And he said...
IN THE COMMENTS: Lem said:
I'm at work now, so I can't do much.. look up Sully's treatment of Condi Rice and the women of the Bush WH.
There might be something there we can use.
(Damn. I should have taken the day off.)
I love the smell of an intertube fight early in the morning.
Okay, kids. Marshall the evidence. Comb through Sullivan's blog for evidence of misogyny. I'm in a frontpaging mood! I'll even correct your typos (as I did for dear, sweet Lem).
Posts
93 comments:
What a persecution complex.
"Now I'm not just a racist for criticizing Jindal and a heterophobe for criticizing Palin; I'm a misogynist."
Well, um, er, ah, he kind of is all of the above.
Sullivan's first response, which you quoted earlier, is pretty self-damning. "Sure I had a hostile knee-jerk response to your engagement announcement and sure I have a bizarre obsession with a female politician's medical history, but I'm don't have any problems with women. Some of my best friends are women."
To be fair to Sullivan, most men have complex feelings about women.
First, you italicized "women" in the original quote, so you should quote yourself correctly. Second, you were saying that he hates straight people. You then asked him to explore those feelings explicitly, focusing specifically on women. Which implies that he specifically hates women, aka misogyny.
Oh dear, Andrew is having trouble dealing with his ever-so-complex feelings again.
When did having complex feelings become an excuse for being a douchebag?
Other than standing up for Norah Vincent one time I can’t recall Sullivan lifting a finger for the human female of the species. Not ever.
Not one even his pinky ;)
"First, you italicized "women" in the original quote, so you should quote yourself correctly."
Unfortunately, italics in the headings don't work. Which is one reason I didn't make it a quote. Consider it a paraphrase.
"Which implies that he specifically hates women, aka misogyny."
No, it implies that I'd be interested in knowing the more subtle inward thoughts that roil about in the mind of Sullivan. But he's too much of a dedicated politico to let us see that humanity. It makes me sad.
Let us just get it over with. Sullivan has turned into a mean spirited, backbiting, hypocrite; without a shred of decency.
See how womanly I'm being?
Do you hate that?
Let it go. When I was first in love, I didn't care what other people thought. I didn't even know there were other people.
I'm at work now, so I cant do much.. look up Sully's treatment of Condi Rice and the woman of the Bush WH.
There might be something there we can use.
(Daem.. I should have taken the day off.)
I love the smell of an intertube fight early in the morning.
"he's too much of a dedicated politico."
That's just the problem. Which is funny, because the fact that this can be said of him (and said truly) completely destroys all of the praise which the article you linked yesterday was heaping on him about what a legitimate *thinker* he is. There's definitely a disconnect between the Sullivan praised in the article and the Sullivan writing that blog.
No, it implies that I'd be interested in knowing the more subtle inward thoughts that roil about in the mind of Sullivan.
Really? Why would you want to know a thing like that?
"Which implies that he specifically hates women, aka misogyny."
No, it implies that I'd be interested in knowing the more subtle inward thoughts that roil about in the mind of Sullivan. But he's too much of a dedicated politico to let us see that humanity. It makes me sad.No, You previously suggested that there was an undercurrent of hatred of heterosexuals in his writing. So, now when you suggest that he explore his "complex feelings" about heterosexuals and women, its pretty reasonable to interpret the "complex feelings" as a reference to hatred.
I'd be curious to hear Althouse explore the complex feelings toward gays that inspire her to devote so much energy to defending and rationalizing antigay pushback. I think maybe she has had some traumatic experience with gays and lesbians in the academy, in her personal life, etc. Show us your humanity!
What a persecution complex.Madman - Sully? Or Althouse?
There's a bit of a narcissistic vortex attempt here; not sure which blogger holds the edge on that.
Marshall the evidence.
There's got to be a way to bring circumcision into this discussion.
Beth, I'm thinking Sullivan, although althouse, too, at times.
Sullivan whines that he's a racist, or a heterophobe, or a misogynist, just 'cause someone criticizes what he writes, or asks him to think.
Gah! What a dull topic.
Beth,
"There's a bit of a narcissistic vortex attempt here; not sure which blogger holds the edge on that."You took the words right out of my mouth.
Let it go, Ann. I'm no Sullivan fan, so loathe to defend him, but the misogyny argument is tired. We, all, can be judged, criticized - whatever - without going there. (I could claim everybody that doesn't like me is a racist. Would it be true? No. I'm an asshole.)
And you've made waaay too much of that "OMFG" thing.
