home

Sully, Wanker

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 07:36:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Great choice by Atrios. The recounting of all of Sully's wanking is virtually impossible, but I do think Atrios should have mentioned Sully's championing of the Stupidest Man Alive, Donald Luskin over Paul Krugman as well as running his own entry for Stupidest Man Alive.

But these a re quibbles. All efforts to remind folks who and what Andrew Sullivan is and was are welcome. Yea Atrios!

Speaking for me only

< Obama Goes to Colombia, Says No to Legalization | Sunday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sully, Wanker | 155 comments (155 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Another (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 07:56:02 PM EST
    reminder of why I dislike Sully so much. Now remind me why him endorsing Obama was such a good thing back in 2008?

    Anyone who supports Obama ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 01:12:48 PM EST
    ... and/or attacks his critics or opponents is good.

    Just ask ABG.

    Parent

    I obviously (none / 0) (#21)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 05:20:44 PM EST
    Dont agree with sully on many things but he is a good writer and generally good at proving all viewpoints on his blog.  His battle with coated over issues of race recently was a great example of how people who disagree with him on many issues still respect hm immensely.

    I don't respect blogs based on how many things they say that I agree with, which seems to be atrios' standard.  I like smartly written and informative blogs that present multiple thoughts and good explanations for viewpoints.  Even when Sullivan was saying things I hated in 2001, his blog was must read Internet.

    The test, IMHO, is sully's position amongst his peers on the left and the right.  He is respected across the board for the most part.

    Atrios is second only to greenwald on my list of liberal wankers.  I guess he's disqualified his own drivel from consideration.

    Anyway, hate away on sully.  I think he will be continue to maintain his standng regardless of the words of a guy making a living off of sorry souls fascinated by daily blog posts consisting of cranky sentence fragments.

    Hilarious fun fact: the longest and most thought out posts atrios has written n months are his wankers posts.

    Haters are gonna hate.  As is obvious, that's what the do best and most.

    Parent

    Based on WHAT?!? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 07:14:22 PM EST
    The test, IMHO, is sully's position amongst his peers on the left and the right.  He is respected across the board for the most part.

    See - this is the issue I have with so many of your arguments.  You just make $hit up and state it as though it's a fact.

    Parent

    across the board.. (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 05:33:50 PM EST
    I think it's more like uneasey truce between those one degree to the Left and those one degree to the Right..

    The main terms of the truce being: if I don't say anything TOO critical in print about what he writes, he won't come back at us in print with anything too critical..

    The result: everyone's (more-or-less) happy, and can continue wanking-in-place.  

    Parent

    Last week was Charles Murray week at Sully's blog. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Addison on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 08:44:32 PM EST
    All last week he was running a series called, "Ask Charles Murray Anything" to help Murray sell his newest book, "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010".

    Ugh, and his gag-worthy pretenses to deeply intellectual politics and actual principled thought through the constant invocation of Oakeshott, whose philosophy he flatly contradicts in most moments between said invocations. He's a shallow pool that stupid dove into head first.

    The State of White America.. (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 05:46:55 PM EST
    one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry..

    What more do you need to know about Sullivan, other than that he seems to want to go out of his way to lend credibility to an unnecessarily divisive, intellectually dishonest clown like Murray. Of all the people whose ideas he could wider exposure to..

    Parent

    There is obviously a reason (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 08:47:04 PM EST
    ...why Sullivan does not permit comments.  He would have to pay attention to what actual people think.

    Don't get me started on his theology.

    Indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Addison on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 08:50:39 PM EST
    Yes, while I generally give people the benefit of the doubt on the subject of faith, with Sully his theology is more of an intellectual panic room he can run to when some scary idea is at the door.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#14)
    by seabe on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:08:08 AM EST
    He frequently posts what readers think, especially the dissents. 90%+ of his readership is "liberal". I personally like the way he does reader feedback. Comments on the internet are almost always cesspools.

    Parent
    The memories really gouge me (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 08:31:42 AM EST
    That was when I first participated in reading on the net.  I was so scared.  Everyone I knew was going to war or had someone they loved and relied on everyday going to war.  Things didn't feel right, I thought we were being sold bull$hit but  those who expressed doubt or challenged going into Iraq were quickly squashed and called horrible shaming names.  Most of us were easily shamed too.  I read in silence.  I had always preferred being an observer anyhow, in my experience people want what they want and believe what they want to believe and usually only pain and suffering causes them to make different immediate choices with their basic ideology resurfacing as soon as it's all clear.  But this was going to deeply affect my life, maybe devastate it.

    My husband came home ahead of the other soldiers he was with in Iraq that first year, because we were fighting for Josh's life then against Tricare West.  Instead of going to Kuwait with the rest of 3rd ACR, and bubble wrapping helicopters to load onto the ships, his commander sent him home with a group of soldiers who were not needed to load and were supposed to come home and get things ready for everyone back at Fort Carson.  The 3rd ACR wasn't yet done with all missions though either, they were wrapping things up and 2 scout helicopters downed while he was in route home.  Four soldiers that everyone knew and worked with were dead.  In a fluke, it turned out that my husband was senior ranking on the flight home and it was his duty to tell everyone in the middle of going home that four of them were not coming home in the same fashion.  It was his worst day ever.

    There should be a way to distill that day and how he felt and put it into an injection, and Andrew Sullivan (and all the others who called Patriots arguing that the Iraq War was lies and crap UnAmerican) should have to get the injection.  They should be inoculated against becoming filthy vile slobs and sociopaths ever again.

    Strange how the Sullivan archives from that time have not "survived".

    Tension is now building for (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:16:47 AM EST
    Number One--so many candidates, so little room.  Odds-on and worthy favorite is 'old cream pie in the mustache'.  But, my dark horse candidate is Bill Keller.  It is scary to know that this NYT op-ed columnist is retired executive editor of the paper.   For an example, see today's NYT (April 16, 20l2) for a treatise on vapidity as he explains all you wanted to know about "centrism" and what is motivating those elusive swing voters.

    Rarely read Andrew, but "bump" into him from time-to-time on Bill Maher's Show where he displays an overbearing and obnoxious persona that matches his writings.  When Glenn Greenwald was a fellow panelist on the show, he seemed to manage him by avoidance.  A good lesson.

    Keller would be a good choice (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:57:15 AM EST
    But my money is staying on the Mustache of Understanding.

    Parent
    has to be Tom Friedman (none / 0) (#16)
    by desmoinesdem on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    I'll be shocked if it isn't. Who else could surpass Klein, Sullivan and Hiatt?

    Parent
    David Brooks? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 03:08:23 PM EST
    It's possible that Friedman's wankery is too one-note to get the top spot. Brooks, on the other hand, is a wide-ranging purveyor of wank.

    Parent
    Oh, Addison, (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    I do believe that you are understating the mustachioed one's range of wankery.  He is clearly a top contender, although we might blame some of his great thoughts on uninformed taxi drivers or their critical points lost in translation.

    You do make a persuasive case for David B., but he is supposed to be the very sensible winger wanker.  But, on balance and given the keen competition, I would disqualify him on the basis of that article of his where he just teased us about the Republican senator seated next to him at a dinner party who found David's thigh to be of interest--throughout the meal-- but then never named names.  I expect  all the facts.

    Parent

    I think it's gotta by a NYT person... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 03:11:27 PM EST
    ...if only because today's Hiatt mention seems to take the air out of any further WaPo entrants.

    Parent
    Sully has one big fan here. Let's see his (3.00 / 2) (#8)
    by observed on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 01:51:40 AM EST
    response.

    Sully is must read (1.00 / 3) (#23)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 05:27:08 PM EST
    He is probably followed and read by more lib bloggers than any other blogger and if a poll of his peers was taken, he'd be among the most respected every time.

    But let me predict the response: it doesn't matter what other liberal bloggers read. It doesn't matter how popular he is. It doesn't matter how many bloggers many of us probably respect reference him as their inspiration.

    He made points that you don't agree with and doggone it, ATRIOS doesn't like him so poo poo all over Sullivan.

    I don't think those types of responses are quite as powerful as sully's haters tend to think they are, but have at it.

    Atrios declared today hate on sully day, so let the haters rejoice and engage in much slapping of backs and echoing of thought.

    Parent

    Atrios declared "hate" on Sully? (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by observed on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 05:49:50 PM EST
    He's judging him by his track record.


    Parent
    Argumentum ad populum (none / 0) (#39)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 06:43:31 PM EST
    He is probably followed and read by more lib bloggers than any other blogger and if a poll of his peers was taken, he'd be among the most respected every time.

    I don't understand why you keep pushing this point in various different comments. And your prophylactic attempt to head off the obvious question is not an answer to that question. What does it matter? You proved that you know what argumentum ad populum is, and then did it anyway! Why, why, why do you keep repeating this stuff about Sullivan's (alleged and as-yet completely unproven) popularity among all stripes of thinkers outside this site? It's clear that you yourself aren't sure why it matters since you feel you have to head off the question before anyone can ask it.

    He made points that you don't agree with and doggone it, ATRIOS doesn't like him so poo poo all over Sullivan.

    Atrios declared today hate on sully day, so let the haters rejoice and engage in much slapping of backs and echoing of thought.

    Huh? I don't think most of us are taking our cues from Atrios. Sullivan has been around longer than Atrios, and many have read him longer than Atrios. The idea of everyone as Atrios' puppets is amusing, but nonsensical.


    Parent

    Addison (none / 0) (#42)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 06:58:41 PM EST
    It is standard argument technique.  If at an impasse of opinions, third party opinions are a valid source of confirmation.  Just as atrios is used to support one position, the views of the larger community of liberal bloggers should carry weight as well.

