over most of Europe waned as Europe itself did, has been acutely conscious of the power of secular states and how to supplicate it. It’s a lot less risky to bring the rhetorical power of the Holy See down on powerless pregnant women than it is on a state with nuclear weapons (Stalin was right on this if nothing else).

Second is that the Catholic Church itself has a record on the death penalty that is, to say the least, rather checkered, as Giordano Bruno, among so many others, would have to admit. (One has to notice that its putative opposition to the death penalty has risen only as its political power on a global scale has diminished).

The ultimate truth here, however, is that (again repeating ourselves from last month) not only can you not find a democratic country that remained democratic while recriminalizing abortion, you cannot find a country that took on both the death penalty and abortion with equal vigor (Ireland doesn’t count — we don’t know when its last hanging was, but abortion had never been legal in Ireland before its constitutional amendment to begin with).

In fact, we’d have to say, the very governments that anti-abortionists would have to give (if they were intellectually honest, which of course they rarely are) credit to for most agressively reducing the number of abortions have also been those most willing to, ahem, make wide use of the death penalty in both judicial and extrajudicial fashion — whether supported by the Church (Franco’s Spain) or not (Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, revolutionary Iran, Ceasescu’s Romania, ans that’s just the ones that come to mind).

We’re sure there’s got to be a connection.

UPDATE: P O’Neill, as we were half expecting he would, takes this up and provides some more interesting information.

posted by Sully 1/07/2005 01:27:00 PM


Did you see that? He used the word “insouciance” — his favorite-to-the-point-of-overuse Clinton word — directly about Bush finally?

posted by Sully 1/07/2005 01:26:00 PM


If Sullivan wants to continue to post these “Emails of the Day” (and what does that mean on days when there’s none posted? That he didn’t even get any spam or 419 solicitations? And what do the winners get? A free ballpoint pen?), he should at least make sure that he does so in some sense of numerical order, so that, say, III doesn’t come before ii, by putting them in separate posts.

And that’s not even getting into including them in his word count. With the two long ones today and the lengthy reposts of three full comments from Irshad Manji’s site yesterday, one has to ask just what exactly he means when he thanks his readers for supporting him ... perhaps it means more than just financially.

Look, we’ve not been averse in the past to reposting long stuff ourselves, and while there’s nothing in the unwritten blogging rule book that says a certain percentage of content must be locally generated (indeed, the strength of blogging is in the blogger’s ability to coordinate seemingly disparate strands of source material in the name of deeper and/or fresher analysis and insight and then allow the reader to inspect same), we feel that our readers deserve more than that.

posted by Sully 1/07/2005 01:09:00 AM

Thursday, January 06, 2005


We do so love it when Sullivan acknowledges, however obliquely, that he at least occasionally reads this blog (we guarantee that he will always have at least one reader, and he may appreciate that more than he lets on publicly these days).

It was none other than our favorite tag-team partner, Jo Fish, who clued us in to The Blog Queen’s latest fit of self-pity over his favorite non-issue.

Really, his latest attempt to pull the veil of privacy over a very public misstep is infuriating. If everything else changes about him, this never will.

Sullivan never addresses, everytime he brings this up, that his ads were publicly viewable. So, he didn’t use his name, but so what? Any respondent who discovered the identity of the placer would thus, in our opinion, be free to disclose it ... as several did, and if Sullivan wants to complain about a lack of respect for his privacy he should note that until Signorile wrote about it, none of the major media outlets David Ehrenstein reportedly shopped the story around to would even touch it, despite the clear angle of the hypocrisy of Sullivan’s public condemnations of gay promiscuity vs. his private behavior. He should also note that the MSM (OK, we’ll use his term) didn’t work hard to pick up the story afterwards either, and we noticed it only when it was alluded in another story in the Times magazine or something like that. (And we’ll say little of his reported lying to Adam Moss when confronted about whether he had indeed placed the ads).

See, Sullivan seems to have this crazy (to us), British, somewhat aristocratic view that privacy should involve a component of mutual deference, that we should for some reason respect the decision of certain people to, as he has sometimes said, explore facets of their selves or alternate selves that they are not yet comfortable integrating into their public selves.

Fine. We all have public selves, and private ones (as we should know ... you may have bumped into one of us somewhere and not known it, and frankly neither did we) and we’d like to keep it that way.