What you've done is as weird and hypocritical as Sullivan is - you decided to do it, now live with it:
People will talk.
" Why would you want to know a thing like that?"
Cuz I'm a lady.
Beth -- My take is that one of these bloggers is taking all this very seriously, and the other is turning this initial insult into an opportunity to enjoy herself (and increase her traffic along the way).
Joseph -- I think that's a fair request.
I used to read Sullivan for the same reason I read Althouse. He provided a deft combination of personal blogging, social commentary, and political argument. Like Althouse, his politics were fairly idiosyncratic and he was (and is still) a sharp, disciplined writer. I stopped reading him because the political argumentation took over and became numbingly predictable.
Still, my thought is that there was (once) commonality between the way Althouse blogs and the way Sullivan blogged.
Ann, what's your problem with Andrew? You're acting like a petulant catty school-girl. Getting into feuds with people.
Be an adult.
I suppose it's this bitchy-nature of yours that has made your blog interesting. Made it irreverent!
Keep up the good work!
Your male readers are sycophants.
If I wrote "Dayum" in a comment, would you want to correct that?
I lived in Savannah for a while.
I understood Lem perfectly.
Kaus put it best: Sullivan will grab anything handy if he can use it to support whatever crusade he is on. Hell, Sullivan was quoting Johny Derbyshire approvingly after months of denouncing his views on homosexuality (among other issues).
Ann just needs to write something bad about Bush or the Christianists or whatever fixation Mr. Doubtful Conservative has and she'll suddenly have high stature and credibility in his eyes.
He's not a misogynist or heterophobe. He's a shameless unprincipled opportunist.
I guess I'm uninterested in the various individual revelations into Andrew Sullivan. Pretty much as long as I've been aware of him I've not been impressed and long since given up what gets his panties in a wad on any given day.
Nor do I care if others find it good sport.
You're deeply pathetic.
Ann,
You do sound very petty and pathetic. It's a shame.
One feeling at a time, is my motto.
These are not the crusades, you don't have to destroy your opponent. He truly apologize to you about your marriage, and you should stop trying to destroy his reputation
If you really want Andrew Sullivan to be treated nicer, well, the first rule of Politics I learned from Machine Democrats in NYC was:
DO NOT GO AFTER A POLITICIANS FAMILY!
Andrew Sullivan broke (and continues to break) the rule. Until he commits either Seppakku or apologizes publically to Governor Palin (and Professor Althouse for his snarkiness when a nice compliment would have sufficed), then all I have to say is:
Andrew Sullivan reaps what he sows.
It’s a sad state of affairs that after what Sully did to Palin he should suffer no consequence and to the contrary to have seemingly enhanced his stature at her expense.
And all because we don’t have the balls to call him to task?
Or we can’t be bothered? People have dueled for less – look up Vidal vs. Buckley.
As ye grok, so shall ye grep, unless you take it from somebody else.
Andrew Sullivan is truly an evil man who deserves every bad thing that can ever happen to him in his pitiful excuse for a life. Not as a result of his sexual preference but because his own actions.
Decent people should turn away from him and not acknowledge his existence.
If anything our indifference will embolden the hatchet man once known as Andrew Sullivan.
the contrary to have seemingly enhanced his stature at her expense. Well, he was just "asking questions" and besides, where are Palin's x-rays, sonograms, medical bills, medical chart and the sworn testimony from her doctor, husband, daughter, Levi, Trig..?
Because we know that if that was produced, Sullivan and his buffoonish followers on this story would accept it.
He is a pipsqueak in the reality of the world. A popcorn fart into the wind. Ignore him like the shit you rub off your shoe. Scrape it off on the curb and wash it down with some Lysol. That is all he is worth.
I dont think is an exageration to say Sullivan has done grave damage to the body politics of this country.
It will be a long time before another woman will not be warned to remember Palin before entering into politics.
SMGalbraith -- Althouse's critics here may be missing the parallel. Althouse is similarly "just asking questions." And per Sullivan, the burden is now on him to conclusively disprove the implied accusation that those questions carry.
I still think Althouse's main purpose here is to have some fun. Of course, it could be that the beautiful, thrill-of-new-love grin in her picture is misleading me.
"I dont think is an exageration to say Sullivan has done grave damage to the body politics of this country.
It will be a long time before another woman will not be warned to remember Palin before entering into politics."
Lem,
No kidding.
We complain about the caliber of people we get running for office, then countenance people like Sullivan making sure that no decent self-respecting person who loves his or her family would want to go through that.
