Althouse: Andrew Sullivan thinks Instapundit is "up to his partisan shenanigans again."

June 12, 2009

Andrew Sullivan thinks Instapundit is "up to his partisan shenanigans again."

Here's the Instapundit post under attack. Here's Sullivan.

105 comments:

paul a'barge said...: wow. 17 percent of the poll respondents think that Instapundit is the partisan hack?

The implication is definitely that almost 20% of the people responding are knuckle-dragging morons.

What's up with that?; 6/12/09, 4:52 PM
LoafingOaf said...: I wouldn't call either "hacks" (and I like both blogs) but they are both propagandists (though Sullivan switches sides every few years because he's competing with Chritopher Hitchens on who can best portray himself as the new George Orwell).

I'm not sure Althouse can criticize InstaPundit to the degree she often criticizes Sullivan, because she's reliant on InstaPundit for her traffic.; 6/12/09, 4:53 PM
Grim said...: The NYT was extremely dishonest it's it's presentation. The truth of the mater is this:
We had a 400billion deficient coming in from the bush years. Add to that 800 billion in a stimulus bill, 600 billion from that pork laden spending bill they pushed through and another 320 billion from tarp.

That's a 1.72 trillion increase in spending over Bush alone.

I don't think the declining tax revue has even been factored in yet.; 6/12/09, 4:55 PM
Levi Hustle said...: "He must know that the huge deficits projected in the future have virtually nothing to do with Obama's proposals on healthcare or energy."

So, does that mean the graph is going to get worse?

Why doesn't Sullivan address that?; 6/12/09, 4:56 PM
Peter Hoh said...: I'm so glad that conservatives have finally remembered that they are against spending. Too bad they couldn't remember it when they had the House, the Senate, and the White House.; 6/12/09, 4:57 PM
Grim said...: Hey peter,
I stopped voting for the GOP in the 06 election and I was not the only one. They still won't get my vote until they are willing to control spending.

However considered the rate of spending, taxing, and borrowing the dems are doing... it's getting harder to say no to voting them out.; 6/12/09, 5:01 PM
Ken Pidcock said...: Was that poll a blog version of Who's the fairest of them all?; 6/12/09, 5:03 PM
TMink said...: Peter wrote: "I'm so glad that conservatives have finally remembered that they are against spending. Too bad they couldn't remember it when they had the House, the Senate, and the White House."

Amen brother. That is when I quit being a R too. Of course, there is spending, then there is Democratic spending. The Republicans are sober children compared to the current drunken sailor lottery winners now in charge. But your comment stands as damning indeed.

Trey; 6/12/09, 5:13 PM
Balfegor said...: I wouldn't call either "hacks" (and I like both blogs) but they are both propagandists (though Sullivan switches sides every few years because he's competing with Chritopher Hitchens on who can best portray himself as the new George Orwell).

I think it's fair to say that Sullivan is not a "hack" per se -- he doesn't anchor himself to a single political party or a single politician and then defend that politician/party furiously no matter what it does. He just defends furiously whatever position he happens to be taking. No matter if it's 180 the opposite of the position he himself vociferously supported, mere months ago, anyone who disagrees with him at this particular moment must be either a monster of mendacity or an idiot! He also has a tendency to become infatuated with politicians -- e.g. his early infatuation with Bush II, his current (waning?) infatuation with Obama -- that makes him seem like a hack when he's in his power-worship mode, and is saved only from hackery by his inevitable raging at these politicians' betrayal of all the dreams he projected onto them.

So he sounds much more like a hack than Reynolds (or your average man on the street) -- that hysterical tone of affront and outrage at the existence of disagreement -- but he really isn't much of a hack at all.

Reynolds on the other hand seems to be a bit more dispassionate about both individuals and parties. I can't say he's consistently more [X] than Sullivan, because Sullivan jumps all around. E.g. on Iraq, Reynolds hasn't been consistently more hawkish than Sullivan, because Sullivan started out in the Iraq debate as a fanatic cheerleader for invasion and occupation, and practically made chicken noises at anyone who dared disagree with him. Reynolds is more consistent, though.

A good example of a genuine right-wing hack is, I think, Hugh Hewitt (is he still active, even?), who was interesting to read from time to time, but who inevitably came out on any issue exactly where the Republican leadership did. I'm not sure how he decides what to argue for nowadays.; 6/12/09, 5:14 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: It's kind of ridiculous to call Instapundit partisan as part of an insult. Instapundit runs a Conservative/populist blog, of course he's going to talk about things from that sort of a perspective. It's like complaining that Gizmodo is too technology oriented, or Double X is too female oriented. I'm actually surprised at how nonpartisan he seems most of the time. (How is the "Obama is like Bush" meme partisan?)

I think Sullivan is just concerned about his dramatically shrinking readership and is trying to stir up some controversy for page views.

I wish Althouse, and others, would link to him when he's doing something other than attacking fellow Conservatives. From what I know of him, that appears to be all he does.; 6/12/09, 5:21 PM
Moose said...: You need to read Megan McArdle to get any sort of sense of what it's all about.

Both Reynolds and Sully oversimplify the mechanics of the situation, in opposite directions.

