Andrew Sullivan on Dede Scozzafava’s meltdown (and subsequent dropout):
No one knows what might happen now. For the insurgents, it means a scalp they will surely use to purge the GOP of any further dissidence. But the insurgents were also backed by the establishment, including Tim Pawlenty, who’s supposed to be the reasonable center.
What we’re seeing, I suspect, is an almost classic example of a political party becoming more ideological after its defeat at the polls. in order for that ideology to win, they will also have to portray the Obama administration as so far to the left that voters have no choice but to back the Poujadists waiting in the wings. And that, of course, is what they’re doing. There is a method to the Ailes-Drudge-Cheney-Rove denialism. They create reality, remember?
Of course, liberal journalists being gobsmackingly gobsmacked over Matt Drudge is nothing new. His run-ins with the establishment date back to the Clinton era:
You can tell the phoniness of the anti-Drudge consensus by its blustering incoherence. Former White House spokesmen Joe Lockhart and Mike McCurry often refused to answer press questions that emanated from rumors circulated by Drudge. It was, they averred, beneath them. Did it ever dawn on them that for almost a year Drudge was telling the truth and the president was telling grade-A, USDA-approved whoppers? You’d think the man who helped break the Lewinsky story would have gained some level of respect in its wake. But no. In the official wisdom of Washington, the
hacks who rewrite White House press releases day after day are far more distinguished than the man Bill Clinton once referred to as “Sludge.” (Full disclosure: Drudge’s site has carried a link to my work for months, along with links to dozens of other writers.)When Drudge’s ill-conceived TV show was canned last year, his critics salivated. Frank Rich, a reliable barometer of bien-pensant liberalism, unloaded this bizarre opinion: “Journalistic watchdogs should be overjoyed at their nemesis’s ignominious exit from the tube. We should be thrilled that he no
longer has the power to terrorize the nation’s news cycles with his apocalyptic bulletins.” The pooh-bahs of journalism schools were equally dismissive. Marvin Kalb, Harvard’s chief press chin-stroker, has called Drudge a “conveyor of gossipy information.” Joan Konner, big macher at the Columbia Journalism
School, has said Drudge is “by no reasonable measure working in the public interest.” Give me a break. You can understand why the White House or Hillary Clinton might be happy to see Drudge take
a fall. But fellow journalists? “Thrilled” that the man who was the first to air the Lewinsky story might be silenced? “Overjoyed” that a lone hack with a phone and a modem might be quashed? Here’s a brief list of stories Drudge has aired first: the intern, the dress, the cigar, the MSNBC merger, Jack Kemp’s
vice presidential nomination, Seinfeld’s $1 million-per-episode salary, Kathleen Willey’s trauma, Princess Diana’s death. In recent months, Drudge has pioneered the story of Dick Cheney’s openly lesbian daughter and Hillary Clinton’s hospitality in the White House for her campaign donors. I don’t know why Rich and Konner think airing these stories is not in the public interest, but it seems to me that hypocrisy, law-breaking, and corner-cutting among our political leaders are subjects worth raising.
Yes, if you haven’t guessed yet, that was an earlier version of Andrew Sullivan, in the New Republic, way back in 2000. If only 2000-era Andrew could remind his current incarnation, “You can tell the phoniness of the anti-Drudge consensus by its blustering incoherence.”
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
14 Comments
1. GayPatriot » Dede’s Out, Lefty Bloggers on Warpath Against Right:[...] leave it to other conservative bloggers to analyze the angry ramblings of left-wing bloggers and pundits now that liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava has [...]
Nov 1, 2009 - 1:04 am 2. Instapundit » Blog Archive » ON MATT DRUDGE, IT’S Andrew Sullivan vs. Andrew Sullivan….:[...] ON MATT DRUDGE, IT’S Andrew Sullivan vs. Andrew Sullivan. [...]
Nov 1, 2009 - 8:22 pm 3. Patrick1:It was sad to see Sullivan melt down over the last five years because of the opposition of people he agreed with on countless issues, didn’t agree with him on his “big” issue, sodomite marriage.
Nov 1, 2009 - 9:20 pm 4. Mike_K:I don’t even care about gay marriage. Can Sullivan get close enough to reality to see that Bush could not adopt his position and still win elections among the vast majority of American voters ? Sullivan is like the man who thinks UFOs are the major issue in the election. A reality check would be good.
Nov 1, 2009 - 9:40 pm 5. Fr. Phlegm:Sullivan is no longer a Conservative, by his own definition. He’s mocked by Leftists. He has no where to go after this Tuesday. Ask his hero Obama to post him to Kabul to chronicle the escalation into our new Vietnam for the Stars and Stripes?
Nov 1, 2009 - 9:41 pm 6. David Thomson:“…didn’t agree with him on his “big” issue, sodomite marriage.”
The irony is that Andrew Sullivan is unwitting giving conservatives a backhanded compliment. He was enraged that neither George W. Bush nor John McCain would come out for gay marriage. Sullivan conveniently overlooks, however, the fact that also neither John Kerry nor Barack Obama supported gay marriage during their presidential runs. In other words, he takes for granted the latter two men are lying! Our English cousin is literally upset that conservative Republicans dare to tell him the truth. He prefers hearing the lies.
Nov 1, 2009 - 9:48 pm 7. Kensington:Silly, silly Andrew.
Nov 1, 2009 - 9:53 pm 8. ian:Not sure if gay marriage is the real reason Sullivan has made a big U turn in the past few years.
It seems to me that he is someone who gets infatuated and carried away with someone, only to be disillusioned later on.
He’s in full swoon right now for Obama – disillusionment is about a year away, by my reckoning. Of course, just as with Bush, he will need some face saving reason (”I had no idea that Obama … blah blah blah.” ).
I actually rather look forward to it. It will be amusing – even if it is thoroughly predictable.
Nov 1, 2009 - 10:59 pm 9. Cato:“There is a method to the Ailes-Drudge-Cheney-Rove denialism. They create reality, remember?”
I am so tired of the left’s constant rehashing of this dubious meme. It’s based on an anonymous quote allegedly from a Bush White House aide, reported by a left-leaning journalist.
In the first place, without a named source for the quote, there is no way to determine its accuracy or how representative it is of the White House as a whole. Secondly, leftists who cite this quote frequently extrapolate one anonymous staffer’s words to apply to everybody on the right.
For instance, how fair is it for Sullivan to attribute this one anonymous aide’s views to “Ailes-Drudge-Cheney-Rove”? It’s intellectually lazy, and totally absurd. Not to mention, it’s devolved into a tired, meaningless cliche.
Nov 2, 2009 - 1:44 am 10. Pawn:Sullivan has been offically paid for by the DOJ. Ignore him from now on.
Nov 2, 2009 - 5:51 am 11. Banjo:Sullivan’s erratic course can be explained by the dementia that comes with AIDS.
Nov 2, 2009 - 6:44 am 12. setnaffa:Who, exactly is AS’s audience these days? Those still suffering BDS? I saw him once on a news show and immediately classified him with Bill Maher as a frothy-mouthed America-hater…
The recently more frequent tinfoil hat commentaries seem to point out the truth in Romans 1:18-32 (”http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-32&version=NIV”).
Nov 2, 2009 - 7:57 am 13. Jim O'Sullivan:Sullivan confused? Contradicting his old posts? Not exactly worthy of a Drudge blinking-alarm headline.
Nov 2, 2009 - 9:33 am 14. Mondo:Why do people continue to pay attention to what he says? I mean, so what?
Posts like his latest on Scozzafava and Drudge keep Sullivan occupied. I haven’t seen any Palin ovary probe pieces for at least a day or two.
Nov 2, 2009 - 10:10 am