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

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


Friday, March 03, 2006


P O’Neill once again shows he’s got better intellectual chops in political philosophy than Sullivan.

posted by Sully 3/03/2006 11:37:00 AM

Consider myself watched.

posted by Sully 3/03/2006 11:35:00 AM

Tuesday, February 28, 2006


You may have seen this Atrios post. Did you read the econium to Sullivan in the post he linked to?
Great. Fabulous. Sure. Whatever. That stuff I bolded? That is precisely what you and your Republican ilk have miserably failed to do in this country. You have, in fact, aggressively pursued the exact opposite. You have enabled and apologized for the violent men and evil ideologies that are destroying our country. You are the the evil, the cowardly, and the “simply misguided,” and you have done a great wrong that may not be righted for decades, if ever.

So fuck you very much.
What. He. Said.

posted by Sully 2/28/2006 12:29:00 PM


As he often is, Marshall Wittman is wrong. We think even Sullivan could see that Clinton’s loss of his party’s congressional majorities in 1994 (which we agree was ultimately beneficial to his presidency) is a different situation from Bush potentially suffering the same fate this fall.

Clinton had six years to go, meaning the reversal helped him triangulate and define himself in the political spectrum. Bush has already done that. He would not be helped and is unlikely to tack to the center the way Clinton did, or was perceived to do. It would certainly force bipartisanship on him, but while Bush is famous for having worked well with a then-Democratic Texas legislature as governor remember three things:

  • Much of that success was due to a very savvy lieutenant governor, as even Bush acknowledged;
  • The governor of Texas is much weaker than the president, since so many other statewide executive-branch officials are directly elected;
  • The Texas Democrats were on the whole more centrist and conservative-leaning than the a Democratic congressional majority would be.
It’s certainly true that Bush would use a Democratic majority in Congress to rally conservatives. However, its political impact would be limited, since after the elections we will have reached the traditional point at which potential candidates for the next election start to chart their own courses. Bush would be blamed (not publicly perhaps) by congressional Republicans for the loss of control, especially since the White House had spent so much effort leaning on Congress with the promise that it would help everyone get re-elected and retain Republican control of Congress. If that fails, Congressional Republicans will see little, if any reason, to owe the administration anything, and party discipline will break down.

It’s important once again to remember that Clinton, Truman and Eisenhower lost congressional majorities at the first midterm. There is only one historical precedent that gives us an idea of what the impact of losing congressional majorities at the second midterm (always a probability, 1998 excepted, given that the party in the White House traditionally takes a beating then) would be: 1986, when Democrats took back the Senate after six years.

What happened then? The last two years of Reagan’s presidency are seen as a period when he was largely irrelevant, more a symbol than anything else, between the loss of Republican control of the Senate and the Iran-contra investigations. Reagan’s approval ratings took a dive they never recovered from.

And remember that Reagan’s White House had an arrow in its quiver Bush’s doesn’t: a vice president who was universally expected to run for the top job himself. We’ve always said that history will see Bush’s selection of Cheney as his biggest domestic political blunder.

It seems certain that Republican congressional power will take a huge hit, perhaps not lethal but definitely serious, this fall (The ideal outcome for Democrats, and nightmare for Republicans, might just be the outcome some people are pondering: a 218-217 Republican House majority and split Senate, where Democrats can push their agenda without having the responsibility for any governmental screwups. That was effectively the situation Republicans were in for much the late ‘80s and early ‘90s).

posted by Sully 2/28/2006 11:52:00 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!