So I guess he won't be commenting on the latest artile in the New Republic? The one that addresses the bell curve and other questionable editorial decisions under his watch?
Good for him, which is, of course, the whole point. He's grasped that the sum of his days isn't going to be the legacy he's left behind. It will be the generous unfolding of who he is and the people (dogs, too I guess) who live and journey with him. Hip, hip...
Professor Krugman has shared his thoughts:"I see from Ezra Klein that Andrew Sullivan says that he’s stopping blogging; Klein and others are offering various encomiums. You’ll pardon me if I don’t join in. You see, I remember Sullivan declaring that the “decadent left” was poised to become a fifth column in the war on terror — and of course I remember the campaign of character assassination he waged against yours truly for daring to criticize his then-beloved George W. Bush and his wars. If he ever apologized for any of that, I never heard about it.… you’re missing a crucial part of the history of political blogging if you fail to acknowledge the importance, back in the early 2000s, of right-wing warbloggers — which is where Sullivan started. You hardly hear about most of these people now, but for a while cheering on the Rumsfeld doctrine and giving it to lily-livered liberals was a big part of what the blogosphere — certainly the part given any attention by mainstream news media — was about.
Mr. Panos:Of Sullivan's several thousand posts, there were a number that I took issue with, especially back in the bad old days when he -- and Christopher Hitchens, among others -- endorsed the invasion of Iraq.Did Sully ever apologize to Professor Krugman? Beats me. But I do know that over the long haul Sully became one of the strongest and most articulate voices against Bush -- and Cheney and Rumsfeld.Methinks you might have a wee bit of trouble seeing the forest for the trees if you are so insistent in sorting them by left, right, and so on, and perhaps still thinking it's 2003.
Post a Comment