Andrew Sullivan is like a hundred other guys you could meet in any gay bar. As such, you could maybe call his issues with women interesting, if that's what interests you. (I personally lost interest in gay men and stopped hanging out in gay bars a long time ago, but that's just me.) However, you really couldn't call his issues with women distinctive or unusual. So unless you retain what I have lost, an interest in gay men generally, I wouldn't pay much attention.
"...but the misogyny argument is tired. We, all, can be judged, criticized - whatever - without going there. (I could claim everybody that doesn't like me is a racist. Would it be true? No. I'm an asshole.)"
Crack, if somebody dislikes you b/c you're an a-hole, that's not racist. But if somebody dislikes you b/c you're black, then it is, especially if that person acts on it in a way that he expects will affect you negatively. I'm tired of race race race race race all the time, myself, but that doesn't mean the issue isn't actually very relevant from time to time. Misogyny is no different.
And you might say that Sullivan having the views he has is his business, and it is, except that through his writing he is trying to sway public opinion. Why did he publicly attack Palin the way he did? Because he was trying to do her harm. If that was b/c she's a heterosexual woman breeder, or whatever, then yes, misogyny is a relevant topic for discussion.
Comb through Sullivan's blog for evidence of misogyny.What a great idea. I know y'all are busy, but do you think you could add Pope Benedict to the hunt?
Don't forget how nasty Sullivan was, when he wrote about Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary.
I don't recall specifically if he wrote things as overtly misogynistic as he did about Gov. Palin. But it was pretty vile stuff.
I really don't give a you know what about Sully and what he thinks of females.
Really it's irrelelvant.
Why the curiousity about what drives Sullivan?
Shocker a guy who started at The New Republic ended up a rant raving Liberal.
Quelle Surprise.
People keep looking for an overarching theme or principle that drives Andrew Sullivan guess what?
He has none.
He is L-O-S-T.
Again I could care less about Andrew Sullivan and Sarah Palin or his stance on "women" and feminism.
You can be about morals and principles that are bigger than that, and which all of that would be subordinate to.
Sullivan trashed the military over and over again.
He did his upmost to make sure that all of them-every single person in the military was viewed as one of the worst of them.
Everyone here pretty much knows damn well what I am talking about.
Why did Sullivan do that?
Because he will never understand someone that is willing to die for something that they believe in, that is bigger than themselves.
And- tha is why Liberals had to slime the military over and over again. They knew the best way to defeat our military was to take away from them the morality of why they do what they do.
What a bunch of absolute pigs these Liberals that sit on their ass and enjoy something they take for granted. Who PROFIT by sliming the military with all of their "tactics" that they have learned by being absolutely-
Amoral.
Sullivan's treatment of Palin and her daughter was appalling. If I were Palin's husband, I would have found the little crapweasal and beat him to a pulp. What is worse is that even after his man crushee BO is safely elected, he has never apologized or admitted that he went too far or expressed any form of regret. One can only imagine the fit he would have if another writer subjected an openly gay politician to the kind of treatment he gave Palin. I have never read his blog since. I never will. Andrew is alledgedly Catholic. Some day he will have to answer for his sins.
madawaskan,
Sullivan said horrible things about Veterans of the Iraq War. As one of them, it is a good thing for both of us I have never met the man in person. He published numerous slanders that were later proven wrong and never retracted or corrected himself. He is truly scum.
Take Ken Starr.. an eminently, supremely qualified civil servant will never become a supreme.. Virtually no chance whatever. Why? Because he figured in the impeaching of a president. That’s the price he is going to pay.
Fair? maybe .. maybe not.
Why should we be so willing to afford Andrew all the decorum and niceties he so savagely denied Palin? Is it because he is a man? a gay man? Has he earned the right to do what he did? If he did I want to know what do you have to do to get that right?
(my lunch hour is virtually over but i will pick it up after work.. to be continued)
John-
Exactly.
I have no idea how "suddenly" everyone finally noticed the amorality of his tactics and methods when he applied them to-
Sarah Palin.
He had been using the same exact methods against our US military for years and reams of posts.
Ugh, some of this directed at Sullivan is, for me, sorry, a bit much.
I'd like to keep the discussion about his public persona, the political Sullivan and not Sullivan the person.
Sullivan as public intellectual and not Sullivan qua Sullivan.
There's more than enough there to raise deep and serious questions about his efficacy as a public commentator.
I know, I know, mind your own posts (so to speak).
You're the only one giving this guy permission to push your buttons.