But, in America, doing so requires that you take reasonable affirmative measures to protect that privacy. Use or other servers to hide your porn browsing, use portal emails in Eastern Europe to protect your identity, blog under a pseudonym, et cetera. You cannot depend on others to do this for you long term, as Thomas Eagleton found out.

Would Sullivan defend someone masturbating in the middle of the public square on these grounds? We think not, although we’d be interested to see how he’d have to modify or distort his position to do so.

Sullivan didn’t use his true name in his ads, that is true. But that is moot since he placed the ad in the first place where anyone could view it. He took a risk, and it failed, and he is still too full of himself to bring himself to blame himself.

From a psychological perspective, we could spend the usual time speculating on how perhaps he wanted to get caught, but we won’t. We’ll just stick to political philosophy here and observe that it’s curiously odd for someone who has made such a career of embracing libertarianism and individualism to, in this matter he rightly deems so essential to our very humanity, place his trust in society as a whole ... a fundamentally collectivist position at odds with his overt politics (but then again that sort of lived contradiction would be par for the course that is Andrew Sullivan).

Smalltown Boy wants to have his cake and eat it too on privacy. He wants its benefits without doing the hard work they require (as we have).

(And that’s not even getting into his complete willingness to discard the concerns he has so piously stated when the exigencies of political debate require it, like publishing the private diatribe of Yale history professor Glenda Gillmor on his blog, with her name attached, despite his stated policy at that time (late 2002) that he would only publish emails identifying the writer if the writer so requested, as Gillmor decidedly did not do. She was subjected to scorn and harassment all over the right-wing Internet for weeks afterwards, and was told she had a good legal case against him but just let the matter drop).

posted by Sully 1/06/2005 11:31:00 PM


Leaving aside the gratuitous slap at “Western feminists,” one is at least appreciative of the fact that Sullivan chooses to get this from Daniel Pipes, who is basically Little Green Footballs with a shirt and tie on. As shrill (pun intended) as his father, he has shown an unerring tendency to lap up whatever swill he gets from the Israeli-supremacist Arab-bashing Afrikaner-in-all-but-name right.

His item on this has the wonderful unintentionally comic lede we’ve read in a while:
The Middle East Explodes with Obesity. Specialists on the Middle East have their own brand of gossip, and one staple of the genre is how Arab men appreciate rotund women, a fact pregnant with implications for Arab-Western social relations.

Did he really think before he chose those words? Basically, he admits, this is gossip he now feels is proven fact. Hardly the most academic of items, even for a blog. Since we can’t go look at the Journal story online without a subscription, there’s no way to tell how selective the quote chosen is or isn’t. We’d bet it trends to the former.

One wonders if Juan Cole will comment on this one. Or Abu Aardvark.

UPDATE: Well, whaddaya know, P O’Neill jumped out on this one.

Given the vast wealth generated by our own blogging, we have maintained an online subscription to the Journal and can report that although the quote is a fair reflection of the story, the story itself is being scaled up by Pipes and Sully to be something it isn’t. It’sa mixture of specific anecdotes from Mauritania, and general statistics on obesity from throughout the Arab world.

Pipes and Sully want you to think of the Arab world as being full of Sir Mixalots with camels, as if Nouakchott and Dubai were just a hop, skip, and jump from each other. Yet we know from around the world that obesity and nutrition can worsen even as wealth increases — China for instance. So why, one wonders, the seizing of a culturally specific explanation in this case?

posted by Sully 1/06/2005 10:12:00 AM

Wednesday, January 05, 2005


Steve Gilliard has an exegesis of the “you’re a soldier” flap that deserves its own post here:

Well, how can an HIV+ gay Englishman have such opinions on how America uses force? It’s not like he's ever thought of serving or could serve. Like Christopher “I’m drinking as fast as I can” Hitchens, they have weird opinions on how Americans should kill people, and Hitch has even less excuse, since his father was a naval officer.Only psychopaths like killing people. Sailors and soldiers do not. They hate killing with a passion we can never imagine, because they also do the dying and see the misery. Killing is driving the teenagers who do it mad. Suicide occurs enough to scare the DOD and have them treat people for it. They would much rather be saving people than killing people. Only monsters behind desks can think killing is easy.

Sully’s idea of martial strength is best suited for the back rooms of bars and not reality. He should pick up Band of Brothers from his local Blockbuster. I think he might learn that killing is not fun, does not make you feel manly and has a cost that you live with forever. See, since he can only relate to movies and fiction, an accurate, fact-based movie might help him understand reality.