You can't really call Sully a partisan hack, though - as he's in love with Obama. Its more defending the object of his affections than it is political grandstanding...; 6/12/09, 5:28 PM
mccullough said...: Sullivan pretty well jumped the shark with his obsession with Palin's baby.

He can be an engaging writer, but he seems a bit disturbed too often.; 6/12/09, 5:49 PM
rcocean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/12/09, 5:50 PM
Jeremy said...: The results of your poll are shocking, absolutely shocking.

Who knew?

Since we're on the subject of "hacks," how about the wonder Michelle Malkin?

Isn't she fun?; 6/12/09, 5:57 PM
Jeremy said...: Derek - Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.

He inherited a budget seen as producing endless huge surpluses after four straight years in positive territory.

That stretch of surpluses represented a period when the country's finances had been bolstered by a 10-year period of uninterrupted economic growth, the longest expansion in U.S. history.

In his first year in office, helped by projections of continuing surpluses, Bush drove through a 10-year, $1.35 trillion package of tax cuts.; 6/12/09, 6:02 PM
mccullough said...: Jeremy,

I agree that Clinton was way more fiscally responsible than W.

But it appears that W. will turn out to be way less fiscally irresponsible than Obama.

But we never had suprluses. The surplus from Social Security (which we have every year) buys gov't bonds and then Congress throws the SS surplus into general revenue. So general revenue will be needed to support social security eventually.; 6/12/09, 6:09 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: It's kind of ridiculous to call Instapundit partisan as part of an insult. Instapundit runs a Conservative/populist blog, of course he's going to talk about things from that sort of a perspective.

I think that it is really almost more libertarian than strictly conservative. Or, if you are going to call it conservative, then I would call him extremely fiscally conservative, and almost neoconservative in foreign and military issues, with much less emphasis on social conservatism. Then, you need to throw in a bit of tech junkie to liven things up.

That is, of course, when it is only Glenn blogging at Instapundit. Last week or so, he also had Ann, plus Michael Totten blogging there.; 6/12/09, 6:28 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: "In his first year in office, helped by projections of continuing surpluses, Bush drove through a 10-year, $1.35 trillion package of tax cuts."

Which is, of course, probably one of the big reasons that we had that eight years of expansion that you mentioned.; 6/12/09, 6:29 PM
1775OGG said...: Another factor: Sully's blog is boring. Plus, it's so strange!; 6/12/09, 6:32 PM
Jeremy said...: Blogger mccullough said..."Jeremy, I agree that Clinton was way more fiscally responsible than W. But it appears that W. will turn out to be way less fiscally irresponsible than Obama."

Bush inherited a surplus and blew it.

Obama has inherited the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I have no idea if Obama can pull us through this, but there's no way to compare the two, especially concerning "fiscal" responsibility.

We're in uncharted waters right now and I think Obama and his administration is feeling their way through what comes next.

What I hate about the conservatives is that they appear to be more concerned with obstruction and countering literally anything Obama presents, instead of joining in and trying to support and help out.

You know, it's not like THEY did such a bang up job, while holding the majority in Congress for 12 of the past 14 years and the White House 8 of the last 8 1/2.

If Bush had inherited a situation like this...do you really think the conservatives would have been second guessing and bitching about his every move?

They suddenly preach fiscal responsibility, small government and reduced spending yet that the exact opposite of what we've seen from Bush's first day in office.

I own a business and I've got my fingers crossed right now, just as many of my fellow business owners.

I think we're in for a rough ride until the middle of 2011.; 6/12/09, 6:32 PM
blake said...: Malkin's hardly a hack.

She's been one of the most outspoken critics of Republicans on immigration, Harriet Miers, spending, etc.

Hewitt, yeah.; 6/12/09, 6:39 PM
Grim said...: Jeremy said
"I have no idea if Obama can pull us through this, but there's no way to compare the two, especially concerning "fiscal" responsibility."

Trying to pull the economy out of the fire is normally what causes long term downturns (See FDR).

What Obama is doing is destroying public finances in the middle of the second great depression. Make no mistake, this will be his depression.

Yes he got into office with a big mess... and then he tripled it. That's not responsible leadership.

His insane level of borrowing has already cause interest rates to jump. I was just starting to look into buy my first house. Starting doing the paper work and looking around and interests rates jump 1.25% in a week due to the amount of borrowing going on.

At this point buying gold seems to be a better investment than buying a home. Public debt crowds out private investment and sales.; 6/12/09, 6:43 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Sullivan's Trig Trutherism attacks on Palin and her family were way over the line. Disagreeing with her politically is fine, making up completely crap about her was disgusting. He is in no position to call anyone a hack.; 6/12/09, 7:03 PM
Beth said...: Does it matter which one's bigger? They both do some partisan hacking when it suits them.; 6/12/09, 7:38 PM
Beth said...: The implication is definitely that almost 20% of the people responding are knuckle-dragging morons.

That should be "almost eighty percent" - it's good to have someone check your math!; 6/12/09, 7:39 PM
KCFleming said...: ""Andrew Sullivan thinks Instapundit is "up to his partisan shenanigans again."

That's not thinking, that's typing.; 6/12/09, 7:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Derek - Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.

Obama has matched, roughly, 40% of that total...in FIVE MONTHS (our deficit is about $1T as of right now).

He's on pace to dwarf that...before factoring in health care reform and the like.

He inherited a budget seen as producing endless huge surpluses after four straight years in positive territory.

Based on assumptions that, say, the dotcoms wouldn't collapse, Enron wouldn't collapse, etc. Funny, Bush alone is supposed to be able to fix unexpected incidents...but Obama isn't...even though he voted for pretty much all of the debt.

What I hate about the conservatives is that they appear to be more concerned with obstruction and countering literally anything Obama presents, instead of joining in and trying to support and help out.

You mean like the Dems did with Social Security reform? And, hey, if you want Republicans to help...you might not want to shut the GOP out of all negotiations of bills as, well, the Dems are doing presently.

You know, it's not like THEY did such a bang up job, while holding the majority in Congress for 12 of the past 14 years

10 of 14. Dems ran the Senate 2001-2.

I own a business and I've got my fingers crossed right now, just as many of my fellow business owners.

I'm sure mowing your parents' neighbors lawns is a safe occupation for you to keep for the time being.; 6/12/09, 7:54 PM
Birkel said...: Jeremy deserves a bit of a fisking:

Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.
The debt increased under Clinton as well. The degree to which it increased in nominal dollar terms was the biggest to date in the country's history.

He inherited a budget seen as producing endless huge surpluses after four straight years in positive territory.
Please see the above and note the bursting of the tech bubble which was not sustainable. The debt continued to grow each year of the Clinton presidency despite yearly "surpluses". Talk about clever accounting!!

That stretch of surpluses represented a period when the country's finances had been bolstered by a 10-year period of uninterrupted economic growth, the longest expansion in U.S. history.
1992 to 2000 somehow does not get me to ten years. You'd do well not to exaggerate what otherwise would have been a fine point. The fact that you credit only Clinton and not the divided government of 1994 to 2000 is somewhat disturbing, however, to any honest broker.

In his first year in office, helped by projections of continuing surpluses, Bush drove through a 10-year, $1.35 trillion package of tax cuts.
Good luck finding anybody to defend Bush's spending. How that criticism is relevant to today's even more outrageous spending by the Obama Administration is unclear.; 6/12/09, 7:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Jeremy, let's see if you can handle this:

Gay Americans would have been immeasurably better off if Cheney was in office right now rather than Obama.

Obama's administration, in court filings, compared gay marriage to incest.; 6/12/09, 7:57 PM
jeff said...: "I'm so glad that conservatives have finally remembered that they are against spending. Too bad they couldn't remember it when they had the House, the Senate, and the White House."

When do you remember them having all of that? I remember they had the House thru most of the Clinton Administration. It would have been wonderful if the Republicans had remembered they were supposed to be conservatives.

"I own a business and I've got my fingers crossed right now, just as many of my fellow business owners."

Oh, that's funny.; 6/12/09, 8:01 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't remember the GOP having filibuster proof majorities in the Senate.

I DO remember them giving more of a voice to the minority party in the House than ever before --- a mistake that they will, hopefully, never make again.; 6/12/09, 8:07 PM
jim fisher said...: "1.35 trillion package of tax cuts." Which actually increased the amount of revenue taken in by the IRS, as compared to before the cuts. "Surpluss under Clinton." When Clinton increased income taxes, revenue only climbed 1% more than if there had been no increase. The surpluss didn`t begin till the 1997 capital gains tax cuts pushed through by the Republicans. Facts are a terrible thing.; 6/12/09, 8:13 PM
tjl said...: Obama's administration, in court filings, compared gay marriage to incest
A scan of selected gay websites shows lots of indignation and betrayal from what had been O's second most fervent base of support.
Odd that Sullivan hasn't yet turned against his hero just as he turned on Bush over gay marriage. Sullivan is still so deeply in love with O. that he can see no flaw. The romantic disillusionment, when it comes, will be terrible, but fascinating to watch.; 6/12/09, 8:13 PM
Steven said...: C'mon, people. The response is already written:

"Sure, Jeremy. And the U.S. is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."; 6/12/09, 8:19 PM
Beth said...: Gay Americans would have been immeasurably better off if Cheney was in office right now rather than Obama.

That's a ridiculous little meme trying to take shape on the right these days. Cheney was in office eight years, and was quite effective in his role in the Bush administration. He's ahead of Obama in that he personally supports the right of same-sex couples to form some sort of legal partnership, but apparently all he's prepared to do to make that happen is to vote "Yes" if such a measure ever comes up in the state where he's registered to vote. Big whoop.; 6/12/09, 8:37 PM
Anonymous said...: That's a ridiculous little meme trying to take shape on the right these days. Cheney was in office eight years, and was quite effective in his role in the Bush administration.

Cheney wasn't President nor did he have basically filibuster proof majorities in the Senate and massive majorities in the House to do whatever he wanted.

It's not a meme...it's a statement of reality that you aren't fond of.

He's ahead of Obama in that he personally supports the right of same-sex couples to form some sort of legal partnership, but apparently all he's prepared to do to make that happen is to vote "Yes" if such a measure ever comes up in the state where he's registered to vote. Big whoop.

...as opposed to Obama, whose administration just compared gay marriage to incest.; 6/12/09, 8:44 PM
Fred4Pres said...: What will definitely be driving Sullivan bonkers this summer.; 6/12/09, 9:01 PM
stepskipper said...: Beth said: apparently all he's prepared to do to make that happen is to vote "Yes" if such a measure ever comes up in the state where he's registered to vote. Big whoop.

Well, that and speak publicly to a national audience about it.; 6/12/09, 9:07 PM
Ralph L said...: ...Hugh Hewitt (is he still active, even?), who was interesting to read from time to time, but who inevitably came out on any issue exactly where the Republican leadership did

And who did that benefit? Not Mitt Romney.; 6/12/09, 9:24 PM
JorgXMcKie said...: Beth, precisely what is Obama prepared to do about gay marriage aside from comparing it to incest?

Got a list and links?; 6/12/09, 9:35 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Meanwhile Sullivan is tying himself in knots over Obama and the administration's response to DOMA. He managed to find a mormon to bash around. The truth is too painful to face, that Obama has a tendency to throw people under buses.; 6/12/09, 9:52 PM
somefeller said...: "Beth, precisely what is Obama prepared to do about gay marriage aside from comparing it to incest?"

Well, for one thing, he didn't promote a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, as did the Bush Administration and the mainstream of the GOP in Congress during the prior administration. Also, during the Bush years, social conservatives worked to get state constitutional amendments passed all over the country that would ban GLBT civil unions, as well as gay marriage (the Texas state constitutional amendment on that issue is an example), both because they supported such laws and because that was a great way to get out the conservative base vote, like in Ohio in 2004. Cheney sure didn't speak up to stop that sort of thing when he was in office, so the "things would be better under Cheney" meme is a weak one.

And while the DOJ brief is a bad one with regard to its language (though not with regard to the underlying concept that the DOJ is obligated to support federal laws that are in place), the pearl-clutching from conservatives who are now suddenly critical of Obama's stance on gay marriage is pretty absurd. If you're going to play cynical games, at least be somewhat convincing.

But, hey, I am interested in seeing what Obama will do over the next few years on this topic and others regarding GLBT rights, including employment non-discrimination (another reform blocked by social conservatives) and other issues. There are plenty of people on the left who will push him on these topics to do what's best. From the right, not so much.; 6/12/09, 9:54 PM
FloridaSteve said...: Good grief... people still read Sullivan? Seriously? Why? I didn't realize contortionists were still a big draw. hmph.. who knew...; 6/12/09, 9:58 PM
Beth said...: Cheney wasn't President nor did he have basically filibuster proof majorities in the Senate and massive majorities in the House to do whatever he wanted.

None of those are reasons for him to have clammed up till now.

Obama's not doing shit, either. He's betrayed gay voters, absolutely. Now that Cheney's not running for anything, he's said something positive. But there's no reality to "you'd be better off with Cheney" because if Cheney was in office, he wouldn't be doing shit either.; 6/12/09, 10:02 PM
Beth said...: Well, that and speak publicly to a national audience about it.

Yeah - now that he's not running for or holding office. Big whoop again.

I suppose he had other priorities before now.; 6/12/09, 10:04 PM
Henry said...: Instapundit is up to his old partisan shenanigans. It's the libertarian futurist hawkish dance party every single day with that guy.; 6/12/09, 10:09 PM
stepskipper said...: Somefeller said: Cheney sure didn't speak up to stop that sort of thing when he was in office

Beth said: I suppose he had other priorities before now.

"Cheney at odds with Bush on gay marriage" AP Aug 25, 2004

"“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

"During the 2000 campaign, vice presidential candidate Cheney took the position that states should decide legal issues about personal relationships and that people should be free to enter relationships of their choosing."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5817720/; 6/12/09, 10:17 PM
LonewackoDotCom said...: Balfegor is right about Sully, but Insty is just as bad. In 2004, Insty linked to misleading stories and the like in order to support Bush (e.g., alQaqaa).

In 2008, Insty was a bit more muted and just wasn't in to fighting against BHO. He played a tiny role in getting him elected.

And, when it comes to getting political things done, Insty can't think his way out of a soggy tissue paper bag. If he'd pushed this plan before the election - as I suggested in an open letter on 10/1/08 - considering his traffic he could have actually helped block BHO from becoming president. (Check out some of the others I sent that letter to if you want to know which bloggers are also incompetent paper tigers.)

Instead, Insty mostly slept through the last few weeks of the election, posting his little snarky comments, linking to obviously misleading posts that the MSM were then able to easily debunk, and just in general being less than useless.; 6/12/09, 10:22 PM
somefeller said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/12/09, 10:23 PM
somefeller said...: stepskipper - and did Cheney do anything with regard to actual public policy regarding the items you mention? It's nice that he mentioned the issue a few times, and I give him credit for that, but he certainly didn't criticize or try to defeat Republicans (in intra-party fighting) who took different positions on such topics. That's what "stop that sort of thing" is all about in the real world. And it was the administration that he was a part of that supported a Constitutional ban on gay marriage and which used that issue at the state level to drum up support for the GOP. Sorry, but your examples don't undermine the points Beth and I are making.; 6/12/09, 10:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Andrew Sullivan has got to be the flakiest flake in flake land. Comparing him to the even keeled, reasonable, and tempered Reynolds is a bizarre comparison.

The only sign of consistency from Sullivan is that if you support the extreme edge of gay activist ideology, you can do no wrong (or at least he will ignore you) and if you dare express a socially conservative thought he is going to hate you for life.

Add to that his malevolent smears and nutter conspiracy attacks of the Palin family and you get a blind squirrel that occasionally bumps into a nut. There is no comparable act on Reynolds part to this.; 6/12/09, 10:25 PM
stepskipper said...: Somefeller, i agree with your 10:25 comment. I'm just pointing out that Cheney has said these things before, at campaign rallies, in fact. 2000, and 2004.; 6/12/09, 10:32 PM
Anonymous said...: None of those are reasons for him to have clammed up till now.

You've already been demonstrated to be incorrect on this issue.

...and it still doesn't explain how Obama is not actually worse than Cheney on the issue.

Obama's not doing shit, either.

He's betrayed gay voters, absolutely. Now that Cheney's not running for anything, he's said something positive. But there's no reality to "you'd be better off with Cheney" because if Cheney was in office, he wouldn't be doing shit either.

Given that Cheney has never been much of a social conservative as is...but Obama has always been a spineless pussy...your assumption have far less basis in reality than my simple claim.

stepskipper - and did Cheney do anything with regard to actual public policy regarding the items you mention? It's nice that he mentioned the issue a few times, and I give him credit for that, but he certainly didn't criticize or try to defeat Republicans (in intra-party fighting) who took different positions on such topics.

How do you know he didn't?

And how does this defend Obama comparing gay marriage to incest? Wasn't Santorum denounced as a rube for making comments almost as offensive as this?; 6/12/09, 10:42 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Bush inherited a surplus and blew it.

There was something called 9/11 that came along. Pesky little thing, that.

Obama has inherited the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And, much of the responsibility for that was in his Congressional colleagues, including Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and, even, himself.

But then, Obama came into office, and made things worse. Much worse, with his "stimulus" plan, budget, auto and bank bailouts (the later started under Bush).

And he seems to have every intention of driving the economy even deeper into a recession with implementing both a tax and bribe (aka cap and trade) carbon tax and socialized medicine (however that is structured) at the worst possible time, economically.

I have no idea if Obama can pull us through this, but there's no way to compare the two, especially concerning "fiscal" responsibility.

That is true. If we hadn't had several wars to fight, Bush would have at least tried to balance the budget. That is the furthest thing from Obama's mind right now. Rather, it is to pay off all of his political cronies, while implementing all of their liberal wishlist before losing his Congressional majority in less than two years.

We're in uncharted waters right now and I think Obama and his administration is feeling their way through what comes next.

Which is why they are acting so feckless. Nothing like doubling down after he blew it big time with his "stimulus" plan.

What I hate about the conservatives is that they appear to be more concerned with obstruction and countering literally anything Obama presents, instead of joining in and trying to support and help out.

Or, maybe, just maybe, much of the opposition is because Obama and his Administration are acting so insanely and obscenely irresponsible, esp. when it comes to the economy.

I am not sure what you meant by "joining and trying to help out". Speaker Pelosi has shut the Republicans out of pretty much all legislating since the first of the year, and, in particular, in the most critical areas, such as the economy.

What you have to keep in mind is that when we are faced with such irresponsible economic programs as have been proposed by Obama and passed so far by the Democratic Congress (with no real chance of Republican input), giving Obama a honeymoon is not an option. He has screwed up royally, in an amazingly short time, with the economy, and we are all going to pay for it for a long, long, time to come.

You know, it's not like THEY did such a bang up job, while holding the majority in Congress for 12 of the past 14 years and the White House 8 of the last 8 1/2.

Um, well, we did have a pretty good economy for most of Bush's term of office, after the shock of 9/11 wore off. But we were fighting two wars, and that did cut into the economy. But, luckily, taxes had been cut, and so the economy did pretty well, essentially until this last fall.; 6/12/09, 10:57 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: If Bush had inherited a situation like this...do you really think the conservatives would have been second guessing and bitching about his every move?

Some, like Reynolds, yes. But then, Bush (43) wasn't clueless about the economy, as Obama seems to have been when taking office. My guess is that this is a result of having an Harvard MBA, instead of a JD, and having run several businesses (though not all of them that well), and a decent sized state. So, his instincts would much more likely be to cut taxes, instead of spending money like a drunken sailor to cushion the recession.

I will agree that neither Bush president was all that I could ask for in a President, when it comes to the economy, but I don't see either one, or, in particular, the latter one, being anywhere as clueless and reckless as Obama has been, so far, with no indication whatsoever that he is mending his ways, or has figured out that the economy has rules of nature, and pretending that they don't exist is a sure fire way to deepen, instead of lessen, the recession.

