The Progressive machine has gone after one of their icons. Ever since Bob Woodword called out Obama’s lies on Sequester, he is no longer the media icon he used to be for his role in uncovering Watergate. Now the Progressive machine is going after him.
Andrew Sullivan, who is probably Charles Johnson’s influence, goes after Bob Woodward. In Sullivan’s mind – how dare Woodward go after his believed God-King.
Woodward has called the president guilty of “madness” and of moving the goal-posts by suggesting that the threat of the sequester was designed to facilitate a grand bargain – tax hikes, entitlement and defense cuts combined with tax reform. But that was the point of the sequester; it was a deadly instrument designed to force both parties to compromise – one on taxes, the other on spending cuts. Woodward’s op-ed was untrue, it seems to me, plainly untrue. More to the point he accused the president of madness, even though he has offered a compromise that includes cuts to Medicare as serious as those in Bowles-Simpson, while the Republicans insist on only spending cuts.
Yes, the sequester idea originated with Jack Lew in the Obama administration but was quickly embraced by the GOP and became a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, after the brinksmanship of the debt ceiling battle in 2011. Odd, isn’t it, that Woodward did not, to my knowledge, describe the GOP’s successful and completely unnecessary downgrade of this country’s credit rating as “madness.”
How dare Woodward question The Progressive Movement’s Lord and Savior!
Tags: Andrew Sullivan, Bob Woodward
Obama is the Democrat’s Nixon. It would be ironic if Woodward brought him down.
We’ve always known that Обама makes Tricky Dick look like a Saint! it would indeed be quite ironic!
One can only imagine what words Woodward would have for Sullivan the little [Deleted]!
Bambi goes after Godzilla.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
I should remind everyone of the major OWIE Bambi put on ゴジラ!
Sullivan, “Gynecologist To The Stars”, has a lot of nerve accusing anyone of unethical conduct.
Andrew Sullivan is a shitbag…so what else is new?
Macker wrote:
Sorry, this browser does not display oddball letters. I therefore have no ideal who you are talking about.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Japanese for Gojira!
Macker wrote:
Thanks. Had to Google that. Never heard of them. Heavy metal is what I put on the end of a fishing line…
I forget what blog I saw it on, but Sully also is saying that the reason Pope Ben resigned is because he had a gay relationship with a priest that was about to be exposed.
He’s just a traffic whore. Once upon a time Christopher Hitchens thought enough of him to debate. Now, Hitchens would wipe him off his shoes before walking into a pig wallow.
The definition of ‘sully’ is to defile.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, on a liberal.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
If they’re so smart, why are they in control of our media, govt., schools, ..
Fritz Katz wrote:
It’s not that they are so smart, it’s because the base is too stupid to figure it out.
Well Chuck Dodd is a hive mind bitch
Spot the Felony Inspector Sully!
Good morning. What do you do after freezing out side for a few hours taking pictures? Head to a pub and warm up.
@ PaladinPhil:
All the more reason for visiting places in cold weather. A more pressing excuse to head for the pub!
@ PaladinPhil:
@ Mike C.:
God, I need a drink.
@ Mike C.:
All my photo walks are described as a “pub crawl where we take pictures between pubs.”
@ Macker:
I hear you on that one. Thank god it’s Friday.
@ Macker:
It’s 5 o’ clock somewhere…
@ PaladinPhil:
That’s how I like to do vacations. Go to a site, take some pix, grab a drink. Go to the next spot, take some pix, grab a drink. Rinse and repeat. Accompany the wife on a shopping trip, grab a drink. Etc. Insert food stops when required.
Sullivan is as demented as Charles Johnson.
Zimriel wrote:
The man who is obsessed by Palin’s uterus.
eaglesoars wrote:
Hitchens told Sullivan that Sullivan wanted to have Obama’s baby.
Just another Brit faggot presuming to come to America to tell the yokels what’s wrong with their country.
Yes, I’m talking to you, Piers…
Employees: Obama donor in process of buying up and ‘destroying’ America’s top pro-gun media outlets
doesn’t look good
*yawn*
@ eaglesoars:
It is a culture war. The left is attempting to destroy a good deal of what is good just to get that time in the cat bird seat.
PaladinPhil wrote:
agreed. the problem is we’re not fighting back. How many times have we said on this blog that conservatives have to start buying media outlets?