Sullivan knows nothing about our military, nothing about war. Yet he cheers it on like a video game. War is horrible, no matter how rightious the cause and there are still men damaged from WWII in VA hospitals. Only the insane kill without guilt and regret. Sully, who has his own deep, erotic attachments to male strength (his posting for anonymous sex have been published online), confuses that with military policy. In his world, he finds that macho appeal deeply comforting. He's like the woman who only seeks to date rich, powerful men, no matter how badly they treat her. He only cares about the power, not the often cruel reality which lies underneath.


Sullivan is really a power fetishist. In bed (as far as we know), in his politics. He worships and needs to worship those more powerful than him. He needs to grovel before them, to serve them. Which is weird, but it pops up in pieces like this. To him, the power of a soldier is god-like, untouchable. To the soldier or salior, he'd like to be home or at least not have to kill people to get through his day. But Sullivan misses that. Look at his devotion to people who would toss him on a train to Dachau with a laugh. Only someone who worships power could do that.

(Links added)

Sounds about right. He may have soured on the Iraq war, but underneath the changed spots the musclehead mentality hasn’t changed an iota.

Funny that a casual remark should betray this so much more clearly than any of his overwrought bangings of the war drum.

posted by Sully 1/05/2005 11:34:00 PM


Don’t you love this? “Here’s an email I received from her today” and the first sentence of said email is “Some of you haven't heard from me in a while.”

In other words, Sullivan is trying to give you the impression that she and he get along swimmingly and go out and have curry together when, in fact, all he did was what any of his own subscribers can do: sign up at her website for regular email updates. Sullivan may think she is his friend even though they’ve never actually met or (as far as we can tell) because he reviewed her book favorably (would he have trashed it? Be honest) in the New York Times, but in actual fact she probably wouldn’t know him from a hole in the ground.

posted by Sully 1/05/2005 04:14:00 PM


John Whiteside, back in D.C. temporarily, agrees with Sullivan (and by extension the Times critic) about the film but nevertheless has a slight chuckle at his expense.

posted by Sully 1/05/2005 10:27:00 AM


Of the 522,000 words Sullivan bragged about publishing in 2004, just how many were quoted from other people?

Memo to selves: next August, or during his spring break week, how ’bout taking a representative month and totalling up his quoted text vs. his own text and posting an analysis, with the usual 27 eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what it was to be used as evidence in a court of law ... in three-part harmony? (We are just so pleased with ourselves for being able to do that bit from memory. Can’t you tell? Of course, it’s an utterly useless talent except for attracting hits from Google searches on Arlo Guthrie)

posted by Sully 1/05/2005 10:18:00 AM


Ever have one of those vacations that winds up going on a little longer than you thought? Even after you get back to work and normal life? Well, that explains our lack of posts over the last couple of days.

In the meantime, we see that in addition to Sully’s contemptous remark to Lt. Cmdr. Whitsitt has drawn, in addition to the emailer, due notice from Atrios (“It shouldn’t shock you that a soldier would rather be helping people than killing them, even if he’s willing to do the latter when necessary,”) as well as the kind of umbrage only an ex-Navy man can take at Sullivan’s misuse of terminology from Jo Fish:

Lieutenant Commander Whitsitt is a SAILOR not a SOLDIER. There’s a difference, but for someone as totally ignorant as Sullivan, it’s an unfathomable distinction he can’t be bothered to actually understand, like 99% of the other drivel he writes.

Oh, and hey you, Viscount of Virus, the little purple ribbon up there in the upper right corner ... earned it for spotting and then directing a US Navy ship over to rescue 62 men, women and children on a sinking, overcrowded boat who had fled from the Communists in Vietnam. I guess that’s just something some warriors do, when they’re not busy being your servants.

Of course, Jo, if Sullivan had used “sailor” (perhaps he is merely following in Bush’s footsteps, which we once reminded you of?) it would have ruined the whole line, as one does not think of combat killing right off when one hears the word “sailor” and one can be a sailor without being in the Navy.

What should also not be allowed to pass without note here is just why Sullivan said this. His own words (“My point is that the military is primarily about fighting and winning wars — not disaster relief.”) betray that whatever his current public misgivings about Bush and Iraq he still shares the fundamental neocon chickenhawk distaste for “nation-building” as some sort of wimpy Clintonite activity — never mind that, as Whitsitt freely revealed, military people prefer that as much as any decent human would (In fact, they find that sentiment particularly distasteful when it comes out of the mouth of a member of the military, which is why Sullivan had to go smack Whitsitt down). It is useful to note in this context how often this sort of activity is shown in military recruitment ads, and why the military offers specialties in things like civil engineering.

Jo is also at the forefront of looking askance at Sullivan’s recent crusade to make sure Susan Sontag’s lesban relationship is mentioned in her obits. While the irony of his sudden burst of posthumous concern for her speaks for itself, as noted below, TBogg goes a step further:

I was particularly taken with Sullivan’s comment about Sontag’s fear of limiting her “appeal in a homophobic culture — even on the extreme left, where she comfortably lived for decades.” I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has an interview with Sontag where she discussed this supposed fear which seems fairly implausible considering the content of her work. I doubt Sontag was afraid of being passed over for a guest spot on The Reba McIntyre Show because she was batting from both sides of the plate.

As far as Sullivan's claim of “extreme left” homophobia, I think this may be based on Sullivan's own interaction with the extreme left. Perhaps they weren’t clear enough for him. They don't dislike him because he’s gay. They dislike him because he's...Andrew Sullivan.

Again, of course, one has to note what Sullivan’s real agenda is here: another stealth outing from Mr. I Don’t Out. The Times is, of course, not worried about Susan Sontag’s privacy as much as not alienating Annie Leibovitz, and of course in order to mention that Sontag was bi Sullivan just has to mention that she chose to do her switch-hitting with Annie.

posted by Sully 1/05/2005 09:47:00 AM

Monday, January 03, 2005


Mike Power (any relation to Max?) calls Sullivan on his sudden change of heart about trashing Susan Sontag once she died; something that had similarly occurred to us but, before we blogged it, got eaten by the wireless connection.

posted by Sully 1/03/2005 01:14:00 AM

Sunday, January 02, 2005


John Whiteside uses Sullivan's imminent return to really pop off on Smalltown Boy like he hasn't for quite a while:

Andrew Sullivan is off on some kind of extended vacation (apparently, once his readers gave him money, this did not make he feel like he ought to write something) and has left his blog in the care of a group of bloggers who make up in quantity of postings what they lack in thoughtfulness. It's no secret that I have my issues with just about everything about Sullivan (his politics, his dishonesty, his general petulance and whininess) but reading his guest bloggers makes me appreciate him a bit. At the moment his blog is looking as though a bunch of kids broke into his home, took his computer, and have been running wild. Perhaps it should be renamed "Home Alone?"

One of the things that has always distressed me about Sullivan's blog is that his previous writing has demonstrated that he is capable of structured thinking, but it's absent on the blog. However, the steam of consciousness posting that the substitute blog urchins are putting there makes Sullivan's usual blogging look downright organized.

Go Read The Whole Thing.

posted by Sully 1/02/2005 11:31:00 PM


Via Atrios, we get Matt Taibbi's take on The Blog Queen's latest bit of blog triumphalism in Time, and he shows us we are not alone in noticing the extent to which Sullivan sometimes mangles the language..

It's amazing how useful a bad writer can be in exposing the vagaries of mainstream thought.

Sullivan probably doesn't mean to use the word "governing" in the above passage. He probably needs a phrase, something like being good citizens," or "behaving responsibly."

UPDATE: Steve Gilliard brings da noize on this one:

Let's also start out with the fact that Andy Sullivan is one confused fucker. I mean, he's a Catholic Statist who trolls for big black dick, while allowing Charles Murray to rant his eugenic theories in print. He knocks blogs, yet makes a sizable income from his. I mean, with his level of personal confusion, you might see him give birth to a sheep one day.


The problem with Sullivan is that he's wanted to be someone's stooge for so long, he thinks his job is to support the people in power.


Sullivan is so desperate to be accepted by people who hate everything in his life, his homosexuality, his religion, that he thinks journalists should actually be part of government.


As long as one takes Sullivan's assertions seriously, and many people would like to, people will ignore the hard numbers. Which is that blogs are as popular and far more interactive than most magazines.

Link added, naturally (The holiday season just wouldn't be complete without it).

posted by Sully 1/02/2005 10:46:00 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!