    This post was BTD referencing other bloggers in support of a position.  There is no difference between us (other than the fact that my position is less popular . . . Here at least).

    references are the core of intelligent debate.  Anyone can argue that they are correct based on their own logic and internal reasoning.

    "I am right because I am right and my logic is great" is a very easy position to take.

    Parent

    I don't think so. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 07:09:43 PM EST
    This post was BTD referencing other bloggers in support of a position.  There is no difference between us (other than the fact that my position is less popular . . . Here at least).

    BTD was agreeing with Atrios' post as a jumping off point for his own anti-Sullivan musings, as he has done throughout the parade of wankers series. He was not, as far as I can tell, saying that it mattered substantially that Atrios (or anyone else) thought Sully was a wanker. So I don't buy your attempt to make both things equivalent. Maybe I missed BTD's attempt to say Sullivan is bad because many other people say he's bad.

    "I am right because I am right and my logic is great" is a very easy position to take.

    Frankly, since this is all subjective it's what we're all doing most of the time. You included. However, with regards to actual disagreement over facts and lies: a full litigation of every instance in which Sullivan was objectively wrong is impossible (and I don't mean that in a snarky fashion) and so of course some shorthand is used that can be misunderstood as merely, "I am right because I am right". We're not going to go into why the flat tax is a bad idea, why the current war on Jihad is a destructive paradigm, or the countless other individual instances of substantive disagreement. These are award shows, not the films themselves.

    Parent

    People (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 07:22:10 PM EST
    actually have a reason to dislike Sully that has nothing to do with the reasons you state. The reason people dislike Sully is because of the crap he's been dishing out for years. In case you don't know, BTD has been on Sully's case for years. This is nothing new for him.

    Parent
    My appreciation (none / 0) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 07:36:46 PM EST
    Of Sullivan has similarly been around for years but I had no medium to express it.

    We could go around and around on things he gets right and wrong.  Your view of his hit rate is subjective and not objective as is mine.  The bigger issue is that his peers respect the way that he tackles the issues for the most part, which is what defines a wanker for me.

    There are plenty of completely wrong pundits who deserve respect. Ramesh at the NRO being another that comes to mind. When I look at atrios' wanker list, it seems more based on position than what I would call wankerishness, if that makes sense.

    Not everyone who I disagree with is a wanker. Some are, but it depends on tactics and way that a viewpoint is presented.

    I have yet to read a criticism of Sullivan here or from atrios that isn't viewpoint based.  The bell curve is a fuzzy area but I let sully slide on that because of the way that he handles discussions with those who disagree on the topic and the respect he gives people like Coates who hit back hard.

    That's why I like him.  Although he was kind of a jerk on the phantom Palin pregnancy at the end.  If someone referenced that, I would have to give them that point.

    Parent

    What (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:41:45 AM EST
    I find interesting is your admiration for someone who obviously thinks you are inferior based on your skin color.

    And let's not forget that Sully thought George W. Bush was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sully has shown bad judgement time and again.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#60)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:47:55 PM EST
    the basis for a lot of the wanker posts by Atrios is that everyone thought they were so brilliant for supporting and in fact encouraging the Iraq War.  If you have an editorial platform, and you live in DC, and you're publicly wringing your hands over whether "you" should go to war when in fact it won't affect you one bit, how is that not wanking?  Regardless of whether Sullivan has ever said anything I agree with, on this one extremely important area how could you not argue he was a wanker?

    Perhaps you think Atrios' tendency to just post "Jobs" and simple posts relating to liberal priorities is its own type of wanking, unrelated to reality.  But at least it has its own justification in terms of shifting the political conversation, or pushing the Overton Window to the left.  At least he's not agitating and helping to pave the way for a stupid war that has only hurt our country (if not Sullivan) while calling liberals a fifth column.  If there was a fifth column conspiring to destroy America, it was our moronic media, not liberals.  

    We can go back and forth about any number of other things Sully writes about but nothing even comes close to the wankiness of this stuff.  I mean damn.

    Parent

    Iraq (none / 0) (#65)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 09:57:46 AM EST
    Much of my respect for Sullivan comes from his admission of error and willingness to change as the facts change.

    He is one of the rare pundits to state repeatedly that he was flat out wrong on Iraq and one of the early conservatives to do so. Example.

    Lots of people made the stupid mistake of supporting the war, even reluctantly.  Hillary did.  John Kerry did. I did. Most of us did.  If you did not support the war, more power to you because you were in the minority and were on the side of righteousness.  

    The real wankers are those arguing that we weren't lied to, that it wasn't a mistake, that we should do it again if we went back in time.

    Thatsnot my take and more importantly, that's not Sullivan's take.

    But if your standard of wanker is whether you were smart enough to strongly oppose the war, there are a lot of wankers out there, me included.

    Parent

    I will admit I struggle with this one (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CST on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:06:01 AM EST
    Because I did think going into Iraq was a horrible idea at the time.  In fact, I don't remember having an ounce of doubt that it was a horrible idea.  And I was just a dumb college freshman at the time, but it seemed blatantly clear.

    No, I haven't really forgiven Hillary Clinton or John Kerry for it either.  In fact, I can forgive the general populous before I can forgive them, since they were actually responsible for making those decisions.  Maybe I was hyper aware because the people going to war were my peers, I don't know, but I didn't buy that spew of lies for a second and it made me furious.

    Carry on.

    Parent

    Well, IMO (none / 0) (#87)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:41:30 AM EST
    I expect Rove and Bush to tell me "you're either with us or against us."  I expect to disagree with them.  I'm not interested in defending someone in the media who is acting on even less information to attack me.  I think Atrios highlights a supremely wankeriffic moment from Sullivan where Sullivan within days of 9/11 is calling "the left" traitors, basically.  I mean, WTF?  How does that pass for thoughtful commentary?  

    I know Hillary voted for the AUMF, as did many other Dem politicians.  But their vote still strikes me as slightly, possibly more thoughtful than the full-throated war blogging of Sullivan and his compatriots.  I expect politicians to do sh*tty things for political reasons; I expect the media to perform a different function.  Politicians are accountable for their votes.  Sullivan should be held accountable for the hundreds of thousands of words he wasted.  Hillary's judgment was questioned endlessly and rightfully so for her vote; Sullivan's judgment should be equally questioned, IMO.

    It's not about Sullivan not strongly opposing the war.  It's about him going all in for years on Bush war policies just...because?  In terms of the media supposedly being critical of power, which I think is what the media is supposed to do, he among others completely dropped the ball.  Or hell, they spiked the ball.

    So that's personally my standard.  I understand you get value out of reading him and many others do.  I think his blogging about torture has been good, and is far more critical of those in power (or who were in power) than his original Iraq War blogging.  But I still think of him as a wanker above all, because of the war blogging.  I read the post you linked to about him admitting his mistakes, I don't think he went far enough, really.  He seems to be saying, in a time of crisis, I would once again fully back the President and berate those who do not; I don't think that should be his role or default setting.  So again I question his judgment, and I think that's an aspect of his writing that he should be repenting.

    Parent

    The desire to be anthologized. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 12:00:34 PM EST
    I think Atrios highlights a supremely wankeriffic moment from Sullivan where Sullivan within days of 9/11 is calling "the left" traitors, basically.  I mean, WTF?  How does that pass for thoughtful commentary?  

    Ah, yes, the great Orwell's Successor Craze of 2001-2004, when every British ex-pat thought that the Spanish Civil War was replaying itself (pro-war American authors had their own, somewhat different reasons) and all they had to do was issue a few ill-informed and melodramatic broadsides to assure their place in the first edition of the 2018 Penguin Iraq War Reader.

    Parent

    I guess my first question is, who is (none / 0) (#90)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 12:25:28 PM EST
    this "most of us" who supported the war?  

    See, this is one of the things that runs like a theme through so many of your comments, that we should praise pundits like Sullivan for being big enough to apologize for being wrong on Iraq, and excuse him because he was part of a large group that felt the same way.

    I guess it escapes you that if there was a large group behind the war, their support was fueled in part by people like Sullivan, who had the platform and the wherewithal to reach a lot of people with their endless cheerleading - cheerleading that was also delivered with explicit or implicit accusations that those who failed to join the rally were little more than traitors.

    That's not something that goes away with an apology - no matter how endless those apologies are.

    But it's not just the war - Sullivan has been wrong, and disgustingly so, on many other topics and issues.  That he has an ability to string together words and thoughts in a coherent and readable way may make him a fairly good writer, but his writing also speaks to who he is as a human being, and I'm sorry - I don't respect people who think as Sullivan does, no matter how well he expresses himself.

    I don't read him because I learned all I needed to know about him a long time ago; keeping tabs on the level of extremes to which he and others' thoughts go is an exercise in masochism, not education.

    And, whether you are "really" Angry, Black or a Guy is anyone's guess - but the fact that it gets questioned so often is because your comments generally lack a feeling of authenticity: often what you say is so all over the place, and generally ends in your having to bring up what "everyone else" or "the majority" of people think in order to, I don't know, exert a weird kind of peer pressure on others to show them the error of their ways.

    As for Sullivan, he could be doing a lot of good with his intelligence, but is choosing to perpetuate and disseminate ideas and opinions that do not have as a goal improving the quality of anyone's life; I don't need to know what people like that are saying in order to do what I can, in my life and the lives of those around me, to counter it.  That kind of ugliness, disguised as intelligence, has been around forever; the choice we all make is deciding whether to legitimize it.

    I guess you've made your choice; can't say as I'm surprised.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#93)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Most of us means, when I used it, the majority of Americans and the majority of dems.

    Most people supported the war.  I can provide polls but you hate polls so now what?