(marshalling evidence? really?)
and besides, where are Palin's x-rays, sonograms, medical bills, etc.
In an Illuminati vault with Barry Soetero's Martian Muslim Time Warp birth certificate.
I stopped reading Sullivan years ago, so I've missed a lot. But "grave damage to the body politic?" Go "marshall evidence"?
Jesus. Get a god-daaaayum life.
Lem - Ken Starr sniffs bicycle seats. He fucked himself. Don't blame Sullivan.
I think it's fun when different kinds of political correctness attack one another. I think this should continue.
A lot of gay men really do hate women, which is why they're gay.
And a lot of black people really can't stand gay people.
And there are many feminists who really can't stand gay men.
This could get better: it could be like a gladiator fight in a Roman arena in which different tools for embarrassing others are tried out against one another.
I think Ann is winning this fight, and is bloodying Andrew very nicely. I'm enjoying it as a spectacle.
I hope that it continues.
Palin wasn't nearly as good at striking back within the terms of political correctness, in which there are lots of competing factions, most of whom really hate each other, if they would only stop and think about it.
I wish all the factions of the left would turn on one another, and commence to destroy one another. If I could facilitate this in any way, I would.
The right also has lots of internecine factions -- the Christian right versus the lower the taxes people.
The object of politics from now on should be to foment internecine squabbles in the other party. The more such fights the merrier!
Sully is interesting in the same way that Madonna or Brittney Spears is "interesting".
Like Spears/Madonna you wonder what stupid/weird/crazy thing Sully will do or say. In other words, a freak show.
Wow, sullivan is just so... ... ... freakin' eloquent!
Oh, and Jason? It's a bit late to be talking about ways to preserve Sullivan's reputation.
It will be a long time before another woman will not be warned to remember Palin before entering into politics.Palin the martyr.
And, don't forget Althouse-the-victim. BTW, Althouse is marrying a commenter, but supposedly it's inappropriate to think OMFG. Well, my first reaction (just now) was to think WTF. I don't feel evil/misogynistic/anti-heterosexual for such a reaction.
For the record, Sully's focus on Palin's youngest kid was extremely nutty. But, the Palin-as-martyr crowd is quite nutty too. Apparently Palin folks (i.e. those who have had emotional connections of some sort, incl Althouse) can't fathom that their irrationality is silly and worthy of mocking. Believe it or not there are more flavors of Koolaide (or tea) than the one associated w/ BHO.
"What is worse is that even after his man crushee BO is safely elected, he has never apologized or admitted that he went too far or expressed any form of regret."
"I have never read his blog since" [he trashed Palin]
If you have never read his blog since the trashing, how do you know he "never admitted he went too far or expressed any form of regret"?
I'm just saying...
"For the record, Sully's focus on Palin's youngest kid was extremely nutty. But, the Palin-as-martyr crowd is quite nutty too. Apparently Palin folks (i.e. those who have had emotional connections of some sort, incl Althouse) can't fathom that their irrationality is silly and worthy of mocking. Believe it or not there are more flavors of Koolaide (or tea) than the one associated w/ BHO."
Why is it nutty to be appalled by the media attacking the 17 year old daughter of a politician and demanding the politican's OBGYN records be made public to disprove some insidious crackpot conspiracy theory?
Oh Iknow because the politician is Palin and she is just icky and anyone who defends her must be nutty regardless of how obviously right their point is. That is it isn't it?
"If you have never read his blog since the trashing, how do you know he "never admitted he went too far or expressed any form of regret"?"
Fair enouogh. but if he had I think it would have been big news on the web and I would have heard about it in other places like here or on NRO or instapundit. But in fairness, if he has send me the link and I will stand corrected.
Feeling combative today, Ann?
Hey, maybe Sully accused some young women of flirting with Bill Clinton because she had breasts! The nerve.
See if you guys can find that one.
And, don't forget Althouse-the-victim. BTW, Althouse is marrying a commenter, but supposedly it's inappropriate to think OMFG. Well, my first reaction (just now) was to think WTF. I don't feel evil/misogynistic/anti-heterosexual for such a reaction..
I think Althouse justifiably is looking for an explanation for the OMFG, or the WTF. It's like your girlfriend saying "OMFG!" after you drop your shorts. And when you ask why she says "oh nothing".
I think I have been banned but I will try this anyway-
I actually know an ex-gay man. His reasons for going gay, and then leaving it, are very believable and logical. I think he realized that if someone is fucking you up the ass, that is not love.
Andrew appears to suffer from "sour grapes". He never wanted to be gay, but he hated his family so much, there was no better way to get revenge on them. So he is a closet hetero, in my opinion.
A girlfriend once said, “Oh my God, it’s so big!”
And she meant it too.
But in all fairness, I had her tied to the bed with old neckties.
You have to take things like that into consideration.
Since returning to Alaska, one can’t help but get the impression that Palin is a clownish, vindictive amateur.Now he tells us. But, some of us always knew this, you know those of us w/o the Palin-Aid. The signs were always there, if folks wanted to (were psychologically able to?) look. So far the BHO-Aiders have not endured the same disappointment as some of the Palin-Aiders have, but there's plenty of time for Black Liberation Theology, waving the white flag of defeat to the terrorists, and replacing our constitution with fascism/socialism/communism/dictatorshipism/taxationwithoutrepresentationism/takeingallourgunsism/waringagainstchristmasism/etceteraism.
"Andrew appears to suffer from "sour grapes". He never wanted to be gay, but he hated his family so much, there was no better way to get revenge on them. So he is a closet hetero, in my opinion."
That may be true. The gay people I have known seem to fall into two groups. There are people who for whatever reason fall in love with someone of the same sex. Then there are people who are gay because they have some kind of issue they are working out. Sometimes it is a way to stick it to their family and sometimes it is just because they have real issue with the opposite sex. The first group are nearly always well adjusted adults. The second group not so much. Sullivan is definitely in the second group. What is issues are is anyone's guess.
He never wanted to be gay, but he hated his family so much, there was no better way to get revenge on them. and
Sullivan is definitely in the second group. Okay, here come the lunatics. This thread is officially hogwash.
"Sullivan is definitely in the second group. Okay, here come the lunatics. This thread is officially hogwash."
Really? Sullivan is nasty and mean and seems to have a million personal issues that he works out on his blog every day. That certainly lends itself to speculation about what those issues are. Whatever they are, they seem to relate to his sexuality.
Andrew is a solipsist. He presumes to be what he thinks he is at any given moment. And then if he decides to be something else, he's that too.
He's a blithering intellectual of the self-styled variety. The laurels he's resting on dried up long ago.
Andrew is beginning to sound like Prof. Irwin Corey.
John, why yes, of course, it must be because he has anal sex. That makes perfect sense.
To a lunatic.
Palin is a female Bush to the left. New figure, same narrative.
They don't know whether she's an idiot unqualified to be anything more than a small city councilwoman or a Machiavellian sinister threat to the Republic.
Yeah, for me she's the former: not qualified for national office.
Hardly the threat that her over-the-top critics need to make her be.
I think Althouse justifiably is looking for an explanation for the OMFG, or the WTF. It's like your girlfriend saying "OMFG!" after you drop your shorts. And when you ask why she says "oh nothing".Right, because Althoues and Sullivan as a romantic couple is the obvious analogy. On the contrary, this is two bloggers with a history of personal antagonism, self-promoting scandal-seeking, and acrid tongues. But one of them is constantly demanding apologies for their perceived sleights of her delicate reputation and never backing away from the nastiest things she says.
But one of them is constantly demanding apologies for their perceived sleights of her delicate reputation Sullivan is the aggrieved party here?
Flip this around; how would Sullivan respond?
Good lord, you'd never hear the end of it.
Yeah, yeah, low standards to judge Ann but that's the rules of the game.
I'm not saying anyone is aggrieved. Sullivan was humorously dismissive of a blogger-commenter marriage.
Althouse rants on about how Sullivan hates straight people, women, on top of earlier accusations of racism.
Since when is "OMFG" a horrible sleight and "You are a racist misogynist who hates me because I'm straight" acceptable discourse?
"John, why yes, of course, it must be because he has anal sex. That makes perfect sense.
To a lunatic."
Back when I used to read Sullivan daily he openly bragged about his hebephilia. He was obsessed with the alleged use of fake menstral blood in interrogations. He objected to torture and rightly so. But he posted about three times a week for about six months about the fake menstral blood as opposed to say water boarding and beatings. To most people, the beatings and torture were the shocking part and the menstral blood allegation just a wierd sideshow. But not to Sullivan. He was all menstral blood all the time. It was very creepy and strange.
Sullivan's obsession with Palin and her OBGYN records clearly reveal he has issues with women. He went completely off the deep end last summer.
