Wednesday, February 15, 2006
WITH SOME APOLOGIES TO AEROSMITH:
Feel free to use these lines in any update of the too-obvious takeoff:Cheney shot a gun,We’re too lazy and not good enough to do more with this right now. But it’s almost uncanny how much it lends itself to this situation, isn’t it?
Right at Harry Whittington ...
What’d Dick Cheney do?
Put him in the ICU ...
He did a 180
And sprayed the pellets in his face ...
posted by Sully 2/15/2006 09:47:00 AM
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
CHENEYQUIDDICK — JUST A QUESTION:
If Whittington wasn’t all that seriously injured, why did concern for his well-being so preoccupy everyone for ten hours that no one gave any thought to calling the press?
AND A FURTHER QUESTION: Maybe it wasn’t Whittington’s health they were worried about, if you think about it. After all, how might a 65-year-old man with a history of recent cardiac problems (more severe than the White House has been letting on) have reacted to suddenly shooting a friend? In that context, isn’t it rather interesting that Cheney has been seen even less than Whittington since Saturday?
posted by Sully 2/14/2006 11:08:00 AM
Monday, February 13, 2006
YOU WERE NEVER IN THE CLUB ANYWAY:
God, who ever expected blogging Sullivan to get this interesting again?
If you are an avid blog reader, you’ve no doubt read Glenn Greenwald’s post — or more accurately, about Glenn Greenwald’s weekend post on the degeneration of conservatism into Bushism, a phenomenon we have long noticed ourselves and blogged about here. But it took Glenn, a rising star of the left-wing blogosphere, to really break it out into the open.
Greenwald focused on the Right’s treatment of Sullivan as he has fallen out of love with Bush over the past two years; and Sullivan, always a sucker for a suckup, put two grafs of Greenwald’s post on his blog. This, in turn, has
While we’re sort of amused by the way Sullivan forgets completely how he was once one of the Highest Priestesses of the Temple of Dubya (if we had time, we’d mine his blog circa 2002, when it was at its worst), Ramesh Ponnuru over at the Corner questions whether Sullivan was ever really the team player during the 1990s that he made himself out to be anyway:
And while Sullivan loves to write about his allegedly consistent record of opposing big government, such opposition was not at all a major theme of his writing in the 1990s. When most conservative writers fought the Clinton health plan in 1993 and 1994; when they cheered Newt Gingrich in his efforts to cut federal spending in 1995 and 1996; when they opposed the budget deal of 1997 for its spending increases; when they tried to stop the creation of the new entitlement for children’s health care; when they protested the efforts to regulate cigarettes and campaign finance: Sullivan had almost nothing to say. (Except when he came out for campaign-finance “reform.”) But he now pretends that those of us who did say something at that time have less sterling records than he does.Nor is Ponnuru fooled by Sullivan’s response, either:
Andrew Sullivan tries to have it every which way. He wants credit for the conservative articles The New Republic published, including a rather shoddy one by Elizabeth McCaughey that he’s still proud of. But the liberal articles, including the responses to McCaughey, don’t count against his conservative cred because it was a liberal magazine. Hey, I’m not the one who raised the issue of Sullivan's record. He does it every week. Pity he’s so bad at defending it.
Actually, it’s interesting that Ponnuru would refer to the McCaughey article, since it won an award and, while even Mickey Kaus saw how shoddy it was, is widely credited with inflicting a fatal blow on the Clinton health plan (as Sullivan notes).
And then it gets nasty:Oooh! “Narcissism” ... we all know what that’s the code word for!Sullivan writes, “Unlike Ramesh, I actually risked something for my conservative ideals — friends and some colleagues, estrangement from the gay establishment, and even my job. . .” Sullivan sounds this rather pathetic note fairly often: He is the lone voice of integrity, while everyone else sells out. That’s why the poor thing can’t find a venue to publish his work, right? That’s why he’s constantly dropping the names of famous friends? Sullivan comes close to the truth only when he suggests that he’s “touched a nerve” with me. “Gotten on my nerves” is closer to the truth, and it’s in part because of the preening narcissism on display here.
2/15 UPDATE: Thanks Duncan!
posted by Sully 2/13/2006 06:03:00 PM
