36 Comments

1. Fausta:

Brilliant!

And comparing the NYT to the Swiffer Wet Mop makes it even more so.

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:37 pm 2. scaramouoche:

There is no one, and I mean NO ONE, writing today who can even get near Lileks when he works up a good head of steam.

I just sent this piece to a Sullivan aficionado, to whom I also addressed this blog entry (it’s no lileks, but I do my best):

http://www.scaramouche.motime.com/

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:55 pm 3. Charlie (Colorado):

The answer to Sully:

And while you’re pummeling Evil, you keep pummeling, until it gives up and decides that it has better things to do than Be Evil. Because it knows where you live, and it could come knocking any day now. And you just cleaned your living room and you don’t even like tea.

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:41 pm 4. Seismic:

AS has just been verbally bitch slapped by Lileks. Then again, maybe that is how he likes it.

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:44 pm 5. Terrye:

Lileks is wonderful. And he is right.

Everytime I hear that crap about how Bushitler has not united America I gotta roll my eyes and sigh. Takes two to tango, only people like Sully are too self absorbed to know that.

Now I want him to get Hitchens too.

Are all the liberal hawks except Roger going to squishy?

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:48 pm 6. EODave:

I fear Andrew Sullivan is so wrapped around his single issue, that he fails to realize Kerry will lie to him as easily as he lies to Goose hunters. Lileks creamed him,pointing out his intellectually dishonest rationalizations.

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:48 pm 7. charlotte:

(Kerry) has said quite clearly that he will not “cut and run” in Iraq. And the truth is: He cannot.

Lileks gives us the right answer to this Sully unseriousness, using just one image- that of our wrenching Saigon pullout in ‘75. But, even as a strong Bush supporter, I feel it only fair to offer an image that might give some credence to what AS says. If you’ve ever seen any of Kerry’s (out of) touch football action on the tarmac, you know it’s true about not cutting and running: he simply cannot.

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:50 pm 8. Jamie Irons:

Andrew Sullivan is a brilliant writer, who uses his brilliance to make sophistic arguments that I doubt he believes.

He wants so badly to be accepted as “normal” &mdash whatever that is. He is literally ready to trade away his adopted country’s security for (an illusory) chance to “marry” &mdash just like a real heterosexual.

Sad. (And let me stipulate that I do regard gay men as “normal.” I just don’t regard them as heterosexual. And “marriage” is between heterosexuals, more or less by definition. I have no objection whatever to gay couples linking up by civil unions, or whatever one wants to call the union, with full civil and legal rights pertaining thereunto…)

In the summer of 2000, in what were I think the early days of Andrew’s blog, I was a big fan of his. I sent him an impassioned argument as to the many reasons Bush would make a terrible President.

He sent me back a very polite and well-reasoned argument to the contrary. As a life-long Democrat (this was before my “conversion” after 9/11, of course) I voted nonetheless for Al Gore.

I’m not sure what to make of all this. I’ve certainly learned not to be “sure” of any political conclusion I come to. But it seems to me the weight of evidence is on the side of concluding that Bush has done a good job, perhaps an excellent job, in the WoT, and Kerry is pretty much a nonentity.

Jamie Irons

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:59 pm 9. Lem:

Andrew is soooo fair. From his sake of argument response – “As basically a conservative, I’m much madder at Bush than I’d be if I were a Democrat.”

I e-mailed him – Andrew, unlike our side, democrats have no ‘tolerance’ (your election single issue) for dissenters like you as you will inevitably find out.

You’ll be back.

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:01 pm 10. Jamie Irons:

Sorry about my HTML lapse above; forgot my semicolons!

PIMF

;-(

Jamie Irons

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:02 pm 11. Seismic:

As has never made any sense when he turned against Dubya. He wants to believe that despite Kerry’s 30+ years record in the public arena of pacifism and weakness that we should instead look to him as a strong leader because he says so.

Who does he think he is kidding? Not me that is for sure.