    If your point is that a majority of Americans and both parties are wankers, ok. That's a position. If your point is that Andrew is more of a wanker than Hillary because he didn't have a vote, I guess that is a point too.

    Points I think are wrong but they are points.

    Parent

    Surely you know (none / 0) (#100)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:32:19 PM EST
    that this is a gross misinterpretation

    If your point is that Andrew is more of a wanker than Hillary because he didn't have a vote, I guess that is a point too.


    Parent
    As if there was a question (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:36:49 PM EST
    on how Sullivan would have voted.  

    Parent
    The point (none / 0) (#109)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    Is that somehow a person that voted for the war isnt a wanker while someone who wrote about it is.

    I think the person with the power is more deserving, if any.

    Parent

    Do you actually (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 03:03:59 PM EST
    think one senator has the megaphone that the press in this country does?

    And all this stuff about voting for a war is silly anyway. Obama would have voted for it and sounded like Joe Lieberman when he was voting for it. I think after watching him a President there's no question what he would have done with his hatred of "the left" in this country.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#128)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:02:46 PM EST
    I think a determined senator ready to make a stand could have had a massive effect, as big as almost any media figure.

    if Hillary Clinton and John Kerry had each come out strongly opposed the war and made the point on every talk show, history could have changed.

    They would have been more influential than a guy blogging on his own page (which was Sullivan back then).

    Parent

    No history (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:27:48 PM EST
    would NOT have been changed. If every D in the Senate voted against the IWR it still would have happened. You are forgetting the press was behind this little venture too screaming for "war, war, and  more war"

    Parent
    Uh, no (none / 0) (#132)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:28:37 PM EST
    Sullivan was making his case in The Sunday Times in the UK, had previously been editor of The New Republic, etc.  The Daily Dish was apparently at 300,000 visits a month by mid-2003.  Not exactly your "cheeto-stained" basement blogger archetype.

    Parent
    I think a senator (none / 0) (#133)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:46:47 PM EST
    Has more power than Sullivan.  I don't understand why this is even a question.

    Parent
    People in the media (none / 0) (#134)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:54:59 PM EST
    have more power to communicate to people than 1 Senator.  Yes, it would have changed things to have either Clinton or Kerry stand up and campaign against going to War in Iraq.  They did not do so.

    But they did not write Go To War Or You Are A Traitor articles day after day for years, either.

    Parent

    It's the difference between (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:56:04 PM EST
    not using your power for good, and using your power to the utmost for bad.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:23:44 PM EST
    because there were people who made a stand against it and it did no good. Russ Feingold for one IIRC. Their voices were drowned out by people like Sully. Sully has been so much like Bush in the past calling people "traitors" who didn't go along with the Bush Agenda. You could almost call Sully "cheney lite".

    Parent
    not convinced (none / 0) (#141)
    by CST on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:31:07 AM EST
    there were 23 senators who voted against it, it's not like the patriot act which passed with 99 votes.

    Ted Kennedy for one.  And he couldn't even convince John Kerry to flip.  Yes, I know he was one of the more liberal senators but he was also well known for changing minds.

    Bush was determined to go to war in Iraq, and it was pretty clear he would do so with or without Dem help.  Now, if the Dems had presented a unified front than maybe the country would have looked more at it with more skepticism, I don't know.  But I don't think one of those two coming out against it would have made much of a difference in terms of the actual result.  23 senators (including one republican) DID oppose it, and if you are going to vote on record against something like that, in that atmosphere, it's strong opposition.  Didn't make a bit of difference.

    Parent

    Well, ignoring (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    Addison's interesting comment below about wanking (I wasn't familiar with that definition; I was thinking of wanking/wanker in the colloquial sense, and in the sense that these people were living out war fantasies in multimillion dollar DC condos while in reality people actually had to participate, suffer, and die for them)...yeah I think Hillary is a wanker for voting for the AUMF.  All Dems were.  But when people say, "oh the run up to the Iraq War, it was hard not to support it, the majority were in favor" part of the reason people felt that way is that people like Sullivan were using their access to millions of Americans to say Let's Invade Iraq!  Otherwise You're A Traitor!  He was helping to shape public opinion, which as we all know and have gone over again and again, helps determine political outcomes.  If there was an analogy to how people voted, Sullivan would've been a hardcore warhawk Republican.  His rhetoric was in line with the Bush Admin's.

    Yeah Sullivan admits he was wrong, but what price has he paid for it?  You could argue Hillary lost the primary because of her war vote.  She has (justifiably) had to answer for that vote time and time again.  Sullivan has done quite well for himself, except for the times he has been rightfully reminded of his jackassery, as we are doing now.  In fact almost no one has suffered for their Iraq Warmongering in the media, and that's pathetic.

    Parent

    I want to be clear... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:26:02 PM EST
    ...that is my particular definition of "wanking" in this context. People who actually made the decisions to go to war and were the ringleaders may be detestable, but I don't think they are "wankers". At a certain point the conversation about definitions becomes silly, but whatever!

    I agree that Sullivan paid virtually no price. In fact, his previous aggressively pro-war (and functionally anti-Muslim) stance has been somewhat beneficial for his marketability because it allowed him to gain (in many quarters) a sort of "prodigal son" status, and to position himself as a "convert" who can witness for the cause as a former sinner. (See: David Horowitz).

    But, you know, eff these abstractions. Look at what Sullivan wrote in October 2003 (a little over one Friedman Unit into the war):

    It might seem odd, but this past week has made me more optimistic about the chances of success in Iraq. I didn't see it that way at first, because the news of the Ramadan suicide bombing campaign seemed so dispiriting. But, on reflection, these hideous murders mark a new era. For the first time, the Islamist forces of terror are targeting Arabs.

    GAAAAH! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

    Parent

    Gotcha. (none / 0) (#125)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:50:45 PM EST
    I thought your definition was a good one.  Your block quote is a fine example of wanking.  Yes, people died, but how do they fit into the larger picture of whether or not I, Andrew Sullivan, am a brilliant prognosticator?  I mean wanking for me is writing from that POV.  Or being a macho d*ckhead like "suck on this" Friedman.

    I agree with you about Sullivan's increase in marketability.  I feel the same way about John Cole more or less, although he sets my teeth on edge for any number of other reasons as well and to his credit he seems more self-aware of his previous wankery.  I'm glad they think they were wrong but I'm not rushing out to embrace them and I don't think their acknowledgement of their own errors strengthens the case for liberal policy, or what have you.

    Parent

    And in terms of what constitutes a wanker (none / 0) (#127)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:42:25 PM EST
    Atrios' post about Friedman does a great job of laying it out methinks.

    He fetishizes a false "centrism" which is basically whatever Tom Friedman likes, imagining the Friedman agenda is both incredibly popular in the country and lacking any support from our current politicians, when in fact the opposite is usually true. Washington worships at the altar of the agenda of false centrism, and people often hate it. Problems abroad, even ones which really have nothing to do with us, should be solved by war, and problems at home should be solved by increasing the suffering of poor and middle class people. Even though one political party is pretty much implementing, or trying to implement, 99.999999% of the Friedman agenda, what we really need is a third party catering precisely to this silent majority of Friedmanites.

    Truly great wankers possess a kind of glib narcissism, the belief that everything is about them while simultaneously disavowing any responsibility for anything. The important thing about an issue is whether it proves Tom Friedman f*cking right, but if it doesn't we can just move on to the next big thing that will prove Tom Friedman f*cking right. If you advocate for wars that go a bit bad, well, it's not your fault. If only Tom Friedman had been in charge everything would have been great.



    Parent
    Someone give me (none / 0) (#130)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:15:13 PM EST
    A centrist that Atrios respects.

    take your time, I'll wait.

    Point: there is no centrist that Atrios respects, which is why this is about the concept of centrism itself as much as anything.

    Parent

    Theory of Wanking (by Jean Baudrillard?) (none / 0) (#113)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 03:09:16 PM EST
    I don't want to get re-involved in this discussion, but I want to note that while it's a little vague, "wanker" has something of a meaning.

    In my view, a wanker is someone who aggressively espouses mainstream/centrist views in a simulation of relevance. In US politics a wanker adds (usually disingenuously) to the conversation on the side of an issue's "centrist consensus" and acts like they helped form that consensus, when in fact they had nothing to do with it. Then when the consensus becomes bad policy, they suddenly and magically realize they weren't a consequential part of the decision after all, and criticize it.

    So, regardless of her dreadful vote on the Iraq War, in no way could Hillary Clinton be a "wanker", as she was not merely simulating power.

    Parent

    Centrist (none / 0) (#129)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:12:22 PM EST
    Addision

    I think you betray your bias against centrists by centering your definition of wanker on those in the middle. Few thoughts:

    I don't view centrists in the way that you and possibly others do.   I know that they are not liked around here, but there are plenty of them. They represent a real constituency.  There is a middle. they vacillate between the parties in different elections.  They voted for Reagan and Clinton and Obama and Bush.  they are real.  I don't see myself as one of them but I think it is completely wrong to dismiss them the way you do.

    Jonah Goldberg is about as right as you can get and he's the no.6 wanker.  Atrios and you have different definitions of wanker, which is ok but I am just saying.

    Parent

    Theory of Wanking, Part II (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:11:07 PM EST
    Why do I focus on centrists? Wankers naturally gravitate toward an aggressive moving-target centrism that looks like heart-felt politics (so they can write with "passion"), but remains "safe" enough in the herd to avoid pissing anyone off too much (such as paycheck writers or party hosts). This self-placement at the center maximizes their (illusory) beltway relevance and decreases their financial/social exposure. Note that this does NOT mean that all centrists are wankers, just that wankers are attracted to centrism.