They suddenly preach fiscal responsibility, small government and reduced spending yet that the exact opposite of what we've seen from Bush's first day in office.

You make the mistake of equating the Republican party with George W. Bush and its Congressional majorities.

I own a business and I've got my fingers crossed right now, just as many of my fellow business owners.

Should have voted Republican then, and you would have a better chance to come out of this with your business intact.

I think we're in for a rough ride until the middle of 2011.

With Obama's prolific spending, it may be a bit longer than that. We can all hope.; 6/12/09, 10:57 PM
somefeller said...: "How do you know he didn't?"

The Bush Administration leaked like a sieve. If Cheney did fight for this issue, I'm sure we would have heard about it, plus if he really cared about it, he wouldn't have just done behind-the-scenes work, as you seem to imply. Also, Cheney tended to get his way on issues he cared about and acted on, so the fact that his view didn't prevail or get a serious hearing tends to indicate he didn't do much on the topic.

"And how does this defend Obama comparing gay marriage to incest? Wasn't Santorum denounced as a rube for making comments almost as offensive as this?"

It doesn't. The language in the brief was gratuitous and unnecessary. And while there's a big difference between Obama saying something like this himself (as was the case with Santorum) and an underling drafting such language in a DOJ brief, the buck stops with Obama, and he should be criticized for it -- by people with the moral standing to make such criticisms. In other words, people who aren't social conservatives or prior Bush acolytes.; 6/12/09, 11:00 PM
Beth said...: You've already been demonstrated to be incorrect on this issue.

No such thing has been demonstrated. Cheney's free to speak on it now, and I'm glad he does. But there's no reason to say we'd (gays) be better off with Cheney. We had Cheney - how were we better? Demonstrate something concrete, please.; 6/13/09, 12:13 AM
stepskipper said...: Beth, it's been demonstrated that you are wrong that Cheney is just now speaking about this issue. He publicly disagreed with Bush at rallies during both Bush campaigns. But I don't think gays should consider him their champion.; 6/13/09, 12:50 AM
Beth said...: He stopped disagreeing once he got the VP spot. He made a political decision, and compromised his values. Obama's doing the same thing. Shame on both of them for that.; 6/13/09, 12:53 AM
stepskipper said...: No, he did it on the campaign trail again in '04:

"DAVENPORT, Iowa - Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, drew criticism from both proponents and foes of gay marriage Tuesday after he distanced himself from President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5817720/

Again, i'm not saying Cheney is a big advocate for gays, just that he's publicly held this position for years, while in the Bush administration.; 6/13/09, 1:28 AM
Beth said...: Well, between the two, Obama and Cheney are both or either too little, too late. Obama was against DOMA on the campaign trail, too. Big whoop.; 6/13/09, 1:54 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/13/09, 4:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Again - Ann knows zero about economics, so I'm glad she's only linking and not commenting here.

Anyway, what Reynolds is doing is complete hackery. Actually I'll go further. He's lying.

Most of the commenters on here aren't lying. They are just dumb. Really dumb.

The New York Times layed this out all out last week with facts. The stimulus plan only accounts for 7% of the deficit.

I'd debate this further, but again, Ann's commenters are dumb. Too stupid to follow a logical argument. And they are partisan hacks so they refuse to look at facts.

But Reynolds again - is a liar. Can't wait til his wife's heart stops working.; 6/13/09, 4:37 AM
Anonymous said...: And Cheney does not favor the repeal of DOMA. Stop lying.; 6/13/09, 4:39 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 6/13/09, 4:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Bad form, downtownlad. So to flip the coin over, I hope you get aids, and then contract swine flu. But before you keel over, give Letterman a smooch for me, will ya?; 6/13/09, 6:13 AM
Wince said...: downtownlad said...
And the reason I want Glenn Reynold's wife's heart to fail is that she (Dr. Helen) is one of the biggest proponents of reparative therapy for gay people in the country. In other words, she wants to "convert" us to be straight. Who knows how many of her gay teenage patients have committed suicide.

She's an anti-gay bigot, along with her husband. She's had a heart attack before, and I wont shed a tear if she has another.
4:46 AM

Judge for yourself. Helen Smith isn't "one of the biggest proponents of reparative therapy for gay people in the country." In fact, she's "skeptical about turning gay people straight."

What she did do is point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of the APA when it comes to voluntary gender therapy.

Sounds like someone got home late -- and angry.; 6/13/09, 6:32 AM
LoafingOaf said...: Hey, DTL: You apologized for making heart attack comments about Dr. Helen two years ago. I guess that was an insincere apology. Or, your hatred of her has grown worse.....

Link to the previous thread, where you apologized for going down that road before: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/10/althouse-meets-instapundit-and-dr-helen.html; 6/13/09, 6:40 AM
Anonymous said...: EDH sure is stupid. He can't even tell time.

It's the middle of the day here MORON.

The APA is a private organization and should not be FORCED to teach dangerous junk science, as you and Dr. Helen advocate.