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:10 pm 12. David Thomson:

I recall the 1964 film starring Richard Burton and Peter OíToole regarding St. Thomas Becket. This man was something of a wastrel until compelled to assume the adult responsibilities of his Catholic bishopric. But this is not the norm. A fully grown adult like John Kerry who instinctively prefers appeasing our nationís enemies and has a long history of doing so—is quite unlikely to become another Thomas Becket. This risk is far too great to take during these dangerous times.

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:11 pm 13. quieti:

My favorite part was when Lileks busted Sullivan for saying that Kerry ran the “risk of discrediting his party,” as if that were the biggest downside to a Kerry failure in the WOT.

I hear that Sullivan used to be an insightful as well as skillful writer, but I’ve seen little evidence of that in the few months I’ve been following him. Lately he was caught in one of the worst Dowdifications I’ve seen, praising the Nightline-goes-to-Vietnam story while completely ignoring the thoroughness with which John O’Neill dismantled their story. Stunts like that don’t help his reputation any, and I wonder when (if ever) they will catch up to him.

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:18 pm 14. Vexorg:

You don’t want to be in Lileks’ way when he goes screed. My personal favorite remains the savage fisking administered to the Green Party response to the 2003 SOTU. Unfortunately it seems to have disappeared from his site for one reason or another, but can be found here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836441/posts

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:25 pm 15. Lem:

Sorry for the aside.

Error Tad Divine is arguing on FOX The Big Story that the 380 tons of explosives are missing because Bush rushed to war.

Bush said 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives have been secured or destroyed.

So, is Kerry tru Tad nuancing that we should have waited for Saddam to do whatever with all the tonnage we subsequently found?

I’m confused. How do you loot toons of something anyway?

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:35 pm 16. Pam:

POW!! BANG!!!! BOP!!!!!!!!!

Batman takes out Sullivan. Andrew is so busy tripping on evangelicals who support the president that he can’t see anything else. He fears more that Repulicans are becoming Taliban Light more than the actual terrorits that would stone him to death. What a pity?

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:46 pm 17. Katherine:

James Lileks is Mark Twain of our time.

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:46 pm 18. Caroline:

Sullivan: “The greatest weakness of the war effort so far has been the way it has become a partisan affair. This is the fault of both sides: the Rove-like opportunists on the right and the Moore-like haters on the left. But in wartime, a president bears the greater responsibility for keeping the country united.”

Of course Lileks’ response to this bit is hilarious because obviously Rove hasn’t divided the country over the war. Sully is mixing apples and oranges. His reasoning is such that (what he sees as Rove) dividing the country over gay marriage results in a (presumably justified?) loss of support for the war. Maybe that really is how it played out in Sully’s unconscious mind! But by this logic – if Kerry is elected and divides the country e.g. over his tax policy – Sully will find it understandable when those opposed to his tax policies feel justified in undermining Kerry as CIC.

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:47 pm 19. Ed Poinsett:

Lileks nails it. Loved the exchange between Blair and Kerry. It flabbergasts me that Kerry has so much (any?) support. He is truly a stuffed shirt trying on an empty suit.

I prefer to think that Kerry has about 30% true believers and should he win, the vote will have been delivered by the MSM.

I don’t hate John Kerry like so many on the other side seem to feel about our President, but I don’t trust him a whit. Andrew says we should give Kerry a chance and hope he means what he says. That might work for a half way house graduate, but I don’t want the country led by a guy we need to give a chance to. We already have a guy we understand, I’m for keeping him.

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:53 pm 20. Stephen_M:

Happy as I am to read a Lileks Screed for free, I cannot fathom why someone somewhere isn’t cutting a weekly check to carry his fine political commentary. Meanwhile Doonesbury lingers (pffft).

Oct 27, 2004 - 3:00 pm 21. blogaddict:

Andrew Sullivan channeling Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?” No more nasty partisanship! Kerry’s election would put an end to it (he’s been borrowing Kerry’s magic hat, I fear).

Sullivan’s solution? Put the fox in charge of the henhouse, and this will somehow make the fox rise to the occasion and protect those darling little chicks. I’m certain of it. At least, there’s no reason NOT to believe it would happen, right? After all, the fox promised…

And this guy used to have a reputation as a deep thinker????