    And yes, Atrios and I have different definitions of wanker. Though I'm not sure if he even really has one. But maybe we should listen to Dante on the matter of those neutral wankers who lived their lives in the middle, "without disgrace and without praise":

    The world will let no fame of theirs endure;
    both justice and compassion must disdain them;
    let us not talk of them, but look and pass

    This is meant to be a bit melodramatic, given that the subject is "wankers".

    Parent

    "Jonah Goldberg is about as (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:36:22 PM EST
    right as you can get?"

    And you call yourself a liberal?

    Un-f**king-believable.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#142)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 04:32:57 PM EST

    I said that Jonah Freaking Goldberg was far right and that means I am not a liberal.

    you are just talking like a crazy person at this point.  I have no idea what your issue it is but feel free to declare victory in this imaginary war you appear to be having with me.

    I could say "Obama is President" and your response would be "and you call yourself a liberal?"

    chill out people.  

    Parent

    I read that not as (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:00:04 PM EST
    Goldberg being as far over to the right of the political spectrum as it was possible to be, but as being "correct."

    It was an easy mistake to make, as you routinely praise and express your respect for those on the that end of the political spectrum.

    Try being more clear and precise in expressing yourself before you start accusing others of talking like crazy people.

    Parent

    Geezus (none / 0) (#155)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:41:06 PM EST
    You are trying way too hard.

    Parent
    Beyond the fact that this ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:40:01 PM EST
    If your point is that Andrew is more of a wanker than Hillary because he didn't have a vote, I guess that is a point too.

    ... is just a ridiculous, patently obvious attempt at trolling (something you've developed into an art form), I would simply point out that what makes you "more of a wanker" is someone who makes speeches (or, more accurately, a single speech) about opposing the Iraq War when he doesn't have any responsibility for voting and wants to get elected, then votes in the complete opposite manner after he's elected.

    But that's not Sully ...

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#131)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:16:03 PM EST
    Voted for the Iraq war? Hmmm. really?

    Parent
    Actually, what he did ... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 09:32:42 PM EST
    ... was give a speech against the war, then after elected to the Senate he voted 10 times to continue funding the war.  He voted against setting a withdrawal date.  His voting record on the Iraq War - once he actually had a voting record - was identical to Clinton's.  As far as what he would have done if he actually had to vote on the AUMF (as opposed to give a campaign speech), Obama himself said he didn't know.  He also said senators who saw intelligence reports on Iraq may have been justified in voting for the invasion. 'I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence,' he said. 'And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices.

    Talking about being opposed to the Iraq War while campaigning in the most liberal district in Illinois is easy.  And as we've all learned repeatedly since Obama was elected, ...

    ... talk is cheap.

    Glad to clear that up for ya.

    Parent

    Continuing (none / 0) (#143)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 04:40:55 PM EST
    Funding for the war is not the same as opposing it initially. Not by a long shot.

    If you don't see the difference, God speed to you.

    But tell me, which candidate had the voting record better than Obama on the war?

    "All four of the candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination who were in the U.S. Senate in 2002--Christopher Dodd, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Joe Biden--voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq in October of that year. All four had supported unconditional funding subsequently. This year, however, all but Biden opposed the supplemental. A fifth Democratic senator seeking the presidency, Barack Obama, who had opposed the war prior to be elected to the Senate in 2004 but had voted for the supplemental funding in his first two years in office, also voted against the supplemental this year. That traditional hawks like Dodd and Clinton, who had vehemently supported the war as recently as last year, feel obliged to vote against it now reflects the acknowledgement of a new political reality. It will be virtually impossible for anyone to win the Democratic presidential nomination without opposing funding for the war."

    Parent

    Attitudes, platitudes ... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    But tell me, which candidate had the voting record better than Obama on the war?

    None - but then again, the "anti-war" candidate Obama wasn't so "anti-war" when he had to actually vote ... and, of course, when he no longer needed the anti-war vote.


    Funding for the war is not the same as opposing it initially. Not by a long shot.

    No, it's not the same thing.  But then again, talking about being against a war is not the same thing as voting to oppose or stop a war.

    Talk is cheap,...

    ... particularly if the one talking is Obama.

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#148)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 05:42:01 PM EST
    Obama ended the Iraq war.

    but maybe that doesn't counti in evaluating whether he kept his promise to end the Iraq war.

    what the hell are we talking about here people?  this is just getting silly.

    Parent

    Good for you (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:48:23 PM EST
    OTOH - that wasn't the point.

    Of course he ended the Iraq War - it was a no brainer.  Every, single poll showed a large majority of Americans wanted the war ended by 2010.  What Democratic POTUS wouldn't have ended the war?

    But maybe you're right.  Maybe Obama should get credit for implementing Bush's SOFA agreement.

    Like I said ... talk is cheap.

    Parent

    Yman (none / 0) (#156)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:43:29 PM EST
    Your quote

    talking about being against a war is not the same thing as voting to oppose or stop a war.

    Obama voted to stop funding the war twice I believe.

    Parent

    Checking in. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:14:44 PM EST
    Okay.

    Does anyone here think Yman will ever give an inch and say anything good about the president?

    Does anyone here think AngryBlackGuy will ever give an inch and say something bad about the president?

    Parent

    Course I will (none / 0) (#159)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    He gives a good speech.

    My point, however, remains.

    Parent

    Sure he did (none / 0) (#158)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:17:06 PM EST
    Once he wanted the anti-war vote.

    Then again, before he started campaigning, how did he back up his rhetoric after being elected to the senate?

    Obama's opposition to the Iraq war in 2003 is unquestioned. But what was a sharp anti-war line on the campaign trail in 2004 - when he said he favored voting against funding the war - turned into a more pragmatic Senate performance, where Obama has taken a less aggressively anti-war tack than fellow Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.), Russ Feingold (Wis.) and others.


    Talk is cheap.

    Prior to his vote against funding the Iraq war in 2007, he voted to fund the Iraq War ten times in five separate measures.

    Maybe that's what he meant by "Change".

    Heh.

    Parent

    who (none / 0) (#151)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:35:27 PM EST
    are you quoting?

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#98)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    I guess it escapes you that if there was a large group behind the war, their support was fueled in part by people like Sullivan, who had the platform and the wherewithal to reach a lot of people with their endless cheerleading - cheerleading that was also delivered with explicit or implicit accusations that those who failed to join the rally were little more than traitors.

    That's not something that goes away with an apology - no matter how endless those apologies are.

    I don't think Sullivan's apologies are all that penitent or even endless anyway.  

    Parent

    btw (none / 0) (#80)
    by sj on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:51:48 AM EST
    I don't know why BTD disapproved of this comment.  Your interest in the response of Sully's fan, and the implied speculation was born out ... spectacularly.

    Parent
    Pray tell, why do you all read Sullivan? (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 09:08:44 PM EST


    I saw enough of him on TV to know I never wanted (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:16:00 AM EST
    to read him.

    Parent
    Personally... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Addison on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 09:16:50 PM EST
    ...I like the "View from your Window" contest every Saturday/Tuesday.

    Parent
    I don't anymore (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 08:35:34 AM EST
    I used to read him because he was lifted up as some sort of unbiased important person.  I read him because he said that we needed to go to war in Iraq and people listened, and I was attempting to grapple with what was happening.

    There isn't any reason for me to read now though.  We all know how Iraq turned out.  And also, I'm a filthy $lut too....he made that obvious as well.  But BTD reads for me sometimes.  It is good to know your enemy.

    Parent

    can't stand that guy (none / 0) (#7)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 11:08:37 PM EST
    I dislike Sully so much that I warned Bleeding Heartland readers not to suggest including him in my list of 40 good bloggers over 40.

    I don't read his blog and rarely click through a link to him.

    (Clearing throat) (none / 0) (#29)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 06:01:04 PM EST
    I respect the abilities of many a writer or thinker who believes things that I absolutely despise.  

    I believe 85% of what Krauthammer says is false but do I respect the hell out of him, his intellect and his abilities to see the nuances of various issues?

    Hell yeah.  The man is no less than a genius despite the fact that he is completely wrong on almost everything.  He is a must read.

    The difference, obviously, is that the criticisms by you, those here and atrios all revolve around whether you agree with a particular point a writer has made.

    That a fine standard and more power to Team Atrios for focusing on that as the standard of a wanker.  My position on that is that if we are listing wankers based on whether we disagree, there are dozens of other candidates who are not writing everyday about how terrible conservatives are and how universal Healthcare, gay rights, and such are priorities, but by all means, skip the Derbyshires and Mark Levins of the world and go after Sullivan.  Weird standard but knock yourselves out.

    But let me say that I am not really concerned about some "embarrassing" assumption that I am a closeted racist or ignorant of what the bell curve means.   I am probably the most race focused commenter here for many obvious and not so obvious reasons and understand well sully's bell curve history and what that line of thinking means on a macro and micro level.  On any other day at TL i am a mindless race focused drone who only supports Obama because my race has brainwashed me into seeing every issue with my angry blackness first and foremost.  I am the Angry Black Guy because I was angry about racist PUMAs.

    Shorter: Referencing sully's bell curve writings may be effective on a Sullivan fan who calls for Obama's birth certificate.  But on your friendly Neighborhood Louis Farrakhan (as implied by some of my critics on other topics) not so much.

    I am either Allen West or Al Sharpton.  Well I am really neither, but if you're going to demand that I am one of them, the only option that doesn't work is "both".

    Sully is wrong on there'll curve but I understand his arguments and don't believe they come from a p,ace of racism. If they did, I wouldn't read him.  I respect his very public and well documented shift in political support which was really ground breaking.  Let's compare him to the list of other prominent pundits who were brave enough to publicly admit error and shift party allegiances in this highly partisan era.

    Easy comparison because the list is like three people long.  What he did was really unprecedented in the blogosphere for someone at his level.  That in itself demands a level of respect and most of his peers give him that.

    Bottom line: people I respect respect sully (present company aside of course).   The people who dont respect them tend to be those who believe that conservatives are "evil" and what not but bristle when they hear conservatives use that rhetoric against liberals.

    I am on the side I would like to be on and am proud of it.   I'll keep Derbyshire and Levin at the top of my wanker list and you guys knock yourselves out with the evil Saletan  and Sullivan.

    Forget the merits of the "intellect" (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 06:12:55 PM EST
    I find your arguments ridiculous on all of these people. Not because they disagree with me, but because they are just idiotic.

    You have a perfect right to respect idiots, I have no problem with that.

    Please note that your insults to those of us who do not share your high opinion of Sullivan and Krauthamer is duly noted. We're just judging their intellect on whether they agree with us according to you. That's pretty insulting.

    I never accused you of respecting people because they agree with you. I've accused you of being dumb. Frankly. I think you are pretty dumb.

    But this is something different. You are expressing respect for a racist who promotes racism.

    But then again, you also support The Bell Curve.

    And that says a lot about you to me.

    Parent

    Not just a racist. Sully is also (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 08:07:46 PM EST
    a misogynist extraordinaire. And rumors of his astounding intellect are so very overstated.

    Sully is so bad on so many fronts, and writes with such a total lack of self-awareness, that he is practically a parody. Surely, one might think after reading Sully, no one could be this wrong and this insulting and this obtuse and still be considered seriously. Sadly, one would be wrong.

    Read him at your own risk. Just remember, every time someone takes Sully seriously a million brain cells die.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 06:24:56 PM EST
    My favorite reads each day:

    • Sullivan/Yglesias

    • BTD and Jeralyn

    My reading list makes says a lot about me?  

    Hilarious.

    Anyway, if you read this chain and others on Sullivan, the insults fly in one direction.  I say that I like Sullivan and you call me dumb.

    Luckily, much of what you say is as wrong as sully on the bell curve.  But hey, you know better than me what a black guy should think of Sullivan.  

    That's the great thing about being a black man with opinions: there are plenty of non black men out there willing to call you dumb and tell you they know better than lack people what black people should be thinking.

    it's wonderful really.

    given how we can't think for ourselves.

    Parent

    Charles Murray (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 06:47:37 PM EST
    is just another "conservative"? Just another person from the other side of the aisle who makes hyper-sensitive ultra-liberals as intolerant as those on the other side..?!

    Really, if today people like Murray are nothing but representative conservatives, what does that say about what conservatism has morphed into in the last couple of decades?

    Parent

    Dr. Benjamin Libet (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 06:56:53 PM EST
    Over the course of your Sullivan defense you've gone from saying you'd never talk about Atrios or Greenwald the way some talk about Sullivan on this site (that he's a wanker) to literally using that exact language (wanker) against Atrios and Greenwald. So there's that.

    Look, we like writers that appeal to our personalities, our temperment, and our general sense of how things "should be done". We seek them out and stick with them, and then when asked why we come up with reasons that make us look good. All of us. You're no different, you like Sullivan for the same reasons others like Atrios -- but we're different people and so one man's "wanker" is another's "genius" and vice versa. And arguments are born and opinions are slow to change -- human nature!

    But you, you seem to have created this mythological objective information consumer who respects all comers. You then posit that you, unlike the majority on this site, are one of them. How convenient.

    I believe 85% of what Krauthammer says is false but do I respect the hell out of him, his intellect and his abilities to see the nuances of various issues? Hell yeah.  The man is no less than a genius despite the fact that he is completely wrong on almost everything.  He is a must read.

    Oh, c'mon! This is close to self parody and what I'm talking about. Are you really going to tell me that this isn't evidence that you're choosing writers that you agree with (even if just tempermentally) and then coming up with self-serving post facto justifications?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#43)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 07:05:21 PM EST
    The guy called me dumb and questioned my race.  

    I kind of felt like that gave me the right to unload some low blows.

    But yes, that was not consistent.  Shouldn't have done that.

    To your bigger point, which is a good one, you are right.  And your point is more appropriately directed at BTD who argues that Sullivan is objectively terrible.  That's his whole theme.

    my Krauthammer reference was evidence of the opposite.  I detest his positions deeply and in a perfect world, I would want fewer people reading him.

    however, is he a wanker? No. Is he a brilliant thinker and writer? Yes.  Do I read him whenever possible to get the clearest explanation of the right's position on an issue? Yes.

    I respect him immensely.  Respect and read doesn't mean "agree with".  

    That's my whole point on Sullivan. BTD keeps pointing to an issue on which he disagrees to argue that no one should read or respect Sullivan.  That seems silly and not at all what the standard should be.

    Parent

    I hate that these sites require subject lines. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 07:17:25 PM EST
    I thought BTD was way out of line with the race stuff (he apparently agreed). Race is not a cage to hem people in to holding certain opinions and berate them with they escape.

    That said, you insulted Atrios before tonight in the same manner (I commented on it then, as well). So I don't think it was BTD's comments that prompted that.

    I don't think it's nuts to feel that a writer's obsessive agreeance with with a topic, especially one with such broad reaching revelance as Charles Murray's writings, disqualifies him from serious consideration.

    I think there's a fundamental disagreement here -- BTD (and I, mostly) feel that the fruits of good opinionating are practical and correct. I feel like you have a more abstracted view of the "forum", wherein people can be entirely wrong again and again and again and still deserve respect -- that's the fruits don't matter. I can't help but feel this stance is more about feeling comfortably centered rather than any appreciation for ideas and concepts.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#50)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 08:10:43 PM EST
    That many liberals are wrong, time and time again, on the subject of obamacare and what could have been, for example.  I think they are very wrong on the idea that the keystone pipeline should not built (I believe we have to build keystone AND push hard on traditionally liberal green initiatives). I believe that there is no way to fix Bush's mistake with Gitmo, and unfortunately we may have to keep people there for a while.

    But I respect liberal pundits I believe to be completely and repeatedly wrong on these ponts as well.

    So we are talking about something beyond just repeated disagreement.  It's not about being in the middle.  It's about the idea that two different people can look at the same facts and fairly come to very different conclusions.  Do I think I am correct on everything I believe? Of course.  Everyone believes that they are completely correct.

    But I think it takes a certain arrogance to argue that if you disagree on a difficult and complex point, you are per se a wanker or evil do'er or what have you.

    I hate when the right paints liberals with a broad brush of evil or commie or whatever based on fundamental disagreement on complex issues.  I'd be a hypocrite not to stand up when we do the same for those that don't follow a certain line of thinking on the majority of points.

    There is plenty of room for good faith, prolonged disagreement without demonizing the other side.  I cringe when people I like (Obama) do it to win elections or discussions.  It works. Calling Sullivan a wanker probably serves to fire people up.  But I am not happy about or proud of it.  It's not good.  It may be with us forever, but that doesn't make it right. If no one else will say It i will.

    As a very liberal,sometimes militant and often highly sensitive on race issue, black man, I would think that I have a somewhat unique ability and voice to judge the evil intent of the bell curve discussions.  Are there racists who embrace the bell curve? Yes.  Is everyone who doesn't reject the bell curve or anything like it without reservation a racist? No. That can't be right. There has to be varying degrees/levels and there is a line I draw between racist and fairly interested.

    I think Derbyshire was a good example of where that line can be drawn.  In other cases it is not so easy, but I look at Sully's other writing on race to assist in judging. That is very relevant.  Sullivanon and his positions on Trayvon Martin for example seem to mirror mine.  That impacts my thinking. His correct diagnosis of the racism underlying much of the tea party and a small but significant chunk of the liberals who supported Hillary in 08 is another.

    Put another way: when some liberals were demanding Obama's birth certificate and claiming that he wasn't up to the task in subtly racist ways became an issue, sully was more pro-black than many of those on the left most offended by the bell curve.   That factors into my thinking as well.  

    There were a whole lot of bell curve haters who thought that Geraldine Ferraro's words weren't a big deal.  Sully did.  That factors in.

    Parent

    As I have noted numerous times: (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 08:47:52 PM EST
    Your coments and sensibilites don't resemble any liberal I have ever known. But keep trying to convince us.

    Parent
    Shoephone (1.00 / 0) (#66)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:03:59 AM EST
    Incorrect. Most liberals believe as I do.

    When 85% of liberals approve of Obama's performance for example, and I was called a non- liberal for doing the same, it became clear that the word liberal as used here is a bastardized form that is disconnected from pragmatism and reality.

    I have no need to convince anyone of anything so feel free to believe what you'd like though.  I'll still label myself a liberal regardless so why bother?

    Parent

    Another opinion (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by sj on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:41:12 AM EST
    stated as fact.
    Incorrect. Most liberals believe as I do.

    Even if this

    When 85% of liberals approve of Obama's performance for example

    is true (I'm not going to look it up.  I'll take it at face value), that in no way supports your first statement except for that one narrowly defined sliver -- Obama's approval rating.  Because liberal ideals didn't exist before Obama, I guess.

    Bastardized form disconnected from pragmatism and reality?  You really should be embarrased by the drivel you're putting out right now.  I'm almost embarrassed for you.  

    Parent

    Pray tell, which LIBERALS were demanding (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 08:50:02 PM EST
    Obama's birth certificate?

    Parent
    Note that ABG did not answer this question (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:19:44 AM EST


    Parent
    No Quarter (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:07:12 PM EST
    And various other parts of puma nation.

    Parent
    "Puma nation"?!? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 05:33:02 PM EST
    No - just a loony conspiracist.

    BTW - If we're just pulling random stuff off obscure websites and attributing it to "Puma nation", do yo want some really crazy stuff from Obot nation?

    Parent

    bring it (1.00 / 1) (#149)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 05:43:34 PM EST
    ill put the crazies on Obama's side against the puma nuts and win every day all day.

    boring game.but I don't run from the challenge if you must.

    let's take into another chain though.

    Parent

    You have to win ONCE ... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:50:53 PM EST
    ... before you can start worrying about winning "every day all day".

    "Period.

    Full stop.

    With authority."

    (snicker)

    Parent

    There is nothing even remotely liberal (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:00:09 PM EST
    about No Quarter. Johnson is a wacko hawk and a racist. And you continue to embarrass yourself with your idiotic comments.

    Parent
    Sometimes, reading you when (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:03:55 PM EST
    others are putting your feet to the fire is like watching a contortionist's act; I often wonder if you will be able to get to the end of it in some recognizably logical form, and more often than not, you don't.  

    I certainly respect everyone's right to have opinions, and to express them; it doesn't mean I have to respect the opinions expressed.  And at some point, those opinions aggregate to the point where their totality forms an individual whom I do not respect.  It doesn't matter to me how brilliant someone is if the product of that brilliance is in service to ugliness.  I mourn that the brilliance is spent disseminating opinions that I find regressive and stifling and selfish and scientifically and empirically wrong and not in the best interests of most of the people to whom they are directed.

    Perhaps the rhetorical rope-a-dope you think you're engaging in makes sense to you, but I think it's clear that most people here just aren't buying it.  That may be because most of the people don't give a rat's ass what "most" of any group thinks, don't constantly have their fingers to the wind trying to divine what it is some pundit has told them he or she should be thinking.  

    The rhetorical hole you've dug - once again - is plenty deep; it would be my suggestion that you quit digging.

    Parent

    Far more telling ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:05:28 PM EST
    There were a whole lot of bell curve haters who thought that Geraldine Ferraro's words weren't a big deal.  Sully did.  That factors in.

    ... than anything else you've said.  Sully's criticism of Ferraro was no surprise - he's always been a big Clinton-hater and Obama supporter.

    Parent

    I don't like Sully (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:34:51 AM EST
    But Geraldine Ferraro was way out of line.  And you don't need to hate Clinton to admit that.

    Parent
    Well true (imo) (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by sj on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    but what does that have to do with the Bell Curve and "bell curve haters"?  He's just throwing poop out there to see what sticks.

    Parent
    yea agreed (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:52:43 AM EST
    Sully is full of it.  Even a stopped clock...  and no, it doesn't make me like him more.

    Shoot, Cheney supports (sort of) gay marriage and Bush was downright liberal on immigration (again, sort of).  Doesn't make me forgive the rest.  I just really hate the Ferraro defense.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    Ferraro was right.

    No need to "admit" anything.

    Parent

    Replace (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CST on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:50:48 AM EST
    the people and the word black for female and tell me again how that comment is okay.  It's not.  Obama wouldn't be himself if he weren't black, I'll give you that much.  But yea, it's sooo easy, that's why we've had so many black presidents already right?

    Honestly I felt like these discussions were some of the ugliest at TL during the primaries, so I'd rather not revisit it anymore.  Feel free to continue thinking she was right, I will feel free to continue being disgusted by it.

    Parent

    Thanks for the permission (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 12:26:17 PM EST
    OTOH - I don't need it.

    BTW - I don't need to replace the word "black" with "female" to draw an analogy.  Ferraro already did that when she noted that she would never have been selected for the VP slot in 1984 were it not for the fact that she was a woman ... and we still haven't had a female VP or POTUS.

    But keep chucking that straw.

    Parent

    Relitigation (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:01:42 AM EST
    Eh, in the link you provided Bob Johnson has charitably reworded what Ferraro said into what he thought she "meant". As reworded, it's still highly questionable -- history being stochastic and all -- save for the part about a white freshman senator likely not picking up 90% of the black vote straightaway, which seems like it would generally be true with a generic candidate (note: there is no such thing as a generic candidate).

    Ferraro's actual comment was this:

    [If Barack Obama] was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

    I could re-litigate the whole thing, but it's shorter to just say two things. One, as noted above, there is no such thing as a generic candidate and comparing a very real Obama to some white freshman senator of no known political skill was silly.

    Two, my guess is that had Hillary Clinton won the primary and the Republicans made the same argument against her (that if she was a white man she would not be faring as well against McCain, and that voters were merely caught up in the concept of a woman president) Ferraro would have found them abhorable. Ferraro's comments always sounded like sour grapes to me, with the sourness overwhelming the real issues of sexism and electoral demographics in that campaign.

    Obama had advantages and disadvantages because of his biography, just like every candidate. He was also incredibly disciplined, ambitious, and charismatic -- these attributes plainly aided him in overcoming his experiential deficit far more than being a black man.

    Parent

    Of course he talked about ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 12:22:56 PM EST
    ... what she "meant" - it's precisely what her critics did when she made the comments.

    I could re-litigate the whole thing, but I'll just note a couple of things:

    1. As Ferraro claimed, the country was caught up with the excitement of electing the first, AA President - particularly among Democratic primary voters and particularly among AA voters, a critical Democratic voting bloc.  Do you really think Obama's race wasn't a significant factor in getting 90% of the AA vote?

    2.  Ferraro wasn't claiming that race is the only reason that Obama won - she's pointing out that it was a big advantage in the Democratic primary.

    It was.

    As far as Obama being ambitious and charismatic - yep.  That puts him in the company of several dozen politicians with presidential ambitions.  Disciplined?  I don't know that he's extraordinarily disciplined, but whatever.

    3)  If it's silly to compare Obama to a hypothetical, generic, white politician, then how is it not silly to compare Ferraro's hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical Republican argument (that she was faring better against McCain because she was a woman) after Clinton's hypothetical victory?

    I would also note that Ferraro herself noted that she would not have been "where she was" in 1984 (VP nominee) if she was a man.

    Parent

    ASDF (none / 0) (#92)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 12:38:27 PM EST
    You say, "Do you really think Obama's race wasn't a significant factor in getting 90% of the AA vote?" Obviously not. In fact, in the very comment you're responding to, I specifically singled that part out, writing:

    As reworded, it's still highly questionable -- history being stochastic and all -- save for the part about a white freshman senator likely not picking up 90% of the black vote straightaway, which seems like it would generally be true

    You either didn't read my comment carefully or your clowning a bit, here.

    Ferraro wasn't claiming that race is the only reason that Obama won - she's pointing out that it was a big advantage in the Democratic primary.

    Eh, this depends on what "position" you think Ferraro was talking about. At the time she made these comments, Obama was the frontrunner to win the primary -- his position was "winning". In that context, Ferraro said, "[If Barack Obama] was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position". What position? Again, winning. So if he weren't a black man he wouldn't be winning (which is a reshuffled form of the equation, "race is the only reason that Obama won", just shifted from "winning" to "won" -- which isn't a big difference).

    If it's silly to compare Obama to a hypothetical, generic, white politician, then how is it not silly to compare Ferraro's hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical Republican argument (that she was faring better against McCain because she was a woman) after Clinton's hypothetical victory?

    Yup. Both are silly. That was the point. Sticking in "hypothetical" after everything doesn't accomplish anything -- everyone knows that both Ferraro and my quoted comments' were speculative and not sturdy enough to hang a hat on. Well, maybe Ferraro herself didn't seem to know that.

    As far as Obama being ambitious and charismatic - yep.  That puts him in the company of several dozen politicians with presidential ambitions.  Disciplined?  I don't know that he's extraordinarily disciplined, but whatever.

    Including many Democratic men of color, none of whom were ever able to take advantage of this allegedly huge advantage until Obama. Interesting that he was the first to make a real dent (and win) if it's such a "lucky" thing. Obama was more ambitious and charismatic by several standard deviations than most politicians, and he's proven that with results. (Harold Ford is the best foil for Obama in this context).

    I would also note that Ferraro herself noted that she would not have been "where she was" in 1984 (VP nominee) if she was a man.

    Good for her!

    Parent

    So if you agree ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    ... that Obama would not have received 90% of the AA vote if he wasn't black, then how can you so strongly disagree with Ferraro's assertion.  That vote was critical to the position Obama was in at the time she made her comments.  IOW - Obama "would not be in this position" if he wasn't black.

    Eh, this depends on what "position" you think Ferraro was talking about. At the time she made these comments, Obama was the frontrunner to win the primary -- his position was "winning". In that context, Ferraro said, "[If Barack Obama] was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position".  What position? Again, winning. So if he weren't a black man he wouldn't be winning (which is a reshuffled form of the equation, "race is the only reason that Obama won", just shifted from "winning" to "won" -- which isn't a big difference).

    Uhhhmmm, no - it isn't just a "reshuffled form of the equation" - it's a whole, new equation.  Ferraro never said that the only reason Obama was winning (or won) is because he was black.  She was saying that he wouldn't have been "in that position"/winning if he wasn't black.  The race was extremely close at that point, and Obama benefited from excitement about having the first, AA president, particularly among AA voters (record turnouts and 90% support).  There were/are many potential reasons Obama was "in that position"/winning, but a strong argument can be made that without this excitement and the AA primary support, he would not have held the narrow lead he did at that time.  Polls bear out the fact that more voters (particularly AA voters) believe Obama's race helped him more than it hurt him in the primary.

    Yup. Both are silly. That was the point. Sticking in "hypothetical" after everything doesn't accomplish anything -- everyone knows that both Ferraro and my quoted comments' were speculative and not sturdy enough to hang a hat on. Well, maybe Ferraro herself didn't seem to know that.

    Okay.  So you dismiss the hypothetical white candidate argument as silly, yet you make the argument that Ferraro would find analagous comments about a female candidate "abhorable" - now, dismissing the same argument?

    Heh.

    Obama was more ambitious and charismatic by several standard deviations than most politicians, and he's proven that with results. (Harold Ford is the best foil for Obama in this context).

    Really?  How do you measure that, exactly?  Ambition, to be more precise.  Moreover, in case you haven't noticed, the charisma-thing has worn a bit thin after he stopped getting the kid-glove treatment he received in the primary.

    Of course, rhetoric does tend to be a bit easier than governing.

    BTW - How is Harold Ford "the best foil for Obama in this context"?  Simply because he's AA?  The fact that Ford (who never even ran for POTUS) wasn't elected POTUS is evidence that Obama's race wasn't an advantage in the 2008 primary?  Or is it supposed to be evidence of Obama's superior (by "several standard deviations") ambition and charisma?

    Interesting logic.

    "I would also note that Ferraro herself noted that she would not have been "where she was" in 1984 (VP nominee) if she was a man."

    Good for her!

    So you're clear, I pointed that out for two reasons: 1) Kinda shoots down your whole hypothetical response analogy, and 2) It also illustrates her consistency on the issue and the fact that it wasn't a racist comment - she was merely pointing out the fact that, in her opinion, Obama's race helped him in the 2008 primary.  Unless, of course,...

    ... she's a sexist, too.

    Parent

    I think you've lost the thread. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:47:02 PM EST
    Ferraro never said that the only reason Obama was winning (or won) is because he was black.  She was saying that he wouldn't have been "in that position"/winning if he wasn't black.

    This is just quibbling about usage. It's like my saying, "the Giants only won the game because they scored a last minute touchdown to go up by 2". Someone can quibble that they also won because of the points they scored earlier -- but then the other team scored as well. But the reason they won instead of lost was because of the last minute touchdown. But, regarding the quibbling: you have your opinion on how the "tipping point" should be regarded in winner-take-all contests, I have mine. Fine. We're not going to progress any further on that issue.

    Polls bear out the fact that more voters (particularly AA voters) believe Obama's race helped him more than it hurt him in the primary.

    Good for the polltakers!

    Okay.  So you dismiss the hypothetical white candidate argument as silly, yet you make the argument that Ferraro would find analagous comments about a female candidate "abhorable" - now, dismissing the same argument?

    They're both silly things (as I've already said), one of which Ferraro actually said and one I am of the opinion she would have said. Your mileage may vary on the latter. Not sure what's unclear about that.

    BTW - How is Harold Ford "the best foil for Obama in this context"?  Simply because he's AA?  The fact that Ford (who never even ran for POTUS) wasn't elected POTUS is evidence that Obama's race wasn't an advantage in the 2008 primary?  Or is it supposed to be evidence of Obama's superior (by "several standard deviations") ambition and charisma?

    Oh gaaaaaaaawd, what are you even talking about here? Yes, who would have ever guessed that in a discussion where the sole context is race (specifically black males) and achievement I might find another high-achieving black man as the best foil for a comparison of "intangible" persona traits. SHOCKING! The highly ambitious Ford never ran, true. This is my point. Ford was not charismatic and, unlike Obama, had no real electoral skill. He had political insider skill (sort of). He's an excellent foil for Obama on this.

    the charisma-thing has worn a bit thin

    And? Is anyone doubting that it was present in 2008 (the time period we're talking about, in case you've forgotten).

    So you're clear, I pointed that out for two reasons: 1) Kinda shoots down your whole hypothetical response analogy, and 2) It also illustrates her consistency on the issue and the fact that it wasn't a racist comment - she was merely pointing out the fact that, in her opinion, Obama's race helped him in the 2008 primary.  Unless, of course, she's a sexist, too.

    (1) No it doesn't.

    (2) Or she's wrong/overly-reductive on both.

    Parent

    You must be looking at ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:49:23 PM EST
    ... the wrong thread.

    It's not "just about usage" - you're putting words in Ferraro's (and, by extension, my) mouth.  Neither one of us ever claimed that Obama was winning only because of his race.  It was, however an advantage in an extremely close 2008 primary.  Without the record AA turnout and 90% AA primary vote that you agree Obama would not have enjoyed if he wasn't AA, he would not have "been in that position"/winning.  Of course there were other factors - but without that advantage in the Democratic primary, Obama wouldn't have been winning/won.

    Obama's charisma and ambition are not the final score of a game, as you would claim in your analogy.  There's no final, "winning score" in a political campaign, as there is in a football game.  There's no temporal significance to these traits, as there is to a last-minute scoring drive.  Obama's victory was made up of a number of factors, like a cake recipe.  Without the eggs (charisma), no cake.  Without the milk (ambition), no cake.  Without the flour (excitement, turnout and AA support because of Obama's race), no cake.  That was Ferraro's comment - not what you're trying to twist it into (the only reason he won is because he is AA).

    Good for the polltakers!

    Nope - good for the voters for recognizing the obvious.  To the extent that Obama's race had any effect on his primary win, it helped him.  In such a close victory, they support the notion that Obama's race was an advantage, one which could easily have won him the nomination.

    They're both silly things (as I've already said), one of which Ferraro actually said and one I am of the opinion she would have said. Your mileage may vary on the latter. Not sure what's unclear about that.

    I just find it amusing that you dismiss Ferraro's hypothetical while engaging in your own speculation about her hypothetical reaction - one which is contradicted by her previous comments about her selection in 1984.


    Oh gaaaaaaaawd, what are you even talking about here? Yes, who would have ever guessed that in a discussion where the sole context is race (specifically black males) and achievement I might find another high-achieving black man as the best foil for a comparison of "intangible" persona traits. SHOCKING! The highly ambitious Ford never ran, true. This is my point. Ford was not charismatic and, unlike Obama, had no real electoral skill. He had political insider skill (sort of). He's an excellent foil for Obama on this.

    Or, it could be that Ford - who won 5 elections in a very conservative state - didn't want to run, or didn't think he had a chance for a myriad of other reasons, or he didn't have the "insider skill"/support that Obama had, or, .. or ... or ...


    And? Is anyone doubting that it was present in 2008 (the time period we're talking about, in case you've forgotten).

    No one's doubting "it was present" (charisma, ambition) in 2008 - just like many or most politicians.  He can read a good speech, and wants to get ahead.

    Wow.

    BTW - I notice you ignored the question about your measurement techniques ("Obama was more ambitious and charismatic by several standard deviations than most politicians, and he's proven that with results.").  "Several standard deviations" sounds so ... scientific.  Almost like you actually had some kind of data or evidence, as opposed to ...

    ... just an opinion.

    Also, if Obama has proven his superior ambition and charisma with results, (by winning an election), does that mean that GWB (or GHWB, for that matter) have also "proven it with results"?


    (1) No it doesn't.

    (2) Or she's wrong/overly-reductive on both.

    1.  It doesn't prove a negative to you hypothetical - something that is inherently impossible.  It does, however, show that she's not likely to be "abhorred" by the idea that being a female could be an advantage in geeting a party nomination, something that she herself acknowledged was true in her own case in 1984.

    2.  That's your opinion?

    Oh, well ...

    Parent
    Of course it's my opinion. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:51:42 PM EST


    Parent
    My opinion is she's right n/t (none / 0) (#110)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:59:06 PM EST


    Parent
    And mine is that she's not. Seems like we're done. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 03:10:25 PM EST


    Parent
    If you say so (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 03:28:58 PM EST
    Unless you wanted to add the evidence that "Obama was more ambitious and charismatic by several standard deviations than most politicians".

    Was it simply because he won an election (ala GW Bush, GHW Bush)?  Was it the fainting in the crowds ...?

    Parent

    My opinion, influenced by results obtained. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 03:39:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Ohhhh ... that's IT? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    "Several standard deviations more than most other politicians" sounded almost, ... statistical.

    But I guess the results do put him in GHW Bush territory - (not GW Bush yet, given that GW won twice).  Hey!  Are we just going by election wins?  'Cause I think Harold Ford has him by 5-4.

    Parent

    Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:02:24 PM EST
    "Several standard deviations more than most other politicians" sounded almost, ... statistical.

    I'll try to remember to keep my future replies to you as concrete and literal as possible, to avoid confusion.

    But I guess the results do put him in GHW Bush territory - (not GW Bush yet, given that GW won twice).  Hey!  Are we just going by election wins?  'Cause I think Harold Ford has him by 5-4.

    Going from "nobody" to President/Senator in the fewest number of elections is perhaps a better metric of pure political skill than total elections won. But it's not a perfect metric. If I wasn't convinced that you are just clowning at this point, I'd love to talk about it further. But I think you are, so I wouldn't.

    Parent

    Of course I'm clowning (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:14:04 PM EST
    What else do you do with a claim like that?

    BTW - Interesting choice of metrics.  But I think that means Obama's lagging behind such charismatic/ambitious giants as Zachary Taylor, U.S. Grant, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, and Dwight Eisenhower.

    While they weren't "nobodies", they never held a single,  elected office before being elected POTUS.

    Parent

    Autoreply. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:27:12 PM EST
    BTW - Interesting choice of metrics.

    But it's not a perfect metric. If I wasn't convinced that you are just clowning at this point, I'd love to talk about it further. But I think you are, so I wouldn't.

    Parent

    Autoreply? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:36:50 PM EST
    "Not a perfect metric"?  Not even close.