@ eaglesoars:
It is hard to stop something like that if they are willing to lose boatloads of money to do it. We could be doing the same thing, but the “rich” Republicans either don’t have the money to spend, or won’t do it.
eaglesoars wrote:
Constant, unprovoked and unsubstantial attacks such as these are partially what drove me back to the Church after far too many years away- sort of a religious “rally ’round the flag” reaction. By no means do I feel I’m alone, either, Traditional Catholicism is on the rebound with tacit support from the most unlikely quarters. JPII and Benedict’s legacy will be the mending of a lot of bridges between a myriad of faiths.
For too many years my Church in particular and Christianity in general, has been a punch-line for cheap jokes that wouldn’t be permitted if aimed at Islam, or even Judaism (until the current swelling of worldwide anti-Semitism) and a punching bag for every talentless and soulless hack with a keyboard.
Open Season is closed.
@ eaglesoars:
Come to think of it, how many rich conservatives own any type of media outlet? Everytime you hear about a rich mogul buying this or that media entitiy they seem to be hard core leftists.
Mike C. wrote:
That’s our style on vacation, as well!
@ MacDuff:
Works for us.
@ MacDuff:
@ Mike C.:
Depends on where I am and who I am with. Some areas need to be seen stone cold sober. Others need a little help. Mostly though the drinking is moderated at lunch and full bore at dinner.
Iron Fist wrote:
As I sloooowly wake up a few things come to mind:
- this asshole can destroy what he’s acquired, but it does leave a void to be filled. The market is there
- who were the dumb phucs that sold to him
- if he has stockholders in any of these acquisitions, can they sue?
I need more tea
Andrew Sullivan who used to be very pro Israel is now just another left-wing Israel basher.
Speranza wrote:
To lift a William F. Buckley quote vis a vis Gore Vidal “he gives homosexuality a bad name”.
MacDuff wrote:
I am not a gay basher and I completely agree.
Speranza wrote:
A Grammar Police moment is in order here, to point out how the gay-rights movement has corrupted political discourse.
The term “gay basher” used to by applied—by homosexuals—to those who physically attacked (“bashed”) people who were, or were presumed to be, homosexual.
The term existed, was used, alongside the term “gay baiter“—a term derived from “red-baiting.” “Red-baiting” was the term leftists, liberals, and communists used as a counter-accusation when political opponents accused them of being, well, leftists and communists. “Red-baiting” was the “hate-speech” accusation of its day. The term was in use from the 1930s up through the early 1970s, and “gay-baiting” was similarly used by gay-rights activists as a counter-accusation to dismiss the arguments of their political opponents without having to reply to them.
Some time in the ’70s, the gay-rights movement started using “gay-bashing,” which referred to physical violence, as a term co-equal with “gay-baiting,” which referred to verbal disagreement or (perceived) insult. It was around the same time that “hate speech” became the term popularized by the gay-rights movement as a more convenient and readily-comprehended means of dismissing and demonizing the purely verbal opposition by their political opponents.
Thanks to the gay-rights movement’s corruption of the language, we now routinely, without thinking about it, have become used to referring to political disagreement or unpleasant words as “bashing,” i.e., as equivalent to physical violence—which, in turn, ends up tacitly supporting the belief that disagreement = violence, that anyone who disagrees is therefore guilty of “hate speech,” and that those who engage in “hate speech” must be shunned and marginalized because their disagreement is the moral equivalent of violence.
Just a side note to observe how a very small tweak in political terminology works to constantly undermine clear thinking and open discourse.
Speranza wrote:
Isn’t it a damned shame the way we have to preemptively excuse ourselves when speaking ill of any member of one of the “protected classes”?
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
We’re all knuckle-dragging racists, homophobes, sexists, etc. unless otherwise specified and the specification, itself, admits that the aforementioned prejudices are the rule rather than the exception.
Yep, we lost the language some time ago…….
MacDuff wrote:
We have been doing that for a long, long time.
Speranza wrote:
Indeed we have, and the taste it leaves in my mouth becomes more putrid by the day. It’s a forced practice that mocks and takes advantage of our common courtesy and politeness while rendering none of either in return. It’s little things like this that cause stress cracks in the facade of civility, and once that facade is gone, it gets very ugly indeed.
MacDuff wrote:
The corruption of the national discourse thanks to political correctness and the language police was one of the first steps towards the soft dictatorship we live under today.
@ eaglesoars:
I read that; Sully is disgusting.
mtc wrote:
That Sullivan wasn’t stricken dead by the mere utterance of Benedict’s name is proof of a merciful God. He also claims to be a practicing Catholic, I believe. Yeah, right, and I’m the fifth Beatle.