Oct 27, 2004 - 3:12 pm 22. thedragonflies:

Hoping that the Dems will become responsible for the war because they occupy the White House is like hoping criminals become advocates for law and order because they are in court for their trial for armed robbery. They are there for a different reason.

Oct 27, 2004 - 3:39 pm 23. Knucklehead:

Charlotte,

OUCH! Heck, he can’t even keep his eyes open. But he does make pretty faces while catching footballs – puts one in mind of the his partner, the Silky Pony while taking on some fresh hairspray.

Oct 27, 2004 - 4:07 pm 24. Old Heifer:

I broke up with Andrew quite awhile ago when he stopped making any sense at all. Now that lileks though! What a mind and he can make it work! Absolutely brilliant.

Oct 27, 2004 - 4:51 pm 25. Mark Poling:

What I don’t understand is why Sullivan seems to know nothing of the Carter Administration. Just because someone finds himself behind the wheel of a huge honking behemoth of a national vehicle doesn’t mean they’ll drive responsibly.

He may well run over the rose bushes, burn out the clutch, and blame it on “a great national malaise”.

Oct 27, 2004 - 5:06 pm 26. richard mcenroe:

How the hell can anyone discredit the Democratic Party more than the Party already has?!

Oct 27, 2004 - 5:22 pm 27. mrp:

Mr. Lileks writes commentary for the Newhouse News Service. He is also a columnist for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune.

Oct 27, 2004 - 5:37 pm 28. blogaddict:

Mark Poling–I agree with you that Sullivan seems ignorant of Carter. But it has often struck me when I read him of late that he is ignorant of history and psychology in the general sense, as well. And yet, according to his bio, he majored in modern history and modern languages at Oxford, (although after that his interests veered to poli sci and government–doctorate in poli sci from Harvard).

I’ve noticed over and over that journalists such as Sullivan often display a truly abysmal ignorance on matters of military tactics and military history, in particular. I wonder what they teach in “modern history” at Oxford, and whether it would explain his strange ignorance of said history? He is a real puzzlement. Like many journalists, he displays a facility with words that masks the fact that he isn’t saying much that makes a whole lot of sense. Although the “reasoning” behind his support of Kerry made his piece eminently and easily fiskable, Lileks fisks it with such flair that I’m in awe.

Oct 27, 2004 - 5:43 pm 29. Katherine:

Blogaddict,

In other words, AS mastered nothing but the art of gab.

Oct 27, 2004 - 6:16 pm 30. kynna:

Sullivan has become such a joke that I can’t believe anyone even cares what he says. These are serious times and I don’t need to be reading people who are fools.

I love Lileks and I’d love to be hearing him on the radio or seeing him on Fox. He does an excellent take-down of Sullivan’s “logic.”

That being said, I’m tired of thinking about Andrew Sullivan. He’s been linked to on a lot of sites lately because he’s so shockingly disappointing.

Now that we’re all no longer shocked, I propose that we simply forget about him. He’s not a serious concern.

May he and Kerry ride off together into the sunset of the deluded on November 4th. Please God!

Oct 27, 2004 - 8:35 pm 31. Johan Amedeus Metesky:

I went to a Bush rally today at the Pontiac Silverdome in Oakland County, Michigan. It was pretty clear from the lines that got applause that the “social conservatives” were out in force. Bush’s comments on abortion and marriage were well received. I noticed, btw, that the African Americans up on the stage bleachers also responded strongly to those remarks as well.

On the way home, on the radio there were ads from Dr. Dobson/Focus On Family about the marriage ballot proposal and from Michigan Right To Life supporting Bush. I’m a bit undecided on the issue of gay marriage and I happen to think that abortion should be legal (though limited – my position has to do with Jewish law, which permits it in certain cases). However, I think that if it helps to elect Bush so he can prosecute the WOT, go ahead and exploit these issues. Remember, in 2000, 4 million Evangelical voters stayed home and Karl Rove doesn’t ever want to see that happen again.