    But carefully crafted.

    As far as the "clowning", ... yes.  Pretty sure I stated as much.

    Parent

    Autoreply 2. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:39:10 PM EST
    If you weren't just clowning, I'd love to talk about it further. But you are, so I wouldn't.

    Parent
    I wouldn't want to talk about it ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    ... either, if I were you.

    Parent
    Well, I'm a Yglesias Award Nominee... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:10:48 PM EST
    ...so I've got that bona fide going for my criticism of Sullivan. According to the man himself I "actually criticize [my] own side, make enemies among political allies, and generally risk something for the sake of saying what [I] believe". So...

    Parent
    (This is true, but offered tongue-in-cheek) (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:15:35 PM EST


    Parent
    I am actually (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:05:38 AM EST
    Impressed.

    Parent
    He didn't question your race (none / 0) (#54)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 08:51:25 PM EST
    He called you out for being dumb. Stick to the facts.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#69)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:06:16 AM EST
    He questioned my race.

    Now you are just trying to find something wrong.

    Parent

    To be fair (none / 0) (#86)
    by sj on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    I didn't see BTD's comment on race either, only his reference to it which appears later.

    Parent
    He (none / 0) (#95)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:10:07 PM EST
    Suspended himself for a reason.

    He questioned my race and apologized.

    Parent

    You have no idea (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:06:27 PM EST
    in what order the comments were read.  Was shoephone mistaken? It could have been an honest mistake.  

    I would think you would understand that.

    Parent

    Krauthammer "is no less than a genius" (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 08:55:34 PM EST
    ...and over the cliff we go...

    Parent
    if Krauthammer's a genius (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:59:45 PM EST
    than Obama must be what? A spiritual avatar descended to this realm from some higher plain of existence?

    Parent
    Yep - but that was ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:24:53 PM EST
    ... back in 2008.

    Parent
    I'll say this for you (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:15:45 PM EST
    I believe 85% of what Krauthammer says is false but do I respect the hell out of him, his intellect and his abilities to see the nuances of various issues?

    Hell yeah.  The man is no less than a genius despite the fact that he is completely wrong on almost everything.  He is a must read.

    You're not afraid to embarrass yourself in public.  There's something to be said for that.  Although I'm not sure what, exactly.

    Parent
    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#70)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    I am going waaaaaay out on a limb in arguing that Krauthammer is a brilliant political analyst.

    Let me shock you all and assert that Karl Rove is fairly good at politics!

    CAN YOU BELIEVE I JUST SAID THAT!

    geezus.  There are smart people on the other side folks.  It's OK to say that.  You don't turn into santorum if the words leave your mouth.

    Parent

    You just put out your (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:31:39 AM EST
    lack of critical thinking skills out there for everyone to see.  And then double down on it.  

    A brilliant analyst produces good analysis.  Not 85% wrong ...something or other.  No matter how much you like his pretty (apparently in your opinion) way of putting it.

    And the party that Karl Rove helped to create is coming apart at the seams due to bat$hit crazy.  He helped put a mediocre scion of a decadent family in the White House.  Do you think that the politics of wedge issues was good in the long run for the GOP?  It sure as heck hasn't been good for the country.  Do you think that's good politics?  

    Are you going to double down again?


    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#99)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:30:32 PM EST
    Politics is winning. From that perspective rove has been excellent.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    Rove has proven that winning for the sake of winning doesn't last and can destroy you in the long run. What lasting legacy did the GOP create from the Bush Administration? The only thing i can think of is it destroyed their brand for a generation.    

    Parent
    Politics is winning (none / 0) (#105)
    by sj on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:15:51 PM EST
    as long as you think it's a game.

    I don't.  I think when it's functional it's the vehicle for governance.  Not for obstruction.  Not for making points.  Not for selfish interests.  It's the only way the Greater Good can be accomplished collectively.

    I know you think it's a game.  It's all about points with you.  In the meantime, the gap between rich and poor has been widening.  That is the result of treating it as a game.  Instead of the vehicle for the greater good.  

    Respect Sully all you want -- you're two of a kind (although I suspect Sully would be horrified to be compartmentalized with a person of color).  I won't.

    Parent

    Nonsequitor (none / 0) (#144)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 04:45:02 PM EST
    you commented on what politics is and politics is about winning.  then when you didn't like that truth you switched to whether it's all a game, which is a completely different point.

    my point, the one you are trying to change the subject from, is that Rove is very good at politics. I didn't comment on whether Rive was good for policy or the country because that was beyond the scope of my original point.

    you simply changed the subject when you weren't able to pound on me for not caring about people or supporting Rove's policies or whatever rubbish you are forced to twist my words into for purposes of winning the day.

    Parent

    Opinion stated as fact (none / 0) (#161)
    by sj on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:29:45 AM EST
    You are such a lazy thinker.
    politics is about winning.
    As if a campaign season is the sum total of politics.  Lazy, lazy thinking.

    Parent
    I'm actually going to delete (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 06:19:19 PM EST
    the comments on your identity and race.

    I do not get to make those comments.

    My apologies.

    And I am suspended for the (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 06:20:30 PM EST
    next day for what I wrote.

    Parent
    This is to ABG (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 06:21:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Do not suspend yourself (none / 0) (#37)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 06:29:16 PM EST
    On my account.  I sent an email about one particular gripe to the site's email address, but I am otherwise cool.

    Am I angry about what you said? Yup. Do I think it was completely unfair? Yup.

    Do I want to keep talking about this because it is fun?

    Yup.

    Parent

    What I find so offensive about your (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 08:45:25 PM EST
    arrogance in being the only person on this blog who understands matters of race, I say " bulsh*t" and then some. It has obviously escaped you that there are other people of race commenting on this blog. Oh, and most important, the guy who called you out for being dumb on matters of race is Puerto Rican.

    Doh!

    Parent

    Arrogance (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:11:43 AM EST
    Is a white guy telling me that I don't understand what the bell curve means.

    Period. Full stop. With authority.  I am not saying I know more than anyone.  All I am saying is that you damn better know who I am before a white guy says they have a better understanding of this than me.

    But OK.  Let's also tell women that we men know better than them how to deal with the threat of rape and that we know what's sexist better than they do.

    That'll fly.

    Parent

    Do you really think that just typing ... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:28:49 AM EST
    ..."Period.  Full stop.  With authority." -  actually means you actually have authority, or even the appearance of authority when you're making this kind of claim?

    Funny stuff.

    BTW - Extending your logic, when a winger goes off on a rant about "reverse racism!", does that mean you (as a non-white) should defer to their opinion?  Should he tell you that you "damn better know who I am before a black guy says they have a better understanding of this than me" (whatever that means)?

    'Cause that's even funnier.

    Parent

    Which white guy? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:18:51 AM EST


    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:22:40 AM EST
    If you think being puerto rican makes a difference, there is less of an understanding of the nuances of race here than I thought.

    It's like the hilarious people arguing that Zimmerman couldn't have been racist because he is half Hispanic.

    But go ahead and complete the race loop and tell me that BTD has black friends too.

    Parent

    You're an even bigger idiot than I thought (none / 0) (#83)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:17:59 AM EST
    and that's saying something. Everytime you make a comment you make a bigger fool of yourself.

    Parent
    I feel (none / 0) (#96)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:10:58 PM EST
    Pretty good about this chain actually.

    Parent
    The only reason you should feel (none / 0) (#106)
    by sj on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:18:32 PM EST
    "pretty good" about this chain is because you have very successfully blog-clogged it.  And in the process limned -- once again -- what a shallow thinker you are.

    Most people are not so proud of  their limitations.  But then apparently you admire Karl Rove.  Because he wins.

    That kind of turns my stomach a little.  

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#145)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 04:48:01 PM EST
    Are incapable of distinguish between respecting a opponent's capabilities and respecting an opponent's positions.

    if I were unable to distinguish between those two nuances, I would probably spend a fair amount of time sickened by complex discussions as well.

    Parent

    That's really funny coming from you (none / 0) (#160)
    by sj on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:23:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Coates (none / 0) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 06:40:05 PM EST
    Thoughts on Sullivan echo mine so I copy them again here.  I think his position echoes of many black writers and political junkies on Sullivan

    "I remember when Andrew published The Bell Curve excerpt in The New Republic. I was an undergraduate at Howard University -- same city, but a different world. All of the young intellectuals who'd gather under the flag-pole on the yard were hot and angry. But a professor on campus (and I wish I could remember who) handed out xeroxed copies of the excerpt and its responses and simply told us, "Arm yourselves." Don't get angry he told us. Get informed. That the in flight magazine of Air Force One would argue that all the world I'd known was brain addled set me afire. Some years later I had seen more of the world. But I was still burning.  

    I didn't remember the name of the editor of that particular issue. Yet there I was regularly reading this Sullivan dude, when I was supposed to be working. Even before his split with the right Andrew wrote with an energy and tenacity that amazed me then, as sure as proud pushing of The Bell Curve amazed me later when I put the two together. There are only a handful of living writers who've had more impact on me. And yet here I am having to balance all the wisdom I've gotten from him, with moments like these."

    It is possible to disagree with the bell curve yet respect the writing and intellect, particularly when racism isn't at the heart of the point of disagreement.  Coates in their battle pushes Sullivan to see the broader impact of the bell curve and supporting it and he's right.  But I can understand Sullivan's larger point which also could lead the world to view homosexuality as a genetic defect and fuel homophobia in an unprecedented way.

    Sully's position is ultimately every bit as homophobic as it is gay (possibly). That is his larger point.  Don't know wha is right but I don't think you have to be racist or homophobic to discuss it seriously.

    Sully, Wanker | 155 comments (155 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment