home

Sully Ignores Krugman's Nobel

I scanned Andrew Sullivan's blog to see if he had mentioned Paul Krugman winning the Nobel Prize for Economics. He hasn't. But, after championing Donald Luskin and being, in Luskin's words, a "Krugman Truth Squad senior member," Andrew Sullivan would like you to forget he wrote outrageously stupid things about Paul Krugman (and about everything else.) Now of course, Sully hates Bush, hates Republicans, hates the Right, hates the Clintons (oh wait, he always did that) - so he is now a "Charter Member of the Left blogosphere." I personally won't forget what he wrote about Krugman and other things, even though clearly others are willing to forget (and forgive?)

More . . .

Sully needs to come clean on all of this imo. Back in 2005, Brad DeLong wrote:

More worrisome, perhaps, is that Dan Drezner appears happy to be cited by Andrew Sullivan in support of Sullivan's claim that:

Daily Dish: ...the FT is now such an Anti-American paper, I'm beginning to wonder if its financial reporting isn't part of the bias....

What's supposed to be anti-American here? That the FT is worrying and reporting about the possibility of a dollar crash when foreign central banks find that they have to stop purchasing Treasury bonds. I have news for Andrew: if that's anti-American, every single international finance economist--including political appointees--at the U.S. Treasury, at the CEA, and at the Federal Reserve is anti-American. And the overwhelming bulk of international economists worldwide. And me.

I half understand Sullivan's position. Since he's converted to Paul Krugman's view of Bush administration fiscal policy, of the competence of Bush's neoconservative national security advisers, of torture, and of the moral standing of the Bush administration in general, he would look like a real idiot if he continued his Krugman-bashing campaign. So he needs to pick another target.

Dan Drezner, however, needs to rethink. It does him no good at all to be cited in support of the positions that the FT is an anti-American newspaper, or that worries about the possibility of a dollar crash are anti-American propaganda. That's not the reputation he needs.

(Emphasis supplied.) And that is the reputation Sullivan deserves. I am not sure he has it. I am intent on him having it. I'll be here to remind those who would like to conveniently forget what Sullivan wrote during the Bush years.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Monday Open Thread | Pulling Up Powerline Quotes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Hey, Krugman couldn't have (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:55:27 PM EST
    been the voice in the wilderness he was for so many years if it hadn't been for the forest of dunces populating the public sphere.

    Forest of dunces ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:04:49 PM EST
    heh.

    Parent
    I like "Confederacy of Dunces" (none / 0) (#4)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:09:13 PM EST
    -- a great book, btw.

    Parent
    One of the best. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    Puhleaze...Sullivan makes my skin itch.  Eeek.  

    Parent
    Good book ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:20:11 PM EST
    but it would have resulted in a mixed metaphor in this case.

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    I haven't clicked over to Sully in ages, and I don't miss his voice one bit. He's an anti-Cassandra of the highest order.

    Sullivan and Naomi Klein (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    Did you see him on Maher with Naomi, what a putz he showed himself to be, Mr. Sullivan.  Which goes to show you that the having  an English accent and being gay does not mean you are imbued with good taste or good sense.  

    (geee....is this offensive? )

    Sullivan (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by bob h on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:22:23 PM EST
    I have never understood why Sullivan is taken seriously by anybody.  For example, the night of the Biden-Palin debate, he was railing against Biden for blowing it, when the polls gave it to Biden big-time.

    Sullivan is a performer/entertainer like Hitchens; he is not a serious pundit.

    Sullivan Has A Post (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    Now about Krugman, links to another blog.

    Sully now ... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by dws3665 on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:34:25 PM EST
    has a link up to Tyler Cowan's piece praising the choice.

    If you squint, you can almost see Andy putting his fingers in his ears and saying "nah nah nah, I can't hear you."

    I couldn't agree more about Sullivan (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Joelarama on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:47:42 PM EST
    But there's a broader point here:  many writers in the left blogosphere showed their true colors this primary season.

    As much as we are all playing ball now, I will not forget what I glimpsed from the blogger boys.  They need to be read with caution.

    Go Obama.

    Sullivan is a total dingbat, of course. And I'm (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by WillBFair on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 06:01:04 PM EST
    happy that people have noticed that Hitchens is the same. I couldn't stand him years ago in The Nation. He has a creepy gift for switching conclusions in mid sentence, then switching back, and back again. And the way he spoke so disrespectfully about others made my skin crawl.

    Who invited Sullivan (none / 0) (#5)
    by WS on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    and is it impolite to kick him out as a member of the Left blogosphere?

    Is he still a conservative?

    The Age of Andrew Sullivan idiocy (none / 0) (#6)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:14:10 PM EST
    goes back to at least the early 1990s, if not sooner. The only good thing about his current incarnation is that he rarely tries to pass himself off as a leading gay intellectual anymore. That, in and of itself, is a big plus for the LGBT community.

    Sullivan and now Hitchens (none / 0) (#10)
    by Manuel on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:26:33 PM EST
    Obama's bus is getting crowded.  Obama is going to need more room under the bus.

    Sullivan's name should never be mentioned ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by FreakyBeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:34:00 PM EST
    ... without a proper title, i.e., Andrew "Fifth Column" Sullivan, or the like.  

    And I will never forgive him for that one ...

    Sully's Revising Re-again (none / 0) (#21)
    by Frank Burns on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:58:18 PM EST
    A friend read me an excerpt from one of Sully's posts, where he explains Obama's reference to Reagan in the primaries as a "rope-a-dope" to make Bill Clinton mad and utter racist comments. Sure.  I'm now looking forward to his explanation of the tactical genius of the "bitter" remarks, and the savvy move in bowling gutter balls.

    Stop the name-calling (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:52:44 PM EST
    this thread is being cleaned. Name-calling isn't allowed here. Disagree with what he writes, point out that he's been inconsistent or contradictory, that's all fair game. His orientation and his  character are off limits for personal attacks.