Sullivan has spent his entire journalistic career going after anyone who disagreed with him in very personal and nasty terms. Further, his defining political issue, he admist himself, is his sexuality. That is his right and there is nothing wrong with making ones sexual preference your defining political issue. But, when you do that and act in such a consistently nasty and wierd way towards women and your ideological opponents I think speculation about you having issues with your sexuality is entirely warrented.
Stop calling people lunatics. It is not productive or interesting and just makes you look shrew.
I don't think it's necessary to honor the brilliant and daring man Andrew Sullivan once was by continuing to read the certifiably insane and hate-filled man he has become. I find it sufficient to give a few words in defense of the great Andrew Sullivan when people get carried away with their reactions to the embarrassing Andrew Sullivan.
Unreadable dreck remains unreadable dreck even if by his byline.
Nietzsche gets a bad rap for being a misogynist.
Supposing truth is a woman -- what then?
Are there not grounds for the suspicion that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, have been very inexpert about women? That the gruesome seriousness, the clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually approached truth so far have been awkward and very improper methods for winning a woman’s heart?
Truth needs courting.
Nietzsche _Beyond OMFG_
Kirby Olson, LOL! And very true!
Beth, I share your distaste for the homophobic approach of some of the commenters, but John and some of the others are quite accurate in their assessment of Sullivan's misogyny. I voted for Obama and I thought Palin was unqualified; she was painful to watch in some of her interviews. But Sullivan really does have issues--serious issues--with women.
Stop calling people lunatics. It is not productive or interesting and just makes you look shrew.I think you mean "shrewish."
I'll do it your way, then:
In knowing people, I've found there are two types, those who are not lunatics who make sweeping, nonsensical, biased assessments about whole classes of people and those who are, and do. From what I've read by John, he falls into the latter group.
Frodo, Sully might well have issues with women, but John's assessment doesn't stop there - it's a ludricous piece of dimestore psychology.
I'm not defending Sullivan, so your point is well-taken in that regard.
Beth,
There has been any number of examples given of Sullivan's issues with women and straight people in general. Rather than respond to those you just call people names.
You are not a shrew or shrewish. You are just stupid and incapable of joining in the conversation in any meaningful way.
This thread deserves the "coquettish Althouse" tag.
John: "Rather than respond to those you just call people names."
Kinda funny for you to criticize anyone for namecalling when just in this comment thread you have called Beth a shrew and Sullivan a "crapweasel".
I get that this is a tongue-in-cheek way of needling Andrew Sullivan, but what's the point? He isn't going to get the joke, so it's just a troll. He'll freak out about it. What else is new?
"But in fairness, if he has send me the link and I will stand corrected."
He hasn't. In fact, he's still doing it. :)
I have to admit this is brilliant on Ann's part. Traffic is going through the roof. In the blogging business, traffic is the brass tax, the bottom line, the REAL nitty gritty! Good job Althouse, you did it again.
Where is Titus?
Cool and Andrew Sullivan in the same sentence is somehow just wrong.
OK, I was assuming -- and still believe -- that when Althouse asked he readers to comb through Andrew's blog, etc., she was alluding to Sullivan's occasional request to have readers send him examples/evidence of whatever activity he is trying to expose (e.g., Palin's lies).
If I'm wrong, though, and this was an actual request, you folks are doing a pretty bad job of it. I can only hope you're sending links off-post.
Right now, all the closest thing you have is from John, who says that Andrew ignored torture techniques like waterboarding and beatings and focused ("three times a week for about six months") on the use of fake menstrual blood. Well, by my count, that makes about 75 Sullivan posts you are not providing, are not linking to. That's a whole lot of not-evidence for the front page.
I searched the Dish for "menstrual." Eight (8) hits, only two or three of which seem to be about torture. I searched "waterboarding" using the same on-site search engine: 408 hits.
Clearly, Andrew has a real "thing" about water, or boards. Maybe both.
I wonder if the claim that Andrew's homosexuality stems from his hatred of his family with stack up equally well? I'll let you know after I take a second glance at "Love Undetectable" or listen to his conversation with James McGreevey at the 92nd St. Y.
Seems strange that Althouse would like to see "the more subtle inward thoughts that roil about in the mind of Sullivan." This about a blogger who is mainly criticized for posting every turn of thought and temper (cf. his on-the-air shift against the War in Iraq).
And, just so the evidence it straight, we are aware that Sullivan didn't say "OMFG," aren't we? He quoted Pandagon. With a laugh, yes. But the use-mention rule still applies.
Maybe we could hold Sullivan accountable for Pandagon's filing that post under "Batsh*t Crazy," too.
Post a Comment