Again, Dr. Helen is one of the most outspoken proponents of reparative therapy in the country. I am absolutely 100% certain that her actions have led to quite a few gay suicides. I'd bet a lot of money that some of them were her patients.

br549 - I have seen many commenters here comment on Andrew Sullivan's HIV and praying for him to die of HIV soon. Except I'm not sure how Andrew Sullivan has hurt anyone (unlike Dr. Helen who has).; 6/13/09, 6:43 AM
Anonymous said...: No LoafingOaf - the apology was to Ann, not to Dr. Helen.

She's a hateful bigot, as is her husband. As I've said, I know of two suicides by gay people whose parents favored reparative therapy. I am allowed to dislike and yes hate those who advocate for it.

But let's ignore Dr. Helen for now. I really don't want to talk about people who dress like slutty flight attendants.

Let's talk about the deficit and how the wingnuts like Instapundit lie about it.

The proof is here.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html

I'd like some facts about how that graphic is incorrect.; 6/13/09, 6:50 AM
Anonymous said...: And Credit indicators look vastly better than last Fall. Yes, the Bush Administration deserves some credit for the improvements (although they also deserve much of the blame for the credit crisis happening in the first place).

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/06/credit-indicators.html

And Reynolds wants to reverse these programs that have improved credit and go back to where we were last September???? Moron.; 6/13/09, 7:10 AM
Jason said...: All politics aside, I'm also writing in to condemn downtown lad's vile sentiment about Helen.

Absolutely classless.; 6/13/09, 8:29 AM
Paco Wové said...: Poor DTL's just a lonely troll, looking for some attention... someone to insult and call names...; 6/13/09, 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: DTL doesn't need to be converted to straight. DTL needs to be converted to human.; 6/13/09, 8:49 AM
FloridaSteve said...: Wow! I'm just passing through but I have to say that this comment thread is a shining example of why I respect Glen for NOT allowing comments of any sort (much less unregulated).

There are other examples but DTL is a perfect encapsulation of all the annoying traits of the comment board hack. Bullying, ignorant, rude and utterly impressed with himself. You're like a 14 year old delinquent with a tiny bit of intelligence unleashed upon the world.; 6/13/09, 9:29 AM
stepskipper said...: Beth said: Obama was against DOMA on the campaign trail, too. Big whoop.

True, but Obama clearly had something to gain by being against DOMA on the caimpaign trail: votes.
I doubt Cheney saw any such strategic advantage in his statements.; 6/13/09, 9:31 AM
Dark Eden said...: Dr. Helen: Personally, I'm skeptical about turning gay people straight. But shouldn't the client be the one to choose, not the APA? The APA has decided that the answer is no.

What a homophobe! That's all it takes for you to wish death on someone?; 6/13/09, 9:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Helen has blood on her hands. I have no qualms pointing that out.; 6/13/09, 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's not forget all of Ann's commenters who cheered the death of Dr. Tiller last week.; 6/13/09, 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...: These people survived the evil that Dr. Helen, Dark Eden, stepskipper, FloridaSteve, Paco Wove, and Paul Zrimsek are in favor of.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/07/21/ex_gays/index.html

Yes, people have free speech and can advocate for ex-gay programs. But I can speak my own mind as well - and I think the ex-gay movement is evil.; 6/13/09, 10:20 AM
stepskipper said...: You are a weird dude DTL. You've never heard me say anything ever about ex-gay programs. I find the notion that someone can be "cured" of homosexuality as absurd as the notion of someone "choosing" to be homosexual, or heterosexual.

Look, we all know you're passive aggressive, angry, and strange. But it's obvious that you don't actually believe some of the over the top shit you say here. You just want to piss off the political opposition in the hope that one of those people is that mean kid who picked on you in your formative years.

I almost always skip your comments, like i do lucky\jeremy and cedarford, because unlike them, every once in a while you say something interesting. But I'm not the guy who pushed you down, and you can't piss me off. Give it up.; 6/13/09, 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Actually stepskipper - I shouldn't have included you in my list. I skimmed the comments too quickly. My mistake.

Yes - I do sometimes say things that are over the top. No - I don't really want Dr. Helen to have a heart attack. But I do think she and her husband are anti-gay bigots, and I don't like them at all and like to rip on them whenever I can.

And Cheney is not against DOMA. So you are wrong there.; 6/13/09, 10:44 AM
stepskipper said...: correction: I almost always skip your comments, like i do lucky\jeremy and cedarford, but every once in a while i'll read yours.; 6/13/09, 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: And I know 2 people who committed suicide caused by proponents of anti-gay therapy.

So yes - the subject does make me very angry.; 6/13/09, 10:46 AM
FloridaSteve said...: Ummm... you might try reading my comment again. I took no political position against you. I merely criticized you for comment board hackery. I'd say that your inclusion of my post to try and make a point is an excellent illustration of that. Thanks for helping out.; 6/13/09, 10:58 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/13/09, 11:13 AM
Ann Althouse said...: dtl, we've already been through why what you said about Dr. Helen is a lie. I deleted your post. Don't write that again.; 6/13/09, 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: It's not a lie. But if you don't want it discussed, I won't repeat it.

But saying Obama is responsible for the deficit and not Bush.

That's a lie.; 6/13/09, 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Here's the proof that Reynolds is a liar.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html; 6/13/09, 11:20 AM
Ann Althouse said...: It is a lie. Helen was all about the liberty to pursue treatments that you as a free person want. She wasn't performing or recommending the treatment, nor was she anti-gay. She was pro-freedom, pure and simple.; 6/13/09, 11:21 AM
Anonymous said...: No. She was not pure freedom. She wanted the APA to be forced to provide recognition to reparative therapy classes, even though there is zero evidence that the treatment works, and there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

The APA made a decision based on sound science. Dr. Helen wanted the APA to be forced to recognize unsound science. Doesn't sound like freedom for the APA if you ask me.

I am all for freedom. And that includes the freedom of the APA to choose not to give class credit for these courses.

If a person insists that a high school should be forced to give a science credit for a class in creationism, you can damn well make the case that that person is endorsing creationism.

Listen if you want to go get reparative therapy - to each his own. But you don't have the right to have that therapy endorsed by the APA.; 6/13/09, 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: If were to say that "I'm skeptical of astrology and palm-reading, but I think public universities should be forced to give credit for these courses", I don't think that's all about freedom. I think that's all about stupid.; 6/13/09, 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm not in favor of ex-gay programs; I'm merely in favor of an ex-screeching-monomaniacal-narcissistic-harpy program for DTL. Who knows, he might come out of it with the sort of insouciant, shrug-it-off sense of humor he keeps urging on Sarah Palin.; 6/13/09, 11:38 AM
Anonymous said...: That's right Paul. I really don't get worked up over an offensive joke (according to some people) by a comedian.

I do get worked up over junk-science that I blame for the suicide of two people I know.; 6/13/09, 11:42 AM
Anonymous said...: The doctors have their work cut out for them.; 6/13/09, 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: You're the screecher Paul. I simply state my distaste for a blogger - and you got batshit insane.

Typical victim Republican wingnut.; 6/13/09, 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: And by the way - did you hear that Bristol Palin got knocked up? For real. Look it up.; 6/13/09, 11:53 AM
1775OGG said...: Prof. Althouse, thank you for allowing DTL to take over your blog. However, DTL really should change the name of this blog to something more representative of his views and philosophy. Really, my naming suggestions would be too offensive to DTL.

May I use your blog next week to promote my views on life, flowers, coffee, and the social aspects of visiting neighbors and other such members of the Hoi Polli.

Oh, forgot. Really busy next week, perhaps two weeks hence?

Cheers!; 6/13/09, 1:28 PM
LonewackoDotCom said...: I left a comment on the poll; in response, someone left a nastygram. The IP address of the nastygram is interesting. (Please note the disclaimer; lots of things could cause the commenter to be located in a different location.); 6/13/09, 6:00 PM
1775OGG said...: LWDC: What's worse, a direct accusation or an implied erroneous accusation? That's up to others to define.

Just seems to be a strange accusation in my view. No implication made or implied regarding the accuser, I believe!

But, it's otherwise a nice day, beautiful weather for a change, so perhaps it's summertime in the good Ol USA!; 6/13/09, 6:11 PM
Jason said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/13/09, 6:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes - I do sometimes say things that are over the top. No - I don't really want Dr. Helen to have a heart attack. But I do think she and her husband are anti-gay bigots, and I don't like them at all and like to rip on them whenever I can.

Hmm, really?

"As I’ve said before, I support gay marriage, but I think the move to accomplish gay marriage via judicial action is politically unwise and likely to be counterproductive."
Instapundit, 12/30/06

"FINE WITH ME: Gay marriage now legal in Iowa."
Instapundit, 8/30/07

"CONTRA KAY HYMOWITZ, I don’t see how this post can plausibly be read as a “taunt.” I certainly didn’t mean it that way. In fact, as noted in our podcast interview of Hymowitz, I’m in many ways sympathetic to her cultural critique, with the exception of gay marriage, which I don’t see as any threat to traditional marriage at all."
Instapundit 9/27/07

"But I don’t see my failure to lead a conservative blogging revolution as a failure at all, since I’m, you know, not a conservative. People who don’t like gay marriage can do their own blogging thing, and I’ll link to ‘em sometimes — I do, after all — but not with approval. I’m not on board the anti-gay-marriage, anti-abortion train, and never have been."
Instapundit, 10/25/07

You were, uh, saying?; 6/13/09, 6:37 PM
Jason said...: I'm pro-freedom.

I think anyone who wants to join an ex-gay program should be allowed to, and anyone who wants to start an ex-gay program should be allowed to.

Pissing off downtownlad so I can watch him throw a hissy fit is just a bonus.; 6/13/09, 8:05 PM
FloridaSteve said...: Hey DTL... wouldn't you be more at home over on Sully's blog? Just sayin..; 6/13/09, 9:37 PM
Kevin said...: Instapundit in 2004:

Personally, I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons.

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit-archive/archives/018220.php

But go ahead, DTL, make up stuff. It makes you look more credible.; 6/13/09, 11:40 PM