Oct 27, 2004 - 9:44 pm 32. vegetius:

Mark Poling:

“What I don’t understand is why Sullivan seems to know nothing of the Carter Administration. Just because someone finds himself behind the wheel of a huge honking behemoth of a national vehicle doesn’t mean they’ll drive responsibly.

He may well run over the rose bushes, burn out the clutch, and blame it on “a great national malaise”.

You stole my thunder …I was going say it’s like

giving an alcoholic the keys to a car expecting this to sober him up.

Oct 28, 2004 - 5:06 am 33. Matt Evans:

Its VERY interesting to see black voters responding to the candidates. For all the stumping Kerry has done in various churches around the country, he has apparently either forgotten or ignored how church-centric much of the African American community is, especially in lower income areas. Because Bush is strong on issue that appeal to the Christian community, the African American Christian Church is put in a difficult situation – wallet or religion as a voting impetus.

Many pundits have been predicting an upswing in black voters voting for Bush. Not to mention, you have democrats challegnging the ballots in Florida, claiming, in essence, that minorities are more incompetent when filling out voter registration card and so are being disenfranchised. If I’m african-american, I’d be very tired of being manipulated by the democratic party because quite frankly, the DNC is just not subtle about it.

Prediction- 16-20% of african american voters will vote for Bush.

Oct 28, 2004 - 5:12 am 34. thibaud:

Lileks’ response to this AS asininity is priceless:

AS: But in wartime, a president bears the greater responsibility for keeping the country united. And this president has fundamentally failed in this respect.

Lileks: Oh, surely. But maybe – just maybe – many people did not want the country to be united if it meant being united behind Bush.

BINGO. If anyone is to blame for “disunity” in America today, it’s Al Gore. I ceased to be a fervent Democrat when Gore suddenly lost all honor and composure in the days after the 2000 election and began running around the country telling as many haters as he could find that “your vote did not count.” Shameless, inexcusable opportunism. No candidate worth voting for would ever think to undermine our democracy with such a cheap and false charge as that. Gore, not Bush, created the hatred and hostility that cripple this country today.

Lileks: [Bush] is a much more potent and immediate threat, after all. Who?s heard from Osama lately? Meanwhile Bush is out there every day handling snakes and speaking in tongues and supergluing parapalegics to wheelchairs, because his weird-beard God loves suffering and commands him ? via text-messaging, for all we know ? to kill them oily rag-heads. I mean, today I was behind a car whose bumpersticker had a picture of Bush with the slogan “American Terrorist.” I know that driver was behind Bush before Bush failed – in a fundamental way – to convince the driver he was not equivalent to Abu Nidal. Probably because he misprounced “Nuclear.” Farking moron.

Keeping the country united? Good luck. Imagine FDR running a war with a press composed of cynical snickerers who derided the president as a rich old cripple who thought the best way to defeat Tojo was a war in North Africa and preached defeat every day through the hard slog of the Pacific theater…

Lileks may have had him in mind, but that in fact was the position taken by FDR’s ambassador to Britain. Who was, perhaps not coincidentally, he father of the most strident of Washington’s current paranoiac conspiracy-mongers, Teddy “Cooked Up in Texas” Kennedy.

Oct 28, 2004 - 8:30 am 35. JLK:

Has Lileks site crashed? I’ve tried to read this article for more than 2 days, but the site is not available. Is one link all it took?

Oct 29, 2004 - 12:38 pm 36. Bill Peschel:

One reason why nobody will cut a check to Lileks for his Bleats is that they take up so much room.

As an experiment (I work for a newspaper), I cut and pasted one of his more effective Bleats onto the editorial page. It took up three full columns!

Where to cut? What can you cut? I’d rather have him writing in full on his Web site than see his stuff cut to 16 inches in the paper.

BTW, Lileks is not the Twain of our time, he is the Samuel Pepys. When historians turn to this era, they’re going to look at Lilek’s Bleats to understand how all this came down, day by day. This will be his claim to posterity.

Oct 29, 2004 - 4:10 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: