Friday, April 08, 2005
LET’S GO ORANGE!:
P O’Neill takes up Sullivan’s “The Pope lost Ireland!” ruminations, and wonders how long it will be before Sullivan (and he himself, for that matter) have embraced the Church of England.
Actually, that might be the start of a nice trend. Imagine all the usual St. Patrick’s Day bacchanalia ... but rescheduled from the waning days of winter to the height of summer, roughly a week after Independence Day. Not too bad.
posted by Sully 4/08/2005 11:57:00 PM
THE BITCHINESS CONTINUES:
Instead of linking directly to the original Powerline posts (which are buried, apparently, under the dust and dead bits of the past two weeks, an infinity in blogging archaeology, we know), he links to the Salon story quoting them.
posted by Sully 4/08/2005 11:56:00 PM
THE BERGER STORY? IT’S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU:
Sullivan’s query last weekend about the Berger story and why the “MSM” hasn’t picked it up has been answered, from none other than the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Basically, it tells the right, do not go there.
Thanks s.z. for the link.
We’re surprised that few other liberal blogs have picked this one up, though. For those of us who consider ourselves Wurlitzerologists, this is interesting.
We’re not alone. Whinerocket (really, there is no other name for him) has asked, “[W]hat’s with the Journal’s recent habit of unfairly blasting conservatives in unsigned editorials?” (We’d say first that two editorials hardly make it a habit; and second that, oh, it might have something to do with the Journal’s long habit of running unsigned editorials unfairly attacking liberals (and since when is an editorial signed, anyway?))
But the question remains: Why? What’s the agenda here? s., after showing how dense Whinerocket’s attempt to pick bones with the editorial really is (i.e., he didn’t bother to fully read the Post story) may be right when she sees the Journal merely as concerned (as it rarely is) with conservatives’ image.
Let’s leave aside, for the moment, any consideration of the ironies of the Journal’s editorialist(s) telling conservatives they “don’t do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loony left,” after they themselves spilled much ink on pursuing the Vince Foster allegations. In fact, they may have learned from that experience, as David Brock revealed that a lot of Starr’s prosecutors told him they were convinced there was nothing there and really felt it was a distraction from what they were supposed to be doing (i.e., trying to find women who’d had sex with Clinton), especially when wingnut Republican Congressmen with wingnuttier constituents forced them to take a look at it again. So perhaps something like that is going on here. Or perhaps there’s a bit more to it.
Who, on the Journal editorial page staff, might be tight with someone at Justice who did a bangup job on this and resents the likelihood that his own political compadres on the Internet will be out trying to build their reputations by tearing down his?
Or is the Journal trying to send a message to, or from, someone? Is this Rove’s way of telling the wingnuts you made us look like asses over Schiavo, so fuck you and your latest goddam Clinton obsession? Does someone important need Berger’s support on something? Is someone in the House planning to make themselves a big star on this, and someone else is settling an old score? Would a more serious investigation of the flap reveal similarly embarassing material, and/or more serious allegations, about Republicans?
Past performance of the Journal’s editorial page does not lead one to believe the gnomes at 2 WFC are terribly concerned with their movement’s image. Remember, there is always an ulterior motive there (as when, as Sidney Blumenthal revealed in his book a couple of years ago, they led the charge against the original Whitewater special prosecutor Robert Fiske weeks before he was scheduled to wrap the case up and say, show’s over, nothing to see here folks. While that had a lot to do with the fateful decision to put Starr on the case, there was also payback for Fiske being the only Republican member of the American Bar Association’s federal judge evaluation panel and almost always going along with its low opinions of the cream of the Federalist Society crop).
QUICK UPDATE: One conservative blogger toes the party line, another seems to decide that it’s time to elect a new people, so to speak.I still like Taranto’s Best of the Web column, but I’m becoming more and more perturbed with the Journal’s anonymous voice of reason. I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to have someone without the nuts to sign his name so that I can evaluate his agenda tell me nothing’s going on and not to worry my pretty little head about it.
posted by Sully 4/08/2005 06:07:00 PM
NO NEED TO BE NICE ON THE WAY DOWN:
(Originally supposed to have been posted like, last night, but Blogger seemed to have other ideas)
If Sullivan is fishing for some props for calling Powerline out on not retracting their fake fake-memo story (and remember Powerline displaced him in the right-wing ranks), as well as congratulating Josh Claybourne for doing same, he will have to look for them from someone who doesn’t remember the many times he left fallacious stories unretracted when he was as popular and influential as they were.
Notice, by the way, that between last night and this afternoon, he took the link out. Was he getting nasty homophobic email? Is the Pope dead?
ALL THE SAME, WE CAN’T RESIST MAKING FUN OF THEM OURSELVES:
Shorter Powerline retraction (Hindrocket concurrence):Tom Harkin is an ass for letting us show ourselves for the asses we are for two weekQUICK UPDATE: We see that (as just happened with us as of 6:04 p.m. EDT; scroll down) some posts from earlier today have just been barfed out by Blogger. He’s still sinking his fangs into his triumvirate of usurpers in Minneapolis.
What a bitter old queen he has become.
posted by Sully 4/08/2005 05:50:00 PM
Thursday, April 07, 2005
NO NEED TO BE NICE ON THE WAY DOWN, EITHER:
If Sullivan is fishing for a pat on the back over his recent posts praising Josh Claybourne for retracting on the fake fake-memo story, and excoriating the blogospheric right’s new favorite sons, Powerline, for not doing so, he’s not getting it from us. We have long since lost count of the times in the past when Sullivan did something similar and never bothered to retract.
Just as soon as we can think of an example, we’ll link to it.
posted by Sully 4/07/2005 10:18:00 PM
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
OR PERHAPS HE WAS DENYING US THE CHANCE TO TAUNT US ABOUT HIS TARDINESS IN BREAKING NEWS:Sorry for the lack of insta-analysis.Andrew, no one who really reads your blog knows to expect it anyway.
posted by Sully 4/06/2005 04:42:00 PM